Bionicle 2015 Discussion

[Scarilian]

Eh, criticize away. I do it on the front page of BZP in reviews, after all. I just think it is laughable to say things like "these are bad colours" when design theory and colour theory disagree. Or things like "the skeletal upper limbs going to bulky lower limbs is bad design" when it is actually the exact opposite. Thin limbs connected to big bulky lower limbs is a common design trope for a reason- it works. Criticize from a play and parts availability or preference theme all you want, I will too, but character and visual design has rules and it has them for a reason, and some of the criticisms in here are absurd and fly in the face of hundreds of years of research and exploration in the field of visual design.

Kinda of 'iffy' saying people can have their critiques and then going on to laugh at everyone elses critiques and bash literally everyone else for having an opinion as being 'absurd' and 'fly in the face of hundreds of years of research and exploration in the field of visual design'. You are literally saying people cannot criticise the colour scheme or design of the sets because it disagrees with popular opinions as if the development of visual design is completely without fault ¬.¬

Well actually, when you look at Scorpio, it looks like the skellie has been flipped onto its back, had it's head rotated and ribs extended, and that funky mechanism attached to what were its knees. Just a theory!

Alternatively its just a Scorpion... but thats a nice head-canon :P

Edited February 19, 2015 by Scarilian

[Shakar]

Well actually, when you look at Scorpio, it looks like the skellie has been flipped onto its back, had it's head rotated and ribs extended, and that funky mechanism attached to what were its knees. Just a theory!

And yes, I shall be picking them all up too, even though I really don't like Scorpio. Gotta get me all them bones, skulls 'n' shtuff! Also, MoCr <3

That's pretty... terrifying. Reminds me of those Tortured Souls figures in concept (don't look them up if you're weak of stomach!). I'm sure that wasn't what they were going for, but it's a cool idea nonetheless.

Yeah, I'll most likely buy them all. They've been growing on me and the new parts are just sooooo cool. Still on the fence about Scorpio, I hate the set itself but there are some very good pieces.

[CabooseBM]

Eh, criticize away. I do it on the front page of BZP in reviews, after all. I just think it is laughable to say things like "these are bad colours" when design theory and colour theory disagree. Or things like "the skeletal upper limbs going to bulky lower limbs is bad design" when it is actually the exact opposite. Thin limbs connected to big bulky lower limbs is a common design trope for a reason- it works. Criticize from a play and parts availability or preference theme all you want, I will too, but character and visual design has rules and it has them for a reason, and some of the criticisms in here are absurd and fly in the face of hundreds of years of research and exploration in the field of visual design.

See, I can get behind that, your initial post didn't really leave much aside from my interpretation, but this makes sense.

[dviddy]

Kinda of 'iffy' saying people can have their critiques and then going on to laugh at everyone elses critiques and bash literally everyone else for having an opinion as being 'absurd' and 'fly in the face of hundreds of years of research and exploration in the field of visual design'. You are literally saying people cannot criticise the colour scheme or design of the sets because it disagrees with popular opinions as if the development of visual design is completely without fault ¬.¬

Alternatively its just a Scorpion... but thats a nice head-canon :P

With or without fault, only a handful of people in this topic are knowledgeable or trained enough in the field to properly make those assessments from an objective "this is bad design" standpoint. It is all about the language. You may not personally like the thin limbs going into bulky lower limbs, but it is absurd to say it is bad design, when thick limbs going to thin lowers is instead the absurd design choice. We all have preferences for some designs over others, and that's cool. Hence why criticism is fine and dandy from a personal standpoint. But just saying "this is bad design", especially when historical design principles say the opposite, is not.

People in the community are fairly bad at judging character design and seeing why the designers chose what parts and builds they chose within their constraints, but this is another level.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Darth Vader

[Bigger Fish]

Here are my thoughts on the sets.

Skull Warrior: Easily my favorite, I love his weapon, I love his color scheme, and I love the transparent gun. I think I might draw him when I get my new tablet.

Skull Slicer: My second favorite. A bit skeletal, but that's kind of the point. I like the orange accents on both him and warrior.

