[POLL] Eldorado Fortress Assessment

[Yperio_Bricks]

 

 

With set 10320 Eldorado Fortress on shelves for half a year now, we would like to learn how it was received by the Eurobricks community.

Do you love the set, got it on day one and went on to buy multiples or do you dislike the set and have no plans to buy it?

Eldorado Fortress - yay or nay?

Three cheers for @Horation for fleshing out the poll with us

 

 

[kuzyabricks]

Just as I expected (and agree with) governor's office is too cramped. And how the ladder leads into the governor's office. Seriously? All the soldiers will walk through his office? Only issues I have with the set. Can't wait to mod it when I get back home.

[Horation]

 Thanks for the mention! @Yperio_Bricks It was a fun collab

I feel like this set's biggest flaw was the marketing and the its design ethos ; the set was clearly a giant playset, but marketed towards nostalgic adults, in other words it did not know what it was. 

The result was : 2015 style soldiers (with lighter white) and play friendly features (low walls making it easy to access the inside, the modular design, the office being next to the cannon, etc..) but also nostalgic elements (the black docks, the whole build's shape, the marketing for the set being "the whole gang is here", all the while not including all of the original cast of characters, etc...)

 

[Ruthin Road]

Thank you for the poll. I agree with @Horation above.

I think the main flaw of the set is that it is ugly, both in comparison to the original and especially on its own terms, which limits its wider appeal. While the base is well done albeit a bit part heavy, the fort towers manage to be bulky and overbuilt while simultaneously lacking in detail. The gun loops are less elegant than the original set. The use of red bricks is scattergun. The modular feature is a good idea but takes too many liberties with the appearance of the main model.

I like the idea of having the remake as a pure playset but it would then have to be about half the price. I think this would have been possible by omitting the ship and streamlining the overall build. If it was cheaper I think we would have been more forgiving of its flaws and been better able to appreciate its play features.

It's such a shame. If could have had one old set remade it would have been Eldorado Fortress (or Fort Sabre as I knew it in the UK!) However I can't bring myself to buy it. While a Caribbean fort will never have as broad appeal as a castle or a spaceship, I think a better set would have created more than sufficient interest to justify its existance. Sadly its failure will have sunk the possibility of future Imperial sets.

1 hour ago, Horation said:

 the marketing for the set being "the whole gang is here", all the while not including all of the original cast of characters, etc...) 

I find this quite funny albeit it is probably indicative of an overall lack of care over the set. If nothing else, it contributes to the nostalgic feel by continuing the well-established slapdash Lego approach to its "lore"!

[Jack Sassy]

I really appreciate that we had such a good set, however, it was too close to the original. When you put it next to 2020's BSB, the fortress becomes small. I have no clue how they could have fixed the scale issue without adding too much to the price. 

[AnonymousAnonAnon]

New here, but I love it specifically because it is a big playset. I really appreciate these sets that I can build myself and then play on with my son. I wish more of the 18+ sets in general had this amount of playability.

Edited January 17 by AnonymousAnonAnon

[Captain Pirate Man]

I LOVE it, but I didn't buy it on day one, due to financial situations. But when I DID buy it, I ended up getting two, because I DO love it.

As for flaws, it's a set that's pretty flawless IMO, I honestly love it. My only minor complaint is that LEGO is continuing the trend of female heads for soldiers, officers, knights, etc. Look, I know it Lego and I can just change the heads (and trust me I do). But between this set and the most recent Castle sets, Im running out of good male heads, yet I have TONS of female ones. So it's more of an aggravation imo, than an actual flaw. Obviously I could just LEAVE them as females, but I don't like that if I'm honest. It's not about being inclusive or giving representation, or whatever else people want to say. It's that my soldiers, knights, etc in MY Lego collection have been Males since 1988. So that's what I prefer them to be. Yes, I have some female knights in my medieval display, so I'm not opposed to having some females in there, just not at the ratio Lego keeps giving us. I'd also add that, I'm not "sorry not sorry" but my Imperial Soldiers and Officers are males. They just are, period. I'm not having it any other way. 

