Unpopular Opinions about LEGO

[Alexandrina]

47 minutes ago, LegendaryArticuno said:

It's bad faith because I've already specifically highlighted that outliers such as DOTs exists and that no reasonable person would apply PPP as a measurement in these fringe cases.

While I'm not interested in getting into a long debate about whether comments are good faith or not, I do want to point out that you haven't mentioned DOTs or outliers at all (at least, not in this thread during the recent discussion). In fact the only time DOTS sets were mentioned was by MAB. I don't think anybody has suggested at any point that everyone should by DOTS sets because they're good PPP - they've only ever been used as examples to illustrate one extreme of PPP.

In fact, as it goes, I'd personally consider DOTS sets not worth it even at the PPP because I have very little use for the types of parts normally included in DOTS sets, and they usually go for pennies at most on Bricklink so I'd have no trouble ordering loads if ever I did need them.

[Aanchir]

2 hours ago, LegendaryArticuno said:

Nope, I consider it bad faith because it is, and it's the go-to excuse for detractors of PPP to use. It's bad faith because I've already specifically highlighted that outliers such as DOTs exists and that no reasonable person would apply PPP as a measurement in these fringe cases.

The key word is reasonable. 

I mean, regardless, I do think that PPP can be a useful metric even for these sorts of "outliers", such as when making value-for-money comparisons between two different Duplo sets or Dots sets or Bionicle sets or what-have-you. Especially if you're stocking up for projects that might require those sorts of pieces in large quantities, so want to know what sets would get you the most rather than worrying about the particulars of the build.

It's just that you most likely wouldn't use the oft-quoted "10 cents per piece" as your threshold for a reasonable value in cases like those.

Edited July 22, 2023 by Aanchir

[zinnn]

Here’s mine: SNOT techniques look uninteresting and can even ruin the build if done just to “show off”, especially with rock formations

Edited July 23, 2023 by zinnn

[Mister_Loki]

I don't know how unpopular opinions on stickers are but what grinds my gears the most is when I have to apply stickers to small parts. At that point its a 50/50 if I'll apply them right or have to repeat the process again. I don't mind stickers for big parts, but my major gripe is when small pieces aren't just printed.

Edited July 23, 2023 by Mister_Loki

[Lyichir]

2 hours ago, Mister_Loki said:

I don't know how unpopular opinions on stickers are but what grinds my gears the most is when I have to apply stickers to small parts. At that point its a 50/50 if I'll apply them right or have to repeat the process again. I don't mind stickers for big parts, but my major gripe is when small pieces aren't just printed.

You might already be doing something like this (in which case apologies for the unneeded advice), but one tip I learned that I've found very helpful for applying stickers (especially to smaller pieces) is to attach a corner of the sticker to a larger part like a brick separator and use that to help position it. I find having something bigger to hold on to makes a big difference in how easily I can get a sticker centered properly.

[Lira_Bricks]

4 hours ago, Mister_Loki said:

I don't know how unpopular opinions on stickers are but what grinds my gears the most is when I have to apply stickers to small parts. At that point its a 50/50 if I'll apply them right or have to repeat the process again. I don't mind stickers for big parts, but my major gripe is when small pieces aren't just printed.

There is a thread about sticker hate so maybe some people there already shared the same opinion as you have:

 

[Mister_Loki]

2 hours ago, Lyichir said:

You might already be doing something like this (in which case apologies for the unneeded advice), but one tip I learned that I've found very helpful for applying stickers (especially to smaller pieces) is to attach a corner of the sticker to a larger part like a brick separator and use that to help position it. I find having something bigger to hold on to makes a big difference in how easily I can get a sticker centered properly.

Oh, that is a good trick I'll keep it in mind. Thank you for the tip.

Edited July 23, 2023 by Mister_Loki

[nerdsforprez]

On 7/23/2023 at 4:26 AM, zinnn said:

Here’s mine: SNOT techniques look uninteresting and can even ruin the build if done just to “show off”, especially with rock formations

I need to visit this topic more often.  Some good stuff!

Not sure what you mean by this comment.  I mean, how do you even know it is done to "just show off?"  Sounds like a judgment on your part, one that is entirely subjective.  

[zinnn]

18 minutes ago, nerdsforprez said:

I need to visit this topic more often.  Some good stuff!

Not sure what you mean by this comment.  I mean, how do you even know it is done to "just show off?"  Sounds like a judgment on your part, one that is entirely subjective.   

Hey, it's unpopular opinion right ? ;D

I meant stuff that could be easily achieved by regular building technique of stacking up various slope bricks, to probably even better standard (subjectively!), but instead the creator chooses for some odd reason to use SNOT that doesn't improve the overall look of the set in any shape or form.

[danth]

6 hours ago, zinnn said:

I meant stuff that could be easily achieved by regular building technique of stacking up various slope bricks, to probably even better standard (subjectively!), but instead the creator chooses for some odd reason to use SNOT that doesn't improve the overall look of the set in any shape or form.

