to me, juniorisation means you only have a handful of really BIG parts to build your model. it takes 5 minutes to build and you can only build that one particular set. Consequently, there's no joy in building the model, the set itself hardly has details, there's no challenge in building the thing either. the entire process of building a lego set, which is far more important to me than playing with the set, is gone... that's why i complain about it. Luckily, Lego has realised that it was becoming a problem, so now they're still using big parts, but they're adding lots of smaller and detailed parts too, making the set larger, but also more interesting for me. The airplanes are an excellent example: the hull sections are big, but the interior is detailed and has several smaller parts to make your plane look more realistic.

"This is even more distressing when you consider that young fans in that period simply weren't able to collect a sufficient collection of basic bricks to adequately MOC"

That's me, I collected lego from 1996-2002 when I was younger (back when it was easier to buy Lego with my allowance :-P ), and half my collecton is useless. |-/

I'm trying to build a large castle, but I simply don't have enough grey bricks for it. I can't really order from Bricklink either. But after 2003ish, quality started to improve, and I got a MASSIVE collection from Ebay that had mostly 80's-early 90's lego so that definately helped. Still can't make a town though, because all the town sets I collected were from 1997-2000, so even though I spent the same as I would today, I got much less, insted of plates and axel pieces, I have single one piece car bases.

So I agree, the main problem with juniorization, is people can't moc with the same freedom with those pieces compared to someone who has "real" sets. An example is again, those one-piece car bases, you can turn axels and wheels into very simple jet engines, but not when they're attached to the base of the car, which has to be a CAR. :-|

Well, that is only partially true. Juniorization isn't simply a question of one or two specialized bricks. The trend towards juniorization (particularly in the late 90s/early 2000s) was disconcerting to fans simply because there was a growing trend towards specialized single purpose bricks. Even if you can find a few more uses for such bricks, it doesn't change the fact that the uses for such bricks are very limited. This is even more distressing when you consider that young fans in that period simply weren't able to collect a sufficient collection of basic bricks to adequately MOC.

Well i have to admit, that there were a few years that lego (at leastin there city line) had some preety lame sets that were mainly big usless peices. The car chassis were good examples.

Specialized elements are definitely a part of LEGO. They have been around since the dawn of the minifig. that being said, it is important to maintain a healthy balance between ordinary bricks and highly specialized (single use) bricks to foster creative play. A pretty good space ship or train may utilize some very specific bricks, but they also rely on the basic bricks we have come to know and love.

I couldn't agree more. But it seems like every time there is one big peice used in a set, someone calls the hole set <insert that tiresome argument>.

If you strip LEGO of its versatility you essentially remove the one quality that has defined this brand for decades. The trend away from juniorization in recent years also suggests that that particular trend wasn't favourable to begin with. The majority of today's sets are as complex as anything we've seen from LEGO. Isolated juniorization like the airliner is fine. It's when the entire line starts to simplify things to such levels that fans many grow frustrated.

Like what though? I can't think of a single theme in lego that has been simplified like your describing.

The size of a model has nothing to do with juniorization. Simplified building and design on the other hand do. Heck, alot of sets in the late 90s were actually colour-coded to ensure kids didn't confuse a 1x3, 1x4 or any other similarly sized bricks. Do you remember the 90s city sets where cars and trucks had no doors? Juniorization isn't simply a matter of being 'stuck in old ways'.

The problem is that most of the complaining i've seen about juniorization has been the larger sets. Just going by my own observations. I agree that size has nothing to do with it, but regarless people seem to like to complain that Size = Juniorzation.

Again, no argument that rthe city cars in the late 90's were nothing more than flat plates with wheels and wind shields. I was out of my lego building then, but i remeber going to TRU and seeing these sets on the ilse and thinking how lame they were and "They don't make them like they used to".

Luckly, we haven't seen anything like that in years. But we still don't have doors in city sets! 8-|

Like what though? I can't think of a single theme in lego that has been simplified like your describing.

You just mentioned the City line. Take a look at KKI, much of KKII, Fright Knights and countless others. Plates and smaller elements became exceptionally rare while large columns, and pre fab walls and battlements predominated. I've seen people defend some of these sets passionately, but it doesn't change the fact that the ratio of basic bricks to specialized elements was quite poor. Other lines suffered from colour-coded building to make things easier.

The problem is that most of the complaining i've seen about juniorization has been the larger sets. Just going by my own observations. I agree that size has nothing to do with it, but regarless people seem to like to complain that Size = Juniorzation.