But again, it's Lego, and everyone is free to do whatever they want with their own collections. It's just Lego has been pushing this 50/50 male to female Minifig ratio pretty heavily the last few years. Which when it comes to City, modular buildings, etc. It doesn't really matter to me. But when it comes to Pirates and Castle... I honestly don't need ANYMORE female minifigs. I need more males. I have a whole bucket full of female heads.

[Mister Phes]

3 hours ago, Captain Pirate Man said:

My only minor complaint is that LEGO is continuing the trend of female heads for soldiers, officers, knights, etc.

But more female heads means more females customers rushing out to buy the set because they can see themself in the product!  Doubles the profits in an instant!

Also let's indicate the tonality of that statement...

[Yperio_Bricks]

Does anybody think the price or the ship is the biggest flaw of the set? I had the options typed already but then removed them from the poll  

[Khargeust]

43 minutes ago, Yperio_Bricks said:

Does anybody think the price or the ship is the biggest flaw of the set? I had the options typed already but then removed them from the poll  

For me price is the biggest flaw but I manage to get three copies while waiting for good offers with x2 VIP points or GWPs that I sold each time to lower the bill.

But I love the inclusion of the boat because by getting several copies you can reproduce all the Imperial buildings, including the Imperial Trading Post itself, and above all you can create a big imperial zone.

[TeriXeri]

59 minutes ago, Yperio_Bricks said:

Does anybody think the price or the ship is the biggest flaw of the set? I had the options typed already but then removed them from the poll  

I think it does add some to the price but LEGO would probably round it to €200  (instead of like €180-190), but if not included, I doubt LEGO would do a ship with such sails, especially not as GWP, it'd be something much simpler.

As for biggest flaw, I voted Other, as none of the issues really makes me dislike it, just a combination of things that might've been nicer, but things like the rocks and walls can be modded with common parts if needed. (unlike sails that would need to be custom made/bought) . 

Edited January 17 by TeriXeri

[Horation]

13 hours ago, Captain Pirate Man said:

Obviously I could just LEAVE them as females, but I don't like that if I'm honest. It's not about being inclusive or giving representation, or whatever else people want to say. It's that my soldiers, knights, etc in MY Lego collection have been Males since 1988. So that's what I prefer them to be. Yes, I have some female knights in my medieval display, so I'm not opposed to having some females in there, just not at the ratio Lego keeps giving us. I'd also add that, I'm not "sorry not sorry" but my Imperial Soldiers and Officers are males. They just are, period. I'm not having it any other way. 

I honestly don't understand why y'all complain so much about female heads : are new male heads THAT expensive to buy? I agree that if you want to have more male soldiers you should do so, but it's not that difficult to go on pick a brick, find half a dozen designs you like, purchase say 10 of each, and there ya go, now you have a bucket load of male heads for 60 to 100$, if you can purchase large sets all the time, this isn't that bad, and you can always sell the female heads if you want...

That's why people keep on saying it's about being inclusive or giving representation, because YOUR collection literally couldn't have included a lot of female heads until they started making varied ones, and many other people would have liked for THEIR collection since the 1980s to include female heads. Is it better then to a)include female heads and be more inclusive, which will make it easier for young girls to identify with the sets or b)include almost only male heads in such sets so that old grinches like YOU and ME can keep THEIR collection the same as in THEIR childhood

And before you reply, keep in mind that these sets are just as marketed towards adults as they are towards kids, who oftentimes can't purchase extra heads, adults CAN do so for THEIR collections.

Sorry for the rant, just tired of this topic popping up every time in modern discussions.

[Ruthin Road]

5 hours ago, Yperio_Bricks said:

Does anybody think the price or the ship is the biggest flaw of the set? I had the options typed already but then removed them from the poll  

I suppose the price is indirectly the biggest flaw in that I would be much more forgiving of a similar set that was half the price.  In addition the set feels padded out in order to inflate the price.

While the ship is absolutely fine in itself, a merchant ship still feels incongruous as part of a military fort set. I would have preferred that the ship had been saved for a future civilian port set and the price of the fort correspondingly decreased.

