MakutaOfWar

Original Bionicle vs CCBS discussion

Recommended Posts

While the pistons being on the outside looks good from the aesthetic standpoint, I still think there's something hokey about some of them. For example, in the Protector torsos, the accordian joint appears to be on the outside of a solid armoured carapace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not a MOCist, so I can't give my opinion on each system's versatility or how compatible it is with other LEGO systems. So, I will give my opinion on what I can: aesthetics.

Personally, I prefer BIONICLE's more varied pieces; the tiny little details gave each set its own personality, even when reusing a bunch of similar parts. Though it may be just my nostalgia talking, I saw a lot more differences between the first Toa than between the 2.0 Alpha Team.

That said, CCBS is starting to grow on me, and I can see now the many possibilities it brings for building when used properly. It helps that the variety between sets has definitely improved. There is one thing, however, that it desperately needs compared to old BIONICLE parts: texture variety. All the shells are so polished and shiny, the only things that comes to my mind when I see a CCBS build is either "barely-out-of-the-factory robot" or "arthropod".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I prefer BIONICLE's more varied pieces; the tiny little details gave each set its own personality, even when reusing a bunch of similar parts. Though it may be just my nostalgia talking, I saw a lot more differences between the first Toa than between the 2.0 Alpha Team.

I think that had less to do with the building systems than with the sets' proportions. The 2.0 Hero Factory heroes had some slight variations in the width of their shoulders, the length of their arms, and the length of their legs, but nothing as extreme as Pohatu and Onua's build differences which made their heights substantially different than any of the others. But if you compare the 2.0 or 3.0 heroes to some other G1 series like the Toa Metru or Toa Inika, the CCBS builds seem considerably more diverse — despite those BIONICLE series having substantially more pieces, and thus ostensibly more potential for variation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, all. If you constraction enthusiasts will forgive a basic question from a mostly-"System" builder who tends to be fairly clueless about the constraction stuff, just what are the major differences between the current CCBS style and the earlier stuff? To my unlearned eyes, the distinctions between "old" Bionicles and newer ones are are not entirely apparent. Do the parts of different eras not directly connect to one another, or what? I know enough to know what "CCBS" stands for, for example, and I do get that if represents something of a new step for this venerable line, but I don't know exactly how.

(I'd ask in a different thread, but since this one is the one that raised the question in my mind, it seemed to belong here.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference is like that between the modern brick system with its array of SNOT bricks and the early, slotted bricks and one-part cars from the first few years of LEGO. One is modular and designed for maximum reuse, the other is highly specialized.

Edited by DraikNova

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, all. If you constraction enthusiasts will forgive a basic question from a mostly-"System" builder who tends to be fairly clueless about the constraction stuff, just what are the major differences between the current CCBS style and the earlier stuff? To my unlearned eyes, the distinctions between "old" Bionicles and newer ones are are not entirely apparent. Do the parts of different eras not directly connect to one another, or what? I know enough to know what "CCBS" stands for, for example, and I do get that if represents something of a new step for this venerable line, but I don't know exactly how.

(I'd ask in a different thread, but since this one is the one that raised the question in my mind, it seemed to belong here.)

A general explanation of basic CCBS building can be found here. Its overall purpose was to make constraction building more "LEGO-like" and intuitive by giving it a foundation of basic parts in modular sizes, instead of so many parts having highly specialized sizes, shapes, and textures.

  • Aesthetically, CCBS parts generally have smooth, solid surfaces, kind of like regular System or Technic parts, while older BIONICLE parts are more heavily textured. Compare this and this (classic BIONICLE shells and beams) to this and this (CCBS shells and beams).
  • Classic BIONICLE armor shells usually attach to beams by Technic pins or cross axles. CCBS armor shells usually attach to beams by a ball snap. CCBS also has add-ons that can attach to the basic shells by a pair of 3.2mm bars (the kind of bar that a minifigure hand can clip to).
  • CCBS arm and leg beams generally come in a wider range of sizes than BIONICLE arm and leg beams. So for instance, later BIONICLE sets mostly just had lower limb beams in 7M and 8M lengths and upper limb beams in 5M and 7M lengths. CCBS has limb beams in 3M, 4M, 5M, 6M, 7M, and 9M lengths, and even more sizes of shells.
  • The ball cups of classic BIONICLE parts (especially from 2007–2010) tend to be more brittle than CCBS ball cups. This is because the circular parts that wrap around the ball itself were thinner, so that you could stick a Technic cross axle or pin through them. On CCBS ball cups this part is thicker, so a cross axle will no longer fit through that way.

