Playability vs Accuracy

[captaintau]

Playability and accuracy.

Which is more important?

Which is more important to you?

Is there a happy balance or should they be definately more about one or the other?

[Zaktan of the Shadows]

If I was a little younger, I'd say playability.

But i'd say Accuracy.

-ZotS

[Scouty]

For Star Wars...accuracy...lots, and lots of accuracy. Playability is important, but comes last. Which is 1. Accuracy 2. Playability :-P .

[SWMAN]

Ever since I was a kid, I have liked the sets to be accurate. Playablity and ability to stay together is also important.

[jamie75]

Accuracy all the way.

I don't really play with my Lego, with the exception of building and MOCing. I don't consider these playing, I consider swooshing them around and reanacting scenes while making flying and laser sounds playing. Basically my son plays with them, I build.

IMO, there is differance. I display mine and would love every set to be accurate, but, know that is not possible, so I take what they give. I know I am not their target age group for the majority of their products so, why complain about a toy made for kids.

Jamie

[Asuka]

I know I am not their target age group for the majority of their products so, why complain about a toy made for kids.

Jamie

You

[jamie75]

You

[Asuka]

Discuss all you want, but, be realistic.

You

[captaintau]

Right, but, there is a differnce between discussing and complaining!

I am all for discussing and what not, but, I can not stand people who are 30+, like me, and complain about Darth Vader's Transformation being a crappy set. I see it for what it is, a kids toy that is cool considering the pieces and price point of the set. Discuss all you want, but, be realistic.

Come on, it's what, a $10 set with less then 100 pieces and some 30+ couch potato has the gull to complain about it being a crappy set.

I agree with you on principle, but not with your example. Lightsaber Duel and the Final Duel that I've reviewed recently are good examples: low number of pieces, two decent minifigs, something to go with them. DVT is crap. There HAS to be better ways of doing that.

Again, just my oppinion.

[M'Kyuun]

My preference is for accuracy over playability. Over the last few years, TLG have been placing greater emphasis on accuracy in addition to playability; personally, I like the direction they're taking. Of course, not every set is going to be perfectly accurate, or at least as accurate as I/we would like; I just accept it. And mutter a bit when I think something could have been done better/ differently. I noticed the turn towards better accuracy with the release of the Ep II sets, esp the Clone Gunship and Jedi Starfighter(retractable landing gear!)

The 2007 lineup follows the trend. Except for the Sith Infiltrator, which I had hoped would be larger and much more accurate than the smaller model that Lego opted to make. To me, though, the rest of the lineup more than makes up for one marginal design. Just my opinion.

[Grand Moff Viceroy]

I would like accuracy much more, but since the studs, obviously dont make it "accurate", accuracy should double the playability , for me at least. *vader* *vader* *vader* *vader* *vader*

[ghoulrealm]

If playability equals the interchangability of a piece and accuracy equals the realism of a piece or moc, I'm going with playability (interchangable pieces) first. Realism is very important to me but not if it sacrafices the versatilty of of a part. The fun is the chalenge of making a realistic model from parts that can be used in a multitude of ways.

If I was too concerned with accuracy/realism I would just buy a detailed model kit or sculpt the subject. I do that on occasion but Lego bricks are far more enjoyable.

[Lord Admiral Helden Ravensdorn]

"accuracy" in LEGO is, IMO, is impossible. Nothing about Lego looks real. Thus, I go for a balance of playability vs accuracy, as can be seen by building pirate ships using the stock-issue hull peices. Looks like a Pirate ship, but its far too small.

[Corvus]

I'm picky. I need a mix to make me happy.

Accuracy but no posability, equals a USC set that I wouldn't do much with except sit it on a shelf.

Playability but no accuracy, equals... megablocks! :-P No... they don't have that much playability, either.

So... I suppose it's accuracy first, but not without a touch of playability.

[insanerobo]

I think accuracy, but for 10 years TLC has created Some of the most accurate and playable sets in the world. What is this question if we obviously know, and have the answer. Both.

[Forresto]

I think accuracy, but for 10 years TLC has created Some of the most accurate and playable sets in the world. What is this question if we obviously know, and have the answer. Both.

I'd say idealy both go hand in hand. By the way Insanerobo it's usually best to ask a moderator in this Topic before reopening a three year old topic.

[Destroydacre]

Obviously accuracy is nice, but to be honest I prefer playability as I plan to give all my Lego sets to my kids some day. The only sets that I want to be extremely accurate are UCS. I mean yeah the set has to look something like what it's modeled after, but if you sacrifice some of that accuracy for a few extra features, that's cool in my book.

[CommanderFox]

For Star Wars...accuracy...lots, and lots of accuracy. Playability is important, but comes last. Which is 1. Accuracy 2. Playability :-P .

Agreed.

While playability is nice, for Star Wars Accuracy comes first imo.

CommanderFox

[RileyC]

While playabilty is important in sets accuracy is definitely more important. I don't mind having playsets like the home one where it's got all the good bits from a ship

[Ratshot]

Accuracy for me, I think it makes the set more likable even though it may be harder to put the minifigs inside or it might be more prone to break.

[Big Cam]

I think accuracy, but for 10 years TLC has created Some of the most accurate and playable sets in the world. What is this question if we obviously know, and have the answer. Both.

It's a thread from over two years ago.

For me though, Accuracy is key in SW sets. I don't really play so to me it's gotta look good.

[Anio]

UCS powaaaaaaaaa !

[nulchking]

A few Years ago it would be playability, but now I think accuracy is more important for me, since I saw those great MOCs here

[Commander_Rob]

I`d say accuracy is more important but it is pretty close, after all, playability is one of the most important aspects of Lego.

It should however not go too far beyond what the actual vehicle or whatever else actually features, like opening hatches.

Flick-fire missiles are (to me) the maximum in artistic license for playability.

[Rufus]

Some things count for both playability and accuracy. You wouldn't want an X wing that had wings that didn't move; black non-functioning cockpits like on the chrome UCS Naboo fighter (or the Yavin X wing in the Visual Dictionary) might look right but wouldn't interest me.

Another example, as someone has already said, is landing gear. Is this accuracy, or playability, or both? All I know is that while I don't really play with the sets, it's great to be able to pose a ship in flight or landed.

The best sets - in my opinion - strike a balance between playability and accuracy, and perhaps add a little of the unexpected. My favorite example is the 7665 Republic Cruiser - it looks, perhaps, better than the movie version; while it's not to scale (so can only fit one minifig in the cockpit) it has stuff you're not expecting, like the guns, and the interior (which I know some don't like), which I think adds greatly to the overall package. Plus, of course, it has landing gear that is both functional and accurate.

R.

Interesting topic, from before my time. Right or wrong, I'm glad you revived it!