Original Bionicle vs CCBS discussion

[MakutaOfWar]

Decided to keep this out of both the Bio Gen 1 discussion and any of the CCBS threads. Feel free to post your pros and cons of each system.

Personal opinion: One thing that I think some people don't get is that aesthetic and detail is a big factor of builds and MoCs, in that factor OGBio excels. Building experience, both are very fun and unique, but also similar, building experiences. While CCBS I believe supplies a more reliable selection of pieces in terms of socket durability, and also has the potential for amazing builds, which have been a fairly rare occurrence in set form, but a fairly common in community builds.

OGBio: 2 Points, CCBS: 2 Points. Making, in my opinion, a neutral ground on which the two stand. I also believe that, since CCBS is here to stay, it could learn a thing or two from the original system.

Edited April 24, 2015 by MakutaOfWar

[Lord-Vorahk]

Benefits of each system:

Well, I think CCBS is much easier to get a good looking model from, and allows creativity without resorting to ugly messes of technic. It's also much easier on the wallet, since you don't need hundreds upon hundreds of pins for every set.

OGBonkle, on the other hand, does, at this point, have many more options. In building a Bionicle character, your options are huge, even if it's just going to have a mask, while mask-wearing CCBS Bonkles have to make-do with the currently limited 2015 masks and the few HF helms that look decent as masks. It's rmore rewarding for the fans of more complex builds, evenif the result doesn't look great.

[The Kumquat Alchemist]

Awesome greebles versus better versatility.

Edited April 24, 2015 by The Kumquat Alchemist

[Kalhiki]

Man. I've been debating with myself on which one is better and which I prefer for a while now. I think the CCBS figures look better, but the G1 style is easier to build with... Though that may be because I've had more experience with it?

I don't know, I think Original Bio has more options in terms of building. For instance, it's much easier to make custom bodies and limbs with it than CCBS.

But, I find CCBS pretty good for making larger-scale MoCs. The pieces just seem bigger and easier to work with, and you can quickly fill a lot of volume.

Tough call on which is better. I don't think one really is better than the other. I prefer to just build with both systems.

[TheOneVeyronian]

CCBS is by far my preferred system of building, but that's probably because I could never really get the hang of the G1 building system when it comes to MOC's. I could never make anything very coherent with the old system, and for me, most of what I build doesn't need all the piston-y greebles that the old system offered. I like the clean look and versatility of CCBS, which I've used to create everything from robots and mechs to organic creatures and almost everything else in between. Plus, all CCBS parts are generic and easy to use almost anywhere, that's the beauty of it.

However, the old Bionicle system does have the advantage of being a more established system (in that it has more pieces to work with in more colours, not to mention more masks if you build things like Toa and Matoran), but the pieces I feel tend to be more specialised (try using something like a Piraka torso for anything other than a torso or part of a torso, in a way that looks good and purposeful. The CCBS torso bones are much easier to use in non-torso applications I think, such as in the head of this steed). The greebles in the old system are great if you want something to look visibly mechanical, or even to give it a steampunk sort of vibe if you're into that sort of thing, but ultimately, it's harder to MOC with than CCBS and to say some experience with Technic to build wholly in G1 style effectively is perhaps an understatement, especially when you want to go big.

Needless to say, it will always be CCBS for me. This post has not just been a shameless plug for my MOC's by the way

[DuckBricks]

I'll just repeat what I said before...

Personally, I think that CCBS is far greater than the Inika torso, but of course, isn't perfect as well. The CCBS torsos have both Technic pins AND balljoint connections, opening up WAY more possibilities than the Inika torsos. As for Technic pins on the armor shells, yes, I think having Technic pins on CCBS armor shells would be nice to see as well. But CCBS did away with two types of connections. You couldn't attach, say, an armor piece from Gen 1 to a balljoint as they used two different mini systems inside their own big system (Ball joints and Technic pins)

While there are several amazing MOCs using the old build, CCBS just opens up so many new possibilities. Wanted a snap a ball joint in the center of the torso? or between the leg area? Or even on the shoulders? With the Inika build, tails were quite hard to achieve without adding on a floppy Technic pin and an extra balljoint element, shoulder armor could only be shoulder armor, and not wings, back spikes, or extra arms, and you couldn't attach balljoints to the center of the torso (or anywhere else on the torso) without floppy blue pins and an extra balljoint element that were prone to falling off with too much weight. Now, with CCBS, we can even create non-humanoid characters based on that entire torso (Case in point, IfB Wave 2). Yes, this kind of thing was possible with Gen 1 parts, but CCBS makes it so much easier! CCBS has truly made Bionicle building a system, which is what LEGO is all about

[Voxovan]

In my opinion, the old system is the best, simply because it's more technic-compatible than the CCBS and it's easier to make custom stuff with it. I recently wanted to make a custom torso using one of the CCBS bone pieces and I had a really hard time with it, because there's only one pin hole you have access to, and you can't attach anything you want to it, because there's a balljoint next to it which doesn't allow some of the pieces to be connected. The old system was based on axles and pins, so problems like that didn't occur... like, ever?

