The 'Golden Age' of Lego, is it now?

[moschino]

The "Golden Age of Lego". To me, its definitely not now. I don't want to sound like a purist prick, but nowadays sets are way more expensive and more of a "toy" then they used to be. My favorite theme is pirates, so definitely to me the golden age is late 80s to early 90s.

Once STAR WARS was added, it all went down hill I think. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of good Star Wars sets and MOCs out there, I'm even a fan of the movies themselves. But when TLG had the idea that they could buy other franchises, creativity went out the window.

You'll never see something like that again (sets made into different things). Now its "here's your Iron Man car or whatever, go play with it". I'm sure I'll get a lot of hate for this comment, but this is a stance I am quite strong on, and I'm sure some people will agree with me.

I 100% agree with you, and that's why I didn't post on this thread yet.

If I would start to post what I really think, I would probably can't be as diplomat as I should and then of course many people will probably start to hate me or to consider me outdated and not up to evolve.

In my opinion, the Lego's golden age is somewhere between 1986 and 1996. This decade proved a lot and implemented the most significant pieces of what Lego really is. There were some very nice series released even after 1996, up to 2002, but then they started to fall badly and in my own opinion Lego is becoming worse each year.

The boxes have no plastic trays anymore and they are not as friendly as they used to.

The back of the boxes doesn't show any other model you can build with the pieces, so they do not encourage kids to challenge themselves into evolve their imagination and creativity.

The instructions became too easy, like they dedicate Lego to kids under 8 years.

The plastic bags where bricks come became noted as 1, 2, 3, and they sort the bags to build the model as easy as possible, like I am that stupid that I can't search for pieces as it was in the past.

The colours became more shiny just like Lego is dedicated to kids under 5 years old when they need to see something shiny to touch the object.

I still buy Lego each year, but I only aim for classic sets (older than 10 years).

The only new sets I bought were Queen Anne's Revenge as I consider it a very nice piece of work, and Ghost Train just because I had the impulse to own the new model of ghosts, but now I have in mind to sell the train.

Most of the other new Lego sets are considered jokes by me and for many times I consider myself as being insulted by TLG with their new releases.

Somehow I'm kind of unhappy there are Lego fans who taste their new jokes, as if if people won't buy them, maybe Lego would wake up from this, and maybe they would start to do a nice job again.

But somehow I'm kind of happy that there are Lego fans who still buy Lego products, so this way Lego won't stop their activity and I live with the hope that once every 1-2-3-5 years they will release a new wonderful set such as Queen Anne's Revenge or Haunted House.

[Lyichir]

I 100% agree with you, and that's why I didn't post on this thread yet.

If I would start to post what I really think, I would probably can't be as diplomat as I should and then of course many people will probably start to hate me or to consider me outdated and not up to evolve.

In my opinion, the Lego's golden age is somewhere between 1986 and 1996. This decade proved a lot and implemented the most significant pieces of what Lego really is. There were some very nice series released even after 1996, up to 2002, but then they started to fall badly and in my own opinion Lego is becoming worse each year.

The boxes have no plastic trays anymore and they are not as friendly as they used to.

The back of the boxes doesn't show any other model you can build with the pieces, so they do not encourage kids to challenge themselves into evolve their imagination and creativity.

The instructions became too easy, like they dedicate Lego to kids under 8 years.

The plastic bags where bricks come became noted as 1, 2, 3, and they sort the bags to build the model as easy as possible, like I am that stupid that I can't search for pieces as it was in the past.

The colours became more shiny just like Lego is dedicated to kids under 5 years old when they need to see something shiny to touch the object.

I still buy Lego each year, but I only aim for classic sets (older than 10 years).

The only new sets I bought were Queen Anne's Revenge as I consider it a very nice piece of work, and Ghost Train just because I had the impulse to own the new model of ghosts, but now I have in mind to sell the train.

Most of the other new Lego sets are considered jokes by me and for many times I consider myself as being insulted by TLG with their new releases.

Somehow I'm kind of unhappy there are Lego fans who taste their new jokes, as if if people won't buy them, maybe Lego would wake up from this, and maybe they would start to do a nice job again.

But somehow I'm kind of happy that there are Lego fans who still buy Lego products, so this way Lego won't stop their activity and I live with the hope that once every 1-2-3-5 years they will release a new wonderful set such as Queen Anne's Revenge or Haunted House.

I continue to be amazed by AFOLs who think that it's a bad thing that building from instructions has become easier. All it does is widen the potential group who can satisfactorily build a Lego set. You don't like numbered bags? Fine; there is literally nothing stopping you from opening them all at once like you used to do. The true challenge of building has always been designing something of your own, so there's no reason why Lego shouldn't make their instructions more user-friendly. After all, one of the most important functions of the instructions is to teach kids building techniques that they can then use in their own models, so making them puzzle over the instructions only makes it take them that much longer to get to the stage where they can design their own MOCs. Similarly, I've never really bemoaned the loss of alternate models on the back of the box, which I always found to simply be another barrier to true, unbridled creative play.

I've gotten great enjoyment out of other recent sets in a variety of original, unique themes such as Ninjago, Atlantis, Power Miners, Agents and Space Police, many of which feature complex building techniques. These themes are a strong argument against the tired argument that Lego has become less creative due to the advent of licensed themes.

Also, I'm surprised you're so fond of the Queen Anne's Revenge. I never had this set, but judging by reviews it's far from the best set in recent years. The Imperial Flagship, which predated it by a year, seems to have been far superior.

[Grimmbeard]

I 100% agree with you, and that's why I didn't post on this thread yet.

If I would start to post what I really think, I would probably can't be as diplomat as I should and then of course many people will probably start to hate me or to consider me outdated and not up to evolve.