Skull Scorpio: I like him a lot better now that I've seen mock-ups of him and his function. (Reminds me of the Bohrok function, I loved that as a kid.)

Skull Basher: SUPER HUGGING ACTION!

Skull Grinder Vs. Mask Maker: Pretty good, Grinder's a bit gappy though.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Bigger Fish

[MakutaOfWar]

Does anybody else think the gold masks blended with trans are maybe some sort of mock-ups that the skull villains are trying to get and they can wear them to get more power instead of the Toa? :P Would explain why Grinder wants the MoCR, but who wouldn't want it?

[vexorian]

Since, if Bionicle come to the stores they are likely going to bring the Toa, protectors and Skeletons all at once, I think I am only going to buy Skeleton sets.

[Mandate]

Eh, criticize away. I do it on the front page of BZP in reviews, after all. I just think it is laughable to say things like "these are bad colours" when design theory and colour theory disagree. Or things like "the skeletal upper limbs going to bulky lower limbs is bad design" when it is actually the exact opposite. Thin limbs connected to big bulky lower limbs is a common design trope for a reason- it works. Criticize from a play and parts availability or preference theme all you want, I will too, but character and visual design has rules and it has them for a reason, and some of the criticisms in here are absurd and fly in the face of hundreds of years of research and exploration in the field of visual design.

Except that you've missed the point of why people are saying "skeletal upper limbs going to bulky lower limbs is a bad design". I'm sure everyone here has seen Furno 3.0(I almost called him Tahu just then, gah), so he'll be my example. When Furno goes from thin upper limbs to (somewhat) larger lower limbs, it flows through, and similar to the overall design of the leg the lower leg goes from small at the top to large at the bottom. Here's another example:

The legs flow. It's not just thin then a sudden fat piece of armor that gets skinnier as it goes down, it gets larger as you get lower. Most people are more used to this, and most like it more as well (I amongst them). But I agree with you, the backlash over this is unreasonable and as much as I hate these sets I don't mind most of the design choices they made. I just don't like the overall aesthetic. The reason why most people seem to hate the choice of armor is that it doesn't flow like it usually does in other sets (eg, Tahu, Furno, Kopaka, Gali, Breakout Stormer, etc)

People in the community are fairly bad at judging character design and seeing why the designers chose what parts and builds they chose within their constraints, but this is another level.

Just because a designer has constraints to work with doesn't excuse poor design choices (not talking about characters here, I'm talking about set design), a bad set is still a bad set. And likewise, just because you have a team of experts doing "all the right stuff" to get the "perfect" (or close to it) toy doesn't mean that the outcome will therefore be good. That's how we got Galidor.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Mandate

[ToaDraco]

So I don't know if anyone else has noticed this, but you can now play the Mask of Creation game on the Bionicle website.

[Mandate]

So I don't know if anyone else has noticed this, but you can now play the Mask of Creation game on the Bionicle website.

That was unexpected. Normally LEGO enjoys splitting platforms for their web games.

[Timeline15]

I'm pretty sure almost every post in this thread comes with an unspoken "in my opinion" at the start. I don't think anyone was criticizing these sets of breaking the rules of a theory none of the rest of us had even mentioned. And, to he honest, it's down to personal taste. To me, the green and orange on slicer looks ugly, particularly since they aren't in even amounts.

Also, the thin upper leg trop works TO AN EXTENT. But these guys don't look like they have proportions like that. The change is so sudden that it's jarring, making them look unfinished as opposed to skeletal. (again, read: my opinion).

[Logan McOwen]

Really, the thin-into-thick design of these guys just makes complete practical sense. The whole idea is that these are cybernetic skeleton guys, with bits of battered up armour on. The armour they're wearing is so thick in comparison to their current bodies, because the armour used to go onto much thicker limbs. But now all the casing and whatnot has crumbled away off these guys, they're left with armour that's a bit too big for their bones.

[Shakar]

http://www.bricklink.com/catalogItem.asp?P=60208

I think this is the part.

Yeah, must be that one. The shape fits and it has all the right holes for Grinder's gearbox to work correctly.

