Unpopular Opinions about LEGO

[Vindicare]

On 7/25/2021 at 12:52 PM, Johnny1360 said:

I think the Star Wars theme has grown stagnant and redundant beyond saving, also the recent trend to reduce the cost of sets has resulted in fewer parts being used in the builds, effectively turning them into glorified 4+ sets, yet increasing Disney's cut. It has all been done before, to the point of ridiculousness. End the madness TLG, move on, anyone interested in LEGO Star Wars has an infinite supply of sets on the secondary market, from hoarders only interested in turning a profit.

I kinda agree, but I kinda don’t.

Sadly, with such a beloved franchise with many iconic vehicles, there will always be repeats. I can agree that it does get very old(similar to Police/Fire in City) as there’s so much other great content they either haven’t done or something they haven’t done in years. This year’s Mandalorian Starfighter is a great example to me. It’s been close to a decade since the last one so it’s fantastic to finally get another one. 

Now, the disagree part. Set size. I’m quite happy with that. I got the new Slave I & while it’s much smaller than the last one I have(2010) it’s still a great build & the price is great. I wanted to get the previous one, mainly for Zuckuss, because it’s been a long time & that was a vast improvement over the one I own. But SW isn’t a big focus for me so saving $120 was not quite so easy. And I shockingly(to myself) don’t own an X-Wing or T.I.E. Fighter yet, so seeing them at $50 has me quite excited.  

[Kim-Kwang-Seok]

On 7/25/2021 at 9:52 PM, Johnny1360 said:

I think the Star Wars theme has grown stagnant and redundant beyond saving, also the recent trend to reduce the cost of sets has resulted in fewer parts being used in the builds, effectively turning them into glorified 4+ sets, yet increasing Disney's cut. It has all been done before, to the point of ridiculousness. End the madness TLG, move on, anyone interested in LEGO Star Wars has an infinite supply of sets on the secondary market, from hoarders only interested in turning a profit.

Some of what you say is a myth until proven otherwise - or at least until given some more substance. I am disgusted by the empty PR empire of Disney but people (not saying you but more describing a general phenomenon) take all their frustration and bigoted views to express: the mouse is greedy, Kathlyin Kennedy is the devil, etc. Im not saying she isn't a horrible corporate bloodsucker but what's the the difference to all the other (mostly men) money-makers?

George Lucas was being greedy back in the 80's and made a junk ship like the Falcon into something it never was (fastest ship) or changing ugly reptilians into Ewoks for children, because he wanted to have some of that sweet money. SW was always greedy. Welcome to capitalism, brother.

Now back in the first years of Lego SW, sets often had less pieces than today. BUT: there were bigger parts, overall bigger sets and more functions. Now my old Jango Slave I had many functions and cool interior - just it was also falling apart, as soon as you pick it up and it was well - blocky.

Todays sets have even more smaller parts and are quite detailed, more structurally stable - but also more expensive and include less play functions. Remember the 1st Republic Gunship, which could turn into a mobile base? Or all the "split" functions for so many ships.

Just think of how many parts Lego had 10 years ago and how many they developed in the last 5 years to make better sets. Not to mention the quality of figures. This is one positive side of the coin - the other is that we got a lot of insanely oversized ships that are sometimes even worse depictions than former sets - the Solo Tie Fighter would be the worst of them I'd say: practically no play functions other than shooting and sitting one figure, super expensive and not accurate in any way. Probably the both of us would agree that many re-releases are mostly the same structure (X-Wing I'd say) and still not accurate despide becoming more and more expensive.

I think the current year is a turn in the right direction - but also in that regard the outcry in this forum was huge (against the sets). Still, I am convinced Lego can make affordable smaller sets like the current Slave 1, that look BETTER (or at least more accurate) than more expensive versions, while keeping a similar amount of interior and play functions. Of course there is people who may prefer the bigger sets - the question is though if Lego can keep making money like that. I think the current strategy (like with the X-Wing, Slave I and Tie Fighter) will lead to more costumers.

Im not saying that I'm happy with everything, but overall we could appreciate how far parts developement was going in the last 5 years. And yeah, as long as oversized and super expensive X-Wings and snowspeeders are purchased - TLG will keep on making them.

