Original Bionicle vs CCBS discussion

[TwistLaw]

That would be CCBS, potentially. We just need a larger plethora of recolours and some new bone elements that put a spin on things, like it happened in 2012.

I agree 99% with you, but as I said friction may still be a problem. My Onua's knees are already somewhat loose after literally five times I've played with him :/

[Kalhiki]

I've never ever had any of my CCBS pieces loose friction. I mean, yeah, some may be looser than others, but it's very slight to the point of being unnoticeable. Fresh out of the box, they're really tight and squeak when they move. That's gone, but the parts aren't loose to where it's a problem. And I own pretty much every CCBS set (Ultrabuilds aside) including some extras for parts. Never had an issue.

I felt the need to say that since I've seen other people make comments about looseness. Like, how loose are the parts to those who have the problem?

Scale of 1-10. 1 being 'collapses under the set's own weight' and 10 being 'fresh-out-of-the-box squeaky tight.'

[TwistLaw]

During HF's run I bought a grand total of 6 sets from 2012 onwards, so I can't really say anything about older sets.

Onua's knees are like a 6-7 by now.

[mysteriouspi]

I've never ever had any of my CCBS pieces loose friction. I mean, yeah, some may be looser than others, but it's very slight to the point of being unnoticeable. Fresh out of the box, they're really tight and squeak when they move. That's gone, but the parts aren't loose to where it's a problem. And I own pretty much every CCBS set (Ultrabuilds aside) including some extras for parts. Never had an issue.

I felt the need to say that since I've seen other people make comments about looseness. Like, how loose are the parts to those who have the problem?

Scale of 1-10. 1 being 'collapses under the set's own weight' and 10 being 'fresh-out-of-the-box squeaky tight.'

I'm in the same boat. While I only got into the CCBS system in late 2014, I've acquired many used parts since then. None of them have had problems holding their own. Obviously there is some variation but they're more than acceptable.

[Mutant Orc]

My Kopaka's ankles are a bit weak.

[Aanchir]

Bear in mind that sometimes when a part lacks friction it can mean the mold itself is wearing out. Steel LEGO molds don't last forever, and the more parts they produce, the more wear it causes to the mold itself. Thus LEGO has to retool or replace molds once the wear on the mold reaches a point that it can no longer produce parts meeting the LEGO Group's quality standards.

A similar issue sprung up regarding this part from the Exo-Suit set. They were produced from the same mold that had produced that element since the 1980s, and obviously ones struck in 2015 had much less friction on the anti-stud than ones produced when the mold was new. Since then the mold has been replaced, so new instances of that part should have a much firmer connection.

And not all molds are designed with the same lifespan. Maybe some molds that produce CCBS elements are just due for retooling or replacement in the near future.

[TwistLaw]

And that's a problem CCBS, reusing much more pieces than the original BIONICLE did, suffers the most.

If you ask me I'd take CCBS over the old system any day of the year (at least this one is almost impossible to break), but that doesn't mean this is not one of the many small things that bugs me a lot.

As I said constraction is not like System, and the constant reusing of pieces is much harder to hide.

[Aanchir]

As I said constraction is not like System, and the constant reusing of pieces is much harder to hide.

I can see how that'd be a problem for somebody who thinks reuse of pieces is something that ought to be hidden. Personally, I don't feel that way. Any good building system should be built upon a foundation that it can refer to again and again whenever the same design needs come up. If a figure needs a forearm five modules long with connections on each end and in the center, and you have a basic beam exactly that length, it'd be a waste not to use it.

When new design needs come up that can't be efficiently met with existing parts (like how to create a limb that resembles a skinned human bone, or how to create a shin that mimics the shape of human muscles), that's when new elements can be introduced to complement the basic ones.

[TwistLaw]

I can see how that'd be a problem for somebody who thinks reuse of pieces is something that ought to be hidden. Personally, I don't feel that way. Any good building system should be built upon a foundation that it can refer to again and again whenever the same design needs come up. If a figure needs a forearm five modules long with connections on each end and in the center, and you have a basic beam exactly that length, it'd be a waste not to use it.

When new design needs come up that can't be efficiently met with existing parts (like how to create a limb that resembles a skinned human bone, or how to create a shin that mimics the shape of human muscles), that's when new elements can be introduced to complement the basic ones.

