Classic-Castle.com


The source for all your LEGO Castle needs!

Are the New Castle bad?

Discussion of official LEGO Castle Theme sets and products

Re: Are the New Castle bad?

Postby DraconisTerrena » Tue Oct 13, 2009 3:57 am

Normally I just put such sets on baseplates, then build up the ground around them to give them a little more terrain. However, KCS is built on a series of small dark green plates, and TLG hasn't released baseplates in that color yet. Which is a shame, because the dark green would be nice for swamp terrain and the like.
"A warrior is always joyful because his love is unalterable and his beloved, the earth, embraces him and bestows upon him inconceivable gifts."
-- Don Juan, Tales of Power by Carlos Castaneda
User avatar
DraconisTerrena
Laborer
 
Posts: 147
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 6:49 am

Re: Are the New Castle bad?

Postby Lord Lego 436 » Tue Oct 13, 2009 10:21 pm

DraconisTerrena wrote:Normally I just put such sets on baseplates, then build up the ground around them to give them a little more terrain. However, KCS is built on a series of small dark green plates, and TLG hasn't released baseplates in that color yet. Which is a shame, because the dark green would be nice for swamp terrain and the like.


I find that the dark green is a nuisance. You can''t use it for plain grass, so the only use is swamps and the like. If TLG had put normal green plates in the siege, then maybe I would buy it.
"Humans build atomic bombs, but no mouse in the world would be stupid enough to design a mousetrap."
- Albert Einstien

My MOCpage: http://www.mocpages.com/home.php/16960
User avatar
Lord Lego 436
Laborer
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 1:40 am
Location: Canada

Re: Are the New Castle bad?

Postby Brik Masta » Wed Oct 14, 2009 12:07 am

Lord Lego 436 wrote:
DraconisTerrena wrote:Normally I just put such sets on baseplates, then build up the ground around them to give them a little more terrain. However, KCS is built on a series of small dark green plates, and TLG hasn't released baseplates in that color yet. Which is a shame, because the dark green would be nice for swamp terrain and the like.


I find that the dark green is a nuisance. You can''t use it for plain grass, so the only use is swamps and the like. If TLG had put normal green plates in the siege, then maybe I would buy it.

Actually, I find the dark green plates useful for a darker night or deep forest scenes. I'm glad they put the dark green plates in the Castle Siege.
User avatar
Brik Masta
Foot Soldier
 
Posts: 237
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:06 pm

Re: Are the New Castle bad?

Postby Papy.G » Thu Oct 15, 2009 1:43 am

knight howdy wrote:
Papy.G wrote:To lead everybody to peace between baseplates and not, TLC could build new castles over little baseplates, say 8x16, for example, so the structure could be hinged to fold-open and connect together. :)


then the castle becomes a little small.
it's pretty hard to talk about this but couldn't they just build a castle without a baseplate the first year and after that a castle with a (flat) baseplate.
just a idea...


Yes, if built off one 8x16 baseplate. :spin:
But with many 8x16 baseplates, it can be nice.
For the two versions, it could be confusing, if one wants the cheaper version, that will be at the more expensive price in the store he will get it.
Or, say, a ticket in the box to order a baseplate or get it in store with a little saving (compared to regular price).
"I got to brick free!" Freddie Mercury
My Brickshelf
User avatar
Papy.G
Laborer
 
Posts: 110
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 8:17 pm
Location: France

Re: Are the New Castle bad?

Postby Lord Lego 436 » Fri Oct 16, 2009 12:07 am

Brik Masta wrote:
Lord Lego 436 wrote:
DraconisTerrena wrote:Normally I just put such sets on baseplates, then build up the ground around them to give them a little more terrain. However, KCS is built on a series of small dark green plates, and TLG hasn't released baseplates in that color yet. Which is a shame, because the dark green would be nice for swamp terrain and the like.


I find that the dark green is a nuisance. You can''t use it for plain grass, so the only use is swamps and the like. If TLG had put normal green plates in the siege, then maybe I would buy it.

Actually, I find the dark green plates useful for a darker night or deep forest scenes. I'm glad they put the dark green plates in the Castle Siege.


