How much accuracy do you demand in a SW MOC?

[Fallenangel]

Man, what a stupid thing to say... I'm sorry everyone. I'm not an accuracy stickler anymore.

Nah, screw that - the real issue is that it kills me when people don't agree with me. So again, I'm sorry.

[BrickArtist]

I really don't want to step out of line here, and I hate to go against the staff of eurobricks (fellows are staff right?). But in all honesty I feel as though this thread seems to have been made to just bash Fallenangel. Correct me if i'm wrong, but that is the message I'm getting from this thread.

I guess this is reasonable, but are you suggesting that when we post a new moc, we should say, "comment and criticize, but don't actually criticize, I'm happy the way it is" or "comment and criticize, go on, I can take it". I know that for the majority of mocs, people ask for criticisms, so that is what they should be expecting to get, whether it be one sentence, or a lengthy paragraph.

My thoughts exactly, it's called patronizing.

Yeah, some people don't say anything there, but the vibe that you get is: "If you don't like MOC then don't comment and go away". If you the way you feel, don't just implicate it. Regardless, people should accept that they will get at least one criticism, weather they like it or not. When you upload something that people reply to, you can't control their opinions. If you're gonna put it out there, then you have to accept this.

[Clone OPatra]

I really don't want to step out of line here, and I hate to go against the staff of eurobricks (fellows are staff right?). But in all honesty I feel as though this thread seems to have been made to just bash Fallenangel. Correct me if i'm wrong, but that is the message I'm getting from this thread.

Fellows are not staff (except in the Community and Culture & Multimedia forums), and saying what you feel in this discussion cannot possibly be out of line. Although there have been many members (myself included, at times) who have not been happy with the way fallenangel has criticized at times, and even if def felt that way when he created the topic, this topic has spurred some good, healthy, bash-free discussion about the topic at hand, which is I'm sure what def really wanted. Don't take it as a bash on anybody; we're discussing this in here so that it doesn't end up cluttering other people's MOC topics.

I do not agree with you that def meant that people do not actually want criticism. For some that may very well be true, but I am sure it is a very small number. I believe he simply meant that criticism should only be taken to a certain point, which is what this topic is all about.

Should anybody really care that all precise angles from the source material be met in the MOC, and even if someone does, should they say so? That's what we've been discussing, in a sense.

[sok117]

Yeah, some people don't say anything there, but the vibe that you get is: "If you don't like MOC then don't comment and go away". If you the way you feel, don't just implicate it. Regardless, people should accept that they will get at least one criticism, weather they like it or not. When you upload something that people reply to, you can't control their opinions. If you're gonna put it out there, then you have to accept this.

Ah, and so young kiddies, we enter the wild, wild, web!

Thats the Internet for you

[AndyC]

I require all MOCs to be exactly 85.42% accurate. No more, no less. Keep to that and nobody needs to be fed to the rancor.

[Brickdoctor]

Ah, and so young kiddies, we enter the wild, wild, web!

Thats the Internet for you

Personally about the criticisms, (and I'm not disagreeing with you there; I agree with you; I'm addressing the criticism-haters) I feel that if you don't want criticism, post in big, bold, red letters that you don't want any criticism whatsoever. On a site like this, I'm sure we'd all honor your request, but I can promise you that also on a site like this you will get a lot fewer comments. If you want a ton of 'Awsum!'-type comments, go to a non-AFOL forum.

[BrickArtist]

This topic will go nowhere-nobody will change their views, no matter what. It's already a "He said!" and "You said this" type of deal. Nobody will change their point of view. As I said earlier this is a Lego Star Wars Lego Forum, so when you expose your creation you are welcoming infinite people to comment on it, they'll express their opinion. Then you can thank them, and say either you'll take them into account, or that your not too concerned.

Nobody tells people they have to adapt their MOC, they are just stating what they personally think would improve the model. Be mature enough to except that.

I won't be replying here again, unless to defend a members name.

Brickartist out, peace.

[sok117]

Fellows are not staff (except in the Community and Culture & Multimedia forums), and saying what you feel in this discussion cannot possibly be out of line. Although there have been many members (myself included, at times) who have not been happy with the way fallenangel has criticized at times, and even if def felt that way when he created the topic, this topic has spurred some good, healthy, bash-free discussion about the topic at hand, which is I'm sure what def really wanted. Don't take it as a bash on anybody; we're discussing this in here so that it doesn't end up cluttering other people's MOC topics.

I do not agree with you that def meant that people do not actually want criticism. For some that may very well be true, but I am sure it is a very small number. I believe he simply meant that criticism should only be taken to a certain point, which is what this topic is all about.

