> Even the model kits are still just a box full of bricks--Lego abhors creating unique blocks unless they can be used in other sets.
I've heard this again and again, and I believe it used to be true. But is it still really the case? My daughters have been gifted a number of Lego sets in the past few years that are simply full of very one-off looking pieces that are hard to use for much else, with very few standard bricks.
I don't doubt that the molds can be repurposed for some other sets potentially, but as an example look at this set that we have and see if you really think it's "just a box full of bricks".
What bugs me about sets like that is there's very little ability to build something completely different with it, which to me is what Lego used to be about. The most fun I had as a kid (and what my kids seem to enjoy most) is just building random things from a pile of bricks (which is why I buy them the generic brick packs rather than the sets like above).
I just bought and built the relatively recent Lego typewriter set [1], and I had this exact same question: how much of it was going to be purpose built, and how much would be just generic pieces. The answer is: almost all pieces are just regular Lego pieces.
A small number of components (the curved edge just above the keyboard, for instance, or the roller handle) seemed purpose-made for this model, but, like 99% of the pieces were totally generic. And this is in a set with more than 2000 pieces with lots of very intricate mechanics (there's a roller, a carriage, air pistons, and a ratchet/escapement mechanism that moves the carriage), but virtually all of it was made up of standard bricks, rods, connectors and generic components. I was super impressed. Even the keys are just Lego disks with stickers on them. The spacebar is just regular Lego with a smooth surface.
I feel like people have been making this complaint against Lego forever, and it's always "when I was kid, we just got a box of bricks and let our creativity take over!". The harsh truth is that Lego didn't change. We just grew up.
Lego very very rarely will design a new element for a set, let alone a Ideas/Creator set. For a new part, its in the neighborhood of 300-500k for a new injection mold for a single new piece. That's not going to happen for most one off sets. Sometimes sets do get designed with new pieces in mind, or when they really have a shortcoming. But I don't see anything obvious in the typewriter set that is purpose built.
Reviewing the bricklink entry for the typewriter, the only noticeable new items are the painted key tiles for the typwriter. Painting is a great way to give new life to old tiles. I see some new color options as well, but nothing "new"
For good creative play, they have to limit the diversity of pieces and colours within a single theme. Different sets from the same theme need to have similar pieces in the same colour scheme so they can co-exist nicely. Take these 3 sets from the classic 1990s Pirates, for example:
Combining these 3 on a big baseplate can give you something completely new and interesting that still belongs to the Pirate theme. The bulk of the parts are white and yellow-coloured bricks for walls and architectural elements.
> Even the keys are just Lego disks with stickers on them
My set had the letters printed on the top pieces of the keys; did you have to put stickers on them seperately? If so, then that's a major setback in quality: I really dislike Lego sets with many stickers as the stickers always loosen over time.
I find this to be more true in "gift-priced" sets. ~$25 and less.
But once you hit the ~$30+ sets, you see more and more creativity with the generic pieces. I would assume that the cheaper sets need to look good but have fewer pieces, so they reach for bigger pieces to fill in the gaps.
$100+ sets are mind-blowing in how fun they are to assemble and to see the level of creativity the designer(s) used to create the set. I got the recently released Mario question block cube. And I can't get over how fun it was to assemble.
I think the summary is: to really get to the "reusablility" there's a tipping point in those price ranges I listed above. If you buy a bunch of little sets or one big set, you'll hit that point.
I don't see any specialty pieces in there that I would be unable to use in another build. The problem is that the ratio of specialty pieces to generic pieces is too high; you would need a lot of generic rectangular bricks to build anything substantially different from what's in the picture.
I wonder how much the ratio of specialty to generic pieces differs between the lego junior sets like the one you linked vs sets intended for older children.
My parents used to say exactly that circa 1990, and yet I managed (to build my own designs without instructions). Now, I definitely agree that there are more sophisticated bricks than there used to be, but my daughter manages as well. I think it’s just different.
In your example, the ice-looking things can be repurposed. The slide could be anything from an emergency exit from a secret lair to a thing for kids to play on a beach. Plenty of stories if you think a little. The snow flake could be a sign for an ice cream shop or anything decorative in a fancy home, or an exotic rock on another planet. The other bricks look fairly standard. I’m pleased that the chest hasn’t changed, I quite liked it ~30 years ago.
The counter argument to this are the Creator 3-in-1 sets. The whole point of these sets is to take apart and rebuild something different, teaching by example the different things you can do. These didn't even exist when we were kids (first released 2003). I remember some of my old sets having supplemental build instructions, but I also recall them never being as interesting as the main build, which isn't true with these 3-in-1's. Plain buckets are also still sold. Both of these are on the shelves of Target and Walmart, and are often featured as Christmas gifts at places that just stock them seasonally, like Costco. Lego has just as many of these sort of sets as it always has, if not more.
First off I don't think the existence of large, expensive adult-targeted "display model" kits doesn't really detract from what is happening in the kids sets.
