LEGO Dimensions Discussion

[BatmanFanboy]

I think a big part of it has more to do with the fact that the licenses they have are male-centric licenses. Im not saying it's right, I'm just saying how many action or adventure movies or shows have female leads? It seems like they did make a concerted effort to include female stuff with the big Ghostbusters story pack and the Powerpuff Girls. The problem is, there's just not that much female stuff out there to make into a video game. I totally agree about making Supergirl an exclusive, though. Considering that it is so rare to have strong female characters, you'd think they wouldn't be difficult to get when they make them. Especially since she's the only female DC character that has her own CW show, but, then again, they have set the precedent that their CW based characters are exclusives, and while This Green Arrow and Supergirl aren't based on their CW appearances, they are characters from their respective namesake shows. That said, I heard somewhere that Dimensions Supergirl has Red Lantern powers, though, so if that's a new ability, I can't imagine she'll be that hard to find.

I agree, I like having both strong Male and Female leads in video games. I think that they Should give us More Wizard of Oz, DC and Lord of the rings characters. I need Sauron, Green Lantern, The Flash, Dorthy, The Tinman and Aragorn playable. Also with the Lego Batman Movie coming to dimensions i think that could give us batgirl, robin and maybe some more Batman villains like Catwoman, Ridder and my personal favorite Mr.Freeze. We do know The Lego Batman Movie is getting a story pack confirmed by Arthur Parsons in one of the interviews at E3 Which will most likely come with Lego Movie Batman and the batwing. Since we already got the batmobile. Now about year 1 franchises not getting battle arenas i am actually ok with this Since DC is technically getting two battle arenas with the Lego Batman Movie and Teen Titans Go so what do you guys think? Edited June 29, 2016 by BatmanFanboy

[Local Knowledge]

Boy, I wonder why? I know! Let's ask Maritsa Patrinos!

Ha ha funny comic! However I don't think anyone of TLG says ''LEGOs''. Heck I don't even think anybody says that. As it's LEGO as in LEGO Bricks.

Edited June 29, 2016 by Darkdragon
Please don't quote pictures.

[Soupperson1]

Boy, I wonder why? I know! Let's ask Maritsa Patrinos!

(Image)

Friends is the third most popular theme, girls like the pastel side of LEGO just fine. :P

It does seem weird there's no mini-dolls in the game, you'd think more feminine sisters of game owners would want them. Princesses appeared in Disney Infinity. Elves has a villain now too, so that would fit right it.

[Starscream759]

Friends is the third most popular theme, girls like the pastel side of LEGO just fine. :P

It does seem weird there's no mini-dolls in the game, you'd think more feminine sisters of game owners would want them. Princesses appeared in Disney Infinity. Elves has a villain now too, so that would fit right it.

And now I have to put up with Lego Friends all the time now that I'm working at LEGOLAND. True story I've actually got a job there. Anyways yeah I don't see why not when it comes to getting new female characters. But there's the issue of appealing to some crowds regardless I'd be happy to see what they come up with in terms of female characters besides we'll get next anyway.

[Blondie-Wan]

Hi I am new here but i just wanted say about this topic on lack of female characters in Dimensions. I understand you guys want more Female characters but the reason why there are more male characters and more male lego sets and themes is because more boys than girls like lego.

Possibly... and if so, possibly because of all the socially-ingrained messages telling girls they're not "supposed" to like LEGO (or video games). One source of such messages could be LEGO sets and games themselves, if they have fewer female characters. One would think a way to combat this would be to release more female characters for this game, not fewer.

Boy, I wonder why? I know! Let's ask Maritsa Patrinos!

While I obviously agree with the sentiment, I always found that comic to be a pretty poor statement of the argument, given that Friends was the result of an extensive and expensive research project to find out exactly what girls did in fact want, and it paid off big-time; far from wasting their money, it was one of the best investments TLG ever made.

The point about simply putting more female characters in sets stands, though, especially whenever it would be as easy as including one or two additional pieces to let the builder choose the figure's sex/gender.

I think a big part of it has more to do with the fact that the licenses they have are male-centric licenses. Im not saying it's right, I'm just saying how many action or adventure movies or shows have female leads? It seems like they did make a concerted effort to include female stuff with the big Ghostbusters story pack and the Powerpuff Girls.

