Original Bionicle vs CCBS discussion

[Lord-Vorahk]

It's not the gold I have a problem with. Yes, it's excessive, but it's still okay in my eyes because I wanted more gold when I bought him. It's the trans-red-orange. I'm well and truly sick to death of that colour.

If CCBS used its colours as well as it used to, I'd be happy. But current CCBS spams metallics and trans colours, often with poor layering (Trans armour over opaque bones only worked for me on the Skull sets, because they were meant to have visible skeletal structures), and every skeleton is now an awkward mix of black and grey, rather than being consistently one or the other. G1 got a bit crap with colours in 2008, but they returned to form in 2009.

If you think it's just a post-hoc complaint that sprung up as a way of validating the 2.0 heroes' proportions you're kidding yourself.

I never said that. I said that they complained about the Inika builds' proportions, and praised the 2.0 heroes' proportions despite the 2.0 still having huge feet, wide shoulders, arms that were as long as their legs, and adding huge hands to the mix. At no point did I imply any form of time-frame on these statements (True, BZP reviews did often include negative comparisons to the Inika in the first two years of HF, but they'd already been saying those things on the Bonkle reviews long before that).

Also, with regards to how proportions change our view of characters: I got Jaller Inika for my tenth birthday. His proportions didn't bother me, because I was a ten year old. THe things I noticed about the toy were "My favourite character form the movie is a Toa, he's gold, he has a laser sword, and he can lie down without a big grey gear getting in the way! This is the best Toa ever." I was similarly pleased with Hahli, who I got on the same day, despite liking her less. Jaller Inika remained my favourite until I got Jaller Mahri, who in turn remained my favourite until I got Lewa Phantoka, in both cases because they had cooler weapons, better masks, and buddies (Even if Tanma was sold seperately). The proportions had no effect on my view of the characters until I got Mata Nui in 2009, when my thoughts amounted to "This guy is basically a god, he should be taller", so I gave him longer thigh bones. The prospect of their proportions didn't cross my mind until I read the BZP reviews, and then I thought "They're not human, why does it matter?" Out of curiosity, I tried giving an Inika shorter arms, but I thought it looked odd and turned it back, because Toa have long arms, and have always had long arms, and the Matoran, the natural state of their species, have even longer arms.

As a toy, the 2006-2009 canister sets worked much better for me. The lack of gears meant that they could hold a pose, beating out the 2001-2004 canisters in that respect and, move their arms independently, beating the Metru build there too. They also had good shoulder articulation, beating the Metru and the left side of the Hordika there too. If I had a character falling out of the sky and spreading out to slow themselves down? Inika could do it, Metru couldn't. ANd that was the most important thing: THese were toys that I was playing with. Long arms meant that carrying injured/unconscious/dead comrades, cooldown hugs, etc, were all possible. The lack of a gear meant that things like resting, sleeping, being dead, or anything else that involved such a simple act as lying down became possible. It also made for more dynamic-looking fights, as opposed to "Vakama fights Makuta by flailing his disk launcher at him."

I suppose that's why I preferred the launchers to the functions: You can take the zamor/cordak/whatever out of a TOa's hand. Removing all the gear mechanisms from the shoulders is no such simple task. Before the Inika, I didn't play with Toa that much. I generally stuck to the 2004 Matoran and the Bohrok, because the former didn't have functions, and the latter, despite being built around a function, still had full articulation in the bits where it mattered: THe limbs.

But back on topic, something I want to note is that, while I love the 2015 sets, I have no such attachment to the 2016 ones. I've kept all of my 2015 sets built, even bought dupes of some of them so I can still use the bits, and modified them too. I bought Tahu and Ikir out of the 2016 lineup, and quickly decided that I have no real desire to purchase more of them. Maybe I'll get Onua for his purple pieces- Just this morning, I found that the Inika torso lines up very well with the 2016 spine, I piece I previously didn't care for, and I've been planning a Toa of Gravity MOC that could use it- and so I can give Korgot some Trans-Purple studs. Out of the summer wave, I only want Ekimu and Storm Beast, and the latter's only because UK bricklink stores probably won't get the dark blue shells I've been craving for a while. Ekimu will look nice in the middle of my 2015 Toa. If I have money for Lego, it's going onto Bricklink to get more G1 stuff, or more Clone Troopers. Or both.

