Unpopular Opinions about LEGO

[Karalora]

8 hours ago, Kit Figsto said:

Anyway, I saw a comment the other day regarding the new Star Wars set reveals, and they were saying that in the 80s/90s/2000s, LEGO sets/themes felt like they were creating worlds, whereas now, it feels like simply a medium, and that sums up my feelings.

I've been feeling similarly lately--the IP licenses are not inherently a problem, but I think LEGO has found so much success with them that they sometimes (often?) focus on being The Cool Licensed Thing at the expense of being LEGO and doing what LEGO is best at. So much emphasis is placed on visual fidelity to the thing being recreated, that once-essential factors like accessibility or versatility are ignored.

[Kit Figsto]

5 hours ago, ShaydDeGrai said:

Personally I think its just one prong of a much larger game plan and TLG (finally*) recognizing that there may not be a "typical" Lego consumer and that not everyone has to like everything or like the same things for the same reasons; its perfectly fine to like Botanicals and not give a damn about Technic; I can collect Speed Champions because I enjoy the cool SNOT techniques that goes into building them, someone else might be a motor head and loves the cars they model and if they weren't buying Lego sets they'd be building plastic glue-together models of them instead. 

This is a fair take, and I want to make it clear that my original post wasn't meant to say that people are in the wrong for buying/enjoying the one-off 18+ display stuff, or that you're only a "true fan" if you disassemble and rebuild your stuff.  I've had the MBS Mos Eisley Cantina on display since it came out (which included transporting it intact while moving, which was...interesting, to say the least), and I've had plenty of sets that I've built, put back in the box, and don't really rebuild every time I want to get it out and mess with it.  

I think the crux of my argument is that I personally feel like LEGO has leaned into the 18+ market too much, and in doing so, has moved away from the ethos that made them great in the first place.  The 80s, 90s, 2000s, and even early 2010s get romanticized a lot among LEGO fans (depending on your generation) and I think part of that is because it felt like, even after they went away from alternate models or leaned more into licensed themes, there was still this element of creativity that permeated throughout the sets and themes.  I just don't see that anymore when every set is made up of more and more specialized parts, there's zero exposed studs, and we're in the territory where things outside of the "core" play themes is dominated by larger price point sets or more display-oriented models.  Target stores in the US now usually have 2 LEGO aisles - from what I see, it's usually one full aisle on both sides, and then another half aisle, and I would say usually the entire half aisle is black-box stuff.  That's around one third of the product line on shelves devoted to stuff that's $100 and up.  Then, you take out the Duplo/4+ stuff, as well as the display pieces in stuff like Harry Potter, Star Wars, or other licensed themes, and you're left with around half of the line that's focused more on the "creative" side, in my opinion - playability, rebuilding being encouraged, etc.  Just not my cup of tea, but of course, it's just my take.

If someone enjoys the 18+ statues, by all means, buy it and enjoy it!

8 minutes ago, Karalora said:

I've been feeling similarly lately--the IP licenses are not inherently a problem, but I think LEGO has found so much success with them that they sometimes (often?) focus on being The Cool Licensed Thing at the expense of being LEGO and doing what LEGO is best at. So much emphasis is placed on visual fidelity to the thing being recreated, that once-essential factors like accessibility or versatility are ignored.

I agree here, like I said, I grew up playing with Star Wars or Indiana Jones, and I remember having a ton of fun building scenes from the movies that weren't represented in sets yet, or putting together a huge clone base or whatever.  It just feels like now, the licensed stuff is more focused on it being a display piece that there's barely any sets left where kids can have that same experience.  Heck, most of the Star Wars stuff available other than battle packs are like $40-$60 minimum for a small/medium sized ship, but that's a separate issue altogether.

[JesseNight]

7 hours ago, MAB said:

Are they doing that for enjoyment though or clicks and advertising revenue? Rushing and making mistakes goes hand in hand with the need to be the first if they are monetising the videos.

It's funny you mention monetization, because that is another thing I see for a lot of people sneaking into their hobbies. Yes, hobbies are expensive and that seems to have been getting worse thanks to many limited edition products and people investing to resell. I've noticed that a lot of hobbyists do this reselling themselves, to fund their hobby without the need to pay up a lot themselves.
I myself couldn't do any of all that, invest my hobby time into doing business. My hobby time is about relaxing and having fun, not about doing business or rushing. Sure, that means I can't have everything because my budget has limitations... but I can live with that. It keeps me having goals to look forward to.

