Original Bionicle vs CCBS discussion

[dviddy]

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).

I don't know. It could come down to cultural differences in a lot of ways, but while that might be how your overall community leans, Hero Factory sold better in Russia and Eastern European former Soviet bloc countries than anywhere else in the world, so remember that. That said, there isn't a whole lot of cross-pollination with the Russian building community and the Western community (nor with the Asian community), and I could only name a builder or two from that part of the globe who are doing things I'd say were worth watching. A lot of it falls into the same grouping I'd put the Deviantart-centric part of the community in, which is the overly-detailed, fill-every space, massive technic combo blocks attempting to replicate parts that already exist, akward and unproportionate builds. It feels lost in time a bit, as if the overall mocing community had hit pause in 2007 and never continued to innovate.

I don't want that to be awkward, but you asked and that's the best I've got.

[Frozen Assasin]

So yes, now I get it. Thank you very much for the explanation.

BTW - that part about "being stuck in 2007" is actually effin hilarious, since most of us consider 2007 - 2009 the golden years of Bionicle (sometimes together with 2001-2003). And having extremely complicated builds with lots of technic and system parts is also a valued thing.

[dviddy]

So yes, now I get it. Thank you very much for the explanation.

BTW - that part about "being stuck in 2007" is actually effin hilarious, since most of us consider 2007 - 2009 the golden years of Bionicle (sometimes together with 2001-2003). And having extremely complicated builds with lots of technic and system parts is also a valued thing.

Which was exactly my point. ;)

[santaends]

Thanks VBBN and xboxtravis for the insightful comments. Gotta think less and do more :)

[Frozen Assasin]

Which was exactly my point. ;)

However...http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=6171977 - > One of our best MOCers, Red. He's MOST defiantly not stuck in 2007.

[dviddy]

However...http://www.brickshel...y.cgi?i=6171977 - > One of our best MOCers, Red. He's MOST defiantly not stuck in 2007.

If that's supposed to be an example of a good moc to counter my comment, well, it is neither a good moc nor a good example of moving away from unnecessarily complicated designs.

[DraikNova]

Yeah, I have to agree with dviddy on that one. Pretty atrocious looking.

[Frozen Assasin]

Yeah, I have to agree with dviddy on that one. Pretty atrocious looking.

May I ask then - what isn't "atrocious " looking in your opinion ? Cause that is one of the best MOCists we have...and one of the few which are still active.

[MakutaOfWar]

It just looks very unnecessarily um... objectified in my opinion.

[CabooseBM]

I mean, that too, definitely, but it comes together poorly and the proportions are really weird.

Points for making the bust that isn't one of the usual suspects, I guess?

[bidiminished]

If that's supposed to be an example of a good moc to counter my comment, well, it is neither a good moc nor a good example of moving away from unnecessarily complicated designs.

When is a design "unnecessarily complicated"?

[TwistLaw]

However...http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=6171977 - > One of our best MOCers, Red. He's MOST defiantly not stuck in 2007.

That's actually a fairly good MOC, but that subtle sexualitation is just a big nope.

[YellowCorvette]

However...http://www.brickshel...y.cgi?i=6171977 - > One of our best MOCers, Red. He's MOST defiantly not stuck in 2007.

I think that's a MOC that ha a good idea behind it, but the proportions and the execution is kinda off and odd-looking.

[Frozen Assasin]

That's actually a fairly good MOC, but that subtle sexualitation is just a big nope.

Did I tell you that is actually a non-sexualized MOC in the Russian community's general conclusion ? Believe me, I've seen worse.

[Quisoves Pugnat]

I'm actually rather fond of what I've seen on DA, but that's hardly the cream of the crop, IMO. Technically impressive? Yes. Aesthetically pleasing? No. It manages to be rather gross.

[CabooseBM]

Did I tell you that is actually a non-sexualized MOC in the Russian community's general conclusion ? Believe me, I've seen worse.

The depths of fandom depravity does not a good argument make. =P

[wghost]

I like CCBS very much from the building perspective and I liked the old system for its more Technic-like aesthetic. What I don't wanna see is going back-and-forth between building styles and overall look. I want my sets not just to be compatible with each other but to have a coherent aesthetic. I don't like at all how I can't really put the 2016 Toa next to the 2015 Toa, Hero Factory sets next to G1 Bionicle sets and so on. That's my biggest concern.

Edited December 8, 2015 by wghost

[santaends]

Did I tell you that is actually a non-sexualized MOC in the Russian community's general conclusion ? Believe me, I've seen worse.

Can you pm or post some that are worse? In the spirit of learbing and broadening horizons.. :)

[dviddy]

When is a design "unnecessarily complicated"?

