Subject:
|
Re: Technic's Dead (was: I need Technic)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.technic
|
Date:
|
Wed, 7 Aug 2002 16:54:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2325 times
|
| |
| |
In lugnet.technic, Allan Bedford writes:
> In lugnet.technic, Allan Portillo writes:
> > OK, this is the point. When technic sets went crappy (but still good), sales
> > went down, not the other way round. When technic sets become as good as they
> > was, sales will rise. So what exactly do I mean by good?
> >
> > Function over form. Complexity over juniorisation. So why is this good?
> >
> > 1)because it is !-)
>
> As blunt and unsubstantiated as this statement is, I must agree with it.
> There is something intangible about what makes Technic (and LEGO bricks as a
> whole) so good.
>
> > 2)When you look at a technic set you can see what it can and can't do.
> > People and kids alike look at the air tech claw rig and saw it could move,
> > was motorised, was powered by pneumatics, ect. People and kids saw the
> > silver cahmpion and saw you could roll it along the floor. If kids attention
> > spans are getting shorter, then makes sets more fun to build by making them
> > more complex, not less complex. A model that takes longer to build and is
> > less chalenging (ie silver champion again) then of course kids with shorter
> > attention spans would prefer a 8880 type set to a silver champion type set.
>
> I wonder sometimes if it isn't the educators, researchers and especially the
> marketers who have the short attention spans. Kids today are no less
> willing to learn and to be taught than a mere 20 or 30 years ago. Please
> don't propose that we humans are evolving that fast. :)
>
> If this discussion was about kids in the 18th century vs kids today, well I
> might say, "yes, the modern kids may not have the same attention span due to
> the immense environmental changes that have occured." But as a 7 or 8 year
> old kid (less than a quarter century ago) I was exposed to many many hours
> of TV, home video games, a home computer, another construction toy (Meccano)
> and any number of other influences. And I always came back to and found
> time for..... LEGO.
>
> Maybe it's the impatient parents who think their kids don't want to build a
> model that takes longer to assemble than it does to watch an episode of
> 'Friends'. Maybe teaching kids some patience and problem solving skills
> would help them build somewhat complex sets on their own. Maybe looking at
> the positive effects of LEGO, rather than variable sales figures, might help
> the company realize that there is more than one way in which to market these
> products. Just because 'Technic' sets aren't selling, doesn't mean that the
> same parts, principles and practices can't be incorporated into other lines.
> Claiming over and again that kids just don't have the attention span is a
> cop-out. I think it shows lack of creativity and an eagerness to search out
> the easy buck. I'm not saying that selling Technic in this day and age is
> easy..... but it's far from impossible.
>
> Given what is often said about kids today, it's a wonder that Technic (much
> less any LEGO) ever sold at all. Didn't kids have hoola hoops, and roller
> skates, and G.I. Joe, and Twister, and skateboards, and all kinds of other
> distractions in the 60's, 70's and 80's? And yet LEGO sold.... and sold
> well. Why? Why didn't it flop? Why were kids ever interested in it if
> it's so darned complicated and now requires dumbing down? In the late 70's
> Expert Builder sets proved that kids could and would build more complicated
> models from LEGO bricks. Mindstorms in the 90's took it to an entirely new
> level. If anything, LEGO sets should be getting *more* complicated, not
> less. Not every set, but some to be sure. There needs to be a balance...
> as with all things.
>
> Whew........ I think that's all I have to say for now. :)
>
> All the best,
> Allan B.
Yes, exactly. Hey do you think we've broken new ground in child pcychology 8^)
Maybe not but the fact that kids cound demand more complex sets might be
somthing lego has not looked into. And more complicated sets do not mean
higher prices, just that function should take place over form even more so
than in the mid 90's, ie more complex pneumatic looms and many different
ways of producing/changing motion (flex system, pneumatics, motors, ect) in
one set to power its many functions. For instance take a JCB. You could have
a motor for drive (through a gear box of course to make it more complex),
flex system for steering and a very complicated pneumatic system without
making it very large or use a huge amount of peices (which would rase the
price). I guess it would be a very desireable set for kids. I can imagine a
kid in the back garden excavating the lawn and having lots of fun. It would
be nice to see somone from lego posting hear. PLEASE.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Technic's Dead (was: I need Technic)
|
| (...) As blunt and unsubstantiated as this statement is, I must agree with it. There is something intangible about what makes Technic (and LEGO bricks as a whole) so good. (...) I wonder sometimes if it isn't the educators, researchers and (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
44 Messages in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|