This poll is a bit odd...

How many of this year's 18+ sets do you own?
1-4 34%
5-9 20%
1-5 12%

I'm surprised that I've only built 4 of these, but I still have a couple waiting on my Wishlist. This is likely why I thought my count would be higher as I ran down the list.

@CapnRex101 said:
"

Off the top of my head, I can only think of 75978 Diagon Alley and 43197 The Ice Castle as direct-to-consumer sets without 18+ branding, since its introduction."

Quite a few City and 3-in-1 sets became exclusive to LEGO.com

31122: Fish Tank so far only sold at LEGO.com , and 31120 is sold very limited outside of LEGO.com as well , with practicly no discount.

@BooTheMightyHamster said:
"Looking at that list, it seems almost arbitrary as to what qualifies for 18+. It's not just large sets, it's not 'adult themes', it's not complexity of build, it's not high prices...

Sounds like an idea that was kicked around in a meeting that should have ended up on the reject pile, that somehow slipped though the net!"

Yeah I don't mind the idea of the branding, but reading through the list some of the choices are just . . . Odd? Why is Winnie the Pooh 18+? Or Everyone is Awesome?

The thing I find frustrating... is there are so many great 18+ (or in olden times UCS and Creator Expert) sets released now... and its impossible for me to afford all but a small fraction of them. I think the only one I will try and get from this year is the Space Shuttle and maybe a smaller botanical set if I am lucky. The rest are just way outside my budget.

I haven't owned a single 18+ set yet, and the only Creator Expert sets I own are 10220 (a gift) and 10270 (my first intentionally owned).

I have only one 18+ set in mind, and that is 40516. Hopefully, it'll be in ample stock in January so I can get it with my birthday voucher. If Sonic the Hedgehog comes out the same month and is also 18+, that'll count, too.

Some of those do seem odd under that category. I guess they are trying to grab the adults who were fans of certain IP to now buy it and share it with their kids?

I like the black boxes actually. I hope they stick around. The bold strip of colored pieces on the bottom really stand out on the sets (granted I don't keep the box, so it can be a plain brown box with the title of the set and I'd be just as happy).

I own 7 of the 44 sets this year and only 1 more is on my to get list. Obviously a lot of great looking sets this year that I don't own due to price/desire/priorities/etc. If money was no object, I still likely wouldn't buy all of them though, so that's interesting.

The Mickey and Minnie Buildable Characters set came out in July 2020 not January 2021. Though it went on wide release at Jan 2021 to Argos in the UK.

Was there no larger fairground themed set at all this year? Did I totally miss it or....? Last I recall was the Haunted House ride and I only recently picked that up as it finally became available again in the US after being out of stock for half a year.

@chief7575 said:
"Was there no larger fairground themed set at all this year? Did I totally miss it or....? Last I recall was the Haunted House ride and I only recently picked that up as it finally became available again in the US after being out of stock for half a year. "

I was wondering why they didn’t release a large fairground ride this year also. You certainly didn’t miss it

I was quite surprised to find that I actually own eight of the sets. I thought there would have been fewer. Funny thing is, as yet I have only built two of them (Everyone is awesome and R2-D2). Strange also that I haven't got the last two Modulars yet even though I used to collect them in the past.

Here's what I take from this: That Lego isn't just for kids anymore, and that indeed there are some sets that – owing to their complexity, sheer size and time in building, that they are not meant for play but for display, etc. – are not recommended for a 6-year-old.

Who would, for instance, buy the new Titanic ship set for their 7-year-old grandson, expect him to understand how to build it and then get him to understand that it is a display piece and not meant as a toy?

It has me concerned that someone will soon take over at Lego and bring the brand back to the days of the late 1990s when Town Jr. sets were heavily marketed "for instant play value" (ergo, a police-themed set you built in 20 minutes and were ready to play cops and robbers with). Even the current 4+ sets are more detailed and advanced.

Ah yes, 18+ sets, totally not weird at all. The whole ADULT thing is really cringe, does Lego not know what else is very clearly ADULT, 18+?

The more LEGO throws out their adult-oriented sets, the less I'm interested in owning them...

So, I only bought the Blacksmith this year.

Oh, that UCS Shoe. May it forever live in infamy! Several great sets this year, but only a hanful for me. I'm in for the WV, and already picked up the bonsai tree.

@AustinPowers said:
"Coming 2022 - the first true 18+ sets:

10776: French Revolution remembrance set with Control+ working guillotine feature

42470: Technic Tool Time Binford branded working angle grinder

10989: Planes, Trains and Automobiles deluxe vignette with sound module to recreate the famous rental car scene that got the film its R rating in the US, includes Steve Martin and rental car lady minifigures

;-) "

Unironically, I would drop $1000 for these three

I'm well over 18. There are 5 2021 18+ sets on my Wanted list and Own 0.

And there are 0 2020 18+ sets on my Wanted list and I own 1.

Total sets there are 36 2021 sets on my Wanted list and I own 43. The are 9 2020 sets on my Wanted list and I own 53.

Despite being 18+ it doesn't look like 18+ particularly appeals to me. I think it's because I'm already a Lego fan. The one-off nature may appeal to a non-fan but I look at many of the sets and think "what would I *do* with it? Where would it go?"

Aldo, the black boxes are terrible and some of the choices for the 18+ label are just weird. Sesame Street? I can understand the Queer Eye set or Seinfeld or Friends.

But the biggest issue is the range, as I always understood it, was a recommendation of building difficulty. And the 18+ label clearly isn't. The highest we had before was 16+ on the truly large sets.

Personally, I really like the 18+ branding, though getting carded to purchase a set is a hilarious (and terrible) side effect that I hadn't considered.

I love the clean, simple design of the "black box" branding. And I do think that does a good job setting this range off from the more kid-focused sets on store shelves.

I would agree, though, that the specifics of which sets do and do not qualify for 18+ treatment are a bit ... vague. I think it would make sense to have this range be "any set that is focused on display value over play value". (Plus, maybe, any set that's so enormously expensive that no kid will ever get away with putting it on their Xmas list!)

I currently own 4 of these sets with one having been a GWP (mini adidas). I'm planning to purchase at least 2 more and a few others are currently on my wishlist so may or may not eventually be purchased. I don't really like the black boxes either and much preferred the more inclusive Creator Expert branding.

@PixelTheDragon said:
"I personally dislike the 18+ branding. Not only does it make people think the sets probably contain mature content (though it can be argued certain sets fot that criteria), I think it usually means a set is going to be oversized and expensive."

Exactly. The 18+ branding is confusing. Is it size? Is it price? Is it mature content? Is it nostalgia content? Lego puts 18+ on a set and it's a guessing game as to why.

I don't own any yet, but I intend to get 71395 Super Mario 64 Question Mark Block soon.

@Canadabricker said:
" @DoonsterBuildsLego said:
"Doing some queries, there is apparently no consistent system for the age ratings (not just 18+). And there are too many ratings (looks like 2-year increments from 4+ to 18+).

I'd like the whole system simplified to cover 2 or 3 aspects:
1. Build complexity. Only need 3 or 4 division, from the most basic aimed at young children to the most complex for advanced builders. the bagging of sets into small sections & colour coding has reduced complexity dramatically in recent years.
2. Suitable for group building. I see this coming in now with the little group icon and multiple instructions books.
3. Possibly a designation for play/display sets. Almost all of the 18+ sets seem to be designed for display value (including ones like Medieval Blacksmith & Winnie-the-Pooh) rather than play due the the fragility of the build or the static subject matter.

As for the black packaging, I quite like it. There's an attempt (similar to book covers) to add a visual "grown-up" feel to the packaging that probably goes down well with the majority of adult buyers (I don't include hardcore AFOLs such as hang out here among them)."

This is a good idea. Would be better to rate by build complexity, that is what Estes does with their model rockets. Just makes more sense. I don’t mind the black boxes but hate the black instruction books.

"

Yeah, I actually like the black packaging, it adds a premium 'mature' feel to the sets which I think on the whole is far more appealing to adults than the 18+ branding. Collecter action Figure lines like Hasbro's Star Wars Black Series take a similar approach, with clean minimalistic packaging. It's a good change from the bright, chaotic packaging of say Monkie Kid or Ninjago. I do think they could could stand to incorporate some nice background art. This UCS Slave 1 and Falcon have that beautiful cloud backdrop along with the black box that looks really nice.

@guachi said:
" @AcademyofDrX said:
"I don't understand why everyone is so concerned about this. It's marketing! That's all it is. Are you going to buy or not buy a set because of it? Probably not. Are non-collectors going to pick up a set they wouldn't otherwise? Probably not, but maybe sometimes.

There's no good reason to care about the age number. I know there's a non-zero number of fans who keep the boxes, but that's gotta be a small subset of the people complaining.

What I think is happening is the same thing that's happened in the comments on the Fender and Mario Block and Queer Eye sets: that's not what fans want, so it's bad. News flash, nerds: not everything is for you personally. Is this a good way to get new fans? Is it working? I don't know, but I also don't care, it's not my business. I want Lego to keep producing sets that I want to buy and build, and they keep doing that. (Too often, as others have noted!) Everything else is just fans doing what they do best: complaining."

Three paragraphs insulting people and complaining that they shouldn't care about something, even for the few minutes it takes to mash out a comment on an internet forum where the post itself has a poll asking how many of these sets we actually own.
"

I don't take your meaning? What do the poll and the comments in the thread have to do with each other?

@PDelahanty said:
"Lego is the only company I can think of that has tied their branding to the target audience of their marketing. You don't see Buick naming a car "The Retiree" or "Florida Snowbird". Yes, those may be who they're selling to, but it's not right there in the branding."
Have you ever seen a DVD or Blu-ray that says "Unrated Edition?" MPAA ratings are mandated for theaters, but there's no equivalent requirement for home video sales. That's marketing!

None this year. Hopefully one of those larger medieval castle or village sets in review for Ideas come to life. I would get those.

Medieval Blacksmith is nice, but overpriced especially when I compare to Old Fishing Store a few years back. It’s more expensive and much smaller.

After reading all the comments here are my thoughts on the new "adult" set branding. ( not the actual sets, thats different )

Also, I am an adult, so Im the one Lego is trying to sell to.

