Future Castle Sets?

[Murrig Icehammer]

Back, when Castle Fantasy was released, there where some speculations about an Elf faction being introduced to counter the Orcs.

I think it'd be really nice if they would pick that idea up again.

[BrickJagger]

Back, when Castle Fantasy was released, there where some speculations about an Elf faction being introduced to counter the Orcs.

I think it'd be really nice if they would pick that idea up again.

Those speculations actually seemed to be fact-based, and the whole situation back in 2009 is actually quite interesting.

It seems that there was supposed to be an Elf-based faction released in the second half of 2009. Legomilk posted back in 2008 that there would be fourteen (I think) new sets in 2009, but for some reason we only ended up with three, five if you count the battlepacks. However that still leaves nine sets for a summer wave that might have been cut due to the announcement of a Hobbit movie coming out in 2010.

I assume that Lego decided to pursue the Hobbit license, which caused them to prematurely end FE for obvious reasons. When the movie got pushed back to 2012 they put in Kingdoms as a filler theme to bridge the gap.

Lego does read these boards, and I'm sure that they'll find a way to cater to the needs of FE fans. Speaking of which, that dark forest at the bottom of the NK map looks like a goods source of Goblins, just as the mountains in the top left look good for some trolls....

[Aanchir]

I don't even need the next line to be "dark". I just want something that's good medieval design. Fantasy. Fairy tale. Gothic. Any of those would be acceptable to me, so long as they were thoughtfully done, and not too junior'ized, or used mini-dolls. Heck, even the new Elves sets have got quite a few good things going on it them, despite the mini-dolls and excessive "little girl" stylizing they are going for.

I wonder if the Elves sets are aimed in part at the sort of girls who felt Fantasy Era LEGO Castle had quite a few good things going on in it, despite the minifigs and excessive "little boy" stylizing? A lot of things we think of as gender-neutral, including the minifigure, aren't nearly as gender-neutral as we like to pretend they are. Who are we to say that the mini-dolls girls overwhelmingly prefer aren't gender-neutral but the minifigs boys overwhelmingly prefer somehow are?

Also, society has a troubling tendency society has to treat the things girls like as "kid stuff" while treating things boys like as appropriate for all ages. Why did you feel the need to specify "little girl" stylization? Hate to get into the whole age recommendation spiel again, but Elves sets are technically aimed at ages 7–12 or 8–12, while a lot of LEGO Castle sets of similar size would be aimed at even younger ages. And why should wanting animal characters to look cute and human or elf characters to look beautiful end as you get older? It's just a different aesthetic style, and one style is not inherently more childish than the other.

I've enjoyed the Elves sets a great deal, in part because of their figures, which are really lifelike and beautifully designed. The details of Azari's dress, Farran's boots, and Skyra's headdress are all very enchanting. I don't think Elves would be better with minifigures any more than Ninjago would be better with mini-dolls.

Random side-note: an interview I watched earlier today seems to confirm that the Nexo Knights Fortrex has a kitchen. That's the kind of livable detail I like to see! And the kind I'm still waiting on traditional LEGO Castle to deliver. Maybe we'll have a chance with whatever the next Castle D2C set turns out to be.

[Artanis I]

...

Because generally, girls "grow up" and boys don't

[x105Black]

I wonder if the Elves sets are aimed in part at the sort of girls who felt Fantasy Era LEGO Castle had quite a few good things going on in it, despite the minifigs and excessive "little boy" stylizing? A lot of things we think of as gender-neutral, including the minifigure, aren't nearly as gender-neutral as we like to pretend they are. Who are we to say that the mini-dolls girls overwhelmingly prefer aren't gender-neutral but the minifigs boys overwhelmingly prefer somehow are?

Also, society has a troubling tendency society has to treat the things girls like as "kid stuff" while treating things boys like as appropriate for all ages. Why did you feel the need to specify "little girl" stylization? Hate to get into the whole age recommendation spiel again, but Elves sets are technically aimed at ages 7–12 or 8–12, while a lot of LEGO Castle sets of similar size would be aimed at even younger ages. And why should wanting animal characters to look cute and human or elf characters to look beautiful end as you get older? It's just a different aesthetic style, and one style is not inherently more childish than the other.

I've enjoyed the Elves sets a great deal, in part because of their figures, which are really lifelike and beautifully designed. The details of Azari's dress, Farran's boots, and Skyra's headdress are all very enchanting. I don't think Elves would be better with minifigures any more than Ninjago would be better with mini-dolls.