I think you should take a closer look at some of the older threads on this subject on this and other LEGO forums. Juniorization isn't simply a question of set size. That being said, most modern sets are noticeably larger. With an overabundance of large specialized elements in the place of several smaller ones, sets have become noticeably larger. Without those smaller basic bricks however, MOCing options become extremely limited.

Heck, I don't think you'd ever hear anybody suggest that the UCS Falcon or Eiffel Tower sets are too <insert that tiresome argument>. The same could be said of the Cafe Corner or any number of large sets. Juniorization has more to do with the elements that make up a set than the size of the set itself. It was a trend that was most pronounced in the late 90s and early 2000s. It wasn't as if every theme suffered equally. Some lines like Star Wars and Ninja were actually very good. That being said, it's hard not to notice the shift towards juniorization that occured during that period. With a greater number of specialized elements, colour coded building, and a noticeable reduction in the number of smaller, more diverse bricks, LEGO began to suffer as a building toy. This trend has definitely been reversed in the past few years, but it isn't something that most fans look back on with much fondess.

Again, no argument that rthe city cars in the late 90's were nothing more than flat plates with wheels and wind shields. I was out of my lego building then, but i remeber going to TRU and seeing these sets on the ilse and thinking how lame they were and "They don't make them like they used to".

Luckly, we haven't seen anything like that in years. But we still don't have doors in city sets! 8-|

What you've just described is Juniorization at its best (worst?)! There were alot of sets produced during that era that were pretty abysmal. Juniorization still pops up from time to time (KKII), but it is far less pronounced than it was in the late 90s or early 2000s.

Juniorization is terrible IMO. When LEGO could put something in a set made of bricks, they just make one big peice. So when I go to make MOCs and I have a huge, <insert that tiresome argument> piece, what can I do with it? Nothing.

I like the CRAAP plates only in sets, not MOCs. Only since they're fairly classic, to me anyway. ;-)

Frankly I find the large raised up baseplates quite useful - they give you a fresh mountain like slate to build off of if you dont have enough bricks to build your own scenery, aswell as, you can even integrate your own mountain or something into the plates.

I for one, don't really have any qualms with Lego's sets and the issue of over sized pieces. I guess one of the reasons is because I don't buy that many sets anymore and use bricklink a lot for parts I want. For example, I know a lot of people didn't like the new planes because of the oversized parts. I bought one myself and really like it, as it is a nice scale and looks like a fantastic plane. And the parts have other uses. As others have mentioned, it works great as a bullet train. I'm probably also not bothered that much because I had to live as a teenage town fan through what I like to think of as the pinnacle of Lego's juniorization (from the late 90's till about 2001.

1997

Recycling Truck

1998

Cargo Center

2000

Police Car

Seriously, now there was something to complain about there. lol Town sets were largely hideous looking during those times (Police with trans green windows and visors?). Look at the stuff we get today, and tell me you can't see the improvement? :-P

I think you should take a closer look at some of the older threads on this subject on this and other LEGO forums. Juniorization isn't simply a question of set size. That being said, most modern sets are noticeably larger. With an overabundance of large specialized elements in the place of several smaller ones, sets have become noticeably larger. Without those smaller basic bricks however, MOCing options become extremely limited.

Your not reading my post right. I understand that it isn't just a question of size. But i've found that some people seem to link size in certain themes (city being a good example) to be part of juniorization. The discussion on the new Agents theme is a good example. We've only seen one pic, and (its not even a good one) and many are labeling it as being to <insert that tiresome argument> because of its size.

Like i said, i agree that the size of the parts used has more to do with juniorization than anything, but alot of people take it a bit to far. Just cause a set uses a 2x3 brick,instead od 3 1x2's doesn't mean the set, or part should be labeled as being <insert that tiresome argument>.

Heck, I don't think you'd ever hear anybody suggest that the UCS Falcon or Eiffel Tower sets are too <insert that tiresome argument>. The same could be said of the Cafe Corner or any number of large sets.

Sorry, i should have been more clear that i was refering to larger sized sets in the city line. Abviously the USC falcon,and Cafe' corner wouldn't fall into those catagories since they are designed for AFOL,and are USC sets.

Frankly I find the large raised up baseplates quite useful - they give you a fresh mountain like slate to build off of if you dont have enough bricks to build your own scenery, aswell as, you can even integrate your own mountain or something into the plates.

Now here is a good example of finding use of these so called "<insert that tiresome argument> parts". What some might feel is useless, others can find good uses for it.

1997

Recycling Truck

1998

Cargo Center

2000

Police Car

Seriously, now there was something to complain about there. lol Town sets were largely hideous looking during those times (Police with trans green windows and visors?). Look at the stuff we get today, and tell me you can't see the improvement? :-P

Man, thoses were just horrible years for lego. I can't beilve that they would even lable thoses as sets. :-X

lets hope that things never get that bad again.