Age ratings have always somewhat puzzled me, but Id say the pre existing ones were accurate to the complexity and theme of the set. ( some exceptions ) But now, EVERYTHING is 18+! The closest I can figure out is that it applies to the price, but even that Im not sure of. Are GWPs 18+ now?? Theyre small, free, and dont really need an age rating at all!! And how will it change a fully grown adults mind who likes a set, that its 18 instead of 16? ( Some will say that adult Lego fans are far too entitled, and thats true, but they wouldnt be complaining about this if Lego hadnt changed it in the first place ) So, 18+ rating is stupid, unnecessary, and probably, in the case of elderly non fans buying for others, a possible waste of money. Also, its very cringe. Very.

The black boxes are a bit different, being more of a personal preference thing. But I think that theyre bland, boring, and depressing. Of course, I dont REALLY care, but theres just something so exciting about a big, colorful Lego box! You want to open it and start building! Also, its like Lego is trying to separate their two main target audiences, kids and adults, and I cant understand why. Its a Lego box, its supposed to be fun and colorful, not some premium product looking thing. But in the end, its a preference, and doesnt really matter.

As far as I know, black instructions are gone, ( good riddance ) but that was another case of trying to appeal to adults. At the expense of understanding the frikkin instructions! I dont want some premium looking instructions, I want something thats easy to see and understand! As someone with very poor sight, those were a nightmare. Theyre gone now, but that was a poor move.

So in conclusion, this doesnt change my Lego purchases. Its just very odd seeing this product which Ive loved my whole life, suddenly turned into an adult... thing. Cant fans decide for their own whether they want a set or not? Lego made a bad move with the boxes imo, but thats up for debate. And, in the very end, its weird seeing my life hobby classified as 18+. Its not like that at all lol!

@WizardOfOss:
You’re an adult? Congratulations, you’re old enough to manage putting stickers on yourself, without getting cookie crumbs trapped underneath, hanging them over the edge, putting them on crooked or upside-down or simply on the wrong part (or your bedroom furniture/clothes/windows), or having to ask an older relative to do the hard stuff for you. You’re also old enough that simply omitting them will draw complaints over lack of necessary detail, and you’re more likely to buy sets that need a bunch of deco. If you want those sets to continue, stickers are the price you must pay. These huge D2C sets chew up a huge chunk of the annual “new element” budget just to keep up with all the minifigs, plus there’s recolors to consider (unless you’d be cool with every Modular having the same exterior color scheme).

Now, if you have the misfortune to have some physical limitation regarding your arms/hands/fingers, you’ve got a legitimate beef, but hopefully you also have someone in your life who can assist you.

@PDelahanty:
Movies, TV, music, books, comics, restaurants, cereal, and heck, even tobacco has been marketed differently to kids (even though it’s illegal to market or sell to minors, or for them to buy or possess tobacco products).

Also, I don’t believe Monica Lewinsky ever did adult films...at least not professionally.

@AcademyofDrX:
Contrary to popular belief, participation in the MPAA rating system is strictly voluntary. All MPAA ratings are legally trademarked, so you can’t use them unless you pay up, and agree to play by their rules.

The trick is, any film that’s released as Unrated will see considerably lower box office returns. The X rating is not trademarked, so anyone can release a film using that...but everyone is going to assume it’s porn, which will hurt your ticket sales even more (especially when the few customers who might be attracted start warning each other away or asking for their money back).

The Hayes Code _was_ legally enforced, but it also massively violated 1st Amendment rights of free speech, so it got tossed. Rather than risk a second crack at federal oversight, Hollywood cooked up the MPAA rating system to show the government they could manage it on their own. The “Parental Advisory: Explicit Lyrics” label was the music industry doing the same thing when Tipper Gore made that her pet cause during the Clinton administration...and ended up being the cheapest way to convince kids they _needed_ to buy those albums.

@gorf43:
Yes, instructions with black pages are officially gone, at least for forthcoming sets (not sure if they’ve reissued any for sets that used these previously). It’s not even just about making them easier to read. Fingerprints looked really bad on glossy black paper, and they were insanely expensive to print. It’s not just black backgrounds, but “rich black” backgrounds. Someone with experience in the printing industry commented on them once, explaining that those black backgrounds used something like 4-5 layers of ink in different colors to achieve a black background that looks black without also looking like newsprint.

Maybe Lego should go for more of an ‘experienced builder’ rating from 1 to 5 rather than ages, as just going 18+ seems to be confusing, frustrating, annoying, stupid (delete as appropriatte)

18+ is easily defined!

The range consists of display pieces with no play value for kids.

Exept 10293 Santa's Visit.
Or 76178 Daily Bugle.
Or 42131 Cat D11 Bulldozer.

Funnily enough, I wanted an 18+ set for my 17th birthday (40516). It was a little late since my mom couldn't find it on Amazon but I can now boast about having an 18+ set at school. Epic gamer moment.

@CapnRex101 said:
"I hope and expect LEGO will gradually clarify the 18+ branding and revise where it is applied. Their initial plan seems to have been applying it to every direct-to-consumer set, except in cases where the design or marketing teams for that theme have strongly advised against it.

Off the top of my head, I can only think of 75978 Diagon Alley and 43197 The Ice Castle as direct-to-consumer sets without 18+ branding, since its introduction."

Don't forget Ninjago City Gardens.

As an AFOL I don't really care what the box color is. Making the box look different to make it stand out & define that theses sets are geared towards adults to play with is great.
Some of these sets would not have been allowed before the 18+ branding, whether subject matter, or size, or by some internal LEGO rules, so I welcome them trying new ideas. That fact that LEGO is finally creating set for adults to enjoy is fantastic. These are sets not necessarily for children to "play with". This is allowing their designers to try out new ideas.
Not sure why any AFOL would care about the age on the box. Don't we buy what we like regardless of the age listed on the box? I know that I do.
Also LEGO does not expect you to like or to buy every set, so why do some AFOLs think that they need to like or to buy every set?
I for one love the new "adult" line, and LEGO acknowledging that adults like to play with their product is long over due.
I wish they would bring trains to the line, yes ones that can by played with on a track, like Emerald Night. We like them!!

@hawkeye7269 said:
"There are a few box fails in the line, to be sure (looking at you, Sesame Street), but that's always the case with Lego boxes (looking at you, Hidden Side)."

I must be the only person who actually really likes the Hidden Side boxes! I love the hand drawn look of the artwork…

I had a thought about this the other day; the increase in larger / more expensive / "adult" sets. Maybe it's the frequency or the prices in general, but it's really made me pick and choose which to get and which to pass on.

Bring on the UCS AT-AT

@AcademyofDrX:
I was specifically replying to the fact that you said MPAA ratings were mandatory for theatrical release. They’re not. Any film can be released as Unrated. Some do it because their foreign films with such a small potential audience that it’s simply not worth the expense of securing an official rating. Some do it because, once you apply for an MPAA rating, you are contractually obligated to attach that rating to your film (unless you change the film and invalidate the rating), and everyone knows that after Showgirls, the NC-17 rating is the kiss of death at the box office. You’ll secure more screens and sell more tickets to an Unrated film than one that’s NC-17. However, releasing an Unrated film means most cinemas won’t have anything to do with you, and you’re probably going to be limited to arthouse theaters.

You’re right about the “Unrated Edition” home video releases, but from what so understand that’s a highly deceptive practice. Until recently, nobody really carded people for buying movies on DVD, and currently Walmart is the only major chain I know of that does. So a teen can get their hands on Deadpool if they really want. The earliest instance of an Unrated Edition I specifically remember is one of the American Pie films (I believe one of the American Pie Presents, not one of the original quartet). From what I recall, that drew a lot of complaints because, contrary to what was hinted at by the DVD cover, you didn’t get “extra raunch”, but a handful of longer scenes that had originally been trimmed for runtime and pacing more than anything else. But much like the Explicit Lyrics sticker on CDs, “Unrated Edition” on a raunchy sex comedy was a teen magnet. Stupid stunt, but easy money.

@WizardOfOss:
Yeah, but prints aren’t any better. Print on dark surfaces really needs a white base layer, but then you have to print that, add the regular print, and perhaps throw in a final border print to match the color of the part.

I prefer the clear sticker stock, partly because it works on everything (meaning I can repurpose stickers on other color parts), and partly because I still don’t trust the white sticker material after having older sets and unused sticker sheets get sticker rot. I’ve never had that problem with clear stickers, I’m pretty good at applying them straight and centered, and I know how to keep them from showing fingerprints.

Generally, I prefer prints over stickers, too, but I fully understand why it’s impractical for them to eliminate stickers. And there are a few times, like the LEGO logo from 76039, when stickers are actually preferable because you can use them on anything.

@mrdoofa:
The more pieces they pack into each step, the harder it is for many people to follow them. It pushes out a significant chunk of their current market, who may be adults, but aren’t necessarily mechanically minded. I know someone who loves LEGO sets, but hated building them as a kid because the instructions were often hard to follow (especially for large sets), and now he’s buying and building many of the 18+ sets without any issues.

I don’t care if Lego sets are 18+ or whatever age group. If they are castle and not licensed, chances are that I’m buying. Castle vs. Non-castle

I've got four! Blacksmith (probably my favorite set I own), Flower Bouquet, Everyone is Awesome, and the mini Adidas shoe.

I wonder if one of the initial reasons TLG even explored the “18+” branding was, in part, a corporate response to this funny, but true, moment in “The LEGO Movie”:

The Man Upstairs : You know the rules, this isn't a toy!
Finn : Um... it kind of is.
The Man Upstairs : No, actually it's a highly sophisticated inter-locking brick system.
Finn : But we bought it at the toy store.
The Man Upstairs : We did, but the way I'm using it makes it an adult thing.
Finn : The box for this one said "Ages 8 to 14"!
The Man Upstairs : That's a suggestion. They have to put that on there.

In other words, to point out that adults can play with this “highly sophisticated inter-locking brick system” without the supposed stigma that it’s a toy.

Then again, the “18+” branding did apparently have the unintended consequences of some businesses checking their customers’ age as though it were some adults-only purchase.

For me, though, I’ll just keep buying certain sets whether they’re labeled 18+, 16+, 8-14, etc. Hold my brick separator...

As someone who has 10 of the "18+ sets", and will end up with 2-3 more before the year is out, I hate the black boxes with a burning passion. I love the colours in LEGO, and those black boxes are hideous.

Otherwise, I agree that the 18+ tag is kind of silly, but it doesn't bother me. the boxes... absolutely.