In my opinion, the Lego's golden age is somewhere between 1986 and 1996. This decade proved a lot and implemented the most significant pieces of what Lego really is. There were some very nice series released even after 1996, up to 2002, but then they started to fall badly and in my own opinion Lego is becoming worse each year.

The boxes have no plastic trays anymore and they are not as friendly as they used to.

The back of the boxes doesn't show any other model you can build with the pieces, so they do not encourage kids to challenge themselves into evolve their imagination and creativity.

The instructions became too easy, like they dedicate Lego to kids under 8 years.

The plastic bags where bricks come became noted as 1, 2, 3, and they sort the bags to build the model as easy as possible, like I am that stupid that I can't search for pieces as it was in the past.

The colours became more shiny just like Lego is dedicated to kids under 5 years old when they need to see something shiny to touch the object.

I still buy Lego each year, but I only aim for classic sets (older than 10 years).

The only new sets I bought were Queen Anne's Revenge as I consider it a very nice piece of work, and Ghost Train just because I had the impulse to own the new model of ghosts, but now I have in mind to sell the train.

Most of the other new Lego sets are considered jokes by me and for many times I consider myself as being insulted by TLG with their new releases.

Somehow I'm kind of unhappy there are Lego fans who taste their new jokes, as if if people won't buy them, maybe Lego would wake up from this, and maybe they would start to do a nice job again.

But somehow I'm kind of happy that there are Lego fans who still buy Lego products, so this way Lego won't stop their activity and I live with the hope that once every 1-2-3-5 years they will release a new wonderful set such as Queen Anne's Revenge or Haunted House.

I definitely agree with you.

Face it people, Lego isn't as good as it used to be. Its just that simple. It has gotten worse each year.

I find myself awaiting the Lego catalog for months, only to flip through and say to myself, "nothing good, as usual". Sure maybe I'm not into the same themes as others, but even by observing those themes I can still tell they aren't as good as they used to be.

The only thing that I disagree with you on, Moschino, is the instructions. I find that by having a box at the top with all the necessary pieces doesn't hinder to the building, nor does it hinder to the fun of building. I remember as a kid missing pieces on the instructions and getting frustrated when the set didn't look how it was supposed to. The numbered bags are a little excessive, however.

Edited November 23, 2012 by Grimmbeard

[TheLegoDr]

When I first got back into LEGO in fall of 2010 I was lost to the world of LEGO. Basically everything that has been mentioned crossed my mind. I was unsure of numbered bags when I first saw those. I thought they would hinder the build, but they actually make it more organized and convenient. I don't always have time to build a full set, so instead of trying to sort out each piece and giving up, I can build it in stages when I have time and all of the pieces will be sorted for me. I prefer numbered bags now because of it. I recall being a child and missing a piece somewhere and then having to backtrack to find out where I went wrong. Now if I have extra pieces within one little bag or a series of bags then I know I would have messed up within those pages of that bag instead of getting closer to the end and missing a crucial point. I wasn't a fan of the boxes. I missed the flip lids on larger sets like BSB. I like the cover art now but I still miss having the flip lid at times. Makes me wish I kept boxes when I was a child. I don't like the quality control issues with color, but LEGO doesn't seem to be doing much about it and people keep buying sets so there isn't much reason to fix it at the moment.

[moschino]

Also, I'm surprised you're so fond of the Queen Anne's Revenge. I never had this set, but judging by reviews it's far from the best set in recent years. The Imperial Flagship, which predated it by a year, seems to have been far superior.

You're probably not a Pirates fan, and you probably do not have the experience to analyze them, but I will show only one thing, and not more, because this thread is not related to Imperial Flagship or Queen Anne's Revenge.

This is how sails bend on these ships.

From Left:

From Top:

And this is a drawing from a real ship:

The sails will never bend in the wind like they were represented in Imperial Flagship, and they will always bend like they were represented in QAR, BSB, SES, etc...

Being a big Pirates fan, I took this as a joke, and I personally can not look at Imperial Flagship as it is.

I do not own ITP, but I saw it for several times in real life and I always took it as a joke.

There are many other bad things regarding ITP, but as I said above, this is not the right thread to deep into what ITP is.

My fiance wanted to get this set, and I asked her to promise me that she'll let me to modify the set and bring him to a decent stage of display.

Until that, I just bought two Black Seas Barracuda to expand my ship collection and I call that a real Lego ship.

If I would ever let myself to get impressed by size, then I'll definitely consider ITP the best Lego ship of all time, but until that I consider it only a box who contains lots of pieces and will definitely require my imagination to build a nice Lego ship.

I definitely agree with you.

Face it people, Lego isn't as good as it used to be. Its just that simple. It has gotten worse each year.

I find myself awaiting the Lego catalog for months, only to flip through and say to myself, "nothing good, as usual". Sure maybe I'm not into the same themes as others, but even by observing those themes I can still tell they aren't as good as they used to be.

The only thing that I disagree with you on, Moschino, is the instructions. I find that by having a box at the top with all the necessary pieces doesn't hinder to the building, nor does it hinder to the fun of building. I remember as a kid missing pieces on the instructions and getting frustrated when the set didn't look how it was supposed to. The numbered bags are a little excessive, however.

When I first got back into LEGO in fall of 2010 I was lost to the world of LEGO. Basically everything that has been mentioned crossed my mind. I was unsure of numbered bags when I first saw those. I thought they would hinder the build, but they actually make it more organized and convenient. I don't always have time to build a full set, so instead of trying to sort out each piece and giving up, I can build it in stages when I have time and all of the pieces will be sorted for me. I prefer numbered bags now because of it. I recall being a child and missing a piece somewhere and then having to backtrack to find out where I went wrong. Now if I have extra pieces within one little bag or a series of bags then I know I would have messed up within those pages of that bag instead of getting closer to the end and missing a crucial point. I wasn't a fan of the boxes. I missed the flip lids on larger sets like BSB. I like the cover art now but I still miss having the flip lid at times. Makes me wish I kept boxes when I was a child. I don't like the quality control issues with color, but LEGO doesn't seem to be doing much about it and people keep buying sets so there isn't much reason to fix it at the moment.