Should anybody really care that all precise angles from the source material be met in the MOC, and even if someone does, should they say so? That's what we've been discussing, in a sense.

I like the idea of this dissucusion not cluttering other topics, I'm all for that

Criticism should only be taking to a certain point, and I think a simple "PM me if you want me to go into detail" might be a nice way for those who want the extra criticism to get it without cluttering the forum. I think this could work out to be beneficial to everyone.

As for your last point, I think its all up to the person, in my opinion, your statement sounds a little biased. I think it is all up to the people in the situation, some people may like the added details, some people may just want a fun little ship they can fly around. Don't tell me for a second that you've never looked at a moc and said "man, that looks really bad, it's very inaccurate" I'm pretty sure we all have at some point. So, I think people should either just not post at all with criticisms or just use my above idea, because I agree that the clutter in MOC topics is getting a little out of hand.

That being said, this made me laugh

I require all MOCs to be exactly 85.42% accurate. No more, no less. Keep to that and nobody needs to be fed to the rancor.

Thanks

[Clone OPatra]

This topic will go nowhere-nobody will change their views, no matter what.

I won't be replying here again, unless to defend a members name.

Well, that's downright pessimistic, and it sounds from that second comment that you're trying to start some sort of gang war, which to me doesn't seem very healthy either. I really don't know why you think this topic is useless; it seemed like a nice, healthy discussion to me so far. Perhaps it's going nowhere in your mind, but I enjoy reading about what people feel is the right level of accuracy in a SW MOC.

As for your last point, I think its all up to the person, in my opinion, your statement sounds a little biased.

I didn't mean it to be biased; that's why I didn't answer my own question. I'm not sure myself, although based upon m own feelings about accuracy I would say that getting too nit-picky on the minute (or in some cases, not as minute) details just gets tedious.

But sometimes I find myself having a sudden change of mind. There have been times where I think 'this is a great MOC,' and then see a picture of the source material and think 'oh, that is way off.' I think what it really comes down to is being nit-picky in a positive way if you are going to at all, which can be quite a difficult task.

[BrickArtist]

Well, that's downright pessimistic, and it sounds from that second comment that you're trying to start some sort of gang war, which to me doesn't seem very healthy either. I really don't know why you think this topic is useless; it seemed like a nice, healthy discussion to me so far. Perhaps it's going nowhere in your mind, but I enjoy reading about what people feel is the right level of accuracy in a SW MOC.

:laugh: A gang war? On a lego forum? :laugh: Nope, I'm just saying that we all have our personal opinion, and all the discussion here is about how we like to do our MOCs compared to how the other person likes to do their MOCs. How is it pessimistic to recognize when you think somethings bringing out the worst in us? It's like arguing about taste buds, and who has the better ones. They're all individual and react to certain things differently.

You're awesome sok117!

[def]

I really don't want to step out of line here, and I hate to go against the staff of eurobricks (fellows are staff right?). But in all honesty I feel as though this thread seems to have been made to just bash Fallenangel. Correct me if i'm wrong,

Not a bash at all. A member's MOC thread was being highjacked by FallenAngel's intense accuracy demands. I suggested he start a new thread, he chose not to, so I started a new thread to hopefully keep these philosophical discussions from over taking people's MOC threads in the future. No bash.

I guess this is reasonable, but are you suggesting that when we post a new moc, we should say, "comment and criticize, but don't actually criticize, I'm happy the way it is" or "comment and criticize, go on, I can take it". I know that for the majority of mocs, people ask for criticisms, so that is what they should be expecting to get, whether it be one sentence, or a lengthy paragraph.

nope, not at all what I was getting at. I wrote that the creator's intent should be considered, meaning that advice should be to improve their design, not to turn it into your own.

[BrickArtist]

Actually, the creator failed to state their intent. When I attempted to summarize their intent, they got mad at me...

[sok117]

I won't be replying here again, unless to defend a members name.

Brickartist out, peace.

I agree with Cloney on this one, I definitely see something gang war related here.

Emperor "Everything that has transpired has done so according to my design"

why are we fighting about this? The Empire is winning!

I didn't mean it to be biased; that's why I didn't answer my own question. I'm not sure myself, although based upon m own feelings about accuracy I would say that getting too nit-picky on the minute (or in some cases, not as minute) details just gets tedious.

I guess thats fair, I understand how hard it is to not come off as biased when you have a firm stand on one side of the argument, but I respect you for keeping an heir of staff like procedure while doing it And I agree with your point, minute details arn't anything to get picky on, its not a big deal at all and I agree with you on this too.