Agreed, and it hasn't escaped my notice that there are already two franchises (Portal and The Wizard of Oz) for which the only playable characters are female... but then there's The Simpsons. The show is about, well, the Simpsons; the whole family makes up the very title characters. And the five core family members of the family that the whole show revolves around are 60% female. Yet, even though there are three female characters in the core family and only two male ones, they don't have any of the female characters playable, even though they have both of the male ones, plus a male supporting background character. I'm not saying they shouldn't have had Homer or Bart as playable characters, but if they're going to have freaking Krusty, they absolutely should have Marge and Lisa.

Friends is the third most popular theme, girls like the pastel side of LEGO just fine. :P

It does seem weird there's no mini-dolls in the game, you'd think more feminine sisters of game owners would want them. Princesses appeared in Disney Infinity. Elves has a villain now too, so that would fit right it.

I've been saying for a while that I think it would be great if they added Elves to the game. Aside from better female representation, I just think it would be great to have more of LEGO's own original themes in there alongside all the licensed pop-culture properties.

[eliktroniq]

Agreed, and it hasn't escaped my notice that there are already two franchises (Portal and The Wizard of Oz) for which the only playable characters are female... but then there's The Simpsons. The show is about, well, the Simpsons; the whole family makes up the very title characters. And the five core family members of the family that the whole show revolves around are 60% female. Yet, even though there are three female characters in the core family and only two male ones, they don't have any of the female characters playable, even though they have both of the male ones, plus a male supporting background character. I'm not saying they shouldn't have had Homer or Bart as playable characters, but if they're going to have freaking Krusty, they absolutely should have Marge and Lisa.

to be fair regarding the Simpsons, it's probably for good reason.

Homer and Krusty are both voiced by the only Simpsons voice representation, and Bart is arguably the most well known of the Simpsons family, after Homer himself.

[BlueberryWaffles]

I think they did it on purpose to distinguish Phase (?) 1 from Phase 2. Phase 3'd probably have.. green. Or red. Who knows.

I think Phase 3 will be pink. The first Keystone has three portal colors: light blue, yellow, and pink. We have light blue and now yellow, so I'm guessing next is pink.

It's true she's not the only "exclusive" promo figure, but there's a huge shortage of female characters, which sucks for girls, and it therefore sucks even more that one of the few female characters made available is such a hard-to-get rarity. Between all the Starter, Level, Team and Fun Packs released so far - all the first-year stuff, unless you count the two Promos - there are 44 playable characters, only eight of them female. That's fewer than one in five.

Supergirl brings it up to nine, and then the other Year 2 characters we know about add five more, for a total of fourteen, but that's out of 61 known characters, IIRC - still fewer than a quarter. And yet with so few female characters, they're still going ahead and making one of them a hard-to-get promo figure.

I'm glad there are the female characters that there are, and we can be sure at least a few more will come - surely Powerpuff Girls will be principally or entirely represented by them, for example - but there's room to do better. Given the criticism TLG has faced in recent years for issues pertaining to sex/gender representation, one might think they'd they'd try to do more with this game (granted, it may be principally on Warner / TT, but still). The absence of particular playable female characters from some of the franchises in the game is especially vexing - really, it's kind of terrible that they actually have Krusty as a playable character for The Simpsons but not Marge, Lisa, or even Maggie. They could also have had Velma Dinkley, Èowyn, or any number of other characters. I hope Year 2 brings a lot more female characters than the ones we already have or know about.

While I strongly agree about more female characters, there's a difference from normal Lego and Dimensions. In normal sets, you just make the character and people buy them. But in Dimensions, they need special abilities to make them useful in the game. If they don't do anything in the game, who's going to buy them?

Now, the case with Supergirl is a special one. I was hoping she would be playable (mostly because of the TV show) but I thought it was impossible because her abilities are the exact same as Superman's. Green Arrow is the same deal, a character that I really wanted, (again because of the TV show) but seemed pointless because he's almost exactly like Legolas. Promos are perfect for these two characters, because they might not be considered unique enough for a retail release. It might be the only way they get made.

In other franchises you see this problem with abilities too. I don't know a lot about Scooby-Doo, but it seems like Daphne (and for that matter, Fred and Velma too) would only have Illumination and Tracking, which makes them all carbon copies of Shaggy. I wonder why they didn't just make them all playable as part of Shaggy like the Ghostbusters and the Doctor reincarnations. And as much as I want Eowyn, especially since she never even got a minifig, what abilities would she have? The only one I can think of is Stealth with a Rohirrim disguise similar to Scooby's disguise. I'll get to Simpsons below.