First of all, I agree with both of you, but I feel like I need to explain a bit further the story about bags, not because I intend to convince someone, but only because I'd like to make myself understood.

I will give only an example, but this is applied to almost every release of Lego of today.

If you get a look at the last wagon of this train, the wagon between locomotive and prison is the same with the last one, they being completely identical.

This wagon has its own bag, so when I experienced the build of the wagon, I felt like I bought a set of this size:

Of course, when I built the whole train I felt like I actually bought the following sets:

What I really want to say is that when I bought a large set in 1995, I felt like I bought a large set.

Not if I buy a large set, at the end I feel like I bought several small + medium sets.

This is a feeling that someone who didn't feel, would be hard to imagine, and overall it's a feeling that I really miss.

Regarding the numbered bags, I may be extremely subjective and I may be wrong, but all in all, to me this is something that among all other things, it makes new Lego to be worse than the past Lego.

Once STAR WARS was added, it all went down hill I think. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of good Star Wars sets and MOCs out there, I'm even a fan of the movies themselves. But when TLG had the idea that they could buy other franchises, creativity went out the window.

Here I also totally agree with you.

Once they start to release other franchises,... their imagination start falling down.

Excepting QAR (and I bought it before the release of the movie), I never bought any Lego related to a well-known franchise.

I never bought any Lego from Harry Potter, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Prince of Persia, etc...

I was a big Turtles Ninja fan in my childhood, but now I'm not going to buy any sets from TMNT.

I was also a big fan of SpiderMan, but that doesn't attract me to get any of Marvel sets of Lego.

The cartoons were the cartoons and Lego is Lego.

To me Lego is something that let my imagination to go free, and I don't need Lego to copy a particular atmosphere from a different universe that already exists and it has its own foundations.

All in all, we share the same kind of feeling to the same wonderful toy, and I'm glad we're all here to share our opinions.

If my thoughts were found offensive to some Lego fans, accept my apologies, as not this was my intention.

[Lyichir]

I definitely agree with you.

Face it people, Lego isn't as good as it used to be. Its just that simple. It has gotten worse each year.

I find myself awaiting the Lego catalog for months, only to flip through and say to myself, "nothing good, as usual". Sure maybe I'm not into the same themes as others, but even by observing those themes I can still tell they aren't as good as they used to be.

The only thing that I disagree with you on, Moschino, is the instructions. I find that by having a box at the top with all the necessary pieces doesn't hinder to the building, nor does it hinder to the fun of building. I remember as a kid missing pieces on the instructions and getting frustrated when the set didn't look how it was supposed to. The numbered bags are a little excessive, however.

"Lego isn't as good as it used to be" is an opinion, nothing more. Personally, I feel Lego's better than it ever was before. In terms of original themes, Lego continues to amaze with unique themes like Ninjago and Friends. In terms of licensed themes, one only needs to compare the Star Wars sets of today with their equivalents in the late nineties to see how much the sets have improved in both complexity and accuracy. In constraction themes, the Hero Factory building system has revolutionized action figure building. There are more useful colors of parts now than there have ever been, and next to no useless colors, unlike in the early noughts. The same can be said for parts, with the majority of new parts being versatile functional elements like new slopes, brackets, etc.

I lived through the worst period of Lego, that being the late nineties and early noughts when juniorization ran rampant and almost nothing was standardized. At the beginning of this period, I didn't care, but as time went by I grew tired of the formerly "cool" parts from themes like Rock Raiders proving to be useless in the long run. I pretty much stopped collecting System sets and shifted to collecting Bionicle almost exclusively. But in the mid noughts, themes like Exo-Force drew me back in, and since then Lego has continuously gotten better and better, with the introduction of things like the modular buildings, the collectable minifigures, and more. To suggest that Lego is getting worse and worse is to ignore how much it has improved since those dark times at the turn of the millennium.

Edited November 23, 2012 by Lyichir

[Grimmbeard]

What I really want to say is that when I bought a large set in 1995, I felt like I bought a large set.

Not if I buy a large set, at the end I feel like I bought several small + medium sets.

This is a feeling that someone who didn't feel, would be hard to imagine, and overall it's a feeling that I really miss.

Regarding the numbered bags, I may be extremely subjective and I may be wrong, but all in all, to me this is something that among all other things, it makes new Lego to be worse than the past Lego.

I know what you mean when you say you feel like you're building several smaller sets instead of a large set as a whole.

"Lego isn't as good as it used to be" is an opinion, nothing more. Personally, I feel Lego's better than it ever was before. In terms of original themes, Lego continues to amaze with unique themes like Ninjago and Friends. In terms of licensed themes, one only needs to compare the Star Wars sets of today with their equivalents in the late nineties to see how much the sets have improved in both complexity and accuracy. In constraction themes, the Hero Factory building system has revolutionized action figure building. There are more useful colors of parts now than there have ever been, and next to no useless colors, unlike in the early noughts. The same can be said for parts, with the majority of new parts being versatile functional elements like new slopes, brackets, etc.

I lived through the worst period of Lego, that being the late nineties and early noughts when juniorization ran rampant and almost nothing was standardized. At the beginning of this period, I didn't care, but as time went by I grew tired of the formerly "cool" parts from themes like Rock Raiders proving to be useless in the long run. I pretty much stopped collecting System sets and shifted to collecting Bionicle almost exclusively. But in the mid noughts, themes like Exo-Force drew me back in, and since then Lego has continuously gotten better and better, with the introduction of things like the modular buildings, the collectable minifigures, and more. To suggest that Lego is getting worse and worse is to ignore how much it has improved since those dark times at the turn of the millennium.

