LEGO Castle 2013

[Aanchir]

If this theme isn't targeted solely at kids that means Lego failed big time with it. If these sets don't really appeal to most AFOLs then that means either one of two things happened. A) Lego did a really poor job of making these sets appeal to AFOLS or B) they weren't intended for AFOLS in the first place and were aimed more at kids. If you read through this thread it seems the vast majority of people(AFOLS) are not a fan of these sets so which seems more likely?

The majority of people commenting in this thread have not expressed a huge desire for these sets. With that said, I'd hardly take that as a sign of how successful it will be. The same was true of Ninjago before its release, with tons of people lamenting the ludicrousness of technicolor ninjas fighting Nazi biker skeletons. Once the theme was released, it became much more popular, even if the crowd that had hoped for a more authentically historic ninja theme never quite warmed up to it.

To me these sets seem like they are clearly aimed at the younger crowd. They have extremely bright colors with their reds, blues, and green (even more so than past castle themes, look at the blue on the Lions compared to say the darker blue on the Black Falcons). The blue is almost like a slightly darker sky blue and is super saturated.

That's just the photography. It's still classic blue (23 Bright Blue), the same as the Black Falcons used. Some of my bright blue parts from long ago do appear darker because they have become discolored over the years, but it's the same color. Knights' Kingdom II, on the other hand, did use a lighter color, 195 Royal Blue, which has since been discontinued. I wonder how many other people are mistakenly confusing Bright Blue in these pictures with Royal Blue? It'd sure explain all the unfounded KKII comparisons.

Then there is the amount of detail which seems much lower in the Castle theme. The King's Castle has a detail brick at the base, the large slopes on the sides, and then a few bricks at the top but for the vast majority of the wall section it is made up a single molded piece. Sure some wall sections are all brick built, like the exploding wall piece or ones that have different window shapes, but a lot seem to use the single molded piece.

Just like the King's Castle from Kingdoms, in other words...

The towers are only made up of two pieces per section not including the top or bottom or windows. Compare that to Helm's Deep which literally uses bricks for the entire build with no large pieces other than the base and single slim tower, and it's easy to see the amount of detail difference between the two. Just compare the hi-res pictures of Helm's Deep to that of the King's Castle and the level of detail is not even in the same ball park...

Again, licensed themes demand more detail in most cases just by virtue of having to authentically replicate another designer's work. Also note that Helm's Deep is indeed targeted at a slightly older age range. That doesn't, however, mean that it's designed specifically for AFOLs, just that there's inherently going to be more overlap with that market.

As for the age recommendations, I never really took them to seriously. They are just recommendations after all. Tons of AFOLS buy themes like City, SW, LotR, etc. and they are 20+ year old people despite most of these sets being listed in the 6-14 age range. 5-12 vs 8-14 is a pretty big gap though. That's a difference of 5 years.

Care to check your math? That's a difference of three years, tops.

Add in Orthanc which is listed as 14+ and ya, I think that is a fairly significant difference only further showing LotR is aimed more at adults/AFOLs then your normal Lego set.

That is the case with almost all LEGO exclusives, particularly enormous ones like Orthanc. The 2009 LEGO Pirates theme was also for ages 5-12 (6-12 for the larger sets), but the Imperial Flagship was for ages 14+. On a side note, the largest LEGO Pirates set from 2009, Brickbeard's Bounty, was for ages 6-12. The largest LEGO Castle set from 2013 was for ages 7-12. Hmmm...

Also remember the LotR films are rated PG-13 and do have some violence that can get somewhat graphic with orc heads and limbs getting chopped off (though not near as bad as some of the stuff in Game of Thrones). Unlike the Lego age recommendations, I think movie ones hold a little more weight. The absolute top age rating for the LotR sets is the minimum age recommendation to see the films they are based on.

Fair point.

Now, with all that said I DO think LotR is still marketed towards kids. Look at all the launching pieces, completely random catapults and flick fire missiles (in Weathertop... really?), and exploding parts in the sets. I just think it also has a large AFOL following and Lego knows that so they try to make the sets also appeal to them a little more than they otherwise would with a different line. All Lego sets are marketed towards younger kids, but this Castle theme seems soleyl marketed towards them while LotR seems marketed towards young kids, slightly older kids and AFOLS with the emphasis still on kids.