^Oops looks like my post got cut off or something. Contuining on from above....

at a minimum they would be built by an adult and enjoyed by the whole family. So once again that 18+ just doesnt make any sense.

Also, as for this 'Adults Welcome', well Ive never known a Lego store where adults are not let in the shop... Why do we need to prove in big white letters that its okay for an adult to buy a Lego set for themselves?

As Ive said before, thats either something you are okay with because you're already an AFOL, or you will probably never be okay with it.

It doesnt matter if that World Map has Adults Welcome on it because the adult audience will be walking straight past the Lego store on their way to Apple or Starbucks or the bank or something.

Lego is not going to change the adult psyche of every customer on Earth, and that's okay!

Maybe they should use the "Adults Welcome" branding on the box instead of 18+.
And if they really want to encourage more adults into buying Lego, then they need to advertise it. They currently have the Rebuild the World TV adverts, but again these are aimed at children. They need to use the Adults Welcome in their adverts.

But there are too many sets. I like the Expert vehicles, and two a year is alright for my budget. But this year we had three. I bought the Colosseum last year, my big buy. And now trying to find a way to buy the Titanic, another big buy.

18+ was a mistake :3
Encourage playing with all sets, not with that ADULTS ONLY thing

@lordofdragonss said:
"18+ was a mistake :3"
Is that why we don't get a Studio Ghibli set from Lego? :-(

https://i.imgur.com/nE9nJs1.jpg

At the end of the day the success or failure of Lego's 18+/Black Box experiment will thankfully be defined by sales figures, and not by a few anecdotes in website comment sections.

Personally, I find the boxes of two recent purchases, 10772-1 and 10290-1, equally appealing.

I wish I hadn’t counted how many sets I have… 30 of them. I think I need to start going to LA … Lego Anonymous. ????
I think the idea of 18+ I for sets like Sesame Street are aimed at bringing in the adults from the nostalgia of watching Sesame Street as a kid.

Personally, I liked the 18+ branding of both Sesame Street and Winnie the Pooh. The concept was about creating a set with a nostalgia factor that was aimed at adults. Folks my age grew up with Sesame Street and Winnie the Pooh, so having something that really took people back to a simpler time, where one could just enjoy an evening of building and ignore everything else, was the point of having this 18+. After dealing with a dumpster fire of a year, the enjoyment of a classic nostalgia focused set was appreciated. For me the branding worked. Winnie the Pooh was a day one buy, and was one of my favorite builds this year, if not my favorite.

Black box… I also enjoyed.

Interesting to note that at this time nearly half of us, who I assume are (mostly 18+), only own “1-4” of these sets...!

@tamamahm said:
"Personally, I liked the 18+ branding of both Sesame Street and Winnie the Pooh. The concept was about creating a set with a nostalgia factor that was aimed at adults. Folks my age grew up with Sesame Street and Winnie the Pooh, so having something that really took people back to a simpler time, where one could just enjoy an evening of building and ignore everything else, was the point of having this 18+. After dealing with a dumpster fire of a year, the enjoyment of a classic nostalgia focused set was appreciated. For me the branding worked. Winnie the Pooh was a day one buy, and was one of my favorite builds this year, if not my favorite.

Black box… I also enjoyed."

So, what I like to know: If the Pooh or Sesame Street sets weren't marketed as 18+, black box art and Adults Welcome seal, but else with identical content, would adults buy it or not? If not, WHY (let's say, price is not an issue)?

@WizardOfOss:
I’ve heard in the past that printing machines are running at Max capacity. Adding layers increases the time each piece spends on the machine, thereby decreasing the number of printed parts they can get through in a day. Upping the print layers would fix a lot of issues they have with prints, sure, but it probably can’t happen without either adding production capacity, or by reducing the number of printed elements in favor of more stickers. Sets in the 4+ range, which use zero stickers (cookie crumbs, fingerprints, and crooked application, remember?) will always get priority, as will minifigs. So, are you willing to deal with more stickers to get improved print quality on those few parts that do still get printed? I don’t know what the financials look like on this, but the last time I heard of them just adding production capacity (without opening a new factory), it was purely to keep up with the insane demand for Bionicle parts about 20 years ago.

Well, maybe Lego just has to buy some more printing machines. Or buy a few of those cheap Chinese brands that can do higher quality at lower cost. Lowering quality to keep up with demand just doesn't sound like a good way to run a company to me, especially not if at the same time you keep raising the prices. It almost seems like they don't want us to actually buy their stuff...
(while most of it, despite some flaws, still is pretty cool actually)

Huw, Interesting that you say 18+ replaced creator expert, but just looked on the LEGO website and they still have sets listed under creator expert, and no 18+ or adult set selection when you go to shop sets by theme.

@Rich69 said:
"Huw, Interesting that you say 18+ replaced creator expert, but just looked on the LEGO website and they still have sets listed under creator expert, and no 18+ or adult set selection when you go to shop sets by theme."

There's an "Adults Welcome" section under Discover, which are basicly all 18+ sets or previous IDEAS / Creator Expert sets from before 18+ was introduced.

https://www.lego.com/en-gb/categories/adults-welcome-products for UK.

@PurpleDave said:
"My best friend used to like the models, but hated building them back in the day because he found the instructions too challenging. He started buying sets during the pandemic, and told me now they make sense."
If this friend found the sets too challenging, why didn't he/she simply move on and choose a hobby that was suited to his/her talents? It's not as if being able to build any LEGO set was an essential human necessity.

Sorry, but if I am not able to follow instructions from the Eighties or Nineties, I should definitely look for a different hobby.
Too challenging? Come on. Finding more than two or three pieces per step or not being told which ones to find is too challenging? Seriously, if that is the problem, try painting by numbers or gardening or pottery. But don't expect to buy a set for LEGO experts and be baby'd along the way until you're finished.

When someone is not mechanically minded he won't go for a career in engineering.
When someone faints at the sight of blood he won't be trying to become a surgeon.
When someone can't concentrate on long and complicated texts he won't want to become a lawyer.

But someone who "hates" building LEGO sets without dumbed-down instructions expects to get said dumbed-down instructions to satisfy his "need" to build sets that are beyond his scope or natural abilities?
Sounds damned entitled to me.

Like I said earlier: for such people Lego should start selling pre-assembled sets.

But as long as they don't do that, I actually wouldn't mind having a few friends like that. Let them buy the sets, and let me build those. Saves me a lot of money and space, saves them a lot of frustration. Sounds like a win-win to me :-)

To develop skills you have to gradually increase difficulty. Not just add more pieces and equally more pages of instructions.

If Lego would make jigsaw puzzles they would sell you a 10,000 piece puzzle with the pieces in numbered bags with 4 pieces per bag. And a thick instruction manual so you don't accidentally open bag 1754 before 1753, get frustrated and become unable to finish the darn thing. After all, no skill should be involved in putting it together.

In the past there sure have been instructions that were problematic at some points. Nothing wrong with improving on that. But there's a difference between fixing poor instructions and treating every set as a big 4+ set. Well, except for the stickers for that little bit of extra complexity of course ;-)

Thank you for making me aware of how many Lego has made this year. It seems like an eternity ago when they released the January sets. But 40+ sets branded 18+ - some of them with fewer than 100 pieces seems like Lego is milking this line too far.

I think in a few years we will look back on this as an excess of Lego pushing a label that does not fit each and every set marketed under it.

@WizardOfOss said:
"If Lego would make jigsaw puzzles they would sell you a 10,000 piece puzzle with the pieces in numbered bags with 4 pieces per bag. And a thick instruction manual so you don't accidentally open bag 1754 before 1753, get frustrated and become unable to finish the darn thing. After all, no skill should be involved in putting it together.

In the past there sure have been instructions that were problematic at some points. Nothing wrong with improving on that. But there's a difference between fixing poor instructions and treating every set as a big 4+ set."
Couldn't have said it better.

Happy that @PurpleDave 's friend is enjoying building sets, but would be even more happy if he did without all us others with even average building capabilities having to endure the tediousness of current LEGO instructions. (Plus live with the fact that so much paper gets needlessly wasted in the process - talk about trying to be environmentally friendly and sustainable!)

I really support the notion someone gave that TLG should go back to the type of instructions of old (maybe adding those boxes that show which pieces are being used in each step) for the paper version yet provide the 4+ version that is the norm nowadays in electronic form as an add on. Best of both worlds.

Imagine a different real world analogy:
Braille texts are essential for blind or highly visually impaired people.
But what if everyone was forced to use Braille texts because normal printed text was abolished?
That's just how this feels.

And @PurpleDave : I am also pushing 50 by the way.

@kingalbino said:
"Still can't fathom why the Pooh & Sesame Street sets are 18+. Wouldn't children be their target audience? "

Yes and no. While both of those programs/shows are still on air, they both go back pretty far: SS debuted in 1969 and Disney started releasing Pooh movies in 1966. That's enough time for two generations to grow up with the characters and consider themselves an adult, which seems to be the main target audience for the 18+ branding.

I bought the Blacksmith in early March and the instructions have a light background, so for that one they did implement the switch pretty early on. That happens to be my only set in the range this year, and one of only 4 or 5 sets I bought direct from shop at home. 90% of my LEGO budget is going towards bulk and 3rd party sellers for the simple fact that it's so much more cost effective. Essentially I decided if I am simply interested in buying LEGO to build with and don't need the newest parts or colors right away, it's pretty silly to pay $10 for every 100 pieces instead of $1 for every 100 pieces.

@PurpleDave said
The more pieces they pack into each step, the harder it is for many people to follow them. It pushes out a significant chunk of their current market, who may be adults, but aren’t necessarily mechanically minded. I know someone who loves LEGO sets, but hated building them as a kid because the instructions were often hard to follow (especially for large sets), and now he’s buying and building many of the 18+ sets without any issues.]]

There’s a difference between simplifying instructions and completely dumbing them down, adding one piece in one step is ridiculous, in fact I’ve seen some sets where a whole step is dedicated to just rotating the model to see the other side!!!
I always thought that larger advanced sets and in particular Technic sets were meant to be challenging.
In fact, I know that Meccano used to deliberately put mistakes in their instructions to test your ingenuity and problem solving skills!!!

