LEGO Hobbit 79010 Goblin King Battle [Review]

After what seems like an eternity, I am finally getting to my review of 79010 The Goblin King Battle. I don’t like picture-heavy reviews so don’t expect any of my own. I will be talking about three aspects of this set: part selection, minifigs and set design.

icon
icon

To begin with, the part selection in this set is very good. I’m a castle builder at heart and this set is chock full of castle/fantasy goodness, as you would expect from a Lord of The Rings set (yes, it’s the Hobbit, but you know what I mean). There are tons of dark grey slopes and such, lots of brown bits and loads of decorative bits such as bones, books, weapons, jewels, etc. There were around twenty pieces that used stickers. The majority of those were tiles with various wood grains. I would have preferred that those were printed, but I know that LEGO is mostly going with stickers these days. The only piece that really suffers from the sticker use is the 2×2 tile/scroll that the Goblin Scribe is supposed to hold. If you actually have him hold it, his hand messes up the edge of the sticker. Printing would have been a much better choice for this piece. However, overall I was mostly very happy with the parts selection.

Secondly, the minifigs are a fun assortment. Naturally LEGO dispersed the 13 dwarves throughout all the sets. In this one you get Ori, Dori and Nori. You also get Gandalf, the Goblin King and three goblins. The three dwarves all very decent figs. I really like their torsos. Ori’s hairpiece is a bit boring since it simply Ron’s hair from the Harry Potter line in brown. The other two are unique to these figs. Gandalf is the same as the one in the small cart set. LEGO lists it as different figure but the only difference is that this one has a sword. The three goblins are each unique. This surprised me. I was expecting all three to have the same torso. They have the same heads, headpiece and two have the same legs. The goblin scribe has stubby legs. That just leaves the Goblin King. He is obviously supposed to be the highlight of the set. I was rather under-whelmed by him. I am a fan of the giant trolls and such but the Goblin King leaves something to be desired. He is going to be hard to use for anything else. I hope someone does (and I have some plans myself) but there are some design elements that are really going to get in the way. The main issue is his crown. It doesn’t come off. You can remove the three spikes but the base of the crown is part of the figure and seriously limits the versatility. The snarling expression and printed hair down the back are also issues but they are easier to work around.

Lastly is set design. I first have to say that I am not a fan of the “playset” style that many licensed themes seem to be using lately. So that was a point off of this set right from the start. I also feel sorry for whoever designed this set because I think they were placed in a no-win situation. The choice of the Goblin King’s cave for the big set in this series was ill-advised. The biggest set in a series needs to feel like the crown of the whole series, much like Helm’s Deep did for the LOTR series. The Goblin King’s Battle leaves you feeling like something is missing. While the piece count is right for a large set, what you build with those pieces is boring. Really all you build is four platforms for the figs to stand on. There are some nice play features, such as a falling bridge, falling ladder, hidden treasure, flying cage (what is up with that?), a crane and the obligatory catapult, but in the end it is still just four platforms and they don’t even attach to each other.

I’m also not a fan of the technique of attaching 1x tiles at one end and then leaving the other hanging for that ramshackle look. It has its place but it is over-used in this set, about ten times. That technique, along with several others, makes the entire build feel messy. I know it is a Goblin cave and they are supposed to be messy. However many pieces are just placed randomly about to give the sense of…randomness. There are even two pieces (a skull and a small bone) that you are told to place on the table in front of the set. That’s it, their “place” is unattached and on the table. I’ve been fine with unattached pieces on sets before but not the extent this one does and the two pieces loose on the table was a bit much.

So, overall I have very mixed feelings about this set. I love the parts selection and even though I have some misgivings about the Goblin King himself, the minifigs are a fun lot. The set design really leaves me cold, but in the end most of us buy sets for the pieces and not the design. I’m not going to assign this set some random score, but I was glad to have it. If you want the kind of pieces this set offers, you should get it. But if you only want the figures, I would buy them on the secondary market. And, unless you need to be Hobbit-complete with your minifigs, I would skip the Goblin King himself.

