3 ms·

Looking at some of the close ups from the Instagram page[0] it does seem to have a number of non standard pieces, but mostly for the figurines as far as I can t

by mstade 8y ago

Looking at some of the close ups from the Instagram page[0] it does seem to have a number of non standard pieces, but mostly for the figurines as far as I can tell. Stickers too, but other than that it looks fairly standard. Difficult to tell from pictures alone of course but nothing really stands out for me as all that non standard. I too built the Saturn V last year, and thoroughly enjoyed it. Particularly as it had zero stickers, and very few non standard pieces. Despite having so many pieces it didn’t feel “inflated” with a bunch of really small pieces where a single bigger piece would do just fine, as was the case with the UCS Y-wing I built over Christmas. Great build, but there were so many times I got annoyed by having two or three small pieces, like two or three 2x2 pieces, where a single 2x4 or 2x6 would do just fine. What’s the point in inflating the piece count like that? I’m also not a fan of stickers on the pieces, but at least there weren’t that many.. [0]: https://www.instagram.com/wani_brick/ https://www.instagram.com/wani_brick/

braythwayt 8y ago
As I'm sure you know, there are two incentives for inflating piece counts. First, many people consider the number of pieces in the set a metric for its "size," and to them, "bigger is better." So you get sets with over 5,000 pieces that could have been constructed with fewer, larger pieces, but the people buying the set actually feel some satisfaction from the piece count, so... win-win? Secondly, many reviews of lego sets trot out a "price per piece" number as if you're buying pieces in bulk and get an instruction manual for assembling a set as a bonus. Smaller pieces make the set seem less expensive by that metric. I dunno how to fix that problem. We'd need to find a better metric (price per stud? price per gram?) and somehow get everyone to start using that metric in their reviews. For me personally, I find the whole exercise meditative, so if the set has several small pieces that could be one larger piece, that means I spend more time building the set, and at the end of the day, that's the experience I'm paying for. My question would be whether they find a way to make the construction interesting, or in reverse, whether it is repetitive enough to be relaxing. There are a lot of subjectives around that. My son built the Saturn V and loved every moment of it. If you didn't love working with small pieces that could have been replaced with larger bricks... I 100% accept that it was not an ideal experience for you. The pleasure of the build is subjective in many ways, we just have general heuristics to go by.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Secondly, many reviews of lego sets trot out a "price per piece" number as if you're buying pieces in bulk and get an instruction manual for assembling a set as a bonus. To be fair, while some people do approach Lego sets like build-and-done models, lots of people do approach them with adaptability to other uses besides the one you get instructions for as a key feature, and more pieces even if they don't make a difference for the build shown on the box are a benefit for that use. > We'd need to find a better metric (price per stud? price per gram?) and somehow get everyone to start using that metric in their reviews. The idea of a "better metric" depends on knowing the One True Value Function of Lego. But I don't think that exists.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
takk309 8y ago
For the Saturn V, they specifically chose the piece count of 1969 as a sort of Easter Egg referencing the year of the Moon landing.
gknoy 8y ago
> there were so many times I got annoyed by having two or three small pieces, like two or three 2x2 pieces, where a single 2x4 or 2x6 would do just fine I was annoyed by this too (and am experiencing it with the Lego Hogwarts set I am building for my wife), but it seems like it has a good reason. Just as sometimes you see weird rare-color (magenta? sky blue?) pieces in places that are visible, they seem to be altering the piece composition slightly in ways that either exercise their supply chain ("we have a ton of these blue blocks...?"), and also end up making the set _more versatile_ if you ever decide to rip it apart and make something different, as you'll have a variety of pieces from your sets rather than several 12x2 pieces that you can't use for anything.

by mstade 8y ago

braythwayt 8y ago

As I'm sure you know, there are two incentives for inflating piece counts. First, many people consider the number of pieces in the set a metric for its "size," and to them, "bigger is better." So you get sets with over 5,000 pieces that could have been constructed with fewer, larger pieces, but the people buying the set actually feel some satisfaction from the piece count, so... win-win? Secondly, many reviews of lego sets trot out a "price per piece" number as if you're buying pieces in bulk and get an instruction manual for assembling a set as a bonus. Smaller pieces make the set seem less expensive by that metric. I dunno how to fix that problem. We'd need to find a better metric (price per stud? price per gram?) and somehow get everyone to start using that metric in their reviews. For me personally, I find the whole exercise meditative, so if the set has several small pieces that could be one larger piece, that means I spend more time building the set, and at the end of the day, that's the experience I'm paying for. My question would be whether they find a way to make the construction interesting, or in reverse, whether it is repetitive enough to be relaxing. There are a lot of subjectives around that. My son built the Saturn V and loved every moment of it. If you didn't love working with small pieces that could have been replaced with larger bricks... I 100% accept that it was not an ideal experience for you. The pleasure of the build is subjective in many ways, we just have general heuristics to go by.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> Secondly, many reviews of lego sets trot out a "price per piece" number as if you're buying pieces in bulk and get an instruction manual for assembling a set as a bonus. To be fair, while some people do approach Lego sets like build-and-done models, lots of people do approach them with adaptability to other uses besides the one you get instructions for as a key feature, and more pieces even if they don't make a difference for the build shown on the box are a benefit for that use. > We'd need to find a better metric (price per stud? price per gram?) and somehow get everyone to start using that metric in their reviews. The idea of a "better metric" depends on knowing the One True Value Function of Lego. But I don't think that exists.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

takk309 8y ago

For the Saturn V, they specifically chose the piece count of 1969 as a sort of Easter Egg referencing the year of the Moon landing.

gknoy 8y ago

> there were so many times I got annoyed by having two or three small pieces, like two or three 2x2 pieces, where a single 2x4 or 2x6 would do just fine I was annoyed by this too (and am experiencing it with the Lego Hogwarts set I am building for my wife), but it seems like it has a good reason. Just as sometimes you see weird rare-color (magenta? sky blue?) pieces in places that are visible, they seem to be altering the piece composition slightly in ways that either exercise their supply chain ("we have a ton of these blue blocks...?"), and also end up making the set _more versatile_ if you ever decide to rip it apart and make something different, as you'll have a variety of pieces from your sets rather than several 12x2 pieces that you can't use for anything.