@mrdoofa said:
"In fact, I know that Meccano used to deliberately put mistakes in their instructions to test your ingenuity and problem solving skills!!!"
That might be taking it a bit too far.....or sounds more like an excuse to hide their failings :-)

That said, while I don't have much experience with real Meccano, we had a East German variation, Constructo. With for most models just a few photos as instruction, you had to figure it out yourself. If you managed to build something EXACTLY as it is supposed to be that isn't skill, it's pure luck ;-)

@WizardOfOss:
@AustinPowers:
Yeah, you guys are right. I should inform my friend that any sense of accomplishment he now feels is invalid because you guys think the instructions are too easy to follow. Then I probably need to come back here and tell you guys the same thing because I never found the instructions of the 80’s to be challenging either. Then someone else will tell me I’m a chump because it took me a little over a day to build 10179 straight out of the box. Eventually we’ll get to a point where the only person who is allowed to feel any pride in their abilities is someone who can take a single randomly assigned set and use just the parts in that box to build a series of models that can sweep the awards categories at any major AFOL convention. That is, if Michelangelo doesn’t come back from the dead to grief them for not carving it out a single hunk of rock.

@PurpleDave, where did we say anything like that? I didn't at least.

Also, weren't you the one that said that an adult should be able to handle a ton of stickers perfectly fine? I think more people will have problems with that than with instructions that require you to add, say, an average of 4 pieces (The horror, the horror.....) per step....

You also said that one of the good things of Lego is kids can develop skills with it. Yet at the same time you argue that building a Lego set should not require ANY skill at all. Strange....

In most hobbies you grow from entry level products to more advanced products. That's what keeps a hobby challenging and fun. Why would it be so bad if that was the same with Lego? Why should every Lego set be an absolute entry level set?

I'm not talking about making it that difficult that you need an engineering degree for it. I just think Lego can easily treat adults a little bit different from little kids. There's a whole world between those twos extremes.....

@WizardOfOss :
You are absolutely right.
What @PurpleDave and those who are happy with the current dumbed-down instructions constantly (deliberately it seems too) misinterpret in our comments is that we would want to exclude people from enjoying building with LEGO. That's not the case at all.
But there's a difference between making instructions easy to follow and overdoing it like TLG is doing. Just look at the manuals today. Sometimes the manual weights more than the finished set!
One thousand steps for 4K pieces like with the new Caterpillar Bulldozer? Come on.

Take the instructions from other manufacturers for comparison. Cobi, Mega Construx, CaDa, Qman, Xingbao, the lot
All of them offer various ways of making sure their instructions are easy to follow yet none of them go to the extremes LEGO does.
Of course there's also the opposite end of the spectrum with companies like BlueBrixx, where instructions can be a real challenge or sometimes even a riddle/conundrum. I would never recommend their instructions for someone who wants an easy building experience and am definitely not saying LEGO should go that route.

All I am saying is that there is a way to make instructions that are both fun as well as rewarding without having to resort to total dumbing down. If that is too much too ask, I wonder why there are no instructions like those from LEGO at any other manufacturer.
Ever built a scale model of anything? A model railroad accessory? A piece of furniture by IKEA even? A Playmobil set? No other company goes to such extremes, yet all of them appear to be doing pretty well.

@Huw , I can understand that (I've built that Saturn too, lots of "interesting" building techniques....). But then my question would be: who thought a big and expensive 2000/4000 piece set was the perfect entry level set for someone who never built a Lego set before? Would you advice someone who never did a jigsaw puzzle to start with a 10.000 piece puzzle? As with every hobby: start simple, learn the basics and work your way up....

And again: we're not saying such sets should be so extremely difficult they can only be mastered by the most experienced builders, only that a set aimed at adults could have a higher difficulty level than a 4+ set. There can (should) be something in between.

I honestly wonder if the sheer complexity of adding 2 or 3 pieces per page is the real problem for someone with no experience with Lego whatsoever, or the fact that there's so many hundreds of steps to follow and it's hard to keep focus? Which can easily happen if you finished a 100 pages of instructions, still only have a blob of weird random colors in front of you that looks nothing like the thing you're supposed to be building, and hardly made a dent in the bulk of pieces on the table. It's frustrating if you see so little progress.

Last weekend I watched my 9 year old nephew build two very different sets (42095 and 76940 ). He has no problem building some more complicated steps, has built much bigger sets before, and also some of the old '80s/'90s sets from his father. No problem as long as long as he stays focused. But he is easily distracted, and what then happens is that he skips entire pages, only to notice that (often quite a bit) later when things suddenly don't fit as they should. That's just not something that can be solved be even further simplifying the instructions - on the contrary I believe.

Thankfully Lego are rethinking the 18+ branding. Which suggests violent or sexual content to most people.

The sets might previously have been lumped into the Expert series.
But "Expert" as a theme also has problems of definition. Some people might think the building techniques are for experienced builders and others might see the building techniques as fairly standard?

Similar arguments have been made for the UCS label or not UCS.

Maybe Lego should just stop using all labels?
Or maybe they could just be labelled by the set theme.
Plants, Star Wars, TV shows, Architecture, Musical Instruments, Electronic Gizmo's, Pictures, Maps , Statues, etc.

@AustinPowers said:
"Coming 2022 - the first true 18+ sets:

10989: Planes, Trains and Automobiles deluxe vignette with sound module to recreate the famous rental car scene that got the film its R rating in the US, includes Steve Martin and rental car lady minifigures

;-) "

Hey, I'd give away all of my money for a set like that!

I still finds it weird seeing those 18+ label on the boxes. Usually this way of representation, is reserved (by other products) for mature contents. Lego is perhaps the only company that is not 'afraid' of people misinterpreting this label. I wonder how bad it is to put it 16+ or 14+, and just stop there. For a toy, as Lego is a toy company, labeling it as 14+ will already be sufficient enough to say that this is not a toy but more as a display or model set, which in a way, should be good enough as an indication for the skill levels needed to build the set.

I do agree with the color scheme though, i.e. making it more elegant rather than colorful, for the targeted audience.

@Huw, for some part, I agree. You don't want to frustrate your customers. But isn't that exactly what they are doing by treating adults like small children?

As for that Old Trafford set, obviously they still failed, despite the dumbed down instructions it's still too difficult. Do you think it would have helped if they doubled or even tripled the instructions? It would probably just make it even more intimidating. If they really wanted those Man Utd fans to be happy, they designed the wrong set for their target audience. They should have made something a lot smaller and simpler. Say, 500 pieces maximum, more like the Architecture Skyline sets. Obviously they can't sell that for the same price, but the numbers they would sell should more than make up for that. I'm not even a real fan but I would probably buy that. Though I'd rather have a set of the Frans Heesen Stadion ;-)

And we suggested solutions before. Like including "adult" instructions with the set (would even save them quite a penny!) while offering additional instructions online that show in excruciating detail how to place every single piece from every possible angle. Or start offering sets pre-assembled sets, for people that like the end result but either don't enjoy or are incapable of the building process. Wouldn't that make everyone happier?

I'm curious though, why do you "have" to build a lot of sets, to the point that you even have time constraints? That doesn't sound like a hobby to me, but rather a job. I guess that's precisely where our difference in opinion comes from. For me it is purely a hobby, I build Lego sets because I enjoy the building experience. I obviously don't want it to be frustrating, but I don't mind if it takes some time and if it does force me to focus by being a tiny bit challenging. Once it's done, its just one more nice looking dust collector....

^ Huw runs Brickset as his full-time job. Chris, aka CapnRex101, reviews sets for Brickset as his full-time job.

@AcademyofDrX:
I actually understand where @AustinPowers might be coming from. I’ve heard several times that German kids have a long tradition of a LEGO experience that solely consists of building the models depicted in the instructions, and never straying outside of the lines. For many of them, a challenging experience out of the box is the only way they know how to stretch themselves within the hobby.

In the US, we’ve had a shocking number of parents express frustration to us at shows because their kid will build the model once, tear it apart, and then build random original creations (“why did I buy it if they only build it once?”, never mind that we’re standing next to a layout full of original creations, or that many of my LUG’s members started out doing the exact same thing). Even more shocking is the number of times someone asks what kind of glue they should use to make these original models permanent, because pieces keep falling off when their kids are playing (and we keep trying to tell them that glueing the MOC together means they can’t build something new the next day, and at the very least try to scare them off of solvent glue towards something reversible, like water-soluble Elmer’s white glue).

@WizardOfOss:
My dad has what’s known as an “essential tremor”
In his hands, and so did his dad. There’s a high degree of likelihood that I’ve inherited the genes that express that, and there may come a time when stickers pose a real challenge for me. Knowing that still doesn’t change my mind. If someone has to deal with stickers, it should be adults and not kids getting started on 4+ sets as they develop their fine motor skills.

And every LEGO set is an entry level set. From the day Ole Kirk decided to abandon the wooden toy business and focus on the LEGO System, the intent was that the set you buy would be a starting point, not the conclusion. If that’s all you want out of the hobby, that’s fine. No judgement. However, if you show me a warehouse full of stock sets that you’ve built by yourself, the only thing I might be impressed by are how much you were able to afford to spend on them, and that you actually have a warehouse to store your collection. Otherwise, I’d be more interested in whether or not you also build MOCs.

As much as possible, your enjoyment of the hobby should not preclude other peoples’ ability to participate. That includes making young kids deal with stickers because adults don’t feel like they should have to. That includes making the instructions so challenging that much of their customer base would evaporate. If you want a real challenge, go off book.

@AustinPowers:
Sure, they could pattern themselves after companies like Cobi and Xingbao when it comes to their instructions. And if they did, they might be as popular as Cobi and Xingbao instead of being the only toy manufacturer in the last half century to become the largest in the world off a single product line.

Seriously, though, I’m wondering what instructions from the 80’s you found to be so incredibly challenging. To date, the only one I think I might have trouble with (keeping in mind that I’ve never built it) is the Darth Maul bust, because the entire thing is presented in strict top-down orientation with no notation for when to use bricks vs plates. Or maybe you’d prefer the way I set up the “steps” in my LDraw files, where you need a 3D graphical interface because I tend to figure out where to add parts based on where I haven’t yet in this step, which can often mean parts are being added in six directions at the same time, and no single POV will allow you to see them all.

@Huw:
Indeed, it’s easy for long-time builders to think the only truth is that the instructions have gotten easier since childhood, and fail to consider how much 20, 30, 40, or more years of experience at following those instructions makes a difference. And it’s also easy to forget that if a kid ends up in a bind, they may have to turn to parents or grandparents who are not mechanically minded.