[One Very Agile Cat]

I like both, I mix both. I don't see why everything must be a contest. Bionicle may have a cooler style to some, but that style rather aggressively seperates it from some things you can make. Hard to do simple and clean with little pistons and pin holes and dots everywhere.

[moegoglkd]

Hard to do simple and clean with little pistons and pin holes and dots everywhere.

Edited April 25, 2015 by moegoglkd

[Lord-Vorahk]

Hard to do simple and clean with little pistons and pin holes and dots everywhere.

Image be broken.

[GK733]

I have high hopes for CCBS. With IFB and reboot of Bionicle they are showing they can make something new. It has just started breaking off the ground, 2016 will define if it can do better and I strongly believe it will.

[Toa Eljay]

While I really enjoy both, I can see that CCBS edges out as a victor in regards to versatility, design, and durability. I have a soft spot for the original Bionicle/technic based system (since it's what I'm better at building with at the moment. =P), but I'm impressed and content with CCBS. I'm eager to see more pieces and colors added to the pallet.

[Lord-Vorahk]

I think the only real weakness CCBS has is a lack of certain parts in certain colours, and I'm sure we'll get things like the chest addon in the Toa's colours when LEGO need the gold pieces to be special and only for the team's Sixth Seventh Ranger again.

[Aanchir]

The greebly look of G1 BIONICLE parts could look nice aesthetically when used in particular ways, but it presented some major problems for me as a MOCist and artist due to the many disparate textures it included. It could often be hard to build an original character or even draw an official character without the textures of their parts clashing.

I greatly prefer building CCBS MOCs to building classic BIONICLE MOCs. I don't have to be nearly so persnickety about what parts I use just to ensure a model has the bare minimum of stylistic consistency, and I have considerably more control over my models' proportions. Additionally, I have much more fun drawing CCBS characters in a set-accurate or near-set-accurate style than G1 BIONICLE characters, since there isn't so much tedious and extraneous clutter to deal with. The smooth, clean look of CCBS feels more refined and less ramshackle than the high-detail look of G1 BIONICLE parts, and is more consistent with the smooth, clean simplicity of LEGO System and LEGO Technic bricks.

What's more, the CCBS is simply more of an actual building system than G1 parts were. Shells and beams are basic, interchangeable, and come in a modular system of lengths, just like basic LEGO System bricks and plates or LEGO Technic beams and axles. Any shell can be used on any beam in any orientation. And just like G1 BIONICLE, there is plenty of potential for more advanced customization with other System and Technic parts. It is, after all, still a Technic-based building system.

The fact that CCBS even has basic parts is a godsend for building, since you can build in an orderly fashion — starting with a basic foundation and then adding detail. The only G1 parts I'd consider "basic BIONICLE parts" are things like Toa Hordika and Glatorian neck joints or the simple ball cups and double ball cups used in sets like the Toa Metru and Toa Inika. And those were a lot more limited than CCBS beams and shells — there were simply not enough of them to form the entire foundation of an original character design. Only by mixing in lots of other basic Technic parts could you even dream of creating a character's skeleton and body volumes before adding detail.

Neither system is flawless, of course, and in fact the greatest drawbacks for me are characteristics they have in common. Although CCBS is a lot better for creating non-mechanical characters than older BIONICLE parts, both systems will pretty much invariably result in more of a rugged "action figure" look than a more delicate "doll" look, which sometimes frustrates me as a MOCist. How I would love to create full-size LEGO Elves dolls! But even if I created custom head sculpts, I can't picture any way CCBS dolls could reflect the soft, organic contours that make a doll "doll-like". However, perhaps somebody else might one day make an extraordinary BIONICLE or CCBS doll that can prove me wrong. For the time being, though, even the shapely female characters of MOCists like Pate-Keetongu often feel more like action figures than dolls.

[bidiminished]

While CCBS is better for use in various themes due to its smooth, simple shells, isn't the G1 bionicle system better for, you know, bionicle? G1's greebly look did a great job of making the sets look 85% mechanical, while with G2 it just comes down to the new head design, weapons and the new piston add-on. There are only a few pieces that I think have highly incompatible textures, such as those barraki armour pieces.

CCBS has a huge advantage with durability as with G1, the soft plastic parts would easily get damaged, and almost all socket pieces had a high tendency to break. Disconnecting and reconnecting a precious 7m double socket is such a nerve-racking experience.

