Searching For The Perfect Number Of Visible Studs
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 кві 2024
- Today we try to answer the age old question: What is the perfect number of visible studs in a LEGO set?
Photography and other resources used in this video: drive.google.com/drive/folder...
Looking for the tunes used in this video? Check them out for free right here: rrslugger.bandcamp.com/album/...
For quality retro Lego conversation in the best online community I have ever been a part of, you can join the discussion on the Manic Miners Discord: / discord
Interested in the history and research that goes into videos just like this one? You can join the discussion in the Lego Research Realm Discord: / discord
I created the photography, stop motion animation, and music in this video. Original artwork by Brett Halland. Thanks for watching! - Розваги
Hey folks! Here's an old script I dusted off from the Summer Of Slug, believe it or not! I've been down and out with a bad cold recently, so I haven't been able to record anything new - I found this one sitting on my hard drive though, so I figured I would polish it up and put it out. I hope you enjoy this dive into a topic that I rarely see brought up.
I hope to have several other videos out over the coming months, including the finale to the Everest leg of the Orient Expedition. That one, (like the Scorpion Palace), is going to take some time though; I'd estimate I'm still at least a month away on it. Until then, I hope you enjoy some of the shorter videos that will come out in the meantime. 😊
Thanks for your patience everyone!
iiiiiiiiiiiiits the summer of slug 🎶 summer of sluUg 🎵
I wish you a speed recovery, mister RR! Take care of yourself!
Get well soon, Slugger!
It's the Spring of Slug!
Oh that’s not good 😢 feeling sluggish?
There isn't enough videos like this, the Lego UA-cam community is plagued with reviews, leaks, hauls and investing vids. I want to see more creativity, that's what makes me love Lego so much. Thank you for bringing it to the platform. It was a pleasure to watch. As for my opinion on the subject, it really depends on the model and the style you're going for. As you said there isn't any general rule on how many studs are the right amount.
I agree. Reviews and stuff are all fine and good, but I also prefer videos that go more in-depth on more complex topics. You could almost call this kinda stuff "Lego philosophy".
And some videos that are just classic fun like the pythfenn videos
His is an escape cause you go anywhere else and all you hear is adults bantering about Lego Star Wars sets for kids, they don’t criticize sets in a realistic way like slugger does
@@RuneMaster08that’s a couple (maybe few?) specific UA-camrs. Whom I don’t watch anymore for exactly that reason. There are a much larger number of Lego UA-camrs doing other sorts of content-but still mostly reviews (of varying quality) and leaks and investing.
As someone who creates Lego videos, I agree 100%. The problem is, general audiences don't care about this. People will only listen to you ramble if you have built up enough rapport. Somehow RRSlugger here has managed to make the formula work.
I’ve seen people try to cover up ALL studs and that just feels wrong. Lego is supposed to have studs! If you want no studs, why not just build a plastic model kit instead? Especially since the “no studs allowed” opinions often seem to come from people making Star Wars ships or real-life vehicles, which often have loads of model kits available! Lego-original themes seem to be less worried about covering the studs.
I like studs, it is fine covering them up with detail, but just tiling everything is sooo boring
This really sums it up well! I like model kits too, but when I'm building with LEGO, I want it to look like LEGO.
On the other hand, I think it’s cool trying to take snot to such an extreme that you can make Lego blend together to the point where you can’t tell they’re brick anymore. I think it really is a per build basis
Covering every stud with tiles is usually a sign of low level building techniques actually (except for some wall panels and floors)
The best builders create structures that are smooth out of the actual bulk pieces and tiles are sparingly used.
I have a different opinion, there is a challenge when building a moc with the same simple system of bricks, to look really sleek and smooth, for example just look at brickvaults slave 1, i have built it and it is a work of art in my opinion, sure i can get a model kit, but i mean we all have our building preferences in the hobby, and lego has all sorts of themes that can go from blocky, like its wall art, creator expert buildings, architecture, and city to sleek technic 1:8 cars, trains, spaceships/rockets and planes, a great one i can think of is the typewriter which literally has 10 studs showing, the same can be asked with this build; why not get a model kit instead? I mean the lego built typewriter costs more than buying a real functional one. Lego doesn’t have a formula or ratio for sleek to studs on a build but they do definitely cater to every one with any interests and go on a case by case basis depending on the design of the reference material
"You don't like visible studs, huh? Have you tried LEGO Technic?"
I miss technic sets made mostly out of long technic bricks instead of smooth beams
You’ve just sent one Thiago crying.