Thanks for reading!

10 comments on “LEGO Hobbit 79010 Goblin King Battle [Review]

  1. Andrew

    Yeah, I’m about three-quarters of the way through building this set, and I’ve let it sit there for the last week or two, unfinished. The Goblin King’s sheer immensity requires that a substantial portion of the parts in the set get “spent” building his throne, leaving the rest of the platforms with an underwhelming sense of incompletion.

    I’m definitely a LEGO LOTR/Hobbit completist, so I’m happy to have the set, but it’s one I’ll be parting out into my collection for other purposes — I won’t be leaving it assembled for long.

  2. 5p8c3

    I quote: “but in the end most of us buy sets for the pieces and not the design”.

    So why review it or complain. Because for me it feels more like a complaint then a review…sorry! What some AFOL’s forget is that LEGO is in the first place for kids who don’t really care about special parts or rare colors, they just want to have fun.

    Going further on this, maybe instead of complaining show us how we have to do it. That is something we never see. But then build it that it’s easy to build, stable, with functions, play-able, etc. Good luck!

    Off course you have every right to give your opinion/complain (and no I’m not the designer of this set, I only defend my workmate(s)).

    But it’s alaways sad to read stuff like this because you have no idea what it takes for a official designer to get the job done these days. We have restrictions and more then before. We can’t do all the thing AFOL’s do.

    Grtz,
    Kurt

  3. HATTER23a

    To be fair to the reviewer Kurt, they are reviewing for their audience, addressing things that would concern an AFOL customer.

  4. Josh Post author

    @5p8c3 – So you only want to hear when we like something? Because I hear these same arguments every time an AFOL complains about something. First that we aren’t the target group and that we really don’t understand the inner workings.

    Did you not read the part where I said the issues weren’t the fault of the set designer? While I don’t work for the company (thank goodness, it sounds like a nightmare) I am aware the designers have restrictions. I believe it was those restrictions that made this a poor set and that it should have been obvious before the idea of “Goblin King Cave” was selected as the headliner set of this line.

    I am wondering if you actually read my entire review. You said in your comment that this set was designed for kids and that they don’t care about rare pieces or colors and that they just want to have fun. In the review I said I loved the piece selection. I didn’t mention this in my review (looking back, I should have) but I have two boys ages 6 and 9…right in LEGO’s target range. They do like rare colors and parts. They played with the Goblin King battle for about 20 minutes and they never asked to play with it again. They also didn’t complain when I tore it apart. They played with Helm’s Deep for weeks and complained the whole day when I tore it apart. Kids can tell quality.

    There are sets that have stood the test of time. Sets that kids build over and over. Sets that kids tell their own kids about years later. The Helm’s Deep set could be an example of one of those. The Bag End Hobbit hole set is another. The Goblin King Battle is not.

    I am perfectly fine if you don’t agree with me. However please refute my statements rather than falling back on the party line. There are some amazing sets coming out of right now, regardless of those restrictions and regardless of target audience. The Goblin King Battle is not one of them.

  5. Andrew

    Kurt, I’ve heard these arguments before as well, and they just don’t stand up to scrutiny (at least within the context of discussions from an AFOL standpoint). Let me try to shift your perspective a little bit with a story from my own experience.

    Until last October, I worked on an R&D team at Microsoft. For more than six years, I led the effort to provide the best possible technical documentation for the users of the software my division created. Customer input is what makes products better, so we closely followed comments, blog posts, forums, and in-person feedback from usability studies and talks at trade shows.

    Invariably, customers weren’t aware of the constraints that our team was working under — budget, release schedule, dependencies on other teams at Microsoft (and the internal politics that came with that), and so many other things I can’t share while my NDA is still in effect… Similarly, we would get feedback from people whom we never expected to be using our software.

    But did we go on blogs, forums, Facebook, Twitter, and everywhere else these discussions were happening and say things that amounted to “You just don’t understand how hard our job is!” and “We didn’t design this software for you!”? No, absolutely not.

