Hi
JasonSpears, thanks for the welcome!
I don't have anything against licensing in general, I just find it depressing to see a company like LEGO "sell out" that way. During my whole childhood LEGO was always around and seemingly flourishing without having to resort to anything like that. When I saw Star Wars and Harry Potter logos on LEGO boxes, my heart sank and my inner child died a little. Licences should be left to LEGO knock-offs like Mega Bloks.
Oh and I have nothing against any of the licensed properties I mentioned. I'm not a big super hero fan, so SpiderMan doesn't do anything for me, but I have no anti-SpiderMan agenda, either.
If the Mega Bloks Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles theme were based on the cartoons or comics fro the 80s, I'd be even more thrilled about them than I am now. I love the figures a lot and wouldn't change a thing.
When I was a kid I yerned for Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles in LEGO form. Even then I knew it was impossible, but that didn't stop me from dreaming, drawing pictures and trying to imagine ways to make it happen with custom work. All these years later and Mega Bloks has far exceeded my wishes; sculpting muscular arms and using appropriate paint and colors for each turtle.
Most of the sets are fairly dull, though, except that I really like the Combat Lair (1421). One of the drawbacks to basing these sets on the modern Turtles cartoon is the limited inspiration to draw from. There aren't many interesting, yet not obtuse, locations or vehicles from the cartoon that can be translated into brick form.
For instance, even though I like the idea of the armored car as a TMNT vehicle, and it's a nice model, it's just not as cool as an old rebuilt 70s VolksWagen van. Since there was no April O'Neil and no Splinter, I'm really hoping for a second series.
The sets that have been appearing in the SpiderMan series would better suit the classic idea of TMNT, really. Simple street scenes and nicely decorated building facades are much better than skateboard ramps. The good thing about those sets, though, is that they do come with quite a few basic bricks and can be built into other things easily.
"High impact polystyrene plastic and other materials" is pretty vague, but thanks for answering that anyway, as I am genuinely curious what the material difference could be.
Some of the sets you compared to illustrate "more for my money" are a little confusing. For instance, are you suggesting you would prefer Citadel of Orlan (LEGO 8780) to Portal of Fire (Mega Bloks 9889) even if they were both LEGO? I haven't seen them side by side, of course, but I'm pretty sure Portal of Fire would more or less dwarf Citadel of Orlan.
The general comparison I made in my original post was one based on overall result more than price-per-brick or weight comparison. When I build a Mega Bloks Dragons castle I end up with a large, impressive, dramatic model that visually demolishes anything from LEGO. And that's besides the bonuses like the enormous dragons themselves with light-up features and so on. Not that something like that is necessarily relevant to any LEGO purist, and I can understand that perfectly.
And I'm only comparing prices that I have personal experience with. By that I mean LEGO castles that cost $50+ 10-15 or more years ago are miniscule and bland compared to an average Mega Bloks Dragons castle that I can buy for that same price now--all these years of inflation later--and often for less. LEGO, on the other hand, has just gotten smaller and more expensive.
Although, as you pointed out, the Mega Bloks bricks themselves are less expensive, too. I've read it's something like 0.7 cents for LEGO versues 0.3 cents for Mega Bloks on average.
On a side note I'd like to point out that the prices listed on the Mega Bloks website are usually higher than what you'll really pay. I often find the sets on shelves for around $10 less, and if they stay stocked long enough they can be as much as half off from that. So a set listed for as much as $60 could be concievably bought brand new for $20 at the store.
On the topic of grip, you make an excellent point. It really is more about the structure than the quality of brick when it comes to how roughly you can handle them. I didn't mean to imply otherwise with my anecdote, I was only illustrating one recent example of LEGO falling short of my vaunted memories, while Mega Bloks continues to surprise and impress me.
Clutch and durability would be hard to compare, and you could very well be right to put your money on LEGO. But I'll tell you what...
There are a lot of things in life that you can pay a little more for, and get a little extra. In a lot of cases that extra money is worth that little bit of added luxury. When it comes to LEGO and Mega Bloks, I could pay considerably more for comparable, though smaller, LEGO offerings and maybe get a slightly higher quality plastic, with an undeniably tighter clutch. But there are luxuries of Mega Bloks that just don't exist in LEGO form, and they're the kind I value, which I can get with less money.
Ultimately it all comes down to taste, I guess. Just as the Mega Bloks aesthetic fails to appeal to you, the LEGO aesthetic--while quaint and timeless--doesn't do what I want, while Mega Bloks does. Mega Bloks Dragons, especially the orginal series of sets, look, feel and build in a way I absolutely love over anything I've experienced with my many years of LEGO fun. I buy Mega Bloks because they do appeal to me. The lower price is just means I can buy even more.
Bruce N H, thanks to you too!
"On the whole we're a friendly bunch." I would say so. I've never seen such a welcoming response, especially considering the circumstances.
I've lurked around quite a bit and I've seen how right you are about your fellow's sometimes harshly critical responses to decisions from the LEGO company. I can relate 100%. One company I can attest to having a fan affinity for is Nintendo, and just about everything they've done in recent years is every bit as disheartening and even more senile than anything LEGO has done. I don't know if you know anything about gaming, but the situation of LEGO and Nintendo is strikingly similar. The "selling out" I mentioned ealier is one example. Mario is appearing in every game genre where he doesn't belong, now, like a life-like basketball game.
When fans like you hold up the promise of Vikings, it parallels the way a Nintendo fan only point to the next Zelda. You're right, though, the Vikings sets do look fantastic, and I suspect they'll be the first LEGO series I just can't resist since as far back as the original LEGO pirates.
I have to say, though, nothing about Knights Kingdom, /II, or the related chess set works for me on any level. It's the diametric opposite of everything I love about Mega Bloks Dragons.
Also, I agree that mixing LEGO and Dragons usually turns out awefully garish. The Vikings, though, might better allow a little mingling for those that are willing.
wizardnoob28, there are a few Dragons sets I never bought (like Dragon Slayer and Vorgan Attack), but all the sets I do own do come with instructions. They would be completely baffeling if they didn't. This doesn't include the War Chests, which don't really need anything since they're small, simple sets of a few parts and a few knights. But I'm pretty sure even those coe with simple instructions that I have stored away.
On the whole we're a friendly bunch.
