LEGO Pet Peeves

[MAB]

12 hours ago, Johnny1360 said:

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.

1

Yes, and that is probably why LEGO started minifigures. I don't think it was at all uncommon in the 1970s for kids to build things from lego, then use other manufacturers figures for the action. Nowdays it seems that kids don't need other figures to play with their lego.

 

2 hours ago, Giantorange said:

 would think that the real culprit is Star Wars, from the time that fleshies came out. 

1

So Star Wars with the yellow skins was OK, but not when they went down the fleshie route?

It's funny, many (minifig based) SW sets are still a reasonable build around a location or ship / vehicle.

[Johnny1360]

28 minutes ago, MAB said:

Yes, and that is probably why LEGO started minifigures. I don't think it was at all uncommon in the 1970s for kids to build things from lego, then use other manufacturers figures for the action. Nowdays it seems that kids don't need other figures to play with their lego.

 

Exactly, also vehicles, now it seems it is considered bad form to infect Lego with "other" toys. 

[Kalahari134]

4 hours ago, MAB said:

So Star Wars with the yellow skins was OK, but not when they went down the fleshie route?

 

I think it was more about the timing than the colour of the heads. Star Wars figures were among the first that could be considered to be "collectable" compared with the more generic ones seen beforehand, more so when the colour changed.

[ShaydDeGrai]

10 hours ago, Giantorange said:

(snip) I would think that the real culprit is Star Wars, from the time that fleshies came out.  (snip)

While I side with the camp that feels the licensed sets really pushed the "Let's include a build-able element to circumvent the action-figure license issue, but we're really selling mini-figures not a construction toy" envelope, I think the place where this really marked a decline in a quality building experience in favor of collecting mini-figures _started_ with Harry Potter, not Star Wars.

SW is vehicle-rich and most vehicles work as interesting kits with or without mini-figs.  The mini-figs, in those cases, are like a sticker sheet; they dress up an already interesting build but they don't need to be there for the vehicle to "make sense" as a play element.   HP was more sets and locations.  Take away the figures from a lot of those kits (particularly in the low to mid range price-wise) and you've got a wall segment, or a set of stairs, or a spindly-looking tree, or a couple of hoops on sticks.  It's not until you're shelling out the big bucks for the Hogwarts Express Train or a decent rendering of Hogwart's Castle or Diagon Alley that you're finally working on a construction set that is augmented by figures rather than the other way 'round. 

Since HP, other lines have also suffered the mini-figure centric curse (including SW) with pathetic little builds serving only as backdrops for spiffy mini-figures (again, mostly at the lower end of the price spectrum), but if City can release enjoyable, figure-optional kits for under $40 (and likewise Creator kits figure-free but totally worthwhile in the same price range) why can't more attention be paid to the subject matter and build experience of media IP and licensed sets?  Including a cool/exclusive figure shouldn't be an excuse for slacking off on the quality of the build.

And I'm also _not_ saying that the builds with licensed IP are universally lower quality.  While Pirates of the Caribbean was not without its faults, overall I thought they struct a pretty good balance of figure to building component, and you didn't have to get into the Black Pearl and Queen Anne's Revenge price range to find a decent model, with the exception of Captains Cabin and Isla De La Muerta, interesting builds were pretty much spread across the (price) line, so it _can_ be done, just sometimes it isn't.

And for the record, I totally would have bought the yellow castle even without mini-figures.  When I started playing with Lego there were no mini-figures, and while I thought the introduction of "slabbies" was interesting, they never "sold" a set for me.  When the first "real" mini-figures came out, I distinctly remember not liking the posable arms.  For me, they looked too "cutesy" without enough range of motion to match my vision but just enough to interfere with it.  These days, most of the (1,000+) mini-figures I own live in tubs and shoe boxes where they've not seen the light of day in years.  I _appreciate_ that min-fig collecting is a huge subculture among AFOLs (and more power to 'em), I'm just not a member of that club.  I also prefer coffee ice cream over chocolate, so sue me.

 

[Tariq j]

2 hours ago, ShaydDeGrai said:

HP was more sets and locations.  Take away the figures from a lot of those kits (particularly in the low to mid range price-wise) and you've got a wall segment, or a set of stairs, or a spindly-looking tree, or a couple of hoops on sticks.  It's not until you're shelling out the big bucks for the Hogwarts Express Train or a decent rendering of Hogwart's Castle or Diagon Alley that you're finally working on a construction set that is augmented by figures rather than the other way 'round. 