@@BrickTemplar "Make Lego Technic illegal" (Tiago prob idk)
That nuclear horse getting fed crystals is a very charming build
Yes. Put a smile on my face (and I needed something positive in my life).
Imperial Star Destroyers are made with large planes of almost pure studs, but something just feels right about it. I wouldn't have it any other way.
It kind of works with big grey Star Wars ships because the studs are basically built-in greebling, makes it look more detailed than it actually is.
I mean, ISDs do have a lot of fine greebling, they're not smooth. And the studs kinda emulate that.
A great topic for sure - it's something *everyone* seems to talk about, but I've never seen it elaborated on. I'll have to do some digging around and see if I can find a set I feel has some good balance. A fun little experiment to be sure!
In regard to 1x1 round plates, the most notable reference to "pip" that I recall is from a classic piece of LEGO literature - the 2005 "Unofficial LEGO Builder's Guide."
Thanks for the lead on that book! I'll have to pick up a copy.
I remember reading it somewhere way back when, and the timeline seems to match up - maybe that's where I first saw it! 😮
When called the 1x1 round plate a "pip," I immediately thought of Cheesey. Anyway, you're both LEGO studs in my book.
Woah! My two favorite lego creators are under one comment section! 😲
I do like sets to have enough studs that minifigures can stand in lots of places. I feel like some of the "moc" style icons sets don't have enough. It feels as though the people are often only allowed to stand in a couple of places in a room or on a staircase, and that makes it feel a bit fixed.
I think this is a very important and overlooked point on the “how many studs?” debate. As a kid I would often attach my minifigs and other pieces to just about any random stud on an existing set. I think exposed studs encourage this kind of play and creativity.
that’s the fun of lego. you can move the studs where they stand around, keeping the look
Hi Retrax!
The small touches to that speeder really clean it up. I loved that set as a kid, and you just made it better. The only thing that bothers me is when people take things to an extreme and demand that modern lego sets have NO visible studs. Not one. When I see mocs like that, it just looks too smooth for me. Uncanny. A couple of stray visible studs here and there remind us that this is indeed lego, and I don't want to get away from that.
Retrax scarea me.... yes I am a fan of tj omega and his show plastic addict, how can you tell
Unpopular opinion: the OG millenium falcon, with those big UFO pieces. Looking solely at the number of studs, I think it strikes a better balance than what came after in 2004.
Could say the same for a lot of the first iterations of Lego Star wars vehicles in the earlier 00s. They struck a great balance between toy/ replica
I did not see the thumbnail, I just clicked…
Slugger uploads, I watch, its that simple
Amen brother
Every upload is 3 slugs on the slug-o-meter!!
Another question worth asking: *Do the studs "belong" there?* Studs don't belong on the hood of Luke's landspeeder, because the hood is supposed to be smooth. But I have a couple of Lego Daleks that have studs around their bottom half - those studs represent the half-domes that cover the Dalek's "skirt," so they do belong there. Studs could be the rivets on a plane, or a bumpy rock-face. There's obviously some room for interpretation here, but I personally like it when the studs make sense in context. In that light, I think the Daleks are perfectly studded.
Great point! 👍
Finally some love for the original flash speeder, one of the most underrated early Star Wars sets.
Hear, hear! Love that set!
Nostalgia hit like flood once I saw that one.
It depends on the subject matter and area of the model, because visible studs change the visual texture in ways that can be good or bad in different contexts. Natural subjects like plants and animals need a larger number of visible studs to break up the shininess of the plastic and create a "fuzzier," more natural visual texture. Complex shapes also benefit greatly from visible studs IMO, as the "fuzzy" texture creates an optical illusion making the shape appear smoother - essentially, your eye wants to interpret the studs as a smooth plane because it can't focus on every individual stud, but the studs themselves are round so the shape appears more round and smooth than it may actually be.
This is why models from Legoland can look so good despite using a ton of visible studs and very few curved slope elements. Even when they're mostly stacked plates, the fact that they're intentional about the shape of each layer creates the appearance of a smooth transition from layer to layer thanks to the visible studs. Scale that up and you can create wonderfully curvy-looking things with rectangular bricks because the studs trick your eye into ignoring the rectangular texture, but cover it in tiles and all you can focus on is how rectangular and uneven the surface is.