Truthfully, I've never used 'em. Perhaps in a comic with darker lighting then it would be useful, or, like I said, in a swamp.
"Humans build atomic bombs, but no mouse in the world would be stupid enough to design a mousetrap."
- Albert Einstien

My MOCpage: http://www.mocpages.com/home.php/16960
User avatar
Lord Lego 436
Laborer
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 1:40 am
Location: Canada

Re: Are the New Castle bad?

Postby dyntar » Fri Oct 16, 2009 2:10 pm

No.. I don't think the new sets are all bad. They have a few good points.
There's more regular people outside of soldiers, we have maidens, a queen, jester, farmer, barmaid, a kid, village folks etc. Someone to defend and fight for.

The faces are great.. I prefer the classic soldiers... but smiley faces in battle just don't seem right. The new faces are much more realistic and there's heaps of variety. Unshaved, scared, smirking faces all add variety.

Positionable Dragons!

And at least we have a couple of new enemies instead of them fighting against the factions who don't wear the same colours as us.

And the bad points...
All the soldiers look the same.. not enough individualisation in their clothing... Clone trolls. I'm not a fan of pearl coloured weapons or armour. Actually I don't even like Blue Grey. Which is a problem :D
There's too many new colours which don't fit into my existing sets.
User avatar
dyntar
Foot Soldier
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 4:05 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Are the New Castle bad?

Postby Lord Lego 436 » Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:50 pm

dyntar wrote:No.. I don't think the new sets are all bad. They have a few good points.
There's more regular people outside of soldiers, we have maidens, a queen, jester, farmer, barmaid, a kid, village folks etc. Someone to defend and fight for.

The faces are great.. I prefer the classic soldiers... but smiley faces in battle just don't seem right. The new faces are much more realistic and there's heaps of variety. Unshaved, scared, smirking faces all add variety.

Positionable Dragons!

And at least we have a couple of new enemies instead of them fighting against the factions who don't wear the same colours as us.

And the bad points...
All the soldiers look the same.. not enough individualisation in their clothing... Clone trolls. I'm not a fan of pearl coloured weapons or armour. Actually I don't even like Blue Grey. Which is a problem :D
There's too many new colours which don't fit into my existing sets.


I personally love the Crownies and Trolls, and If you don't like the uniformity (Like me) then just give them different weapons and hair. It mixes 'em up a bit.
I also like the new faces. I was referring to the structures, not the minifigs.
Oh, and the peasants? They just made Castle so much more fun to build.
"Humans build atomic bombs, but no mouse in the world would be stupid enough to design a mousetrap."
- Albert Einstien

My MOCpage: http://www.mocpages.com/home.php/16960
User avatar
Lord Lego 436
Laborer
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 1:40 am
Location: Canada

Re: Are the New Castle bad?

Postby Papy.G » Fri Oct 16, 2009 9:56 pm

dyntar wrote:No.. I don't think the new sets are all bad. They have a few good points.
There's more regular people outside of soldiers, we have maidens, a queen, jester, farmer, barmaid, a kid, village folks etc. Someone to defend and fight for.

The faces are great.. I prefer the classic soldiers... but smiley faces in battle just don't seem right. The new faces are much more realistic and there's heaps of variety. Unshaved, scared, smirking faces all add variety.

Positionable Dragons!

And at least we have a couple of new enemies instead of them fighting against the factions who don't wear the same colours as us.

And the bad points...
All the soldiers look the same.. not enough individualisation in their clothing... Clone trolls. I'm not a fan of pearl coloured weapons or armour. Actually I don't even like Blue Grey. Which is a problem :D
There's too many new colours which don't fit into my existing sets.


Among soldiers, I think there's too much knights compared to regular soldiers, and for peasants/craftsmen/villagers, do you see anywere else to get them than in the MMV?

I think individualisation is far better than it was in the 80's, just look at the BFF. :twitch:

Fighting living Skellies and Orcs is just not enough real for me.

I'm getting more and more used to blue greys (real granite can be kind of blue, even pink sometimes), and to pearl weapons, except for the short sword which molding in such soft plastic doesn't reach the quality we could expect from TLC. :?
"I got to brick free!" Freddie Mercury
My Brickshelf
User avatar
Papy.G
Laborer
 
Posts: 110
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 8:17 pm
Location: France

Re: Are the New Castle bad?