Yes, we are all entitled to our own opinions, I never said that we weren't. Now, to get on to what you said. If you do a bit of research, you would find that most "new unique themes" as you mentioned are really just the same themes from earlier. Ninjago is a copy of the Ninja series from the 90s, friends is basically like Belville and other similar girl-aimed themes. For Star Wars, I personally think that despite how it was a bad idea to make them, at least the original sets seemed to have more of a system feel, the figs were yellow, and LEGO seemed to use there creativity more. The Star Wars sets of today are also for a great deal remakes of original sets (how many millennium falcons and imperial shuttles do we need, really). As I've said before, I'm a fan of Star Wars, not Lego Star Wars.

"More useful parts and colors". I personally don't like the continual making of new parts. It just shows a continual drop in creativity. I'm not saying we would go back to the simple red and white 2x4 bricks. I'm saying that if TLG continues to make prefab parts in instances where they can simply use a few standard parts, then they should use a few standard parts. Thats what lego is all about. Don't simplify it, make it extraordinary!

[Lyichir]

Yes, we are all entitled to our own opinions, I never said that we weren't. Now, to get on to what you said. If you do a bit of research, you would find that most "new unique themes" as you mentioned are really just the same themes from earlier. Ninjago is a copy of the Ninja series from the 90s, friends is basically like Belville and other similar girl-aimed themes. For Star Wars, I personally think that despite how it was a bad idea to make them, at least the original sets seemed to have more of a system feel, the figs were yellow, and LEGO seemed to use there creativity more. The Star Wars sets of today are also for a great deal remakes of original sets (how many millennium falcons and imperial shuttles do we need, really). As I've said before, I'm a fan of Star Wars, not Lego Star Wars.

"More useful parts and colors". I personally don't like the continual making of new parts. It just shows a continual drop in creativity. I'm not saying we would go back to the simple red and white 2x4 bricks. I'm saying that if TLG continues to make prefab parts in instances where they can simply use a few standard parts, then they should use a few standard parts. Thats what lego is all about. Don't simplify it, make it extraordinary!

Ninjago has almost nothing in common with the Ninja theme from the '90s. It's not a historic theme at all, but almost more of a love letter to the "ninja fever" that gripped american cartoons and movies in the '80s and '90s, drawing similarities to Ninja Turtles and Power Rangers. And while Friends may have a similar concept to Belville, in execution it's completely different. By your logic, every space theme has just been a retread of classic space; likewise for castle themes and classic castle. Why should Lego limit themselves to untouched ideas, when they can take old ones and either improve upon them or create a different take on the same basic concept?

With Star Wars, my point was that the sets are an excellent gauge of Lego's improvement. Look at the original X-Wing set. Blocky, inaccurate, and no challenge at all to build. Compare that to the newest one, which uses SNOT and Technic parts to better depict the ship. Yes, one can argue that fleshies are less like the classic Lego aesthetic. Personally, I feel fleshies for licensed themes were a foregone conclusion from the moment they had to create a Lando fig, and had to reevaluate the idea that yellow-skinned figs could accurately depict characters of any race. As for your complaints about retreads, you're looking at things as a long-term collector, in asking how many sets of any one ship are needed. But kids who are new to the theme need just one: the newest one; and they get a much better set that way than if they had to buy the comparatively crappy original set off eBay.

Also, when I mentioned new parts, I specifically pointed out new structural elements. Lego hardly introduces any <insert that tiresome argument> prefab parts today compared to 10 to 15 years ago. New parts in the past year included this, this, this, this, this, this, this... the list goes on and on. These parts don't replace standard parts, they augment them, allowing builders to do things they couldn't do before. That's improvement.

Edited November 24, 2012 by Lyichir

[Grimmbeard]

Ninjago has almost nothing in common with the Ninja theme from the '90s. It's not a historic theme at all, but almost more of a love letter to the "ninja fever" that gripped american cartoons and movies in the '80s and '90s, drawing similarities to Ninja Turtles and Power Rangers. And while Friends may have a similar concept to Belville, in execution it's completely different. By your logic, every space theme has just been a retread of classic space; likewise for castle themes and classic castle. Why should Lego limit themselves to untouched ideas, when they can take old ones and either improve upon them or create a different take on the same basic concept?

With Star Wars, my point was that the sets are an excellent gauge of Lego's improvement. Look at the original X-Wing set. Blocky, inaccurate, and no challenge at all to build. Compare that to the newest one, which uses SNOT and Technic parts to better depict the ship. Yes, one can argue that fleshies are less like the classic Lego aesthetic. Personally, I feel fleshies for licensed themes were a foregone conclusion from the moment they had to create a Lando fig, and had to reevaluate the idea that yellow-skinned figs could accurately depict characters of any race. As for your complaints about retreads, you're looking at things as a long-term collector, in asking how many sets of any one ship are needed. But kids who are new to the theme need just one: the newest one; and they get a much better set that way than if they had to buy the comparatively crappy original set off eBay.

Also, when I mentioned new parts, I specifically pointed out new structural elements. Lego hardly introduces any <insert that tiresome argument> prefab parts today compared to 10 to 15 years ago. New parts in the past year included this, this, this, this, this, this, this... the list goes on and on. These parts don't replace standard parts, they augment them, allowing builders to do things they couldn't do before. That's improvement.

I don't think its any argument that LEGO uses the past themes and does them over. Lego basically has four "pillars", as I call them. Town, Castle, Space, and Pirates. These themes have been done over and over, and they will continue to do so. I never said that LEGO should only use new ideas. As i've said before, the Golden Age to me was the late 80s early 90s, and so it is no problem to me if they continue to use those themes from that time. My only argument was that you cannot call these "new unique themes".

As for Star Wars, it is your opinion whether or not the new sets look better or not. For me, as I've said, If I had to choose I'd choose the original ones because of their system feel. For fleshies, yes it all started with Lando, and that to me was a bad turn. I'm not saying all new parts are bad, I just think that they are not all necessary.