Random side-note: an interview I watched earlier today seems to confirm that the Nexo Knights Fortrex has a kitchen. That's the kind of livable detail I like to see! And the kind I'm still waiting on traditional LEGO Castle to deliver. Maybe we'll have a chance with whatever the next Castle D2C set turns out to be.

Nexo Knights arguably targets "little boys" while Elves targets "little girls." It would be really nice to see something that targets neither the "little" nor the "boys" and "girls." 7 and 8 year olds are "little."

Minifigures are much more gender neutral in design than minidolls, which were created to specifically target girls.

I've steered clear of Elves, mostly because of their minidolls, but also because of the "girly" color schemes. Some of the recent sets I've seen leaked have improved color schemes, like tan and green, but there is still a considerable amount of pink and lavender. I think the sets would be redeemed by having minifigures, but that's from my point of view. I'm sure if I was a girl I wouldn't mind them as much.

Edited November 9, 2015 by x105Black

[Aanchir]

Minifigureas are much more gender neutral in design than minidolls, which were created to specifically target girls.

The minifigure may have been intended to be more gender-neutral, but that's certainly not how it ended up working out. In actuality, far more boys love the look and play experience of the traditional LEGO minifigure than girls. If girls and boys could enjoy the LEGO minifigure in equal measure then designing the mini-doll wouldn't have been necessary in the first place. But whether by nature or nurture, the LEGO Group found that girls tend to have different expectations of a play figure than boys do. Girls overwhelmingly preferred something more lifelike that they could relate to in the first person and not just as an abstract, blocky character.

Edited November 9, 2015 by Aanchir

[thetang22]

Did you consider the reason girls don't play with more minifigures (assuming your claim is right) is due to the fact most sets through Lego's first few decades really did cater more towards themes and concepts that boys traditionally like more than girls?

If they had come out with Friends, Disney Princesses, and Elves back in the 80s and 90s using regular minifigures....I don't think there'd be any issue with minifigures being seen as favoring one gender over the other. Instead, we got almost exclusive set concepts that were catered to boys. Even themes that you'd think would be gender neutral like City frequently took the cops vs criminals route...or race cars, etc... Things that boys more traditionally like. Then the sets like Castle and Pirates also focused on the combat elements of those themes....yet again concepts traditionally more catered to boys.

See, the minifigures by themselves aren't catered to boys....they've just traditionally been in set designs that were in the early history of Lego. As an attempt to cater to more traditional girl favored material...Lego created the new ranges mentioned above. The mini-dolls as a nod to other "doll" like toys that girls traditionally play with....as well as color schemes traditonally favored by girls.

Aanchir, it sorta felt like you had an angsty, politically correct agenda when you replied to my post. I get there is a huge movement in the US (and around the world to a lesser extent) to be politically correct...and in this case reassure little kids they can like whatever they want/not fall into gender stereotypes. While that's all noble....the reality is, based on tradition....most little girls like dolls. Most little girls like pink and purple. Most little girls aren't fascinated by combat. I hope you don't get offended by these ideas. Even though it goes against the politically correct agenda....it's true.

[Aanchir]

Aanchir, it sorta felt like you had an angsty, politically correct agenda when you replied to my post. I get there is a huge movement in the US (and around the world to a lesser extent) to be politically correct...and in this case reassure little kids they can like whatever they want/not fall into gender stereotypes. While that's all noble....the reality is, based on tradition....most little girls like dolls. Most little girls like pink and purple. Most little girls aren't fascinated by combat. I hope you don't get offended by these ideas. Even though it goes against the politically correct agenda....it's true.

While I'm a huge believer in feminism and gender equality, I don't disagree with any of those things. It doesn't particularly matter if those things are based on "nature" (genetic predispositions) or "nurture" (societal influences) — either way, they're still very real tendencies we see in girls, and I feel like they should be respected. It frustrates me a lot when people insist that themes like LEGO Friends or LEGO Elves should be more "gender-neutral", because that starts to create the impression that there SHOULDN'T be a theme for girls who like dolls or dollhouse play or pink or purple. That those girls somehow don't deserve a LEGO building experience unless they can conform their expectations to the types of building that boys are willing to tolerate.

"Gender neutral" is often used as code for "things a boy would be comfortable with". Girls who like action movies and horror movies are considered cool, because even if those movies are dripping with testosterone, they're considered "gender-neutral". But boys who like romantic comedies are considered wusses. And I think a lot of the criticisms of LEGO Friends and LEGO Elves feed into this framework that legitimizes things boys like while dismissing things girls like as silly or frivolous. We can't just pretend themes like City and Castle are gender-neutral if their audiences are overwhelmingly male.