The parts of different eras can definitely still connect together, since they're all based on more or less the same connection points: Technic pin holes, Technic axle holes, and Technic ball joints. However, they use these connection points in different ways. You can't just swap the leg armor of this set with the leg armor of this set, because one set's leg armor connects with a Technic pin and the other connects with a ball snap. There are plenty of MOCs that use the parts together, though.

Edited by Aanchir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • The ball cups of classic BIONICLE parts (especially from 2007–2010) tend to be more brittle than CCBS ball cups. This is because the circular parts that wrap around the ball itself were thinner, so that you could stick a Technic cross axle or pin through them. On CCBS ball cups this part is thicker, so a cross axle will no longer fit through that way.

By the way, what does the hole in the CCBS ball cup fit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't fit anything. It's used to allow air to escape while attaching the piece to prevent cracking, as far as I know.

Edited by DraikNova

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't fit anything. It's used to allow air to escape while attaching the piece to prevent cracking, as far as I know.

I don't think it's so much about letting air escape as it is about allowing some space for the ball joint itself to expand and contract when snapping a ball cup on, to relieve stress on both parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

stuff

more stuff

Thanks, both of you. That's all pretty much what I'd have guessed, but it's good to have more concrete info from those who actually know this stuff far better than I do myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New Toa looks good only by Technic.

HF-system can do nothing without technic, but old system can do a lot without HF-details.

Is it a progress in building systems? No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New Toa looks good only by Technic.

HF-system can do nothing without technic, but old system can do a lot without HF-details.

Is it a progress in building systems? No.

You've said nothing nobody else hasn't said before. If you want old parts, buy the old sets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New Toa looks good only by Technic.

HF-system can do nothing without technic, but old system can do a lot without HF-details.

Is it a progress in building systems? No.

Too bad everything you said is contradicted by the sets themselves. "HF-system can do nothing without technic"?Really?

Not sure what you're getting at really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really. The HF-models have their back open and you always see the bones.

That is not aesthetic. I do not talk about moc-makers, I talk about sets, so calm down, don't be so angry.

Remember - everyone can say his opinion.

Edited by Illarion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New Toa looks good only by Technic.

HF-system can do nothing without technic, but old system can do a lot without HF-details.

Is it a progress in building systems? No.

I can definitely understand where you're coming from. In fact, I'd have to agree with you.

For a system meant to be there to allow the building of 'creatures and characters', CCBS feels really restrictive. It's much harder to be creative with CCBS than it is with G1 Bionicle pieces, and anyone who's tried to MoC with CCBS can attest to that - there's a reason all the big MoCs still use technic instead of CCBS. CCBS also creates god-awful messes when used in titans, and lack any coherency or stability to them. They just look plain awful. And even then CCBS titans so far have tended to be regular sets with longer bones and bigger shells - nothing really creative or innovative about that at all. Meanwhile G1 Bionicle had a ton of creative titans as long as we're talking of 2008 and before. Takanuva, Maxilos, Fenrakk, Brutaka, Sidorak, Roodaka, Krekka, Nidhika... these all have much more distinguishable silhouettes, with much more enjoyable builds. Can't really say the same for CCBS titans, which aren't really titans and more like glorified canister sets with a few gimmicks. CCBS sets, until the IFB, had been really samey for a long time and nobody seemed to even want to point that out. If you want a system to get better you have to criticise it, you can't just blindly praise it because then the flaws will remain. Then we got his year, where CCBS sets gained a gearbox.... but other than that, they are still really samey. The Gearbox is more or less the only thing that makes them stand out, and by next year it'll not be novel any more.