Postby Lord Lego 436 » Sat Oct 17, 2009 3:00 pm

Papy.G wrote:
dyntar wrote:No.. I don't think the new sets are all bad. They have a few good points.
There's more regular people outside of soldiers, we have maidens, a queen, jester, farmer, barmaid, a kid, village folks etc. Someone to defend and fight for.

The faces are great.. I prefer the classic soldiers... but smiley faces in battle just don't seem right. The new faces are much more realistic and there's heaps of variety. Unshaved, scared, smirking faces all add variety.

Positionable Dragons!

And at least we have a couple of new enemies instead of them fighting against the factions who don't wear the same colours as us.

And the bad points...
All the soldiers look the same.. not enough individualisation in their clothing... Clone trolls. I'm not a fan of pearl coloured weapons or armour. Actually I don't even like Blue Grey. Which is a problem :D
There's too many new colours which don't fit into my existing sets.


Among soldiers, I think there's too much knights compared to regular soldiers, and for peasants/craftsmen/villagers, do you see anywere else to get them than in the MMV?

I think individualisation is far better than it was in the 80's, just look at the BFF. :twitch:

Fighting living Skellies and Orcs is just not enough real for me.

I'm getting more and more used to blue greys (real granite can be kind of blue, even pink sometimes), and to pearl weapons, except for the short sword which molding in such soft plastic doesn't reach the quality we could expect from TLC. :?


Lately, NOTHING is reaching the quality we would expect from TLC. :cry:
BFF? :?
I don't really mind BLEY either anymore, it gives a good look when you mix 'em all together in a big castle.
"Humans build atomic bombs, but no mouse in the world would be stupid enough to design a mousetrap."
- Albert Einstien

My MOCpage: http://www.mocpages.com/home.php/16960
User avatar
Lord Lego 436
Laborer
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 1:40 am
Location: Canada

Re: Are the New Castle bad?

Postby Handar » Sat Oct 17, 2009 4:05 pm

Lord Lego 436 wrote:Lately, NOTHING is reaching the quality we would expect from TLC. :cry:


I'm going to have to disagree here. The Medieval Market (10193), Emerald Night (10194), and Fire Brigade (10197) are some of the best designed sets that Lego has ever produced, and the announced Imperial Flagship (10210) have a lot of people incredibly excited. The Medieval Market in particular is an excellent example of Lego listening to fans and then delivering what was requested, e.g. a set that: is not based on conflict; has lots of peasants, including female minifigs; is full of small useful pieces; and includes a turkey, for which fans had been screaming for many years. Check out the response to the Medieval Market in this tread.

This alone should be more than enough evidence that Lego is doing some things right, but consider some of the other things they do. Pirates were recently brought back after a long layoff (and while they're going away again soon, it sounds like they'll be back). Themes like Power Miners, Agents and Space Police got many people excited. Lego is introducing increasingly sophisticated building techniques in their official sets. The Ambassador Program has been a great success in opening lines of communication between the fans and Lego. Their customer service is excellent as evidenced by the fact that they replace broken or missing parts with no questions asked (even replacing two missing bags in one recent case).

I agree that Lego has had some quality control issues recently, and I too am frustrated by them. These have been well documented, and we have heard that Lego is working on fixing these issues. I worry, however, that making blanket claims like 'NOTHING is reaching the quality we would expect from TLC' is unhelpful in this process because at best it overlooks some of the great things that Lego is doing and at worst it creates an atmosphere of ill will in which Lego is less likely to work with fans.
Handar
Archer
 
Posts: 368
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 2:41 pm

Re: Are the New Castle bad?

Postby Sir Kohran » Sun Oct 18, 2009 9:17 am

Handar wrote:
Lord Lego 436 wrote:Lately, NOTHING is reaching the quality we would expect from TLC. :cry:


I'm going to have to disagree here. The Medieval Market (10193), Emerald Night (10194), and Fire Brigade (10197) are some of the best designed sets that Lego has ever produced, and the announced Imperial Flagship (10210) have a lot of people incredibly excited. The Medieval Market in particular is an excellent example of Lego listening to fans and then delivering what was requested, e.g. a set that: is not based on conflict; has lots of peasants, including female minifigs; is full of small useful pieces; and includes a turkey, for which fans had been screaming for many years. Check out the response to the Medieval Market in this tread.

