Subject:
|
Re: Millennium Falcon Opinion
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.starwars
|
Date:
|
Wed, 24 May 2000 20:51:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
781 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.starwars, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.starwars, Steve Bliss writes:
> > ...[snip]...
> > Also, you said (more-or-less) "having to do X makes you a better Y". To
> > me, that sounds like a rationalization for enforced character building.
> > Which goes back around to 'suffering', because character-building is
> > supposed to be unpleasant, not fun.
>
> Well, I don't think I agree with the 'supposed to' part. I think OFTEN,
> character building is unpleasant, but I think it can be fun as well...
> ESPECIALLY when you can see the results.
>
> As someone else pointed out (James S. I think) he was teaching a younger child
> to build who had "Can you do this for me?" syndrome. The child may not have had
> as much fun putting together the set as if it were a mostly pre-assembled set
> that he could have done himself from the beginning, but after a short while, he
> was very proud of his work (or so I assume... If I weren't quoting someone
> else's story, I could provide my own of the same genre).
>
> But even then, I don't think character building excersizes are required to be
> unpleasant, and even when they are (as in this case 'struggling' to get
> pieces), the downsides are barely noticeable, especially in comparison to the
> good that comes out of them.
>
> > Building with LEGO is an *optional* activity. There's no way to *make*
> > someone play with LEGO. If LEGO sets are designed with a higher
> > requirement for learning to differentiate parts, then people who find that
> > activity unpleasant are less likely to enjoy building from LEGO sets. And
> > it's likely that they'll generalize from "I didn't like building that set"
> > to "I don't like playing with LEGO". And they'll play with LEGO less
> > often. Which could lead to them being a poorer builder, rather than a
> > better builder.
>
> And of course, herein is the problem. In my opinion, TLC is doing something
> phenomenally dangerous to their well-being. Heretofore, TLC catered mainly to
> the market of children that DON'T mind thinking a little more. TLC produced a
> more educational toy, and only children who WANTED to take on that extra bit of
> learning played with Lego extensively. Other children could go play with the
> pre-built Kenner SW toys, or whatever else they could find that didn't require
> that extra step of thought. And during this time, Lego essentially dominated
> the building-toy market. They built up a name for themselves, a great product,
> and a good share of profit.
>
> But TLC has decided (apparently) that they want to make their toy appealing to
> MORE of the market of children, and get a bit more business from the
> traditionally non-building-toy market. So they dumb down their sets. The idea
> being that the kids that didn't want to take that extra learning step are now
> not frustrated with building with Lego. But now, all the kids that DO want to
> take the extra learning step are in danger of being turned off by Lego, and
> being turned on to things like K'nex, Mega Blocks, etc. that previously didn't
> exist. And these toys aren't dumbed down, they're less expensive, and the kids
> don't know the difference because they've never played with quality Lego sets.
> And what's more, the kids that like other more pre-assembled toys already have
> toys that they like. That market's been cornered by a lot of other companies,
> so there's less room for Lego... Not to mention that a lot of it is incredibly
> fad-driven, whereas the building-toy genre is pretty steady.
>
> In short, they're making worse sets for the existing fans, and worse builders
> from the new fans; they're loosing a lot of "good" builders to other companies,
> and starting to veer towards a market that's already dominated by other
> companies (Playmobile, anyone?). I don't think it's too late for them-- they
> still have quite a ways to go, but I think they're going in the wrong
> directions...
>
> Just 2 more cents to the pile...
>
> DaveE
Dave, I think that you have written the most concise and articulate statement
regarding what is wrong with Lego today. I don't have a perfect analogy
offhand, but being a fan of Lego these days is like watching an accident about
to happen, or watching someone you care about making all the wrong decisions;
you can see what is happening, and you can see the consequences, but the person
just can't see that self-harm is being inflicted. By catering to the least
common denominator, Lego is not only comprimising its integrity, but, as you
said, making a really poor business decision. There are so many toys that are
designed for the least common denominator these days that I'd expect that the
higher ground of producing quality, educational toys is safer ground; perhaps
the risks are high, but there is less competition.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Millennium Falcon Opinion
|
| (...) Well, I don't think I agree with the 'supposed to' part. I think OFTEN, character building is unpleasant, but I think it can be fun as well... ESPECIALLY when you can see the results. As someone else pointed out (James S. I think) he was (...) (25 years ago, 24-May-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