But sometimes I find myself having a sudden change of mind. There have been times where I think 'this is a great MOC,' and then see a picture of the source material and think 'oh, that is way off.' I think what it really comes down to is being nit-picky in a positive way if you are going to at all, which can be quite a difficult task.

I agree here too! I think Cloney hit the nail on the head here (how many times has that line been used in this topic?). These are all my views on the subject. Minute details are nothing to get picky about, criticize in a positive way, and if it doesn't look a thing like the source, be nice about it. Case Closed.

[BrickArtist]

I agree with Cloney on this one, I definitely see something gang war related here.

Emperor "Everything that has transpired has done so according to my design"

why are we fighting about this? The Empire is winning!

What do you mean? Why does everybody think that post is gang war related. If it is a gang war then...uhmm....FAIL! Yes we are having brawls on lego stores, and vandalizing miniland style lego amusement parks

[sok117]

You're awesome sok117!

Where did that come from?

Actually, the creator failed to state their intent. When I attempted to summarize their intent, they got mad at me...

I assume your talking about Kiel's MOC, I'm pretty sure his intent was to create a BARC speeder, but that's just me. As for you going for accuracy and making your model "perfect" rather then his, well, that sounds like a jab to me, it may not to you, but the Internet is a very tricky place, you may talk to people from where your from like that, but others may not and so much gets lost in translation when your just reading statements from people you don't even know. (no disrespect to any other countries)

What do you mean? Why does everybody think that post is gang war related. If it is a gang war then...uhmm....FAIL! Yes we are having brawls on lego stores, and vandalizing miniland style lego amusement parks

I think people are insinuating that fallenangel and yourself are the "accuracy gang" and more or less everyone else is the "as long as it looks good" gang, and people don't want to see this erupt into a bug fight, which to me it already has a page or so ago.

[BrickArtist]

Where did that come from?

I assume your talking about Kiel's MOC, I'm pretty sure his intent was to create a BARC speeder, but that's just me. As for you going for accuracy and making your model "perfect" rather then his, well, that sounds like a jab to me, it may not to you, but the Internet is a very tricky place, you may talk to people from where your from like that, but others may not and so much gets lost in translation when your just reading statements from people you don't even know. (no disrespect to any other countries)

I think people are insinuating that fallenangel and yourself are the "accuracy gang" and more or less everyone else is the "as long as it looks good" gang, and people don't want to see this erupt into a bug fight, which to me it already has a page or so ago.

You were being respectful, and logical over the course of the debate.

We were talking about members specifying how much criticism they want. I was actually saying the my intent was to reach perfection in detail, and proportions. While KDMs was going for being for aesthetically pleasing. We all have differences as to what's 'perfect' to us. There's no definition of overall perfection. I'll say mine might be more accurate in things, like dimensions(IMO of course). However, KDMs is more pleasing to the eye, it looks so crisp and attractive. While my Bley approach is sort of a bore. Is it more accurate? IMO yes. Does it look better? Most agree-it doesn't. My comments were to show that we both had a unique approach to the build, which we both saw as more pleasing to us.

Nope, no intentions of a 'gang fight' breaking out. Sorry, but I can't stop laughing at the idea of gangs, on a lego forum

[sok117]

You were being respectful, and logical over the course of the debate.

Thank you, I appreciate that very much.

We were talking about members specifying how much criticism they want. I was actually saying the my intent was to reach perfection in detail, and proportions. While KDMs was going for being for aesthetically pleasing. We all have differences as to what's 'perfect' to us. There's no definition of overall perfection. I'll say mine might be more accurate in things, like dimensions(IMO of course). However, KDMs is more pleasing to the eye, it looks so crisp and attractive. While my Bley approach is sort of a bore. Is it more accurate? IMO yes. Does it look better? Most agree-it doesn't. My comments were to show that we both had a unique approach to the build, which we both saw as more pleasing to us.

Well, okay, I guess that can be understandable, but make sure you read things twice before posting, once how you interpret it, and then read it as to how others might interpret it. If we can all do that then I'm sure this forum will be a better place, though it already is pretty good as it is.

Nope, no intentions of a 'gang fight' breaking out. Sorry, but I can't stop laughing at the idea of gangs, on a lego forum

Yes, perhaps gang was the wrong word for cloney to use, but there are several disputes taking place.

I hope you don't mind that I answered different points by using different coloured type within the quote.

[StoutFiles]

Wow, this thread really exploded!

I, for one, enjoy fallenangel's love for accuracy. It's better than someone uploading a MOC and we all clap like seals.