Agreed, and it hasn't escaped my notice that there are already two franchises (Portal and The Wizard of Oz) for which the only playable characters are female... but then there's The Simpsons. The show is about, well, the Simpsons; the whole family makes up the very title characters. And the five core family members of the family that the whole show revolves around are 60% female. Yet, even though there are three female characters in the core family and only two male ones, they don't have any of the female characters playable, even though they have both of the male ones, plus a male supporting background character. I'm not saying they shouldn't have had Homer or Bart as playable characters, but if they're going to have freaking Krusty, they absolutely should have Marge and Lisa.

Simpsons is complicated. Because simply, the characters don't do a lot of things in the show that translate well to unique abilities. This is part of why I think Lisa, Marge, and Maggie were not made. Not because they wanted to focus on male characters, they just couldn't justify those three. My guess for if they actually came out would be:

Lisa: Sonar Smash with saxophone, Mini Access, and maybe Technology.

Marge: can't think of anything. Honestly. I have the list in front of me and none of them seem to fit Marge.

Maggie: she's literally a baby. I don't know what people are expecting from having her playable. Mini Access.

Lisa seems like the only one of the three that could realistically happen. And even then, we run into another problem. No voices. The only VA they could get clips from was Dan Castenella, which I think was a big factor in why Krusty was made. Dan doesn't voice any of those three, so they'd be silent. And Bart is already one of my least favorites because of this, we don't need any more silent characters.

I've been saying for a while that I think it would be great if they added Elves to the game. Aside from better female representation, I just think it would be great to have more of LEGO's own original themes in there alongside all the licensed pop-culture properties.

I'm surprised they didn't announce this at E3 along with Nexo Knights. After Ninjago and Chima, those two would be the next logical steps for original Lego themes.

[BatmanFanboy]

I have a question for you guys about Lego City Undercover in Lego Dimensions. It was confirmed that Chase Mccain would be in a Fun pack. is it possible that we could see Rex Fury as well you know the villain in Lego City Undercover also in a fun pack?

[Starscream759]

I'm surprised they didn't announce this at E3 along with Nexo Knights. After Ninjago and Chima, those two would be the next logical steps for original Lego themes.

Maybe there saving Nexo Knights for the next wave? I wouldn't expect get that franchise soon but I can't see why they wouldn't include that franchise in the game. So we'll see, we'll see.

[TheLEGOChap]

Harry Potter can fly on his broom.

[BatmanFanboy]

Ok I have a interesting Question! since all playable characters can play in the battle arenas how are you going to be able to fight characters who have invincibility like Superman?

[Lyichir]

I have a question for you guys about Lego City Undercover in Lego Dimensions. It was confirmed that Chase Mccain would be in a Fun pack. is it possible that we could see Rex Fury as well you know the villain in Lego City Undercover also in a fun pack?

It's possible. For the most part, while we know the full list of franchises for "Season 2", we don't know what characters we'll be getting apart from the ones we've explicitly been shown in product pictures and trailers. And of other Lego City Undercover characters, I think Rex Fury is the most likely one to show up—he's one of the most prominent characters in the story, has a very unique appearance, has a distinct array of vehicles, and has more unique abilities like super-strength compared to other supporting characters like Frank Honey, Chief Dunby, Ellie Philips, and Natalia McCain.

[BatmanFanboy]

Ok I hope we get Him too because i we need more villains playable in Lego Dimensions

Edited June 29, 2016 by BatmanFanboy

[gamejutzu]

Ok I have a interesting Question! since all playable characters can play in the battle arenas how are you going to be able to fight characters who have invincibility like Superman?

I don't think you can actually fight each other in the battle arenas, as ironic as that sounds. The combat in Lego games is extremely simple, even for games of it's type and range. If there were actual fights you'd just be mashing square or B for a few minutes.

To compensate for it's nonexistent fighting mechanics, the battle arena would likely rather consist of mini-games, like racing, capture the flag, paintball, and other sorts of activities.

Edited June 29, 2016 by gamejutzu

[Starscream759]

I don't think you can actually fight each other in the battle arenas, as ironic as that sounds. The combat in Lego games is extremely simple, even for games of it's type and range. If there were actual fights you'd just be mashing square or B for a few minutes.

To compensate for it's nonexistent fighting mechanics, the battle arena would likely rather consist of mini-games, like racing, capture the flag, paintball, and other sorts of activities.

Yeah Lego games have never been known for their boss fights and fighting per say. I'd imagine the battle arenas will having something like what you've mentioned basically. It'll be interesting what they give us in terms of content that is.