Edited November 24, 2012 by Grimmbeard

[PocasNuckie]

Sorry to enter here and comment in a maybe not so polite way - but this, and other similar discussions are pointless as no one of us EB users are in the 6-11 core target of LEGO.

Whether we like it or not, 90ish% of LEGO products aren't made for us, or with us in mind.

We can choose to live happily ever after enjoying what LEGO gives our own inner children, or spend our time pointing the finger at the company for not fullfilling each and every wish of a small (yet growing) slice of its own clients, that are the AFOL's.

And don't beat me much, oh k?

[Grimmbeard]

Sorry to enter here and comment in a maybe not so polite way - but this, and other similar discussions are pointless as no one of us EB users are in the 6-11 core target of LEGO.

Whether we like it or not, 90ish% of LEGO products aren't made for us, or with us in mind.

We can choose to live happily ever after enjoying what LEGO gives our own inner children, or spend our time pointing the finger at the company for not fullfilling each and every wish of a small (yet growing) slice of its own clients, that are the AFOL's.

And don't beat me much, oh k?

LOL no worries, bro . Yes, it is true that we're not in the core target range of Lego, but Lego itself is still great for all ages.

[Aanchir]

I don't think its any argument that LEGO uses the past themes and does them over. Lego basically has four "pillars", as I call them. Town, Castle, Space, and Pirates. These themes have been done over and over, and they will continue to do so. I never said that LEGO should only use new ideas. As i've said before, the Golden Age to me was the late 80s early 90s, and so it is no problem to me if they continue to use those themes from that time. My only argument was that you cannot call these "new unique themes".

It all depends on what you consider unique. I'd agree that Ninjago is unique, and that besides having ninjas in it and some Asian-inspired architecture, it has nothing at all to do with the Castle subtheme that was the original 90s Ninja line. You could just as easily argue that the original Space Police sets weren't unique because they were just a copy of the LEGO police sets from the early days of the minifigure. Those have about as much in common with Space Police as the 90s Ninja line has to do with Ninjago, after all (I don't remember half of either wave of Ninja sets being composed of wacky sci-fi vehicles or strange fantasy monster minifigures).

[Hive]

Sorry to enter here and comment in a maybe not so polite way - but this, and other similar discussions are pointless as no one of us EB users are in the 6-11 core target of LEGO.

Whether we like it or not, 90ish% of LEGO products aren't made for us, or with us in mind.

We can choose to live happily ever after enjoying what LEGO gives our own inner children, or spend our time pointing the finger at the company for not fullfilling each and every wish of a small (yet growing) slice of its own clients, that are the AFOL's.

And don't beat me much, oh k?

I simply can't follow your line of thought on this one. Why can't people have an opinion on which LEGO period was best just because they are not currently in the target audience? That makes no sense.

[Plastic Nurak]

I simply can't follow your line of thought on this one. Why can't people have an opinion on which LEGO period was best just because they are not currently in the target audience? That makes no sense.

I agree with you, this is just a discussion among us AFoLs.

But I think also that our perspective is altered by our own found memories. I guess, for example, that if there were an AFoL community in the early Eighties, the members surely should be complaining about the introductions of the minifig that, in their opinion, focused LEGO sets less on building and more on playing with. It's just an idea of mine, obviously.

But I'm sure of a thing: TLC has lost its mission of being an educative toy. 1994 #8880 Supercar was focused mainly on buiding and showed how engine, gearbox, steering and suspension work. In my opinion #8070 Supercar it's almost childish because focused mainly on play, although there's luckily still a big focus on building techniques and so.

Just my two cents.

[Lyichir]

I agree with you, this is just a discussion among us AFoLs.

But I think also that our perspective is altered by our own found memories. I guess, for example, that if there were an AFoL community in the early Eighties, the members surely should be complaining about the introductions of the minifig that, in their opinion, focused LEGO sets less on building and more on playing with. It's just an idea of mine, obviously.

But I'm sure of a thing: TLC has lost its mission of being an educative toy. 1994 #8880 Supercar was focused mainly on buiding and showed how engine, gearbox, steering and suspension work. In my opinion #8070 Supercar it's almost childish because focused mainly on play, although there's luckily still a big focus on building techniques and so.

Just my two cents.

Themes like Mindstorms and to a lesser extent, Architecture, are still highly "educative." I think the Technic theme could be argued to have lost some of its focus on education, but that happened a log time ago (around the turn of the millenium at the latest). Meanwhile, Master Builder Academy does a better job of educating kids in advanced building techniques than any previous theme (which is less applicable to the real world, but still valuable to the fan community).

[moschino]

Sorry to enter here and comment in a maybe not so polite way - but this, and other similar discussions are pointless as no one of us EB users are in the 6-11 core target of LEGO.

Whether we like it or not, 90ish% of LEGO products aren't made for us, or with us in mind.

We can choose to live happily ever after enjoying what LEGO gives our own inner children, or spend our time pointing the finger at the company for not fullfilling each and every wish of a small (yet growing) slice of its own clients, that are the AFOL's.

Your comment is polite, I respect your thought and I guess many others accept each other's opinion agreeing or disagreeing, but we're not here to ask for anyone's agreement, so we're free to express ourselves.

I personally completely disagree with what you've said as I think TLG should made products at least 50% including for adults.

When I say this, I don't mean 50% of the products should be dedicated to adults, but I mean the sets that are made should respect a bit of the adults preferences.

For example, my parents, and parents of my friends would have never bought us a Lego that they completely disliked.

I won't do the same for my kids only because this is the education I've got, but because everyone got that sort of education and because a kid needs to be directed and educated by an adult, so I'll take that as a responsibility and I'll lead him/her to grow in a smart way.