Edited January 10, 200817 yr by 5150 Lego

Your not reading my post right. I understand that it isn't just a question of size. But i've found that some people seem to link size in certain themes (city being a good example) to be part of juniorization. The discussion on the new Agents theme is a good example. We've only seen one pic, and (its not even a good one) and many are labeling it as being to <insert that tiresome argument> because of its size.

Except as far as I can tell, next to nobody actually claimed the line was <insert that tiresome argument>. Most people who are disappointed with the line feel that way because the truck is far too large relative to a minifig. Many people including myself didn't particularly like the Dino line or Alpha Team, so it should come as no surprise that we're not excited about this line either. I gather that you like the appearance of this line. Nobody's going to criticize you for feeling that way. That being said, not everyone is going to follow suit. Many people see the line as being somewhat disappointing. Personally, I find it to be a step in the wrong direction. It reminds me of the numerous lines LEGO has produced that don't manage to last more than a year.

Looking at this thread , I don't see the word Juniorization pop up once. People can be disappointed without crying 'juniorization'.

Like i said, i agree that the size of the parts used has more to do with juniorization than anything, but alot of people take it a bit to far. Just cause a set uses a 2x3 brick,instead od 3 1x2's doesn't mean the set, or part should be labeled as being <insert that tiresome argument>.

Again, I don't see people making those sorts of comments. Also, you must remember that Juniorization was a gradual shift. People don't want to embark on that road again. You're going to have to accept that not everyone feels the same about LEGO as you do. Some people simply have different expectations. There is nothing wrong with being disappointed with a set.

I hate ones like the slave 1's cockpit piece, you can't use it for anything, also the Jedi starfighter's is almost as bad.

Actually, James Mathis made a very creative Moc using two of the Slave 1's cockpit piece. I sort of want to make one myself :-P .

Except as far as I can tell, next to nobody actually claimed the line was <insert that tiresome argument>. Most people who are disappointed with the line feel that way because the truck is far too large relative to a minifig. Many people including myself didn't particularly like the Dino line or Alpha Team, so it should come as no surprise that we're not excited about this line either. I gather that you like the appearance of this line. Nobody's going to criticize you for feeling that way. That being said, not everyone is going to follow suit. Many people see the line as being somewhat disappointing. Personally, I find it to be a step in the wrong direction. It reminds me of the numerous lines LEGO has produced that don't manage to last more than a year.

I can understand that not everyone is going to like the larger sets. Personally, i didn't mind the Dino line. I bought the Attack Hellocopter cause i liked all the features it came with, but found out that it was to big for my (at the time) room layout, so i gave it to my friends Son. He loves it. Glad somone is able to enjoy it. :-)

As far as the new Agents line goes, i never said that i liked it. As i said before, i'm with holding full judgment intill i see some better pics of the line. I'm not going to call a whole line a step in the wrong direction or horrible based on one blurry picture. :-| ( Not quoting anyone in paticular)

If people don't like it because its to big for thier city than thats fine. But i think that many people on this site fail to realise that not every set is going to appeal to the AFOL. Large sets like this truck is sure to be a big hit with many younger kids. Not everyone cares if it will fit down thier city streets.

Again, I don't see people making those sorts of comments. Also, you must remember that Juniorization was a gradual shift. People don't want to embark on that road again. You're going to have to accept that not everyone feels the same about LEGO as you do. Some people simply have different expectations. There is nothing wrong with being disappointed with a set.

Are you kidding me? Take a look at the second page of this thread again my friend.

I also understand that not everyone has the same opinion about lego as i do. Opinions are always going to be differnt, and thats fine. I'm just simply expressing mine. I don't expect people to agree with me, nor do i try and force my opinion on anyone else. I just bought the new police mobile commmand center,(hopfully will have the review up by this weekend) and i have to say i was greatly disapointed with it. To be honest, its probbly the biggest disapoint iv'e ever built. :-( I'll go into more detail in my review.

Actually, James Mathis made a very creative Moc using two of the Slave 1's cockpit piece. I sort of want to make one myself :-P .

Aww. Another great example of another so-called "usless" piece being used in a moc! Very creative!

I hate ones like the slave 1's cocpit peice, you can't use it for anythin

Ive used this cockpit peice in 2 of my mocs; I actually love the peices, and I bought two just from their usefullness.

Not to mention the best use of them all in my opinion; two of them can be put togeather to form a great looking capitol ship bridge, such as in the dragon star (one of my all time fav mocs)

:-$

Nowthats an impresive ship! Isn't that the ship that was in that Japanese Animei. Cartoon back in the 80's? Took place in the future, they rasied the Akimoto battle ship and converted it for space travel! never acttualy saw that Cartoon/Animei but always thought the ship was cool.