To put it short? CCBS is restrictive and doesn't allow for creative thinking anywhere near as much as the old technic based system did. You even see a lot more 'clones' of sets with CCBS MoCs than you ever did with the technic-based system. CCBS is a disappointment that will get stale quicker than the technic system did. There is nothing creative about building what is essentially a human skeleton, slapping on some shells, and giving it weapons several years in a row. Minus IFB machines, but that basically swapped out torso armour (winter) or the head (summer) for a piloting thing. So even then it's not that creative. And as said before, every CCBS titan that actually uses CCBS in a somewhat creative is an utter mess. The Jet Machine, for example. Scorpio, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Psssst: CCBS is a subset of the Technic system- they are designed to work in tandem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pssst, that very statement is contradicted by the large majority of CCBS pieces - shells, shell add-ons, most bones, having no or few points of attachment for technic pins. They are most definitely not designed to work in tandem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pssst, that very statement is contradicted by the large majority of CCBS pieces - shells, shell add-ons, most bones, having no or few points of attachment for technic pins. They are most definitely not designed to work in tandem.

If CCBS had primarily Technic attachment points, then it wouldn't even be its own subset. It would just be Technic, pure and simple. CCBS is designed for both simple and complex builds all on its own as well as builds that use both it and Technic parts. It would be easier to argue your point if CCBS pieces had no pinholes, but the fact is that some do, and it's enough to allow more than just basic Technic integration.

I know many people don't care for the CCBS aesthetic and build style (the one TLG presents anyway). But saying that it "doesn't allow for creative thinking" as much as the old system, I think, goes too far. Great MOCs have been built with each and both, I see no reason to bash one and praise the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Minus IFB machines, but that basically swapped out torso armour (winter) or the head (summer) for a piloting thing. So even then it's not that creative. And as said before, every CCBS titan that actually uses CCBS in a somewhat creative is an utter mess. The Jet Machine, for example. Scorpio, too.

Not going to get too involved here, but I just find this kind of funny.

"Aside from an entire wave that utilized the CCBS to an incredible extent, it's all terrible!"

And I mean, gearboxes exist, too. Anyways, that's all from me. Otherwise, snagged a SDCC Skull Scorpio mask as well. Twas around $23 or so, but shipping shot it to $30. In comparison to some other folks, I don't feel too bad.

... Is that a good price? Did I make the right choice? Do I need help, guys? ;-;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a system meant to be there to allow the building of 'creatures and characters', CCBS feels really restrictive. It's much harder to be creative with CCBS than it is with G1 Bionicle pieces, and anyone who's tried to MoC with CCBS can attest to that - there's a reason all the big MoCs still use technic instead of CCBS.

This... this is sarcasm, right?

There are definitely big CCBS MOCs. The reason there aren't as many as big Technic MOCs is because it's been around longer, so many of the most experienced MOCists have just chosen to stick to the Technic-based building they're used to. But there are other builders who have been more daring.

This MOC has been a favorite of mine since I first saw it. You might recognize the name of the builder: Christoffer Raundahl. For a long time he was the BIONICLE theme's lead designer. He designed the original Tahu and Kopaka sets, as well as larger sets like the Bahrag. Oh, and he's one of the inventors of the CCBS. It's not just "insiders" who have built incredible CCBS MOCs, either. Check out IGU's Scorpion King and Captain Zohge. Or Jangbricks' Queen of Skull Spiders. Or VBBN's Kronos. Even I stuck my foot in the ring with Caitlyn Gauss XL, though I won't pretend that's anywhere near as creative as the other examples I've listed.

There's also a problem of definitions here. There are plenty of incredible creations that use CCBS and other building styles in tandem, including pretty much any of DeeVee's recent MOCs like Janus, Lily, or Vayland Dragon V3. But you only seem to be thinking of "CCBS MOCs" as only MOCs that use CCBS overwhelmingly or exclusively, and consider anything short of that a Technic MOC. This strikes me as something of a double standard.

And as said before, every CCBS titan that actually uses CCBS in a somewhat creative is an utter mess. The Jet Machine, for example. Scorpio, too.

I'm not sure on what planet Furno Jet Machine would qualify as a titan. I think calling it a "titan" makes little sense when its price is closer to a Phantoka or Glatorian set than a Phantoka or Glatorian set's price is to a Toa Mata's! This is part of why I think the term "titan" is pretty much outdated, since it only ever meant "figure larger than a canister set", and not only do canister sets not exist anymore, but their size varied wildly over the years.

Besides that, Furno Jet Machine is a beautiful design that makes incredibly creative use of the system, but I doubt I'm going to be able to convince you of that.