I understand your way of thinking, but I guess it's really a matter of "personal beliefs" at this point.

For me offering extremely similar figures may not be an incentive for the average costumer, who wants to avoid buying something he more or less already has. But alas I have no piece of paper proving my knowledge of marketing, therefore if LEGO think it's right it must be the right thing.

[Aanchir]

I understand your way of thinking, but I guess it's really a matter of "personal beliefs" at this point.

For me offering extremely similar figures may not be an incentive for the average costumer, who wants to avoid buying something he more or less already has. But alas I have no piece of paper proving my knowledge of marketing, therefore if LEGO think it's right it must be the right thing.

Believe me, I totally get what you're saying!

A lot of the time many devoted LEGO fans seem to think that LEGO isn't doing a good job if every buyer doesn't want every set. But really I'm sure they do just fine with typical buyers getting just a few sets each year. Look at LEGO City, which has new police stations and fire trucks just about every year. Obviously there aren't a lot of buyers who enthusiastically buy up every new police and fire series year after year. But for LEGO what's important is to have those highly popular standbys out for new buyers just getting into the City theme, while also having a variety of other sets that "mix things up" like the "Great Vehicles" sets (which are different every year) or this year's new Deep Sea Exploration sets.

I think something similar could be said for constraction. Next year we're getting new versions of the Toa, and it wouldn't surprise me if their builds are similar to this year's versions. But I don't think LEGO is counting on every Bionicle fan who bought this year's Tahu lining up for next year's Tahu. Instead, they probably expect those fans to gravitate first towards the new villain and supporting characters — and then, if they have money left over, look at which of the new Toa stand out most from the previous versions. LEGO is an expensive toy, so they fully expect most of their buyers to pick and choose.

As for pieces, it's true that new pieces can be a good way of enticing buyers to buy new sets. But with that said, I think a few new pieces can go a long way, especially if also you use the existing pieces in new and different ways.

[TwistLaw]

Believe me, I totally get what you're saying!

A lot of the time many devoted LEGO fans seem to think that LEGO isn't doing a good job if every buyer doesn't want every set. But really I'm sure they do just fine with typical buyers getting just a few sets each year. Look at LEGO City, which has new police stations and fire trucks just about every year. Obviously there aren't a lot of buyers who enthusiastically buy up every new police and fire series year after year. But for LEGO what's important is to have those highly popular standbys out for new buyers just getting into the City theme, while also having a variety of other sets that "mix things up" like the "Great Vehicles" sets (which are different every year) or this year's new Deep Sea Exploration sets.

I think something similar could be said for constraction. Next year we're getting new versions of the Toa, and it wouldn't surprise me if their builds are similar to this year's versions. But I don't think LEGO is counting on every Bionicle fan who bought this year's Tahu lining up for next year's Tahu. Instead, they probably expect those fans to gravitate first towards the new villain and supporting characters — and then, if they have money left over, look at which of the new Toa stand out most from the previous versions. LEGO is an expensive toy, so they fully expect most of their buyers to pick and choose.

As for pieces, it's true that new pieces can be a good way of enticing buyers to buy new sets. But with that said, I think a few new pieces can go a long way, especially if also you use the existing pieces in new and different ways.

Your words made me realise I suffer from a "First World child" syndrome. While for me not buying every single set is a choice, for tons of families is the rule. LEGO sets are indeed expensive toys, and buying them is a luxury not for everyone.

Thanks.

[Frozen Assasin]

I doubt that very much, considering that traditional CCBS is very much still in use. A couple of armour addons doesn't really indicate a "return to old" at all, and quite frankly I'm glad of that.

I, for myself, sincerely hope we will get rid of CCBS completely in 3-5 years.

[DuckBricks]

I, for myself, sincerely hope we will get rid of CCBS completely in 3-5 years.

That's an interesting view... Why do you think this? I personally think CCBS is near-perfect for constraction figures and certainly better than the Gen1 elements, and can't really think of a better system to replace it...

[Aanchir]

I, for myself, sincerely hope we will get rid of CCBS completely in 3-5 years.