@iwybs, Okay, that explains. But I guess it also somewhat shows the "danger" of turning your hobby into a job. I obviously would love to get payed for building Lego sets (wouldn't we all?), but as soon as it comes with obligations I personally would pretty quickly lose quite a bit of the enjoyment of doing that and as a result probably lose a hobby. Though choice :-)

@WizardOfOss :
So, imagine you’re an adult with zero experience. Are you going to hunt around for a bunch of polybags to get started, then move on to $10-20 sets, and so on? Or, are you going to look at that fancy $200 set from a theme/IP that tugs at your heartstrings, and want to own _that_ set? Remember how people reacted to the new mosaics? Most figured they’d get bored to death just building one (it’s as close to “paint by numbers” as the LEGO System gets, and it doesn’t even require a steady hand). But there’s a market out there for them, with adults who aren’t looking for complex building techniques, but rather simply a way to kill time in a relaxing manner.

I wonder if I had zero experience with Lego some top of the line set would make me interested, and willing to spend so much money on something I know nothing about. Not very likely, I'd say. And again, there's a whole world between a polybag and Old Trafford.

And I'm not saying there isn't a market for sets that don't require much experience, maybe even for bigger sets. But there surely ALSO is a market for somewhat more advanced sets. I think for Technic even more so than for System.

And if Lego truly believes every set should be an entry level set that requires no experience or skill at all, they should have the guts to label every set 4+.....
(How do they even still exist after decades of incredibly complex instructions by today's standards?)

Blimey, I’ve opened a real tin of worms mentioning dumbed down instructions lol!!! I’m sorry but I still think that adding just one or two pieces per step is ridiculous, especially with larger supposedly more advanced sets, as I said you spend more time turning pages than actually building. If Lego are going to target sets at an 18+ audience the building experience should be suitably challenging for adults. Call me cynical but I think the truth behind the 18+ branding is really about TLG seeing the adult audience as a huge cash cow hence just 44 sets with 18+ branding in just one year costs a whopping £6,000!!! Is it any wonder that Lego’s profits are at a record high?

@PurpleDave said:
" @WizardOfOss:
@AustinPowers:
Yeah, you guys are right. I should inform my friend that any sense of accomplishment he now feels is invalid because you guys think the instructions are too easy to follow. Then I probably need to come back here and tell you guys the same thing because I never found the instructions of the 80’s to be challenging either. Then someone else will tell me I’m a chump because it took me a little over a day to build 10179 straight out of the box. Eventually we’ll get to a point where the only person who is allowed to feel any pride in their abilities is someone who can take a single randomly assigned set and use just the parts in that box to build a series of models that can sweep the awards categories at any major AFOL convention. That is, if Michelangelo doesn’t come back from the dead to grief them for not carving it out a single hunk of rock."

Stop being so melodramatic just because others have opinions that differ from yours!!!

@stlux said:
"I've been building Lego since the 80's, but each time I build a pre-2012(?) set I'm grateful for the current instructions, and especially the numbered bags. I buy Lego for the building experience, not to spend 50% of my time hunting for pieces.

In addition: the only reason older Lego instructions have so few steps, is simply because of the technical limitations at the time. Each step had to be photographed, and then penciled over on paper. 24 film rolls and the manual effort were driving this, not "we don't want dumb kids to play with our product"."

The pre-sorted bags and the parts-per-step lists are a welcome addition to the instructions. The bags aren't overfilled and you know what you have to add in every step.
That being said I believe that small steps and weird colours go too far.
Especially, since the colour-mess discourages from free building from your collection. When you need a certain piece but you only have it in bright pink or medium azure, so it would stick ot of your creation - nah, I wouldn't like to see that, not as kid and not as adult.
We can be thankful that we have a bigger choice of colours today, but then you'd like to have a limited range of colours per set - let's say, only use colours that you'll find on the outside of a set's content. Would be a huge improvement.

Instructions between 2000 and 2012 were among the worst, black being depicted in dark gray, wth black element outlines and so on. Naturally, these builds aren't fun.

Btw. numerous competitors use an instruction technique were elements from previous steps are de-saturated or elements of current steps are outlined. This plus parts-per-step lists make sure that you have an easy build even with 20 different elements in every step. It's the best of both worlds!

@Huw said:
"My daughter's fiancée, who has an engineering degree, was given Old Trafford by her but has struggled to complete it. In fact, it's still not finished, over a year since he started."
My guess is that he's rather lost interest in the set (can't blame him) than that he is not capable enough.

I'm in a similar situation with the Ideas Treehouse. I bought it because my kids pestered me to get it, but it still stands three quarters finished on the back of my building table gathering dust as it has been such a disappointment to me and I have zero interest in finishing it. I think I will rather disassemble it again one day and put the parts straight in my parts bins. What a badly designed set all around. Plus with terrible parts quality that makes Lepin pieces look like a beacon of light.

@Huw, good to hear you do still enjoy it! In the end that's what a hobby should be all about!

Especially for a huge set like that Titanic, some of the changes compared to the old days aren't just welcome, but I'd say even necessary. Numbered bags (or even boxes), absolutely. Dividing the build process in manageable chunks, no complaints about that at all. All good improvements.

I do have mixed feelings about the color coding, it sure helps and I totally understand it in a set like that Titanic or the Saturn V. But I feel its is way overdone, and it especially annoys me when parts of it remain visible. And when you open the box of a set like Steamboat Willie that is supposed to be entirely B/W, and the first thing you see is more colors than in the entire Everyone is Awesome set, that's just plain wrong ;-)
(and would there be a single person in the world that likes blue pins and red axles in Technic sets?)

As for "spot the difference", the weird thing is I have the exact opposite feeling. When I only have to add one or two pieces in a step on a more complex build, I feel so little difference makes it harder to find. And you flip the page and that search process starts all over again for the next one or two pieces. Luckily they have their ways to highlight things, like red circles or arrows, but still. For that, I actually do like what other brands do, graying out in some way the previous steps to highlight the pieces you have to add. That way, it's still pretty easy even if you have to add tens of pieces per step. And after every step you do see progress.

I recently bought a bunch of Loz Mini Blocks sets (exactly like Lego just 20% smaller....with those bricks the Titanic would perfectly fit my shelf), and those show quite well what I do and don't like from Lego. They don't do numbered bags, which is not terrible for the small 600-900 piece sets (+10-20% spare parts....), but for sets with thousands of pieces will be a pain to sort before the build. And one thing I truly hate is that for most sets the instructions are one huge folded sheet instead of a booklet. But no color coding whatsoever (though I don't think Lego would for similar sets, you'd see too much of it), graying out the previous steps, and on average about 20 pieces per step. O, and one thing I don't like is that they too rely too much on (worse quality) stickers instead of (better quality) prints. But for sets priced somewhere between 1/5 and 1/10 of what Lego would ask I can live with that, you just get what you pay for.

@WizardOfOss said:
" @Huw , for some part, I agree. You don't want to frustrate your customers. But isn't that exactly what they are doing by treating adults like small children?"

Exactly.
Everyone I know personally who is into brick building, let me repeat, EVERYONE, hates the current way LEGO is treating its customers as if they were all idiots with those instructions, especially on sets for adults.

One of the reasons many of them tried out alternatives (and are in some cases now sticking with them exclusively) is just that. They feel like LEGO is taking the smeg and making builds extremely frustrating because you need to follow thousands of steps, each of which does hardly anything to further the build. Add to that the nuisance of where to keep all those mountains of paper afterwards. After all, you have paid through the nose not only for the bricks but also for the manuals, so throwing them away is out of the question. Especially if you are thinking of one day selling the sets off to someone else or giving them to your kids when they have grown up. After all, who wants a set without a manual?

Again, can it really be such a frustration to add more than one or two pieces at a time? If so, is it really the fault of the manufacturer or rather the customer for expecting to be able to build something that is way out of their league under normal circumstances?
Like @WizardOfOss said, if you are not a puzzle mastering wizard, do you start with a 10K piece one expecting not to encounter difficulties? That seems to be the case here.
I understand that TLG wants as much business as possible, but in order to achieve that (i.e. catering exclusively for the lowest end of the spectrum) they are ever more alienating their long time customers. But I realize TLG doesn't care about those anymore anyway, all they care about is potential new customers.

Oh and @PurpleDave re German kids building only what's on the box? I've never heard of or experienced that in my entire life. Quite the opposite actually. I know of no kid in my childhood where the LEGO sets would stay assembled in their original form for very long. Especially as back in those days the boxes and instructions showed countless pictures of alternative builds that often were more fascinating than the originals. Or take the Idea books of old. They gave you instructions for some of the smaller models shown in the pictures, but the real challenge was trying to rebuild some the huge (for the time) models pictured that DIDN'T come with instructions. I remember many a frustrating experience because I simply didn't have enough of the necessary pieces back then. Had I told my past self that one day I would have more than half a million pieces, in all kinds of shapes, colours and sizes, I quite probably wouldn't have believed it.

@WizardOfOss:
You want to know what sort of high-end D2C set would entice an adult non-builder to jump in head first? Type up a list of every set bearing the 18+ branding and tape it to the dart board at your local bar. Sit back and wait for the poll results to come in. The two soccer stadiums in particular seem much more geared to fans of the teams over general AFOLdom, since many of us can’t stand the sport to begin with (never mind care about any single specific team). Any of the large vehicles, any of the Ideas sets, the Disney castle, the Frozen castle, any of the mosaics, any of the helmets, the big Monkie Kid mountain, any of the SW UCS sets, any of the Architecture settings that someone may have visited in person, the Titanic, the NES, pick your poison.

Name any one set and I could give you a quick scenario where someone may give into temptation for the first time. Throw in a pandemic, lots of work-from-home professionals, a general ban on any vacation travel plans for roughly a full year, and a need to alleviate boredom and find a way to burn off significant amounts of stress, and there’s an entire class of pandemic buyers who they never had access to before. Maybe some of them will convert to AFOLs, and maybe others will revert to their previous spending habits as things get back to normal.

As for how they continue to exist, a lot of it comes down to being willing to grow and evolve as the market does too, a resolve to figure out how to increase their curb appeal, an ability to quickly recognize when they totally guffed it and (more importantly) how and why it happened, and adapting to correct whatever caused the loss in the first place.