I have found SNOT to be a mistake in some of my MOCs, if I'm trying to do anything complicated. Once you go SNOT, it's hard to line things back up with non-SNOT areas of the build.

Or if you do a large SNOT wing without any sort of technic beam to support it, it's just going to break off easily.

SNOT is only easy on the edges of a build.

[nerdsforprez]

8 hours ago, zinnn said:

Hey, it's unpopular opinion right ? ;D

I meant stuff that could be easily achieved by regular building technique of stacking up various slope bricks, to probably even better standard (subjectively!), but instead the creator chooses for some odd reason to use SNOT that doesn't improve the overall look of the set in any shape or form.

Sure, its your opinion, and I agree SNOT can be used, and is used, often perhaps in excess or times where it actually looks out of place. 

I guess I just see the statement of "just to show-off" as more of a judgment than even an opinion, and I question how someone could arrive at that conclusion with no other information, given one typically does not know the person of the build, reason for the build, etc... 

But I do agree what not all situations require SNOT technique and it can be awkwardly utilized in certain situations.  

Edited July 28, 2023 by nerdsforprez

[MaximillianRebo]

On 7/28/2023 at 7:54 PM, zinnn said:

Hey, it's unpopular opinion right ? ;D

I meant stuff that could be easily achieved by regular building technique of stacking up various slope bricks, to probably even better standard (subjectively!), but instead the creator chooses for some odd reason to use SNOT that doesn't improve the overall look of the set in any shape or form.

I get where you're coming from. sometimes I see MOCs where SNOT seems to have been used as the end goal itself rather than a means - in a similar way to some musicians focusing primarily on technical mastery e.g. always faster and higher, rather than simply playing something interesting. I guess the goal in these excessive SNOT builds is to hide the dreaded studs (heaven forbid a Lego model actually shows exposed studs ). Personally I'm never a fan of aircraft or spaceships where the wings are SNOT builds with bricks facing sideways. Sure it gets rid of those unsightly studs but to me the end result looks too blocky - for want of a better word - rather than the contour than can be achieved with layered plates.

That's not to say that brackets and modified bricks aren't incredibly useful in the right situation, like adding detail to the side of a model, but like any building technique it needs to be right place/right time, rather than just default setting.

[MAB]

2 hours ago, MaximillianRebo said:

I get where you're coming from. sometimes I see MOCs where SNOT seems to have been used as the end goal itself rather than a means - in a similar way to some musicians focusing primarily on technical mastery e.g. always faster and higher, rather than simply playing something interesting. I guess the goal in these excessive SNOT builds is to hide the dreaded studs (heaven forbid a Lego model actually shows exposed studs ). Personally I'm never a fan of aircraft or spaceships where the wings are SNOT builds with bricks facing sideways. Sure it gets rid of those unsightly studs but to me the end result looks too blocky - for want of a better word - rather than the contour than can be achieved with layered plates.

 

Sideways building can be a good way of brick building detailed patterns, as the smallest area  becomes 1x 1/3(brick height) instead of 1x1 studs. Plus if you want to contour layers on top you can use jumpers for offsets, or a dual approach using sideways SNOT bricks where the normal SNOT additions are actually on top once you rotate it sideways.

[Lipko]

Probably already said and I'm a Techncic person, but:

• I love color vomit.
• I don't mind blue pins (in general: I don't mind when pins/color coded elements doesn't match the body color).
• I love few/single part per step instructions.
• Sorting parts is just a waste of time (I only separate wheels and Technic panels from the rest, or sometimes by sort out a specific color ).
• Looks > durability > playability > functions.
• I don't care about authentic/perfect suspension geometry (kind of a sub-point of the above).
• I don't like gaps filled with whatever cr*p fits there, gaps are okay.
• The Arocs was not a good model.
• I don't like remote controlled models at all.
• I like recurring stock sets, I don't mind the 200th car or truck. I only like models that look "good" in real life, I don't care about awkward but mechanically "interesting" models.
• Pistenbully is the most boring machine to model.
• The characteristic features of a car is more important than perfect proportions. I don't care if you crossfade the blueprint with the Lego model and it looks perfect if otherwise I don't instantly recognize the model.
• Don't model something if it doesn't look good in Lego (the new Corvette fopr example due to the lack of sligh curves)

Edited July 31, 2023 by Lipko

[Lira_Bricks]

5 hours ago, Lipko said:

Probably already said and I'm a Techncic person, but:

• [...]
• The Arocs was not a good model.
• [...]
• I like recurring stock sets, I don't mind the 200th car or truck. I only like models that look "good" in real life, I don't care about awkward but mechanically "interesting" models.
• [...]

I agree with most of your points but not these two :P I never bought or built the Arocs, so maybe I am missing something, but what do you dislike about the set?