Another solution would be actual chibbi sets - there's great designs of the Razor Crest or other vehicles that would be much more affordable. Micro fighters are not even so far away from that.
...and midi-scale ships: we got two phenomenal ships with an ISD, the Nebulon and a Falcon - I hope there will be more because this way you could do the exterior justice, while also making something affordable (I would not have money or space for a single UCS ship).

...sorry for rambling.

[Verodin]

/sarcasm on

I really like how Lego manages to capture all these shades of red and yellow in their Technic sets. Just when you think you've seen them all, a new shade pops up. It's really amazing considering how difficult it would be to create that all by yourself. I guess that's why they are the biggest toy company in the world. All those years of expertise have finally paid off!

/sarcasm off

[popkids]

Unpopular opinions then:

Fright Knights paved the way for Fantasy Era, as well as being a hugely underrated subtheme in their own right.

This is absolutely not to criticise the thought or talent that went into the Modular buildings, but the feeling they give me is one of too much chocolate cake.  Looks great in the bakery window, but how are you going to feel if you eat the whole thing?  I don't know if anyone has seen the shot of the unreleased jazz age/gangster theme, but it shows that these kind of buildings could have been done to the scale of other City buildings, and at a much more affordable price point.

I would be quite happy if Lego released a minifig for every character JRR Tolkien ever wrote, even the ones who were so minor that they didn't even get a speaking part.  And moulded versions of all the monsters and creatures.  Except maybe Ungoliant, giant spiders seem to work better as brick built creatures.

Taken together, the flesh tone minifigs and grey/brown colour changes were the worst decision the company ever made, and one I'd be happy to see them reverse tomorrow.

 

 

[The Cobra]

I liked Knights Kingdom II (except for the buildable figures)

[Pinnacle]

On 8/9/2021 at 2:35 PM, Verodin said:

/sarcasm on

I really like how Lego manages to capture all these shades of red and yellow in their Technic sets. Just when you think you've seen them all, a new shade pops up. It's really amazing considering how difficult it would be to create that all by yourself. I guess that's why they are the biggest toy company in the world. All those years of expertise have finally paid off!

/sarcasm off

To be honest, It is the only real problem I have whit the LEGO company. White should be white and not a fifty shades of tan. And that also applies to other colours. Luckily, I build mainly historical buildings so that I can live with it.

But a sparkling fairy-tale castle is not possible in my eyes. And that is a pity.

I really don’t understand that a company like LEGO can’t make a consistent colour system.

 

[The Brick Boss]

Still not too fond of City using expired box art on 2022 sets. 

[Toastie]

3 hours ago, Pinnacle said:

I really don’t understand that a company like LEGO can’t make a consistent colour system.

And I really believe that there is a reason behind that. They have too many folks thinking about too many things at the same time.

I cannot imagine that someone higher-up decides to make "as many colors" as possible. And I always believe that a company that big, with the (always) associated payroll overhead, tries to minimize expenditures 24/7. How about: We got a sh*tload of mold resin in tan-in-the-39th-shade-of-tan originally to be used in ... well, let's say DaThing, set#0815. Unfortunately, that did not sell well, so let's make ... Technic pins with that color. OK I know that the pins have a different resin formulation ... so here is another thought: Somebody in the Global Purchase Department figured out that some chemical company in country X - let's call them for simplicity Bayer or DowChemical or whatever, offers that somebody a deal: You guys buy X Megatons of each color we can possibly make - as per your inspirational color scheme - and we give you Y megatons of each color for free (instead of buying Z gigatons of - duh - blue bricks, with an additional "so-demanding-to-make-tag"). In a normal corporate world, that will go up the chains of command: We can make it cheaper!!! Yeah? At what cost? Possibly color vomit. Is there a way we can over that? Sure: It makes it far easier for a 2-years old to build a complex model. Sounds good, order cleared.

and a plaque for the one who figured it out: Employee of the hour. Naa, the day.

Best
Thorsten       

[Aanchir]

On 8/28/2021 at 8:32 AM, popkids said:

This is absolutely not to criticise the thought or talent that went into the Modular buildings, but the feeling they give me is one of too much chocolate cake.  Looks great in the bakery window, but how are you going to feel if you eat the whole thing?  I don't know if anyone has seen the shot of the unreleased jazz age/gangster theme, but it shows that these kind of buildings could have been done to the scale of other City buildings, and at a much more affordable price point. 