 

To be fair with HP though, on their own, yes, a wall, a random staircase, or a trapdoor may not look that impressive. But I think most of the first waves of Harry Potter sets were all designed to be connected together alongside the large Hogwarts set. Resulting in a larger and more detailed Hogwarts. So as single sets they didn't look great, but connected they looked a lot better. 

I think even with Star Wars location sets, like The Battle of Endor, Cloud City or the Final Duel. Take away the minifigures, you have still have a great set. I'd say the Super Hero line is a little more guilty of this. Taking the Civil War Airport Battle as an example, (and don't get me wrong, I really like that set) it's been built for the minifgures. The control tower is cool, but it's not like there's another set with a terminal which it can be attached on to.

I mean I think the thing with minifgures, (and specifically licenced ones) is that they represent the characters we know and love, the characters we've grown up with in our childhoods. So to see them immortalised in minifgure form is great.  

[x105Black]

27 minutes ago, Tariq j said:

To be fair with HP though, on their own, yes, a wall, a random staircase, or a trapdoor may not look that impressive. But I think most of the first waves of Harry Potter sets were all designed to be connected together alongside the large Hogwarts set. Resulting in a larger and more detailed Hogwarts. So as single sets they didn't look great, but connected they looked a lot better. 

It's still not great if each individual set is unimpressive on its own.

[Lo var Lachland]

(snip)

Edited January 28 by Lo var Lachland

[MAB]

On 10/04/2018 at 4:33 PM, Kalahari134 said:

I think it was more about the timing than the colour of the heads. Star Wars figures were among the first that could be considered to be "collectable" compared with the more generic ones seen beforehand, more so when the colour changed.

SW and fleshie heads are different times though. And I don't think that either SW or fleshies they were the first minifigures that were collectable. People collected classic space figures, they army built with castle, etc before SW came along.

 

On 10/04/2018 at 9:24 PM, ShaydDeGrai said:

Since HP, other lines have also suffered the mini-figure centric curse (including SW) with pathetic little builds serving only as backdrops for spiffy mini-figures (again, mostly at the lower end of the price spectrum), but if City can release enjoyable, figure-optional kits for under $40 (and likewise Creator kits figure-free but totally worthwhile in the same price range) why can't more attention be paid to the subject matter and build experience of media IP and licensed sets?  Including a cool/exclusive figure shouldn't be an excuse for slacking off on the quality of the build.

 

Remember some people want the minfiigures and not necessarily the bricks. Some people want to build an army of stormtroopers. Why should LEGO not also cater for them? I don't think every set should be a decent sized set that could be played or displayed without figures, as not everyone wants that. Of course, lego should cater for those people that want decent builds, but they should also cater for people that don't. Otherwise, they lose those people as buyers possibly across the whole range. Not every set has to be a detailed or even decent build. So long as people wanting to build decent builds are catered for, there is no reason not to also cater for those that want just minifigures.

 

On 11/04/2018 at 12:10 AM, Tariq j said:

I'd say the Super Hero line is a little more guilty of this. Taking the Civil War Airport Battle as an example, (and don't get me wrong, I really like that set) it's been built for the minifgures. The control tower is cool, but it's not like there's another set with a terminal which it can be attached on to.

1

Take away the licensed minifigures and you still have an airport tower, a few small trucks and a plane (even amend it to make it non-licensed).

Of course the set is licensed, so the figures are specific characters and make the set more fun to play with. But even without them there is a decent enough build for the "plane", the tower is adequate and reasonably quick to build. The giant minifigure is also a decent build.

 

Is that more or less playable than, for example, any of these:

They are all a swooshable plane, along with a tower or other accessory. You can play with them with or without the minifigures, but they are more fun with the figures. The only real difference then is that the licensed set has defined characters, whereas the unlicensed one has generic figures. Will some people buy the Civil War set just for the minifigures? I'm sure they do. But I reckon more people would buy the set if it contained minifigures than if it had none.

[Kalahari134]

We're not arguing against minifigures, just where the rest of the set is minimal with the focus only on a couple of minifigures. Battle packs and city people packs are fine too, as we would all like to bulk out our population. 