[Captain Pirate Man]

3 hours ago, Horation said:

I honestly don't understand why y'all complain so much about female heads : are new male heads THAT expensive to buy? I agree that if you want to have more male soldiers you should do so, but it's not that difficult to go on pick a brick, find half a dozen designs you like, purchase say 10 of each, and there ya go, now you have a bucket load of male heads for 60 to 100$, if you can purchase large sets all the time, this isn't that bad, and you can always sell the female heads if you want...

That's why people keep on saying it's about being inclusive or giving representation, because YOUR collection literally couldn't have included a lot of female heads until they started making varied ones, and many other people would have liked for THEIR collection since the 1980s to include female heads. Is it better then to a)include female heads and be more inclusive, which will make it easier for young girls to identify with the sets or b)include almost only male heads in such sets so that old grinches like YOU and ME can keep THEIR collection the same as in THEIR childhood

And before you reply, keep in mind that these sets are just as marketed towards adults as they are towards kids, who oftentimes can't purchase extra heads, adults CAN do so for THEIR collections.

Sorry for the rant, just tired of this topic popping up every time in modern discussions.

Let me start by saying everyone can do whatever they like with their collections, that's part of the beauty of Lego. Having said that, Lego isn't a CHEAP hobby. For example, I bought EVERY CMF Black Falcon I could find. I don't have number, but regardless, that's a LOT of heads and hair to change out in order to army build. So if Lego releases a female Imperial soldier in a future CMF, many of us would have the same issue. 

Also, let me add that Lego is a business. They are not including more female minifigs in Pirate sets for the sake of diversity or inclusion, don't drink that Kool aid. It's so guys like us HAVE to buy additional heads, etc, like you pointed out. It's a business ploy more than anything, let's NOT forget that aspect. So yes, paying $230 for a Lego set, then having to shell out more money to make the minifigs appropriate, is uncalled for IMO. 

Furthermore, I would LOVE to see the numbers (if they even exist), on HOW many females and children ACTUALLY bought Eldorado Fortress or the Lion Knights Castle. My instincts tell me it's over 90% adult males buying those particular sets. So the whole "for the children and inclusion" arguments fall short IMO. 

Let me also add, that I have talked to some Castle collector's that just got into the hobby within the last few years. So they don't have a MASSIVE collection like I do. Their ONLY knights came out in the Lion Knights Castle, Creator 3-1 castle and the Medieval Blacksmith shop. So people that are in THAT boat are overloaded with female minifigs, whether they want them or not. Let's have a little sympathy for those that are newer to the hobby. Most of them don't want a bunch of female soldiers either, and once again, they have to PAY extra, in order to make themselves happy. 

 

Having said all of that, I don't want folks to think I'm "blowing this out of proportion" or anything like that. I was just giving my HONEST assessment of this particular set. On a scale of 1-10, how much do the female heads ACTUALLY bother me? I'd say around a 2. I can and do live with it. But the question was asked "what's the BIGGEST flaw with this set." Well the female heads ARE my answer, which goes to show how GREAT I actually feel that set is. 

 

As a LONG TIME Pirate Collector, if someone asked me "What are the 3 best Lego Pirate sets of all time?" Here are my answers: 

1. Pirates of Barracuda Bay

2. The new Eldorado Fortress 

3. The Imperial Flagship from 2011

That's my list, and I either own or have owned most of the classic sets. 

 

 

 

 

 

13 hours ago, Mister Phes said:

But more female heads means more females customers rushing out to buy the set because they can see themself in the product!  Doubles the profits in an instant!

Also let's indicate the tonality of that statement...

Edited January 17 by Captain Pirate Man

[Yperio_Bricks]

22 minutes ago, Ruthin Road said:

I suppose the price is indirectly the biggest flaw in that I would be much more forgiving of a similar set that was half the price.  In addition the set feels padded out in order to inflate the price.

While the ship is absolutely fine in itself, a merchant ship still feels incongruous as part of a military fort set. I would have preferred that the ship had been saved for a future civilian port set and the price of the fort correspondingly decreased.