This is also why I think so many of LEGO's recent Creator Expert vehicles have looked kinda bad. LEGO seems to think every advanced model needs to be as smooth as possible now, so when your subject is something like a C1 Corvette and smooth, curved, studless LEGO pieces can't quite get the shape right, you fixate on the fact that the shape is wrong and nothing is there to distract you from how wrong it is. I believe if the Corvette set was focused less on being smooth, embraced visible studs, and tried to approximate the shapes and proportions as close as possible, it would not only be easier to get the shapes right but it would also look rounder and more recognizable because the visible studs would visually blur out any uneven transitions and make it look more cohesive.
Besides, if you specifically want a LEGO car model, why worry about it looking like LEGO when it's done? If it's still recognizable and detailed, then it's a good LEGO recreation of a car regardless of how many visible studs it has. I don't consider a model looking like a LEGO model to be a bad thing by any means, because why bother working with LEGO otherwise? If you want perfect accurate smoothness, a scale model kit is what you're looking for. So in my own models, I alternate between studless and studded depending on what areas studded or smooth suit best.
Embrace the studs, they are your friends and allies for MOCing :)
Great point about the Creator Expert cars! I feel like many of the old Model Team cars had the right idea there. 👍
On the fuzziness side, this is why the Dreams animals don't really work for me, those big curved tube leg pieces don't look at all like legs.
Play sets: give me as many studs as possible.
Display sets: make it smooth baby!
Hot take: All display sets are play sets if you're playing the right games.
R.R. Stud Philosopher. I like it
It kind of feels like that sometimes, haha! 😅
Mr. Slugger- you are seriously a one of a kind. Videos like this are genuinely so good to see, celebrating a toy I love so much. Finding your videos a few years has completely ignited a passion for LEGO that I haven’t felt in a long time. Please, seriously please keep making things about stuff you care about- you have an amazing knack for it!
Thank you so much! I'm humbled to hear that my videos have helped inspire you! ❤️
In my view, studs are non-diegetic. Therefore, no matter how many studs there are, they are never visible.
You can't ever fully separate Lego from studs.
Minifigs need studs to stand, so if you wanna set up some Minifigs doing stuff, it's good to have studs available.
That's why I prefer floors to have plenty of studs. When I'm setting up a diorama, I don't want all the Figs and other objects to immediately fall over if I happen to bump the table. Plus, I can take the set somewhere else without having to set everything up again.
If the entire floor is tiled, then I'd have to pry out some of the tiles and replace them with plates or jumpers in order to make stuff stick. I don't wanna have to do that every time I wanna change the layout of a set.
When I was a kid I would always build on large baseplates, so the floor having studs everywhere is just natural. I don't even think about it anymore because that's what Lego is like.
But there-in lies the minifigure paradox - minifigures need studs to stand, but standing on studs cracks their feet.
@@yurisei6732 Wait, what? I've never had a minifig crack just from putting it on studs.
@@ShyGuyXXL Any piece can crack if it's on studs, because pieces are held together with friction and you only get that friction if the outer piece is being slightly pushed apart by the studs. It's light force so it's usually OK, but very thin pieces like minifigure parts and tiles are more vulnerable to cracking, so this is where you're most likely to see it. It's also amplified if they're changing temperature a lot.
I personally enjoy creating models with a very curated number of visible studs as a personal challenge; it's very satisfying to come up with ways to make a completely smooth spaceship or sculptural piece, but that does not make a good LEGO toy.
In a set, exposed studs are also a springboard for creativity. You can use them to situate minifigures, rocket boosters, accessories and greebles, anything. There is a cost to smoothness as well: The extra tiles, slopes, and detailing can raise the price bracket of a set, which may mean you get less play value on a budget. While aesthetically it's important to consider the noise created by the stud ratio and distribution, exposed studs are a core part of the toy's identity and serve as a canvas for further building.
Hope to see more videos like this in the future!
This is fascinating - thanks for sharing! ❤
0:26 NO STOP I'M GETTING FLASHBACKS
I can always count on a Slugger video that covers a topic I haven't given a second thought to to be super interesting!
I do feel the new Galaxy Explorer set is a great example of a set that has a good amount of both smooth and studded looks.
Agreed!
As someone who mainly plays with “old technic”, I think the technic stems from around 2000 (in the transition from studs to studless) were the best looking from a “Lego” point of view
I think the more visible studs, the better. More studs being visible encourages kids to be creative and add to the builds. No visible studs discourages creativity, because it's a "finished" model.
This is a great point! 💯
My opinion is that bare studs are best for implying texture. A sandy beach, rough leather, or greebling are perfect situations for bare studs. Even outside of those, I do enjoy seeing studs since it helps a set or design FEEL like Lego; doing too much to cover up studs can make something start to look too artificial or "sanded down." If there's a certain patterning that CAN be accomplished with flat pieces or specialty bricks, I'm all for it, but I also enjoy just getting to see studs.