This alone should be more than enough evidence that Lego is doing some things right, but consider some of the other things they do. Pirates were recently brought back after a long layoff (and while they're going away again soon, it sounds like they'll be back). Themes like Power Miners, Agents and Space Police got many people excited. Lego is introducing increasingly sophisticated building techniques in their official sets. The Ambassador Program has been a great success in opening lines of communication between the fans and Lego. Their customer service is excellent as evidenced by the fact that they replace broken or missing parts with no questions asked (even replacing two missing bags in one recent case).

I agree that Lego has had some quality control issues recently, and I too am frustrated by them. These have been well documented, and we have heard that Lego is working on fixing these issues. I worry, however, that making blanket claims like 'NOTHING is reaching the quality we would expect from TLC' is unhelpful in this process because at best it overlooks some of the great things that Lego is doing and at worst it creates an atmosphere of ill will in which Lego is less likely to work with fans.


I think he was referring to the quality of the parts, which you addressed in your last paragraph. I doubt he meant the sets themselves are low quality.

As for me, I really like the human side of the new line - the sets and figs have been excellent. However, I'm tiring of the troll/skeleton side of things...there's too much of it, and there's too little variation to it. Seriously, what am I meant to do with a dozen identical troll heads?
User avatar
Sir Kohran
Sheriff
 
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 7:24 am

Re: Are the New Castle bad?

Postby Lord Lego 436 » Sun Oct 18, 2009 2:28 pm

Sir Kohran wrote:I think he was referring to the quality of the parts, which you addressed in your last paragraph. I doubt he meant the sets themselves are low quality.

As for me, I really like the human side of the new line - the sets and figs have been excellent. However, I'm tiring of the troll/skeleton side of things...there's too much of it, and there's too little variation to it. Seriously, what am I meant to do with a dozen identical troll heads?


You're right, I was refferring to part quality. Don't get me wrong, I love the new Cafe Corner, MMV and the Imperial Flagship, but the smaller sets, like the new Atlantis ones seem sort of detrimental in design. If Lego made sets like the MMV all the time, then they would make a whole lot more money, trust me. The Troll Heads are annoying. It would be cool if one didn't have an eye, like the king, and another had a huge scar, and a third would have a big eyepatch....
"Humans build atomic bombs, but no mouse in the world would be stupid enough to design a mousetrap."
- Albert Einstien

My MOCpage: http://www.mocpages.com/home.php/16960
User avatar
Lord Lego 436
Laborer
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 1:40 am
Location: Canada

Re: Are the New Castle bad?

Postby printer6 » Sun Oct 18, 2009 3:20 pm

The only thing that really bothers me is the relative lack of rooms/living quarters in most of the Crown castles (obviously MMV is an exception to this, as it isn't a castle.) The Kings Castle Siege in particular; it's obvious that it was built around the idea of repelling a skelleton attack, but that's about it. I would gladly have sacrificed some of those crummy looking catapults for even a couple of walls on the king's tower. As is, it looks more like a glorified life guard's chair than an actual castle tower. I wouln't mind a bit of cheating to create the effect, but as is the only parts that could even be passed off as rooms/living quarters are the alcoves on the front wall and the prison cell. I generally like the design (even without a baseplate; I imagine it was a move to keep costs down) but I have a hard time getting past the idea of "where does the king go when he is not looking out over a battle??" Looking back on sets like Black Falcon Fortress, King's Mountain Fortress, or Black Knights Castle, and then comparing KCS, just a little bit of living space would've gone a long way here.
printer6
Serf
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 3:18 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Are the New Castle bad?

