Original Bionicle vs CCBS discussion

[Dr_Chronos]

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.

Like yourself I don't regard it as perfect. Compared to the previous system I think it's a step up, but nothing's perfect. The lack of connection points is a flaw for me as well, but I don't think the system needs to change to fix it. Rather I think we just need shells and addons with more attachment points. Preferably more on sides and one more on top. However I don't want these to replace the current shells, but be used alongside them. The reason is because I don't want to get a similar problem of the old system where the many connection points left limbs looking hollow.

[DraikNova]

I'm not sure how ball joints are supposed to be harder to work with than technic pins. You get a lot more angles to connect things at with balljoints, which gives you way more ways to make interconnections than with technic pins.

[MrHerofan]

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.

No all that is said here is opinion. If you are saying that basic technic parts are "Bionicle" then yes they have been featured in other sets, it's called technic. Now as for more Bionicle specific parts, they have been featured in other themes yes, but not commonly. CCBS parts had been integrated into more Chima, Ninjago and other theme's sets than I'm sure the old system has.

Now not CCBS is not harder to work with. It's all about wether or not you are used to the system or what type of moc you are making. If you are making something small, then yes the old system might be better. But if you are making a bigger moc, then CCBS is great. It just takes some time getting to know the dimensions of how the system works, trial and error, but you can get amazing results.

Now if you combine the two, there becomes a rather inconsistent look to anything. The greatest example of this are the 2016 sets. Some of them don't blend well. There is no consistency, and well if there is one thing most of Bionicle prior had was consistency. 2016, is just way to over the place.

[Voxovan]

I'm not sure how ball joints are supposed to be harder to work with than technic pins. You get a lot more angles to connect things at with balljoints, which gives you way more ways to make interconnections than with technic pins.

But then, you cannot attach two balljoints next to each other or next to basically any other piece, because, as I said, balls are more than 1 module big, there is no way for you to attach two CCBS shells on one standard-sized bone from both sides, and while yes, ball connections allow for more angles, pieces connected with balls will constantly move and will have to be re-adjusted each time. As I said, I'm not saying that ball-based system is totally bad, or even that it's bad, it has its pros and cons, as any other system, but I find there is a lot more cons than in other systems Lego uses.

CCBS is great in many aspects and works very well when used together with other system, despite its limitations - because you can use parts from other system in places where CCBS can't be used, and vice versa. For example, CCBS is great for making limbs for small-sized characters, because it has a great variety of small parts with ball connections, perfect for creating legs or arms in that scale. But then, if you're making a custom torso based mostly around technic, and want to cover if with shells, well, then you need to fiddle around with it for a bit - and the end result might still not be as satisfying (this year's Darth Vader is a good example of that imo - while I like his build, it still has flaws).

Now if you combine the two, there becomes a rather inconsistent look to anything. The greatest example of this are the 2016 sets. Some of them don't blend well. There is no consistency, and well if there is one thing most of Bionicle prior had was consistency. 2016, is just way to over the place.

I strongly disagree. I don't really see any "inconsistent" look in the new sets - just because there's a detailed piece next to a smooth shell doesn't mean it looks incosistent. I feel the parts with piston aesthetic are distributed pretty well on the new Toa. Now, if there was a figure that had, say, the whole upper body filled with pistons and mechanical designs, and then legs covered just with smooth shells, then yes, it would look weird and inconsistent, but that's not the case with the 2016 wave in my opinion.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Voxovan

[Frozen Assasin]

Paraphrasing Garbage : "Can I have an opinion ? A mind of my own ?" Cause it appears I can't. No, seriously. I just wrote I giant post about how much I love the old system (because I do) but just as easily I can swap my glasses and write a gigantic post about how fu**ing awesome CCBS is, since it seems that people like me are in the minority. The only thing I don't get is why so much people want to convince me otherwise. Can't you just live with an different opinion from yours ?

