Brickset ForumShopping at LEGO or Amazon?
Please use our links: LEGO.com • Amazon
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Please use our links: LEGO.com • Amazon
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Unpopular LEGO Opinions
Shopping at LEGO.com or Amazon?
Please use our links: LEGO.com • Amazon
Recent discussions • Categories • Privacy Policy • Brickset.com
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- All Categories
- 16.2K General
- 3 Announcements
- 3.1K Collecting
- 3.7K Everything else LEGO
- 1.7K Building and Techniques
- 2.3K Brickset
- 14 Ambassador
- 1K Introduce yourself
- 385 The Database
- 438 Brickset.com
- 316 Forum Operation
- 15 FAQs
- 13.9K Shopping
- 1.7K Shopping USA/Canada
- 337 Shopping Elsewhere
- 11K Marketplace
- 1.2K Other
- 571 Community and Events
- 262 Photography/Video
Brickset.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, the Amazon.com.ca, Inc. Associates Program and the Amazon EU Associates Programme, which are affiliate advertising programs designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Comments
For having well over 10,000 different elements... they sure could have a better selection of available LEGO windows. The most cringeworthy window use is IMHO the use of the back of headlight bricks in the Ole Kirk House. Ever since the classic LEGO windows (1956-85) were discontinued, TLG has done a poor job of having a "window system", as they did in the early days. This is especially true for windows in sizes 1x1, 1x2, and 2x1. Today they have the 2x2 and 2x3 windows, as well as curve top windows. But so much of their window system today doesn't tie together seamlessly as it did in the earlier decades.
Too bad TLG doesn't still make the 3 smallest window sizes, which could be used in addition to the 2x2 and 2x3 to make more varied windows. Here's an example from the 1960 (my MOC), that shows the early versatility...
Having windows in the small sizes in the new (no lip) format as with 2x2 and 2x3 would be an awesome way to make many different historic looking windows.
I have no appreciation whatsoever for digital builds. None. I can see using those programs to design and plan a MOC or layout, but if it's not built in real life in the brick, I don't care. People post digital builds all the time in the various social media Lego groups, usually to much applause from the crowd, but I don't find them at all impressive - especially in light of actual, built creations. The DS9 MOC with 75,000 pieces is as absurd as it is awesome, as is the 25 foot long USS Missouri. Even smaller virtual builds don't do anything for me. Either build it in real life, or not at all. I'd rather see a physical rainbow warrior than a LDD creation. Don't try to wow me with your skills using a mouse.
1) To test a building technique I'd like to try in real life, but maybe don't have the parts in quantity yet.
2) I can't afford to own All The Parts in All The Available Colors, nor would I have storage space for them.
3) I only use it for modular buildings, so it's nice to visualize my creation next to my other creations, or next to official sets. See number 2.
I do force myself to only use officially available colors, and use building techniques that can be accomplished by hand and are stable enough for play & display; I feel it squeezes more creativity out of me instead of creating something outrageous that can't be built for real, or would be utterly unstable.
Go say that on an art forum. I dare you.
And - here's another unpopular opinion - yes, the thousands of hours are a waste of time. I know because I've wasted hundred of hours the last year and a half playing a 20 year old videogame that my roomate and I played back in college. I enjoy hunting for loot and character building and our twice a week gamenights with beer, but know that all that time could be spent reading books, learning another language, going through old kids' clothes, landscaping my house, making a barn door or reskinning my shed, etc., and that those are all tangible things that I would have had I not wasted all those hours virtually - just like physical builds are tangible builds that you have to play with and show off. I look at my Docking Bay 327 coffee table and say "Wow, I built that", NOT look at a virtual version and say, "Wow I designed that."
And funny you mention the art forum as your last comment: you're talking to a 4th and 5th grade band teacher. I'll let you discern the difference between a student messing around with Garage Band, versus a student actually learning to play the instruments they're recording. You go to concerts? Want to hear a recording of the group instead of the actual group? Digital vs. real building is very much parallel.
