The worst part about it is that stifles creativity. The "boys stuff" doesn't get hit so hard with that, but every single thing on the girls' side of my local Toys'R'Us is a an ugly pink/purple eyesore and the Lego is no exception. The designers are basically screaming at them that that's the only colours they're allowed to like or build with, while the main-line stuff (which used to be unisex but is now de facto for boys since they've got specific sub-lines for girls) have bricks in every colour of the rainbow. The "boys" sets also offer a much wider choice of things to build, from castles and spaceships to houses to animals to boardgames, while the "girls" stuff seems to be limited to painfully stereotypical Malibu Stacey crap.electro girl wrote:That is a pet peeve of mine. I like the sets, I like the colours but I don't like that they have drawn a line through an essentially unisex toyline. The castles and space are for boys and picnics and stables are for girls mentality and the message it sends to kids really annoys me.
It's a huge step backwards and I have no idea why they'd do it, since every little girl I've ever known has enjoyed building stuff with regular, non-sexist Lego.
And then there's this, which is equally stupid. The sets and builds don't fit in with 90% of the official Lego builds out there because everything is scaled up to match the stupid "mini-dolls". It's as if their entire marketing strategy is based around trying to make sure that little girls don't play with their brothers' Lego by making it as incompatible as possible.electro girl wrote:The Friends and Fairy sets would be great at minifig scale and would nicely blend with City or Castle sets but the separation is very limiting in my opinion. Although there have been a few more lady minifigs in recent years I think this was a missed opportunity to increase the amount of lady minifig parts available for customisation etc.
Considering the stuck-in-the-50s mindset of whoever designed the stuff, I suppose we should be thankful they don't come with brushable hair...
And it's definitely a shame from the "not making enough female minifigs" side of things too. Although that long-standing annoyance of mine has been smoothed over at least a little bit by the amount of females we get in the collectible minifig line. There's still not as many as I'd like and too many are just lazy female versions of popular male figures they did the previous year, but at least I can build a scene now without it looking like Kabul circa 1999.
Now if only they'd make a few dark-skinned minifigs that aren't Lando Calrissian...
Sadly, I think this is probably the reason for the whole endeavour. It's easier for clueless relatives to buy the only pink box in their chosen price range than it is for them to look at the "real" Lego and pick something that the girl they're shopping for would like.electro girl wrote:When I worked at TRU it annoyed me when parents came in asking for "the girl Lego" (it was kept separate from the main Lego display) it happened so often that in the end I just gave up replying with "Lego is unisex" and just pointed them out.
They can be as gay as they want, but since they're absolutely identical and thus almost certainly twin brothers, they'd better not do so with each other. Obviously what I need to do is dig out my king minifigure from the early 90s Lion Knights, put an old-guy face on him and demote these two to princes.electro girl wrote:Gay kings. Problem solved. Also I really like that carpenter, the saw and the detail on the plank make him a stand out figure of that wave.
(The carpenter is pretty cool, I agree.)
I've noticed that trend too, but I never made the connection with the licensed sets. I think you're 100% correct, though. The designers are so used to cramming as many recognizable characters into those little sets as possible that they're out of practice when it comes to making small, playable sets with just one or two minifigs.Skyquake87 wrote:I was disappointed with the Pirates stuff too. I was excited for all of five minutes and then was ...booo. A lot of Lego's stuff seems to be leaning towards a sort of playset vibe for its traditional ranges, partly inspired it would seem by the similar licensed sets, which have a bunch of figures and a few bricks to represent scenery. Its a shame, as there's then not much you can rebuild out of the sets , which I always thought was kind of the point.
Even just plain grey is hard to get without paying through the nose, since so many people scoop it up for their Castle customs. Throw in the matching highlight colours on top of that and it's a nightmare.Skyquake87 wrote:I would agree about the Castle stuff and its colourful bricks - its so hard tracking down additional spare bricks without having to pay a premium for them.
Never thought of doing that, myself. Just out of curiosity, how much less do you end up paying for an average set without the figs?Skyquake87 wrote:A lot of the additional bricks I acquired for my building was just from buying figure-less sets off ebay.
I have a zillion of the lovely 2007-era soldiers and nowhere to put any of them. Wouldn't be at all opposed to buying a few figure-free sets to build them a base, if there's a good savings involved.
I have both of those!Skyquake87 wrote:One was the super-expensive market village, and the other a blink and you'll miss it Kingdoms expansion set.
Medieval Market Village is still the best set I've ever seen, bar none. One of the few times I've really thought a modern Lego set was worth the MSRP. Sadly, after four years or so in production they finally retired it a couple years ago.