Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.
Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).
New game ties in with an old post
Some time ago there were a series of posts proposing using Legos to build actual ships, photograph them, and then use those images in a plugin.
Well, along a similar vein, looks like Lego is going to release a video game in which the graphics are Lego Star Wars toys.
http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/action/legosta...ew_6114511.html
Just thought it interesting and wanted to share.
-STH
I saw that a month or so ago. Looked interesting, but isn't it for PCs, and not Macs?
On another note, there is "The Amazing Lego Plug" which has a ship put into the game made with lego bricks instead of normal 3d modelling. I tried doing that to one of my cool lego ship designs (With MacBrickCAD), but the process was just too tedious. This is how it worked:
figure out which brick I wanted to place
eventually find the brick after looking through many, many different catagories of bricks in menus
place brick relatively quickly
try to find another brick
That's why I never finished...
How depressing.
My son is making a lot of 'ships' with Legos (he's 4). He brought me one that looked like a goose with no wings and wanted me to make it, so it's ended up being a ship in Kemet (sans the multicolored, bricklike plastic texture).
Agent_Vast, on Dec 13 2004, 04:58 PM, said:
How depressing. View Post
**Let's try and keep this civil, shall we?
_bomb
**
It's 'lego' not 'legos'. The plural of 'lego' is 'lego'. Get it right.
Hudson, on Dec 14 2004, 12:47 PM, said:
It's 'lego' not 'legos'. The plural of 'lego' is 'lego'. Get it right. View Post
:remembers why he stopped visiting the boards. <_<
It's true! Go to the Lego website, show me a single instance of the word 'legos'. Dare you.
Bomb: You must know him much more then I do... I hate it when people fail to be sarcastic on the internet. Once was flamed for not realizing it (not on this board).
rmx: My ship just looks darn cool. Though it doesn't have a multi-colored brick problem. It's all black, grey, and clear, shiney green.
Hudson: Who cares what the Lego website says? Why, are they some kind of lego authority? They know nothing! All they ever do nowadays is make overpriced models with custom snap-in pieces that you can combine with others somehow. I've made cool lego minatures that would cost a tenth of the price, no custom pieces involved. Of course, if you don't like them, you can just make some yourself. Legos are cool that way.
Regardless of whether you agree with the way 'lego' is going, it's still called 'lego' whether you like it or not.
(edit) at any rate, there are only two Lego lines that have these "custom snap-in pieces", the Knights Kingdom and Bionicle. They've released a whole wrack of new stuff recently that goes right back to basics. When you have a minute, go take a look at the designer series.
This post has been edited by Hudson : 14 December 2004 - 09:53 AM
If everyone in my knowing were to call a rose a "figigigglelsd", it would be called a "figigigglelsd", not a rose. Everyone I know and care about says "Legos". Therefore, the plural of "Lego" is "Legos". But, whatever. Let's just call it regional accents or something. Like the old tomaetoe/tomahtoe song.
Though the designer series looks pretty cool, it doesn't look very basic. At least, it's not oldskool basic, like when you could actually get a hoe...
I think I might just be being grumpy.
Phyvo, on Dec 14 2004, 04:33 PM, said:
If everyone in my knowing were to call a rose a "figigigglelsd", it would be called a "figigigglelsd", not a rose.View Post
To quote the original Shakespeare...
WhatΒs in a name? that which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet;
...the popular paraphrase runs 'a rose by any other name, is still a rose.' Call it what you want, you'll still be wrong.
/me throws toys out of pram.
:blink:
Hudson, on Dec 14 2004, 03:46 PM, said:
...the popular paraphrase runs 'a rose by any other name, is still a rose.' Call it what you want, you'll still be wrong. View Post
Well I'm no expert but don't think that's actually what the phrase means. Call it what you want, it's still beautiful. (although Bart and Homer might think otherwise)
Lisa: A rose by any other name would sound as sweet Bart: Not if they were called stench blossoms Homer: Or crapweeds
But I'll agree on the Lego thing. I've never heard the word "Legos" until I came here.
He has a very good point. A Skunk Cabbage by any other name is that other name, not a Skunk Cabbage.
The Windows/Linux? program MLCAD is an awesome Lego modeller. It runs faster emulated on my Mac than Mac Brick CAD. Making Lego models is relatively easy with this software. Then render them in POV-Ray a couple times, and voila!
Guy, on Dec 14 2004, 10:48 PM, said:
Lisa: A rose by any other name would sound as sweet Bart: Not if they were called stench blossoms Homer: Or crapweeds But I'll agree on the Lego thing. I've never heard the word "Legos" until I came here. View Post
...hang on, you're countering Shakespeare - arguably the finest writer the planet has seen - with The Simpsons? What Bill is talking about is the fact that regardless of what you call something, the essence of that thing remains unchanged. You can call Lego what ever you want, but it will always remain 'Lego'.
Obviously the Simpsons beat Shakespear.
Also, I don't think I saw the word 'legos' during my 6th grade research on the history of Lego.... Just a little note. But that was a while ago So I could be mistaken.
Lego has no plural, because lego is not a noun. It is an adjective. It's a lego brick, or a lego model, or a lego person, or a lego company. One cannot point to a lego brick and say "this is a lego" because it's not a lego, it's a lego brick.
It's sometimes used as an adjectival noun when referring to all lego things in general, or the lego company specifically, but since there can never be more than one of either of those, it still has no plural.
Hudson, on Dec 15 2004, 08:58 AM, said:
View Post
Nah, the Simpson's quote wasn't supposed to mean anything - I just added that for fun