Discussion on what differences there are for AFOLs and CFOLs in LEGO

[RaincloudDustbin]

So, when you buy a LEGO set, what are you buying it for and what do you want to see more of/less of?

For me, I usually display it or mod it so things I don't need are:

Playability- I am not really bothered by this whereas kids seem to be hence why there are so bloody many! (FFM)

The design taking the bullet for playability- I really noticed this on the Malibu Mansion where the design was sacrificed in order for more features to be included.

Things I would like more of:

More focus on the overall look of a set/ complete set- For example, Arkham Asylum in my opinion could have done with the gate attaching to the build rather than just being there. In a set that large (where it unlikely kids will buy it hence the price point) it would have been neat to have a back to it or a few less 'gimmicks' like the Freeze cell in exchange for a nicer back or some more regular cells.

What kids want:

In my experience, kids don't want nice architecture. They don't even care about the figs looking realistic. They want something they can destroy and (in theory) put back together again.

Let's get this straight though, this isn't a rant or even a wishlist. It's just what I like from sets.

What do you think are your criteria for a good set and how it differs from CFOLs?

[naf]

As an adult, I look for sets that make nice display pieces. For example, I am interested in 79003 An Unexpected Gathering (the hobbit hole set), since it has nice architectural features, interesting interior details, and will look nice on my shelf. Sets like 79010 Goblin King Battle don't interest me since they're more of a playset intended for kids to play out the battle from the movie.

I usually don't buy sets just to get parts. If I want to MOC, I'll buy the parts I need from bricklink or PAB at the Lego Store.

[mysteriouspi]

I generally buy sets these days because I need them for filmmaking. To that end, I only look for an aesthetically pleasing structure or vehicle. Play features don't bother me because they can usually be removed or modified if need be. Only rarely do I buy sets for parts, but it happens. As naf said, it's often much easier to Bricklink said parts.

[Andy D]

I usually buy a set because it is architecturarly interesting. I like the modular series and the Winter Village series. I buy sets to display minifigs just add to he cost and not to the displayability for the most part.

I do buy sets just to part out for MOCs because of the variety of parts that I might not think about when Bricklinking parts. I sometimes buy parts from BL just because they look interesting, not knowing what I am going to do with them, in that respect buying sets for parts helps me there to learn about new parts and if I need more of a new found part... BL.

I sometimne but 2 or 3 sets of a prticular set. One to build and he others to use to MOD.

Andy D

[TheLegoDr]

I agree about not needing play features since I don't play with them. But since the target audience does, it makes sense why they are there. One problem becomes the large exclusives that have play features, since most kids will not acquire those sets due to the price. So if those are directed at adults, why include play features?

I typically buy sets for the figures and the pieces to MOC with. There are only a handful of sets that are together and displayed. The rest are purchased for the assortment of pieces and the figures. Since my interests are varied, I end up buying a lot of sets with random pieces. It helps in the long run.

Edit: what is a cfol?

Edited June 10, 2013 by TheLegoDr

[MikroMan]

Well, if I'm buying a set, I'll first build it, display it for some time and then integrate it into my MOCing collection. Obviously, when a kid build a set, he display it for a maximum of 5 minutes, then he plays with it until he redners it down into 20 separate pieces. Then, he'll rebuild it with some parts of his own and repeat the process. So from this standpoint we can easily see why play features are needed. But as others have said, why does LEGO include play features with AFOL-oriented sets?

[Alcarin]

I usually aim to buy sets that:

1. Are of nice design (Helm's Deep, Unexpected Gathering, Medieval Market Village)

or

2. Give atleast good parts and selling figs then use rest for MOC

[Kivi]

My criteria for a Lego set: the usefulness of parts for mocing. When I buy mayself a set I only build it once and then disassemble it and use the parts for mocs. The only exception so far is Emerald Night which I left assembled and use it as it is in my displays (with mocs, of course ).

My children's criteria for a Lego set: the playability of a set. They don't care much how the set looks but how can they play with it. Though they sometimes play even with the things that I would have never thought to be playable. So I believe if I gave them Tower Bridge of something similar they would probably find a way how to play with it too.

[RaincloudDustbin]

I agree about not needing play features since I don't play with them. But since the target audience does, it makes sense why they are there. One problem becomes the large exclusives that have play features, since most kids will not acquire those sets due to the price. So if those are directed at adults, why include play features?

I typically buy sets for the figures and the pieces to MOC with. There are only a handful of sets that are together and displayed. The rest are purchased for the assortment of pieces and the figures. Since my interests are varied, I end up buying a lot of sets with random pieces. It helps in the long run.

Edit: what is a cfol?

Child fan of LEGO. Or basically any kid.

[ShaydDeGrai]

For me, I'd say it's mostly about the build followed by its display value (though I don't have a lot of display space to begin with).