Implied texture is a great way to describe it! 👍
That gives me an idea: Would some of the rough vertical cliff walls in some sets (like, say, the Bricklink Löwenstein Castle set) be improved by putting some SNOT studs in the vertical faces? Probably not a lot, like maybe 10% of the area, but I could really see it being an interesting look.
I like it when lego builds have covered up studs for the majority of the build, because that is often an expression of creativity as well, since it can be challenging to cover it all up sometimes.
A thought I had watching this, is that it's kinda like covering up the wiring in an electronic device, it's an effort made towards refinement, the thing functions just fine without any cover (assuming you're not exposing it to harsh elements), but you do it for looks; and just like exposed wiring can be a cool aesthetic, either with selective openings or completely coverless, lots of visible studs can be a cool look as well.
I love very smooth models, but even for me there is something like "too smooth" so I really have no clue
Another way to look at the studs visible debacle is to determine the stud’s intended purpose. Is it meant that one would place a minifig on it, such as a seat or perhaps a surface for parkour, does that count? Does the stud represent something, like mechanical detail or maybe visible rivets or bolts, does that count? What about the stud on a minifig’s bald head, does that count? Is it really just a visible stud, or is it something more, like greebling? What if the studs can’t be physically covered without ruining the model’s design, either aesthetically or structurally? What about studs that represent things like buttons or lights on a control panel or coal in a steam locomotive’s tender? These are important questions to answer when identifying the number of “visible studs” on a model.
One thing I like about visible studs is the potential they imply. Yeah, your model is done, but you could always throw a little something on there with no issue, build it out a little further, add something to make it "yours". It's all up to you. That freedom and customizability is what makes Lego so cool.
That last section about the new 2x2x2/3 grill plate was spot on! I love those kind of new parts which are super flexible in both uses and style.
A lot of newer parts often feel very precise and niche to me in a way that they just stand out when they first get into my collection
The perfect number of the visible studs is all of them.
This slug is insane
i think the set 10308 has one of the best uses of visible studs, specifically with the snow. the buildings are almost completely sleek and studless on the sides with a few studs showing on the garland and wreaths, but the studs really shine with the snow on the roof and on the ground. theres something about it that ive loved ever since i got the set last year, i think its a perfect balance vistually. (it also helps that the side builds and trolly look incredible too!)
Visible studs to me look best when they're used for 2 main purposes:
1. Indicating where Minifigures/small models are meant to be placed on top of
2. Adding a bit of visual variety
If they fufill those purpoes, they don't look out of place for me. If they don't, they feel a little off.
I'd never try to pin it down to a particular number or ratio of exposed studs, but rather a particular ideal--to provide enough surface on a completed set to provoke the imagination. I like raised baseplates for the same reason, they provide something to work with--as a kid, I'd look at my Rock Raiders HQ baseplate and see the makings of a castle on the moon or something. If I had something like a plane or spaceship set, I might pull its wings off and replace them with different, cooler looking wings. Exposed studs on the arms of a robot? I'd slap those little 1x2 grille tile pieces on there and bam suddenly they look cooler (my friends and I referred to those pieces as "upgrades" though what exactly was being upgraded in what way was left undefined). Basically, the ideal number of studs is whatever number lets a kid look at the completed build and immediately start thinking of what else they're going to graft onto it.
"I made a video with no answer"
And we're here for every second of it! 😄
This is the lego content that we really need. This question is actually quite important studs vs tiles, grebbling, snot vs not, curves, etc. This is a very interesting conundrum. Because as is stated in the video, it isn't an easy answer. Some sets with lots of studs look better than ones with less exposed studs. But, does that mean it's subjective, or is there some sort of real tangible artistic and objective thing that makes a set look better with more or less studs? My gut tells me there's something objective going on that makes one set look better than other with more or less studs, but I don't know if I know what that is. It's really just a gut feeling. One looks good and another does not. There's probably a reason for that and art critics could write dissertations about why that is. Either way, Lego is awesome and the fact we can have this debate is great.
One of my personal favorite Lego sets is 75055 Imperial Star Destroyer. I think that all the studs on the outside panels add alot of character to the set.
I think its a mix of looking busy v plain. Too busy, and it can look unrefined; too plain and it doesn't even look like lego anymore
I collect LEGO, not other, non-construction toys. I want enough visible studs for guests in my home to immediately know these items are LEGO, and at a distance. I want studs of some variation to show from every viewpoint.
