Is it wrong to say that I find Lego lame as a playable toy? (Ramble)

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Lego as playable toys sucks and it baffles me that kids today still treats like action figures I mean remember that scene in the Lego movie where the kid was playing with his father's Lego sets and the father scolded him for treating them like playable toys?

The father is right, Lego are not toys, they are build your own statues and these statues are static and most of the time breaks apart depending on the how the statue is built, when I was a kid I hated that my Lego creations break apart and wish I could glue thm but that would be messy, and also the film's message of you can play with them as a doll or action figure is a silly message.

I mean seriously given the choice would you play with a Lego version of a Star Wars X-Wing?

Or an actual X-Wing toy figure?

If you want to play with a proper toy play with action figures that are durable and has play value, like go play with G.I. Joe toys or He-Man, or Transformers kid or if your the gamey type go play D&D and Warhammer tabletop and heck those Tabletop Statues are real statue figures that are durable:

Lego are build your own statues to make Sets, not play your own imaginatory fantasy adventure figures because of how fragile they are when they break apart.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

I... what? Everyone already knows that. It's a creative tool set. I mean, you can still make vehicles which could be "played" with just like any other object. In fact, there really isn't anything stopping anybody from playing with their static builds that I'm aware of. They're not all fragile unless you launch them into walls and faces. If you're looking at Lego for playable toys, you're looking in the wrong place.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Eh, you can make a better X-Wing crash that with a normal toy, at least one you can put back together afterwards.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

I... what? Everyone already knows that. It's a creative tool set. I mean, you can still make vehicles which could be "played" with just like any other object. In fact, there really isn't anything stopping anybody from playing with their static builds that I'm aware of. They're not all fragile unless you launch them into walls and faces. If you're looking at Lego for playable toys, you're looking in the wrong place.

I am just rambling because I watched that one scene in the Lego movie with that kid playing with his father's set as playable toys and I was like "yeah put those down kid you are going to break it" and I would not say that if he was playing with a real toy like say G.I. Joe or Max Steel. And I was a bit peeved that the kid pretty much got away with it in the end and is now allowed to play with father's hard built Lego sets to his heart's content. Its like that is the message to any kid who watches the movie.

And I am like "Oh how I wish that the kid accidently dropped the lego and it shatters on the floor in front of his father"

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Well you're not a kid so yeah

I can understand why you might not enjoy it

Implying I never had a childhood, especially a Childhood where I did play with Legos, I remember using basic pieces to make my interpratation of Zoids robots from the Anime. But even than I always found that to be a cheap and lesser version compared to a real Zoid toy.

The best toy I ever had was a whole Transformer Set with Optimus Prime from Transformers Armada generation:

And to this day I have no idea how I lost that one.

 

[DoPo]

Yes, it's wrong to say that.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I beg to differ, I had tons of fun building helicopters and then smashing them in action sequences.

 

[Saelune]

...Breaking legos is hard. Thats part of the appeal. If a Lego X-Wing's wing falls off...put it back on. Break a non-Lego X-Wing wing, and you're fucked.

Plus Legos are versatile, and consistent. Mixing and matching isnt an issue like other toys might be.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

I... what? Everyone already knows that. It's a creative tool set. I mean, you can still make vehicles which could be "played" with just like any other object. In fact, there really isn't anything stopping anybody from playing with their static builds that I'm aware of. They're not all fragile unless you launch them into walls and faces. If you're looking at Lego for playable toys, you're looking in the wrong place.

I am just rambling because I watched that one scene in the Lego movie with that kid playing with his father's set as playable toys and I was like "yeah put those down kid you are going to break it" and I would not say that if he was playing with a real toy like say G.I. Joe or Max Steel. And I was a bit peeved that the kid pretty much got away with it in the end and is now allowed to play with father's hard built Lego sets to his heart's content. Its like that is the message to any kid who watches the movie.

And I am like "Oh how I wish that the kid accidently dropped the lego and it shatters on the floor in front of his father"

Then ramble away, dear doubter of brick collaboration, friend! ;p When I was I kid I had great fun smashing creations together to see which survived the most. Nothing is forever, but some things do get the privilege of making it to the next round. Ahahahahahahha! [small]Those were lonely times *glazed tearful eyes*[/small]

 

[Lieju]

I beg to differ, I had tons of fun building helicopters and then smashing them in action sequences.

Same. Or had the castle be attacked by an opposing army and destroying its defenses, pirates robbing the police station and using the parts to make their ship bigger etc etc.

I played with my cousins a game where we built a spaceship and then saw which one's survived the smashing better.

Also you could, for example give your LEGO X-wing dragon wings and put blue flames all over it. (Fun fact: all spaceships and aircrafts should have dragon wings)

I get if you want to play with a more accurate looking toy or something but LEGO offers possibilities those toys don't.

 

[MrCalavera_v1legacy]

>Legos are lame
>Legos are fragile
>Legos are cheap
Here i think our tastes when it comes to pop-cultural stuff can't be more apart...

But okay, i'll play: I'd rather play a brick x-wing, cause if a part falls off i won't have to mess around with glue or buy a new one. That also answers the durability question.
And i'd like to know in comparison to which toy Legos are considered cheap... right, Warhammer figurines maybe. But i still would rather step on a lego every day than pay GW for their stuff.