That might happen, if something even more versatile that can last even longer should arise. But for right now, CCBS is by far the best at what it does. It has proven its effectiveness in several themes (from the robotic-looking Hero Factory and Bionicle sets to the more organic Legends of Chima and Star Wars figures) and revolutionized the constraction category.

The way I see it, the constraction category is bound to keep marching forward, whether that means a new building system or just continued expansion of the current one. And if a new building system does replace CCBS it will surely be something unprecedented, not a reversion to an obsolete building system of years gone by.

[DraikNova]

I, for myself, sincerely hope we will get rid of CCBS completely in 3-5 years.

Why do people think this? And can we please not restart the CCBS versus 1.0 BIONICLE argument? It gets kind of repetitive.

Edited December 4, 2015 by DraikNova

[Frozen Assasin]

That's an interesting view... Why do you think this? I personally think CCBS is near-perfect for constraction figures and certainly better than the Gen1 elements, and can't really think of a better system to replace it...

Because I , personally, think it is much more fascinating to see Lego actually trying to build something and design specific parts for that something, instead of reusing the same parts over and over again. Sure, CCBS has its perks (Grevious is f*cking awesome) and it can make for good titans when in the hands of capable MOCist's...but still. Let's take both Chima waves, f.e. I have Cragger and Fangar, and though both are fine sets...it just doesn't produce an animal feel, y'know ? And more so when you realize that they are using the same parts for a Crocodile, a Saber-Toothed Tiger and a goddamned Eagle. No, seriously. Back in the days (and I'm not talking about 2002-2004) we had different shapes and molds for every single AF or "Cockpit" line if there was one released. The closest thing we had to a generalized system was the one used in Knights Kingdom (seen in Galidor, Exo-Force and Powerminers), but even then Galidor had a bunch of new parts (which were only compatible with Kings Kingdom) and Exo-Force...well, it was Exo-Force. It was damn near perfection. And it also utilized parts from every single Lego sub-production (expect Belville, Scala and Clicketts. Oh. And Duplo). without making them clash. Powerminers also introduced a bunch of new parts including the omnipresent brick with balljoint. And Bionicle was so different from KK that they were (technically speaking...a good MOCist can make everything compatible) incompatible.Ben 10 was also a fine series, which despite its short run, had a lot of potential. And was drastically different from the Stars sets, released the same year. Then we had the first wave of HF, which was again different from its direct predecessors. 5 years later we can say that it looks like that Lego has got a bit lazy with its brands, creating 1 (2/3) creative builds and applying them everywhere. (See - Mixel joints).And when you say it is expensive to have a lot of personal brands, with interesting builds and lots of new pieces every year, just look at MegaBlocks. In their heyday (which was about 4-6 years ago. I think the last vestige fell when they cancelled the Plasma Monsters). they made a lot of sets (my favorites still being Neo Shifters, with their awesome trailer and Dragons, which even made 2 movies), many of whom utilized new and original systems (dual-colored characters, mold able characters,ball-jointed minifigs, Sharks that were big enough to eat a minifig, AF made from fracking magnets, which is too awesome for words) and these weren't that expensive. It is possible, see.

Hopefully that is reason enough why I, IMHO, want the CCBS system gone. I just don't want to end up with my Knights being built from the same parts as their Steeds and the Robots from a separate line.

[DraikNova]

So you want parts to be non-reusable, have LEGO waste money on new molds constantly and as a result give us smaller sets with less useful parts?

And while I agree that Neo Shifters was a pretty cool concept (for those who haven't heard of them, think Transformers/Bohrak mashup), I don't think comparing LEGO to Megabloks is a going to win you too many fans around here.

Edited December 4, 2015 by DraikNova

[Frozen Assasin]

So you want parts to be non-reusable, have LEGO waste money on new molds constantly and as a result give us smaller sets with less useful parts?

Size can stay same, and not all parts should be new - but more "unique" parts will be better, yep.

And while I agree that Neo Shifters was a pretty cool concept (for those who haven't heard of them, think Transformers/Bohrak mashup), I don't think comparing LEGO to Megabloks is a going to win you too many fans around here.

Which is a pity.

[Dr_Chronos]

Because I , personally, think it is much more fascinating to see Lego actually trying to build something and design specific parts for that something, instead of reusing the same parts over and over again.

