The point is: when I was a kid, all Lego sets consisted almost completely of general bricks. You could, and would, start building different things from the moment you got your first set, and the possibilities would increase exponentially once you got a few more sets. Any set contributed to your collection of building blocks to create new things.

▲

ChrisKnott 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I don’t think this is true at all. What do you mean by “general bricks”? If anything there is more brick-built stuff nowadays.

For example the Creator 3-in-1 Castle (which I got for my son for Christmas) is pretty similar to castle sets I had as a child but basically way better and with brick built horses rather than large mould ones

	▲	Freak_NL 42 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		The 3-in-1 sets (where the set numbers actually begin with 31) should really be the first thing you look at when choosing a set for a child, and they deserve more praise. There are a lot of cool 3-in-1 sets out there. That castle (31168) is really good (and those horses are too!), and the haunted mansion (31167) is just cool with minifigs which are a hit with any kid. For a small and cheap present that hamster (31376) is just too cute to pass up too. It feels like those sets are where the Lego designers get to do their thing and do it right, without the weight of licenced IP (of which there is so much) and the trite offerings of the City range.

▲

robertfw 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I really don't get this sentiment. The only sets that I think didn't contribute like this were the bionicle stuff. Getting a few more unique parts with a set gives you more options, not less.