Bionicle 2016 Sets Discussion

[Quisoves Pugnat]

I got the sense that he was using Brutaka as an example of an aesthetic failure, failure that was part of Bionicle's downfall buy affecting sales, thus business.

Whether or not he thinks that is irrelevant to his point, that he thinks Brutaka manifested the worst of Bionicle's aesthetics.

[Shakar]

True, Umarak does really give a zombie feel, even more than the Skeletons do in certain aspects. It's probably due to his colours, I don't know why. He looks like something out of Resident Evil.

[MakutaOfWar]

The amount that people complain about the aesthetics of G1 always makes me think, "Then why did they like it?". And it wasn't just "the early years" either, every year of G1 Bio had these aesthetics, practical or not. Or the argument that it carried over from Slizers. They had 8 and a half years to change it and they didn't.

If you don't like the sets, then *gasp* Don't Buy Them 0.0, TLG doesn't cater to a select group. They try what they think makes the dough, whether it bakes properly is up to the target consumer.

[Lord-Vorahk]

I just like reminding people that the Toa Mata's proportions were even more inhuman than the Inika, they still had clashing textures (See the Mata leg, the Mata weapon arm, the Mata torso), and it's the well-proportioned, consistent Toa Metru that are the odd ones out among Gen 1's sets.

Bionicle has never had perfectly humanoid and unified sets. The idea that they do is the result of people being blinded by nostalgia for the early years.

That's not to say that the older sets are bad. By the standards of the time, the Mata are great, so are the Metru (Though the Hagah blow them out of the water without even trying), and I love the fact that the sets aren't generic humanoids, that they have alien proportions and mixing design elements. But mixing textures and odd proportions have been with us since the beginning, and we shouldn't pretend that they haven't.

[Quisoves Pugnat]

The amount that people complain about the aesthetics of G1 always makes me think, "Then why did they like it?". And it wasn't just "the early years" either, every year of G1 Bio had these aesthetics, practical or not.

Speaking as someone who is fond of each year of BIONICLE, I still think you'd be hard-pressed to say that 2001 is aesthetically identical to 2004, let alone to 2006.

[dviddy]

The amount that people complain about the aesthetics of G1 always makes me think, "Then why did they like it?". And it wasn't just "the early years" either, every year of G1 Bio had these aesthetics, practical or not. Or the argument that it carried over from Slizers. They had 8 and a half years to change it and they didn't.If you don't like the sets, then *gasp* Don't Buy Them 0.0, TLG doesn't cater to a select group. They try what they think makes the dough, whether it bakes properly is up to the target consumer.

I think that's a fair question, though there are a lot of things that happened in the line over those years. The design style of the sets very seriously changed over the line's history. Yes, the first few years still had extraneous mechanical details, but they balanced that with smoother, less-complicated design language that married together very well. Latter years had more visually busy and complex design language, and not all these criticisms are things that I personally noticed at the time. I knew that I liked the sets less, and found them much less visually compelling, but I didn't have the words to describe the how or why. I've also followed the story as much as possible over the line's history, and while I have a lot of negative things to say about Greg's writing, the direction he took the story, etc, it was still important to me. Still is! Plus the community means a lot to me. Though the number one reason I've bought sets and maintained a presence in the community has been because I am, first and foremost, a MOC builder. That alone makes things complicated, because sometimes I hate a set's visual design or build, but it is so very very full of things I want or need for a build (Witch Doctor comes to mind). CCBS parts still aren't as available as I need on Bricklink, and the bricks and pieces option on S@H moves too slowly for the manner I build in.

There's a lot more to things than one angle. I don't currently enjoy the visual design change from the 2015 Toa to these. We'll see if that changes in better images, perhaps there's something to the tooling that makes the detailed new parts fit the aesthetic. Maybe in person they will work better. IDK. Sometimes a set looks great in images, but I hate it in person (Darth Vader), and sometimes it looks awful in images but awesome in person (Onua 2015).

and it's the well-proportioned, consistent Toa Metru that are the odd ones out among Gen 1's sets

Agreed, though I can safely say Toa Iruini is my favourite set in the history of BIONICLE. What a great set.

