x105Black

LEGO Pet Peeves

Recommended Posts

On 2/27/2018 at 8:45 PM, x105Black said:


- LEGOs - I am putting this one up top because it is a common pet peeve among LEGO fans.  It irks me a bit to hear it, but it drives some people mad.  Many kids grow up calling them LEGOs with nobody to correct them.  LEGO is already plural, there is no need to pluralize it any further!
"I just bought a lot of LEGOs at a garage sale!"
 

My only pet peeve is the exact opposite of this. It drives me to not be part of the AFOL community because wackos go around correcting every little thing. I say LEGOs, not LEGO System Bricks. You know what I'm talking about, it shouldn't be as big of an issue. It's like if video gamers went around correctly every time someone said Gamecube instead of Nintendo GameCube (The official spelling). It just doesn't matter.

So it's why I might be here this week, but then gone for 3-4 months as ARAFOL (Anal Retentive Adult Fans of LEGO) just take all the joy from the toy (It's a toy, not your parent) away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Series 6, episode 11 (The Santa Simulation), Sheldon says LEGOs: "... while I sat in front of the fire and tried to build a high-energy particle accelerator out of LEGOs." Howard says it in a few episodes, but Sheldon also says it at least once. And he is always right ...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't really any different to people who talk about a flock of "sheeps". Sure, we shouldn't fall out over minutiae but every time I hear it, it sounds like fingernails on a chalkboard. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly who the hell cares.  There are much more important issues to be solved.  It seems like some of you have a lot of negative energy.  Try releasing it at a heavy metal concert like i will be later this year.  Just a thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/18/2018 at 10:50 PM, splatman said:

The real shame is calling clone brands 'legos'. Do the same people call all computers 'IBMs',

Not so long since all home computers were IBM PC compatible (well apart from Amiga and Atari)

 

Or am I old :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/03/2018 at 10:50 PM, splatman said:

The real shame is calling clone brands 'legos'. Do the same people call all computers 'IBMs', all cars 'fords' and all toilet paper 'charmin'? In some parts of the USA, all fizzy drinks are called 'coke', regardless of brand.

 

It is very regional, but there are loads of brand names that are used generically. In the UK, we have hoover, sellotape, cellophane, coke, biro, post-its, tippex, tupperware, google, ... loads more too. All brand names that become used as generic names, which is what LEGO tries to prevent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"LEGOs" used to bother me for all the classic, not-enough-to-worry-about-already reasons ("It's an adjective, not a noun!", "It's trademark dilution!", "It's not legally or grammatically correct!", etc.),  then I had a child.  She's taught me to lower my expectations of others and grow a thicker skin.  Now I don't even bat an eye when she says "let's play DUPLO" or "can we play with Daddy's legos? I promise not to break anything this time..."  I'm just happy she likes her blocks and it's something we can do together.

As for pet peeves I _haven't_ gotten over, I'd have to give the top slot to stickers, not just individual bits of hard-to-align sticky decals, but the whole philosophy behind them.  I remember debating the point with Jamie Berard (Creator designer) at BrickFair New England a few years back.  He was actually trying to get feedback from AFOLs on the question of printed bricks versus stickers (the former being generally considered "nicer" and more durable but more restrictive for reuse; and, the latter being more flexible for MOCs allowing people place stickers on the color brick of their choice or omit them entirely if they are parting out the set rather than building the model).  My take on it is a bit different: overuse of stickers (or printed elements) is a sign of a lazy design.  If you're designing a Ferrari, the model should look enough like a Ferrari that you don't have to cover a generic red toy car with Ferrari logos to 'sell' the model.  The form language of the shape should suffice.  I'm fine with little title  plates for Architecture sets or the occasional clock face or printed window element (and, of course, mini-fig prints are a whole different matter) but over the years, TLG has released more than its fair share of kits that look pretty lame if you omit the stickers.  I'd much rather pay a little more for a kit with a few extra pieces that produces an interesting build with lots of reuse potential than, say, a kit with a single big wall panel and a sticker to make the wall "interesting."  Which would you prefer, a lightsaber handle, flame, a 1x2 brick w/clip and four 1x2 profile bricks or, a 1x2x5 brick with a sticker of a torch and mortar joints?

To be clear, I'm not against stickers (well, that's not true, I'd rather have pre-printed elements) entirely, I'm against designs that _need_ surface prints to 'clarify' the model because the underlying form language is overly simplistic.