Edited April 28, 2015 by bidiminished

[MakutaOfWar]

While CCBS is better for use in various themes due to its smooth, simple shells, isn't the G1 bionicle system better for, you know, bionicle? G1's greebly look did a great job of making the sets look 85% mechanical, while with G2 it just chimes down to the new head design, weapons and and new piston add-on. There are only a few pieces that I think have highly incompatible textures, such as those barraki armour pieces.

CCBS has a huge advantage with durability as with G1, the soft plastic parts would easily get damaged, and almost all socket pieces had a high tendency to break. Disconnecting and reconnecting a precious 7m double socket is such a nerve-racking experience.

Exactly, people tend to forget that the piston aesthetic IS Bionicle. As I've seen people complain about the abundance of it in Gen 1 in favor of the bland-in-comparison CCBS armor, and some may back that up with "Well this isn't Gen 1 Bonkle." But if you take away what made Bionicle Bionicle then what is it? Because the story isn't exactly on par with some of the key features of Gen 1, although it's too early I suppose to state that.

Edited April 28, 2015 by MakutaOfWar

[Voxovan]

Exactly, people tend to forget that the piston aesthetic IS Bionicle. As I've seen people complain about the abundance of it in Gen 1 in favor of the bland-in-comparison CCBS armor, and some may back that up with "Well this isn't Gen 1 Bonkle." But if you take away what made Bionicle Bionicle then what is it? Because the story isn't exactly on par with some of the key features of Gen 1, although it's too early I suppose to state that.

I'd say that masks made Bionicle Bionicle, not pistonts :/

[Aanchir]

While CCBS is better for use in various themes due to its smooth, simple shells, isn't the G1 bionicle system better for, you know, bionicle? G1's greebly look did a great job of making the sets look 85% mechanical, while with G2 it just comes down to the new head design, weapons and the new piston add-on. There are only a few pieces that I think have highly incompatible textures, such as those barraki armour pieces.

Personally, I feel like more often than not, G1 parts made sets look 100% mechanical. The only parts that tended to look remotely organic were ones that were specially designed to look that way, like the Barraki heads and armor.

And I can think of a lot of parts with incompatible textures. For instance, Toa Nuva armor looks completely different from Vahki shins. Rahkshi back plates look completely different from Piraka torsos. Bohrok faceplates look completely different from Toa Inika feet. Most masks look completely different from Toa Metru thigh shells. Even many basic Technic parts looked uncharacteristically smooth next to specialized BIONICLE parts — just compare the Turaga, whose bodies were fairly clean and smooth, to the Toa, whose bodies had hardly any large smooth surfaces apart from their masks.

You could use inconsistent parts like these together in a MOC, certainly, but spreading the textures out so that they don't seem completely haphazard was an unnecessary hassle. I say "unnecessary" because you don't really encounter such a significant hassle in other LEGO themes. You have a foundation of basic parts to work from — I can't think of any time I've felt forced to use a System or Technic part with an extremely detailed and specific texture just because it was the only piece that gave me the size and shape I wanted. But many a BIONICLE MOC of mine has been stymied by wildly clashing textures.

And what's more, the CCBS is about as well-suited to mechanical creations as it is to organic ones. There's no reason a machine has to be covered in greebles to look mechanical. C-3PO is just as clearly mechanical in the original trilogy with his shiny metal cladding as in Episode 1 where he looks ramshackle and unfinished. Optimus Prime from the G1 Transformers cartoon looks just as mechanical as the more greebled Optimus Prime from the more recent movies. They're just different kinds of mechanical. I have easily heard just as many criticisms of CCBS looking "too mechanical" as "not mechanical enough", and I think that's a pretty good sign that it manages the balance of mechanical and organic a lot better than many G1 BIONICLE parts.

[One Very Agile Cat]

Exactly, people tend to forget that the piston aesthetic IS Bionicle. As I've seen people complain about the abundance of it in Gen 1 in favor of the bland-in-comparison CCBS armor, and some may back that up with "Well this isn't Gen 1 Bonkle." But if you take away what made Bionicle Bionicle then what is it? Because the story isn't exactly on par with some of the key features of Gen 1, although it's too early I suppose to state that.

But this isn't "OG Bionicle vs. CCBS for exclusive use as Bionicle and nothing else." What if you want to build something not Bionicle without the bionicle aesthetic?

And pistons aren't really just for Bionicle, because the limbs with pistons existed before it. That was just a technic thing. In fact I'd say CCBS works better as Bionicle than most else, since the exposed bones and armour that doesn't cover 100% evokes Bionicle's general aesthetic of, well, thin bones with armour/limbs with exposed holes and gaps. It's simpler, obviously, but it's not quite as far removed as it seems. (and I agree with Voxovan, masks made Bionicle Bionicle, in addition to elemental powers/motifs)

[Still Raindrop]

Yeah, I'd say the piston aesthetic IS Throwbots. At least, it fit there better, what with completely mechanical beings.

