Genuine Question About Rating Sets

[Karalora]

I have noticed in my years here that there is often a broad consensus among experienced fans whether a given set is satisfying or disappointing, but I've never been very clear on the criteria for making these assessments and how they are applied. Some factors that often seem to be mentioned:

• Piece count per price--about ten cents (U.S.) per piece seems to be the benchmark for good value for money (although I think we're overdue a recalibration of that what with unavoidable inflation).
• Number and quality of minifigures included with the set--obviously only applies to minifigure-based themes! I'm not certain what the desired ratio of minifigures per price or size is, or what factors make a minifigure good or disappointing apart from very basic things like how detailed the printing is.
• Stickers vs. prints--we have a whole thread explaining why prints are superior! Stickers instead of proper prints tend to reduce the perceived quality of a set.

And that's about as far as I've gotten. I can't figure out what people tend to consider a satisfying building experience, what they look for in specific parts selections, etc. My opinions of sets tend to be either "Looks good to me!" or "Nah, not my thing," and I feel like most people here are operating on a higher level of sophistication with their assessments.

So what does make a set "good" or "bad"?

 

[aFrInaTi0n]

From how I understand it, those may be the main concerns for people.. I understand those as some sorts of metric which are / may be applicable over a wider variation of sets to make them comparable.

Everybody needs to pick his own values when it comes to judging products - so those may be helpful to keep in mind as comparables, but to me they are not really taking any sets' good idea(s) into consideration.

I would phrase it for myself like this: If any set can convince me to want to have it, this may already be enough reason for me.

(This may be a theoretical construct as I am more a part scavenger who would even buy a new set to get his hands on new parts, rather then really building the set..)

[Mylenium]

3 hours ago, Karalora said:

• Piece count per price--about ten cents (U.S.) per piece seems to be the benchmark for good value for money (although I think we're overdue a recalibration of that what with unavoidable inflation).

Not really. Prices for the materials, mold making and the actual manufacturing have been steadily going down for decades due to automation and overall more efficient production. It's just once again LEGO's marketing machine working overtime telling us that everything has gotten more expensive.

3 hours ago, Karalora said:

• Number and quality of minifigures included with the set--obviously only applies to minifigure-based themes! I'm not certain what the desired ratio of minifigures per price or size is, or what factors make a minifigure good or disappointing apart from very basic things like how detailed the printing is.

I don't care and even if I did, why should it matter? Same as above - even an elaborate minifig costs pennies to produce. LEGO - and by extension fan groups - are just pushing a certain narrative here and have an agenda.

3 hours ago, Karalora said:

• Stickers vs. prints--we have a whole thread explaining why prints are superior! Stickers instead of proper prints tend to reduce the perceived quality of a set.

Now we're getting somewhere. Stickers imply laziness as in "LEGO couldn't be bothered with the logistics." and of course this comes across as playing it cheap. That and their inconsistency in deciding what to print plus the poor quality of their stickers, in particular colors not matching with the plastic. They're also simply looking bad on this because their competitors prove that high quality prints can be done without breaking the bank, yet they choose to tell us otherwise every time. There is no necessity to print everything and one could debate the reasons endlessly, but again, it's more this "We don't give a shit about our customers." attitude that this communicates bothers me most.

3 hours ago, Karalora said:

So what does make a set "good" or "bad"?

That's probably impossible to answer as everyone will have their own views, but a few things I can point out that make a set bad for me:

• color vomit per se - too many randomly colored pieces, including structural elements, for no reason
• visible color vomit - I just hate differently colored brackets in the wrong places or when interior elements shine through
• bad build sequence - jumping back and forth on a model for no good reason, not securing "free" elements before moving on --> commonly an issue with Friends buildings for instance
• excessive use of Technic elements in conventional models - Why ruin nice models with visible pins or connectors, when everything should be smooth?
• "floaty" elements like slopes and tiles only being attached to a single stud
• inadequate volume and curvature approximation e.g. on Creator 3in1 animals
• the designers not understanding basic design principles like "orientation" and "flow" and constructing the models in the wrong direction

I'm sure I could ramble on and find more points, but it's early in the morning and I didn't have my tea yet...

Mylenium

 

[JesseNight]

• Price per piece is definitely a big one for many, including myself. It doesn't make a set good or bad though, it's just a factor in whether I find it worth spending on.
• Obviously it has to look good. And accurate, if they try to represent something. (sometimes it's painfully obvious when a designer just didn't understand the model they were asked to build)
• Stable build that doesn't have parts falling off when grabbing it.
• Printed parts over stickers. Unfortunately not always a choice.
• Interesting build that's not too easy and definitely not too repetitive.
• Visible color vomit mentioned by Mylenium is a good one, but I feel we cannot get around that anymore most of the time.

(Note: some prefer price per weight over price per brick, due to some pieces being vastly bigger or more complex than others, which could affect value)

Minifigs rarely hold much value to me.

Edited 8 hours ago by JesseNight

[Karalora]

I'm curious about the distaste for single-stud attachments. I understand how it means smaller parts (and therefore less value) and potentially a more fragile connection, but on the other hand, if you want finer detail--which seems to be a consideration for many AFOLs--you kind of need the parts and attachments to be smaller. How do you square these competing factors?