" It's a little too Technic"

[def]

" It's a little too technic"

I've been reading a few reviews here, and this is a phrase that's come up here and there, and I'm a bit puzzled by it. I had a bunch of Star Wars Lego from the first series 10 years ago, and some from the current ones, and I like the current remodels much better. They're all toys, but the current lines are much more sophisticated looking. I have both the new and old b-wing and Naboo fighter, and the newer ones are much better, IMHO.

When building the 2008 sets, I'm really fascinated by the way the Technic parts come together, like in the AT-TE or Rogue Shadow sets. I'd like to hear some of the long timers here express if they like the newer Technic direction in the Star Wars series (it seems to me to be since 2005-6 that a shift happened). Also, I'd like to know if this is specific to the Star Wars series, or if this is a shift of the company to its other lines also.

Something has changed in Lego over the last 10 years, and I'd like to hear the opinions of those who've been keeping track.

[Algernon]

I only mind Technic in my System sets if it interferes with the detail level. Otherwise, I see nothing wrong with it.

[KimT]

It's a little too technic and It's too junorized are comments that get on my nerves.

LEGO has been using technic for hull construction since..well...forever.

For example this beauty, loved by all Star Wars fans is made with a load of technic, but no one complains.

It's always been like that and I guess it'll always be like that.

Some people just have to bug.

Don't even get me started on the new light and dark grey discussion - which some people love to redo over and over and over and over again.

So in my opinion, it's nothing new.

We all have a glorified vision of how things used to be, but to be honest: they mostly still are - we're just remembering them wrong. How many got a set the size of the Twilight or AT-AT when they were children of the 70's or 80's? Not that many, and that's why we keep forgetting that the use of technic has always been part of large scale constructions.

Get over it or die trying

[Buttons]

I think people use said phrase because they may not fully understand how the mechanics of technic work and asre not willing to learn.

[snefroe]

well there's far more technic involved because it allows more playability. in the older days of sw, you needed to open wings by hand and those wings were attached to the hull with hinges. today they're using technic stuff. it enhances the playability of those models. the downside of this is more complicated technic stuff, but oh well... i guess it also shows that Lego is far more involved in playability than building models nowadays because kids are playing with sets more than they're building.

[KinGanon]

I see nothing wrong with Technic as without it the set would probably crash under its own weight so its a good thing in that matter

[iH Master 13uilder17]

I love my AT-TE set, it's got right amount of technic for me cuz im a bionicle builder too. I saw my friend's 4482 At-TE or the older one and that thing is small compared to the new one. If it doesn't have enough technic it's either small or bulky or both.

[VBBN]

Not much of a problem for me. I am as much of a technic junkie as a system one. Makes them much more stable. Of course, when it comes to sets like the 'Mahal, they mess with the set by taking away the interior.

[darkrebellion]

To me the inlcusion of the Technic in the sets is something good because with this all the sets are more stable and could have some neat features like the new V-19 Torrent that has such a cool wing function. In the bad side of the story, the use of Techinc is getting more usual and in bigger scale, the real problem of this case is that sometimes the TLC has some lack of detail in its sets just for make the set more functional with Technic, another clear example of this is the V-19 Torrent too, I really like the ship but feels like it is lacking of detail in the cockpit area.

Edited November 5, 2008 by darkrebellion

[legopiotre]

The technique pieces do not matter to me. I think it is usefull to make big sets with less pieces (so the prices are lower) whereas the model is stronger. Of course, using technique pieces like in the UCS Millenium Falcon may the interior ship less detailed but the exterior design stay really good. The only too much technical set in my opinion was the 2003 Hailfire droid but even there, the design was good.

[def]

Some interesting opinions here, thanks.

[Corvus]

It's a little too technic and It's too junorized are comments that get on my nerves.

LEGO has been using technic for hull construction since..well...forever.

For example this beauty, loved by all Star Wars fans is made with a load of technic, but no one complains.

Oh? Oh really?