Postby Lord Lego 436 » Sun Oct 18, 2009 6:03 pm

printer6 wrote:The only thing that really bothers me is the relative lack of rooms/living quarters in most of the Crown castles (obviously MMV is an exception to this, as it isn't a castle.) The Kings Castle Siege in particular; it's obvious that it was built around the idea of repelling a skelleton attack, but that's about it. I would gladly have sacrificed some of those crummy looking catapults for even a couple of walls on the king's tower. As is, it looks more like a glorified life guard's chair than an actual castle tower. I wouln't mind a bit of cheating to create the effect, but as is the only parts that could even be passed off as rooms/living quarters are the alcoves on the front wall and the prison cell. I generally like the design (even without a baseplate; I imagine it was a move to keep costs down) but I have a hard time getting past the idea of "where does the king go when he is not looking out over a battle??" Looking back on sets like Black Falcon Fortress, King's Mountain Fortress, or Black Knights Castle, and then comparing KCS, just a little bit of living space would've gone a long way here.


That's very true. When I look at the Siege I see it as a big wall around a courtyard. A bit of realism would be nice!
"Humans build atomic bombs, but no mouse in the world would be stupid enough to design a mousetrap."
- Albert Einstien

My MOCpage: http://www.mocpages.com/home.php/16960
User avatar
Lord Lego 436
Laborer
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 1:40 am
Location: Canada

Re: Are the New Castle bad?

Postby Handar » Sun Oct 18, 2009 6:16 pm

Lord Lego 436 wrote:You're right, I was refferring to part quality. Don't get me wrong, I love the new Cafe Corner, MMV and the Imperial Flagship, but the smaller sets, like the new Atlantis ones seem sort of detrimental in design. If Lego made sets like the MMV all the time, then they would make a whole lot more money, trust me. The Troll Heads are annoying. It would be cool if one didn't have an eye, like the king, and another had a huge scar, and a third would have a big eyepatch....


Originally I said that making blanket statements like ‘NOTHING is reaching the quality we would expect from TLC’ is unhelpful to the process of fixing problems. I think this is still true even if this claim was only meant to apply to quality control issues for two reasons. First of all, the way it is phrased makes it seem like everything Lego does is substandard, and this doesn’t convey the point that quality control is the issue. Secondly, if this statement is meant to apply only to quality control then it implies that no parts, i.e. nothing, is of the quality we would expect from Lego. This is a gross overstatement of the problem, and I still worry that claims like this are unhelpful in getting the problem fixed. Yes, there are quality control issues, but this is a far cry from saying that no parts are the quality we would expect from Lego. For example, I’ve spent over a thousand dollars in the past couple of years on bricks, and I’ve purchased bricks in a wide variety of ways (sets both large and small, pick-a-brick cups, and Bricklink). Out of all the Lego purchased, I have a couple dozen bricks that are opaque or translucent (some dark red slopes and some golden flags). The rest is of excellent quality. Because I expect everything I purchase from Lego to be of the highest quality, I’m not satisfied with those bricks I’ve purchased which are of lower quality, but I still worry that implying that all bricks are of inferior quality is going to be unhelpful in fixing the problem.

I’m curious if Lego would indeed make more money if they made sets like MMV all the time. Do you mean that they would make more money if they always had sets like that available, or do you mean that they would make more money if the only sets they sold were like MMV? I don’t think the latter is true. With their complicated builds, sets like MMV are geared towards older children and adults. I don’t know about older children, but adults are only a small percentage of Lego’s total sales (perhaps up to 20%; see here for a German article on this or for a translation.) I think it’s a good thing that Lego has simple, even simplistic, sets like those from the new Atlantis line, because it allows them to generate revenue from sets designed for smaller children. If the only sets sold were very detailed like the MMV, I suspect that Lego would ultimately sell far fewer sets because of the demographics of its consumers.

So, I don’t think that the recent Lego sets are ‘bad’ because of quality control issues, since the vast majority of the sets that I’ve purchased have had no issues. I also don’t think that the recent sets are ‘bad’ because of their designs, since many of them are designed to be played with by children as young as six or seven.

To return to the original question asked in this thread, I also don’t think that the new sets are ‘bad’ because they don’t contain baseplates. I don’t even think that they’re worse because of it. One of the great benefits of having the various parts built on plates is that this allows for the castle to be rearranged in various ways, thereby increasing playability. It seems like a desire for modularity is what prompted this round of sets to be built on plates. As it turns out, this suggestion was made by one of Classic-Castle’s founders, and if you’re interested you can read more about that here.
Handar
Archer
 
Posts: 368
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 2:41 pm

PreviousNext

Return to LEGO Castle Sets

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Troy and 2 guests

cron