Put another way, Bionicle has always shared aesthetics with previous lines--and it has made its own changes to the style.

[One Very Agile Cat]

Put another way, Bionicle has always shared aesthetics with previous lines--and it has made its own changes to the style.

I agree.

[MakutaOfWar]

It doesn't have to change style, keep in mind HF used the piston aesthetic clad pieces in its first wave. And the designers obviously believe piston aesthetics is a fairly large part in the theme, or otherwise they wouldn't be implementing it in the armor add-ons and weapons.

[One Very Agile Cat]

They are, but I think you're severely over-blowing pistons.

Not that they ever made much sense anyway. They often had pistons running parallel to clearly solid pieces on the old Bionicle pieces.

[Aanchir]

They are, but I think you're severely over-blowing pistons.

Not that they ever made much sense anyway. They often had pistons running parallel to clearly solid pieces on the old Bionicle pieces.

The practicality of the pistons in BIONICLE varied. Oh man, now you've gotten me started on the practicality of pistons... one of my favorite topics to ramble about back in the day! I'll try to keep things short though.

There were a lot of parts in the early years that had very practical implied pistons. Most pistons on Toa Mata parts were designed to appear practical in some way. The pistons on the leg beam controlled leg movement. The ones on the torso block controlled waist movement. The ones on Gali's hooks opened and closed them. The ones on Kopaka's sword even helped the blade pivot, compensating for his lack of a wrist. And the ones on the foot controlled toe movement. This is not to say the pistons on all classic parts performed a practical function — the ones on the Slizer wing beam appeared purely decorative, for instance. But the majority appeared to perform a practical purpose.

Pistons weren't the only aspects of these classic sets designed to appear practical, either. Both Vakama's firestaff and Tahu's fire sword had tubes that fed directly into the base of the flame patterns, almost like little fuel hoses.

The decrease in these kinds of practical pistons corresponded directly to the increase in actual articulation. Toa Metru shin beams and thigh shells had pistons, but there was no real way these pistons could possibly do anything — there was no hinge point between the top of the piston and the bottom. Still, even many later parts had pistons designed to look practical on some level or another. The pistons on the Piraka torso are a good example. Like the Toa Mata, the Piraka had implied accordion-joint waists. It and the Toa Inika torso also both had pistons that allowed for implied shoulder movement.

Nowadays, in the 2015 sets, the practicality of the pistons on the new elements still varies. It's hard to say how the pistons on Onua's hammer would perform any practical function. The pistons on Kopaka and Tahu's tools or Gali's and Lewa's seem a bit superficial as well — it's easy to see how there could be implied movement, but harder to see how this would actually impact the tool function. Pohatu's, at least, correspond to an obvious hinge, though small as they are it's hard to see how practical they would be for actually controlling the angle of his Stormerangs/Jeterangs.

But the pistons on the new add-on element DO often provide an implied function, since they have a built-in accordion joint. On the torsos of the Protectors, for instance, they offer implied waist movement, just as the pistons on the Toa Mata torso did back in the day. And on the knee joints and shoulder joints of many of the Toa and Protectors, they can potentially imply that the curved surface at the bottom of the shell bends with the knee or shoulder. I'd almost go so far as to say the 2015 sets have helped redeem the piston as an actual practical detail rather than just a meaningless aesthetic detail, like they sometimes started to become in the later years of BIONICLE.

And this is something I like about the CCBS in general. Instead of being forced to use more intricate detail indiscriminately for all parts of a model, it can be used selectively and purposefully, whether that purpose is practical or just to draw visual emphasis to certain parts of a model. In G1 BIONICLE, smoothness or lack of detail was more likely to command attention than texture or detail. Just look at how the Toa Nuva's look was defined by their smooth, clean torso, shoulder, and leg armor. But in G2, the foundation elements are what are smooth and clean, and it's the detail parts that command attention. I think this is a much smarter way of doing things from a building standpoint. After all, no matter what building system you prefer, it is always easier to add detail to a model than to subtract it. So why use high-detail elements as a model's foundation?

[MakutaOfWar]

^You should write books. Anyways you had a lot of good points there that made me realize a few things. Particularly I guess I preferred the look of the pistons because it had more detail and gave the Gen 1 sets the sort of tribal feel that was the core of Bio, as the CCBS armor was more so designed for the future theme of HF with a cleaner look(didn't the 1.0 arms have a practical use of piston aaesthetic? ) so I guess it's still hard for me to adjust. But we could use more of those practical uses in a new torso armor piece and foot. Also the Protector's use of the new add-on as a torso is probably my favorite implementation of that piece.