[BatmanFanboy]

I don't think you can actually fight each other in the battle arenas, as ironic as that sounds. The combat in Lego games is extremely simple, even for games of it's type and range. If there were actual fights you'd just be mashing square or B for a few minutes.

To compensate for it's nonexistent fighting mechanics, the battle arena would likely rather consist of mini-games, like racing, capture the flag, paintball, and other sorts of activities.

well no its just i watching the E3 interviews and they were showing the battle arenas and you could fight people not as a boss but kinda like in call of duty online you can kill people but they respawn after that

[gamejutzu]

Yeah Lego games have never been known for their boss fights and fighting per say. I'd imagine the battle arenas will having something like what you've mentioned basically. It'll be interesting what they give us in terms of content that is.

If they give the players a means of damaging others, it will not be conventional. Maybe they'd pick up special weapons (i hope it's dodgeballs ) like some sort of online game. and you'd have to dodge whatever it is they throw at you. maybe even build defenses?

I also hope they'd utilize the key abilities of characters. Like you jumping from platform to platform dodging fire, or using stealth to get through to a secret area with an item.

I'd like to see Zane doing parkour to while he's being fired at, or Batman using his grapple hook to get to a secret area.

[Numbuh1Nerd]

I don't think they need to start licensing glitter and the color pink just to get a fair share of girls involved here. They put a generic soldier in the Jurassic World set before they'd do Bryce Dallas Howard's character, aka Chris Pratt's co-star. We got a Cyberman before we got a Doctor's companion. They skipped out on Velma, despite being the third most popular Scooby-Doo character. We got Krusty the Clown before we got any of the other three STARS of the Simpsons. They couldn't be bothered to add one of the most iconic female characters of all time, Dorothy, despite having the Wizard of Oz license. We're getting Voldemort instead of Hermione Granger, despite the absolute lack of sense that makes. And while they're off buying up Knight Rider and Mission Impossible, nobody thought "Hey, why not Charlie's Angels? Steven Universe? Buffy? Sailor Moon? Josie and the Pussycats?" No, not any of the dozens of female-led properties, nostalgic or not, apart from the Powerpuff Girls. Not even Batgirl! They aren't trying nearly as much as they could for anything resembling fair representation, and it's not because girls don't play with Lego, no, it's because everybody's too damned married to this decades old corporate misogyny that these same toy companies pulled out of their butts in the 80s.

Ugh.

Anyway...

[BatmanFanboy]

I don't think they need to start licensing glitter and the color pink just to get a fair share of girls involved here. They put a generic soldier in the Jurassic World set before they'd do Bryce Dallas Howard's character, aka Chris Pratt's co-star. We got a Cyberman before we got a Doctor's companion. They skipped out on Velma, despite being the third most popular Scooby-Doo character. We got Krusty the Clown before we got any of the other three STARS of the Simpsons. They couldn't be bothered to add one of the most iconic female characters of all time, Dorothy, despite having the Wizard of Oz license. We're getting Voldemort instead of Hermione Granger, despite the absolute lack of sense that makes. And while they're off buying up Knight Rider and Mission Impossible, nobody thought "Hey, why not Charlie's Angels? Steven Universe? Buffy? Sailor Moon? Josie and the Pussycats?" No, not any of the dozens of female-led properties, nostalgic or not, apart from the Powerpuff Girls. Not even Batgirl! They aren't trying nearly as much as they could for anything resembling fair representation, and it's not because girls don't play with Lego, no, it's because everybody's too damned married to this decades old corporate misogyny that these same toy companies pulled out of their butts in the 80s.

Ugh.

Anyway...

ok listen Girls have their own franchises too you know like Lego Friends, PowerpuffGirls, Wonder Woman, Barbie and you don't see men complaining about lack of male characters in those franchises. I don't understand why Girls can have their own stuff and Boys can't. why can't Boys have their own brands. look i understand you want more female characters but look at the facts Voldemort is more important than Hermione and Ron because he is Harry's archenemy. they need more villains in dimensions. but also if these franchises were made for boys then you need more male characters. not to say girls or boys can't buy Barbie or Batman its just the product was designed for boys or girls. just leave it at that. also on the jurassic world case about not having claire! what could she bring to the table? she has no really good or cool abilities that you could use in the game. plus I already have her in my collection so getting the ACU guy was a new minifigure to my collection. but don't worry we will most likely get more female characters maybe not from the male lead franchises such as Harry Potter, Batman, Lord of the Rings, Back to the Future and so on. but most likely we will get more female lead franchises like maybe Lego Friends which is almost as popular as Ninjago and Lego City in toy sales, now about Scooby Doo all we need is Scooby and Shaggy since they are the main two characters, Homer and Bart are the main characters in The Simpsons, so please i am not trying to be rude or mean but that's all i have to say. Edited June 30, 2016 by BatmanFanboy