    Internally, did some of the things that customers say hurt? Certainly! When someone is shouting into what they think is a black hole, they often say things that they would never say face-to-face or even say when they know someone is reading their comments. Recall all the nasty things you’ve ever said about Microsoft software, and then multiply that by tens or hundreds of thousands.

    When you create a commercial product that anybody can buy, you can’t always predict what the response will be, nor where those responses will come from. And you certainly can’t control those responses. Yet, that’s exactly what the response we see so often from LEGO set designers seems to be trying to do — to control and redirect the conversation by defending design decisions, usually without actually sharing any substantive information.

    I count many LEGO designers as friends, and hope you and I can meet and become friends someday, too. :-) But that doesn’t change the fact that we review LEGO sets from an AFOL perspective here on The Brothers Brick, and that we’ll always do so without pulling any punches. We welcome and encourage LEGO designers to join the conversation, but my hope (like Josh) is that you’ll do so by understanding our perspective as well — like it or not, we’re consumers of the products you create, and our viewpoint is no less valid than that of a 9-year-old.

    I also realize that AFOL sites like ours have disproportionate influence over the tenor of the conversation online, but the same was true of the journalists and tech bloggers who “weren’t part of our core audience” for the Microsoft software I worked on. That didn’t make their perspective any less valid — or valuable in improving the next version of our software.

    To Josh’s point about current set designs in general, I would add that the overall trend has been one of remarkable improvement in the last 10 years. And not just in the highly regarded modular building or UCS sets specifically designed for teen and adult builders; just about every theme includes stellar designs. Nevertheless, we’ll critique things we don’t like when we see them, and we hope that the designers who read our feedback take it in the spirit in which it’s offered — we wouldn’t “complain” (share our opinions and provide feedback) if we didn’t care.

  6. 5p8c3

    So you only want to hear when we like something?
     No you have every right to say your opinion…please don’t get me wrong on this.

    Because I hear these same arguments every time an AFOL complains about something. First that we aren’t the target group and that we really don’t understand the inner workings.
     Yes, but that’s truth…I’m sorry to say.
    1) No AFOL’s are not the 1st target group but this has been so as long as LEGO exists…so nothing new here. This doesn’t mean that we neglect the community as a designer but when we have to choose, the kid comes first in our design. I think that’s obvious if you make a toy for kids.
    2) Yes most of the AFOL’s have no idea how it all works. Before I joined the LEGO group I was on the other side and when you start working you see that it’s a completely different ball game. That’s why I can say that most comments are irrelevant. I don’t know how your or other people job 100% functions so do you think my comments would be applicable and appropriate?

    Bottom line: the reason why this – target group and inner workings – often bumps on disbelief is because we can’t go into detail because companies rules.

    At the end the result of these “weird” comments (talking in general): it pushes the designers more and more away from the forums. Result is that less and less designers start to care what the community says or want. What at the end is also not good…at least I don’t find it a good development.

    Did you not read the part where I said the issues weren’t the fault of the set designer? While I don’t work for the company (thank goodness, it sounds like a nightmare) I am aware the designers have restrictions.
     Yes I have read this and I’m glade that you mentioned it because it’s hard at the moment to make a set within the given frames…believe me. And only for this some AFOL’s should show more respect because we try to put every brick, color or detail in the set.
     Therefore also my comment, show us how we have to do it! But then it’s in general quite on the other side.

    I believe it was those restrictions that made this a poor set and that it should have been obvious before the idea of “Goblin King Cave” was selected as the headliner set of this line.
     Obvious…it’s not always predictable because manufacturing costs can go up or down during the design process. And since designers don’t have a say in this, we have to live with this and adjust if necessary and make the best out of it. It’s not all black and white.
     Therefore my comment because you show with this comment you don’t know how it works…sorry to say but said with all respect! For this reason I found the comments sad and not applicable.
    I am wondering if you actually read my entire review.
     Yes I did and more than once.