[MAB]

7 hours ago, Kit Figsto said:

 It just feels like now, the licensed stuff is more focused on it being a display piece that there's barely any sets left where kids can have that same experience.  

Is that really any different to unlicensed sets? I think this is more down to the builder than the theme. A kid that keeps their Star Wars sets built is likely to keep their Dreamzzz or Ninjago sets built. Whereas a kid that mixes up all the bricks from their unlicensed sets is probably going to mix up their licensed sets too.

And linking it to costs of the nobby, it is far better to keep sets together if they think they will want to sell it to help buy different sets in future than to mix it all up. 

The other big difference now and decades ago is the amount of toys kids have. When I was a kid we had a limited amount of bricks and if I wanted to build, I had to take things apart. Whereas now, kids appear to have a lot more. Obviously that may be personal circumstances but I get the impression it was and is similar to other families.

[SpacePolice89]

19 hours ago, Kit Figsto said:

Anyway, I saw a comment the other day regarding the new Star Wars set reveals, and they were saying that in the 80s/90s/2000s, LEGO sets/themes felt like they were creating worlds, whereas now, it feels like simply a medium, and that sums up my feelings.

I think that is exactly what is missing. Creating small worlds was one of the funniest thing when I was a kid and it also encouraged kids to get more sets and pieces. That was reflected in the catalogs with beautiful dioramas with many sets and landscapes. Nowadays there are just some boring pictures of the sets on top of lazy computer made backgrounds.  

[BrickBob Studpants]

12 hours ago, Kit Figsto said:

I just don't see that anymore when every set is made up of more and more specialized parts […]

Is that really the case though? Of course that depends on what you consider to be specialised, but in my experience, there are fewer highly-specialised pieces than in the early 2000s, for instance. New slope and wedge pieces are incredibly versatile, sometimes by accident, like the slope piece initially developed for the Porsche which then worked perfectly for Toothless‘ ears  Outside of minifigs, I‘d say you rarely find new pieces that work only for one specific purpose.

Especially in the context of buildable figures and other 18+ sets, new parts are an exception rather than the norm.

[SpacePolice89]

1 hour ago, BrickBob Studpants said:

Is that really the case though? Of course that depends on what you consider to be specialised, but in my experience, there are fewer highly-specialised pieces than in the early 2000s, for instance. New slope and wedge pieces are incredibly versatile, sometimes by accident, like the slope piece initially developed for the Porsche which then worked perfectly for Toothless‘ ears  Outside of minifigs, I‘d say you rarely find new pieces that work only for one specific purpose.

Especially in the context of buildable figures and other 18+ sets, new parts are an exception rather than the norm.

In my opinion the amount of specialized parts is huge nowadays. For example I find the specialized car roof plates totally unnecessary. In the 80s and 90s there was much more overlap between themes and their parts selection. A more limited color palette was also helpful when building large MOCs back then, that and aesthetic reasons is why I only use the colors that were available in the year 2000 when building MOCs.

[Yperio_Bricks]

First I want to say, that I love the variety of bricks, pieces and colors we have today, but it is much harder, more time consuming and more expensive to build a good basic collection of pieces to build your own creations. When I was a kid I used the same bricks to build a castle and an aircraft carrier (that experience stuck with me ). If you buy just a few sets today you end up with many different pieces in many different colors and it can be challenging to build even some basic stuff like a house.

Then we have a lot of 1x1 pieces nowadays. I mean A LOT.  It is not a set for kids but I always think of Rivendell as an good example for 1x1 pieces. It has like 530 1x1 tiles alone! Then there are all the other 1x1 pieces in that set like plates, round plates and modified plates, flowers, etc. Lego knows people use the ppp as a metric to gauge a set's worth and inflating the piece count with 1x1 pieces is easy. And 1000 1x1 pieces cost basically nothing in production. I guess the weight of all pieces of a set would be a good additional metric but it is rarely every used. Maybe some youtubers mention the weight every now and then but that's about it.

But the question is, does LEGO want people to take sets apart and build something new? I don't think so. For LEGO it is more profitable when people buy an expensive collectors item, build it once and then display it aka bury it on a shelf. Then buy a new set and repeat the process. Playing and moccing just disturbs the money-printing machine. Same for children -> see my first point.