[Mr Greeble]

ok listen Girls have their own franchises too you know like Lego Friends, PowerpuffGirls, Wonder Woman, Barbie and you don't see men complaining about lack of male characters in those franchises. I don't understand why Girls can have their own stuff and Boys can't. why can't Boys have their own brands. look i understand you want more female characters but look at the facts Voldemort is more important than Hermione and Ron because he is Harry's archenemy. they need more villains in dimensions. but also if these franchises were made for boys then you need more male characters. not to say girls or boys can't buy Barbie or Batman its just the product was designed for boys or girls. just leave it at that. also on the jurassic world case about not having claire! what could she bring to the table? she has no really good or cool abilities that you could use in the game. plus I already have her in my collection so getting the ACU guy was a new minifigure to my collection. but don't worry we will most likely get more female characters maybe not from the male lead franchises such as Harry Potter, Batman, Lord of the Rings, Back to the Future and so on. but most likely we will get more female lead franchises like maybe Lego Friends which is almost as popular as Ninjago and Lego City in toy sales, now about Scooby Doo all we need is Scooby and Shaggy since they are the main two characters, Homer and Bart are the main characters in The Simpsons, so please i am not trying to be rude or mean but that's all i have to say.

It's just that there are so many male characters, even if they are the main characters, the sheer amount of how many there are compared to female characters really doesn't seem right. Sure, when you've got an individual example of, say Harry Potter and Voldemort, that seems fine - They are the main characters after all (you can't have Harry without Voldemort), but when you add up all the other places where all you've got is male main characters, there is a very apparent underrepresentation of female characters.

[BatmanFanboy]

It's just that there are so many male characters, even if they are the main characters, the sheer amount of how many there are compared to female characters really doesn't seem right. Sure, when you've got an individual example of, say Harry Potter and Voldemort, that seems fine - They are the main characters after all (you can't have Harry without Voldemort), but when you add up all the other places where all you've got is male main characters, there is a very apparent underrepresentation of female characters.

well yeah i agree but i think they should get more female lead franchises like the hunger games, Lego friends, lego elves, tomb raider, alien just to name a few.

[Numbuh1Nerd]

ok listen Girls have their own franchises too you know like Lego Friends, PowerpuffGirls, Wonder Woman, Barbie and you don't see men complaining about lack of male characters in those franchises. I don't understand why Girls can have their own stuff and Boys can't. why can't Boys have their own brands. look i understand you want more female characters but look at the facts Voldemort is more important than Hermione and Ron because he is Harry's archenemy. they need more villains in dimensions. but also if these franchises were made for boys then you need more male characters. not to say girls or boys can't buy Barbie or Batman its just the product was designed for boys or girls. just leave it at that. also on the jurassic world case about not having claire! what could she bring to the table? she has no really good or cool abilities that you could use in the game. plus I already have her in my collection so getting the ACU guy was a new minifigure to my collection. but don't worry we will most likely get more female characters maybe not from the male lead franchises such as Harry Potter, Batman, Lord of the Rings, Back to the Future and so on. but most likely we will get more female lead franchises like maybe Lego Friends which is almost as popular as Ninjago and Lego City in toy sales, now about Scooby Doo all we need is Scooby and Shaggy since they are the main two characters, Homer and Bart are the main characters in The Simpsons, so please i am not trying to be rude or mean but that's all i have to say.

No, we don't complain about that, because we have it BETTER. Boys get told that they can do anything through their toys, but girls are stuck with princesses and homemakers. Even the stuff that breaks that mold has to get a pink paint job and turn into a doll or an accessory before they'll sell it, and it's hurting women. By actively limiting what girls can imagine for themselves we keep them out of important fields and more generally as a tool of oppression. Even the biggest leaps forward are still painfully far behind, like DC's Superhero Girls line, that still had to make them all teenagers in high school and find some way to force dolls into the mix.