Eldorado Fortress is not on the cheap end of non-licensed sets. Eldorado has a price per piece of 8.6c while for example the viking village has only 6.7c per piece. For comparison, Lion Knight's Castle is in the same region as EF with 8.9c ppp. Licensed Rivendell has only 8.1c but has probably 1000 1x1 tiles

A ppp of 8.6c is good but 6.7c is excellent!

Regarding the ship i agree with you

[thewatchman]

On 1/17/2024 at 10:55 AM, AnonymousAnonAnon said:

New here, but I love it specifically because it is a big playset. I really appreciate these sets that I can build myself and then play on with my son. I wish more of the 18+ sets in general had this amount of playability.

My thoughts exactly.

[TheCosmicTravelers]

Although the truncated governor's office is my main criticism with the set, there are several other small changes from the original set that I dislike. The openings in the walls are now too small for cannons (even most brick-built ones). Moving the crane tower back from the corner leaves an unsightly gap in the walls as well as making the steps going up from the dock now have an awkward turn at the top. This opening looked much better in the original set as the crane tower itself essentially acted like a gate structure for this alternate entrance. I also don't like how the ship's sail arrangement has been altered from a topsail sloop to a spanker sail that looks both too small and too high.

On the other hand, I think the newer set improved on the front cannon emplacement (which was horribly exposed in the original set) and the crane itself looks and works a lot nicer (even if it is a bit oversized for minifigs). I actually like the inclusion of the ship instead of another row boat (though this likely precluded the inclusion of a small Imperial flag) but feel a merchant sailor would have been more appropriate. I wonder if 6277 might not have been a better choice for a remake as a bustling port with docks may have proven more popular than a smallish (at least in comparison with both recent pirate ships) fort.

[Horation]

7 hours ago, Captain Pirate Man said:

And, let me add that Lego is a business. They are not including more female minifigs in Pirate sets for the sake of diversity or inclusion, don't drink that Kool aid. It's so guys like us HAVE to buy additional heads, etc, like you pointed out. It's a business ploy more than anything, let's NOT forget that aspect. So yes, paying $230 for a Lego set, then having to shell out more money to make the minifigs appropriate, is uncalled for IMO. 

Let me also add, that I have talked to some Castle collector's that just got into the hobby within the last few years. So they don't have a MASSIVE collection like I do. Their ONLY knights came out in the Lion Knights Castle, Creator 3-1 castle and the Medieval Blacksmith shop. So people that are in THAT boat are overloaded with female minifigs, whether they want them or not. Let's have a little sympathy for those that are newer to the hobby. Most of them don't want a bunch of female soldiers either, and once again, they have to PAY extra, in order to make themselves happy. 

I was just giving my HONEST assessment of this particular set. On a scale of 1-10, how much do the female heads ACTUALLY bother me? I'd say around a 2.

Nope, I'm not drinking any kool aid here, you are objectively wrong. Proof : they commissioned a study into gender stereotypes of their own toys, which found that their products perpetuated gender stereotypes, now I'm not "woke" at all, but this link was interesting enough to me.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2021/10/11/lego-remove-gender-stereotypes-toys/6087796001/

So then, you will tell me, the greedy businessmen decided to add female heads in historical sets so people like YOU would purchase extra heads.

Fine, let's take that claim of yours that they had ZERO interest in diversity OR inclusion, that it was a PLOY. 

So, then, we agree it would be logical to use mostly male heads in regular sets and 50-50 male-female heads in historical sets, because that way, EVEN IF you buy a lot of other sets, you'd still have more male heads, right? 

BUT, that's not the case, as an example the new city space sets have a total of 12 females to 10 males, a nearly even ratio, weird, right? It's almost as if though this was being done in EVERY theme, to make kids feel comfortable with the idea that ANYONE CAN BE ANYTHING.

