Jump to content


Playability vs Accuracy


43 replies to this topic

#1 captaintau

captaintau

  • Two Drink Minimum


    Posts: 1536
    Joined: 27-October 05
    Member: 525
    Country: England

Posted 17 May 2007 - 12:09 AM

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?

#2 Zaktan of the Shadows

Zaktan of the Shadows

    Posts: 1600
    Joined: 11-January 07
    Member: 1232
    Country: Canada!!!

Posted 17 May 2007 - 12:21 AM

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

But i'd say Accuracy.

-ZotS


#3 Scouty

Scouty

  • [not worthy of classic film title]


    Posts: 7901
    Joined: 24-July 06
    Member: 863

Posted 17 May 2007 - 01:24 AM

For Star Wars...accuracy...lots, and lots of accuracy. Playability is important, but comes last. Which is 1. Accuracy 2. Playability :-P .
.Posted Image
"Mr. Nowhere" John Doe >:] | Bruno Bear, the watchmaker | Sassy Cooter | Scar Mimitsus >:] |
First Officer Commander Cameron Walters :3 | Casey Cat, Puuurfect painter | Sveinn, the Uninspired :3 | Scouty | L'il Scouty | Langston Lionheart >:]

#4 SWMAN

SWMAN

    Posts: 1348
    Joined: 20-July 06
    Member: 859
    Country: United States

Posted 17 May 2007 - 08:45 PM

Ever since I was a kid, I have liked the sets to be accurate. Playablity and ability to stay together is also important.
Chuck Norris doesn't hate the world. He just hates everyone in it.

#5 jamie75

jamie75

  • Packs a large walker


    Posts: 464
    Joined: 03-August 05
    Member: 454
    Country: Hoth

Posted 18 May 2007 - 12:56 PM

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

#6 Asuka

Asuka

  • Pictural Poet


    Posts: 6658
    Joined: 19-June 06
    Member: 816
    Country: Schnitzelland

Posted 18 May 2007 - 07:01 PM

View Postjamie75, on May 18 2007, 01:56 PM, said:

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
Youre plain right with that, but I guess this is an adult centered fan site
so we have to talk about our point of view....
I personally would prefer playability and accuracy going hand in hand,
because playability alone isnt working very fine without a propper
basic design, although we always can MOD those sets.
For me the range of useful bricks in a special set together with its overall
appealing design is essential. If Im looking at the new AquaRaiders line
I have to say that the designers of these sets made a brilliant job. Its
very easy to remove all the crappy and spiky weapon stuff and the core
design of these sets is just excellent.
In fact, interesting sets with some detail flaws like those open cockpits of the
Exo-Force linere IMO a very good concept because it invites people to
modify them and opens a world full of building fun for all age groups.  :-)
Inspire on!

#7 jamie75

jamie75

  • Packs a large walker


    Posts: 464
    Joined: 03-August 05
    Member: 454
    Country: Hoth

Posted 19 May 2007 - 03:12 PM

View PostAsuka, on May 18 2007, 07:01 PM, said:

Youre plain right with that, but I guess this is an adult centered fan site
so we have to talk about our point of view....

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. This is what gets me.

My 2 cents, Jamie

#8 Asuka

Asuka

  • Pictural Poet


    Posts: 6658
    Joined: 19-June 06
    Member: 816
    Country: Schnitzelland

Posted 19 May 2007 - 03:51 PM

View Postjamie75, on May 19 2007, 04:12 PM, said:

Discuss all you want, but, be realistic.
Youre right again ( :'-) ).
But.... fandom and realism.... I guess this would be an entirely new experience.  8-|
:-D
And maybe sometimes complaining is just fun and works like a valve within societies....
Especially for things you cant change that much, even if you try.

#9 captaintau

captaintau

  • Two Drink Minimum


    Posts: 1536
    Joined: 27-October 05
    Member: 525
    Country: England

Posted 19 May 2007 - 04:14 PM

View Postjamie75, on May 19 2007, 03:12 PM, said:

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.

#10 M'Kyuun

M'Kyuun

    Posts: 455
    Joined: 17-June 05
    Member: 379
    Country: USA

Posted 26 May 2007 - 08:23 AM

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.

#11 Grand Moff Viceroy

Grand Moff Viceroy

    Posts: 483
    Joined: 21-May 07
    Member: 1601
    Country: United States

Posted 26 May 2007 - 03:43 PM

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*

#12 ghoulrealm

ghoulrealm

    Posts: 587
    Joined: 25-June 06
    Member: 825
    Country: USA

Posted 27 May 2007 - 11:24 AM

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.