Really sorry I didn't thank you earlier, I honestly forgot I wrote that post. : S

In other news, I got my Hero Pack and my, the trans orange Hau is even prettier than I thought! Now to think of a use for it..

[Mandate]

Really, the thin-into-thick design of these guys just makes complete practical sense. The whole idea is that these are cybernetic skeleton guys, with bits of battered up armour on. The armour they're wearing is so thick in comparison to their current bodies, because the armour used to go onto much thicker limbs. But now all the casing and whatnot has crumbled away off these guys, they're left with armour that's a bit too big for their bones.

Yes, it does make perfect sense. Some people just don't like the look of that style though.

[The Outsider]

Really, the thin-into-thick design of these guys just makes complete practical sense. The whole idea is that these are cybernetic skeleton guys, with bits of battered up armour on. The armour they're wearing is so thick in comparison to their current bodies, because the armour used to go onto much thicker limbs. But now all the casing and whatnot has crumbled away off these guys, they're left with armour that's a bit too big for their bones.

Yes, it does make perfect sense. Some people just don't like the look of that style though.

That would probably be better achieved if the sets weren't so symmetrical: all the bone-like limb pieces are in the exact same spots on both sides of the body. The sole exception is Skull Warrior, who has a skeletal upper left leg, a skeletal lower right leg, a fully skeletal left arm and a skeletal lower right arm. If they were arranged more randomly like that, it would give a better sense of decay and disrepair; otherwise they just seem to have been built that way from the start (which they were, but not in-story...I think )

Does anybody else think the gold masks blended with trans are maybe some sort of mock-ups that the skull villains are trying to get and they can wear them to get more power instead of the Toa? :P Would explain why Grinder wants the MoCR, but who wouldn't want it?

I don't think they want to use the masks; if you notice the box art of MMvsSG, Skull Grinder seem to want to drop the Mask of Creation into that vat of molten metal.

EDIT: Speaking of the MoCr, does anyone remember if that gold mask in the NYCC had the hieroglyphs? If it did, I see no reason to remove them from the plastic version.

Edited February 19, 2015 by The Outsider

[Scarilian]

With or without fault, only a handful of people in this topic are knowledgeable or trained enough in the field to properly make those assessments from an objective "this is bad design" standpoint.

Everyone is allowed an opinion on the sets and just because some find the issues in different places, doesnt mean you have the right to insult them by claiming they are not knowledgeable on the subject and thus their opinions are invalid. Most reviewers do not make movies, however they are still allowed to review movies.

It is all about the language. You may not personally like the thin limbs going into bulky lower limbs, but it is absurd to say it is bad design, when thick limbs going to thin lowers is instead the absurd design choice.

You are essentially saying people can only have a singular opinion otherwise they are wrong, its incredibly arrogant to disregard everyone elses opinions because they dont agree with your own.

We all have preferences for some designs over others, and that's cool. Hence why criticism is fine and dandy from a personal standpoint. But just saying "this is bad design", especially when historical design principles say the opposite, is not.

You just agree we all have varying prefrences, but then disregard anyone thinking its a bad design because its the opposite of what you value ¬.¬

People in the community are fairly bad at judging character design and seeing why the designers chose what parts and builds they chose within their constraints, but this is another level.

You are not only in the community, but you have just insulted everyone who has an opinion on the sets other than those saying they are perfect.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Scarilian

[Leewan]

Speaking of the MoCr, does anyone remember if that gold mask in the NYCC had the hieroglyphs? If it did, I see no reason to remove them from the plastic version.

The gold mask did have the symbols (see here), but the MoCr displayed at the NYTF is a 3d printed prototype, it's possible that some details are missing because of that. The symbols seem to be present on the boxart, so I guess the final molded mask will have them too.

[Scarilian]

The gold mask did have the symbols (see here), but the MoCr displayed at the NYTF is a 3d printed prototype, it's possible that some details are missing because of that. The symbols seem to be present on the boxart, so I guess the final molded mask will have them too.

Hopefully, has anyone being able to translate them yet?