Daniel says it has a heavy 'Star Blazers' influence, if that's what you mean ;-)

Whole mocpages can be found here: Check out some of his stuff if you haven't. Its amazing.

http://www.mocpages.com/moc.php/678

Edited January 11, 200817 yr by Brickmaster

If lego makes a jum=norized piece, it will depend on hoaw <insert that tiresome argument> it is to drive me crazy. The lego castle dragon for instance... :-P

I don't like sets being "stretched" using "<insert that tiresome argument>" pieces; you know, like too little butter over too much toast. But I'm not against larger parts per-se, most of them are perfectly versatile, and it's fine for them to be in sets as long as lots of smaller parts are also used.

1x pillars are an example. Sure a bunch of 1x1s can be used instead and can be combined in more ways, but the fact remains that such pillar bricks are more useful than a stack of 1x1s in other circumstances. BURPs are great too for large rockfaces. It's merely an issue if a set is not enough else stretched around a BURP or two. Plenty of large parts are quite longstanding, like castle walls. So it is not a recent Lego phenomenon to use such large parts, and isn't a "dumbing down" thing either.

No, the issue in my eyes is more the problem of Lego sets using lots of large parts to try and look bigger than they really are; you end up with a poor-looking set that doesn't have a good mix of different bricks sizes, including small and medium, for adding to ones collection.

But you see, mocing is all in the person creating the moc.

This is the main issue I have with juniourization and why I disagree. I'm not sure how long you have been around the lego community for, but it seems to me that there is a discernible age/builder gap in the AFOL community which represents the lost builders of the late 90s early 00s. They were never encouraged to build by the lego sets they received. In my eyes you can still see this gap. There is a massive skill partition between those who make basic MOCs and those who creations are jaw-dropping. I blame juniorization. A missing generation of builders should have filled this hole, but instead we have an old guard which stretches from the 50s through to the mid 90s and a new guard who have been encouraged to build more by lego's revival. But the continuity was definitely broken. For a brief period lego did not appeal as a building medium, merely a plaything. That was juniourization, and it's effect on the lego community is seen most clearly in those who have never heard the word and have never built a 'serious' MOC.

Very much my own opinion...

God Bless,

Nathan

Well because there's no real need for juniorization. You just mentioned yourself "why not just buy brick buckets?", well that shows the problem right there. They're making their sets unappealing towards the MOCing audience...hell, the entire audience! Sure, they're 'easier' and faster to build, but at what cost? Sound construction? Sturdy structures? Unnecessary new molds which are not only harder to incorporate into a MOC but take away from new, potentially useful new molds, are another factor.

We tend to dislike juniorization because it takes away from the heart and soul of what LEGO is, and that's building and using your imagination and creativity in new ways, rather than just building the picture on the box and calling it a day.

"I love building new sets, its exciting and rather relaxing. I could say Im almost addicted to building the sets, cracking open the new crinkly bags, dumping out the pieces.."

Me too

but with the bigger pices the planes look better and bigger.

I'm a sucker for sets with a high number of minifigs, and since I also wanted some platform pieces for my MOC train station, I bid (and won) this set on eBay.

Knowing full well in advance that this is a <insert that tiresome argument> set from the late 90's, I was still disappointed by how uninspired the actual construction of the whole set felt. Usually a LEGO set always brings an element of surprise for me whenever I build it for the first time. I often coo to myself, "Oh, THIS is how it's done," or "Wow, I didn't realize how intricate the design elements are; I would've never guessed just by looking at the picture on the box." With this train station, I felt even I could've designed this set, considering how unimaginative and unskilled I am with building MOCs. The set itself doesn't have any outrageously <insert that tiresome argument>/specialized pieces, but the <insert that tiresome argument>, pedestrian desgin sucks a lot of the fun out of constructing it.

As expected, all pieces will go to my generic pile.

Edited February 23, 200817 yr by lego townie

I think "juniorization" is much less of a problem these days than it once was. TLC basically ended that experiment in 2000 or 2001, starting with the World City line. You occasionally still see an odd part or two in a set, but it's been like that for ages (look at the trailer in the 6395 set for example) and doesn't detract much from an otherwise good set.

Among current sets, the large planes are the only thing I can think of with any <insert that tiresome argument> parts, and even with those, the wings are the only piece I don't like. Maybe also the dumper pieces on the Heavy Hauler to a lesser extent. In all of the cases, the excellent details in the rest of the set easily make up for it.