@mrdoofa:
It’s not being melodramatic. It’s being sarcastic. And I still don’t get what was so incredibly challenging about the 80’s instructions. If you look back through the RSotD articles where @AustinPowers gushes over what a great set it was, many of them are tiny 4-wide vehicles where all you should need is a part list and the box front to build it, but he’s one of the people lamenting that the instructions aren’t as challenging as they were when he was a kid. Guess what? When he was a kid, _he_was_a_kid_, with the skills and experience of a kid. Hopefully he’s learned a few things since then, including being able to better follow LEGO instructions. Technic instructions may have been more complex back then, but that was mostly because it took a bag of parts just to form a right angle with brick-Technic, vs maybe 3-4 parts to accomplish the same thing with beam-Technic.

@jkb:
I feel like LEGO instructions may have desaturated previous steps during some previous era, but maybe I’m just thinking of how I have MLCad set up?

@WizardOfOss:
_I_ like blue pins and red axles...if I’m building in blue and/or red. Otherwise, not so much, which is why I have a hoard of nearly 300 black friction axle-pins still sealed in the Nuhvok Va sets.

@PurpleDave , I know it's different in the US, but here in Europe football is by far the most popular sport, especially with men. In both England and Spain (you know, the countries where the actual Old Trafford and Camp Nou are....), football is more important than life itself. People would sell their kidney/children/Lego collection for a season ticket. And as it seems to me, the vast majority of AFOLs also happen to be men. So AFOL that also happen to like football? There has to be quite a bit of overlap, otherwise there wouldn't be many customers left for Lego. And it should be a lot easier to sell a nearly 4000 piece €330 set to an AFOL Man Utd fan than to to a non-AFOL Man Utd fan....

And as that story from Huw rather clearly shows, if they actually did design that stadium specifically for people that never built a Lego set before, they failed miserably. It apparently still is way too complicated for the intended customers. Which makes me wonder if it actually is possible to design a nearly 4000 piece entry level set. Completing such a big set, regardless of complexity, takes time and dedication. And if you're new to Lego, a LOT of time and dedication. An even thicker manual wouldn't change that one bit. They should have made it a much smaller set. Or offer it pre-assembled. It's not like we haven't suggested any alternatives that might make everybody happy, but you just don't want to hear it.

@stlux:
Do you have a source you can cite on that? I’d previously read that old instructions were hand-drafted (without tracing photos), but you can draft without a vanishing point, where it’s nearly impossible to photograph without one. I don’t recall old instructions having parts in the background look smaller than those in the foreground. I could see them photographing each step and then using those as reference for what they end up drafting for the instructions (and that would more easily explain how pieces could randomly get skipped, if the drafter was copying the previous steps for one section, and themselves failed to notice a piece had been added).

That could actually make an interesting article, comparing the changes that have been made to instructions formatting over the years, why the changes were made, what worked, and what was a clear failure.

@AustinPowers:
Fair enough. Of everything we are told in our lives is the truth. I’m a bit hazy on where I picked up that nugget, but if I had to guess, it would most likely be the same source who explained to me why Germany became the dominant market from post-WWII to 1998. Next time I see him I’ll have to ask about that.

@fakespacesquid:
Eh, paying regular dues just to have someone say you’re smart only proves you’re not as smart as you think you are. SAT and ACT scores work just as well, and you only get charged for taking the test.

@PurpleDave Source: a Lego designer active during that period. It was either Niels Milan Pedersen or Steen Sig Andersen who shared this when I met them at an event in Billund.

@PurpleDave afaik LEGO never used the desaturation method. I built from instructions from the 1970's & on and it never appeared. There just were changes in design and printing quality.
A prticularly bad example was 6205 where you REALLY couldn't tell the colour from the printed page. Mars Mission instrctions were also awful. Downloading old PDFs from the offficial site may help or not, that depends on if the colour conversion individually worked.

Some thoughts from an AFOL with two KFOLs and some in-laws who are "willing" to build LEGO sets:

1. I am a child of the '80s and early '90s, and I absolutely prefer the "old" instruction manuals. Their approach to building sets was more like putting together puzzles and less like the "paint by numbers" approach employed by today's instructions.
2. When I emerged from my Dark Ages in 2016, I was annoyed by numbered bags, and I would usually dump everything out into one pile before building. I think it was 70620 Ninjago City that quickly changed my mind.
3. Now I appreciate numbered bags even in smaller sets, because it allows me to easily segment the building process; I often only have 15-30 minutes at a time to build, and getting through one or two bags at a time is enjoyable.
4. My 4 and 5-year-old kids are slooooowly learning how to properly use today's instruction manuals. There are still a lot of skipped steps and confused questions.
5. My in-laws, who were introduced to building LEGO in their 60s, are absolutely daunted by today's instructions. So much so that they have commented more than once that, "it would be nice if someone just put the sets together for us," which of course to me totally misses the point, but if you just want a unique Harley-Davidson model on your shelf, and don't care for model building, I guess it makes sense.

I became an electronics PhD researcher mostly because of my childhood LEGO sets. I just loved putting things together and then taking them apart.

But I also got started on much smaller sets back then (early 90's). I had a single Technic motor and that was it.

A few days ago, I finished the 42043 set and I did make a few mistakes along the way. Blame it on exhaustion of being a parent of young kids or on the fact that big Technic sets are still pretty complicated?

For the purists out there, I would like to suggest skipping pages in the instruction manual. Look only on even-numbered pages, that should do it.

Or you might skip the manual altogether. Actually, I tried to build 75298 without looking inside the instructions. I allowed myself only the box that showed the AT-AT and Tauntaun from two different angles. And yet I failed to assemble the model 100% correctly!

Old instructions were a lot more annoying , even just by the fact there was no parts list in each corner of the page, and also no parts list online or in the instructions itself or on the box (talking 80s and 90s).

If people want to simulate old instructions, first tip would be to cover up parts counts, and also throw all numbered bags together.

I don't think there's something as instructions being "too easy" , however when some City sets have like 1 part per page changed, I just consider it a relaxing build, hardest part of those sets usually are the stickers.

As for color-coding parts, and usually a lot of constrasting internal colors, it does help building, and on one hand it does promote building other (smaller) things.

However, having more similar colors would allow building Bigger things without it looking like a rainbow.

On the subject of 18+ sets, or other large sets, color coding makes sense as most of those are display sets anyway.

But especially for smaller sets, it surprises me to see colors like green, teal, yellow, red etc inside a model that's like white/blue like a City car.

3-in-1 seems to be one of the themes where alternate builds are favored over color-coding parts, but even there 31117 especially is impressive on the lunar lander alternate build, and it's clever how the yellow-orange parts are embedded inside the shuttle.

City seems to have some extra rules in terms of instructions as it seems to be the theme that usually has many smaller booklets and multiple bags , 60295 : Stunt Show Arena had 6 instruction booklets and 8 bags. (which I assume is done so people can build together?)

@WizardOfOss :
Things may be different for Millennials and Gen Z, due to Title IX (the singular reason why the USWNT used to be so dominant until other countries actually started putting some effort into women’s soccer), but I’d rather watch paint dry on a golf course. I watch a lot of Olympics coverage, but that I just skip without even checking the score.

That said, yes, there’s bound to be some intersection between fans of one of the two teams with stadium models and AFOL hobbyists...but I’d guess the majority of soccer fans are not also AFOLs. The entire basis of the Architecture theme was to produce small souvenir sets that anyone who visited the landmark could buy if they wanted. And in the case of the Sears Tower, any AFOL (and any KFOL who’s past the Duplo ages) could probably replicate that model without instructions. Other than the printed tile, everything about it says it was targeted at adults who have little to no experience.

For 4000pc intro sets, that’s easy. The new mosaic sets take 2304 round plates or tiles, plus “canvas” and frame, and once you include all the extra bits for alternate images, some of those get in the neighborhood, right? The frame and “canvas” are somewhat critical, but can forgive certain construction errors (like shifting a pin over one hole). The actual image is a bunch of tiny parts that don’t attach to each other, and probably don’t even touch each other. Get one wrong and you might never know. The set designer might not be able to spot one piece that’s the wrong color without referring to the instructions. The instructions break it up into manageable chunks of 16x16, so the format even gives you clean stopping points if you want to spread it out over several days. And, even though the set might run close to 4000pcs, you’re not actually building more than about 2500 all told.

@stlux :
And you’re saying they took the photographs, laid paper over them, and traced the image?

@AustinPowers:
I agree with @Sethro3. It took me about 18-3/4 hours of total build time, over a bit less than 1.5 days to build 10179. It’s the only time I’ve ever gone to bed with a half-built LEGO set waiting for me to finish it the next day. The only two reasons I wasn’t able to complete it in one were that I got the worst headache I’ve ever had from the print fumes coming off the instructions (1st Edition copy, built soon after it shipped), and because that set had the worst sortation they’ve ever concocted so I spent more time hunting for parts than building. I’ve got the new one MISB, and even though it’s 60% bigger, I wouldn’t be surprised if I can get it built faster.

But as I keep saying, those are just sets. Just about anyone can build them, even if they don’t believe this to be true. If I bought it for the model, it’s the model I care about, not the build experience (and if I bought it for parts/minifigs, I’m not even going to build it once). If I want an actual challenge, I’d much rather build something that has no instructions, and indeed not even a guarantee that there is a solution.

https://24hoursoflemons.com/2021-concours-dlemons-michigan-pics-and-winners/?mc_cid=4c2fd3f75c&mc_eid=7fd414e151!jig[1]/NG/3372

It’s not a very good pic, but I’ve never posted my own. This is from a car show I did with my dad this summer. Five pics of my models got posted to the event site (and zero pics of my dad’s truck, which he was bummed about). Hiding behind the bush is Mater from Pixar’s Cars franchise. He’s 6-wide, and I think 378pcs. I built him about four years after the rest, because several of the pieces I needed hadn’t been released yet, like the printed 2x4 tiles on the doors, the 1x1 plate w/ bar on side, plus I had to figure out problems like how to give him two brown wheels when there are no brown wheels in the correct size (solution: small tire on the wheel, larger tire on the small tire).