[MAB]

43 minutes ago, Kalahari134 said:

We're not arguing against minifigures, just where the rest of the set is minimal with the focus only on a couple of minifigures. Battle packs and city people packs are fine too, as we would all like to bulk out our population. 

What is wrong with that? In some cases the stars of the set are the minifigures and always will be. I don't see that as a problem.

 

For example ...

The hut is OK. It's a bit small, looks a little odd on it's own and I doubt many people would buy it for the build alone. Take Luke away and it is nothing recognizable. To me, this set is mainly about the old Luke minifigure, the porg and to a lesser extent Rey (as similar minifigs already exist). The hut can be improved using a lot more bricks or the bricks in this set can be used for something else. I would have been really annoyed if they had made the set two or three times the size to have a substantial build, as that would massively increase the price of old Luke.

[MAB]

I guess that also brings up another one ... the "he's not a real LEGO fan as he collects minifigures" attitude (or "he's not a real LEGO fan as he doesn't do what I do with LEGO" *).

Some people enjoy building only, some people enjoy just collecting minifigures, many enjoy both building and using minifigures with their builds. Some like yellow skins, some like fleshies. Some like collecting sealed boxes. Some just use LDD. Some people use customs to enhance their LEGO. Some people cut, paint, glue or design their own stickers to enhance their LEGO. All are LEGO fans.

* this can cover everything ... I build, he just displays minifigs. I MOC, he doesn't. I use bricks, he uses LDD. I'm purist, he isn't. ...

 

[ShaydDeGrai]

37 minutes ago, MAB said:

For example ...

(snip)

This is really a counter example in my book.  I'm NOT bothered in the least by a set like this: two figures and a modest build.  Sure, its a bit tiny and without Luke you might not see it as anything special, but for its price point, its still a hut.  It has an innate context beyond being a vignette for the Luke mini-fig (granted it has a LOT more context once you realize this particular hut is supposed to exist a long ago in a galaxy far far away and not just any hut on a south pacific island or a stone hovel out on the Orkney Isles, but it's still a meaningful build).  This is the way _I_ would prefer TLG balance the question of building versus mini-figure collecting (questions of army builders/battle packs aside, as those really _are_ all about buying a particular type of generic figure in bulk and I have no problem with that).

The sort of unbalanced builds I was complaining about are more along the lines of:

The set is called Captain's Cabin, but they didn't even put a single bulkhead into it.  Without the figs it's a bookcase, a table and a globe - and even at that, it's a very repetitive build.  I've gotten more interesting builds from polybags, free with a $75 purchase.  It's utility as an army builder is limited by the presence of Jack Sparrow, do we really need a whole hoard of those?

Another example might be:

I suppose this is better as an army builder (give or take an excess of Dastan Scabbards running around) but a dark tan bush and a pile of bricks is more along the lines of what I'd expect as extra parts at the end of a build rather than the build itself.

2 minutes ago, MAB said:

I guess that also brings up another one ... the "he's not a real LEGO fan as he collects minifigures" attitude (or "he's not a real LEGO fan as he doesn't do what I do with LEGO" *).

Some people enjoy building only, some people enjoy just collecting minifigures, many enjoy both building and using minifigures with their builds. Some like yellow skins, some like fleshies. Some like collecting sealed boxes. Some just use LDD. Some people use customs to enhance their LEGO. Some people cut, paint, glue or design their own stickers to enhance their LEGO. All are LEGO fans.

* this can cover everything ... I build, he just displays minifigs. I MOC, he doesn't. I use bricks, he uses LDD. I'm purist, he isn't. ...

 

Here I agree with you entirely.  That which unites us is far greater than that which divides us and there is more than enough room in our community for all manner of subculture.  I don't happen to be into (most) minifigures, but I don't begrudge those that are.  I don't like mini-dolls, but I don't actively lobby against them.  I have a friend whose never created a MOC in his life, only collects Lego Star Wars and obsesses over which way the 'Lego' logo on the studs are facing as he dutifully follows the directions - He's still and AFOL in my book.  It bothers me when people feel the need to exclude others over trivial differences when, at our core, we have so much in common.  I see this more with TFOLs at shows, often thinking that they somehow aggrandize themselves by belittling the tastes of others when all they're really doing is making themselves look petty and losing opportunities to connect with fellow fans.