Now, of course, these things are just tendencies. There's nothing wrong with being different than the norm for your gender. I'm a big fan of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, and while that's intended as something that entire families can watch together without cringing, it's still overtly feminine in its design language, color palette, cast of characters, etc. I also know a lot of girls who really like LEGO Bionicle and LEGO Ninjago, which feature overwhelmingly male casts and a bold, aggressive design language and color palette. People should be free to like whatever appeals to their individual interests. But we shouldn't demonize boys or girls whose interests do line up with gender norms, nor should we create a climate where it's perceived as okay or even preferable for girls to like "boy things" but not the other way around.

Having been a fan of the LEGO Group's buildable action figure lines like Bionicle for so long, a part of me even wonders if there's any possibility that the LEGO Group could break into the fashion doll market. I could see LEGO Elves buildable dolls having a lot of appeal — it's just a matter of finding a way to balance "building play" and "fashion play" that maximizes both types of appeal. But that's getting pretty far from what this topic is about, so I won't ramble on about that here.

Now, I do somewhat disagree with your claim that if LEGO had come out with more girl-oriented lines in the 80s and 90s, the minifigure would be globally recognized as gender-neutral. First of all, because a lot of the girls the LEGO Group was studying during the development process for LEGO Friends (from around 2007 to 2011) were too young to even know what LEGO was like in the 80s and 90s. Second, because LEGO actually DID try to release girl-oriented minifigure playsets in the Paradisa theme. And third, because as you say, girls have a tendency to like dolls, and I think it's safe to say there are reasons for that that are deeper than just being told that dolls are appropriate for them. Remember those female LEGO Bionicle and LEGO Ninjago fans I mentioned? Quite a lot of them prefer to draw the characters as humans rather than as robots or little block-men like they appear in the sets and media. So I don't think the LEGO Group's findings that many girls prefer play figures they can relate to on a personal, human level are all that far-fetched.

[Captain Dee]

*Reads last page of posts*

*Checks title*

*Rechecks title*

Ahem. Well, I'd like to see more civilian material, for a couple of reasons. For one, there just isn't much variety among medieval civilians in Lego form, or the settings you'd typically find them in, although the licensed themes have helped. And Lego has reused lots of typical castle ideas while barely scratching the surface of normal life during those times. But how many kids long for sawmills, ironworks, markets, etc? Not very many, I'm guessing. Action, fantasy, sci-fi etc seems to be the name of the game. And I strongly doubt I'll ever see my adult interests expressed in a child's toy market, so... I'll just have to build them myself, and do what I can with the minifigs.

Edited November 12, 2015 by Captain Dee

[Murrig Icehammer]

Those speculations actually seemed to be fact-based, and the whole situation back in 2009 is actually quite interesting.

It seems that there was supposed to be an Elf-based faction released in the second half of 2009. Legomilk posted back in 2008 that there would be fourteen (I think) new sets in 2009, but for some reason we only ended up with three, five if you count the battlepacks. However that still leaves nine sets for a summer wave that might have been cut due to the announcement of a Hobbit movie coming out in 2010.

I assume that Lego decided to pursue the Hobbit license, which caused them to prematurely end FE for obvious reasons. When the movie got pushed back to 2012 they put in Kingdoms as a filler theme to bridge the gap.

Lego does read these boards, and I'm sure that they'll find a way to cater to the needs of FE fans. Speaking of which, that dark forest at the bottom of the NK map looks like a goods source of Goblins, just as the mountains in the top left look good for some trolls....

That's interesting.

So if they planned a Elf faction back then, it would be interesting to know why they didn't decide to just continue it now as they planned back then. It apparently went pretty well imo, so what has changed?

On the other hand if they had continued FE as planned, they would have needed to reintroduce a orc, human and maybe a dwarf faction again. But this could be another point of criticism for some AFOLs... i really don't know.

(I initially wrote a LOT more, until i realized i was only ranting about NK...so i better stay silent...)

[gedren_y]

Not the minidoll debate again!

The minidolls were designed to go after a specific buying market, the doll buying market. Not all girls want dolls, and not all doll buyers are girls. There are a lot of people in the world who are not FOLs that buy dolls. TLG has tried this before, with less success; Belville and Scala. This time it seems to have worked, probably due to the supporting media.

As to the future of Castle:

I don't see the traditional Castle line showing up during the Nexo Knights run.

TLG could do what it has been flirting with in the CMF line, Classical Era, i.e. Greco-Roman, Egyptian, Sumerian, the Huns, the Hittites, the Imazighen(Berber) and Babylonian. There are so many historical and mythological tales to draw from that could make such a line very popular.

Or TLG could go an even different route. Gothic literature? Shakespeare? Marco Polo? Neolithic?