[ShaydDeGrai]

15 hours ago, Kit Figsto said:

I think the crux of my argument is that I personally feel like LEGO has leaned into the 18+ market too much, and in doing so, has moved away from the ethos that made them great in the first place.  The 80s, 90s, 2000s, and even early 2010s get romanticized a lot among LEGO fans (depending on your generation) and I think part of that is because it felt like, even after they went away from alternate models or leaned more into licensed themes, there was still this element of creativity that permeated throughout the sets and themes.  I just don't see that anymore when every set is made up of more and more specialized parts, there's zero exposed studs, and we're in the territory where things outside of the "core" play themes is dominated by larger price point sets or more display-oriented models.  Target stores in the US now usually have 2 LEGO aisles - from what I see, it's usually one full aisle on both sides, and then another half aisle, and I would say usually the entire half aisle is black-box stuff.  That's around one third of the product line on shelves devoted to stuff that's $100 and up.  Then, you take out the Duplo/4+ stuff, as well as the display pieces in stuff like Harry Potter, Star Wars, or other licensed themes, and you're left with around half of the line that's focused more on the "creative" side, in my opinion - playability, rebuilding being encouraged, etc.  Just not my cup of tea, but of course, it's just my take.

If I had to pick just one theme that still embodies "the old ethos" of LEGO from my youth (which was quite awhile ago now but I'm trying not to dwell on that...) while also trying to be new and fresh, capitalizing on new parts, colors and building techniques, I think I'd have to go with Friends.  I build these sets with my daughter and we both enjoy the experience.  We build them, she plays with them then she scraps them for parts and does what she calls "free build" because she doesn't like the term MOC (sounds too much like "mock" and she doesn't want people making fun of her creations - hey, it apparently makes sense to a 10 year old...)  Now, to your point, she also loves Harry Potter, but those sets are build once and keep as playsets in her mind - to the point where we have to rebuild periodically to correct for wear and tear and pet-related damage (The Great Hall was not so great after the cat knocked it off a shelf)

Anyway, my point is that, even with all the 18+ plus marketing, licensing, specialty molds and grossly overpriced collectables, there are still some really good kits out there that (give or take a minidoll versus a minifigure  ) embody the spirit LEGO we grew up with and I'm glad I can share that with my little one.  Creator 3-in-1 is another go-to favorite for this (City used to be, but lately it feels like its given into the trend of simpler builds with more specialized parts).  Are store shelves skewed in favor of the flashy stuff? Probably, they only have so much shelf space and want to stock the stuff they know will move.  More and more these days I find myself shopping on-line (and when browsing things with my daughter, using filters to level the marketing playing field).

As a former educator, I'm a great believer in open-ended play and my biggest concern with marketing licensed sets to kids is the risk of encoraging them to recreate existing narratives rather than inventing their own.  As I said, my daughter loves the Friends kits, but has never seen the cartoons or any of the media tie-ins, she doesn't know the official names of any of the minidoll characters and just makes up names on her own.  I think that's wonderful.  While I have little objection to her slowly turning our playroom into a full recreation of Hogwarts for that particular IP I think its important that her own imagination gets an unencumbered place to play as well.

[Kit Figsto]

15 hours ago, MAB said:

Is that really any different to unlicensed sets? I think this is more down to the builder than the theme. A kid that keeps their Star Wars sets built is likely to keep their Dreamzzz or Ninjago sets built. Whereas a kid that mixes up all the bricks from their unlicensed sets is probably going to mix up their licensed sets too.

And linking it to costs of the nobby, it is far better to keep sets together if they think they will want to sell it to help buy different sets in future than to mix it all up. 

The other big difference now and decades ago is the amount of toys kids have. When I was a kid we had a limited amount of bricks and if I wanted to build, I had to take things apart. Whereas now, kids appear to have a lot more. Obviously that may be personal circumstances but I get the impression it was and is similar to other families.

I'm referring more to the stuff that is display-only, as in the buildable statue of Chewbacca or the Disney camera and things - stuff that doesn't contain any inherent play value beyond just building it.  There are certainly unlicensed examples here (botanicals, for example), but City or Friends doesn't have dioramas the same way that a lot of the major licensed themes currently do.  

9 hours ago, Yperio_Bricks said:

First I want to say, that I love the variety of bricks, pieces and colors we have today, but it is much harder, more time consuming and more expensive to build a good basic collection of pieces to build your own creations. When I was a kid I used the same bricks to build a castle and an aircraft carrier (that experience stuck with me ). If you buy just a few sets today you end up with many different pieces in many different colors and it can be challenging to build even some basic stuff like a house.