Hopefully that is reason enough why I, IMHO, want the CCBS system gone. I just don't want to end up with my Knights being built from the same parts as their Steeds and the Robots from a separate line.

Specialized molds from Bionicle have left me with tubs of parts that I use once in a blue moon. Some I don't even touch. The more specialized, the less chance I can use them. In contrast I still use CCBS parts from their debut. Their versatility is amazing, and they have much more colors that Bionicle rarely used.

In my opinion I'm more impressed when LEGO and MOCers find a way to use parts in a new way than their purpose. A good example from this year would be Ekimu's Sheild. The use of a princess wheel cover as an ornate design was genius. I view constantly making specialized molds for everything a cheap way out of designing a solution.

The versatility and value of a part depends on how specialized it is, how many colors it is in, and how useful it is. Most of Bionicle's unique molds fail in colors and usefulness, as most of their unique pieces have limited use and were often in a limited color range. Standard CCBS parts have infinite use thanks to their low specialization and come in a wide range of colors. The addons vary along the scale as their colors and soecialization vary from part to part. Overall I value recolors almost as much as I would new parts, as recolors increase versitility. It took me a while to warm up to CCBS, but now I enjoy it more than I did the old system.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Dr_Chronos

[Dorek]

In my opinion I'm more impressed when LEGO and MOCers find a way to use parts in a new way than their purpose. A good example from this year would be Ekimu's Sheild. The use of a princess wheel cover as an ornate design was genius. I view constantly making specialized molds for everything a cheap way out of designing a solution.

As much as I like specialized parts, I also love this. That about Ekimu's shield in particular was really creative and interesting to me.

But by the same token, new molds that serve multiple purposes are also really fun; Onua's shovelers this year, for instance, are a great example of that; three uses in a single set alone. The upcoming Shadow Traps offer a similar effect. But when almost every Toa has the same bladed weapon just in a different color, it gets to be a bit silly.

[Dr_Chronos]

But by the same token, new molds that serve multiple purposes are also really fun; Onua's shovelers this year, for instance, are a great example of that; three uses in a single set alone. The upcoming Shadow Traps offer a similar effect. But when almost every Toa has the same bladed weapon just in a different color, it gets to be a bit silly.[/b]

Those shovels are beautiful. Really it's a shame to see that Onua was the only one use them so far. They're detailed, but they have so many uses.

I agree about the Toa's weapons though, just because you can use a part on everything doesn't mean you should. New weapon molds? Only in moderation. I would have liked if the Uniters used more unique weapons. The only Toa who doesn't use the blade is Onua, and his weapon in my opinion is great at showing that not every weapon has to be a unique mold, but even one made of common parts.

[Lyichir]

Because I , personally, think it is much more fascinating to see Lego actually trying to build something and design specific parts for that something, instead of reusing the same parts over and over again. Sure, CCBS has its perks (Grevious is f*cking awesome) and it can make for good titans when in the hands of capable MOCist's...but still. Let's take both Chima waves, f.e. I have Cragger and Fangar, and though both are fine sets...it just doesn't produce an animal feel, y'know ? And more so when you realize that they are using the same parts for a Crocodile, a Saber-Toothed Tiger and a goddamned Eagle. No, seriously. Back in the days (and I'm not talking about 2002-2004) we had different shapes and molds for every single AF or "Cockpit" line if there was one released. The closest thing we had to a generalized system was the one used in Knights Kingdom (seen in Galidor, Exo-Force and Powerminers), but even then Galidor had a bunch of new parts (which were only compatible with Kings Kingdom) and Exo-Force...well, it was Exo-Force. It was damn near perfection. And it also utilized parts from every single Lego sub-production (expect Belville, Scala and Clicketts. Oh. And Duplo). without making them clash. Powerminers also introduced a bunch of new parts including the omnipresent brick with balljoint. And Bionicle was so different from KK that they were (technically speaking...a good MOCist can make everything compatible) incompatible.Ben 10 was also a fine series, which despite its short run, had a lot of potential. And was drastically different from the Stars sets, released the same year. Then we had the first wave of HF, which was again different from its direct predecessors. 5 years later we can say that it looks like that Lego has got a bit lazy with its brands, creating 1 (2/3) creative builds and applying them everywhere. (See - Mixel joints).And when you say it is expensive to have a lot of personal brands, with interesting builds and lots of new pieces every year, just look at MegaBlocks. In their heyday (which was about 4-6 years ago. I think the last vestige fell when they cancelled the Plasma Monsters). they made a lot of sets (my favorites still being Neo Shifters, with their awesome trailer and Dragons, which even made 2 movies), many of whom utilized new and original systems (dual-colored characters, mold able characters,ball-jointed minifigs, Sharks that were big enough to eat a minifig, AF made from fracking magnets, which is too awesome for words) and these weren't that expensive. It is possible, see.