Edited November 9, 2015 by gedren_y

[BrickJagger]

That's interesting.

So if they planned a Elf faction back then, it would be interesting to know why they didn't decide to just continue it now as they planned back then. It apparently went pretty well imo, so what has changed?

LOTR changed Lego's plan, as I said.

[Ql97]

Not the minidoll debate again!

The minidolls were designed to go after a specific buying market, the doll buying market. Not all girls want dolls, and not all doll buyers are girls. There are a lot of people in the world who are not FOLs that buy dolls. TLG has tried this before, with less success; Belville and Scala. This time it seems to have worked, probably due to the supporting media.

As to the future of Castle:

I don't see the traditional Castle line showing up during the Nexo Knights run.

TLG could do what it has been flirting with in the CMF line, Classical Era, i.e. Greco-Roman, Egyptian, Sumerian, the Huns, the Hittites, the Imazighen(Berber) and Babylonian. There are so many historical and mythological tales to draw from that could make such a line very popular.

Or TLG could go an even different route. Gothic literature? Shakespeare? Marco Polo? Neolithic?

I didn't think it was even possible for my opinion of Nexo knights to sink any lower than it already was. I guess I was wrong...

A Grecco-Roman would theme would be cool, playing off of the popularity of Percy Jackson. In that same line, there seems to in general be a renewed interest in classic Egyptian, Greek, and Nordic myths.

That being said, I would love a Gothic fantasy theme.

[Artanis I]

Beauty & the Beast style castles with gargoyles & angry peasant mobs

[Murrig Icehammer]

As to the future of Castle:

I don't see the traditional Castle line showing up during the Nexo Knights run.

TLG could do what it has been flirting with in the CMF line, Classical Era, i.e. Greco-Roman, Egyptian, Sumerian, the Huns, the Hittites, the Imazighen(Berber) and Babylonian. There are so many historical and mythological tales to draw from that could make such a line very popular.

Or TLG could go an even different route. Gothic literature? Shakespeare? Marco Polo? Neolithic?

That seems rather unlikely, at least not as a full theme, but maybe one or two special sets.

I think TLG would never even consider releasing a "real" historical theme for kids, without a according cartoon and app. And even then i wouldn't give it a big chance, such a theme would be way to specific to be interested for kids.

As much as i would love to see a Greco-Roman, Egyptian, Sumerian, the Huns, the Hittites, the Imazighen(Berber) and Babylonian line, i really doubt TLG could sell those themes to kids without making them almost unreckognizeable.

The Marco Polo theme although could have some potential for j.unio.izati.on imo. Maybe they could create it as some kind of educational/historical line combined with a app explaining historical background, but i can't imagine they would go that route.

I would really like to see TLG go a more historical or more "adult" (meaning less ju.nior.ized) route, i don't see it happen. Even less since they are more interested in creating TV shows, apps and silly stuff, like NK. I think the best "we" can do is to wait until NK wave has passed until we can even remotely hope to see a decent castle line.

I wonder if they where aware they would alienate so many AFOLs by releasing NK, or if they just don't care.

Wow, this is really depressing, lol.

Edited November 10, 2015 by Murrig Icehammer

[x105Black]

While I'm a huge believer in feminism and gender equality, I don't disagree with any of those things. It doesn't particularly matter if those things are based on "nature" (genetic predispositions) or "nurture" (societal influences) — either way, they're still very real tendencies we see in girls, and I feel like they should be respected. It frustrates me a lot when people insist that themes like LEGO Friends or LEGO Elves should be more "gender-neutral", because that starts to create the impression that there SHOULDN'T be a theme for girls who like dolls or dollhouse play or pink or purple. That those girls somehow don't deserve a LEGO building experience unless they can conform their expectations to the types of building that boys are willing to tolerate.

And third, because as you say, girls have a tendency to like dolls, and I think it's safe to say there are reasons for that that are deeper than just being told that dolls are appropriate for them. Remember those female LEGO Bionicle and LEGO Ninjago fans I mentioned? Quite a lot of them prefer to draw the characters as humans rather than as robots or little block-men like they appear in the sets and media. So I don't think the LEGO Group's findings that many girls prefer play figures they can relate to on a personal, human level are all that far-fetched.

First, I'm not against there being such a thing as Elves for girls. What frustrates me is that there is none for boys. Or better, when they do the same for boys we get Nexo Knights, so I'd rather something more gender neutral (in this instance meaning not pushed towards girls like Elves or towards boys like Nexo Knights, but rather in the middle like Lord of the Rings).