[xboxtravis7992]

I was pleasantly surprised by CCBS the first time I built with it this year. I think it is an improvement over the old system, since the simple pieces can be used for multiple situations.

With that said, I have a soft spot for the old Bionicle style. I kind of wish I had more skill with Technic pieces, because a CCBS fig riding a Technic airship would be awesome.

I do see with this debate a mirror to when people debated Lego System vs. Old Bionicle. The funny thing is, since they are all from Lego they are all cross compatible. So yes CCBS can connect to Lego and via that to Dublo and Galidor Joints. It's a well designed system when you think about it.

Edited December 4, 2015 by xboxtravis7992

[Aanchir]

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.

CCBS, in turn, has been present in themes like Ninjago, Legends of Chima, Super Heroes, Ultra Agents, Creator, Galaxy Squad, and Nexo Knights. That's just off the top of my head, not counting weapon pieces that lack CCBS-specific connections or parts used in actual constraction sets like the Star Wars buildable figures.

You could probably name more sets that have used Bionicle parts than CCBS parts, but I don't think that is any proof of Bionicle parts being inherently more versatile. Just that Bionicle parts have been around over a decade longer, and there were hundreds more of them.

I don't think CCBS is flawless, but I do think it's the best constraction building system we've had. Certainly better than using an entirely different building system for every constraction theme. Using the same parts over and over again across several themes isn't cheap, it's smart. That design philosophy is part of what has made LEGO the biggest building toy company in the world.

[DraikNova]

Paraphrasing Garbage : "Can I have an opinion ? A mind of my own ?" Cause it appears I can't. No, seriously. I just wrote I giant post about how much I love the old system (because I do) but just as easily I can swap my glasses and write a gigantic post about how fu**ing awesome CCBS is, since it seems that people like me are in the minority. The only thing I don't get is why so much people want to convince me otherwise. Can't you just live with an different opinion from yours ?

Sure, you can have a different opinion. But if you use bad arguments to try and explain it, don't be surprised if people are amused at your arguments.

[Shakar]

I'll sum up my stance in this way:

-Do I want CCBS to stay? Absolutely yes.

-Do I think CCBS should improve? Yes, but a number of its few remaining shortcomings are getting solved next year (Mata Nui bless the new neckless and shoulderless torso bone from the new SW sets).

-Do I want CCBS to be integrated with Technic? Yes, the Uniters made me realize that CCBS and Technic can work wonderfully toegether (though their designs aren't perfect).

-Do I want CCBS to be integrated with old BIONICLE parts? Yes, but only when possible and if it's worth it (like the Vorox armour).

-Do I want the old "BIONICLE system" (if it can really be called a system) to return in full force (one piece lower limbs, Inika torsos, etc)? Absolutely freaking not.

[Voxovan]

CCBS, in turn, has been present in themes like Ninjago, Legends of Chima, Super Heroes, Ultra Agents, Creator, Galaxy Squad, and Nexo Knights. That's just off the top of my head, not counting weapon pieces that lack CCBS-specific connections or parts used in actual constraction sets like the Star Wars buildable figures.

You could probably name more sets that have used Bionicle parts than CCBS parts, but I don't think that is any proof of Bionicle parts being inherently more versatile. Just that Bionicle parts have been around over a decade longer, and there were hundreds more of them.

That's actually not what I wanted to say - I know that CCBS is more versatile-looking because of its smoothnes and "neutral" texture, there's no denying it. What I meant is that many Bionicle pieces, despite lots of people considering them pieces with only one usage/purpose because of their texture, still found a lot of places in other themes to fit in.

[MakutaOfWar]

Random question for those who prefer CCBS/are against the G1 system, but when do you all think the 'downfall' of OGBio was in terms of the action figures? Just to help me better grasp some of your opinions.

[DraikNova]

I'm not sure you could mark one point as the downfall. It was more of a gradual process, and a lot of the increasing overtexturedness was accompanied by improvements in, say, the articulation. I'd say that around the time of the Mahri or the Phantoka the improvements had kind of run out.