So then why change it in 18+ sets? Because 90%+ are being sold to white men like you and me? That's going to REDUCE sales amongst women and young girls (let's be honest, a certain % of sales are to kids asking for these as gifts from their well-off parents). They are genuinely doing this to increase diversity, like it or not. So no, they aren't doing this to increase sales, they are doing a lot things to reduce costs and increase sales, that I agree with, but this, nah, you're the one drinking the kool aid of fake outrage (uhm actually, they drank flavor aid, just saying, common misconception).

And to be clear, it is not the majority of people who don't want a bunch of female heads, to prove this, just look at online reviews, very few even care about it, it's mostly an "old grumps who really want a historically accurate army out of what is still meant to be a children's toy making little effort to be accurate anyways" problem. 

Also, let's get something out of the way, you are not mildly bothered by the heads, a 2 out of 10 shouldn't mean you HAVE TO replace the heads (P.S. I never said you HAD to replace the heads, I said that if the mere presence of female soldiers is a problem to you, you CAN purchase more heads). In other words, either this bothers you more than a 2 out of 10, or your definition of 2 out of 10 is really weird...

 

Edited January 18 by Horation
added stuff

[AnonymousAnonAnon]

13 hours ago, Yperio_Bricks said:

Does anybody think the price or the ship is the biggest flaw of the set? I had the options typed already but then removed them from the poll  

It's strange...I like the ship a lot and would have purchased it if sold separately, but something about it doesn't go with the fort. So I suppose if I was nitpicking and had to choose a flaw, that would be it.

[Captain Pirate Man]

1 hour ago, Horation said:

Nope, I'm not drinking any kool aid here, you are objectively wrong. Proof : they commissioned a study into gender stereotypes of their own toys, which found that their products perpetuated gender stereotypes, now I'm not "woke" at all, but this link was interesting enough to me.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2021/10/11/lego-remove-gender-stereotypes-toys/6087796001/

So then, you will tell me, the greedy businessmen decided to add female heads in historical sets so people like YOU would purchase extra heads.

Fine, let's take that claim of yours that they had ZERO interest in diversity OR inclusion, that it was a PLOY. 

So, then, we agree it would be logical to use mostly male heads in regular sets and 50-50 male-female heads in historical sets, because that way, EVEN IF you buy a lot of other sets, you'd still have more male heads, right? 

BUT, that's not the case, as an example the new city space sets have a total of 12 females to 10 males, a nearly even ratio, weird, right? It's almost as if though this was being done in EVERY theme, to make kids feel comfortable with the idea that ANYONE CAN BE ANYTHING.

So then why change it in 18+ sets? Because 90%+ are being sold to white men like you and me? That's going to REDUCE sales amongst women and young girls (let's be honest, a certain % of sales are to kids asking for these as gifts from their well-off parents). They are genuinely doing this to increase diversity, like it or not. So no, they aren't doing this to increase sales, they are doing a lot things to reduce costs and increase sales, that I agree with, but this, nah, you're the one drinking the kool aid of fake outrage (uhm actually, they drank flavor aid, just saying, common misconception).

And to be clear, it is not the majority of people who don't want a bunch of female heads, to prove this, just look at online reviews, very few even care about it, it's mostly an "old grumps who really want a historically accurate army out of what is still meant to be a children's toy making little effort to be accurate anyways" problem. 

Also, let's get something out of the way, you are not mildly bothered by the heads, a 2 out of 10 shouldn't mean you HAVE TO replace the heads (P.S. I never said you HAD to replace the heads, I said that if the mere presence of female soldiers is a problem to you, you CAN purchase more heads). In other words, either this bothers you more than a 2 out of 10, or your definition of 2 out of 10 is really weird...

 

Typical rhetoric... You sure did think long and hard to find ways to prove my opinion as wrong. It's my opinion mate, and I'm entitled to it. I have yet to see a SINGLE person under the age of 15 that have these sets, online or elsewhere. But you are free to believe whatever you choose to. That's the beauty of opinions, no one is right or wrong. Yet you have made two long posts trying to tell me my opinion is wrong. You must be a joy at parties. 