Then we have a lot of 1x1 pieces nowadays. I mean A LOT.  It is not a set for kids but I always think of Rivendell as an good example for 1x1 pieces. It has like 530 1x1 tiles alone! Then there are all the other 1x1 pieces in that set like plates, round plates and modified plates, flowers, etc. Lego knows people use the ppp as a metric to gauge a set's worth and inflating the piece count with 1x1 pieces is easy. And 1000 1x1 pieces cost basically nothing in production. I guess the weight of all pieces of a set would be a good additional metric but it is rarely every used. Maybe some youtubers mention the weight every now and then but that's about it.

But the question is, does LEGO want people to take sets apart and build something new? I don't think so. For LEGO it is more profitable when people buy an expensive collectors item, build it once and then display it aka bury it on a shelf. Then buy a new set and repeat the process. Playing and moccing just disturbs the money-printing machine. Same for children -> see my first point.

I agree completely with all of your points, and I think you put it better than I could've - it seems harder these days to amass a collection of basic bricks to build most anything with.  I'm not saying it's bad that we have a larger palate of colors and shapes, but there's certain bricks that just don't feel...entirely necessary, sometimes?  It's okay to me to have a build where it's not 100% accurate to the source material, and have studs exposed or wing shapes that may not be totally the same as the real thing.  Do I want a build to be super blocky?  Not necessarily, but I also don't need everything to look 100% sleek and polished.

 

[MAB]

7 hours ago, Kit Figsto said:

I'm referring more to the stuff that is display-only, as in the buildable statue of Chewbacca or the Disney camera and things - stuff that doesn't contain any inherent play value beyond just building it.  There are certainly unlicensed examples here (botanicals, for example), but City or Friends doesn't have dioramas the same way that a lot of the major licensed themes currently do.  

 

That is presumably because City and Friends are aimed entirely at children and there are no adult sets. Similarly sets in licensed themes aimed at children tend to be playsets, whereas the ones aimed at adults in the same theme tend to focus more on display than play. 

[ShaydDeGrai]

6 hours ago, MAB said:

That is presumably because City and Friends are aimed entirely at children and there are no adult sets. 

Yeah, I hear the UCS Crack House, Strip Joint and Fake Youth Hostile Run By A Serial Killer sets just didn't resonate with the focus groups. 

[MAB]

2 hours ago, ShaydDeGrai said:

Yeah, I hear the UCS Crack House, Strip Joint and Fake Youth Hostile Run By A Serial Killer sets just didn't resonate with the focus groups. 

Maybe for the Modulars. I still think there should do a public convenience GWP to go with the modulars. They do enough toilets in private spaces now, so those in the street need somewhere to go.

[JesseNight]

On 1/14/2026 at 9:50 AM, MAB said:

Obviously that may be personal circumstances but I get the impression it was and is similar to other families.

Definitely not personal circumstances, this is indeed a thing. And not just Lego, other toys and even gaming consoles too.
Decades ago, we learned having to make choices and not own everything. That mentality definitely changed a lot.
 

On 1/14/2026 at 1:07 PM, SpacePolice89 said:

I think that is exactly what is missing. Creating small worlds was one of the funniest thing when I was a kid and it also encouraged kids to get more sets and pieces. That was reflected in the catalogs with beautiful dioramas with many sets and landscapes. Nowadays there are just some boring pictures of the sets on top of lazy computer made backgrounds.  

Agreed, I miss those beautiful pictures too.
Also let's not forget the box art back in those days. Most boxes would show at least 2 or 3 alternative builds with the included pieces (without instructions). I think back then, designers were given a lot more time for such things instead of just having to design new official models to release. That mentality changed everywhere in work environments I guess, there's a lot more pressure on people nowadays.
 

On 1/14/2026 at 4:07 PM, Yperio_Bricks said:

First I want to say, that I love the variety of bricks, pieces and colors we have today, but it is much harder, more time consuming and more expensive to build a good basic collection of pieces to build your own creations.

I had that problem as a 1980s kid too really. There were only 6 colors, but I never had enough in the same color to make a color consistent larger build of anything. True that this got a lot worse now.

[zeeverse]

For me, I am not really impressed with this new modular build trend being implemented. I think it might be okay for buildings, but I bought Lego Dreamzzz Set 71497 for parts, but I always build the model out of respect for the designer, and they used modular building on the mech and the vehicle.