Funnily enough, I think this was a somewhat more popular opinion back in the early days of the Modular Buildings series, when they were considered something of an "anomaly" with their massive size, sparse interior decorations, and lack of an open back wall for ease of access.

I am definitely a fan of the Modular Buildings myself, but it does frustrate me that they sometimes seem to have warped people's expectations of buildings in other themes, to the point that buildings in other themes like City, Friends, Creator, and even licensed themes are treated like they're fundamentally flawed or "cheapened" by not being fully enclosed. I think this perception misses the point of an open backed structure.

Not only does omitting a model's back wall reduce its cost and allow for easy access to the interior for play, but it also allows a "minifig's eye view" of the building's interiors. Viewing the interiors from the sides makes those scenes more immersive for both play scenarios and displays, like you're actually there. And in TV- or movie-based licensed themes, it is generally a more faithful way of recreating the actual appearance of those scenes on-screen than a more impersonal top-down perspective.

So I think which style of building is a better fit depends heavily on what sort of set or theme it's being used in, and what function it's meant to have within that set or theme. It might be somewhat inconvenient for people who want to create unified layouts with buildings from multiple themes, but I feel that's better than abandoning the practical strengths of either style of building for the sake of "consistency".

On 8/28/2021 at 8:32 AM, popkids said:

Fright Knights paved the way for Fantasy Era, as well as being a hugely underrated subtheme in their own right.

I strongly agree with this. I loved the Fright Knights sets as a kid, along with the Dragon Masters sets before them. In general, the fantasy elements in these subthemes made them much more compelling to me than earlier subthemes that focused solely on knights and battles. After all, most of the medieval stories I was familiar with, like Lloyd Alexander's Prydain Chronicles or the tales of King Arthur and his knights, were packed with plenty of fantasy elements in their own right!

The modular style of Night Lord's Castle (like the Ninja, Knights' Kingdom, and Harry Potter sets that followed it) was also EXTREMELY fun, and I still wish more modern LEGO castles included rooms/modules can be rearranged vertically as well as horizontally. Obviously, these sets had a lot of weaknesses too, but I attribute that more to the general set design standards of their time than the themes themselves.

It's sort of like how I have a lot of affection for the Forestmen subtheme (which was a bit before my time), in spite of how dated their tree and foliage designs tend to feel by modern standards. It's not the fault of the subtheme itself that it came out at a time when curved elements, plant elements, and "earth tones" were so limited, and SNOT techniques and hinges tended to be used so sparingly. The concept itself (Robin Hood inspired tree forts and hideouts populated by a fun-loving and rambunctious band of outlaws) still feels strong today, much like Fright Knights' concept (stylized gothic horror-inspired castles packed with traps and secret passages, fanciful fairy-tale flying machines, and spooky character archetypes like witches and vampires).

[Stuartn]

4 hours ago, Aanchir said:

am definitely a fan of the Modular Buildings myself, but it does frustrate me that they sometimes seem to have warped people's expectations of buildings in other themes, to the point that buildings in other themes like City, Friends, Creator, and even licensed themes are treated like they're fundamentally flawed or "cheapened" by not being fully enclosed. I think this perception misses the point of an open backed structure.

Not only does omitting a model's back wall reduce its cost and allow for easy access to the interior for play, but it also allows a "minifig's eye view" of the building's interiors. Viewing the interiors from the sides makes those scenes more immersive for both play scenarios and displays, like you're actually there. And in TV- or movie-based licensed themes, it is generally a more faithful way of recreating the actual appearance of those scenes on-screen than a more impersonal top-down perspective.

I completely agree there, one of my biggest Lego-related regrets is not continuing to collect all of the 3 in 1 creator townhouse sets, I collected the first three (bike store and cafe, grocer and deli)  and the toy store, but not the townhouse or pet shop. For me these were a great balance between functionality and displayability and got the best of both worlds. The fact that some could be enclosed was great to.

I agree that especially for licensed themes, the open back works, especially the HP sets, and also when it is normally very easy to modify it to be enclosed.

[The Brick Boss]

Some Friends sets should have road plates too. 

[Maaboo the Witch]

I think the B-model in 8459/64/39 is better than the main model.

