Yes, there are different ways of playing, and I don't prefer the battle style as described above.
But the description is too dualistic, there's more options, with LEGO or otherwise. In the above example it could be to play both outside and inside, be a community, go exploring... etc.
Ways that aren't sepcifically "boyish" or "girlish".
These differences as described tend to run along gender lines but I think they are not attached to the actual sex, or at least to a much lesser degree than we like to think.
I believe we should strive to provide opportunities to our kids to develop themselves independently of the constraints of strict gender roles. And just to be clear, I'm not refering to some currently popular trends of gender neutrality - it doesn't make a boy less of a boy if he likes playing family with his friends, for example. And it doesn't make a girl less of a girl if she picks up a stick and plays battle ninja with her firends.
And I think we (the adults of 2020) are doing a pretty decent job. Not perfect, not too extreme, but getting there. Gender roles aren't as strict anymore as they used to be 50 years ago, not by a long shot.

But then the toy & entertainment industry come along and realise that by keeping up these gender roles they can double their profits, as you so nicely pointed out above.
Cleverly and very succesfully implanting this into children's minds.
Thus destroying part of the good work parents & teachers around the world are doing.
LEGO is just one example.
I'm seeing this every day at work (3-7 year old children). It saddens and angers me.

PS: wow, how did we get here from a Nokia watch?