Vikings dragons !

Flail · Post by **Flail** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 3:03 pm

I pretty much agree with what Draygen said. Something you must keep in mind is: these are TOYS. Playability is a key feature. Could some AFOL design an awesome super detailed dragon that puts these to shame? You bet! But would you be able to play with a 'bricky' detailed dragon without it falling apart? I'm not so sure.

My son has a couple of BIonicle. While I'm certainly not a BIonicle fan, the one thing I'll give them is there playable as heck. You can pose them with ease and move them without fear of them disintigrating as you play.

I think these dragons are very nice. Furthermore, unlike Megabok dragons, these dragons can be customized and made even better.

As for the rest of the Viking line, I'm real disapointed about the beards, and I pray, I PRAY, they don't change the longboat. I think the changes to the fort were for the worse.

Blueandwhite · Post by **Blueandwhite** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 3:15 pm

Really, this thread is a bit absurd. I mean people are upset by a $5 dragon which is included in a set that is probably going to cost more than $90. I am dissapointed by the absence of beards, but I'm not surprised as Jipay was kind enough to inform us that they were added digitally.

What I don't understand is why people are so upset with the other changes. Instead of getting an annoying bionicle creature, we get this dragon. Its not a big deal. And from what I can tell, this set has more pieces than before. There is an inner curtain wall that wasn't present on the original, and the front gate is made out of plates instead of pre-fabricated log walls!

And why are people critical of LEGO for copying Megabloks! Megabloks originally copied the building brick (down to the size) from LEGO. Can you really blame LEGO from defending its market share. Heck, even Bionicle is being threatened by Megabloks Tech Heroes! Simply put, anything LEGO does, Megabloks copies! Is it really that unreasonable for LEGO to fight back?

Later.

swordfish · Post by **swordfish** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 3:42 pm

At least the wings on these dragons actually look like they could support the dragon in the air. The old dragons have tiny wings compared to their bodies

Jacob C. · Post by **Jacob C.** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 3:44 pm

I mean people are upset by a $5 dragon which is included in a set that is probably going to cost more than $90.

More than $90!!!
I hope not, I was thinking maybe $69.99, $75 or something but definitely not that much!

00Psyren00 · Post by **00Psyren00** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 4:34 pm

I love the new dragons!
They are far better than the old small castle dragons and you can put them in any pose without them crumbling apart. I wish people would stop being so negative about new sets as I think thet most of them are just as good as the classic castles of old (apart from KK2!).

At least the wings on these dragons actually look like they could support the dragon in the air. The old dragons have tiny wings compared to their bodies.
I agree on Swordfish with this.

I agree with Flail

I pretty much agree with what Draygen said. Something you must keep in mind is: these are TOYS. Playability is a key feature. Could some AFOL design an awesome super detailed dragon that puts these to shame? You bet! But would you be able to play with a 'bricky' detailed dragon without it falling apart? I'm not so sure.

My son has a couple of BIonicle. While I'm certainly not a BIonicle fan, the one thing I'll give them is there playable as heck. You can pose them with ease and move them without fear of them disintigrating as you play.

I think these dragons are very nice. Furthermore, unlike Megabok dragons, these dragons can be customized and made even better.

Go Vikings!

00Psyren00 · Post by **00Psyren00** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 4:35 pm

The end of my last post was supposed to be a quote.

Blueandwhite · Post by **Blueandwhite** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 4:43 pm

Jacob C. wrote:
I mean people are upset by a $5 dragon which is included in a set that is probably going to cost more than $90.
More than $90!!!
I hope not, I was thinking maybe $69.99, $75 or something but definitely not that much!

If only

.

Consider that the KK2 Castle and Harry Potter Castles have a suggested retail price of $89.99. Also, when Fort Legorado was re-released, it had a retail price of $100. This new Viking set looks to be as large as the aforementioned castles which means its probably going to be pretty darned expensive!

Later.

Mr. D · Post by **Mr. D** » Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:17 pm

Yeah, that's just to bad. I think, though, that we'd be getting more for out money in the Viking fortress than with the HP castle. I'm not sure, but I'd bet there will be more basic bricks; it looks that way to me on the latest release.

D-Man

Blueandwhite · Post by **Blueandwhite** » Thu Feb 10, 2005 2:33 am

David85 wrote:I'm thinknig $90, Lego doesn't go over $90 anymore with System sets unless they are Legends and even then isn't the airport only $90?

I thinkt that the price will probably be $90 as well, however LEGO has released some of the Star Wars sets for $99. I suspect that Vladak's castle will also hit $99, as it looks to be significantly larger than the current Castle of Morcia.

LEGO is not cheap, so I'm prepared for the worst!

Later.

geekman · Post by **geekman** » Fri Feb 11, 2005 7:07 am

Viking LEGO? SWEET! While I don't like this being a UK only (for now anyway) set, i think it looks awesome! I guess I always have liked vikings and related stuff, now more than when I was younger, because of my heritage. I am half Danish on my mother's side, and on my father's side I know i'm part Swedish, Scottish and Irish(my unfortunatly late grandmother's mother was Scotch-Irish) at LEAST. Once I heard something about possibly part Native American, but I kinda doubt it. That's why I have a large interest in Scandinavian/Norse history. Especially Norse mythology. And it annoys me a little that everyone thinks my ancestor' helmets had horns! Thanks to Hollywood, and maybe plays centuries older, it's firmly embedded in people's minds. Anyway, I really hope this gets released in the US(the DUPLO castle that's better than the KK one was), since Harry Potter's ( and I do like the Hp sets) closer to Classic Castle than KK as far as i'm concerned.

Lord_Of_The_LEGO · Post by **Lord_Of_The_LEGO** » Fri Feb 11, 2005 11:28 pm

geekman wrote:. And it annoys me a little that everyone thinks my ancestor' helmets had horns! Thanks to Hollywood, and maybe plays centuries older, it's firmly embedded in people's minds.

Only people who don't read their history, unlike me.

I am thinking (hoping) that the horns are removable. Points in favor: Color is different than helmet, and that would be a pain to print on andthere appears to be the same horn pieces in other sets, like on the gate of the fortress. Points agaisnt: none I can think of.

I think this a very smart move by TLC. People who like the fantasy Vikings can leave the horns on, and people (AKA history buffs and army builders who want the helmet for other uses) who don't can remove the horns. Plus brick built beast builders have another cool part.

BuilderQ · Post by **BuilderQ** » Sun Feb 13, 2005 3:37 am

And why are people critical of LEGO for copying Megabloks! Megabloks originally copied the building brick (down to the size) from LEGO. Can you really blame LEGO from defending its market share.

And LEGO copied the bricks made by Kiddicraft: http://isodomos.com/technica/history/1940/1949.php.

Dragon Master · Post by **Dragon Master** » Sun Feb 13, 2005 4:00 am

geekman wrote:. And it annoys me a little that everyone thinks my ancestor' helmets had horns! Thanks to Hollywood, and maybe plays centuries older, it's firmly embedded in people's minds.

I think the various monster/dragons are dead giveaway that this line isn't supposed to be historical

I for one would love a real hardcore viking ship complete with NO Cannon