I saw the same thing happen to the Science Fiction/Fantasy/Comics fan community.  Pre-Star Wars, we were geeks and dreamers generally mocked by the masses.  There was no world wide web, and fan conventions were usually advertised via mimeo on college bulletin boards, so they were small and obscure events.  We had to argue with libraries to put little "SF" stickers on the spines of books by people like Asimov, Clarke, Herbert and Heinlein because (unlike westerns, romances, and mysteries - which got their own bookcases) science fiction was just mixed in with general fiction (or dumped in the Young Adult section since, as one librarian once told me: Science Fiction isn't a genre, it's a phase, you grow out of it). 

When SciFi fans _did_  connect, we were a very accepting bunch.  It didn't matter if you liked books or TV shows or comics better; or preferred Thunderbirds to Star Trek; or which (of the only four) Doctors was the best Doctor Who.  We were so few in number (or at least it usually felt that way) that we'd accept anyone into the club.  ( I ran a SciFi/Fantasy Club back in high school and I remember a lesbian couple joined and one of them didn't even care for Sci-Fi, but we were the only after school group she'd found that accepted her for who she was  - though eventually she discovered the works of Andre Norton and we converted her to a Sci-fi fan).  

Post Star Wars,  Science Fiction became acceptable and eventually popular and the internet made it easier and easier to connect with likeminded people.  It should have been a golden age for the fan community, but sadly it became just another breeding ground for trolls.  Topics that used to be the basis of rich, informative debate (Marvel vs. DC, Star Wars Vs. Star Trek, books vs movie)  became genuine dividing points.  Today, web sites and fora are filled with postings of Uber-Fans trying to out-geek one another while insulting one another's tastes and accusing each other of not being 'true' fans because of some trivial preference for obscure offering over another.  Sometimes I think the "community" was better off when it was "uncool" to like SciFi and people felt lucky to get a book adapted into a movie (rather than belittle people who "liked the movie better" or, worse yet, never read the book).

When it comes to Lego, let's face it, AFOLs are grown-ups playing with kids toys.  Many of us (well, not me anymore)  don't even have kids of our own and can't use them as an excuse.  The notion that we should slight, marginalize or otherwise judge other members of our (small, but passionate) community because certain aspects of the hobby hold more appeal for one group than another  is just foolish and like @MAB it irks me when someone gets all self-righteous about their special interest being "the one true path".  May we never become so mainstream that we can afford to push other AFOLs away simply for expressing their individuality and their tastes.

 

[MAB]

52 minutes ago, ShaydDeGrai said:

The sort of unbalanced builds I was complaining about are more along the lines of:

 

 

1

I guess everyone sees these in a different light. With a little adjustment, the Captain's Cabin set can fit into either POTC ship, or can be played with as if it was in a room / cabin just that the cabin isn't there. The Jack Sparrow is a problem, but then I imagine that is down to the license agreement - the key character must be in every set. A bit like the Lone Ranger, he appeared in every set in the theme. But I think that is understandable given that the sets are so heavily tied to the movie advertising. The Dastan set, I think it is a great army builder. In fact, I bought six of them when they were cheap and I really wish I had bought more. Dastan with different legs makes a great generic fleshie warrior (I use them as Rohans) and the guards' torsos are good for castle / historic builds. Decent horse and the parts are ideal for desert landscapes. AT the price points these sets were sold at, I really cannot see any other option for a decent build. It then becomes either they do a set like that with minimal build or they don't do that price point at all.

In a similar way, I loaded up on these (I think I bought 24 in the end):

The build is insignificant, but each set contains a horse, a cannon and three decent generic army builders. Then just one figure I sold off. But again, I cannot see how they could have done any better at that price point. It is essentially a minifigure / battle pack to bulk out the more substantial sets. I'd have preferred that it didn't contain the Lone Ranger but like Jack Sparrow above, I understand why the studio would want him in every set. Plus it is a cheap set if a kid wants something from the movie, with some play value - riding the horse, shooting the cannon.