Hi! Its funny that you mention studs being called pips back in the day, my dad is 65 and he said one day when he saw me building a lego set "what happened to all the pips?" I had him look closer and showed him that there were still indeed "pips" just that there were now pieces that hid them. In his opinion lego without pips isnt lego. I on the other hand can appreciate both building styles.
Beautifully put! I constantly think about this when building mocs and it's definitely true you can get very carried away with tiling off everything.
The last part where you added the black 2x2x2/3 brick was a genius NPU move! Really was the absolute perfect addition!
This was a great analysis and I totally understand the reason for this topic coming up even in the back of everyone's minds. On one hand you have the toy aesthetic, making a lego model look like it's from the lego brand. Make it too smooth and it loses the lego charm and looks like another brand. This has deterred me in the past from some models or remakes: why would I spend money building a model DeLorean Time Machine at a high cost when it just resembles a smaller, less expensive version of the same car? But too many studs on a model and it looks like a crocodile scale skin was placed all over and can be distracting. In the example of the Flash Speeder I agree that the wings almost have its own layer of texture with the studs facing up That seems to clash with the ratios seen throughout the rest of the set. I like your ideas for modification, which are very simple and cost-effective.
And that's what I find enjoyable about the layers of studs that are visible on a Lego set, that it offers posing and play and customization options with minimal changes to the model. I remember when I built my lego store replica MOC years ago, I wanted to have the tiles of the floor look smooth to resemble actual floor tiles, but I wanted the minifigures to have an easy way of standing and posing. Part 87580 is a savior in that regard.
1:24 Dis (kin) na (stu) ts
DEEZ NUTS
For me, the answer is highly dependant on the type of model.
Take the Saturn V for example: It has only a very small number of studs visible, on the interstage between the 2nd and 3rd stages, below the fins, on the escape tower, and (if you display it horizontally) inside the engines. I think that is perfect for what it is - a very accurate model of a sleek rocket, which pushes the boundaries of building smooth, round, un-Lego-like shapes out of Lego.
On the other hand, Galaxy Explorer has a lot more studs, striking a balance between being a slicker, more modern interpretation of the original design, and a celebration of Lego sets.
Oh yeah, and if anyone's idea of "studless building" is just blindly slapping tiles over every visible stud... get outta here. 😄
P.S.: The gap on the Flash speeder looks a little odd, but it's supposed to be there. The gun is mounted on a kind of spoiler-looking bit on the real thing.
That's a good point! I wasn't thinking of the source material! 😅
Interesting, you made me realize that my brain totally ignores studs existence. Yes they are there, but I don't see them as a part of a model itself. They are there for you to serve as a way to put another piece on them, or pose a minifigure. I've been watching and playing with sets looking past the studs like they are totally studless.
For me, the number of visible studs depends on what the actual build is. For example: If we are talking about the wings of a spaceship, I would like it mostly exposed studs with a bit of detail with plating or something. With floors: mostly plated off, but a once in a while break from just plates with a stud or two.
In summary: My opinion of the perfect ratio changes from build to build.
It might be those infamous slope parts from the 2000s! I actually like those, but wished they came in more useable shapes.
The problem with the smoothness of modern sets is the excessive smaller greebling parts. That makes it more tedious to build.
There are also plenty of tiles and round slopes.
It's a balancing act.
I prefered angled slopes from the '90s. Maybe not due to design, but their color palete. 2000s slopes came most often ic crazy new colors and/or with prints that limited their usability. Only ones on my display are black and dark grey ones.
I have the Viking village, and it has a ton of visible studs. It’s not like they’ve vanished, they’re just less apparent dependent on the type of build. A vehicle tends to be smoothed off but a location tends to have more, usually to have space for minifigures to walk around
This is something I’ve often thought of when building/modifying sets, and I think it’s both situational and up to personal preference! The most important thing, personally, is that the studs are balanced out evenly over the build, regardless of how many there ultimately are
My gut feeling for the sudden sharp dip in visible stud counts you noticed is a symptom of the big shift from Lego being intended more as a set of building toys that you're given a jumping off point for, but expected to either take apart to make other stuff or build upon later, to a set of pre-designed toys you just put together yourself. Having more visible studs makes it easier to build on top of the existing build, and having more studded pieces in general is more generally useful, while less visible studs look closer to reality and can create more intricate detailing.
