Fixing some villian issues.....

[zero1312]

I like the new villians, but some are cursed what I call LGC (Lame Gimmick Curse). Here are my efforts to at least make them less lame.

First Pyrox:

Just some parts to fill his empty back.

Scarox:

With less floppy back arms.

Bruizzer:

And the one who neede an upgrade the most.

No Ogrum here as I bought him just for parts.

[Vinyl Scratch]

Man, Scarox really looks better this way. I'll steal your idea when I get Scarox if you don't mind.

Overall, small changes, but they really are nice changes.

[xxlrocka]

Just a question, do they keep the functions the originals had?

[zero1312]

Just a question, do they keep the functions the originals had?

You mean the floppy arms on Scarox and Bruizer?

Obviously no....

[Nike2032]

Hey zero1312, may I ask where you got the double ball joint piece on Bruizer's back? Because I must say, your re-design of him is sheer brilliance!

Edited January 8, 2013 by Nike2032

[DraikNova]

Hey zero1312, may I ask where you got the double ball joint piece on Bruizer's back? Because I must say, your re-design of him is sheer brilliance!

It's available in a lot of sets. Drilldozer was the first set to have that piece.

Anyway, I must say that your back armor works very well.

[Nike2032]

It's available in a lot of sets. Drilldozer was the first set to have that piece.

Anyway, I must say that your back armor works very well.

Thanks for the answer, but NOOOO! I just sold Drilldozer a month or two ago :(

[xxlrocka]

You mean the floppy arms on Scarox and Bruizer?

Obviously no....

But what about Pyrox's spinning spinny weapon function. Because I like spinning things, for whatever reason.

[DraikNova]

Thanks for the answer, but NOOOO! I just sold Drilldozer a month or two ago :(

Don't worry, there are more sets that have that piece. I have like three of them.

Edited January 8, 2013 by DraikNova

[Nike2032]

Don't worry, there are more sets that have that piece. I have like three of them.

Hehe, ok, I'll calm down now

But I must say, I still really like Bruizer even with his arm function, so I guess I'm ok.

[zero1312]

But what about Pyrox's spinning spinny weapon function. Because I like spinning things, for whatever reason.

That is still intact since it's not getting in the way of the articulation.

[Aethersprite]

Your idea for fixing Bruizer's back is sheer brilliance, I'm tempted to get Bruizer now just to try that.

[Aanchir]

Personally, I wish you could have kept Bruizer's function while still giving him greater flexibility (for instance, having the construction on his back intact but having the arm mounted to it by a ball joint rather than a beam/liftarm. Bruizer's function is quite nice in my opinion and would be ideal if he could keep that while gaining greater articulation.

I don't see how your changes to Scarox are much of an improvement at all. His proportions are still lacking, with short, spindly arms attached to a solid-looking body. The bizarre function is gone, but that does his appearance very little good from the front.

Your modification to Pyrox is good. Nice, simple, and unobtrusive, adding to the set without taking away from it. It also feels fairly solid, unlike the constructions you've put on Scarox and Bruizer's backs which end up feeling like a blocky Technic construction despite mostly using Hero Factory elements.

Edited January 10, 2013 by Aanchir

[zero1312]

Personally, I wish you could have kept Bruizer's function while still giving him greater flexibility (for instance, having the construction on his back intact but having the arm mounted to it by a ball joint rather than a beam/liftarm. Bruizer's function is quite nice in my opinion and would be ideal if he could keep that while gaining greater articulation.

I don't see how your changes to Scarox are much of an improvement at all. His proportions are still lacking, with short, spindly arms attached to a solid-looking body. The bizarre function is gone, but that does his appearance very little good from the front.

Your modification to Pyrox is good. Nice, simple, and unobtrusive, adding to the set without taking away from it. It also feels fairly solid, unlike the constructions you've put on Scarox and Bruizer's backs which end up feeling like a blocky Technic construction despite mostly using Hero Factory elements.

Thanks for your honest feedback. I was thinking about keeping the gimmick on Bruizer, but I want the limbs solid and not all wobbly.

I wanted to keep Scarox' proportions and remove the gimmick, that's all. Not an improvement, but a removal of an issue with this figure.

[Cahillrebel]

Thanks for your honest feedback. I was thinking about keeping the gimmick on Bruizer, but I want the limbs solid and not all wobbly.

I wanted to keep Scarox' proportions and remove the gimmick, that's all. Not an improvement, but a removal of an issue with this figure.

And isn't Scarox supposed to be thin. He represents a spider-like creature. Spiders are thin. Also, I like that Bruizer"s gimmick is gone. It looks quite better than with it. Maybe if LEGO didn't use gimmicks this time like that, they would have made the arm like Zero did it.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Cahillrebel

[DuncanBulk98]

Nice work. The model designers could learn a thing or two from you.

[Aanchir]

Nice work. The model designers could learn a thing or two from you.

What makes you think that? I'll admit these mods might be better versions of the sets to some people. That doesn't mean they'd be affordable without bumping up the price points, or they'd be perceived as worthwhile when a lot of kids might prefer the functions.

Believe it or not, professional toy design isn't a couple people building knick-knacks and then releasing them just to get a feel for how people like them. It's very, VERY deliberate. There's a lot of research and careful consideration that takes place before and during the design process. There's no doubt that designers occasionally cut corners; however, they don't do that just because they don't know how to make the models any better. They do it because they're working with constraints-- whether those are the expectations and preferences of the audience, or the price points that are likely to bring in the highest profits, or the level of building complexity that's needed to maximize the age range the set appeals to.

I don't mean this as a criticism of these MOCs, but that doesn't change that designing MOCs is very different than designing sets. The only things that affect the design of MOCs are the opinions and preferences of the person building them and the level of value they place on the opinions and preferences of the people he expects to show them to. Set design has a lot of other factors involved.