    You said in your comment that this set was designed for kids and that they don’t care about rare pieces or colors and that they just want to have fun. In the review I said I loved the piece selection. I didn’t mention this in my review (looking back, I should have) but I have two boys ages 6 and 9…right in LEGO’s target range. They do like rare colors and parts.
     I fully agree otherwise LEGO would not make new elements and accessories in shiny or transparent colors…but not in that amount that some AFOL’s want it.
     It is possible off course to put more colors and elements in the boxes but it has also a price tag. Who is willing to pay this?

    They played with the Goblin King battle for about 20 minutes and they never asked to play with it again. They also didn’t complain when I tore it apart. They played with Helm’s Deep for weeks and complained the whole day when I tore it apart. Kids can tell quality.
    There are sets that have stood the test of time. Sets that kids build over and over. Sets that kids tell their own kids about years later. The Helm’s Deep set could be an example of one of those. The Bag End Hobbit hole set is another. The Goblin King Battle is not.
     I understand what you want to say but on the other hand maybe your kids don’t love it but other kids maybe love it…it is a medal with 2 sides.

    I am perfectly fine if you don’t agree with me.
     Me too, please don’t understand me wrong but I’m always willing to listen and learn from it.

    However please refute my statements rather than falling back on the party line.
     If I have given you this intention I apologize.

    There are some amazing sets coming out of right now, regardless of those restrictions and regardless of target audience. The Goblin King Battle is not one of them.
     Off course some are more favorite than others but what do you suggest we made instead of The Goblin King Battle?

    On the side:
     We design in the first place for play value…and that where sometimes the reviews go wrong IMO because they reviews are mostly done from an AFOL perspective and since our target group is kids it is IMO in a way comparing apples with pears. If you understand what I want to say.

  7. gambort

    Hi Kurt,

    I’ve actually worked on a set (albeit one without many of the constraints) and have been involved in an internal workshop. I’ve heard so much complaining about both projects, both unreasonable (mostly) and reasonable. I understand where you’re coming from and especially the failure of AFOLs to grasp their unimportance.

    But… the job at TBB is to review the set for an AFOL audience, and to do so in a fair way. This review certainly does the former and, as far as I can tell, does the latter too. It highlights good points, but also negative points from the perspective of Josh (and his kids). This is as it should be. I don’t own the set and I probably wouldn’t agree with everything Josh said. I factor that into my reading.

    At the end of the day the set will either sell well, or it won’t. AFOLs won’t make much of a difference to that. And that’s the ‘opinion’ you should worry about.

    Tim

  8. Josh Post author

    Well, Kurt, I think we will have to agree to disagree. You pretty much disregard everything that I say on the basis that I don’t work for the company. I disagree that someone who isn’t privy to all the internal issues can’t offer critical feedback. However, since you feel that my comments are irrelevant, I really see no common ground for a discussion. There is no where to go from there. It is really too bad that some designers are turned off by critique. We do enjoy talking to LEGO employees…they just aren’t the reason we do what we do. They aren’t our target demographic, so to speak.

    You did ask what I would have suggested as the big set rather than the Goblin King Battle. I normally don’t like speculating or engaging in “what-ifs”, but you asked so I will oblige. I think Rivendell would have been a better choice. I think that you guys could have knocked that one out of the park.

  9. cortman

    Kurt, how lame! This is the reviewer’s opinion. Are you really thinking you can change it by saying “you just don’t understand, because you don’t work for LEGO”. I don’t have to work for McDonald’s to be able to validly say I don’t like Big Macs, or the special sauce, or whatever other aspect of Big Macs.
    It’s kind of pointless to tell a consumer/reviewer “No, review it like I say, because I work for the company and you don’t.”

    Quote-

    “At the end the result of these “weird” comments (talking in general): it pushes the designers more and more away from the forums. Result is that less and less designers start to care what the community says or want.”

    If TLG is employing designers who eventually don’t care what the community says unless it is complimentary, they’re going to fold fast. As TLG doesn’t appear to be folding fast, it appears you are misrepresenting them as a whole to prove your point.

  10. Syruss

    I don’t know about anyone else, but I come here to see reviews from a AFOL’s perspective. So in that regard, I think this review is right on the money.

Comments are closed.