I have training in engineering, and that is not how vehicles are designed, or built, so I don't see the merit in the use of modular building in anything but buildings and maybe streets. For mechs, Hero Factory, Bionicle, and Lego's Racheted Joint system is already modular, and much closer to how one could treat a mech as a modular build. But to me, a modular component means a functional group of different units connected together, and that is not what a mech is at all. The components can be thought of as modules, but they don't perform any useful function until the entire system is built. 

I dunno, call me crazy, but I think modular for buildings is great, for vehicles and mechs, it makes zero sense to me.

[Lyichir]

1 hour ago, zeeverse said:

For me, I am not really impressed with this new modular build trend being implemented. I think it might be okay for buildings, but I bought Lego Dreamzzz Set 71497 for parts, but I always build the model out of respect for the designer, and they used modular building on the mech and the vehicle.

I have training in engineering, and that is not how vehicles are designed, or built, so I don't see the merit in the use of modular building in anything but buildings and maybe streets. For mechs, Hero Factory, Bionicle, and Lego's Racheted Joint system is already modular, and much closer to how one could treat a mech as a modular build. But to me, a modular component means a functional group of different units connected together, and that is not what a mech is at all. The components can be thought of as modules, but they don't perform any useful function until the entire system is built. 

I dunno, call me crazy, but I think modular for buildings is great, for vehicles and mechs, it makes zero sense to me.

With the modules in sets like Dreamzzz the idea is that weapons, accessories, etc. can be mixed and matched between sets. 71497 is certainly one of the most extreme examples (with two builds fully composed of swappable modules instead of a base model with a more involved rebuild in most other Dreamzzz sets), but you can see it to a lesser extent in a lot of other recent Dreamzzz sets as well (for example, the fins, engines, and detachable flyers on the Tiger Shark Tank set). The intention isn't really the same as something like a modular building where each part can function independently, but then again the modules aren't sold as standalone pieces like with modular buildings either—each set with these sorts of connections has enough components to create one "complete" build.

Personally I really like this feature. Its execution in 71497 wasn't my favorite but with other sets it's neat and in some cases influences which model I choose to keep together (usually opting for the model with more swappable modules when it varies between builds).

[danth]

I though the modularity of the 2k Drive sets were pretty cool.

The mix and match sets are absolutely ridiculous. Whether they're good or bad ridiculous, I can't say. 

[zeeverse]

2 hours ago, Lyichir said:

With the modules in sets like Dreamzzz the idea is that weapons, accessories, etc. can be mixed and matched between sets. 71497 is certainly one of the most extreme examples (with two builds fully composed of swappable modules instead of a base model with a more involved rebuild in most other Dreamzzz sets), but you can see it to a lesser extent in a lot of other recent Dreamzzz sets as well (for example, the fins, engines, and detachable flyers on the Tiger Shark Tank set). The intention isn't really the same as something like a modular building where each part can function independently, but then again the modules aren't sold as standalone pieces like with modular buildings either—each set with these sorts of connections has enough components to create one "complete" build.

Personally I really like this feature. Its execution in 71497 wasn't my favorite but with other sets it's neat and in some cases influences which model I choose to keep together (usually opting for the model with more swappable modules when it varies between builds).

I can respect your position on that. I suppose what really annoys me about the "swappable" vehicle/mech parts is using those very thin clips to support the whole connection of the system. WIth my experience and Lego, that's something that will probably need regular replacement to maintain the model over the years.

But to be honest, I do mostly MOCs now, so the modular system is not something I will have to rely on in a build, for vehicles and mechs. And I do buy most sets for parts, but as someone experienced in engineering, I am concerned that it may misinform young builders that may go on to do STEM that those types of connections are suitable for real world design, when they are absolutely not. I dunno... Time will tell, I suppose?

[JesseNight]

1 hour ago, danth said:

I though the modularity of the 2k Drive sets were pretty cool.

The mix and match sets are absolutely ridiculous. Whether they're good or bad ridiculous, I can't say. 

To me, this modularity makes no sense at all.
Modularity is not new though, just look back at a lot of the late 80s larger spaceships. It didn't always make perfect sense either but in some cases (like swapping/adding/removing cargo pods) it was very useful. But putting a different car's (and different colored) front or back on another one's mid section is something I'll never understand.

[MAB]

6 minutes ago, JesseNight said:

To me, this modularity makes no sense at all.
Modularity is not new though, just look back at a lot of the late 80s larger spaceships. It didn't always make perfect sense either but in some cases (like swapping/adding/removing cargo pods) it was very useful. But putting a different car's (and different colored) front or back on another one's mid section is something I'll never understand.