Also, I think that those tendencies towards dolls in girls are in fact nurtured elements, not nature. But that's a completely different discussion.

As for the discussion on Classical historic themes, I'm not against them, but they're not medieval fantasy so I'm not really as big a supporter of them as others. As much as I may really like Greeks, Egyptians, and other historical settings, I'm most fond of medieval fantasy and would like to see a return to that in a less gendered theme.

[BrickJagger]

Wow, this is really depressing, lol.

I imagine that this was the "Rant" you said you deleted earlier?

Black, what if Lego decides to release Elves through NK? As long as they don't have that much tech, would that work for you?

[Murrig Icehammer]

I imagine that this was the "Rant" you said you deleted earlier?

Not really.

[BrickJagger]

Well, let's hear it then.

Edited November 10, 2015 by BrickJagger

[Ql97]

I would really like to see TLG go a more historical or more "adult" (meaning less ju.nior.ized) route, i don't see it happen. Even less since they are more interested in creating TV shows, apps and silly stuff, like NK. I think the best "we" can do is to wait until NK wave has passed until we can even remotely hope to see a decent castle line.

Yep. With Middle Earth canceled, and Nexo Knights in full swing, Lego castle has entered a dark age. I don't foresee us getting much more than a couple scattered dimensions packs in the future.

Seriously though, I wonder if Lego has considered making specialized 'adult' themes, limited sets target at AFOLs. They would be made in small production runs, and be sold exclusively online. They could make use of more advanced construction techniques, and provide detailed minifigures. They of course, would be more expensive than regular sets, and probably have very few, if any, new molds. I think though, most of us would be willing to purchase that kind of thing.

I wonder if they where aware they would alienate so many AFOLs by releasing NK, or if they just don't care.

Wow, this is really depressing, lol.

You don't say.

[thetang22]

I don't foresee us getting much more than a couple scattered dimensions packs in the future.

I hope that's not the case. I saw the Dimensions stuff recently at the store. It's got a REALLY high price tag if you are only interested in it for the Lego pieces. It has the artificially increased price tag due to the video game tie-in....something I have no interest in.

[Ql97]

I hope that's not the case. I saw the Dimensions stuff recently at the store. It's got a REALLY high price tag if you are only interested in it for the Lego pieces. It has the artificially increased price tag due to the video game tie-in....something I have no interest in.

Exactly. The Dimensions packs only appeal to LotR minifigure collectors.

[Murrig Icehammer]

Well, let's hear it then.

Better not, it'd be too off topic and not very kids friendly too.

...

You don't say.

I hope that's not the case. I saw the Dimensions stuff recently at the store. It's got a REALLY high price tag if you are only interested in it for the Lego pieces. It has the artificially increased price tag due to the video game tie-in....something I have no interest in.

Same here. I have no interest whatsoever in any apps or video game tie-in stuff and i'm not going to pay extra money for it.

I can't speak for others, but to me the price is an important aspect.

Even if they would sell some limited edition castle sets aimed to AFOLs, i just wouldn't want to buy them.

It's the same like LotR and Hobbit sets, some are really nice but they are also rediculusly expensive.

[Jim]

While I'm a huge believer in feminism and gender equality, I don't disagree with any of those things. It doesn't particularly matter if those things are based on "nature" (genetic predispositions) or "nurture" (societal influences) — either way, they're still very real tendencies we see in girls, and I feel like they should be respected. It frustrates me a lot when people insist that themes like LEGO Friends or LEGO Elves should be more "gender-neutral", because that starts to create the impression that there SHOULDN'T be a theme for girls who like dolls or dollhouse play or pink or purple. That those girls somehow don't deserve a LEGO building experience unless they can conform their expectations to the types of building that boys are willing to tolerate.

...

Please stick to Future Castle sets, instead of discussing feminism and gender equality

Thanks!

[x105Black]

I imagine that this was the "Rant" you said you deleted earlier?

Black, what if Lego decides to release Elves through NK? As long as they don't have that much tech, would that work for you?

Doubtful, but it'd be vastly preferred over minidoll elves and techno knights.

Here's an example of what I'd love to see, which is what you were talking about earlier:

The original planned elf from Fantasy Era, from official LEGO documentation. Although, to be honest, I'd prefer human Forestmen.

Yep. With Middle Earth canceled, and Nexo Knights in full swing, Lego castle has entered a dark age. I don't foresee us getting much more than a couple scattered dimensions packs in the future.

Definitely.

Also, your ideas about AFOL targeted sets is a good one. I'd hope them to be Expert level. And new parts from time to time when necessary would be nice. I don't think they'd need to be more expensive just for the sake of it. Their pricing should be the same as any other set.