>>10898561>>10898566I think 80-90's vintage made for a better construction toy as far as being easy and accessible goes. The larger chunky parts and simpler building techniques made it very simple to replicate and has a charm beyond just nostalgia (example, everyone I show who isn't into LEGO still loves paradisa or think aquanauts/underwater is cool, they are timeless). Newer things have impressive intricacy and accuracy.
Even with the expansion of target audiences sets aimed at kids for play are much more designed to be the toy on the box with a technicality that you can use the parts to build something else. The rigid technic structures and small tiles make it deceivingly hard to build a "mass" of a structure with weight and volume in a quicker / simpler way. Even in friends sets, it's hard to build a house when half the parts are vehicles and technic, much less "brick bulk."
I think the current lines with adult oriented, collectible, or art sets are totally valid uses of the medium though we should be able to criticize and critique overall (like the dust collectors, overabundance and price of star wars "collectibles" such as helmets / displays, or piece count inflation via small tiles and technic pins).
Gatekeeping sucks. There are a surprising number of people who just have one architecture set or something and its an easy way to connect with them.
Old lego made for better toys imo, and current LEGO makes for better model building. I can appreciate all of it, even if it's not what I'm into. Liftarm based technic is basically its own separate thing at this point that coincidentally is compatible with bricks.
Tl;dr: old LEGO has a simplistic and timeless toy charm beyond just nostalgia from those growing up with it, and nu-LEGO makes for a more intricate and detailed model building / specialized toy medium. It's ok to have preferences.
