3 ms·

I grew up with Lego in the 1980s; back then they had zero or few tie-ins with branding other than Shell IIRC. There were also fewer specialized pieces, meaning

I grew up with Lego in the 1980s; back then they had zero or few tie-ins with branding other than Shell IIRC. There were also fewer specialized pieces, meaning greater emphasis on kids' using their imagination.

replicatorblog 7y ago
This is an often stated criticism of modern Lego designs, but I wonder if anyone has tried to test this empirically? E.g. if you gave a group of kids a "classic" set and another a themed set, with no further instructions, would the first group produce more "creative" designs? I think the critics of the branded sets undervalue the Piagetian concept of scaffolding, basically that having the Harry Potter superstructure allows kids to riff on a variety of concepts that actually may be more "creative" than the random geometric blocks. E.g. "What if we built a jail around Voldermort instead of killing him" seems like an equally valuable expression of creativity as "I made a vaguely car-shaped thing, but it has six wheels instead of four and has those little lever bricks instead of a steering wheel."
- bluetomcat 7y ago
  Let's do a direct comparison of [1] "70412-1: Soldiers Fort" (2015) to [2] "6263-1: Imperial Outpost" (1995): - Older set has a big baseplate which enables a child to start building a new structure easily - Older set has well-pronounced architectural elements like arcs and slopes and feels like a solid structure, newer set feels airy and ad-hoc - Older set has minifigs with a simple paint, newer set has cartoon-like characters - Older set has a more realistic colour scheme, newer set again feels cartoonish - Older set has a specially designed backside for playing and putting minifigs [1] https://brickset.com/sets/70412-1/Soldiers-Fort https://brickset.com/sets/70412-1/Soldiers-Fort [2] https://brickset.com/sets/6263-1/Imperial-Outpost https://brickset.com/sets/6263-1/Imperial-Outpost
  - rdtwo 7y ago
    They look like different tiers of sets the first one is like a 20$ set while the second is a 10$ one

replicatorblog 7y ago

This is an often stated criticism of modern Lego designs, but I wonder if anyone has tried to test this empirically? E.g. if you gave a group of kids a "classic" set and another a themed set, with no further instructions, would the first group produce more "creative" designs? I think the critics of the branded sets undervalue the Piagetian concept of scaffolding, basically that having the Harry Potter superstructure allows kids to riff on a variety of concepts that actually may be more "creative" than the random geometric blocks. E.g. "What if we built a jail around Voldermort instead of killing him" seems like an equally valuable expression of creativity as "I made a vaguely car-shaped thing, but it has six wheels instead of four and has those little lever bricks instead of a steering wheel."

bluetomcat 7y ago
Let's do a direct comparison of [1] "70412-1: Soldiers Fort" (2015) to [2] "6263-1: Imperial Outpost" (1995): - Older set has a big baseplate which enables a child to start building a new structure easily - Older set has well-pronounced architectural elements like arcs and slopes and feels like a solid structure, newer set feels airy and ad-hoc - Older set has minifigs with a simple paint, newer set has cartoon-like characters - Older set has a more realistic colour scheme, newer set again feels cartoonish - Older set has a specially designed backside for playing and putting minifigs [1] https://brickset.com/sets/70412-1/Soldiers-Fort https://brickset.com/sets/70412-1/Soldiers-Fort [2] https://brickset.com/sets/6263-1/Imperial-Outpost https://brickset.com/sets/6263-1/Imperial-Outpost
- rdtwo 7y ago
  They look like different tiers of sets the first one is like a 20$ set while the second is a 10$ one