[leafan]

Lego is far too expensive for what it is, and the business costs that contribute to that high price are not my problem.

The CMF series should be £2 each, not £3.49.

Lego doesn't understand how to market Castle/historical products, or they're indulging in underhanded selling practices. There is a huge market for this type of product but they constantly fail to accentuate the key selling points - the minifigures.

3 minifigs in the upcoming 3-in-1 Viking Ship. ...3! That's either not understanding the selling point, or purposely reducing the minifigs to create artificial scarcity.

Same with the recent 3-in-1 Pirate Ship and Castle. I know these are the 3-in-1 Creator line, but why is that an excuse? Before you think about cost, read my first comment in this post again. Why will the ship have a sea serpent instead of more minifigs? To create a throw-back to the old Viking Ship that nobody asked for? Why do all of these types of sets have crappy side builds yet lack minifigures? If it's because of the alternate builds, then reduce them in size or drop them altogether; it never mattered for the old Castle sets that had alternate builds shown on the box yet still had a plethora of minifigures.

Why not sell battle packs of historical armies? People want to collect them but TLG makes it so hard and expensive.

You would think a Danish company would have a greater understanding of the importance of historical sets. Those Vikings got everywhere.

[TeriXeri]

3 hours ago, leafan said:

Why not sell battle packs of historical armies? People want to collect them but TLG makes it so hard and expensive.

1000% agree here, LEGO seems to be very inconsistent in offerings , First City has People Packs, then nothing for 2020-2022, then Blister packs but nothing in 2021?

Nexo had 2 series of figure packs in 2016/2017, 2013 Castle had figure packs (in 2014 actually), and those Ultimate and Battle suit sets were good extra small sets.

Is it hard to ask for a set like this come at the same time with a 3-in-1 themed set ? For Pirates, it wasn't as bad as Barracuda Bay had a fantastic selection of figures.

2019 had a space accesoire pack.

2015 had a Pirates Chess set, but with Harry Potter Chess I don't see a new set like that soon.

I understand LEGO might not make a figure pack for just 1 3-in-1 set theme, but do buildable animals like purple hedgehogs sell better then a small 3-in-1 €10 set with a viking? (sci-fi had the droid this year which I think was a nice figure for sure)

 

 

Edited October 14, 2021 by TeriXeri

[danth]

4 hours ago, leafan said:

3 minifigs in the upcoming 3-in-1 Viking Ship. ...3! That's either not understanding the selling point, or purposely reducing the minifigs to create artificial scarcity.

Same with the recent 3-in-1 Pirate Ship and Castle.

I think Lego needs to realize that Classic-Themed Creator 3-1 sets don't have to be 1000 piece sets.

Imagine $20 Creator Castle set with 2 minifigs with totally different gear. That gives you way more minifig bang for the buck with mix-and-match potential as well. Castle wall, armor shop, tree fort. Done.

Throw in an ornamental armor set and now you have even more options. A forest man with a hood becomes a knight with a helmet.

[TeriXeri]

9 minutes ago, danth said:

Imagine $20 Creator Castle set with 2 minifigs with totally different gear. That gives you way more minifig bang for the buck with mix-and-match potential as well. Castle wall, armor shop, tree fort. Done.

Throw in an ornamental armor set and now you have even more options. A forest man with a hood becomes a knight with a helmet.

Exactly, and it being 3-in-1 , smaller sets getting purchased more, both for armies and the 3 builds, and still packs more figures(per budget) then the €100 Castle (which is even rumoured to go up in price to €120 next year, so I assume viking ship will be €120 as well)

Speaking for myself, I'm way more likely to buy multiples of a 3-in-1 on a set that's under €50 (and ideally isn't exclusive so gets discounted to around €35)

Edited October 14, 2021 by TeriXeri

[danth]

14 minutes ago, TeriXeri said:

Exactly, and it being 3-in-1 , smaller sets getting purchased more, both for armies and the 3 builds, and still packs more figures then the €100 Castle (which is even rumoured to go up in price to €120 next year, so I assume viking ship will be €120 as well)

Imagine what you could build with 10 copies of a modern version of this set:

https://brickset.com/sets/5929-1/Knight-and-Castle-Building-Set

Years ago I found out about this set and wanted to buy 20 copies just to build a huge castle. But I couldn't find very many available, so that didn't happen.