I also think that if two people build the same ship but one model is much more detailed (more time and money) then that person should get more applause for their efforts. What's the point of making anything fancy if we equally applauded every MOC uploaded? "Yeah, if I squint and turn my head it sorta resembles a X-Wing! Yeah! This is amazing! Don't change a thing!" How does that benefit anyone?

We need to keep people on this forum that are willing to offer honest opinions on MOC's and suggest higher levels of accuracy, whether the poster wants to hear it or not. There are plenty of sites where all the comments are positive, but you don't get any better at building from hearing that. Also, from what I've seen, no one has ever been blatantly mean about their opinions. It's just an opinion, you don't have to take a negative one personally.

Edited April 1, 2011 by StoutFiles

[blueandwhite]

I here the word 'accuracy' being bandied about quite a bit, which is quite ironic considering that what constitutes an accurate design is LEGO extremely subjective. For one builder, colour and proportion may be of the highest importance. To another builder, the angles of shapes and elements may demand priority. For a third builder, texture and recognizability may be key goals. It's not possible to achieve all of these things with LEGO bricks. It's the limitations that make building so enjoyable to begin with.

Every MOC demands a huge amount of compromise simply because we are working with a large assortment of prefabricated geometric shapes which can only be assembled in so many ways. The more talented builders in the community have simply found ways to build what they want while making fewer compromises. Many of the differences between the best received MOCs out there are simply a question of personal preference and priority. Of course, when you start ripping into another builder (or builders) for failing to share your priorities you're inevitably going to earn the ere of other AFOLs. Starting a thread to compare and rank your MOC against the works of others while criticizing the shortcomings of those other builds probably won't win you many friends.

[lefty]

I remember 12 years ago when lego star wars was just getting started. I remember half the people overjoyed that their favorite movies and toys were being combined, and the other half were yelling that you could see yellow bricks on the bottom of the millenium falcon.

For a while I was somewhere in the middle; I would get sets and change colors, add bits and bobs that were removed for simplification or to make room for other set functions, but for the most part I was happy with the way the sets came. People can complain about this ship being too small, or that minifig is printed wrong, or this other ship's wings aren't wide enough... but nowadays, I'm just happy to build and get more pieces.

and a side note: it was funny to see when pics of the newest sets were released, and people complained about the hole in the side of the geonosian fighter. It's movie accurate, and some people actually planned to fill it in with bricks. I don't know what to think of SW fans anymore

[Supersonic]

Wow, this thread really exploded!

I, for one, enjoy fallenangel's love for accuracy. It's better than someone uploading a MOC and we all clap like seals.

I also think that if two people build the same ship but one model is much more detailed (more time and money) then that person should get more applause for their efforts. What's the point of making anything fancy if we equally applauded every MOC uploaded? "Yeah, if I squint and turn my head it sorta resembles a X-Wing! Yeah! This is amazing! Don't change a thing!" How does that benefit anyone?

I agree. This is one of two Lego forums I'm on, and I have to admit I rarely see (constructive!) criticism for MOCs here. On the other forum, 99% of the replies to MOC threads here would be considered spam.

Fallenangel is trying to help people who post their MOCs here to make them better. What's the problem with that? Of course, saying it's not an LSW MOC if it isn't accurate goes to far. But it is refreshing to see somebody point out design flaws instead of saying "Awesome, keep up the good work" which is nice too, but rather useless in the end.

IMO, people should build MOCs as accurate as they want. But if they post them here, it should be to discuss flaws/possible changes as well as just to "show off" (which is perfectly fine).

Edited April 1, 2011 by Supersonic

[def]

I'll remind people, this is not a referendum on FallenAngel; it's a discussion on what you like in MOC, inspired by his critique style.

[lefty]

I'll remind people, this is not a referendum on FallenAngel; it's a discussion on what you like in MOC, inspired by his critique style.

MOC

There I go missing the point of the topic again.

As far as MOCs go, I'll accept any level of accuracy. Whether or not I'll consider it a good MOC, that depends on the skill of the builder. Obviously there are some liberties to be taken as far as scale goes, since minifigs are so strangely proportioned compared to humans. But as long as it looks right, it's fine.

People don't make MOCs of ships anymore, it seems like. They just leave it up to LEGO and either make dioramas or invent new ships. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

EDIT: I've now read more of the BARC speeder moc thread that seemed to have spawned this debate... Look, it's unfair to judge a minifig scale MOC in terms of accuracy on the same level as a UCS scale creation. When you're building minifig scale, there are tons of limitations you set on yourself, which is part of the challenge to make it good, and part of the fun. If you're looking at a bike meant for a tiny man to sit on, it's ridiculous to say it's inaccurate because the handles are the wrong shape or something like that. There's only so much you can do with the pieces in existence.