[Lord-Vorahk]

Agreed, though I can safely say Toa Iruini is my favourite set in the history of BIONICLE. What a great set.

Iruni is definitely the better of the two Hagah, but it's worth noting that he has longer legs and arms next to his torso build, something that became a sticking point in later years.

[Timeline15]

I guess I just don't have the same eye for textures that most people dp :/. I hear people all the time complain about the texture of kalmah's armour, but I have used, (and seen it used), on tonnes of mocs, and though it looked gorgeous on all of them. the pattern never bothered me.

Equally, Brutaka is possibly my favourite G1 set of all time. xD

Though I fully accept that now that ccbs has taken the "smooth" aesthetic to the extreme, the differences are a lot more visible.

[DraikNova]

I think that's a fair question, though there are a lot of things that happened in the line over those years. The design style of the sets very seriously changed over the line's history. Yes, the first few years still had extraneous mechanical details, but they balanced that with smoother, less-complicated design language that married together very well. Latter years had more visually busy and complex design language, and not all these criticisms are things that I personally noticed at the time. I knew that I liked the sets less, and found them much less visually compelling, but I didn't have the words to describe the how or why. I've also followed the story as much as possible over the line's history, and while I have a lot of negative things to say about Greg's writing, the direction he took the story, etc, it was still important to me. Still is! Plus the community means a lot to me. Though the number one reason I've bought sets and maintained a presence in the community has been because I am, first and foremost, a MOC builder. That alone makes things complicated, because sometimes I hate a set's visual design or build, but it is so very very full of things I want or need for a build (Witch Doctor comes to mind). CCBS parts still aren't as available as I need on Bricklink, and the bricks and pieces option on S@H moves too slowly for the manner I build in.

There's a lot more to things than one angle. I don't currently enjoy the visual design change from the 2015 Toa to these. We'll see if that changes in better images, perhaps there's something to the tooling that makes the detailed new parts fit the aesthetic. Maybe in person they will work better. IDK. Sometimes a set looks great in images, but I hate it in person (Darth Vader), and sometimes it looks awful in images but awesome in person (Onua 2015).

Agreed, though I can safely say Toa Iruini is my favourite set in the history of BIONICLE. What a great set.

Thank you. The issue that I have with some of Bionicle's later years is pretty much this. From 2001 through 2003, at least, most of the areas with different textures were clearly demarcated different components. Meanwhile, in the later years, that changed to have some parts consist of about five different styles at once, while at other times, they adopted different visual styles for components that could better have been left identical.

[TwistLaw]

Well, for me Brutaka is the best set from G1... guess we can't really have a serious discussion in that sense, our points of view are too far from each other.

Back on topic, we're getting TWO 30$ sets in january right?

[MakutaOfWar]

2016 has a blend of CCBS and Technic, though. I wouldn't necessarily call it as bad as the 'later years', but I can understand where the concern comes from.

And since you've brought up MoCing, that's one of the larger problems I've had, personally, with CCBS. I understand it's easier to create a basic figure with just a standard design(like many of the CCBS HF sets), but some key components of CCBS are fairly rarely used in sets(double socket bones, armor additions, etc.), and when they are included i would say they're scarce, thus harder to find a decent supply of to someone like me who gets parts from buying duplicate sets and who likes adding detail and more customized builds. Which is why I'm all for these new shells, they blend nicely with CCBS, in my opinion. I was even fine with the littlest amount of detail they added this year, what mattered to me was that it 'feels' like Bionicle and not HF in that it has more complexity and unique builds. But it's all personal opinions, nobody's the same. *just made this semi-off-topic but whatever*

And you don't like the darth vader set? Irony. :P

[Shakar]

Only Kopaka+Melum is 30, Umarak should be 20.