[KimT]

Oh? Oh really?

You lost me.

What do you mean?

That the new version contains technic parts? or that people complained and we got a new version with less technic parts (which it hasn't).

Please explain or

[iH Master 13uilder17]

i love the new motorized AT-AT, but you lose an interior because of that giant motor. And the At-TE lost the interior design. I felt that the old one's interior was way better.

[Walter Kovacs]

The only too much technical set in my opinion was the 2003 Hailfire droid but even there, the design was good.

It should be noted that the Hailfire set was a Technic set, not a System set.

I like the amount of Technic use in system sets. It allows greater flexibility in design. The results have been stunning. The latest AT-AT is probably the one set that goes overboard with Technic (never owned the original), but I can't imagine geting that shape without it. Plus, we get the motorized function, which is pretty cool.

[Rook]

Many of you on this forum don't know me that well so I'm just a little fish here. But here's my opinion:

As a designer, if you want to build something that can actually move it's easier to build with technic peices and build a shell around it afterwards. A classic and real life version of this is a car. There are all these technical/mechanical parts assembled to make a machine and then we cover them with molded and shaped pieces to give them a certain look and to interface with the organic operator. I believe the same is now being done, more then they used to, to bring increased realness to “playing” with Lego. This is sometimes referred to as “playability”.

[Corvus]

You lost me.

What do you mean?

That the new version contains technic parts? or that people complained and we got a new version with less technic parts (which it hasn't).

Please explain or

I meant that I loved the old one, but I was making fun of your good example (the old AT-AT) by showing you a newer, bad example (the new AT-AT).

What? You didn't get the meaning of "Oh? Oh really?"

[Wout]

I don't mind if system sets has a little bit of technic pieces, but not too much. (sorry KimT )

With the starwars sets it is not really a problem for me, but I didn't liked it more in some castle and vikings sets.

And if they put technic bricks in it, I appreciate studded pieces above unstudded pieces, so you can use them as basic bricks.

[KimT]

I don't mind if system sets has a little bit of technic pieces, but not too much. (sorry KimT )

With the starwars sets it is not really a problem for me, but I didn't liked it more in some castle and vikings sets.

And if they put technic bricks in it, I appreciate studded pieces above unstudded pieces, so you can use them as basic bricks.

I couldn't agree more with you.

Regular technic bricks, not the odd non-stud ones.

And of course the technic construction in a system set should be camouflaged - it is a system AT-AT and not the technic AT-AT. - Excessive use of technic in some Castle and Vikings sets is a little too much I agree. But the cool launhcer in the Viking theme wouldn't be cool and awesome without that overuse of technic parts and the odd spring-seat from the Sport theme sets.

[CopMike]

I have no problem with the use of technic in sets. But I think the same as Kim, I want it covered by ordinary pieces where it´s possible.

Here´s an example (bad maybe) of how I think:

To me this is not something I´m the least interested in. It´s just a skeleton for futher building.

I want something like this instead:

I love when TLG use technic as frames, for example in the UCS Falcon. We get sets that wouldn´t be possible to build otherwise.

But only technic - No way, José (insert attack from Sinner here!)!

CopMike

[pr0visorak]

Well, I like the use of technic to make sets. I dont think that there is actually such a thing as too much technic so far for the sets that lego has created. I think the use of technic is nice as it enables the vehicle to move and fuction. But like KimT and Copmike, I would like them to be covered with normal bricks

[ditto]

Well, I like the use of technic to make sets. I dont think that there is actually such a thing as too much technic so far for the sets that lego has created. I think the use of technic is nice as it enables the vehicle to move and fuction. But like KimT and Copmike, I would like them to be covered with normal bricks

actually technic allows a lot more building techniques that would not have been possible otherwise.

[iotacode]

The use of Technics parts will stay for a very long time, it's a must for everything Star Wars these days.

[Bricklanta]

Oh? Oh really?

I like the first at-at that came out better. It brings back good memories of when I bought it.