Pssst, that very statement is contradicted by the large majority of CCBS pieces - shells, shell add-ons, most bones, having no or few points of attachment for technic pins. They are most definitely not designed to work in tandem.

Not sure what you mean. Every single CCBS beam that is large enough to have Technic pin holes in addition to a center ball joint has them. Not to mention, the Ø10.2mm ball, ball cup, and ball snap are all Technic connections. Technic doesn't begin and end with pins and axles.

DeeVee's post is entirely true. CCBS is a part of the Technic family.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This... this is sarcasm, right?

Might sound crazy, but not everyone is in alliance with TLGs ideas with constraction.

There are definitely big CCBS MOCs. The reason there aren't as many as big Technic MOCs is because it's been around longer, so many of the most experienced MOCists have just chosen to stick to the Technic-based building they're used to. But there are other builders who have been more daring.

This MOC has been a favorite of mine since I first saw it. You might recognize the name of the builder: Christoffer Raundahl. For a long time he was the BIONICLE theme's lead designer. He designed the original Tahu and Kopaka sets, as well as larger sets like the Bahrag. Oh, and he's one of the inventors of the CCBS. It's not just "insiders" who have built incredible CCBS MOCs, either. Check out IGU's Scorpion King and Captain Zohge. Or Jangbricks' Queen of Skull Spiders. Or VBBN's Kronos. Even I stuck my foot in the ring with Caitlyn Gauss XL, though I won't pretend that's anywhere near as creative as the other examples I've listed.

Of course it's not impossible to make good MOCs with CCBS, it's more just that CCBS is not as easy to build creatively with. There are certainly a lot more innovative creations out there using G1 Bionicle parts than there are using CCBS parts. I mean, go on Brickshelf for example, the archives are full of interesting Bionicle designs (not all necessarily good, but still creative). Majority of CCBS creations, however, tend to be of the 'rearranging shells and add-ons' construction.

There's also a problem of definitions here. There are plenty of incredible creations that use CCBS and other building styles in tandem, including pretty much any of DeeVee's recent MOCs like Janus, Lily, or Vayland Dragon V3. But you only seem to be thinking of "CCBS MOCs" as only MOCs that use CCBS overwhelmingly or exclusively, and consider anything short of that a Technic MOC. This strikes me as something of a double standard.

Both G1 Bionicle MOCs and CCBS MOCs tend to depend on technic when becoming larger/deviating from standard builds, yes. However CCBS tends to need more modifications for this deviation to work, as torsos and limbs are less customization, and have limited attachment points for armor, while in G1 Bionicle almost all parts attached via technic pins/axles (excluding joints of course), and those attachment points were much easier to come by.

I'm not sure on what planet Furno Jet Machine would qualify as a titan. I think calling it a "titan" makes little sense when its price is closer to a Phantoka or Glatorian set than a Phantoka or Glatorian set's price is to a Toa Mata's! This is part of why I think the term "titan" is pretty much outdated, since it only ever meant "figure larger than a canister set", and not only do canister sets not exist anymore, but their size varied wildly over the years.

Besides that, Furno Jet Machine is a beautiful design that makes incredibly creative use of the system, but I doubt I'm going to be able to convince you of that.

I wouldn't say that in G1 a 'Titan' was just a figure larger than a canister set - it generally involved something more, with a more interesting design, non-standard functions, and such. In this way sets like Lesovikk and Toa Ignika could be considered as "titans" (also sort of vehicle sets, another subset scarcely seen in CCBS) with their non-standard builds.

Anyway, we have technically had some 'titans' in CCBS like Rocka XL or Black Phantom, however they tended to be rather messy. TLG has seemingly given up on the idea for now, most likely as the end results didn't turn out very well when trying to make larger sets with non-standard builds.

Not sure what you mean. Every single CCBS beam that is large enough to have Technic pin holes in addition to a center ball joint has them. Not to mention, the Ø10.2mm ball, ball cup, and ball snap are all Technic connections. Technic doesn't begin and end with pins and axles.

DeeVee's post is entirely true. CCBS is a part of the Technic family.

Sure, CCBS is part of the technic family, but of course all LEGO parts are able to work together, it doesn't mean that they all do with ease. Ball joints may be technic, but they aren't really common at all outside of CCBS. The only real common connections in technic are those pins and axles, and CCBS sorely lacks those on all but the bone elements.