Which brings me to my other big pet peeve, (non-battle pack) sets that are basically excuses to sell minifigures.  Much of the Lord of the Rings/Hobbit stuff (and even some Harry Potter and Star Wars sets) suffered in this regard.  I realize that the figures are collectable and that the way some of these toy licenses are written, differencing "action figure" rights from "construction toy" ones, TLG can't sell just the figures, they have to have a meaningful build-able component while still being affordable; but I find it disappointing when the figure overshadows the overall design.  My litmus test for this is to build the kit, skip the stickers and remove all the figures and look at what's left.  Sometimes it's great (e.g. most mid- to high-end Star Wars ships).  Sometimes it's so generic and simplistic its hard to know what minifigure was supposed to be in the scene ("Hmm, tan wall with a sand green roof, maybe that's part of Hogwarts?") .  And sometimes it's a real missed opportunity to offer a great build ("Seriously? That's supposed to be the Mines of Moria?")  

The Creator and City line rarely commit such sins, it's a pity that once one moves into the realms of named collectable mini-figs and licensed themes that the vignettes aren't always up to par.  Maybe I'm just older than dirt (I've been a fan of Lego since the days before there _were_ minifigures) but I think of Lego first and foremost as a construction toy, the minifigures are just icing on the cake and should be there to enhance the model, not the other way 'round.  I'm not saying they aren't cool collectables, I just think they shouldn't be considered an excuse to sell a mediocre kit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you have done a significantly better Mines of Moria, but kept it at the same price point? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/03/2018 at 6:08 AM, Giantorange said:

Not so long since all home computers were IBM PC compatible (well apart from Amiga and Atari)

I don't know when or why it changed, but sometime somehow we went from referring to computers capable of DOS/Windows etc as "IBM compatible" to the term "PC"......... which today is synonymous with "not an Apple Mac" (even though their machines around that time were called PowerPC?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't care if you use LEGO or LEGOs.  I am no longer employed to ensure trademarks are properly used and attributed and grammar + spelling are correct in marketing materials.  That's somebody else's headache now.  Take two Aspirin(TM) pills and just let it slide.  (Technically, you all should be saying "LEGO bricks" or "LEGO sets", not just LEGO if you're talking about their products like bricks and sets.)   :laugh: 

Aspirin is a trademark of Bayer AG. 

1 hour ago, Artanis I said:

I don't know when or why it changed, but sometime somehow we went from referring to computers capable of DOS/Windows etc as "IBM compatible" to the term "PC"......... which today is synonymous with "not an Apple Mac" (even though their machines around that time were called PowerPC?)

It could be IBM not longer makes PCs.  They sold off that business unit a decade or so ago.  They don't make PCs based on PowerPC(R) CPUs any longer , I think they still sell high-end mainframe and servers using the POWER(R) architecture.  Apple also stopped using PowerPC processors a few Mac generations ago.

PowerPC and POWER are registered trademarks of IBM Corp. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/21/2018 at 8:03 AM, x105Black said:

This is essentially my argument against those that insist that I can build anything I want to see.  Coupled with what I said earlier about minifigures, this shows how it is often impractical to build what I want to build, how I want to build it.  Expanding the parts and color selection on the Pick A Brick and Bricks & Pieces services would go a long way towards solving this.

Yes, this IS what I'm saying.  I can build a multi-color building like little kids do (not that there's anything wrong with that), but if I want to build GB HQ for some reason - or any IRL building, or even just something my imagination came up with, if I don't have the bricks in the right color then it's prohibitively expensive to do it.  Even if it doesn't have to be a certain colors, I'm a grown-up - I don't want a red, blue, and yellow building.  Just getting enough parts of the same color, in the sizes that one needs to build something like that, is prohibitively expensive for the vast majority of people out there. Shouts out to the people that built GBHQ and the Fishing Store - those are AWESOME sets, but I don't have the time or money (or creativity) it takes to do something like that on my own.  I would never suggest TLG make a set just because I thought it would be cool (except in a thread about sets we would think would be cool), but I might suggest something I think other people would like.  That's what Ideas is, after all, isn't it?  The community saying "I wish TLG would make this set!"

EDIT: As far as "legos" goes, I said it the first time I mentioned it - I don't correct people or get anal-retentive about it, but it bothers me at a place like EB where people should know better.  Like "GIF" using a soft G.  Why?  Because the people that came up with it said so.  They made it, they get to decide.

Edited by fred67

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On March 24, 2018 at 3:40 AM, MAB said:

Could you have done a significantly better Mines of Moria, but kept it at the same price point? 