[Mandate]

The gold mask did have the symbols (see here), but the MoCr displayed at the NYTF is a 3d printed prototype, it's possible that some details are missing because of that. The symbols seem to be present on the boxart, so I guess the final molded mask will have them too.

Congrats on becoming Regulator. Anyway, I don't think anyone has translated anything yet, sadly.

[TheOneVeyronian]

Goodness, I feel incredibly insulted reading through some of those comments about design choices and whatnot (even if they weren't aimed at me, though I never criticised them for being badly designed, it's purely a personal preference), I haven't a problem with thin uppers going into thick lowers at all, it certainly conveys strength and the fact that these warriors have decayed, only leaving their skeletal innards and armour which of course is going to cause quite a stark contrast, but it's one that makes sense (I agree with LewiMOC in fact). It's the shape of the bone which just doesn't look anatomically correct as an upper limb for me, and I just like things to look anatomically correct. A normal bone piece in place of the "bone" bone piece wouldn't bother me as much.

Anyway, that's my last word on it, I don't want to get sucked into any arguments or fan the flames or anything... I just had to say something to explain my choice.

[TheDesuComplex]

The gold mask did have the symbols (see here), but the MoCr displayed at the NYTF is a 3d printed prototype, it's possible that some details are missing because of that. The symbols seem to be present on the boxart, so I guess the final molded mask will have them too.

I am hoping that they are just absent because of the prototype-ness of the part, because when I first saw it I feared that they were omitted because they were too fine a detail. I also gave thought that Lego could print them on a flat surface instead of molding them on directly.

[Nekchir]

I just think a lot peoples opinions are dumb (not on here...Mostly) and shouldn't be voiced if they don't contribute to anything at all.

[Aanchir]

I'm pretty sure almost every post in this thread comes with an unspoken "in my opinion" at the start. I don't think anyone was criticizing these sets of breaking the rules of a theory none of the rest of us had even mentioned. And, to he honest, it's down to personal taste. To me, the green and orange on slicer looks ugly, particularly since they aren't in even amounts.

I don't see how having the orange and other transparent colors in even amounts would be a good thing. The orange is an accent color like the purple on Evo 2.0 or the brown on Vorox, not a primary or secondary color (except, of course, on Skull Grinder). By all rights, it should be used sparingly so that it doesn't dominate the color scheme.

Now, that doesn't mean the color schemes are immune to criticism. There are definitely some of the skull villains who arguably might look better with slightly more or less of certain colors. But using the orange and the other transparent colors in equal measure would probably be overkill.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Aanchir

[Logan McOwen]

Think about it this way everyone: If you have a decent amout of CCBS parts, you'll be able to easily change whatever you don't like about these guys in minutes.

That's it. Done with that topic.

Edited February 19, 2015 by LewiMOC

[VBBN]

Eh, criticize away. I do it on the front page of BZP in reviews, after all. I just think it is laughable to say things like "these are bad colours" when design theory and colour theory disagree. Or things like "the skeletal upper limbs going to bulky lower limbs is bad design" when it is actually the exact opposite. Thin limbs connected to big bulky lower limbs is a common design trope for a reason- it works. Criticize from a play and parts availability or preference theme all you want, I will too, but character and visual design has rules and it has them for a reason, and some of the criticisms in here are absurd and fly in the face of hundreds of years of research and exploration in the field of visual design.

With or without fault, only a handful of people in this topic are knowledgeable or trained enough in the field to properly make those assessments from an objective "this is bad design" standpoint. It is all about the language. You may not personally like the thin limbs going into bulky lower limbs, but it is absurd to say it is bad design, when thick limbs going to thin lowers is instead the absurd design choice. We all have preferences for some designs over others, and that's cool. Hence why criticism is fine and dandy from a personal standpoint. But just saying "this is bad design", especially when historical design principles say the opposite, is not.

People in the community are fairly bad at judging character design and seeing why the designers chose what parts and builds they chose within their constraints, but this is another level.

Regardless of how much you dislike the way others judge sets, that is their own opinion and way of criticizing them, and there is no need for hostility. This discussion ends here.