For example, I won't really be happy to see my son playing with violence between skeletons and blue ninjas on the floor of our living room, so the result is that I won't buy him Ninjago.

I will try to lead my own son to not be violent, but to be creative, so when he ask for Ninjago, I'll try to explain him why Adventures-Egypt is better.

I'll open his cultural interests of the most ancient civilization firstly by buying toys regarding the most ancient civilization.

If his interests will still go for Ninja, then I'll respect his interests and I will buy him a set of Ninja 1999.

I'll work with him and I'll educate him what is a pagoda roof.

I'll learn him that a ninja is black and not blue or green, then I will watch him how he plays with a black ninja.

Another example, and will be the last... is Atlantis. If he/she has interests in underwater, then I will definitely go for Divers 1997.

I will educate the kids of what diving is and I will be extremely happy to watch them how they simulate a diving on the floor of our living room.

But I'll tend to refuse to encourage them into play with Atlantis, because I don't want the kids when woke up to tell me they dreamed red monsters attacking a submarine.

If they just woke up and they tell me they dreamed how they dived in the deep ocean and they sneak between sharks to find the treasure, then I'll say "well, this is indeed a nice dream, you're and adventurer".

So if TLG continues to ignore adults only because their target is between 5-12, then it may lead to fail.

The 5-12 years old Kid doesn't have his own earnings and he can not afford anything without adults support.

As I won't bring him/her games, books, magazines who disturb his/her perception, innocence and creativity, I will do the same with Lego and for most of the new series it will be a big SKIP.

Edited November 26, 2012 by moschino

[Lordofdragonss]

I see some great point here and there, so I will add two of mine I haven't noticed:

1. Most of kids seems to be very lazy today. I see that parents don't buy Lego because their kids don't know how to play with it.

Yes, you read it good. I noticed many kids nowadays just build the main model, play with it a little like with any other toy and then they get bored. They don't use pieces to build something else or mix it with other sets as we used to do/we do. The reasons? I really have no idea, but I think more additional builds instructions online would be cool.

2. I hoped Lego will always make a semi-licenced sets. Just like they did with adventurers. It was so obvious that they use Indiana Jones and many other movies to create this theme, but they added a lot of... Let's call it Lego power. That's why it was so cool. Lego still do this, (Chima -> Thundercats), but I really hoped for a Lego vision of LotR, and now the licence killed it :(

3. I hate fact that they make Minifigs the main focus of the sets nowadays. Sets today are pretty to look at, but they are boring. No hiden compartments, hiden treasusres, no places to put additional stuff from your colection.... Ok, sometimes the biggest sets are the exception. The Vampyre castle is great in both terms- Quality and Playability.

@Moschino... Don't you think it's a little rough thinking? One of my young cousins get Ninjago set, and he using Skellies as friendly figures, because they look wacky. It all depends on your kid.

You can give your child any set, and look at him playing with it. If you think it plays wrong ask your child why it playing this way. The answer will suprise you.

And don't worry, lego is not ignoring adults. It even encourages us to play with our child for better experience.

Edited November 26, 2012 by Lordofdragonss

[Grimmbeard]

I think the reason kids are lazy is because of video games. They might think "okay, I built this, but it doesn't do anything. Whatever, I'll just play some cod". Lordofdragonss, I agree that there is too much liscense, and that more creative semi liscense would be better.

Moschino, I get what you're saying and I too would wish my child would play with older sets, but I think my kid would also want to play with the newest Lego. I would buy my kid some new Lego and let him/her play with my old sets and let him/her decide which they like more.

[ShaydDeGrai]

1. Most of kids seems to be very lazy today. I see that parents don't buy Lego because their kids don't know how to play with it.

Yes, you read it good. I noticed many kids nowadays just build the main model, play with it a little like with any other toy and then they get bored. They don't use pieces to build something else or mix it with other sets as we used to do/we do. The reasons? I really have no idea, but I think more additional builds instructions online would be cool.

There is some truth to this, but it is more of a symptom than a cause. There's been a fair bit of research linking short attention spans and poor spacial reasoning skills to video games, TV and other minimally interactive, predictable, short term distractions. Part of the problem is that, even in a pseudo-3D first person shooter, the world is flat and is using forced perspective to trick/confuse the mind. Another problem is that other than holding a remote or pressing a button, there is very little haptic (tactile) feedback and, what few interactions there exist, are drawn from very limited palette compared to say, building a model or playing a team sport. There ARE benefits that a child can get from playing CERTAIN video games, the problem arises from over exposure to (what from a cognitive development standpoint would be poorly designed) video games at the expense of other experiences.

Another major contributor to conditioning kids for short attentions spans comes from the basic design of most video games and television broadcast practices. In general, one does not "win" a video game (yes there are strategy games that take hours to play and you can actually win, but they are in the minority and played mostly by late teens and adults). In the interest of repeat play, most games redefine "win" as "what can you achieve before losing" (high score, mission objectives, whatever) and, to keep the player interested rather than frustrated, games dole out small rewards for small actions. Few offer any rewards for long term planning and many have little tolerance for "creativity" on the part of the player. Likewise, television broadcasts, unlike going to the cinema where you get a two hour unbroken narrative (hopefully) building to a rewarding conclusion, are broken into short attention span chunks no more than 10 minutes in length where each commercial interruption is a reminder to the writers to break the narrative. To an adult, it's a chance to run to the kitchen for a snack, to a kid, it's a subliminal signal that life happens a few minutes at a time and anything that takes longer to resolve, probably isn't worth the effort.