Edited October 14, 2021 by danth

[Aanchir]

On 10/10/2021 at 2:30 PM, Poodabricks said:

Some Friends sets should have road plates too. 

I agree with this! I could imagine some great uses for them in other themes like Super Heroes as well.

Truth be told, I feel like it's a bit of a bummer that the standard road plate pack is branded as LEGO City instead of LEGO Xtra. I feel like one of the strengths of the "LEGO Xtra" branding was that it helps clarify that those sorts of supplementary sets can be paired with any number of themes, not just City.

But even with the road plates appearing primarily in City sets at the moment, I think there are still plenty of opportunities for LEGO to use them elsewhere in the future. And not just as roads, but also as rivers, racetracks, etc.

On 10/14/2021 at 7:55 AM, leafan said:

Lego doesn't understand how to market Castle/historical products, or they're indulging in underhanded selling practices. There is a huge market for this type of product but they constantly fail to accentuate the key selling points - the minifigures.

3 minifigs in the upcoming 3-in-1 Viking Ship. ...3! That's either not understanding the selling point, or purposely reducing the minifigs to create artificial scarcity.

Same with the recent 3-in-1 Pirate Ship and Castle. I know these are the 3-in-1 Creator line, but why is that an excuse? Before you think about cost, read my first comment in this post again. Why will the ship have a sea serpent instead of more minifigs? To create a throw-back to the old Viking Ship that nobody asked for? Why do all of these types of sets have crappy side builds yet lack minifigures? If it's because of the alternate builds, then reduce them in size or drop them altogether; it never mattered for the old Castle sets that had alternate builds shown on the box yet still had a plethora of minifigures.

Honestly calling the minifigures the "key selling points" of Castle/historical products sort of rubs me the wrong way… I feel like that sort of talk that makes those sorts of themes sound like a poor fit for the LEGO brand's very nature as a building toy. I realize that right NOW, more figures are what castle fans want/need most, since building elements for Castle models can be found in numerous other themes. But even so, I still think the builds are just as much of a "key selling point" for Castle sets as the figures.

From what I recall, the 2013 Castle sets got a lot of criticism from Castle fans for their builds, despite having about as many minifigures per set as the Kingdoms sets that preceded them. Whereas I feel that the Blacksmith Shop and 3-in-1 Medieval Castle have gotten a much more positive reception from Castle fans, in spite of having far fewer minifigs relative to their size.

And needless to say, the builds are even MORE of a "key selling point" for Creator 3-in-1 sets than for "play themes" like Castle, since alternate builds provide the core of that theme's identity, not just an optional "bonus feature" like the back-of-the-box builds in the 80s and 90s.

Now, I haven't seen the 3-in-1 Viking Ship, but to me a brick-built dragon or sea serpent tends to add a lot more play value and building value than increasing the number of minifigures. I know that in my childhood, those sorts of fantasy creatures were a big part of what made themes like Castle and Vikings so interesting to me in the first place! I recognize that I might be an outlier among AFOL Castle fans in that regard, but I don't think it's too far-fetched to think many of today's kids enjoy these sorts of "side builds", given the popularity of fantasy creatures in other themes like Elves, Ninjago, and Harry Potter.

Make no mistake — I'm not saying you shouldn't want more minifigures in these sets. I mean, I can tell you with certainty that I'd prefer if the 3-in-1 Medieval Castle included a king, queen, 2–4 knights/guards, a blacksmith, and maybe even a wizard (after all, wizards and witches were another part of what made the Castle theme so appealing to me as a kid). It's certainly a big enough build to accommodate them!

But I think it's shortsighted to treat secondary builds like dragons and fantasy creatures like extraneous "filler" that gets in the way of including more figures. After all, it's quite possible that the enduring success of Creator 3-in-1 dragon sets over the years was part of what gave LEGO the confidence to begin introducing other medieval-inspired 3-in-1 sets! And with any luck, the Medieval Castle won't be the last set we see along those lines in the near future.

On 10/14/2021 at 12:12 PM, danth said:

Imagine $20 Creator Castle set with 2 minifigs with totally different gear. That gives you way more minifig bang for the buck with mix-and-match potential as well. Castle wall, armor shop, tree fort. Done.