Now, see, here you get at what I was trying to say. Besides a small number of sets and themes, most sets are aimed at kids, because LEGO is at its core a kids' toy. Except for a handful of exceptions, AFOLs (making up a small overall percentage of total LEGO sales) are a secondary consideration.

But I disagree that AFOLs were not at all considered in the design of these castle sets, speaking as an AFOL myself. I find plenty of things that AFOLs can appreciate in this theme. The Gatehouse Raid set, for instance, is a very nice design with lots of detail for its size, largely comparable in detail to the Council of Elrond set from The Lord of the Rings which occupies the same price point. The Gold Getaway set is also a very nice set with lots of detail for its size. Even Dragon Mountain, which naturally has the giant dragon as its focal point, has a detailed foundation and a quite nice catapult. And the castle is more or less comparable to its counterpart from Kingdoms, and arguably better in some respects (though admittedly worse in others).

Overall I think we'll see the same trend with this theme as with many other themes in the past: AFOLs start out extremely critical, in part due to bitterness over its failure to exactly replicate a predecessor they have a lot of nostalgia for. Once sets become available AFOLs give them a more serious look and try to judge them for what they are rather than what they feel they should be. Reviews pop up and reveal previously hidden details. Marketing material for the theme helps AFOLs and kids alike to relate to the premise and characters/factions on a deeper level. And eventually the theme develops a similar following to its predecessor.

[CastleFan607]

I love Castle (2007), and this completley reminds me of it, but now that we have these pictures, I'm less interested. The builds looked way better at Toyfair and I'm honestly disappointed. I probably wil only buy Dragon Mountain, even though it's a shamefull recreation of Skeleton Tower.

[Deathleech]

That's just the photography. It's still classic blue (23 Bright Blue), the same as the Black Falcons used. Some of my bright blue parts from long ago do appear darker because they have become discolored over the years, but it's the same color. Knights' Kingdom II, on the other hand, did use a lighter color, 195 Royal Blue, which has since been discontinued. I wonder how many other people are mistakenly confusing Bright Blue in these pictures with Royal Blue? It'd sure explain all the unfounded KKII comparisons.

Are you sure about that? Look at the King's outfit in the King's Castle picture. It appears much darker than the blue on the rest of the soldiers and on the castle.

Just like the King's Castle from Kingdoms, in other words...

Again, licensed themes demand more detail in most cases just by virtue of having to authentically replicate another designer's work. Also note that Helm's Deep is indeed targeted at a slightly older age range. That doesn't, however, mean that it's designed specifically for AFOLs, just that there's inherently going to be more overlap with that market.

I suppose, but at the time we didn't have any amazing (official) Lego models like Helm's Deep to compare it to. Now, in comparison, the King's Castle looks so much more bland and plain without as many details. License sets may demand more intricacies, but Lego still could of used more detail bricks in the walls of King's Castle and some here and there throughout the sets to spice them up. Maybe this Castle line is no different than previous Castle ones, but Lego has set the bar high with the LotR sets so fans expect that same detail to carry over to ALL Lego product. It's hard to look at something they reverted in design and be excited about it.

I think this is another example of how Lego is marketing these more towards younger kinds too since they sacrifice detail in place of large molded pieces. The sets appear larger and more complete but at the expense of cosmetics. Some may argue this is better (we get a fully enclosed castles rather than only the front halves), others could see it as negative (it's more castle but doesn't look near as good). At any rate I agree LotR isn't designed specifically for AFOLS nor this Castle theme at kids, I just think they lean more towards those groups than is otherwise the norm. I have held that view since the beginning.

Care to check your math? That's a difference of three years, tops.

If the Castle line is recommended ages 5-12 and LotR is 8-14, that's 5 years. Castle has a recommended age of 3 years less than LotR's minimum, and LotR has a maximum of 2 more years than Castle. 3+2=5. Of course you could argue some of the new Castle sets have a higher minimum age than 5, but you could also argue Orthanc is a minimum of 14 years.