LEGO kits aren't a magic cure for these issues, but there is research correlating exposing children to construction toys (and following wordless instruction books) with improved attention spans and spacial reasoning skills. I remember reading one long term study that found (statistically speaking) children that regularly played with LEGO in their formative 6-13 age range were significantly less likely to get in a car accident within the first five years of getting their licenses compare to kids that never played with LEGO growing up (could just be a fluke of statistics but it makes for nice trivia)

2. I hoped Lego will always make a semi-licenced sets. Just like they did with adventurers. It was so obvious that they use Indiana Jones and many other movies to create this theme, but they added a lot of... Let's call it Lego power. That's why it was so cool. Lego still do this, (Chima -> Thundercats), but I really hoped for a Lego vision of LotR, and now the licence killed it :(

I hear you. Licensed themes are a double edged sword. If you think of them as a gateway drug to draw people to LEGO, I think they're great. Likewise, I'm sure they have a positive impact on TLG bottom line and that cash flow helps keep the company profitable so we can get fantastic sets like the Emerald Night, Medieval Market Village, modulars, etc. _in addition to_ yet another version of the Millenium Falcon or an Orc battle pack, etc.

I sincerely hope that most kids are more like my nephew than like me. If I buy a licensed kit, I put it together, put it on a shelf and it gathers dust for a few years before I get bored with it or need to reclaim the space. My nephew builds the model, plays with it, and then takes it apart and mixes the pieces in with all his other LEGO and builds something else. In my mind, that's exactly what a kid SHOULD be doing. A directed model can be a great learning experience, but it shouldn't stifle the kids own creativity. I think there have been some awesome Star Wars kits and I've got the ships from PotC proudly displayed in my office, but for a kid, I think the 2-in-1 and 3-in-1 Creator series are really the best bets. Enough parts and instructions to get you started; alternate models to get you thinking; and generic enough models that you don't mind breaking them down to build something else. You just don't get that with a licensed theme set.

"Inspired" theme sets (like Monster Hunters or Atlantis), I think, are more open ended than licensed kits, which is a good thing, but with the club magazine and marketing videos, etc. there's always that question of who owns the narrative. Where do you draw the line between directed play and creative play? When are you selling a story versus inspiring the child to invent their own story? When do you take the training wheels off the bike? Would you be a better cyclist today if you'd never relied on training wheels to begin with?

3. I hate fact that they make Minifigs the main focus of the sets nowadays. Sets today are pretty to look at, but they are boring. No hiden compartments, hiden treasusres, no places to put additional stuff from your colection.... Ok, sometimes the biggest sets are the exception. The Vampyre castle is great in both terms- Quality and Playability.

I first really noticed this with the Harry Potter line and it has since spread into a general (negative) trend. One of my litmus tests for a "successful" set is to take away all the minifigures, minifig accessories and stickers (but that's a different issue) and look at what's left. Does the "build" really serve a purpose, or is it there to up the piece count so that TLG doesn't get accused of violating a license agreement and selling "action figures" instead of a construction toy? I'm not a fan of minifigure backdrop play sets. I'm not opposed to minifigures (I certainly have quite a few of them kicking around) but I think the figures should be there to enhance and bring life to the model, not the other way 'round.

As for big sets being the exception, I think that really varies with the set. The Death Star, the Haunted Mansion and the Modulars are great examples of high end kits that I'd buy even if they didn't have any figures with them, the figures are icing on the cake for those guys.

On the other hand, lately TLG has been marketing more small builds in big boxes, which I find a little disappointing. Look at the Mines of Moria, it's a big kit, but not a big build. That kit could be broken up into several small kits in the 15-25USD range each and be none the worse for wear. And in each case the structure is really just a movie set for the figures, it doesn't build to anything other than more scenery if you have all the sub-kits.

In some ways, I also think the trend to small builds in big boxes contributes to that attention span issue of your first point. Too many kits today pander to the "commercial interruption" mentality of "build something quickly, get a reward, take a break" as opposed to a really big kit that you don't expect to finish in one sitting. It's nice to have clean break points so you know where you left off, but I think (for kids) it also important that each construction session builds toward a greater whole, if you leave something unfinished, it should look unfinished and motivate you to want to come back and do it properly.

Diagon Alley is one offender on this front, three modest builds in one big box. Once you build Gringott's you could declare yourself done and play with it, come back to build Borgen and Burke's once you get bored with Gringott's; that's nice for marketing, not so great for a child's cognitive development compared with, say assembling one story of a modular building - yes there's a reward to see some stage of it complete, but there's also motivation to see the _whole thing_ through, to return to a task left unfinished, to see yesterday's output as a foundation for todays' achievements. Even a personal favorite of mine, Medieval Market Village, fails when it comes to sending this sort of important message. It could have been two separate kits (akin to the blacksmith shop of a few years back) and maybe a polybag for the tree without impacting the net build experience (assuming you got all the kits). The bundling of small related builds into a big box might make for good marketing, but psychologically it dilutes one of the strength's of LEGO as an educational toy.

I don't really know when the "golden age" of LEGO was/is. I've lived with it for nearly 50 years and grown to appreciate and criticize it on all different levels for all different reasons. I've played with it on my living room floor and taught with it in a classroom. I've gone years without buying any kits because they just had no appeal and I've spend an entire paycheck in a single purchase while leaving kits I still wanted on the shelf. I remember my first "expert builder" (now Technic) kit and how delighted I was when I got a Statue of Liberty and Yoda sculptures (sand green and tan bricks, and oh so many new colors to follow). UCS sets rocked my world and emptied my wallet. Trains, then and now, (9v, PF, RC, I don't care) have always been objects of lust even when I couldn't come close to affording them.

I think the golden age of LEGO has nothing to do with how profitable TLG is, whether or not there are originals or licensed kits, how much the sets appreciate in value or how old the consumer is; the golden age is that time when LEGO is most precious to _you_, the time when happiness assumes the shape of little plastic bricks, everything else is just marketing.