To me, studs on the models always sparked my imagination of what could be put there. Studs contributed greatly to feeling of unlimited potential of Lego even when the model was built and "completed". When model has no studs, to me it is just what is and nothing more. As for perfect number, it just depends on the build I guess.
I have thought about this before, but my conclusion is forgotten.
I think some visible studs are weirdly needed for the "Lego look" but it depends on the parts used. I really, really hate entirely tiled surfaces though.
For me, I think the question comes how much space that a minifigure could stand on has been taken away by tiles purely for smoothness, rather than something added for function and shaping. Curved and sloped pieces have their critics but a minifigure probably isn’t going to be standing on those so it doesn’t bug me. Sure, it’s fun to build a strange structure off weird angles because the builder provided a plate at a 65 degree angle, but I don’t think smoothing those are the biggest issue. I’ll see MoCs that seem afraid to have any studs anywhere except maybe one stud for placing a minifigure in a scene and getting praise for that, as if there’s a moral problem with having plates.
Great video! As a MOC builder, I think that many people dislike studs because they want their model to be "realistic". They forget that studs can be used to make builds even more realistic - these little dots give a lot of texture to landscapes or industrial machines. They become harmful only when overused and put in contrast with smooth surfaces.
*points at self* Yeah I got a visible stud right here, badaboom badabing.
The ideal is different from model-to-model. The goals of the model in question must be taken into account if we are to understand the choices made by the designer. If alternate builds are a must for a set, then studded surfaces might be appropriate given the use of more generic, perhaps “blocky” bricks. If the goal of a set is to be some sort of hyper-detailed representation of a spaceship from a movie, then showing less studs might benefit the model. It’s so subjective that’s it’s tough to even have the conversation.
I really liked the mention of the 2x2x2/3 piece at the end. When I first saw it building a set I was so happy Lego finally made that piece. My favorite modern set for studs would either be that new galaxy explorer or the inquisitor scythe. I don’t collect many themes though so I’m sure there are many more good ones
The way I see it is a shift from studded surfaces going from being the “texture of Lego”; the same way Star Wars ships have their griebleing or how part 71752 has the venting(?) on its sides; to interrupting the smoothness of the plague parts, with the general smoothness of surfaces eventually taking hold
I think that studs are fine on surfaces you think it is appropriate to have minifigs on.
omg, i didn't even know 71752 was a new piece! it really doesn't feel like one. I thought it was maybe an older mold lego started using again because of how seamlessly it integrated into builds. It really does fit perfectly in the speeder.
Right? I love how it seems to have a foot in both camps. 😊
I enjoy the smoothness of tiles greatly, but I enjoy best a mix of visible studs and tiles creating texture and on floors room for Minifigures to stand. I'm currently building the Disney castle (a huge splurge for my birthday) and I'm really enjoying the sideways facing studs along the top of the bottom half of the castle. they're used so perfectly to give such a nice texture to the walls, keeping them from feeling too smooth.
Office tour plz
8:04 I had no idea this existed. There are so many neich parts I think "how is anyone ever going to find another use for that?" But this is great! I'd love to see them make more parts like this.
I love niche lego videos like this! My theory on the proper number of studs visible is kind of like character animation. Even though there's only a few frames, your brain fills in the gaps. And I think the same can be said for studs. Maybe it's a texture thing? Your example with the 2 planes was a good one. When I see a white light aircraft, I think of a sleek smooth body. Versus the dark gray military style with studs representing rivets.
I think you're right on the money with this! 👍
This video is a great pairing with Eggybricks video on SNOT. It highlights how much of modern Lego has dramatically changed in construction and technique
I think stud distribution would be another important factor. Some builds can end up with one section completely smooth, with another covered in far too many studs. Of course some sets can pull off that look anyway.
Let me just say one thing, unrelated to the content of this video: Although our preferences regarding Lego sets could not be any further apart, me embracing the modern day high degree of detailing despite the overall odd shape of minifigures and preferring realistic skin tones over Lego yellow, too -and never having owned a single Rock Raiders set nor striving to do so in the future, I am *absolutely hyped* every time the nofication bell shows you uploaded a new video! Slugger's deep dives into peculiar crannies of Lego history, pondering color schemes and shaping philosophy along with your style of narrating, animation and choice of sound make every single one of your vids an absolute gem, often to be rewatched time and time again.
Please do keep it up, Slug!