Hell, it goes both ways. You could look at a UCS scale model and scoff because their 1x1 round rivets aren't in the correct orientation, but at that point you're missing the entire point of lego. Why not play with megablocks where everything is premolded and all you have to do is take it out of the box.

Edited April 1, 2011 by lefty

[Fallenangel]

Despite your claim that this is not a referendum on me def the condescending tone of your post in KielDaMan's thread as well as here certainly make it seem that way.

it was funny to see when pics of the newest sets were released, and people complained about the hole in the side of the geonosian fighter. It's movie accurate, and some people actually planned to fill it in with bricks. I don't know what to think of SW fans anymore

Well, as you can infer I was certainly not one of those people... we're all pretty special here. It may just be that people here, being AFOLs, are more familiar with or have a greater affinity for the sets than with the actual ships (as opposed to myself, who became more acquainted with the ships through a careful look at the sets). 7658 Y-wing and 7665 Republic Cruiser are undoubtedly the best examples of this.

I agree. This is one of two Lego forums I'm on, and I have to admit I rarely see (constructive!) criticism for MOCs here. On the other forum, 99% of the replies to MOC threads here would be considered spam.

Fallenangel is trying to help people who post their MOCs here to make them better. What's the problem with that? Of course, saying it's not an LSW MOC if it isn't accurate goes to far. But it is refreshing to see somebody point out design flaws instead of saying "Awesome, keep up the good work" which is nice too, but rather useless in the end.

The spam issue is also something that really bothers me; that's one reason I moved away from sites like MOCpages and Flickr. What initially attracted me to sites like Eurobricks was the amount of MOCing talent as well as a concern for good quality. I admit I was rather disappointed by the number of regular spammers on these boards once I had spent spent some time here.

The reason people don't like my criticism is that I'm apparently being "condescending and unpleasant" and "knocking into others for failing to achieve perfection", to quote blueandwhite, though I honestly don't know why anyone would even bring up perfection on a LEGO forum. People here don't like being compared to other MOCers and held to high standards for aesthetic appeal, nor do they like others being told that they failed to include certain details in an MOC that someone else could (in a way that was both accurate and aesthetically pleasing, I might add) despite the fact that in hearing this they gain potential to improve their build. You may even go so far as to say some MOCers here aren't willing to have people have a thoughtful opinion of their MOC and thus view criticism, constructive or otherwise, as demeaning and offensive.

While I would agree that my criticism was rather brutal, I maintain that in spite of the fact that I've repeated myself on this matter at least a hundred times my stance on how much accuracy is to be expected (or whether any accuracy should be expected, for that matter) has been misrepresented in this topic as being more extremist than it actually is, partly because people here keep mashing my words (def's insistence that whenever I use the word "resemble" I actually mean "replicate" is only one instance of this) and partly because of a recent thread involving three Fellows and more instances of misinterpretation and MOC bashing than anyone was willing to tolerate, myself included.

blueandwhite, since you've brought this up for the second time, allow me to explain that I was NOT hell-bent on criticizing others and making myself look good but was instead trying to convey to marshal_banana that my repeated jabs at his X-wing were not to say that it was any better or worse than other X-wing MOCs I've seen. I've already changed my style of criticism drastically (that's right, def) so I don't see how labeling me the antagonist is going to help you or anyone else here.

Oh, and by the way, lefty, this was made only a few months ago:

The practice of making MOCs of ships is alive and well, so I'm afraid I don't see what you mean. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that superfluously detailed minifigures have been all the rage since the introduction of battle packs in '07 and the debut of THE Clone Wars in '08.

lefty... if you look at brickartist's own minifigure scale BARC, you can see that the handlebars have in fact been done quite correctly and done well at that. I think you may be underestimating just how much people can do with LEGO in a small scale, and in doing so you've offended countless MOCers here, myself included. Referring me to plastic bricks of an even lower quality doesn't do much to help your argument either.

[def]

Despite your claim that this is not a referendum on me def the condescending tone of your post in KielDaMan's thread as well as here certainly make it seem that .

As much as I trust your expertise in the area of condescending tones, the thread was started because I expressly suggested you start a new thread in Kiel's thread, and rather than do it, you made a long, long reply with some stuff I really wanted to address, like your calling bad MOCs, like, obscenities. I thought it a discussion worth having, but not in someone's personal MOC thread. If that answer isn't convincing enough for you, please PM me or take it up with a moderator, but it's not worth discussing in this thread.