[TheLegoDr]

ShaydDeGrai - That is an interesting point about being exposed to construction sets (like LEGO) would decrease your chance of vehicular accidents. I assume it is because they are more aware of everything in general than what is directly in front of them? To go along with the delayed satisfaction and more spatial reasoning involving a long build. I've read of a similar study only involving four year olds and cookies. If they don't take the first cookie and wait 5 minutes (or some determined length of time) they would receive another cookie as a reward. Naturally a lot of the children took the first cookie full well knowing they would only get the one. But the few who waited ended up testing a lot better in the long run. It was really interesting and I wish I knew more of the details to share here.

When are you selling a story versus inspiring the child to invent their own story? When do you take the training wheels off the bike? Would you be a better cyclist today if you'd never relied on training wheels to begin with? Again, I've read that you actually would be a better cyclist if you never had training wheels. There actually is a balance bike that teaches children how to balance first, then learn to pedal instead of learning to pedal and then constantly falling off of the bike once the trainers are removed because they have no idea to balance themselves. The article I first came across on that is here.

Again that is a good point about 'take away the figures and how does the set stack up?' I love MOCing my own sets and I love collecting the figures, but I do agree it shouldn't be the main focus for sets. Let's get highly detailed figures with some pieces thrown in to satisfy everyone. Of course, if the figures didn't look so detailed I probably wouldn't collect them, but I would still purchase pieces/sets to build things. I do typically build a few select sets and display them and then MOC with the rest of the pieces as opposed to full on playing with any of the sets, but I'm also 28 years old. From a child's POV I would want to provide a more playable set/theme to allow more cognitive development. Not all toys have to be a learning toy, but it can't hurt something to be both fun and educational. In fact, if more toys were both fun and educational more children would probably enjoy going to school instead of just being taught how to test on the standardized tests. I don't know how much I've learned growing up that isn't pertinent to my every day life.

I guess having numbered bags is LEGO's way of having these break points while still leaving the set unfinished. It does give a guaranteed spot to stop. I enjoyed the big pile of bricks and the search for the right piece as a kid, but as an adult I appreciate the numbered bags so I know if all of the pieces are accounted for. It's especially been helpful within the last year since I've had so many issues with missing pieces in my builds. I'd hate to get to the end and wonder where I went wrong only to find out that a part was missing the entire time.

I agree that the Golden age is when you enjoyed it the most. My golden age (like many others) was the early 90s, but I was also aged 7-10 during that time (their target age range). If I was a child now, I might love it more with all of the pop culture involvement. But I did love the creating my own stories as a kid.

[Lordofdragonss]

Thanks for that nice long Reply ShaydDeGrai, great to see that you agree with me and that I am not the only person who thinks so.

yeah you have right, nowadays bigger sets are 2-3 sets for real. Sometimes, I just wish they would put just one model in each box, just because it would be somewhat cheaper.

Another think nowadays sets (almost) lack is... Modularity. I loved the way you could connect all spaceships in some Space lines, or how old castle line was made.

I will probably never understand why they make 5 sets (2 small, 2 biggers, 1bigest) instead of whole line of small sets that you can conect freely. Imo It would bring a lot more cash, because:

-cheaper sets mean people would buy more of them

-people will get a few to make bigger builds

-people who collect/like it would buy all of them.

The another thing: The catalogues are BORING. All I see is small dioramas with few sets. I remember I spend hours looking at old catalogues, because scenes were so full of life! And when I go and look at them today I find even more scenes! And now? Very ugly computer graphics and unprofesional photoshop work. I am speacheless.

I still love Lego as a company. They do amazing job creating new themes, their customer service is top notch, and they try to be friends with us...

But they still have to work a lot if they want to be the best!

Edited November 27, 2012 by Lordofdragonss

[Demetreous]

I love what Lego is doing with modular buildings, however, I would like for them to make smaller ones so I could afford them easily... Anyhow, what sealed the deal that their Golden Age is currently occurring is when they started making licensed Pirates of the Caribbean sets! Before, they were solely produced by Megablocks... -and I have many of those old mb sets... I really want to get my hands on the Lego ones before they are gone though. :/

If it is too difficult to find my answer in that paragraph: Lego is in its Golden Age right now...

[Grimmbeard]

You might have to hurry, Demetreous, POTC is basically done, at least where I live.

[Mazin]

The another thing: The catalogues are BORING. All I see is small dioramas with few sets. I remember I spend hours looking at old catalogues, because scenes were so full of life! And when I go and look at them today I find even more scenes! And now? Very ugly computer graphics and unprofesional photoshop work. I am speacheless.

Yeah! I agree completely. I still use to take them from toys stores from habit ( and you always have to trick emplyees to give them to you as they don't really want to do that anymore ) but there's basically nothing to look at!

Old ones were masterpiece of marketing and composition, they're still enjoyable and fresh, and you want to explore them, even though I remember every page almost perfectly. New ones are garbage...

[Chri5kng]

I am 24, but I am not an AFOL and would never consider myself to be one. I never had a childhood so I'm still a child at heart which mean I would play with these toys instead of putting them on model for display.

I want to add in my perspective of what Lego is now versus back during my childhood in the early and late 90's. You can't expect kids nowadays to build and rebuild their Lego set because Lego set now aren't the same as during my childhood. Most Lego sets back then had different build you can do with instruction, nowadays unless it modular, friends, and creator, it more like one build and your done. How can kids be excited about their Lego when TLG doesn't seem to even give a dam about a kid imagination? I never care for ninjago as a kid, I would take adventure and Indiana Jone any day of the week. Ninjago is crap in my opinion because it doesn't add anything to a kid imagination. It all action theme nowadays without much thoughts for creativity put in. In fact I don't really see any different between Lego action theme versus non-Lego toys?

Like people have said what happen to those hidden treasure and dagger falling down, etc... mechanics that made the set fun? Now it all just look with no play. I still think that the monster fighter castle is lame compare to old castle and Atlantis playset.

Also Star wars is awesome but it not really Lego because how on earth can one play with a spaceship?