One of the most basic tenets of design is "keep it simple". When folks use twenty technic pieces in an attempt to replicate the form and shape of pieces that already exist in a single-piece solution just to "do something custom", it's an unnecessarily complex design. Not to mention it looks absolutely terrible 98% of the time. Think of the generic Neo-Toa designs over the last ten years, with the double-pin clip based limbs, the heavy technic armoured legs that simply attempt to replicate the lower limbs TLG already produced, etc. There was this strong push in the community in the early-to-mid 2000s to create "everything custom" and to avoid pre-fab solutions, but this is the opposite of smart design. It's one of the things I am referring to when I say strong swaths of the community are "stuck in 2007", because even with a few new elements introduced since then, so many of those technic-heavy complexly-designed MOCs could be timestamped with "2007" and they wouldn't look out of place. Some designs are timeless, sure, but the community as a whole has never stopped moving forward and innovating, from people like Retinence, Brickthing, Djordje, etc. These people push the boundaries and create new standards that the community attempts to replicate and catch-up to.

[MakutaOfWar]

^Maybe that's what a person enjoys, doesn't mean being "stuck in 2007" is a bad thing. We're talking about toys, after all. Not something immoral.

I prefer music from the 70s and 80s, not dubstep, is that a bad thing? No. Even though some who actually like dubstep would consider it an "evolution".

Edited December 9, 2015 by MakutaOfWar

[dviddy]

^Maybe that's what a person enjoys, doesn't mean being "stuck in 2007" is a bad thing. We're talking about toys, after all. Not something immoral.

I prefer music from the 70s and 80s, not dubstep, is that a bad thing? No. Even though some who actually like dubstep would consider it an "evolution".

The question was asked and I answered honestly. I've seen the "this is just what I like" excuse thrown out by folks who want to be taken seriously as "big names" in the community before, and I think it's a poor excuse designed to overlook mediocre builds. People asked for honesty, and that's what I'm giving. I do not think everyone needs to take MOCing as seriously as I and some of my peers do, but of those who do, I find this poor excuse to be exactly that- poor. Some of the most frustrating folks in the community are ones who think their builds are worthy of being mentioned with Cajun, Retinence, etc, but refuse to accept criticism, to innovate, or to do something that just looks good, and just say "but this is what I like and art is subjective so leave me alone". Absolutely- if you don't want to be serious about it (it's a toy, after all!!) then don't! Have fun! If you want to build blocky, ugly (IMO), Neo-Toa c2007, do it! Have fun and own it! But don't expect to be taken seriously in the more competitive and overly dramatically serious MOCing world.

(Dubstep as an evolution of classic rock is a throw to the side. It's more akin to saying "I like space MOCs more than BIONICLE MOCs", because they're both MOCs, but they are different genres.)

What I love about CCBS is that it's brought a focus on design simplicity to the forefront for those who are overly serious about the hobby. For those of us who are (and I am aware that it's a toy, and that it can be silly to be so serious, but that doesn't stop the fact that we are serious about it), the CCBS parts that offer such a simplicity (and the ability to replace areas on old MOCs where, for example, I used to use thirty system slopes and tiles to create a shape and texture I can use ONE CCBS shell to create simply and effectively) offer a chance to focus on why this part works here,what that part usage says about the MOC, how it informs the feel of the MOC, etc. It's allowed for a focus not just on aesthetics, but since the part selection can feel simpler and less diverse, it means a greater focus on parts usage and storytelling in a visual medium.

[Dorek]

overly dramatically serious MOCing world.

Hammer, meet nail.

[MakutaOfWar]

(IMO)

But that is you and a group of others who categorize yourselves as superior MoCers, and don't take that the wrong way because you've dished out fairly decent mocs.

And the classic rock/dubstep example was showcasing mainstream opinion.

Edit: Blah, I suck at arguments. I've got a point to make but I'm not sure what that point is just yet.

Edited December 9, 2015 by MakutaOfWar

[Iben]

All of this quite reminds me of the "Flat vs realism"-design discussion in Mobile development. Some find beauty in simplicity, but not in complexity. Others find beauty in complexity and not in simplicity. And then others like both in different contexts. From my standpoint as an app/web developer I don't think that "keeping things simple" is such a core concept of design, I consider it to be the building block of certain styles within design. Saying that complexity for the sake of complexity is inherent bad design is most certainly true in specific styles of design, but it isn't necessarily true for design in general. There can be beauty in complexity, with Art Deco being a prime example of this.

Of course, this is my opinion and I've been influenced by my education in many ways; but I've never really cared for choosing one specific style in the world of design. Certain contexts, tastes or moods simply call for other forms of styles. I don't consider there to be one style that wins over the other and that pretty much wraps up my opinion on the difference between the 2015-2016 sets and the "old and new system". I can find beauty and faults in both styles; and I don't really consider one to be inherently better than the other.

-Iben

[TwistLaw]

[uncalled drama]

It's been quite some time since I had such a genuine laugh.