 

[Aanchir]

With respect to sets that prioritize minifigures over builds, I don't think those are anything new or even anything that can be blamed on licensing specifically. Figure packs with minifigures and little to no building are nearly as old as minifigures themselves — if anything, I'd consider sets like the Pirates of the Caribbean, Prince of Persia, and The Lone Ranger sets shown above an upgrade from those, rather than a downgrade from more building-intensive sets. The scenery may not be much on its own, but it transforms what would otherwise be just a supplement to the larger sets into a more complete and self-contained play experience.

Perhaps you can call these "excuses to sell minifigures". My counter-argument is, why would LEGO need an excuse? Aside from licenses that have restrictive terms, they're not obligated to include a build with the figures at all. But in most cases I feel that the builds are less an excuse or justification and more a way of making the building and play experience more rewarding than it would be if the figures were sold on their own. If these figures were sold on their own, sure they would still be collectible, and sure they'd probably be slightly cheaper, but they'd also be downright boring to play with unless you already have a separate set to pair them with. And if a low-priced set like one of these is a kid's initial entry point into the world of LEGO, you want it to be an experience that feels rewarding for them even before they start expanding their collections.

[Artanis I]

re sets that are "all about the minifigs"

There is a difference and should be a distinction between a set that is a bunch of useful/mostly useful minifigs (could be generic or not) with a few bits thrown in, and a set that's a pile of something-or-other (ugly model, generic model, whatever) with a particular sought-after minifig. eg 500 pieces of useless 'who cares', but look! It comes with Yoda! You are buying that whole set for Yoda. Not for a bunch of minifigs that could be augmenting a collection, filling out extras in a scene or whatever, like any of those sets shared previously. You have bought an entire set for 1 character. That is quite different, and a "peeve" that I'm sure many people share. (Businesses need to make more money than they spend of course)

[MAB]

6 hours ago, Artanis I said:

eg 500 pieces of useless 'who cares', but look! It comes with Yoda! You are buying that whole set for Yoda. Not for a bunch of minifigs that could be augmenting a collection, filling out extras in a scene or whatever, like any of those sets shared previously. You have bought an entire set for 1 character. That is quite different, and a "peeve" that I'm sure many people share.

1

Which set are you describing?

[Artanis I]

An imaginary one

[MAB]

OK, it cannot be that big a deal if imaginary. While I am sure there are some sets that some people don't like the builds and want just one minifigure from the entire set (as they already have the other figures or similar ones, or already have a similar build), the same set could still appeal to others because of the minifigures or the build it contains.

[The LEGO Communist]

My Lego Pet Peeve is Cheekbones and people mixing flesh and yellow heads. Personally, I never use the yellow heads, so I never get this problem, but the fact that some people mix them really  infuriates me!

[BrickG]

People complaining about people saying Legos.

It's grammatically correct. You can pluralize brand names. If you have 10 NES consoles and it's not incorrect to say you have "ten Nintendos". You can have a pile of Ford trucks and cars and stuff and you can technically say "you have a pile of Fords".

There's no rule in the English language that says you can't. It, at most, can sound a bit awkward. But it's not technically incorrect...

 

LEGO's motivation here is to simply protect their brand. I can find no fault in that. But everyone (including LEGO) has some incorrect ideas here. No English teacher could mark you down for writing "LEGOs" in a paper because there are zero rules that actually say it's wrong. I've had this discussion a thousand times though but it always turns into a debate when there's nothing to debate. There's fact and there's mistruths. Saying it's incorrect to say "LEGOs" is factually incorrect. You can at most say there's a preferred way to say it (pushed by brand protection motivations).

[Aanchir]

15 hours ago, Artanis I said:

re sets that are "all about the minifigs"

There is a difference and should be a distinction between a set that is a bunch of useful/mostly useful minifigs (could be generic or not) with a few bits thrown in, and a set that's a pile of something-or-other (ugly model, generic model, whatever) with a particular sought-after minifig. eg 500 pieces of useless 'who cares', but look! It comes with Yoda! You are buying that whole set for Yoda. Not for a bunch of minifigs that could be augmenting a collection, filling out extras in a scene or whatever, like any of those sets shared previously. You have bought an entire set for 1 character. That is quite different, and a "peeve" that I'm sure many people share. (Businesses need to make more money than they spend of course)

I think even this is highly debatable though — and in many cases boils down to AFOLs disregarding aspects of the set that don't appeal to them but probably do appeal to kids. LEGO isn't going to waste design effort creating vehicles and backdrops and things if they don't expect anybody buying the set to care about them. If it were just a matter of including cheaper bricks to offset the cost of the figs or to justify bumping up the price point, they could just as easily sell the figs with a pile of loose bricks.