Are you a 5-10 year old child though? Some kids will like it, and ones that don't can buy unswapable vehicles.

[LegendaryArticuno]

On 12/28/2025 at 4:42 PM, SpacePolice89 said:

I think that using focus groups with kids when making/designing sets and themes should be kept to a minimum. The designers should be allowed more saying in the process and results from focus groups are very misleading. It's like having the kids choosing what to eat every day and they'll choose ice cream, candy and pizza and that is not good for them in the long run. The kids are supposed to play with the toys and not to design them. Of course should the sets be tested with kids but not in the way it's currently done.

Agreed, focus groups significantly jacks up the price and set budget. See any 4+ set that is essentially extortion on young parents. Common sense from the designer is less restrictive and most important cheaper. 

On 12/29/2025 at 11:55 AM, Parrot said:

I prefer stickers over printed pieces.

I like my bricks free of any imagery. With stickers, I can simply choose not to apply them.

This is unpopular opinions, not illogical opinions.

[danth]

17 hours ago, MAB said:

Are you a 5-10 year old child though? Some kids will like it, and ones that don't can buy unswapable vehicles.

I don't like that "It's for kids" is used all the time as an excuse for something being nonsensical. Also...the fact that you can choose not to buy something isn't really a great defense either. 

Personally I think whether you like these sets has more to do with your appetite for ridiculousness, which I have much more of as an adult than I did as a kid. 

Edited Tuesday at 05:39 PM by danth

[zeeverse]

21 hours ago, Lyichir said:

With the modules in sets like Dreamzzz the idea is that weapons, accessories, etc. can be mixed and matched between sets. 71497 is certainly one of the most extreme examples (with two builds fully composed of swappable modulstead of a base model with a more involved rebuild in most other Dreamzzz sets), but you can see it to a lesser extent in a lot of other recent Dreamzzz sets as well (for example, the fins, engines, and detachable flyers on the Tiger Shark Tank set). The intention isn't really the same as something like a modular building where each part can function independently, but then again the modules aren't sold as standalone pieces like with modular buildings either—each set with these sorts of connections has enough components to create one "complete" build.

Personally I really like this feature. Its execution in 71497 wasn't my favorite but with other sets it's neat and in some cases influences which model I choose to keep together (usually opting for the model with more swappable modules when it varies between builds).

 

Also, it did catch me off guard with those Dreamzzz sets. I wasn't expecting that in mechs or vehicles.

19 hours ago, danth said:

I though the modularity of the 2k Drive sets were pretty cool.

The mix and match sets are absolutely ridiculous. Whether they're good or bad ridiculous, I can't say. 

 

I agree.
And I was not aware that any of this was occuring in Lego Vehicles.
But as I look at the sets, I think I am okay with it, as long as these sets are in addition to traditional Lego sets. 
If I were to buy one of these kinds of sets, it would be for parts, or to convert to permanent builds.

Edited Tuesday at 06:06 PM by zeeverse
accdiental double post.

[JesseNight]

20 hours ago, MAB said:

Are you a 5-10 year old child though? Some kids will like it, and ones that don't can buy unswapable vehicles.

I was a child, once
Even as a child, putting half a helicopter onto a total different car wouldn't make sense either. Toys offering that would actually annoy the heck outta me.
But even to a child who enjoys this, I can't help but wonder what such things really offer... A lot of toys have better ways to combine fantasy/creativity with a sense of realism that may teach the kid something.

[MAB]

1 hour ago, JesseNight said:

I was a child, once
Even as a child, putting half a helicopter onto a total different car wouldn't make sense either. Toys offering that would actually annoy the heck outta me.
But even to a child who enjoys this, I can't help but wonder what such things really offer... A lot of toys have better ways to combine fantasy/creativity with a sense of realism that may teach the kid something.

Some kids enjoy mashups. Many of vehicles in Dreamzzz are mashups so presumably their research shows enough kids like it. It is not like there aren't enough regular vehicles in City for those that want realism. I guess these are for the kids that want imaginative rather than realistic play. If that fire engine needs to put out a forest fire, stick on some wings and it is suddenly a fire plane. Having them modular also means it is quick and easy to switch bits out or add extra sections in, without needing to totally take the model apart then rebuild. So good for kids that prefer the play to the building side.

Edited Tuesday at 09:56 PM by MAB