Over on the left is Todd, the Pizza Planet Truck of the Cars franchise. I had a complete Pizza Planet Truck in 2011 (Best Earth Craft, Brickworld Chicago), but it took a month to figure out how to turn a sloped windshield into eyes. It takes between 30-34pcs, depending on the expression you want to present. I just showed one of my LUG’s resident trainheads, and he thinks he can use the design on the cab of an engine he wants to build (not with eyes, but to get a split windshield).

Not pictured (and also not posted anywhere by me because I’m bad about taking photos of my own stuff), but present on the same table is a 1960’s Ford Good Humor ice cream truck (301pcs) in the same scale, which took nine months to design, six of which were just to come up with a solution for the rear pontoon fenders (which I can now produce in several different looks based on the same core build). It involved floating cheese wedges on either side, with zero connections to any other pieces in the model.

https://brickshelf.com/gallery/PurpleDave/JusticeLeague/StarroTheConqueror/starro_the_conqueror_v3.jpg

The big guy (14” diameter pressed flat, and about 1500pcs?) was a pipe dream of mine until I figured out how to design a core that allowed me to build radially in five directions.

So, what do I care if the instructions are one piece per page with an arrow pointing at each one when I’ve got my own imagination to give me all the challenges I could ask for?

@PurpleDave said:
"So, what do I care if the instructions are one piece per page with an arrow pointing at each one when I’ve got my own imagination to give me all the challenges I could ask for?"

Good question, and you weren't responding directly to my comment above, but I would posit that my enjoyment of the "old" instructions wasn't so much about challenging myself as it was about the "build flow" that resulted from the old format. Which is a really wonky and kind of silly and completely subjective thing to say. Maybe an analogy would be the difference between reading standard vs. oversized print. Sure, the oversized print is easier to read, especially for an aging guy like myself, but I prefer a more "dense" reading experience so that my reading "flow" isn't constantly interrupted by turning the page. Btw apologies for all of the quotation marks. I've developed a bad habit.

@jkb:
I must be thinking of MLCad, then. BTW, I built 6205 (once), and honestly don’t remember a problem with the instructions. I don’t remember anything about the few Mars Mission sets I built either, other than that I really hated the alien designs.

@ForestMenOfEndor:
Oh, tell me 70620 changed your mind _before_ you dumped out all of the parts...

@tomthepirate:
I used to take apart just about any toy that had screws holding it together. My brother used to get pissed because they were usually his.

And by the time I built my sixth copy of 8557, I was able to build it from memory.

@TeriXeri:
When the instructions have a little robot arm that reaches out to attach the part for you, they’ve probably gone too far. Unless the robot arm is mentally controlled so paraplegics and quadriplegics can experience what it’s like to build LEGO sets. That would actually be pretty cool.

And yes, a lot of City sets have modular builds, so it’s pretty common to see one booklet for each model as a way to co-build (there’s even a graphic to denote such a set now).

@ForestMenOfEndor:
Give it time...

Also, one thing I suspect is coming into play is the, “I prefer the ______ of my childhood because it’s what I’m used to.” We had a guy come up to one of our LUG’s displays and complain about how there are too many different parts available now, vs just basic 2x4 bricks like when he was younger. Ironically, the only two of us who were manning the display were myself and another guy who was born the same year, and we would both try to get the big pack-in catalog first thing each year so we could hunt through the pictures looking for new parts (which would sometimes influence which sets we’d try to get our hands on). He...didn’t really get a lot of sympathy that day.

And with that, we have a European who prefers the current format, and American who prefers the old one, in a reversal of @AustinPowers’ theory.

@TeriXeri , at least for Technic sets, that parts list for each step has been there since the very beginning in the '70s. Even for the smaller sets. And that is also exactly how I learned to build as a kid back then: collect all the parts for that step, build it, and if I had any leftovers I must have forgotten something. Or in once case (can't remember which set) there was an error in the instructions where that one leftover pin that magically appeared a few steps later in a step that didn't include any such pins....

You could even argue that nowadays that parts list is hardly necessary anymore since you're only using so few pieces for each step. If I only have to place one single piece, why would I need a list for that? Well, if there's no parts list now you know that particular step is either only connecting sub-assemblies (nothing wrong with that), or just rotating the whole thing (seriously?).

@PurpleDave , just because you as an American AFOL doesn't like a sport that isn't popular in the US doesn't mean much for other parts of the world. Let's look from it from the other perspective: if Lego would make a set of Yankee Stadium, would you think most buyers in Europe would be AFOLs, or Yankees/baseball fans?

And about the entire basis Architecture theme being to produce small souvenir sets, to some degree, absolutely. Though since souvenirs usually are just small and cheap impulse buys (which often make you think later why on earth you bought it in the first place....), I'd say even the Skyline sets are already very much pushing that definition. A €330 4000 piece set is way beyond that.

The mosaic sets are something else completely, by basically removing one dimension from the build you take out 99% of any complexity there could be. It's basically Ministeck but even simpler (because less variety in pieces and indeed broken up in small chunks). My 5 your old nephew had no problems putting together a about 20x20cm sized Ministeck mosaic (a dinosaur, he's obsessed with those....) mostly on his own over the span of two days when he visited my parents a few months ago. Those didn't even include real instructions, no chunks, just a big pattern for the entire thing. But next week he's going to get the 60198 Freight Train for his 6th birthday, and he undoubtedly is going to need some help to put it together.
(The big challenge is going to be to not let his older brother help him, as the concept of "helping" is totally alien to him when it comes to Lego, he would just take over completely....)

Lots of interesting insights and discussions above. I only just wish to chip-in, that we should not assume the buyers of 18+ sets to be already familiar with Lego as we do. Let's assume he / she is the first time getting into this 'hobby' and found a set attractive and bought it. He / she will need the so called 'dumbed-down' version of the instruction manual (but in this case a fully workable one fitting to a newbie). I guess there shouldn't be any argument on this point, or? :)

@audiobean said:
"Let's assume he / she is the first time getting into this 'hobby' and found a set attractive and bought it. He / she will need the so called 'dumbed-down' version of the instruction manual."
Why?

Nowhere else is this attitude the case.
If you buy a scale model kit for the first time, there is no dumbed-down version of the manual, just the normal one. Same if you buy a furniture kit, an electronic device, or whatever.
Every manufacturer of everything that has to be assembled by oneself provides instructions that are aimed at adults of at least a basic knowledge of how to put things together. Some assume more pre-knowledge, some less.
Only LEGO treats adults (only talking about 18+ sets mind you) as if they were a 4-year-old.
And I am not talking about packaging the pieces in separate bags for steps or about showing which parts are necessary for each step. Nothing wrong with that at all, no argument here.
But splitting up a build into hundreds or thousands of steps which add one or two pieces each or just show how to rotate a part of the build on a separate page, resulting in manuals of phone directory thickness, is just too much. Especially as it can add even more frustration for someone who is new to the hobby as he/she simply gets overwhelmed by the perceived size of the task ahead. I mean, picture it, you are a newbie and just bought a large set. You open the box and find a manual over an inch thick. Are you going to feel confident you will be able to manage? And then after 500 steps of adding one or two pieces each you have before you a large lump of stuff that still looks nothing like the supposed end result, don't you think that there will be quite a few people who just give up and ask their kid/grandchild/nephew/niece/neighbour if they will finish it for them?

@AustinPowers said:
" @audiobean said:
"Let's assume he / she is the first time getting into this 'hobby' and found a set attractive and bought it. He / she will need the so called 'dumbed-down' version of the instruction manual."
Why?
"

True and I do agree to some extend there might be those first-time adult buyers who feel intrigue by the large amount of pages and small steps. But on the flip-side of the coin, there are also those buyers who appreciate more detail + they might even feel more valued, due to the fact that those big instruction manuals made the box heavier and gave a 'money well spent' feel.

I was about to get to this point previously but reserved to do so.. But anyway I will still just say it. I do feel to some extend that the manuals are, intentionally sized up, in order to add more weight to the overall. And this goes along with the same logic of having large boxes with wasted air spaces inside -> From marketing perspectives these probably make sense. Not sure if I will do otherwise, if seeing this from a marketing perspective.

But this doesn't mean I agree to the approach if I'm seeing this from a Lego builder perspective. It's just that, I have gave up quite a long time ago to see Lego as a brick building / educational toy company. I see it as a marketing company now, a very good one indeed in the game. I don't like it, I don't have much fun seeing a model just as a model collecting dusts, I don't appreciate all the shoes and cloths the toy company is going into, but yeah, that's how it is.

My view on huge expensive sets for first time customers should be more than clear by now, so let's not go there anymore :-)

But I think an interesting point, intentionally sized up instructions for more weight. Indeed when I came out of my "dark age" of Lego and watched some reviews on Youtube (I think by Sariel) I was surprised that for some of the bigger sets the actual build was less than half the weight of the box. Even for boxes that weren't oversized at all. Lego pieces are pretty light after all. It certainly would make a difference, heavy = quality.

That said, if that is the case they could just as well have included printed instructions for the B-model. You know, one of those other things from the past ;-)

As for the boxes themselves, generally I think most 18+ boxes do look quite good. Classy, though sometimes a bit boring depending on the set. One thing I did only notice recently is how for 18+ Technic sets the Technic logo is only printed very small and rather inconspicuously on the box. If we're talking customers not familiar with (modern) Lego, that's one thing might be a bit confusing now that Technic and System have grown so far apart.

But one thing I do miss from the old days (and would love to see make a comeback) were those boxes with a flap, a clear plastic window and plastic inserts to showcase all of the interesting parts you were going to get. I think most Technic sets had those, I just don't remember about other themes. And I have no clue when or why they got rid of those. I do still have a few of those boxes, though some survived those 30+ years better than others...

@WizardOfOss:
Oh, I have no problem with the fact that there are sets based on soccer stadiums. But when discussion gets around to how people would give up body parts for season tickets, the counterpoint is that some of us would need some time to carefully weigh our options if told we had to choose between going to a soccer game or eating a poison ivy salad.

Now, regarding the Architecture theme, remember that started with some tiny models that detailed for something like $25. It has changed considerably, both in scope and intended market. All of the early models were also designed by Adam Reed Tucker, a trainee architect, with other architect AFOLs being brought in to design additional models as the theme grew, and eventually they all got pushed out in favor of using in-house designers for everything.

@AustinPowers:
Because The LEGO Company is a for-profit company, and they’d rather increase their market base than drive potential new customers away. Seems to be working. On September 4, 2014, they did the unthinkable and took the title of largest toy manufacturer in the world (Hasbro seems to be back on top at the moment). This is a ranking that traditionally only includes publicly traded companies with a stable full of different toy lines, and The LEGO Company is neither of those things.