I do agree with this, and I don't think that's too far fetched to hope for in the future, either! After all, 31111 Cyber Drone is effectively a low-priced space set. And there's already precedent for historical fantasy 3-in-1 sets at around a $20 to $30 price point, albeit without minifigures — last year's 31102 Fire Dragon is just one recent example.

Some other ideas that come to mind for smaller 3-in-1 medieval sets are:

• A royal coach that rebuilds into a prison carriage or a tournament scene. Of course, this one might not be as big a hit with traditional Castle fans since it'd likely feature brick-built horses and not molded ones.
• A medieval inn/tavern that rebuilds into a farmstead or wizard's workshop.
• A forest outpost that rebuilds into a hill fort or walled garden.

But I think your castle wall/armor shop/tree fort idea might be the one I like best, since not only would it be one of the most affordable of these ideas (by comparison, my medieval inn concept would likely cost somewhere between $40 and $50, similar to 31105 or 31118) but it's also easy to imagine at least two of those builds working with the same snap-together system of the current 3-in-1 castle, and I'm a sucker for that sort of modular system being retained across multiple sets.

[metalgeekzy]

All lego sets are very over priced. Very very over priced. 

 

[MaximillianRebo]

10 minutes ago, metalgeekzy said:

All lego sets are very over priced. Very very over priced. 

 

I know this is the place for unpopular opinions so maybe I shouldn't be disagreeing, but I wouldn't say overpriced. Expensive? Yes, but not overpriced - well, sometimes I'll look at a set and think "they're asking that much?" but other sets seem much better value for what you get. 

At the end of the day you're not just paying for factories to churn out moulded plastic, the time cost for R+D on all new models would be a significant factor, plus in some cases licensing costs, plus the premium TLG gets to charge as a market leader.

Plus there's the precision in the pieces. I can take a piece from a set from the 70s and connect it to a model bought last week and everything fits together snugly. That sort of build quality doesn't come cheap.

No one would say no if the prices became cheaper, but I can understand (most of the time) why the sets cost what they do.

[MAB]

Plus there is the value as measured by how much time do you spend using and enjoying something divided by the price. Expensive LEGO can be excellent value if you use it a lot.

[Pinnacle]

Yes, LEGO is expensive. But is it too expensive?

Until now, no company is capable of producing so many types of parts in so many colours and such high accuracy, al TLC.

Several factory’s try to imitate LEGO parts of sets.  But or it is relatively cheap and therefore poor quality, or is almost as expensive as the LEGO brand itself. And they do have not the same service as LEGO.

I think LEGO is only too expensive as other companies can do the same quality, quantity, and service with lower costs.  

[Lego David]

Ok, this one might annoy some people, but I really am not a fan of those recent 18+ "Adults Welcome" sets. 

I get that they are trying to expand into a new market, and so far this strategy seems to have payed off, but too be fair, I feel like they already oversaturated this market and its barely been a year since they started tapping into it. It feels to me almost like every few weeks we get a new announcement of yet another 18+ set, and this is really starting to piss me off. Some of them are selling very well, I get it, but most of them feel just so randomly generated, like who in the world asked for a LEGO Shoe? Or a LEGO Electric Guitar? Or a Typewriter? I mean, sure, they are impressive on a technical level in terms of size and design, but after you've built them once, what in the world are you supposed to do with them? Just put them on a shelf and let them to gather dust for the rest of eternity. 

Those types of products feel like they completely go against what LEGO is supposed to stand for (to me at least)... Build your own things, think outside the box, be creative. Yet those feel like their supposed to be treated simply as display models. 

Every time I walk into a LEGO Store and see all those dozens of black boxed sets, the first thought that always comes to my mind is just "soulless". 

 

Edited November 3, 2021 by Lego David

[BrickG]

BIONICLE was dumb, bad, and boring.

I'll see my way out.

[Lego David]

3 hours ago, BrickG said:

BIONICLE was dumb, bad, and boring.

I'll see my way out.

That's literally what everyone who didn't grew up with Bionicle says, so not really an unpopular opinion. 

I could say the same thing about something like the Super Mario games, which I never grew up with, and never understood why there is such a big fanbase of grown adults that still enjoy dressing up in silly Mario and Luigi costumes. 

What can I say, I guess some things you can only get into if you got into it as a child. 

Edited November 3, 2021 by Lego David