Edited May 4, 2013 by Deathleech

[Nagyzee]

If the Castle line is recommended ages 5-12 and LotR is 8-14, that's 5 years. Castle has a recommended age of 3 years less than LotR's minimum, and LotR has a maximum of 2 more years than Castle. 3+2=5.

That's some pretty ingenious mathematics, lol.

[Deathleech]

That's some pretty ingenious mathematics, lol.

How so?

Edited May 4, 2013 by Deathleech

[Str0ngbad]

Not really, it's just basic. How else would you figure it? Only 2 years total even though it's 3 at the low end and 2 at the top?

I'm not sure but I think the problem is due to you and others thinking of the word 'difference' differently. In mathematics, it generally means what's left after you subtract which is the way Aanchir was using it; subtracting you get a 2 or 3 yr difference on the maximum and minimum respectively, thus him saying '3 years max'. You were using the word 'difference' to show how many ages the two didn't have in common thus adding the 2&3. You are both right in your own way and have masterfully presented why language sucks. Plus, I really think you agree on the whole more than not anyway.

I agree that if LEGO is going to raise the bar for the detail of licensed sets, they should be (and probably are) prepared to do so for their generic themes. I think that the target market for this theme is a better reason for it's perceived simplicity than the fact that it is non-licensed. Big pieces/fewer details make for a set that is easier to assemble for beginners. I introduced a perfectly intelligent and detail oriented friend of mine to LEGO recently; he's 56 and it took him a good 15 minutes to assemble the Gandalf polybag. I guess we've all forgotten but following LEGO instructions can be slow and confusing for people who are new to them.

Edited May 4, 2013 by Str0ngbad

[Aanchir]

Are you sure about that? Look at the King's outfit in the King's Castle picture. It appears much darker than the blue on the rest of the soldiers and on the castle.

That's because the king's torso, legs, and cape are Earth Blue (Bricklink's Dark Blue; the same color used so prominently for the Crownies in the 2007-2009 line). His sleeves are Medium Blue. The rest of the blue parts in the set appear to be Bright Blue (classic blue). If they're not, then they're a brand-new color, because the only other blue colors on the current palette are Sand Blue, Light Royal Blue (Bricklink's Bright Light Blue), and the Dark and Medium Azure colors from LEGO Friends, and it's definitely not any of those.

Edited May 4, 2013 by Aanchir

[Leo604]

How so?

He was almost definitely being sarcastic.

[Str0ngbad]

He was almost definitely being sarcastic.

I think Deathleech knew that. :)

[Deathleech]

As was I

Regardless I don't think the age recommendation is all that important, nor a huge indicator of things as I hinted at previously. I just think it's something to take into consideration. Like I said before, most sets have a recommended age that caps out in the teens, yet look how many AFOLS are well past that age still buy Lego. Plus most sets even within the same theme have varying age recommendations. Look at the first LotR wave for example. The smallest sets are 8-14, then as the sets get bigger the lowest age recommendation goes up until it's 10-14 on Helm's Deep. The Castle sets do the same, starting at 5-12 on the smallest sets and creeping up to 7-12. I suppose you could get really technical and add up all the age recommendations for each set and then compare the two themes, but meh. And at any rate, where does the 14+ cap off on Orthanc?

Edited May 4, 2013 by Deathleech

[Leo604]

...

My bad, guys. This is embarrassing.

[Faefrost]

The biggest problem is that we are looking at these sets through the eyes of Jaded AFOL's. if you were a child, and these were the first Castle sets you ever got, how would you view them then? Honestly I think they stack up rather well for introducing a younger generation to the themes that we all enjoy, and setting their little feet well on the path to strange fantasy obsessed nerds.

We are arguing minutae about the build or details or parts. But the truth is here is some great little details in these. There are some wonderful sub builds. Yet the use of some larger parts make it much more viable as a play set. Something that can easily be taken apart, put back together, and subjected to play. Not as many critical 1x1 cheese slopes to be lost in the carpet etc. looking at these from a child's view these are great starter sets. Are they as good as the ones when we were kids? In some ways yes, in some ways no. But it doesn't matter. These are not designed to be compared to those. These are designed to be the next generation of AFOLs first Castles. And for that they are pretty good. You have clearly defined sides. Distinct if predictable color choices. Horses, siege engines. Nice little stories. Even a dog! The castle is a substantial build without the need of a raised baseplate. (I know there are two schools of thought on those. Lets agree to disagree there.) the most valid complaint is the amount of Minifigs has declined since the old days. The counterpoint is the detail and quality of the ones you do get has increased. But regardless, if these were my first Castle sets at age 7 I would be enthralled.