Even as a child, my expectations toward "play features" were pretty limited: Give me wheels that turned, doors that opened, propellers that spun and trains that ran on tracks and my imagination could do the rest. I recall when the modern minifigure first came out I didn't really like the posable arms and legs, I preferred my old "slabbies" because I could _imagine_ my slabbies as being more dynamic than the poses the new figures could actually achieve and _seeing_ the arms and legs in an achievable pose somehow made it harder to imagine them in the ideal pose.

Build-wise, my preference (or pet peeve when my preference is not satisfied) is for the size of the kit to reflect the scale and complexity of the build. I really dislike it when a "big" kit is actually a collection of small, simple builds. For example, compare LOTR Helm's Deep with Mines of Moria (two of the larger kits in the line). Both are fairly modular builds, which is fine, but with Helm's Deep you _feel_ like you're building _toward_ something with each subassembly (like building the floors of Grand Emporium or Palace Cinema), when you're done you have _a_ big build that you can stand back and admire. Mines of Moria, on the other hand, feels like it was designed for people with short attention spans. It's a big box with a bunch of small builds that can be arranged to recreate a scene from the movie, but it just doesn't _feel_ like you just assembled an 800 piece set. It feels more like you just put together a half dozen small kits and polybags. Even Medieval Market Village (a set which I love, BTW) really feels like two mid-size kits (akin to the 3739 blacksmith's shop) rather than a _big_ kit, but I'm more forgiving of MMV because each of the two main buildings have enough going on that you don't feel like you're just wading through polybag-scale kits.

I don't know which build style I would have preferred as a child. Back then, I was lucky to afford anything and most of what I did have would have been polybags and stocking stuffers by today's standards. I suppose, in hindsight, if someone had given me the Mines of Moria kit back then, I would not have complained about the lack of a _big_ build, I would have been so thrilled just to get so many parts I wouldn't have cared if it did even come with instructions.

[Vindicare]

Now, it's just something that I like the looks of or have interests in. When I started, it was pretty much all City, which I use in a layout. That was a big gateway theme. Then of course, the nerd in me couldn't resist SW, then came LotR/Hobbit & Superheroes...

I love castles, so naturally. I too don't care about play features(so many catapults...). I typically don't but a set solely for the figs, but in the case of 76008 Golf Cart of Doom I did for the Heartbreaker suit. I suppose if the set were an inexpensive one I would do it again.

[fred67]

I like to display. The only difference is that I like trains, and sometimes will set up track and "play" with the trains, and hope to have a large, permanent layout some day (I simply don't have space right now).

I buy sets for various reasons; I like the display value - when it comes to modulars, for example, the way they will ultimately fit into my train layout makes them a great buy; for now I have a few built and displayed on shelves. I'm a fan of OT Star Wars, so I wanted at least one version of each ship and a few extras for display. I'm a fan of HP and LOTR, so I have a lot of those sets, too.

I am trying to wean myself away from too many licenses, though. I figured I'd eventually get every LOTR set, but there are already some polybags and minor sets (like the give-away Elrond) that I don't have because I wasn't willing to buy the game and people snatched up the polybags before I even had a chance. I am not particularly happy about the play-value of the LOTR sets, either. I build Moria, and first off built up a base for it to keep it all as one piece; I will probably work out the play features to make it more suitable for display at some point. The way I see it, when I do build a train layout, I clear up a bunch of shelf space where the modulars (and other city related sets) are now displayed, then I can concentrate on making a better display for licenses.

I also collect CMFs for various reasons - first of all, I'm a bit obsessive like that and need completeness, so if I was going to get any, I had to get them all. I display complete sets of CMFs; with 160, now, CMF displays (not just mine) are becoming very impressive. But they will work in the city and various MOCs, too, so I needed more than just for display, and since they are "collectible," I like having a sealed one of each... so that IS obsessive.... a sealed one, an open one for display, and more for whatever MOCs and also for my kids.

My kids are not into LEGO the way I am. They both have a small collection of CMFs that they liked, but they just display them. My son used to collect Star Wars and Bionicle, but he's in his dark ages now (although he was never really that into them). I have witnessed, and when I was little was just like that, where we'd build sets - space ships, pretend to have battles... and the losers would end up "crashing." Meaning... hundreds of parts scattered about. Which was good, because building was the fun part, so you'd get to rebuild a new one.

[Aanchir]

I think the chief difference between AFOLs and KFOLs (that's the term I hear more often than CFOL) is that AFOLs tend to want sets to be well-rounded (and are willing to pay the large sums of money it costs to make them such), whereas KFOLs have fewer and more particular demands. For a kid, particularly a boy, the key components of a big castle are walls with castle windows, a throne room, a drawbridge, a catapult, knights, horses, a king, and if possible a dragon. These are traits that most flagship castle sets of the last decade have had. An AFOL would more likely seek out a castle that is livable as well as well-armed. A proper keep where the king can reside would be a big deal, and a dining hall would up the ante considerably.