[Aanchir]

That's actually not what I wanted to say - I know that CCBS is more versatile-looking because of its smoothnes and "neutral" texture, there's no denying it. What I meant is that many Bionicle pieces, despite lots of people considering them pieces with only one usage/purpose because of their texture, still found a lot of places in other themes to fit in.

Fair enough! Though, I think some (perhaps not all) of them might have seen even more use if their textures weren't so specific. This isn't just a Bionicle vs. CCBS thing, either, this is evident even within a particular building system. Just look at how many more sets and themes this sword has appeared in than all the color combinations of this sword put together. And the latter has actually been out longer!

Random question for those who prefer CCBS/are against the G1 system, but when do you all think the 'downfall' of OGBio was in terms of the action figures? Just to help me better grasp some of your opinions.

I don't know if there was a "downfall". Personally, I really liked the sets all the way to the end, though there were always particular sets and parts that bugged me due to a lack of stylistic consistency (which, yes, was a big deal for me even back then). The G1 parts were great for their time, and the versatility of the parts really did evolve over the years in many ways (the Toa Inika torso beam still stands out to me as the most versatile G1 torso piece). I just think constraction has now largely evolved beyond them.

I believe the CCBS is better than what what came before it, and it's still evolving to this day. That doesn't mean I'm a blind optimist who believes every year's sets are better than the last. I like the 2015 Bionicle sets better than the 2016 ones. I liked the 2012 Hero Factory sets better than the 2013 ones. But I think the overall trends in LEGO set design over the past decade and a half have been fairly positive ones.

The 2015 Toa are my favorite Toa sets to date, bringing together many of my favorite things about constraction from over the years. The pop-off masks and gear functions of the Toa Mata! The dual-function weapons of the Toa Nuva! The aesthetically pleasing proportions of the Toa Metru and Toa Hagah! The dynamic, energetic color schemes and 13-point articulation of the Toa Inika! The diverse builds of the Toa Mahri! The smooth, clean contours and versatile parts of the CCBS! These sets reinforce my belief that sets don't have to undo advances made in the past in order to stay true to their roots. As different as they are from the Toa Mata, the 2015 Toa are still quintessentially Bionicle.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Aanchir

[VBBN]

You know what I love about CCBS? A Hero 2.0 next to a Breakout Hero looks perfectly normal. You can easily pit Drilldozer against a Breakout Rocka, or Voltixx against Furno 2.0.

[Dr_Chronos]

Random question for those who prefer CCBS/are against the G1 system, but when do you all think the 'downfall' of OGBio was in terms of the action figures? Just to help me better grasp some of your opinions.

Hmmm. It was more of a steady degression rather than a downfall. Some years and their individual sets had their highs and lows. In my opinion the degression started in 2005 with the Hordika. The rate stayed about the same in 2006, rose in 2007, and jumped to the lowest in 2008 (In terms of figures, the vehicles were great). 2009 was on par with 2007 in that they both used the Ignika build creativly. 2010 with the STARS is the lowest but I don't really count it because the other option would have been no wave at all.

In terms of what was my least favorite wave figure wise it would be 2008. But the Barraki from 2007 started a big texture inconsistenty problem that would continue till the end. As DraikNova said, the texture issue was accompanied by improvments in articulation. In retrospect the Metru got the ball rolling with useless pistons, and it just steadily got bigger as the years went by.

You know what I love about CCBS? A Hero 2.0 next to a Breakout Hero looks perfectly normal. You can easily pit Drilldozer against a Breakout Rocka, or Voltixx against Furno 2.0.

You know I never really noticed that. Bionicle heroes and Villians grew pretty large over the years. I suppose it's because CCBS used a standard torso bone while Bionicle made a new torso every year until 2006 (and then you had 2008).

[dviddy]

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.