[Alcarin]

The biggest problem is that we are looking at these sets through the eyes of Jaded AFOL's. if you were a child, and these were the first Castle sets you ever got, how would you view them then? Honestly I think they stack up rather well for introducing a younger generation to the themes that we all enjoy, and setting their little feet well on the path to strange fantasy obsessed nerds.

We are arguing minutae about the build or details or parts. But the truth is here is some great little details in these. There are some wonderful sub builds. Yet the use of some larger parts make it much more viable as a play set. Something that can easily be taken apart, put back together, and subjected to play. Not as many critical 1x1 cheese slopes to be lost in the carpet etc. looking at these from a child's view these are great starter sets. Are they as good as the ones when we were kids? In some ways yes, in some ways no. But it doesn't matter. These are not designed to be compared to those. These are designed to be the next generation of AFOLs first Castles. And for that they are pretty good. You have clearly defined sides. Distinct if predictable color choices. Horses, siege engines. Nice little stories. Even a dog! The castle is a substantial build without the need of a raised baseplate. (I know there are two schools of thought on those. Lets agree to disagree there.) the most valid complaint is the amount of Minifigs has declined since the old days. The counterpoint is the detail and quality of the ones you do get has increased. But regardless, if these were my first Castle sets at age 7 I would be enthralled.

The problem is old 1990s sets (Castle) look better than thise new 2013 ones Thats the thing.

I mean lets just look on in my opinion top 3-5 LEGO Castles of ALL TIME.

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20091227123760/lego/images/b/b1/6086_Black_Knight's_Castle.jpg

This set, even today, compared to all castles easily takes a spot in my heart, and in my opinion is only parried by Helm's Deep details and maybe Kingdoms Castle... everything else looked sub-par in terms of details, unique pieces and so on and on.

I got it when i had high fever and I was like 5 or 6 years old... loved it and love it still and thats not because of nostalgic feeling but because even for todays standards the Castle (not to even start talking about figure count) is simply OUTSTANDING.

even with using relatively big pieces/parts to make walls it just looks amazing.

[Nagyzee]

How so?

If it's 5-12 vs. 8-14 then the average recommended age is 2.5 years lower for Castle than for LOTR. Minimum recommended age is 3 year lower and maximum is 2 years lower. And it makes no sense whatsoever to add up the latter two and claim that the difference is somehow 5 years.

[Deathleech]

It's give or take 2.5 years, yes. There is a 5 year difference though (2 minimum, 3 maximum). Castle covers ages 5-12 and LotR covers ages 8-14 so how is that only 2.5 years? The minimum age for Castle is 5 year olds, 6 year olds, and 7 year olds which LotR does not go down to while the maximum age for LotR is 8-14 (well technically 14+) which covers kids that are 13 and 14 which Castle does not.

I understand what you are saying, but 5, 6, and 7 year olds do not cancel out 13 and 14 year olds.

[Alfadas]

Well, I am certain now, I am going to buy these sets!! They look amazing! Thanks GRogall

[Nagyzee]

It's give or take 2.5 years, yes. There is a 5 year difference though (2 minimum, 3 maximum). Castle covers ages 5-12 and LotR covers ages 8-14 so how is that only 2.5 years? The minimum age for Castle is 5 year olds, 6 year olds, and 7 year olds which LotR does not go down to while the maximum age for LotR is 8-14 (well technically 14+) which covers kids that are 13 and 14 which Castle does not.

You perfectly described that the range is shifted upwards by 2-3 years for LOTR. I get how you end up with 5 years (adding up the difference at the lower and higher ends), but can't find the logic behind it. I don't really want to go deeper into this. Maybe you could use two rulers, sliding one along the other to get a picture of the nature of this difference. If you slide one ruler 2 inches farther along the other does it get 2 inches or 4 inches farther away from you?