Basically CCBS is a valid LEGO subset, but it just isn't as good as its predecessor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, I thought I was considered anti-CCBS around here(which I'm not!). I definitely wouldn't say CCBS isn't as good as Gen1Bio system, but it's a matter of opinion.

Personally:

What looks better overall: The Gen 1 "Aesthetic".

What functions better overall: Both on their own and with each other.

What holds up better overall: CCBS.

Come on guys, it's here to stay. No use complaining about it. ._. Especially in the 2015 Discussion thread. I highly doubt Bashing(hehe) CCBS in a topic completely created around the sets that implement it is contributing to this thread, and it's only going to start fights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can definitely understand where you're coming from. In fact, I'd have to agree with you.

For a system meant to be there to allow the building of 'creatures and characters', CCBS feels really restrictive.

It's much harder to be creative with CCBS than it is with G1 Bionicle pieces, and anyone who's tried to MoC with CCBS can attest to that - there's a reason all the big MoCs still use technic instead of CCBS. CCBS also creates god-awful messes when used in titans, and lack any coherency or stability to them. They just look plain awful. And even then CCBS titans so far have tended to be regular sets with longer bones and bigger shells - nothing really creative or innovative about that at all.

Meanwhile G1 Bionicle had a ton of creative titans as long as we're talking of 2008 and before. Takanuva, Maxilos, Fenrakk, Brutaka, Sidorak, Roodaka, Krekka, Nidhika... these all have much more distinguishable silhouettes, with much more enjoyable builds. Can't really say the same for CCBS titans, which aren't really titans and more like glorified canister sets with a few gimmicks. CCBS sets, until the IFB, had been really samey for a long time and nobody seemed to even want to point that out. If you want a system to get better you have to criticise it, you can't just blindly praise it because then the flaws will remain. Then we got his year, where CCBS sets gained a gearbox.... but other than that, they are still really samey. The Gearbox is more or less the only thing that makes them stand out, and by next year it'll not be novel any more.

To put it short? CCBS is restrictive and doesn't allow for creative thinking anywhere near as much as the old technic based system did. You even see a lot more 'clones' of sets with CCBS MoCs than you ever did with the technic-based system. CCBS is a disappointment that will get stale quicker than the technic system did. There is nothing creative about building what is essentially a human skeleton, slapping on some shells, and giving it weapons several years in a row. Minus IFB machines, but that basically swapped out torso armour (winter) or the head (summer) for a piloting thing. So even then it's not that creative. And as said before, every CCBS titan that actually uses CCBS in a somewhat creative is an utter mess. The Jet Machine, for example. Scorpio, too.

Ahem. Not hard at all, significantly more fun than building with G1 parts, and far larger than I could have done in G1, yet still light enough for me to carry easily. Also, the jet machine was mostly technic (I thought you were talking about Rocka's Brain Attack vehicle, which actually at least has a titan price tag, as opposed to Furno's Jet Machine), Scorpio actually looked pretty good, and about 50% of all large G1-style MOCs I've seen are utter megablocks. Sure, there are a few good MOCs with the G1 system, but most of them are pretty ugly.

See, two can play at this game. And I'm more accurate, too.

Edited by DraikNova

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the larger you get with the G1 system, the less cohesive things become. I mean, just look at any of those MOCs built purely for scale - so many clashing textures. With CCBS however, everything's a lot more cohesive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the larger you get with the G1 system, the less cohesive things become. I mean, just look at any of those MOCs built purely for scale - so many clashing textures. With CCBS however, everything's a lot more cohesive.

6233045354_aa2dcae46f_z.jpg

I found more but the image sizes are too big and I'm too tired to care sorry

What you call "clashing textures" some call part of the artstyle of Gen 1 and its pieces. I've seen more than my fair share of clashing textures with large CCBS MOCs, and I can honestly tell you this: both of them suck because System is better than both #shotsfired

*ANYWAY*

Can we please get back on topic? The "which system is better" argument never ends well or productively and it currently has nothing to do with Bio 2015 because people veered away from that part of it.

edit: this post was originally part of the Bio 2015 thread, please ignore it now that VBBN has moved it

Edited by Mandate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.