I wish i still had most of my lego sets...

 

[Saelune]

To add to say, Warhammer. Legos...I can change any of the figures to mix with any of the other figures, no glue required. Cant do that with Warhammer. I can take Spider-Man's Lego head, put it on Lego Gandalf's body, with Lego Batman's Cowl, and have him use a Lego Lightsaber while he explores Lego Hogwarts.

 

[Elvis Starburst]

Eh, I get that if you have something you're really proud of, you don't wanna risk it breaking on you. I had those sorts of creations myself, so I know the feeling. But I often built them to be pretty sturdy so I could have my fun. the least sturdy thing I made was an actually pretty good Lego replica of an Arwing. The flimsiest part were the wings because their weight was being held by a single movable joint piece. I wanted to make them both move at the same time, but I didn't have the stuff to make it happen. The wings fell off semi-often, but it still was fun to play with.

Also, I'm probably being extremely anal about this... Lego as a word is plural. "Legos" is not a thing

 

[DoPo]

Also, I'm probably being extremely anal about this... Lego as a word is plural. "Legos" is not a thing

Actually, if we are to be pedantic, then LEGO is spelt in all caps, because it's the company name. Also, it's singular. What the company produces are LEGO sets (if we're talking whole boxed stuff) composed of LEGO bricks/blocks/pieces/parts - either is usually enough to describe any particular atomic element, however, you could draw a distinction between "bricks/blocks" and "pieces/parts". The former would be the cuboid shapes usually mono coloured, like these:

while the latter could include any element you can find in a LEGO set - for example, connectors, wheels, windows, doors, props, etc., thus making "pieces" and "parts" a hypernym.

Out of these, the LEGO corporation actually avoids using the term "block". They refer to them as mostly "bricks" and occasionally distinguish between that and "pieces" or "parts". There doesn't seem to be a preference which of the last two items is used as the superset term for elements, but occasionally "bricks" will also refer to any of them.

Calling any those things "lego" or "legos" is equally wrong and equally right at the same time. You could noun the word and from there on, it depends on whether it's considered countable or uncountable. Given that neither is actually official, you cannot really claim that either is "correct". Yet, since it's used colloquially, you can't really claim that you cannot use either.

So, to answer your question, you are not being anal enough.

 

[Scarim Coral]

Err you do know that Lego are supposed to be or rather the initial concept of building whatever you want (used your imagination) like a sandbox game?

I mean that was the whole point with that kid playing with his dad Lego sets and Wildd message to the whole Lego universe by breaking their instruction mold and make whatever they want in the film.

Yes these days the majority of Lego are a playset but you can just buy a bucket of them. I mean lets say you got the pieces to make the Lego X- Wings but they didn't hand you the instruction manuals. Chance are you would still budild something to played it (oh and don't get hypothetical with my saying you demand the instruction manual or just played something else, let just say you in a room with nothing but with those lego pieces).

Beside if you think the Lego bricks were fragile these days, you should of seen the old versions without the tube inside the bricks! They ones were far more weaker than the ones we got!

Before you mention my experience on them. I'm the youngest brothers so I got my brother hang me downs Legos. Also back then the house was kinda small and my parent didn't kept the insturction manuals but since I was a creative kid, I still had fun with them! Sure the Lego sets I did own were still intact but I still had those loose one to let my imagination to played with!

 

[Glongpre]

Rant

Geez, you don't seem to be having a good year! It seems like everything you post is negative.

And yes, you are wrong. LEGO is an amazing toy. I would always build castles, and populate them with samurai lego people, then attack the fortress with other samurai lego people, and ninjas, and medieval knights. Then bring in actual action figures for good measure, and have them act as gods or awesome warriors or something.
And the cool thing about lego people, is you can decapitate them, and otherwise mutilate them by cutting their body in half and stuff!!!!

LEGO is an awesome toy! OOoooooo and I have skeletons as well, so I can have some undead enemies! Man, I wanna play with my tote full of lego now.

You can do anything with LEGO, you just need to tap into your imagination!!!

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

Eh, I disagree.

I played a heck of a lot with Legos as a kid. I made full length RPG type stories with them, made entire little worlds for them to kick ass in. Rebuilt my big worlds several times, etc.

Yeah, some of the sets are too static or fragile, but in general I think it worked pretty damn well.

 

[Redryhno]

To add to say, Warhammer. Legos...I can change any of the figures to mix with any of the other figures, no glue required. Cant do that with Warhammer. I can take Spider-Man's Lego head, put it on Lego Gandalf's body, with Lego Batman's Cowl, and have him use a Lego Lightsaber while he explores Lego Hogwarts.

Except you can...there's a reason conversions and a thing called a "junk box" exist. And why painting studios get paid quite a bit for quality conversions, especially with Forgeworld stuff. Now, whether YOU can or not may be dictated by the tools and effort you're willing to expend on it, but it is definitely possible and has been encouraged because it's a HOBBYGAME.

Also this thread seems to be pretty easy to understand, did you grow up with legos or not? If you say yes, then you probably will stand against everything the OP is asking and talking about. Personally didn't enjoy them, so there's alot of stuff that matches up with my views on them. Legos are interesting, but honestly I don't much see the point of them. They're messy, they hurt to step on, and the chances of you building something worth getting excited about is pretty low.