It is an opinion. I've been in the thick of the online BIONICLE mocing community for almost fifteen years, and I came up with designs still prevalent all over the community. I've been around for every shift in the community's habits and styles. I find balljoints immensely easier to build with than the more geometrically limited technic connections. I also don't think the number of connection points being different is a con (and they aren't different amounts of connections for the most part, they are different styles of connections. Pins and axles vs balls and the smaller utensil holes.) It means that more serious builders finally have started paying attention to aesthetic over "which part fits in this space for connections regardless of style" which drives me crazy. CCBS is the best thing to ever happen to the community. Full stop.

Edited December 5, 2015 by dviddy

[Frozen Assasin]

CCBS is the best thing to ever happen to the community. Full stop.

When I view things and posts like these, I wonder - what is the big difference between you guys and the russian community ? We are all BIONICLE fans, we are all MOCists, but when it comes to CCBS vs Old school topic we take the opposite sides (In the Russian community CCBS is hated).

[DraikNova]

If you're Russian, why is your country marked "Belgium"?

[Frozen Assasin]

I'm from Russia, but live in Belgium.

[santaends]

Greetings new friends. I got my first contact with CCBS when I built my detective's office a few days ago. There were some hero fists on the ceiling as decoration, and I found it really interesting. Spent the best of the past few days reading up this sub forum. As a new noob from Reviewers Academy (Haven't earned bronze yet), I am interested in reviewing 2016's Bionicle sets.

But first I have a few questions:

1. Most bones I see have a ball on 1 side and a cup on the other. Why aren't there parts with balls on both side, as well as parts with cups on both side? I suppose it would be extremely interesting. Or is it not feasible?

2. I only ever buy System sets. What's a good CCBS set for a beginner to get to explore this theme? Something well rounded- nice techniques and good variety of parts. Preferably 2015 sets.

3. Is there a parts database for CCBS?

4. Is there an idiot's guide to CCBS? I've read a number of threads including all of VBBN's reviews and a few xboxtravis', but I feel it's not enough.

5. Are storylines extremely important to Bionicle? Any videos, or threads to recommend? I've already watched Mask of Light, but that's about it.

6. What do people look out for in CBBS reviews? Saw a few on Youtube. They mostly poked holes about the original design. For example, a guy complained about no shells at the calf for one of the 2015 toas. Another compared the current Toa of Fire with the 2008 one, and said the older one was so much more detailed. There's a negative vibe to it. Something I don't see often in system reviews. Do people mostly look for lore, playability or usefulness of parts?

Thank you all so much.

Edited December 5, 2015 by santaends

[DraikNova]

1: There are pieces with cups on both sides, but currently only in two sizes. Sadly, LEGO seems intent on mostly making humanoid builds with CCBS, which reduces the chances of them using this kind of pieces and as a result, them making more variants.

2: Star Wars' General Grievous makes good use of a large variety of CCBS parts, and is pretty much the only really large CCBS build we've had so far. Definitely worth picking up.

3: Bricklink stores all it's CCBS parts under "Hero Factory".

4: I think there's an overview picture of how CCBS was conceptualized somewhere, but I can't find the designer's blog which I remember it being on.

5: Yes, especially in the original version (the 2015 lineup is a reboot), but eventually the storyline got so bloated that new fans had difficulty understanding it, which was what led to BIONICLE's failure.

[Aanchir]

3: Bricklink stores all it's CCBS parts under "Hero Factory".

Not quite all — there are a handful of them in the "Bionicle" and "Large Figure Parts" categories, depending on what theme they came out in.

4: I think there's an overview picture of how CCBS was conceptualized somewhere, but I can't find the designer's blog which I remember it being on.

I guess you're referring to this image (click the magnifying glass icon to see it in full size).

5: Yes, especially in the original version (the 2015 lineup is a reboot), but eventually the storyline got so bloated that new fans had difficulty understanding it, which was what led to BIONICLE's failure.