A fan
Thank you so much! I'm glad you find my videos rewarding to watch, even if our tastes differ. 😊
Really great example would be recently revealed 76286 milano. It has a lot of studs while also being sleek and modern and these studs add this lego-ish feel and it coresponds really well with tiled surfaces arround. I love combinations of tiles and studs on builds, its a perfect balance to me
Ooh i like your changes to the flash speeder. Doesn’t make sense as a Star Wars model, but makes perfect sense as a LEGO set, something licensed sets gave a unique challenge of balancing
I distinctly remember that when the original TT Lego Star Wars came out and I read about 'studs' on the back of the box, I assumed it was referring to some kind of disembodied surface studs from bricks. Ten-year-old-me was definitely pedantic enough for this video!
For me, it's all about having "walkable" surfaces for minifigures.
If you should be able to walk on that surface, then it's okay for it to have studs on it.
There’s definitely a golden ratio of studs for each person, I personally really like studs as an addition to detail like some kind of small greebling in sets of 2x2, 2x4, or any length of 1-by rows. (As obvious as it may sound) When I look at exposed studs I see connection points for something else, and it should most importantly make sense as to what they could be connected to and not just “completely naked” bricks if that even makes sense.
This was a really enjoyable video! I really appreciate these looks into Lego’s past, similar to the 2002 plague video (one of my favourites of yours). I know nothing about Star Wars but was incredibly impressed by the pod, the details that pop out when you expose the 4x4’s really surprised me! Very cool.
Also, I’d agree those 2x2x2 bricks are amazing! If I ever built a Lego podcasting studio for a minifigure, I feel those would be great for representing padded walls.
Part 71752? Phwoar!
Thanks for bringing that to my attention.
Fantastic video! Taking on a complex topics that most just ignore. I know one LEGO yt guy who hates studs and try’s to hide them all, but it just ends up looking weird.
And finally in my opinion the set with the best stud ratio is m-tron pulsar charger.
That's a great little set! Good mix of hollow studs too!
I like studs. I want to able to easily add parts, stand minifigs on models, maybe add printed tiles for customization.
Studs and antistuds are what makes Lego work as a rebuildable toy. I also like seeing Technic parts in non-Technic sets.
p.s. I just rebuilt my Space UFO sets this week! 😁
This is a great idea for a video. I’m of the opinion that it’s super super subjective and context dependent, but each style is valid.
The new UCS Tie Interceptor seems to be a callback to the classic sets where the wings are all studs on the black, and it looks really nice since the grey is tiled.
Your videos evoke strong nostalgia and they're so creative and interesting! Keep doing what you enjoy!
Thank you! ❤️
My approach is: "If it doesn't have to be tiled off, don't tile it"
I don't think too many studs are a problem. I think too little studs are the problem! The amount of whining that Star Wars UA-camrs do when there's even a couple studs exposed on a model is crazy.
Many Lego SW fans are too demanding IMO. You bought a _Lego_ Star Wars model, stop complaining that it looks Lego. If you want 100% movie accuracy, go buy a plastic model kit. It'll be a lot cheaper.
Plate. Pip. I'm the guy with the Studs.
Also: I think you're right and that the conversation should be more on the types and amounts of pieces used and not on the amount of exposed studs we see. I honestly don't care if I can see connection points. Just customization space to me. What I care about are the types of pieces and how they're used.
Interesting discussion with infinite rabbit hole potential. I'm randomly thinking back to the 2008 Clone Wars Twilight set (7680) or the VW Beetle (10187) from the same year. Those felt uncharacteristically "studded" for their era.
For me, it's a ratio thing. It absolutely has to have some visible studs to feel like a true Lego set, but too many ends up feeling... It's hard to want to say "amateurish" as someone who grew up with the first generation of Star Wars sets, but that's the word that comes to mind. They've introduced so many curved and sloped pieces that it's hard to justify not using them to polish out the details, even if that means a little of the imaginative soul is lost. I've found that often times, the best use of having visible studs is when they essentially provide a half-plate high grade to some slope you're working with.
What I don't tolerate is covering every stud with a flat plate and turning it into some weird tile flooring nightmare. It feels like that ends up being the answer to "too many studs" more often than not, but maybe since I have a distaste for it, I just notice it more.
As a moc builder, I ask myself this question a lot. I lean on the side of very few studs, and try to use tiles or sloped pieces as much as possible, but I always enjoy leaving at least a few open studs. I think it's charming. I have been doing a lot of Hot Wheels builds (damn you Mattel for buying Mega Blocks!) so trying to replicate sleek cars work better with little to no studs. Once I find the time to tackle larger structures, this may quickly change, as there are other aspects to consider past just aesthetics, such as minifig placement spots.