[Fulcrumfan91]

The amount that people complain about the aesthetics of G1 always makes me think, "Then why did they like it?". And it wasn't just "the early years" either, every year of G1 Bio had these aesthetics, practical or not. Or the argument that it carried over from Slizers. They had 8 and a half years to change it and they didn't.

If you don't like the sets, then *gasp* Don't Buy Them 0.0, TLG doesn't cater to a select group. They try what they think makes the dough, whether it bakes properly is up to the target consumer.

This. Thank you!

[dviddy]

2016 has a blend of CCBS and Technic, though. I wouldn't necessarily call it as bad as the 'later years', but I can understand where the concern comes from.

I don't think it's as bad as those years either, my original post simply stated that it felt like a step towards that direction and away from the unified design language the designers spoke so highly of at NYCC. I liked that, I bought into it, I agreed with it. This feels like the wrong direction to me, so far. Like I've said, maybe that will change when we get different and better images.

[Fulcrumfan91]

Po-ha-tu! Po-ha-tu! Po-ha-tu! ....with a tail!

[TwistLaw]

Only Kopaka+Melum is 30, Umarak should be 20.

mmh are you sure? They contain the exact same amount of pieces (172).

[MakutaOfWar]

mmh are you sure? They contain the exact same amount of pieces (172).

Placeholder amount, most likely. Umarak's legs only contain about 38-40 pieces, highly doubt he's 172 pieces.

[TwistLaw]

Placeholder amount, most likely. Umarak's legs only contain about 38-40 pieces, highly doubt he's 172 pieces.

This means Umarak reaches the 80 pieces benchmark by his legs alone. Counting in his bow, the torso, the antlers and the arms... 172 doesn't seem such an absurde amount

EDIT: you meant 40 pieces between the two legs, sorry.

Edited September 22, 2015 by TwistLaw

[MakutaOfWar]

This means Umarak reaches the 80 pieces benchmark by his legs alone. Counting in his bow, the torso, the antlers and the arms... 172 doesn't seem such an absurde amount

EDIT: you meant 40 pieces between the two legs, sorry.

No problem, I thought people might get confused by my statement. Also I forgot to count some other additions that are hidden on his leg/legs, but still I don't think the legs combined grant more then 50 pieces.

Are people even noticing Umarak's holstered melee weapon on his left leg? Looks like a Skull villain blade.

[Aanchir]

The amount that people complain about the aesthetics of G1 always makes me think, "Then why did they like it?". And it wasn't just "the early years" either, every year of G1 Bio had these aesthetics, practical or not. Or the argument that it carried over from Slizers. They had 8 and a half years to change it and they didn't.

If you don't like the sets, then *gasp* Don't Buy Them 0.0, TLG doesn't cater to a select group. They try what they think makes the dough, whether it bakes properly is up to the target consumer.

People are allowed to like things that they know are flawed. Sometimes people are fully aware of these flaws but like the thing for other reasons. Other times, people only become aware of these flaws in hindsight, particularly if an alternative that doesn't have these same flaws presents itself.

Goodness knows there are a lot of people who absolutely loved the classic video games of the 1980s like Pac-Man, Donkey Kong, Super Mario Bros, and The Legend of Zelda. And understandably so — they were great games for their time. But continuing to love those games for what they were doesn't have to mean thinking video games should go back to how they were back then now that better graphics, gameplay, and storytelling are possible. Nor does it mean that a game designed to imitate 1980s sounds, gameplay, and graphics will be as popular with kids today as it was with kids back then.

The same goes for G1 Bionicle. There are many things it arguably did better than any other toy of its time. But that doesn't mean kids and adults have no reason to expect better today, after designers have had so many years to learn and develop and after the standards for LEGO design have gotten so much higher.