Hopefully that is reason enough why I, IMHO, want the CCBS system gone. I just don't want to end up with my Knights being built from the same parts as their Steeds and the Robots from a separate line.

Yeah, you just lost just about all sympathy I might have had for your view. When you said "the end of CCBS", I was already skeptical, since the CCBS took a Constraction category that had spiraled out of control and gave it a logical order and a modular system of parts. But I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that you might mean that you wanted sets more like this year's Toa, that use basic Technic connectors with ball joints and the like to achieve unique builds and proportions in lieu of generic CCBS beams and the like. I'm okay with that. There's a place for that. And while sometimes it doesn't work as well as a design that relies more heavily on CCBS, and I wouldn't ever want that to replace CCBS entirely, it can work great in tandem with the solid foundation CCBS provides.

But you don't seem to want a system that relies more on basic parts and connectors. You just want a return to the waste and overspecialization of years past. No. No no no. That would be just about the worst thing that could happen to the new Bionicle and to Constraction in general.

[Voxovan]

As much as I see the flaws of the old system, I'd also like to see CCBS gone and replaced by a better system. I'm not saying that it is a bad system per se, but it has a lot of flaws that many people don't - or don't want to - see.

The thing I loved about the G1 system was not the heavily-mechanical look (which can be considered a flaw, yes, but then again, Lego found a lot of great uses of Bionicle parts outside Bionicle - heck, they used more Bionicle parts outside Bionicle than CCBS parts outside constraction), but the huge amount of attachment points, which for me, as a person who focuses mainly on MOCs with custom builds, is a perfect thing. CCBS is vastly inferior in that aspect, mainly because it uses balljoints, and balljoints are extremely hard to work with, since they're bigger than 1 module but smaller than 2 modules, so for example, you cannot put a balljoints between two pieces in a 1-module gap without stressing out the parts on the sides, not to mention that they don't allow for attaching armor pieces from two sides, which is no doubt the biggest flaw of CCBS that prooves this system isn't "perfect", as many people claim it is.

I like the 2016 sets not because of the heavy piston aesthetic (however I love that too, because in my opinion it really makes Bionicle Bionicle and shows that G2 is its own thing, unlike the previous CCBS waves, which all looked the same except for the heads and the name of course), but how the sets revolve around Technic and have more Technic-oriented techniques and parts, which, let's be honest, allow for much better customization than any piece introduced solely for CCBS.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Voxovan

[DraikNova]

Size can stay same

Which is a pity.

No it can't, not if LEGO has to waste money on new molds.

If you need help with understanding this issue, I've got a comic to illustrate it for you ready.

- heck, they used more Bionicle parts outside Bionicle than CCBS parts outside constraction

- balljoints are extremely hard to work with,

Both of these are quite untrue. LEGO has been using CCBS in lots of sets compared to the pitiful two-three uses a year that BIONICLE had. In some cases, the parts aren't even used for articulation.

[Voxovan]

Both of these are quite untrue. LEGO has been using CCBS in lots of sets compared to the pitiful two-three uses a year that BIONICLE had. In some cases, the parts aren't even used for articulation.

Well um yeah no. Bionicle parts had been present in themes like Mars Mission, Exo-Force, World Racers, Vikings, Star Wars, Technic, Ninjago, Alpha Team, Power Miners and probably many others that I don't remember offhand. And, sorry, but balljoints (and any other pieces that rely on ball-socket connection) are harder to work with than parts relying on pins and axles or regular bricks. That's not an opinion, that's a fact.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Voxovan