#13 Lord Admiral Helden Ravensdorn

Lord Admiral Helden Ravensdorn

    Posts: 665
    Joined: 07-June 06
    Member: 806

Posted 27 May 2007 - 01:51 PM

"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.

#14 Corvus

Corvus

  • ¡ʎpuɐɯ ɹǝʌǝɹoɟ


    Posts: 3134
    Joined: 29-March 07
    Member: 1483
    Country: USA

Posted 11 June 2007 - 03:46 AM

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.
True happiness: looking inside the box to see a perfectly flat instruction manual.

Posted Image

#15 insanerobo

insanerobo

    Posts: 41
    Joined: 03-August 09
    Member: 6890

Posted 27 October 2009 - 03:44 AM

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.
All work and no play makes Jack a very dull boy.

#16 Forresto

Forresto

  • Soccor Star


    Posts: 1204
    Joined: 30-July 09
    Member: 6841
    Country: USA

Posted 27 October 2009 - 04:01 AM

View Postinsanerobo, on Oct 26 2009, 10:44 PM, said:

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.


"Be good or don't get caught." I tell my cats this every day - they never listen"
Link to my Flickr
Link to my 'Doctor Who' mocs

Posted Image  Thanks Joey!


#17 Destroydacre

Destroydacre

    Posts: 380
    Joined: 10-July 09
    Member: 6646
    Country: USA

Posted 27 October 2009 - 04:05 AM

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.

#18 CommanderFox

CommanderFox

  • Can't remember his own name


    Posts: 3368
    Joined: 26-February 09
    Member: 5406
    Country: New Zealand

Posted 27 October 2009 - 05:24 AM

View PostImperialScouts, on May 17 2007, 02:24 PM, said:

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. :sweet:

CommanderFox
My Brickshelf!. The Brick Hope.
Anime and Manga fan, feel free to discuss anything anime on my profile :)
                                          CommanderFox playing as Ollivander Dippet for Gryffindor in Harry Potter Wizards Duel!
Posted ImagePosted Image - Kiwi Bricks

#19 RileyC

RileyC

  • >-- Stupid Cupid --> <3


    Posts: 2999
    Joined: 10-February 09
    Member: 5251
    Country: New Zealand

Posted 27 October 2009 - 06:12 AM

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

Formerly gone by the name of "Roncanator"

Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image Posted Image Posted Image

Playing as Yasuko a Model in Yakusa Family Mafia
Played as Rickety Cannon a Town Nerd in Dr. Bloodbrick's Asylum II: Fraulein Bloodbrick Mafia
Played as Ruxana a Town Pilot in Baritones 3 Mafia
Played as Roweena Karnata a Town Guard General turned Dark One in The Coming Darkness Mafystery
Played as Cookie Custer an Insane from Spider Ward in Dr. Bloodbrick's Asylum Mafia
Played as Ron Canter a Town Folk turned Noodles Family in Eurodina Mafia
Played as Todd "Bulltoad" Bulstrode an Innocent from Slytherin in Hogwarts Mafia
Played as Ron Callister a Sane Pilot in Dystopia Mafia
Played as Ron Toreil an Honoured soldier in Imperial Soldier's Mafia


#20 Ratshot

Ratshot

  • Thank you for your contributions!


    Posts: 3156
    Joined: 24-December 08
    Member: 4799
    Country: Canada

Posted 27 October 2009 - 01:00 PM

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.

My flickr

Posted Image
1969 Dodge Charger RT


#21 Big Cam

Big Cam

  • A good mood, too.


    Posts: 13999
    Joined: 02-April 09
    Member: 5701
    Country: USA

Posted 27 October 2009 - 01:28 PM

View Postinsanerobo, on Oct 26 2009, 09:44 PM, said:

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.

#22 Anio

Anio

  • I buy LEGO, then I just do something awesome with it.


    Posts: 1422
    Joined: 18-February 09
    Member: 5344
    Country: France

Posted 27 October 2009 - 02:41 PM

UCS powaaaaaaaaa !  :grin:

#23 nulchking

nulchking

    Posts: 19
    Joined: 24-October 09
    Member: 7955
    Country: Germany

Posted 27 October 2009 - 03:25 PM

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  :wink:

#24 Commander_Rob

Commander_Rob

    Posts: 434
    Joined: 01-September 08
    Member: 3863
    Country: Germany

Posted 27 October 2009 - 05:56 PM

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.
Just call me Rob.

#25 Rufus

Rufus

  • Schnell! Schnell! Kartoffelkopf!


    Posts: 5039
    Joined: 15-July 09
    Member: 6705
    Country: England

Posted 28 October 2009 - 01:10 AM

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!  :classic:



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users