Building digitally requires quite a substantial investment of learning time in the software but also doesn’t need to strictly stick to the physical limitations of the medium.
Both require creativity. I personally prefer real creations, also preferably seen in person at events rather than only on camera, so I haven’t had much chance with that recently. But I’m not going to badmouth digital creators.
......This is why you go hear different ensembles perform the same piece. Different interpretations based on the ensemble and the director's vision.
"Even professional musicians are taking programs similar Garage Band and making beautiful songs, without having to locate, hire and train an entire orchestra."
You've just nullified that entire orchestra's members' lifetime of practice, sacrifice, and dedication. While simultaneously in your first comment asking "Were the thousands of hours of loving labor a waste of time?"
I've been doing a lot more digital building in the last year due to the lack of building space, being able to use parts I don't own (yet...) and to get around my terrible photography skills (I'm far more skilled with a mouse...). Some of these designs have ended up as physical builds, some haven't.
Yes there are some dull, lifeless digital builds, and others that are designed and rendered so well you would be tricked into thinking they are 'real'. In the end it comes down to the creativity of the builder and the skills at their fingertips (digital or otherwise). I'd rather people be enjoying building with the resources available to them than worrying whether their style/theme/materials are valid or not.
I will always prefer physical builds to look at and to build but some of the designs that I've Bricklinked wouldn't have been viable without the digital version to make the instructions and I certainly wouldn't have attempted building them myself as I neither have the time or the resources to do so.
I also know from experience, trying to remember what bricks you want when following someone else's design can sometimes go wrong, so I fully understand someone designing the digital version first and then building the finished article before spending money on it but also understand that the creative juices in the digital realm can sometimes outweigh the coin in the purse.
Not everyone who enjoys building with Lego has the disposable income to create massive MOC's but that shouldn't stop them creating if they want to or showing it off if they are proud of what they have done.
The same reasoning applies to the concert scenario, if you can't attend a concert for your favourite band/orchestra for whatever reason, it doesn't mean that you shouldn't enjoy the show if it becomes available on a digital format.
We've all seen Bob Ross' Joy of Painting. He was amazing at what he did, captured his audience, and is timeless.
We've also all seen This Old House with Bob Vila. Great show growing up.
You mean to tell me there's a single person out there who thinks that Bob Ross' paintings - say, for example, of a house - is more impressive than building that house?????
I am a physical builder when it comes to MOCs, and I have a surplus of parts and money to make whatever I choose “in the brick”. That in no way diminishes the creativity of someone building digitally. The key point is that good design can be expressed in many forms… barring illegal colors or connections, there is no reason building digitally diminishes the creative aspect of the design.
In fact, the “digital versus physical” distinction is an artificial divide… art can be expressed in many different mediums and shouldn’t be limited or narrowed in order to be valid. For example, the esteemed painter David Hockney has embraced digital art as well as physical painting as he has gotten older. Henri Matisse, when he was no longer able to hold a paintbrush with the vigor he once did, switched to cutting out shapes from colored paper and created some of his most celebrated works. I like to think he would have embrace the iPad and digital painting as a way to continue creating art when “physical” means were no longer an option.
My god, my closest friend works for a major aerospace company - you think he's just gonna say "yea lets build the plane without wind testing cause it was fine in the computer module"?
(Runs for cover.)
I'm going to show this comment to the wife as proof that I'm not just a cantankerous old git with a toy obsession. 😂
Some games/software sometimes show where structures are fragile, maybe that needs to be incorporated into LEGO design software as well.
We build with actual bricks in a physical universe, not digital bricks in a virtual universe.
If you want to live virtually, go play Minecraft.
SumoLego said: I'm the same on IDEAS but for a different reason. If the creator doesn't believe in their design enough to purchase the bricks to build it, then why would anyone else want to pay to build it?