I just like reminding people that the Toa Mata's proportions were even more inhuman than the Inika, they still had clashing textures (See the Mata leg, the Mata weapon arm, the Mata torso), and it's the well-proportioned, consistent Toa Metru that are the odd ones out among Gen 1's sets.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean. With the Toa Mata weapon arm I get your point slightly, but the Toa Mata leg and Toa Mata torso had almost the exact same defining motifs: pistons and deep, angular cavities. The pistons even all had the same diameter! By contrast, the 2006 sets introduced a texture (circular dots arranged in an array of equilateral triangles) that was not present in any previous Bionicle parts. The 2007 sets introduced even more textures, like the larger elliptical spots on Kalmah's armor shells, the bulbous, segmented shape of Takadox's armor shells, the scalloped edges of so many of that year's blade pieces, etc.

None of these textures was inherently bad. The problem is that as Bionicle went on, picking up texture after texture, it became far more complicated than when it had started out. Worse, there was no "default" state for the the foundation of the build — instead, certain shapes, sizes, and functions were restricted to certain textures. Want a lower leg beam with that dot texture from 2006? It only comes in one shape and size — the 8M Piraka lower leg beam. Want a torso beam with that texture? There's only one, and it's eleven modules wide at the shoulders. Want a 7M lower leg beam? You're limited to two basic designs — the Vahki lower leg beam and the Toa Metru lower leg beam. If you want different textures or proportions than those at that size (like, say, something more visually compatible with a Toa Nuva lower leg) you have to go with a completely custom solution. Whereas the interchangeability of CCBS means you can get lots of different sizes and shapes of lower leg depending on which beams and shells you use, what angle you attach them at, and whether you include any add-ons.

And after just one year of G2 Bionicle, some of the 2016 sets are starting to exhibit some texture problems of their own. The new Tahu's shoulders, forearms, upper legs, and lower legs appear to use four very different textures that aren't repeated anywhere else in the build. Maybe this might be less egregious in the final set than in this one preliminary image, but in the image we've seen it seems more than a little problematic.

[MakutaOfWar]

People are allowed to like things that they know are flawed. Sometimes people are fully aware of these flaws but like the thing for other reasons. Other times, people only become aware of these flaws in hindsight, particularly if an alternative that doesn't have these same flaws presents itself.

Goodness knows there are a lot of people who absolutely loved the classic video games of the 1980s like Pac-Man, Donkey Kong, Super Mario Bros, and The Legend of Zelda. And understandably so — they were great games for their time. But continuing to love those games for what they were doesn't have to mean thinking video games should go back to how they were back then now that better graphics, gameplay, and storytelling are possible. Nor does it mean that a game designed to imitate 1980s sounds, gameplay, and graphics will be as popular with kids today as it was with kids back then.

The same goes for G1 Bionicle. There are many things it arguably did better than any other toy of its time. But that doesn't mean kids and adults have no reason to expect better today, after designers have had so many years to learn and develop and after the standards for LEGO design have gotten so much higher.

But what's stating CCBS is more visually appealing then G1 Bio? Using video game graphics as an example is so and so because the most common definition of 'good' is based on how realistic they look, other then that it's personal taste. Maybe many 8th gen games look better realistically then 7th gen, no argument there, but maybe someone prefers cell-shading and others don't, no argument here either.

Nothing is saying CCBS is better then OGBio other then taste. But I understand what you mean by how 'others' might like CCBS more now that they're introduced to it, but neither system is superior in terms of design other then solely personal opinion.

Edit: I derailed this topic, especially since there's a topic I Created for these discussions. Sorry, everybody.

Edited September 22, 2015 by MakutaOfWar

[Lord-Vorahk]

And since you've brought up MoCing, that's one of the larger problems I've had, personally, with CCBS. I understand it's easier to create a basic figure with just a standard design(like many of the CCBS HF sets), but some key components of CCBS are fairly rarely used in sets(double socket bones, armor additions, etc.), and when they are included i would say they're scarce, thus harder to find a decent supply of

This. The double-socket bone is a great example: How many Bonkle 2015 sets is it in? One. How many of said piece are in that set? One. CCBS has loads of great pieces and designs, but they're incredibly scarce. Meanwhile, each set I pick up, when it eventually gets scrapped, leaves me with an ever-increasing pile of bley upper limb bones that I'm never going to use. Sure, there are plenty of Bonkle limb pieces in my drawers, far more than CCBS ones, but that's not because I find them useless. Au contraire, I'm an unskilled MOCer who mainly uses modified Inika builds because I love me some Inika builds (As long as they get sufficiently bulked up in the chest and torso length), and as such, Bonkle lower limbs are always appreciated. But I've yet to really start MOCing in CCBS because too few sets have the good parts.