Granted 9474 Mines of Moria had a pretty good price point (and the second lowest price per piece ratio of the LOTR line) but there was wiggle room  to make the set a better building experience and less of a sticker laden, piecemeal backdrop for mini-figures.  I've seen mods of the official Mines of Moria that use less than a hundred additional parts and part substitutions to address successfully many of criticisms of the set.  That would equate to about a 10% shift in the price point but still keep the MSRP under $100 and still $40 cheaper than Helm's Deep.

Personally, however, I would haven take a different approach and kept the price point while narrowing the scope of the set (and introducing additional sets at other price points.  Mines of Moria had nine figures in it (which probably contributed a lot to its popularity) but _I_ would have been happy with fewer figures in _this_ kit, a better build, and more kits to choose from.  One could almost get an entire release wave out of the Mines of Moria story sequence ( Speak Friend and Enter, The Watcher in the Lake, The Tomb of Balin, Attack of the Cave Troll, The Bridge of Khazard Dum (with brick built Balrog), etc.).  But then, I've always felt that they underutilized the LOTR license and was more than a little disappointed that the (excellent) minifigures overshadowed the building potential for the line.  I would have loved to see, say, a Prancing Pony/Bree set along the lines of a 3739 Blacksmith's Shop or one of the buildings from the 10193 Medieval Market Village or a Golden Hall of Rohan akin to the 4842 Hogwarts Castle.  Sadly, with the exception of Helm's Deep and Orthanc (and Bag End, but that's technically a different line), it seems most of the kits viewed the buildings as afterthoughts rather than focal points.  Even 9472 Attack on Weathertop which had a nice "little" build suffered from issues of scale (and the second highest part per piece ratio of the line); if the price per piece had been closer to the average for the line (~10.5 cents) that would have translated to roughly 200 additional pieces available to expand the building at the same price point.

Like the Harry Potter line, the LOTR has the innate disadvantage of not having cool spaceships and other swooshable vehicles as its primary construction component, so it relied heavily on the minifigures to sell the play-ability aspect of many of its kits.  While I fully understand that this is a children's toy and play-ability matters, it still irks me that when the primary building subject is a piece of grand architecture, it takes a back seat to the minifigure standing in front of it.  For nearly all City sets, I can leave off the stickers and remove the mini-figs and rarely do I find myself asking "what's that supposed to be?" when I look at what's left; that's not always the case when it comes to licensed sets with exclusive figures, and that's a pity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't care much for the LEGO Bricks vs. LEGOs argument.  I think it's a waste of time and at the end of the day doesn't matter.

For sure my #1 pet peeve is stickers.  I understand that TLG needs to use stickers where LEGO bricks just don't cut it for certain details but why so many...  As a car guy, I love pretty much all LEGO sets that have anything to do with vehicles.  Speed champions have proved to be one of my favorite current themes because well I just love those little cars.  What irks me about those cars is the dependence on stickers to make the cars look good and resemble the real cars.  Most of those cars without any stickers would basically be unrecognizable.  I think it's just a little cheap on TLG's part and wish they just put a little more effort into making the actual LEGO parts make the set versus a bunch of stickers.  Also placing them is a pain and a half.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Andy98 said:

I don't care much for the LEGO Bricks vs. LEGOs argument.  I think it's a waste of time and at the end of the day doesn't matter.

For sure my #1 pet peeve is stickers.  I understand that TLG needs to use stickers where LEGO bricks just don't cut it for certain details but why so many...  As a car guy, I love pretty much all LEGO sets that have anything to do with vehicles.  Speed champions have proved to be one of my favorite current themes because well I just love those little cars.  What irks me about those cars is the dependence on stickers to make the cars look good and resemble the real cars.  Most of those cars without any stickers would basically be unrecognizable.  I think it's just a little cheap on TLG's part and wish they just put a little more effort into making the actual LEGO parts make the set versus a bunch of stickers.  Also placing them is a pain and a half.

I hear you, but after putting the 68 Mustang together without stickers, I think it actually looks pretty decent.  All that is left to do is remove the part under the front bumper and replace the exterior white parts with black and dark green, and it is a fairly nice street car.  Not too crazy about stickers either, but sometimes they might be a necessary evil.  Depends on the set.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find that my opinion on stickers varies depending on the part and the print.  Some parts I want without the particular design for one reason or another, so I prefer it to be a sticker in those cases.  Other times, I really like the design, so I would rather it be a print (since, in general, I do not apply stickers).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeh, Lego has been getting better with the stickers on the speed champs but I still could go without.