Since the 2015 lineup is a reboot, catching up on its storyline is pretty easy so far. I recommend watching the story videos here. That should get you mostly caught up.

And as for that sixth question, I feel like it's good for a review to address the character's context (like previous versions of the character that helped inspire their design). But reviews that are just tearing down the new set for being "different" from past ones instead of judging it on its own merits can be a real bummer.

I don't watch a lot of video reviews, but JANGBRICKS has done some good ones, and while the TTV Product Showcase videos aren't full reviews, they do a great job showing off the sets' designs and features.

When it comes to text/photo reviews, I tend to enjoy reading the ones on BZPower and here on Eurobricks. The reviewers on these sites tend to know their stuff. My brother and I have also written some Bionicle reviews of our own for New Elementary.

[santaends]

Thank you both so much! Watched all the 18 episodes, got so much insight. Nice reviews, Mr Scott! 6 sets at once, wow..

[xboxtravis7992]

^Santaends, I feel flattered you read my reviews :) I do have more Bionicle reviews on Brickset than here though.

Anyway, my first introduction to CCBS has this July. I played with the old Bionicle system though up until 2007. I can attest that the old figs do "look" more detailed. But their construction was more simplistic. There is a video on YouTube by Jangbricks where he compares the 2015 Lewa to his predecessors and showcases this.

As you can see though by the debate here in this thread there are lovers and haters of both CCBS and the Old Bionicle. That being said they are fully cross compatible systems, using the same ball joint design.

As Aanchir said, the new Bionicle story is quick to catch up on, and if you don't want to watch the videos you can read a plot summary for 2015 on the BioSector01 Wiki.

Edit: just saw your newest post, seems you saw the videos then :)

Edited December 5, 2015 by xboxtravis7992

[VBBN]

6. What do people look out for in CBBS reviews? Saw a few on Youtube. They mostly poked holes about the original design. For example, a guy complained about no shells at the calf for one of the 2015 toas. Another compared the current Toa of Fire with the 2008 one, and said the older one was so much more detailed. There's a negative vibe to it. Something I don't see often in system reviews. Do people mostly look for lore, playability or usefulness of parts?

Every reviewer will look for something different in a set. Some compare them to older sets, some compare them only to figures in that respective wave. Some focus on the re-usability of parts in MOCs, some care only about the set itself and not it's future applications. Some care more about color scheme and cohesive looks, while others will argue whether playability with functions is more important than flexibility and poseability. It's entirely dependent on the reviewer and what they want to focus on, no single review will take every side and no one should build an opinion of whether they want to buy a set or not based on reading one single review. That's why I often stress for others to share their own reviews- I know that I have been the dominating force of reviews here in the Action Figures forum for the last few years, but that shouldn't stop others from giving their own reviews and opinions on sets.

Of course reviews can also be influenced by the reviewer him/herself. If it's someone who doesn't know much about that theme or building system, there might be a level of obliviousness that leads to the review being overly negative or overly positive. A review might also be affected by the reviewer's experience with that set. For example, when LEGO provides an entire wave, I review the whole wave, in comparison to some other sites such as BZP where all of the staff are well versed in Bionicle and review them accordingly. I have the advantage of being able to stack sets up against one another and tend to give opinions about which i think are the best and worst in a wave and getting to compare the sets against one another, whereas a BZP review has the advantage of the reviewer focusing solely on that set. While they might spend 3 weeks developing an opinion of a set and then reviewing it, I review 6-12 things in the same amount of time and can't really connect with the sets to the same level. Of course, as evident in this topic, some people have a strong bias to one system or another, and as a result in their review they are likely to side or have their opinion influenced by that bias.

Really the best way to do a review is (insert Shia here) just do it, don't try to follow a mold, just give your opinion of the set you have in hand, what you like and don't like about it and from there, everyone else will share their opinions and that's where the beauty of reviewing stars. It's not just about how you talk about the sets, it's about the response that review builds and how people react to your photos and being able to see the set from your perspective.