As for the mechanically interesting models... I have the opposite opinion: less cars and more new, special functions (without electronics)!

[Lipko]

13 hours ago, Lira_Bricks said:

I agree with most of your points but not these two :P I never bought or built the Arocs, so maybe I am missing something, but what do you dislike about the set?

As for the mechanically interesting models... I have the opposite opinion: less cars and more new, special functions (without electronics)!

The Arocs felt flimsy and felxible, the build was not "elegant", it was a bit boring to assemble.

Special functions/unusual machines are okay to me too, as long as they look pretty

[Yperio_Bricks]

Do you remember the desginers saying that there are not enough containers to store all the parts and there his hardly any space for printed parts? I forgot which set was the discussion about but nowadays we get pieces like the 1x1 plate with 2/3 height and the 2x3 plate with cut out.

[Horation]

On 7/23/2023 at 10:26 AM, zinnn said:

Here’s mine: SNOT techniques look uninteresting and can even ruin the build if done just to “show off”, especially with rock formations

I'll go one step further : SNOT is, most of the time, not following the Lego spirit, and while there are some cool builds done by people who use such techniques, it is often overdone.

I also really dislike the over-reliance on details over functions-builds often look good from only one side, have little space for minifigs, and look impossible to live in for the local inhabitants-all the while still being finely built creations using the most advanced techniques.

And, I'll get crucified for this one by the star wars fans, assault on Hoth was a fine playset, with it's only real flaw being the UCS label.

Edited August 5, 2023 by Horation
one word too many

[danth]

6 hours ago, Yperio_Bricks said:

Do you remember the desginers saying that there are not enough containers to store all the parts and there his hardly any space for printed parts? I forgot which set was the discussion about but nowadays we get pieces like the 1x1 plate with 2/3 height and the 2x3 plate with cut out.

WOW, that's a GREAT point.

[MAB]

16 hours ago, Horation said:

I'll go one step further : SNOT is, most of the time, not following the Lego spirit, and while there are some cool builds done by people who use such techniques, it is often overdone.

What is this spirit of LEGO that SNOT does not follow? To me, connecting parts together using studs and antistuds is the spirit of LEGO. 

[Horation]

On 8/6/2023 at 7:06 AM, MAB said:

What is this spirit of LEGO that SNOT does not follow? To me, connecting parts together using studs and antistuds is the spirit of LEGO. 

Well, to me, the spirit is being creative and showing studs is a part of that, since it makes adding and removing parts to the build much easier than with some giant polished blob of plastic that doesn't have studs showing and will require two weeks, a goat sacrifice to the elder gods, and a millitary-style plan to slightly modify the design crated using some eldricht building technique. Also, those builds often look less believable and blockier than ones without.

[Karalora]

It does sometimes seem like advanced MOCers are doing their best to obscure the fact that they're building with LEGO at all, doesn't it?

[Murdoch17]

1 hour ago, Karalora said:

It does sometimes seem like advanced MOCers are doing their best to obscure the fact that they're building with LEGO at all, doesn't it?

Yep. I personally build in a retro-official style, because I WANT my builds to look like Lego. Even some modern official sets can't say they look like Lego.

[MAB]

21 hours ago, Horation said:

Well, to me, the spirit is being creative and showing studs is a part of that, since it makes adding and removing parts to the build much easier than with some giant polished blob of plastic that doesn't have studs showing and will require two weeks, a goat sacrifice to the elder gods, and a millitary-style plan to slightly modify the design crated using some eldricht building technique. Also, those builds often look less believable and blockier than ones without.

With SNOT builds you can have studs on the top and sides. And even on the bottom if you want.  Whereas even if you have all studs up, you can still have a perfectly smooth, studless finish.

 

To me, SNOT is about building in multiple directions rather than aiming for no exposed studs, as there are often far easier ways to achieve that.

[TeriXeri]

37 minutes ago, MAB said:

To me, SNOT is about building in multiple directions rather than aiming for no exposed studs, as there are often far easier ways to achieve that.

Yeah this.

Tiling everything, or covering it with other often curved/angled studless parts is something else. I'd call it Studless design.

The classic LEGO example of SNOT with full studs existed for a long time with the somewhat classic basic sphere/ball builds that have been seen for decades, which is definately SNOT in 6 directions usually

 And those have been possible for a long time as well due to the existance of the headlight brick going back all the way to 1980, and multi-direction on itself as seen in the Creator Expert logo that was used before the 18+/Icons rebranding.

Of course nowadays, the amount of  variants of SNOT parts like bricks and brackets has massively increased, especially introducing more and more variants over the last 10 years or so , but yeah it has also introduced a more studless pieces alongside it, a good example of that would be to see how Creator (usually 3-in-1), animals / creatures look from about 2000s to now , less studs, more special or curved pieces, still 2 different things.

 

 

 

Edited August 8, 2023 by TeriXeri