question about theme juniorisation

[pauldaniel]

when i was young i got the lego train 4561 at first it looked realy slick and high end 

so i was all exited but after being done building it 

i realized how dull and miserable the whole thing looked 

i was pathetic the cars didnt have doors and everything just looked really empty and bummed out

at the time i didnt know why that was 

only recently i learned about lego was trying to juniorisation the theme thing

 

why in the world would they think this is a good idea?

how does that make any sense

it seems like a one heck of blunder from their hand

 

does anyone have any more information about the whole juniorisation thing?

[MAB]

4 hours ago, pauldaniel said:

does anyone have any more information about the whole juniorisation thing?

1

LEGO aims different sets at different age groups. Ones aimed at younger kids tend to have simpler building techniques and play features, with more advanced features and techniques for sets aimed at higher age groups.

[Eggyslav]

Oh, don't be so critical, I looked at the set in question at Brickset, and I have to disagree here. Sure, this came in the era of Juniorization, but come on man, It's really detailed and cool, maybe not as intricate and sophisticated as Emerald express, but still, it looks like a fun set, My family couldn't afford to buy me that set, so I would be thankful If I ever got it, even if it was <insert that tiresome argument>. You see, juniorization, as it's name implies, is a Lego set style, that cathers to younger builders, it's easy to build, often uses BURPs, LURPs, and other big premanufactured pieces and shells (of which there are none in 4561), and is the basic building experience, no fancy SNOT techniques, little next to no technic pieces, the set is more focused on play value. In late 90's, early 2000's, the whole city/town line was flooded with <insert that tiresome argument> sets, which were designed for kids who just grew out of their Duplo, and these sets were PANNED by AFoLs, because there was no "advanced", non-<insert that tiresome argument> alternative city theme at the time. And later came Jack Stone, next to Galidor most reviled theme, of even more juniorisation, and weird, non-minifig figures. This is why this period is the Dark Age of Lego, along with TLG's financial problems. They just tried something else, to keep their company afloat. But with the advent of non-<insert that tiresome argument> World City and then City themes, everything came back to normal.

 

STOP CENSORISING THE WORD J U N I O R I Z ED!!!

Edited May 10, 2018 by Eggyslav

[pauldaniel]

@eggslave 

no its true they went on and tried to impose junior type set on everyone

what sort of "off track" of a trip that was

and the proof that im right about what i said

is that they stoped that real fast

so no overly being critical here just asking more information about what that juniriosition thing was all about i couldn't find too much infos about it

[Eggyslav]

First of all dude, It's EggYslav, not Eggslave. Second of all, No-one is saying you're wrong, yes, the Juniorization was a thing, and I explained the fenomen to you. I's just that I think 4561 is not an awful set. It's just the tone of your post seemed a little pretensional to me.

[MAB]

1 hour ago, pauldaniel said:

no its true they went on and tried to impose junior type set on everyone

 

2

No they didn't, they were designing LEGO sets for kids, with play features. They were not imposing junior-ization on anyone.

1 hour ago, pauldaniel said:

so no overly being critical here just asking more information about what that juniriosition thing was all about i couldn't find too much infos about it

3

The reason you couldn't find out much information on it is because it is not a real thing. Today, AFOLs still complain about sets being junior-ized, which is why EB censor the word <insert that tiresome argument>.

It means different things to different people as they look at sets from a different perspective. You may think being able to open the side of a train to place minifigures inside too junior, whereas many kids like to quickly be able to put their figures inside so they can play with it. The same happens today - trains often have a completely unrealistic feature such as a lift-off roof to be able to insert minifigures into the train. As minifigures cannot actually walk, this is necessary to ensure that a child can put figures inside the train.

 

Some people even complain that Juniors sets are too junior-ized. They are just aimed at a young age group.

Edited May 10, 2018 by MAB

[1974]

It's a real term and it's EB that's being childish about it. I think it originated on LUGnet and you can find references to it all the way back to '98 when the forum started

I believe it came about with Town JUNIOR (<-- get it?) sets of the late 90's. Those sets were indeed dumbed down compared to what came earlier AND was aimed at the same target group. TLG messed up and brought back proper Town/City

While TLG do indeed make toys for all ages the term is rather specific and very real so you're as wrong as you can be

[x105Black]

For those curious, this is the set in question:

4561 Railway Express

[MAB]

1 hour ago, 1974 said:

It's a real term

 

I agree that it is a term but ...

1 hour ago, 1974 said:

While TLG do indeed make toys for all ages the term is rather specific and very real so you're as wrong as you can be

 

I don't believe it is so specific.

It means different things to different people. For example, to me, junior-ized means using both simple building techniques and larger parts together to make a set very simple so that younger kids (either new to lego or transitioning from duplo) can put them together easily. To others, it can mean the use of any larger part in a set (even a detailed one) when smaller parts could be used. There are still people that complain about juniorization of any set containing BURPs or larger bricks like 1x2x5 high when 5 1x2s could have been stacked (but tend not to complain when 1x4 or 1x8 bricks are used when multiple 1x2s could have been used). Some still complain about one piece boat hulls, etc. There are people that complain that molded animals are junior-ized. Then there are people that complain about too many play features or lack of realism, and call this junior-ization too (such as this thread). So here, sure the lack of doors is not realistic, but then having a train that can carry 5-6 passengers is also unrealistic. Should a train carriage be able to contain 80 passengers before it is considered non-junior-ized?

 

[Eggyslav]

Yep, that's the one. The Juniorization here isn't as severe as @pauldaniel claims.

[Aanchir]

On 5/10/2018 at 8:22 AM, 1974 said:

It's a real term and it's EB that's being childish about it. I think it originated on LUGnet and you can find references to it all the way back to '98 when the forum started

From my understanding, the reason Eurobricks censored the term is because while it once had a genuine meaning (sets that use big, specialized parts and simple building techniques to make builds quicker and easier for kids), by 2010 or so it had basically been reduced to meaninglessness due to AFOLs using it to dismiss anything and everything that seems more geared towards kids' tastes in general than to their own tastes specifically. Every now and then I still see people on other sites describe themes like Ninjago and Nexo Knights using that word, despite those sets generally being vastly more complex for their size than sets from classic themes like Town, Castle, Pirates, etc. When a set like 70595 is considered "insert that tiresome argument", but 6985 is not, the term has lost any descriptive value it may have once had.

The reason LEGO shifted towards quicker and easier builds in the late 90s was that their growth had been declining since the early 90s, with the company ultimately reporting their first major loss in 1998. They attributed kids' declining interest in LEGO bricks to the rise of video games and assumed that to be able to compete, their products needed to offer a greater sense of instant gratification. It was one of many big mistakes the company made during the late 90s and early naughts, and in 2003 their collective mistakes brought them to the brink of bankruptcy.

Later on the company finally realized that they had read the scenario all wrong, and that what kids craved from video games wasn't as simple as "instant gratification", but the opportunity to confront challenges and master them. As such, they refocused on making their builds more challenging and surprising so building would once again feel like an accomplishment. The book Brick by Brick by David C. Robertson goes into more detail about the LEGO Group's decline, recovery, and rise to become one of the world's most profitable companies.

 

Edited May 13, 2018 by Aanchir