At no point was I saying that *you* had to become a football fan. Well, maybe you are....but the kind of football you primarily play with your hands ;-). It was just to illustrate that there certainly exists a HUGE market of (adult) people that like both Lego and football. Which I think would be a much easier sell than to people that never cared for Lego. And therefore the more likely target audience.

That said, there's one group that certainly isn't going to buy the Old Trafford set, no matter how big of an AFOL they might be: City fans. And with City I don't mean the Lego theme ;-)
(a Wembley set would have been a safer choice....)

@CapnRex101 said:
"I hope and expect LEGO will gradually clarify the 18+ branding and revise where it is applied. Their initial plan seems to have been applying it to every direct-to-consumer set, except in cases where the design or marketing teams for that theme have strongly advised against it.

Off the top of my head, I can only think of 75978 Diagon Alley and 43197 The Ice Castle as direct-to-consumer sets without 18+ branding, since its introduction."

Despite not being 18+ the latest US catalogue considers Diagon Alley an "Adults Welcome" set

@alfred_the_buttler said:
" @unslipped said:
"Interesting to note that at this time nearly half of us, who I assume are (mostly 18+), only own “1-4” of these sets...!"

I noticed that too, but I think that speaks more to the diversity of the sets. Personally I buy Star Wars, and I’m not too interested in display models, I like the play sets with minifigures. As a result the only set I own here is the Space Shuttle, and the only set I plan to buy is Seinfeld.

I think that so few of us owning many of these sets is actually showing just how successful the range is. If you only make one theme, you lose anyone who isn’t interested in it. If you offer a lot of different themes, you will attract a diverse group of buyers who will most likely start purchasing other sets as well. "

I agree with you 100% - I think I was just (pleasantly) surprised to see the stats actually reflecting the company’s goals for this branding campaign. :)

@WizardOfOss:
Printing B model instructions means someone has to design a B model, and that means twice as much work for one times as many sales. More, even, since you get a limited parts list to work with.

And don’t hold your breath on the window flaps. Those were basically a bow-to manual on the choicest parts to steal. Even the DK books often just have a life size photo of the included minifig rather than making the real minifig easy to grab.

And, no, I don’t have any interest in any of the three main types of football.

@unslipped:
I just wonder if they ever spared a thought for all the “gotta have them all” AFOLs. Sometime in the last three years we hit a point where a few of the late-year reveals got bombarded with comments about how people were starting to have trouble keeping up with _all_ of the big D2C sets.

I was obviously talking about the not so distant past when having a B-model was still the norm for Technic. And offering a B-model means twice the fun for a customer, without having to add extra parts. Something about customer satisfaction. And a happy customer is more likely to become a return customer.

I do think it's sad there are hardly any B-models anymore. And no more suggestions of alternate builds on the packaging for years (decades?). Or idea books. I do very well understand there's more money to be made by selling just another set than by stimulating creativity, but still.

Like I said before, I don't mind Lego asking premium prices as long as they offer an experience to match. It shouldn't be about cost-cutting wherever they can.

@WizardOfOss said:
"I do think it's sad there's no more B-models. And no more suggestions of alternate builds on the packaging. Or idea books. I do very well understand there's more money to be made by selling just another set than by stimulating creativity, but still. "

There are a few IDEA books, but they aren't the typical old style but more like hardcover books for certain themes, usually by DK,,"build your own Adventure" , not the typical books of the 80s and 90s.

My favorite theme is actually 3-in-1, so there are B and C models included, and as far as instructions go, I prefer the ones that have all 3 builds in 1 booklet.

One thing I really don't like about paper instructions , even 2021 sets, is when there are multiple sizes of booklets of the same set, doesn't affect building (even encourages group building for City), but it can be annoying for storage.

I do like the 3-in-1 sets indeed, and hope they keep doing those for a long time!

Besides what Lego themselves offer there are of course numerous books about Lego, though rather varying in quality and many not really aimed at kids. Some time ago I have bought a book by Yoshihito Isogawa (gotta love his small but brilliant creations....) that was intended as a gift for my nephew. But since so much of the book relied on motors (which he didn't have until his birthday last week...) and also generally is quite a bit more advanced than he can handle I decided to hold on to it a bit longer. Now I just wonder why I haven't done anything with it myself.....

@WizardOfOss:
Yup, I understand B models. I used to run a Bionicle site, and (like Huw) reviewed a lot of sets. For the first year at least, they didn’t release a single Bionicle set without including either full B model instructions, or an image of something that could be built with the parts (I even figured out how to build the Turaga combiner using the parts from six sets and a single image the size of a minifig). I bought at least two copies of all those sets so I could build both models at the same time, and did the same for any SW Technic set that included B model instructions. But not everyone will do that, and not everyone will even build the B model. These days, that’s exclusively the domain of the Creator 3-in-1 line. I believe they got hammered with phone calls asking why there’s a model shown on the box that’s not included in the set, or that doesn’t have instructions for an alt build. For someone who grew up seeing alternate model ideas that never have instructions, it seems silly, but for people with no familiarity with the product line they may be gauging the value of the set based on all the different options shown on the box _together_, rather than one at a time. So, there, B models incur additional cost with zero ROI. I suspect that had more to do with abandoning that tradition than the cost of design and printing.

@TeriXeri:
Not only do Creator 3-in-1 sets include B and C instructions, but many of them have a D model posted online, and the dinosaur set that got two recolors have something like six different models (3 on paper, and 3 exclusively online).

Sorry, but then they should just have spent a little more effort in informing/educating the customer instead of giving in to the dumbest ones. I mean, I guess we've all seen people giving 1* reviews on Amazon, complaining that they had to build "the toy" themself. Or even more sad/hilarious that there was a heavily damaged toy in the undamaged box, how could that have passed QC? if they get enough complaints like that, do we have to fear Lego will stop selling unassembled sets at all?

@WizardOfOss said:
"Sorry, but then they should just have spent a little more effort in informing/educating the customer instead of giving in to the dumbest ones. I mean, I guess we've all seen people giving 1* reviews on Amazon, complaining that they had to build "the toy" themself. Or even more sad/hilarious that there was a heavily damaged toy in the undamaged box, how could that have passed QC? if they get enough complaints like that, do we have to fear Lego will stop selling unassembled sets at all?"
Let's hope they don't, because right now those reviews are extremely few and far between which suggests that the vast majority of customers understand that LEGO is a building toy. It's the ones struggling to actually build the sets, which apparently there have been enough of over the years to warrant the changes LEGO has made. There was a comment the other day mentioning how even experienced AFOLs were failing to complete the old UCS Tumbler specifically because it was mostly grey and black bricks even on the inside, but I haven't been able to find a source for that. If it's true, that's... a pretty strong precedent and clearly shows that LEGO isn't just infantilizing their customers.

While I strongly resent the gatekeeping that's been going on throughout this discussion, I do agree that one or two pieces per step, translating to a massive use of paper, is too much. Maybe it depends on *where* the pieces are being applied; if they are spread out across different areas of an assembly, they might be hard to keep track of if there are too many of them. But this could be solved in a number of ways. I wonder if there are any limitations to the internal instructions generator that could be a problem. That being said, I'm sure a lot of R&D already goes into designing instructions and the Building Instructions team are paid decently to do what they're already doing. I believe they'll continue to iterate on their process.

On branding:

Yes, 18+ is too confusing and jarring to be a cohesive branding. I hope it goes away ASAP. It is really not doing anyone any favors.
Yes, "Adults Welcome" would be a much better way to brand these sets IMO.
No, these sets are rarely made with AFOLs in mind. I don't know why so many people still haven't grasped this.
No, I don't think the black background works for all 18+ products; it really, really depends on the subject matter. Good to see they're breaking out of this mold with e.g. the Queer Eye Fab 5 Loft set. I don't have high hopes for Sonic the Hedgehog, though, unless SEGA puts some pressure on LEGO...

I've stated my reason for disliking the Creator Expert branding a few times already. There is nothing "Creator" about these sets besides the parts list which ironically stopped appearing for Creator 3-in-1 sets. The discussion around the "Expert" part was interesting to read as well, and I basically agree.

@LegoSonicBoy said:
"I do agree that one or two pieces per step, translating to a massive use of paper, is too much. Maybe it depends on *where* the pieces are being applied; if they are spread out across different areas of an assembly, they might be hard to keep track of if there are too many of them."

This exactly, couldn't have said it better....even when I've been trying to for so many reactions here ??

As an aside: I recently gave my oldest nephew the 42095 Stunt Racer, and couldn't help but also buy one for myself. And love it, it's a fun little thing! No problems building it obviously, though at some points you do need to focus to get it right. I did, my nephew didn't as he was more interested in his brother screwing up some game on the Switch. But in the end, no big deal. Overall a pretty simple build, 86 steps for the build itself, another 15(!!) how to replace the batteries. And in between those however a page how to run the thing: both sticks forward makes the thing go forward, both backwards make the thing go backwards, push only one and it makes turn, push both in opposite directions and it spins. All completely logical. At no point however in the entire manual is shown that you have to turn the darn thing on, or how to do so. No biggie of course for anyone with a brain, but considering the bizarre lengths they go to explain even the most basic steps, this did make me chuckle....

And if I would point out one possible improvement, there's one single step in which you actually do assemble a lot of pieces at once: the tracks, with 60 pieces in total. As this set has no numbered bags, when my nephew started building it I fished out all of those track pieces, and layed them out on the table in two separate groups of 6x5 pieces each. Yet somehow he still managed to make one of 31 and the other 29. I could imagine the instructions here showing to make 6 strings of 10 pieces each, showing these in true scale just like they do with axles and beams. Next connect 3 of those for each side and you're done without even having to count.
(I myself just connected all of them, split it in two equal halves and just assumed there was no way Lego would ever include 2 spares...)

Like the branding, hate the boxart... I honestly feel more nostalgic for sets before 2020 because they actually took the time to design nice boxart. Imagine the UCS Snowspeeder without AT-AT's firing in the background or the UCS Y-wing Starfighter without the Trench Run. The recent UCS Republic Gunship boxart looks so bland and I'm honestly saddened by the fact that we will never get to see stunning artwork to accomodate these types of sets.