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!

There isn't enough videos like this, the Lego KZfaq 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’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.

"You don't like visible studs, huh? Have you tried LEGO Technic?"

That nuclear horse getting fed crystals is a very charming build

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

I did not see the thumbnail, I just clicked…

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.

Finally some love for the original flash speeder, one of the most underrated early Star Wars sets.

Play sets: give me as many studs as possible. Display sets: make it smooth baby!

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.

R.R. Stud Philosopher. I like it

0:26 NO STOP I'M GETTING FLASHBACKS

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.

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 :)

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!

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!

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.

I can always count on a Slugger video that covers a topic I haven't given a second thought to to be super interesting!

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.

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.

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

The perfect number of the visible studs is all of them.

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. 😄

"I made a video with no answer" And we're here for every second of it! 😄

Ok, im calling them pips from now on. Thank you for bestowing this knowledge upon me, mr slug.

This slug is insane

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.

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.

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!)

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.

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

I love very smooth models, but even for me there is something like "too smooth" so I really have no clue

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.

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.

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.

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.

1:24 Dis (kin) na (stu) ts DEEZ NUTS

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 KZfaqrs do when there's even a couple studs exposed on a model is crazy.

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!

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Your videos evoke strong nostalgia and they're so creative and interesting! Keep doing what you enjoy!

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.

Ive been binging your rock raiders vids all week! Nice to see a new upload

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.

*points at self* Yeah I got a visible stud right here, badaboom badabing.

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

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.

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 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! 😁

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yes! A slugger video! Go off on whatever odd topic you want man its always good

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

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.

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.

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

Now this is the type of video I subscribed for man lol love the unique topic with this one.

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.

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.

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

Part 71752? Phwoar! Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

Nice video, very chill and relaxing

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

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.

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!

I have thought about this before, but my conclusion is forgotten.

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

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

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 agree that that's the perfect "size" of set. 20-30 bucks, get a minifigure or two, a model big enough to play with, with enough bricks to be able to build into something original

For me it depends on the size. Micro builds should for as close to zero as possible, but big builds can have tons without an issue. For smallish medium builds (like the speeder you showed) i personally think set 75970 "tracer vs widowmaker" to have a comfortable amount of visible studs. Enough to look lego, but not so many that it's distracting.

This is a topic I didn't expect a video on. You're so good in making a really odd topic interesting. I look at my builds in a different way now. 😋

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.

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.

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.

I'm personally a stud lover. studs only look bad when they're on a big surface with no details to break them up. If they're on a detailed surface, they're fine. I'd even say that all floor surfaces are fine for studs, unless they're explicitly going for a tiled look. It just makes sense in my inner child brain that minifigs should be able to stand anywhere. For stuff like wood, alternating studs and smooths can even look good.

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.

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.

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.

Didn’t expect a Vsauce video about Lego but here we are. Great video!

I think that studs are fine on surfaces you think it is appropriate to have minifigs on.

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.

An interesting question and a satisfying exploration.

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

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.

My approach is: "If it doesn't have to be tiled off, don't tile it"