3 ms·
shrug You're entitled to your opinion of course, but my point was that there is no objective measure for past sets being better, there's anecdotal evidence that
by roel_v 7y ago
shrug You're entitled to your opinion of course, but my point was that there is no objective measure for past sets being better, there's anecdotal evidence that (at least some) kids enjoy legos as much as I/we did 30 years ago, and there's plenty of scienfic evidence for 'rose colored glasses' wrt childhood memories, the subjective nature of 'enjoyment' and preferences being formed in childhood/adolescence.
I'm not going to argue set numbers and brick counts, I don't know anything about legos. All I can say is that I see children be just as creative with legos today as I and my friends ever were.
- shantly 7y agoYeah, my kids still love LEGO, but the sets don't seem to be well-designed for play (for younger kids in what used to be their primary target age-range) anymore compared to what they used to be. I bet the nicer-looking art tests better and moves units just fine, but once you actually put them together and watch kids assemble & play with them playability has clearly taken a backseat. I think assembled size vs. part count is a pretty good way to illustrate the difference. LEGO itself is fine. Brick buckets are still great value. The sets just aren't as good for playing with as-is or for building/customizing on top of, anymore. With some exceptions I'm sure, but they used to just about all be designed, seemingly (in hindsight, now that we have modern ones to compare them to) play-first.