Having said that, lets say what you said is true, and LEGO does care about diversity, inclusion, etc. Than THAT is the ploy to sell more sets. Not for ANY other reason, don't get that twisted. They are a company trying to make money. I accept that, and am fine with it. Once diversity and inclusion start negatively affecting the bottom line, it'll stop in a heartbeat. just remember that. 

Edited January 18 by Captain Pirate Man

[AnonymousAnonAnon]

8 hours ago, Captain Pirate Man said:

Also, let me add that Lego is a business. They are not including more female minifigs in Pirate sets for the sake of diversity or inclusion, don't drink that Kool aid. It's so guys like us HAVE to buy additional heads, etc, like you pointed out. It's a business ploy more than anything, let's NOT forget that aspect. So yes, paying $230 for a Lego set, then having to shell out more money to make the minifigs appropriate, is uncalled for IMO. 

I must say, I find it disconcerting to think that anyone would view the inclusion of women minifigures to be a cynical marketing ploy towards men. I assure you that women and girls want to see themselves represented; girls, perhaps, even need to see it, even if it's just on the box in the store. And the notion that something that is clearly about women is secretly about men shows WHY women need more representation everywhere.

So do what you like with your own toys, but I hope you will some day come to the conclusion that having to pay a few extra dollars to exclude women minifigures is a small price to pay when stacked against the millennia of gender inequality that this is taking the teeniest, tiniest, infintessimally-small step toward righting.

Edited January 18 by AnonymousAnonAnon

[Captain Pirate Man]

Just now, AnonymousAnonAnon said:

I must say, I find it disconcerting to think that anyone would view the inclusion of women minifigures to be a cynical marketing ploy towards men. I assure you that women and girls want to see themselves represented; girls, perhaps, even need to see it, even if it's just on the box in the store. And the notion that something that is clearly about women is secretly about men shows WHY women need more representation everywhere.

So do what you like with your own toys, but I hope you will some day come to the conclusion that having to pay a few extra dollars to exclude women is a small price to pay when stacked against the millenia of gender inequality that this is taking the teeniest, tiniest, infintessimally-small step toward righting.

I don't have a problem with including more girls and women, that's not the issue here. The issue here is that girls, women, and even children are NOT buying the sets in question, the ones that DO are a VERY small minority. Did Eldorado Fortress sell more sets because 50% of the minifigs were girls? No, it didn't. My point is KNOW your audience Lego, that's the issue. Stop forcing YOUR politics onto sets that are not even geared to that demographic. If we were talking about Harry potter ( a theme that MANY women enjoy), then I wouldn't even bat an eye. But that's not the case, now is it? Let's do a poll, whats the demographic on this very site? 

[AnonymousAnonAnon]

1 minute ago, Captain Pirate Man said:

I don't have a problem with including more girls and women, that's not the issue here. The issue here is that girls, women, and even children are NOT buying the sets in question, the ones that DO are a VERY small minority. Did Eldorado Fortress sell more sets because 50% of the minifigs were girls? No, it didn't. My point is KNOW your audience Lego, that's the issue. Stop forcing YOUR politics onto sets that are not even geared to that demographic. If we were talking about Harry potter ( a theme that MANY women enjoy), then I wouldn't even bat an eye. But that's not the case, now is it? Let's do a poll, whats the demographic on this very site? 

Do you perhaps stop to wonder why your purported gender imbalance in purchasers exists?

[Captain Pirate Man]

1 minute ago, AnonymousAnonAnon said:

Do you perhaps stop to wonder why your purported gender imbalance in purchasers exists?

Nice diversionary tactic

[AnonymousAnonAnon]

9 minutes ago, Captain Pirate Man said:

Nice diversionary tactic

You sure do think an awful lot of things are secret ploys.

The lack of representation of women and girls in certain toys unquestionably has a role in shaping who we view those toys as "for." Showing young girls that this toy is equally for them creates a powerful statement, and I think you are failing to appreciate the significance of that--and that the burden of gender inequality it is helping, in its small way, to ameliorate, is far heavier than than the burden of having to buy a few heads off PAB.

Edited January 18 by AnonymousAnonAnon