Incidentally, I don't think any LEGO castle set has properly achieved this, though surprisingly I had a remarkably well-rounded Mega Bloks castle as a kid. It had a griffon instead of a dragon, and I can't for the life of me find pictures of it online — I'll have to dig it out sometime and photograph it! It had plenty of drawbacks of course, but on the whole it had a lot of things I've found LEGO castles have often lacked.

Incidentally, the LEGO Friends theme has a lot more of this emphasis on "livability" than the typical boy-oriented sets aimed at the same age range. I think this is just a matter of different priorities, though, not a matter of girls being more "grown-up" than their peers. After all, boys also tend to like a lot of larger-than-life action, which is largely absent from the LEGO Friends theme. I think a lot of adult LEGO Castle fans would abhor a flagship LEGO castle that emphasized livability only without any soldiers and weapons for medieval battles.

Now, moving on to what I personally like in sets... well, I suppose a lot of traditionalist AFOLs would disagree, but I really like sets with a lot of story behind them. Action figure themes have been a passion of mine since the days of Throwbots/Slizer, and even in traditional themes I've tended to prefer themes taking place in "invented worlds", from the recent stuff like Hero Factory or Ninjago to themes from my childhood like Ice Planet or Aquazone. Being able to immerse myself in a theme like that is a great motivator.

I like sets with good pieces, but the aesthetics and functionality of the finished model tend to be what decides how high a priority a set is for me. After all, I can't properly explore what to do with the pieces until I have them in front of me to fiddle around with! Digital building is a great asset for me, and one I use with reckless abandon, but it's not a substitute for being able to compare the sizes and shapes of parts in my hand and turn them around in every direction until I'm seized by inspiration. The only times I'll buy sets just for the pieces are if I have a MOC underway that I know needs particular parts, and I know what sets I have to buy to obtain those parts.

I collect minifigures, but rarely with a completionist's mindset. Typically when I decide to collect a theme, I plan out the sets and figures I want the most and give those highest priority. Then there's a lower tier of priority for sets that would get me figures I don't have. The lowest tier of priority is sets that don't excite me and which have figures I'm likely to get in other sets.

[happymark]

In my opinion, LEGO, as a kind of construction toy. SCALE is the one of the most Fundamental thing to consider. (also the COLOR, & FUNCTION etc)

we all know that LEGO minifigure is not really the right scaled figure , it is cute , but sometime far from reality.

but kids are okay with that - (even the car only sit one people - barely). or the house ceiling is close to minifigure's height.

but for AFOLs, we care more about the scale (even sometime we purposely choose the different scale - for effect).

so many AFOLs sets / MOCs are bigger - More real - which means more (small) pieces also more expensive..

also I always think AFOLs actually likes more non-minifigure scale - because a lot of builds would be TOO big if fit the minifig-scale. (or hard for function)

but kids, most of them care the minifigures and vehicles.

my 2c

[BrickG]

It's already been touched... it's mostly just the playability and showiness.

Adults tend to not care about playability and children tend to (there's exceptions, I never cared about playability with my toys when I was a kid because instead of playing with them I used them as a source of inspiration to my imagination, which IMO is the best toy out there :P).

Every time I get a good showy set with playability stupid flick cannons or whatever I want to mod them out as they're completely useless to me unless they look the part.

[timmyc1983]

Yes some interesting points raised.. I must admit, my preferences have not changed at all. When I was a kid (I think I was a strange kid given most of the other answers here) I used to relish the build as much as possible and then put that set into my town layout. I would very rarely 'play' with any of the sets, most of the time I would admire the layout or change the layout every so often, so obviously playability was quite low on the list for me, whereas aesthetics was rather high. I never had any trains as a kid.

Now, as an adult, not much has changed. I buy a set to go into the layout, mostly modular buildings, town sets and trains, all of which (mostly) look good in my current layout, those that don't I MOD. So once again, aesthetics is the most important quality for me

[Mr Bill]

I pretty much agree with others here... Playability is of virtually no importance to me. I buy sets mainly because I enjoy growing my Lego city. When the Cafe Corner showed up I felt forced to up my gamesmanship in the city department and have managed to mod most of my city to the CC standard. I do buy sets for the parts (probably more often than my wallet likes me to) and in an ideal world (one with a fat wallet or lottery win) I'd buy two or three of most such sets.

For me the big challenge is incorporating my trains, monorails and (now) Friends structures into an integrated Lego City. The challenge is not so much in the modding required to "match" so much as it is the parts required for such modding, hence the desire for multiple sets in many cases.

Another thing I don't much care about are interiors, unless the building has lots of big windows. I don't open my CC series structures to gawk at what's inside, tho I DO marvel at some of the techniques used for interior details; I often use those techniques for some exterior detials when the need arises.

--Mr Bill

[RaincloudDustbin]

Thanks for the replies.