I think there is a larger discussion to be had here about how sleek LEGO sets should be. I personally love the modern LEGO style, but I can see how intimidating it could be to younger builders who are just trying to start. Some designs are so sleek that re-building to anything else may feel like a downgrade. 4+ sets and creator (excluding display sets) fill this niche nicely, but in the past even Star Wars sets were only a step removed from something that a kid can cobble together from loose parts. This may contribute to the demographic of kids who buy LEGO sets only to treat them like any other toy: Never disassemble to build into something else.
i've always felt like the first year of exo-force has a near perfect amount of studs in both robots and structures. it uses a lot of huge curvy shell pieces, but usually leaves their studs relatively exposed, which i think really helped the "lego-ness" of the sets, as well as giving them just enough extra texture to feel more industrial.
Good call! Those sets look great!
Brilliant Video! My collection is nowhere near a big one but i just happen to have at least half of the sets you showed here so it was super relatable. I have dabbled in this question often myself since almost all big MOCS we see at conventions go for a super tiled, studless appeal. The new part totally flew under my radar, what a great addition. This is the kind of innovation i want to see from LEGO. Upgrade the Bricks rather than making them obsolete.
Interesting video. In my opinion, it depends on what it's going for. You trying to make a sleek car or spaceship? get rid of as many studs as possible! You trying to create a nature landscape or something that's a bit roughed up? studs will add personality! Another thing is that sometimes leaving studs exposed can add to sleekness, as adding a tile on top would've made it too boxy or clunky. You see examples of this all over the Speed Champions line.
Ive been binging your rock raiders vids all week! Nice to see a new upload
Thanks! I'm actually working on a new one - hope to have it out sometime in May!
Visible studs are great to have for spaceships and models that make the most of greebling. The midi-scale Millennium Falcon that released recently is a prime example of it IMO
Complete anecdote here, but there's one set that always set up my mind for having visible studs that, I have yet to shake my opinion from childhood period looking in the catalogs at 6091 King Leo's Castle from Knights Kingdom, the studded area under the drawbridge always caught my eye in the most unintentional way. Involve the catalogs and box art of the set, the lighting and photography shines on the studs on the base plate in a way that Childhood me saw them not as starts or not even as castle. Instead, karma as a child. I envision them as small UFO's in space. As an adult, I still don't quite understand the decision to have lighting underneath the drop ridge, when there's already enough lighting on the model itself. Proper, not to mention the background having a sunset, which would contradict the lighting of the whole scene.
It would take another comment to talk about the studded area of the entire set, but I just thought that was one of the earliest examples. I ever thought about studs on a lego set, all because of a lighting decision in photography.
I'm looking at the new midi scale Invisible Hand on my desk right next to me, and I think it has a pretty good number of visible studs. They're mostly concentrated on the dorsal part of the ship and almost act like greebly bits in and of themselves. I think that's a great use for visible studs: adding a little bit of visual noise to an otherwise smooth surface.
That odd gap on the Flash Speeder is meant to be there; the movie model has the gun on an arch piece. You're custom detailing make he want to do my own upgrades to Star Wars models.
Good point! I completely forgot to cross check the source material - whoops! 😅
I tend to find the aesthetics of sets from the 80s through the mid 90s preferable, which should surprise nobody as that was my childhood.
I like how, of all transformers used to higlight the fact that trabsformers has a size class system, you used retrax. Not only a really goofy goober, but was also released before the modern standard size class system that transformers built id say along the span of 2001 and 2007. I think there was still size classes of some sort starting 1990, but to me its just funny to think how young the transformers size classes are.
And also goofy pillbug transformer go brrrr
Oh wow! I had no idea he predated the standard size classes - he's just one of the only Transformers I have, haha! 😅
@@RRSlugger fun fact, in Japan the toy could also be seen under the name powerhug, which is quite accurate.
@@jeremiahsacks2868 That's adorable!
I have exactly the same thoughts about the piece 71752 it says a lot I think that three years after release it was released it had already appeared in 122 sets.
Agreed that it's practically impossible to know the correct amount of visible studs. Since each person's own preference is really what defines the amount. I personally find myself to like "older" sets from the 80s through the late 90s as the "blocky" and studded look is more appealing to me. That doesn't mean each set is super blocky and super studded it just means there's a certain allure. And there's some sets that are made way later that I still find appealing too. I think that's the beauty of Lego is that people can find sets or themes of any era and take a real shine to it.
Now this is the type of video I subscribed for man lol love the unique topic with this one.
Thank you! ❤️