I get you x105Black, I do like the ability of the stickers to pick and choose what goes on.  I guess my main complaint with stickered cars is the headlights.  I just wish that all lego car headlights are either printed or brick built.  The racers Ferrari Enzo 8652 is the most best use of stickers to me.  The headlights were printed and the car's lines were all brick built.  The set without stickers looks great: completely recognizable and beautiful.  The stickers were then used to highlight and add additional detail.  I didn't apply mine but I assume it looks even better.  I know it's not fair to compare a set on that scale to the speed champions but in my ideal Lego world that's how it'd be: basic form from bricks only then additional nonessential detailing from stickers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/19/2018 at 12:38 PM, koalayummies said:

That idea of the minifigure as the core and an absolute necessity of Lego is other fan's 'pet peeve' as well, that Lego has become less about actually building and more a vessel for selling minifigures 

 

Thank you.....   The CMFs especially... Collectible?  Yeah... until you realize that these are coming out of a 3 shift operating factory in China by the billions.... 

I wonder what year LEGO stopped becoming less of a construction toy, and more of just accessories to minifigs.   I wonder what will happen by the time of the 47th series of CMFs comes out?  (Besides Kjeld Kristiansen adding another 10 billion to his net worth...) :wink:

Rant over...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 07/04/2018 at 8:49 PM, LEGO Historian said:

Thank you.....   The CMFs especially... Collectible?  Yeah... until you realize that these are coming out of a 3 shift operating factory in China by the billions....

1

That doesn't make them any less collectable. It just means that there are lots of them.

On 07/04/2018 at 8:49 PM, LEGO Historian said:

I wonder what year LEGO stopped becoming less of a construction toy, and more of just accessories to minifigs.   I wonder what will happen by the time of the 47th series of CMFs comes out?  (Besides Kjeld Kristiansen adding another 10 billion to his net worth...) :wink:

 

There are plenty of sets in which the minifigures play a minor role, or are absent. In many cases the minifigures allow for imaginative play or display. For example, the modulars could easily be done without minifigures. However, including them enhances the display of the buildings, making streets look more alive than if there were no figures.

 

On 07/04/2018 at 8:49 PM, LEGO Historian said:

I wonder what year LEGO stopped becoming less of a construction toy, and more of just accessories to minifigs. 

 

Depending on your point of view, an alternative answer is 1978. Would this set have been as much fun if it had no minifigures? Would people have bought it at all?

375-2.jpg?201011130243

So was this set mainly about the castle, or the minifigures that came with the castle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, MAB said:

 

 

Depending on your point of view, an alternative answer is 1978. Would this set have been as much fun if it had no minifigures? Would people have bought it at all?

Don't get me wrong, I think Minifigs are great but I certainly would have bought that set without them. I had hundreds of toy Soldiers, Cowboys and Indians and yes even a few Knights in that size and smaller. Most kids did back then, they were only a couple of dollars for a hundred. 

That being said I think adding Minifigs was a good move on Lego's part, don't care much for the sets that are all about them though. If someone else likes them though great, I don't buy those sets, there are plenty of other sets for me to choose from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, MAB said:

That doesn't make them any less collectable. It just means that there are lots of them.

There are plenty of sets in which the minifigures play a minor role, or are absent. In many cases the minifigures allow for imaginative play or display. For example, the modulars could easily be done without minifigures. However, including them enhances the display of the buildings, making streets look more alive than if there were no figures.

Depending on your point of view, an alternative answer is 1978. Would this set have been as much fun if it had no minifigures? Would people have bought it at all?
So was this set mainly about the castle, or the minifigures that came with the castle?

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/7/2018 at 8:49 PM, LEGO Historian said:

Thank you.....   The CMFs especially... Collectible?  Yeah... until you realize that these are coming out of a 3 shift operating factory in China by the billions.... 

I wonder what year LEGO stopped becoming less of a construction toy, and more of just accessories to minifigs.   I wonder what will happen by the time of the 47th series of CMFs comes out?  (Besides Kjeld Kristiansen adding another 10 billion to his net worth...) :wink:

Rant over...

Well Classic Castle was probably when I started looking at sets with the idea of getting more and more figs for a bigger army.

I would think that the real culprit is Star Wars, from the time that fleshies came out.  I think that is when I first noticed having to buy a particular set to get a specific named minifig, and LEGO making some figs only available in one (typically the more expensive) sets of a wave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.