But let's take an example of a set that I've seen dismissed as "all about the minifigs": Thor vs. Hulk: Arena Clash. Who in their right mind would argue that nobody buying the set cares about the arena? Sure, the figs are nice. But the arena is what turns them into an actual scene. And not just any scene, but one of the most iconic scenes in the movie and movie trailer! It also adds a tremendous amount of play value. You've got the sliding doors that Thor enters from, a panel in the wall that opens to reveal a weapon rack, the Grandmaster's box seat, a containment chamber for Thor, and of course plenty of stuff for Hulk to smash… because what good is a set with Hulk and nothing for him to smash? To dismiss this as an ugly and generic waste of bricks is to assume that nobody buying the set actually intends to play with it. Which for a kids' toy is kind of nuts!

Or let's look at another set that's been leveled with this charge: Hulk vs. Red Hulk (man, the Hulk's sets seem to be accused of this quite a lot). This one is a bit different than the one previously mentioned in that it's not, as far as I can tell, based on pre-existing subject matter. But what stands out about the brick content of the set is that there's an overwhelming emphasis on play value. With their loads of shooters and highly exaggerated proportions, the quad and trike just scream "designed for kids". So why act as though our adult dissatisfaction with that set is a universal experience? If LEGO wanted to design the set to offer more that AFOLs would care about, there's no reason they wouldn't have done so. Frankly, it might've been a lot less expensive that way, given that ridiculous Hulk-sized vehicles require ridiculous Hulk-sized parts that don't really offset the cost of the bigfigs very well, particularly when some of those parts are new recolors for that set only.

Remember, LEGO has nothing to gain by adding content to sets that doesn't add value for a meaningful segment of their audience. Sure, it lets them bump up the sticker price of the set. It also bumps up the actual production and development costs of the set while shrinking the audience that can potentially afford it. Why make those sacrifices if they don't give people any more reason to want the set or any more satisfaction with it once they've bought it?

Edited April 16, 2018 by Aanchir

[kibosh]

6 hours ago, BrickG said:

People complaining about people saying Legos.

It's grammatically correct. You can pluralize brand names. If you have 10 NES consoles and it's not incorrect to say you have "ten Nintendos". You can have a pile of Ford trucks and cars and stuff and you can technically say "you have a pile of Fords".

There's no rule in the English language that says you can't. It, at most, can sound a bit awkward. But it's not technically incorrect...

 

LEGO's motivation here is to simply protect their brand. I can find no fault in that. But everyone (including LEGO) has some incorrect ideas here. No English teacher could mark you down for writing "LEGOs" in a paper because there are zero rules that actually say it's wrong. I've had this discussion a thousand times though but it always turns into a debate when there's nothing to debate. There's fact and there's mistruths. Saying it's incorrect to say "LEGOs" is factually incorrect. You can at most say there's a preferred way to say it (pushed by brand protection motivations).

Thank you for this!  I've been saying this forever.

And on a related topic, I was just thinking about this the other day.  Where is it stated that it is wrong to pronounce it LAYgo?

[KotZ]

34 minutes ago, kibosh said:

And on a related topic, I was just thinking about this the other day.  Where is it stated that it is wrong to pronounce it LAYgo?

It might be a northeasterner thing. I know some of my family from upstate NY pronounces it like that. Haven't met almost anyone elsewhere in the States who do the same.

[kibosh]

1 minute ago, KotZ said:

It might be a northeasterner thing. I know some of my family from upstate NY pronounces it like that. Haven't met almost anyone elsewhere in the States who do the same.

that's what I was wondering.  is it an accent thing?  Here in Michigan, most everyone (with the exception of AFOLs) has always said LAY-go.

[KotZ]

7 minutes ago, kibosh said:

that's what I was wondering.  is it an accent thing?  Here in Michigan, most everyone (with the exception of AFOLs) has always said LAY-go.

It's definitely gotta be an accent thing then, because now that I think about it, my own Michigan friends pronounces it LAY-go as well.