As for your side comment about 14+: mixing in exclusives is besides the point. Those are a whole different story. And the Castle theme has already had two 14+ exclusives, too.

I understand what you are saying, but 5, 6, and 7 year olds do not cancel out 13 and 14 year olds.

Well, then let's agree to disagree. Because I don't even understand what you are trying to say with this cancelling out thing and this topic is probably not the best place to discuss basic mathematics.

[Deathleech]

You perfectly described that the range is shifted upwards by 2-3 years for LOTR. I get how you end up with 5 years (adding up the difference at the lower and higher ends), but can't find the logic behind it. I don't really want to go deeper into this. Maybe you could use two rulers, sliding one along the other to get a picture of the nature of this difference. If you slide one ruler 2 inches farther along the other does it get 2 inches or 4 inches farther away from you?

Maybe you could use two rulers, sliding one along the other to get a picture of the nature of this difference. If you slide one ruler back 3 inches, and one ruler ahead 2 inches what is the maximum difference you have between the two? Is it 2.6 inches or 5 inches? I think Str0ngbad explains my point of view and the difference of wording we are having here if you care to read his post for further explanation.

As for your side comment about 14+: mixing in exclusives is besides the point. Those are a whole different story. And the Castle theme has already had two 14+ exclusives, too.

Which Castle sets are you talking about? I thought one might be MMV, but I double checked and it's 12+ and even that has a ton more detail than these Castle sets. Most of the Castle themes seem to top out at 12 or 14, I didn't see any 14+. Regardless, whatever the sets may be they aren't directly related to this Castle line, other than being from the same theme. The Blue Lion and Red Dragons have not been used before and the average recommended age on past sets seems to be slightly higher at 7-12. I don't think it's besides the point because it shows Lego obviously feels some themes are more catered towards adults and older teens than others if they are willing to release expensive, thousand piece sets aimed at older teens as the minimum age rec. Just look at the SW theme, they have the USC X-Wing and some others that are recommended for 16+.

Well, then let's agree to disagree. Because I don't even understand what you are trying to say with this cancelling out thing and this topic is probably not the best place to discuss basic mathematics.

Fine with me. I'm just pointing out that the LotR line has a higher recommended age, on top of this new Castle theme having a lower one. I'm not just focusing on the 2.5 max years like you and Aanchir. I am looking at the total age difference at both ends of the spectrum.

Edited May 6, 2013 by Deathleech

[Nagyzee]

Maybe you could use two rulers, sliding one along the other to get a picture of the nature of this difference. If you slide one ruler back 3 inches, and one ruler ahead 2 inches what is the maximum difference you have between the two? Is it 2.6 inches or 5 inches?

Haha, if you slide one ruler 3 inches and then the other 2 inches in the other direction than you have made a total movement of 5 inches. If they were side by side at the beginning and identical in length there will be a 5 inch offset at both ends. By your logic that should be a 10 inch total difference, no? But to get an analogous example to the age range we are discussing you would have just had to slide one ruler 2-3 inches. If this doesn't help, then I give up.

Which Castle sets are you talking about? I thought one might be MMV, but I double checked and it's 12+ and even that has a ton more detail than these Castle sets. Most of the Castle themes seem to top out at 12 or 14, I didn't see any 14+. Regardless, whatever the sets may be they aren't directly related to this Castle line, other than being from the same theme. The Blue Lion and Red Dragons have not been used before and the average recommended age on past sets seems to be slightly higher at 7-12. I don't think it's besides the point because it shows Lego obviously feels some themes are more catered towards adults and older teens than others if they are willing to release expensive, thousand piece sets aimed at older teens as the minimum age rec. Just look at the SW theme, they have the USC X-Wing and some others that are recommended for 16+.

MMV and Kingdoms Joust. I admit I didn't check the exact age recommendations on them. Anyhow if you want to compare strictly this new Castle line. It's coming out just now. LOTR didn't get an exclusive in its first wave either. So you can't use this as an argument just yet. First we'll have to see whether this new iteration gets the exclusive treatment sometimes down the road or not.

And btw I agree with you that this Castle line is targeted at a younger audience than LOTR. That's absolutely obvious. There's just not a 5 year difference between the age ranges as indicated and I think that dragging in the exclusive set LOTR is getting is not fair as an argument just yet.