The same goes for G1 Bionicle. There are many things it arguably did better than any other toy of its time. But that doesn't mean kids and adults have no reason to expect better today, after designers have had so many years to learn and develop and after the standards for LEGO design have gotten so much higher.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean. With the Toa Mata weapon arm I get your point slightly, but the Toa Mata leg and Toa Mata torso had almost the exact same defining motifs: pistons and deep, angular cavities. The pistons even all had the same diameter!

I've got the two pieces right here, and one is chunky, blocky, and the faux "waist joint" is a segmented section. The limb is skeletal and thin, the cavities being much shallower, and it has one of only two molded-in limb hinges in Bionicle (The other being on the Mata weapon arm,as other pre-bent limbs didn't tend to have visible joints). And the thing is, I don't really consider them better. Yeah, they're great toys. But CCBS friction decay is a problem- Some of my 2015 sets are very floppy, whereas my 05-07 Bonkle sockets are only just starting to break- a lot of the weapons are too heavy and exacerbate this, along with the gear system, while beloved for adding complexity and aiming right for the nostalgia, leads to some floppiness if the weapons and arm construction is too heavy for the friction gears, something I've experienced on Tahu, Gali, Ekimu and Kulta. There's also a tendency for CCBS to repeat mistakes Bonkle made, even when Bonkle fixed them. Case in point, 2009, while I don't like the story year that much, had far fewer metallic colours. Elemental colourations were back for both figures and weapons. But then in CCBS, we have silver and gunmetal everywhere. Gali, while she's a great set, has more gunmetal and silver than dark azure, and as a result, using her golden mask makes her look pretty bad, because suddenly she's very much not-blue.

This will annoy some people, but I like the 2008 Toa's colour schemes a hell of a lot more than the 2015 Toa's.

The 08 Toa had two major colours each: Their element colour, of which there was a lot: Taking Lewa as an example: Lime mask, chest, and every single socket piece on the set. Everyone's least favourite Mistika? Earth blue mask, connectors, hips. How about 2015 Lewa? Bright green mask, forearm, thigh, and torso armour, keetorange shins, shoulder armour, silver face, swords, feet, hands, chestplate, spikes, black forearms, shins, torso, gears, grey upper arms, thighs, back, yellow gear, hilts and chest detailing, lime chest print, and gunmetal axe blades, with a potential additional gold mask as well.

There were outlyers: Onua's red fins and Kopaka's gunmetal chestplate, but for the most part, the 08 Toa maintained a solid colour scheme. The 15 Toa have their elemental colour, a trans colour, two or three metallic colours, any additional armour colours, black, bley, yellow, etc.

I consider the two lines to be honestly pretty much equal.

[TwistLaw]

-long post-

Interesting reading, but do kids really care about all this stuff?

[YellowCorvette]

Interesting reading, but do kids really care about all this stuff?

As a Lego Fan, I think that not all kids don't care about their toys, and say that children doesn't care isn't fair. I sure that a children can choose which is the toy that suitable for them.

[TwistLaw]

As a Lego Fan, I think that not all kids don't care about their toys, and say that children doesn't care isn't fair. I sure that a children can choose which is the toy that suitable for them.

That wasn't at all my point. My question was: do kids care about clashing textures in their toys? As a kid I disliked the Barraki because they looked ugly, not because they had never before seen textures.

Also, regardless of what people may say, Brutaka is my favourite set since 2006. No matter how badly its textures do clash.

Edited September 23, 2015 by TwistLaw