On the kids sets, Lego is doing a lot more licensed sets than in the past, and these inevitably have more custom pieces. But I think adults really over-estimate the negative impact this has on reuse and creativity. The first thing the kid in me thinks when I see that kit you listed is "How can I build a ramp at the end of that slide?" "How can I extend the slide at the top to make them go faster?". Sometimes pieces having having a purpose can prompt ideas and creativity. Sure those big ice blocks will only every be used for ice/glass, but there are lots of things you can build with ice/glass especially when playing with Frozen characters. Many of the custom pieces in licensed sets are just flourishes (like that snowflake or ice-flame) which are fun things you can add to your model, and 80-90's kits definitely had those as well. I think the biggest obstacle to reuse on that kit is just that it is a small kit - it really needs to be combined with other kits do do interesting things (and for which reason I don't think they should have included those large ice blocks in this particular kit, as that just exacerbates that problem - they would be fine in a larger kit). And again, I remember getting bored with small kits received as a kid after a few days of play (visiting grandparents), and looking forward to getting home and combining some of the cool new pieces with the Legos I already had.
In other words, the licensed kits are the equivalent of the castle and pirate kits we had as kids, with the exact same complaints. I think those complaints were overblown then and they still are now.
I only see two bricks in there that I don't recognize from when I was a child. Three if you count the bear, but there have always been animals that aren't actually part of building anything. Yeah, that particular set would be difficult to build anything else with, but not because the pieces are unique, there just aren't that many. It's a cheap set, there have always been cheap sets that you can only really build one thing with.
There are only a few pieces in that set that don't appear in hundreds of other sets:
The baseplate is custom and the most egregious example of what you are talking about, of course.
The slope at the front with the swirl on it is also custom.
There's a round tile with a snowflake on it, that appears in two other sets.
The giant snowflake on top, about two dozen other winter-themed sets.
The slide also appears in only a couple of dozen pieces, but this basically all pieces that include a playground or similar. The slide is functional for play so it can't be trivially made of smaller pieces without compromising that.
There also an ornamental swirly translucent smoke-like piece that only appears in a handful of sets, again, all winter themed.
That's it, the rest of the pieces in the kit appear in literally hundreds of other sets.
It's not so much about whether the pieces are used in other sets - of course Lego is going to want to build molds and use them in multiple sets, dedicating a mold for just this set would not be smart.
I think my concern is more nuanced - if you're a kid and you only get sets like this one, when you get past the "let's build what's on the box" stage and they end up as just a pile of bricks, the number of more generically-useful pieces is low compared to all the specialty pieces. I think in an ideal situation, you have lots of generic pieces and a selection of custom (like the typewriter mentioned in another post), but these sets seem to be the opposite with lots of quirky custom pieces and few generic pieces good for general building.
I'm sure as another poster pointed out that this is a result of "gift-priced" sets, and trying to have something impressive while keeping the part count low. And for my kids it doesn't matter as I've bought them plenty of "just a bunch of brick" sets to go with all these specialty parts. But if you're a kid whose parents aren't willing to drop a lot of $$$ on Lego (which have always been on the pricey side), then you're more likely to end up with a collection made only from the $10-25 kits with an over-emphasis on specialty pieces.
When I was a kid (in the 80s), I remember getting lots of Lego sets along these lines:
Notice the cars - they are very blocky and do not look much like real cars because they're almost entirely made out of generic bricks. The gas pumps and roof and such are mostly just regular pieces, possibly with stickers or screen-printing. Compare it to something like this:
Yes, there's still generic pieces in there, but my eye sees a lot more specialty pieces like the hoods, car roofs, fenders, motorcycle, etc. IMHO, the 80s set offers more potential for rebuilding into other things, but maybe I'm wrong and it is just nostalgia or something like that.
I agree with you on the blocky -ness of the cars. I wonder how the distribution of sizes changed. As the complexity of the design goes up you need different distribution of sizes, smaller for more detail and larger for bigger structures. I always had a good balance of blocks, never too many of one size and never running out of others.
They had those style of vehicles by my childhood in the 90's, and I don't think having a few pre-built vehicle pieces really hampered creativity. I would just spend hours working out how to work those car parts into a giant mad-max monstrosity using as many bricks as I could.
This is a textbook example of the widespread "juniorization" issue Lego had for a while 15-20 years ago. You'd get a Town car set, and it would have about 17 pieces, because the entire chassis would be one piece. You have linked a set explicitly in their Junior product offerings, bridging between Duplo and real Legos.
I think things have actually swung too far in the other direction now with their main-line sets. As much as 25% of the part count typically consists of tiny 1x1 or 2x1 plates and tiles, or 1x1 cheese wedges. There are often many cases where they will use more smaller bricks rather than a more structurally-sound brick - 1x3 bricks and the corner L-shaped bricks in particular.
I believe it's true for some sets more than others. In my experience any sets with Disney on them or sets based on partnerships with other brands are the worst for this however.
I've heard this again and again, and I believe it used to be true. But is it still really the case? My daughters have been gifted a number of Lego sets in the past few years that are simply full of very one-off looking pieces that are hard to use for much else, with very few standard bricks.
I don't doubt that the molds can be repurposed for some other sets potentially, but as an example look at this set that we have and see if you really think it's "just a box full of bricks".
https://www.lego.com/en-us/product/anna-elsa-s-frozen-playgr...
What bugs me about sets like that is there's very little ability to build something completely different with it, which to me is what Lego used to be about. The most fun I had as a kid (and what my kids seem to enjoy most) is just building random things from a pile of bricks (which is why I buy them the generic brick packs rather than the sets like above).