Fine with me. I'm just pointing out that the LotR line has a higher recommended age, on top of this new Castle theme having a lower one. I'm not just focusing on the 2.5 max years like you and Aanchir. I am looking at the total age difference at both ends of the spectrum.

The word you are looking for is average, not max. That's what we are focusing on. Or on the offset between the two age ranges. You are essentially counting the difference twice. But whatever flies your boat.

[Artanis I]

Someone please close this thread, no one is talking about the new Castle sets.

Edited May 6, 2013 by Artanis I

[Deathleech]

Haha, if you slide one ruler 3 inches and then the other 2 inches in the other direction than you have made a total movement of 5 inches. If they were side by side at the beginning and identical in length there will be a 5 inch offset at both ends. By your logic that should be a 10 inch total difference, no? But to get an analogous example to the age range we are discussing you would have just had to slide one ruler 2-3 inches. If this doesn't help, then I give up.

Ya sorry, I meant you would need a third ruler and to mark a starting spot on it, then move the rulers but I went back and re-edited my post twice and forgot that part when I was copying and pasting yours.

MMV and Kingdoms Joust. I admit I didn't check the exact age recommendations on them. Anyhow if you want to compare strictly this new Castle line. It's coming out just now. LOTR didn't get an exclusive in its first wave either. So you can't use this as an argument just yet. First we'll have to see whether this new iteration gets the exclusive treatment sometimes down the road or not.

And btw I agree with you that this Castle line is targeted at a younger audience than LOTR. That's absolutely obvious. There's just not a 5 year difference between the age ranges as indicated and I think that dragging in the exclusive set LOTR is getting is not fair as an argument just yet.

Which is probably why I haven't focused on that point at all and only mentioned it quickly as a side note. I am glad we agree on something though. Now if you could just be less condescending....

The word you are looking for is average, not max. That's what we are focusing on. Or on the offset between the two age ranges. You are essentially counting the difference twice. But whatever flies your boat.

Maybe that's where the confusion is coming from then? I am focusing on the max difference at each end of the spectrum, not the average, which I stated before ever getting into all of this. Like I said before, just re-read Str0ngbad's post for another explanation. I understand where you are coming from, and I understand his explanation, but you seem to be really hung up on this and seem like you can't or don't want to understand my point. Basically you are doing 14 (LotR max age) - 12 (Castle max age) = 2. 8 (LotR min age) - 5 (Castle min age) = 3. 2x3=6/2=2.5. The age difference is 2.5 years. I am saying LotR is recommended 8-14 years, Castle is 5-12, 8-5=3 and 14-12= 2. 2+3=5. I'm not looking at the average age difference, I am looking at the max at each ends of the spectrum (lower and higher).

And the saying is whatever floats your boat, boats don't fly

Someone please close this thread, no one is talking about the new Castle sets.

I completely agree, even though I haven't helped at all the past few pages. I apologize for that.

Edited May 6, 2013 by Deathleech

[Alfadas]

Those last post have nothing to do with the LEGO® Castle 2013 sets. If you want to talk about what you are talking about, start a new thread, please. No-one cares about the age of sets. If you like it, buy it, if you do not like it, just buy it anyway, the sets are amazing.

Edited May 6, 2013 by jeroenaa

[basnz]

Looking at the HR pictures posted by GRogall has caused me to reconsider my view on these and I will probably get at least the three larger sets. I still don't know what I'll do with the mini figures, but at the very least I can add them to the kids Lego box.

[The_Creator]

I actually no longer mind the designs of the sets, and since I hardly ever keep a set up and together longer than a week before it gets parted out. The issue I have is the heraldy, IMO, is simply horrid. Minifigs are my first consideration when buying a set, and I'm not feeling much for these, although if the dragon heraldy had been better designed the baddies would have looked epic.

[metalandi]

I also think the sets are good, not as good as most of the kingdoms sets, but still a solid wave of castle sets. And yes, please stop that age discussion, i think we all should know that Lego after all still is a toy company, and therefore makes products for children, no matter which age. There just happens to exist some crazy adults like us that also like these products. ;)