Gendering toys isn't even a scientific thing, or even an old thing. It's honestly only about as old as some of the franchises in this game, honestly. Before the '80s and Reagan lifting restrictions on children's programming and advertising, pretty much all toys were gender neutral in their marketing. Boys and girls would be playing together in Sears catalogs with the same white toy refrigerator. Once Reagan lifted the ban, cartoons (which were already being gendered beyond reason) became half-hour toy commercials, and so the toys themselves had to do the same thing. Even the coloring is arbitrary, with the trademarked "pink for girls, blue for boys" concept starting out exactly opposite in the early 1900s. There's no science behind that, either. In fact, all babies regardless of gender prefer the color blue.

So, tl;dr: gendering toys either way is really stupid and counter-intuitive (both economically and socially) and girls are getting the short end of it. So yeah, they need to try a little harder to break up this sausage fest and let girls actually be a part of this stuff instead of marginalizing them.

And I repeat:

Ugh

Anyway...

well yeah i agree but i think they should get more female lead franchises like the hunger games, Lego friends, lego elves, tomb raider, alien just to name a few.

Tomb Raider could be hard, given Sony's just getting back on the wagon with that and could run into the same problems as our Nintendo discussion a while back, but that would be great. Alien would be so perfect if it weren't rated R! I'm kind of surprised they didn't try Hunger Games when the movies were still coming out, although I guess most of the memorable/buildable scenes do involve brutal homicide between children, which might be hard to sell lol

Man, Alien, though. If Lego would ease up on their rule about R-Rated movies, we could be seeing Alien and Terminator, maybe even Rambo! All those major 80s/90s classics. Say, Warner Brothers has the rights to Rocky! I think that'd probably work just as well in this game as A-Team or Knight Rider ever would, at least for a Fun Pack! His build could be a large chunk of raw meat to punch!

[BatmanFanboy]

No, we don't complain about that, because we have it BETTER. Boys get told that they can do anything through their toys, but girls are stuck with princesses and homemakers. Even the stuff that breaks that mold has to get a pink paint job and turn into a doll or an accessory before they'll sell it, and it's hurting women. By actively limiting what girls can imagine for themselves we keep them out of important fields and more generally as a tool of oppression. Even the biggest leaps forward are still painfully far behind, like DC's Superhero Girls line, that still had to make them all teenagers in high school and find some way to force dolls into the mix.

Gendering toys isn't even a scientific thing, or even an old thing. It's honestly only about as old as some of the franchises in this game, honestly. Before the '80s and Reagan lifting restrictions on children's programming and advertising, pretty much all toys were gender neutral in their marketing. Boys and girls would be playing together in Sears catalogs with the same white toy refrigerator. Once Reagan lifted the ban, cartoons (which were already being gendered beyond reason) became half-hour toy commercials, and so the toys themselves had to do the same thing. Even the coloring is arbitrary, with the trademarked "pink for girls, blue for boys" concept starting out exactly opposite in the early 1900s. There's no science behind that, either. In fact, all babies regardless of gender prefer the color blue.

So, tl;dr: gendering toys either way is really stupid and counter-intuitive (both economically and socially) and girls are getting the short end of it. So yeah, they need to try a little harder to break up this sausage fest and let girls actually be a part of this stuff instead of marginalizing them.

And I repeat:

Ugh

Anyway...

Tomb Raider could be hard, given Sony's just getting back on the wagon with that and could run into the same problems as our Nintendo discussion a while back, but that would be great. Alien would be so perfect if it weren't rated R! I'm kind of surprised they didn't try Hunger Games when the movies were still coming out, although I guess most of the memorable/buildable scenes do involve brutal homicide between children, which might be hard to sell lol

Man, Alien, though. If Lego would ease up on their rule about R-Rated movies, we could be seeing Alien and Terminator, maybe even Rambo! All those major 80s/90s classics. Say, Warner Brothers has the rights to Rocky! I think that'd probably work just as well in this game as A-Team or Knight Rider ever would, at least for a Fun Pack! His build could be a large chunk of raw meat to punch!

well i am not saying girls or boys cannot buy batman or Lego friends its just you have to understand there are more girls who like frozen than boys and there more boys who like batman than girls, but like i said i want more female characters but i don't want them because they are female i want characters that are useful in game. My sister does not really care about lack of female characters she actually is ok with it. She is a year older than me but also her favorite character is Superman Edited June 30, 2016 by BatmanFanboy

[LEGODalekbuster523]

Harry Potter can fly on his broom.

https://twitter.com/...181806067888130

I wonder if you'll be able to play Quidditch?

[Starscream759]

I wonder if you'll be able to play Quidditch?

Well considering the Quidditch field is in the game as a battle arena I do see why not.