If I want CCBS, I'm far more inclined to go back and acquire stuff from the first few years of HF to make my own versions of those characters. THe 2015 sets do me nicely as far as Bionicle goes, and if I want to do stuff with CCBS, I want to be the older CCBS. When colour schemes were better, there weren't metallics and transparent stuff everywhere, the general aesthetic of the figure wasn't sacrificed for an obtrusive gear function, and LEGO didn't think kids were too stupid to figure out the difference between a hinge-joint bone and a ball-joint bone.

[Ikaatril]

If this is true, I really wish it didn't use the CCBS system and reverted to the Technic-based system of Roboriders/Slizers/BIONICLE G1 or mixel joints. 

CCBS is inferior to the technic system in every way, and is vastly less versatile - yes, some CCBS pieces have technic pin holes. But they're extremely awkward to use compared to the pin holes of G1 BIONICLE sets. 

Outside of here and BZPower, CCBS had been received incredibly negatively - to quote, 'G2 was trasssh becasue of the trassshh Hero Factory building system' (sic).

Besides that, CCBS is now redundant thanks to the mixel joints - Mixel joints actually interact with LEGO and are actually identifiable as LEGO the average consumer, unlike CCBS or the Technic-based system.

[Azani]

7 hours ago, Ikaatril said:

If this is true, I really wish it didn't use the CCBS system and reverted to the Technic-based system of Roboriders/Slizers/BIONICLE G1 or mixel joints. 

CCBS is inferior to the technic system in every way, and is vastly less versatile - yes, some CCBS pieces have technic pin holes. But they're extremely awkward to use compared to the pin holes of G1 BIONICLE sets. 

Outside of here and BZPower, CCBS had been received incredibly negatively - to quote, 'G2 was trasssh becasue of the trassshh Hero Factory building system' (sic).

Besides that, CCBS is now redundant thanks to the mixel joints - Mixel joints actually interact with LEGO and are actually identifiable as LEGO the average consumer, unlike CCBS or the Technic-based system.

This is pretty much one hundred percent untrue in every way, but tbh I don't have enough time to argue it right now, so I'll just let another fellow (Aanchir?) do it.

-Azani

[Ikaatril]

On 05/10/2017 at 4:22 PM, Azani said:

This is pretty much one hundred percent untrue in every way, but tbh I don't have enough time to argue it right now, so I'll just let another fellow (Aanchir?) do it.

-Azani

The opinions of other people are not 'objectively untrue'. How many large-scale Technic-style MoCs do you see compared to large-scale CCBS MoCS? The answer is much more of the previous, even today. Try building a titan in LDD - technic parts win out 95% of the time. Most CCBS MoC titans aren't even pure CCBS, and rely on a technic-based torso covered with CCBS shells rather than a true CCBS build - also making the arms and legs look rather awkward, since CCBS legs and arms are quite thin on larger figures.

There's only so much you can do with CCBS - a disproportionately high amount of CCBS sets are straight-standing humanoids compared to the technic system. CCBS may be cheaper, but it stifles creativity by reducing connection points - ask anyone. It's much easier to integrate system bricks on the technic system because of the large amount of pin holes, which CCBS tends to lack except on longer bones, whereas almost every technic system set had some sort of pin hole whether it circular or axle. Meanwhile, CCBs has circular pin holes on longer bones, the torso, and that's it really. You also have the tiny holes in the shells, but there's just not much use for those beyond the shell-addons.

Remember, some of us also said that we feared BIONICLE was ending in 2016. But some of you also said that it 'obviously wasn't', to paraphrase. Then, generation two ended.

[Lyichir]

2 hours ago, Ikaatril said:

The opinions of other people are not 'objectively untrue'. How many large-scale Technic-style MoCs do you see compared to large-scale CCBS MoCS? The answer is much more of the previous, even today. Try building a titan in LDD - technic parts win out 95% of the time. Most CCBS MoC titans aren't even pure CCBS, and rely on a technic-based torso covered with CCBS shells rather than a true CCBS build - also making the arms and legs look rather awkward, since CCBS legs and arms are quite thin on larger figures.

There's only so much you can do with CCBS - a disproportionately high amount of CCBS sets are straight-standing humanoids compared to the technic system. CCBS may be cheaper, but it stifles creativity by reducing connection points - ask anyone. It's much easier to integrate system bricks on the technic system because of the large amount of pin holes, which CCBS tends to lack except on longer bones, whereas almost every technic system set had some sort of pin hole whether it circular or axle. Meanwhile, CCBs has circular pin holes on longer bones, the torso, and that's it really. You also have the tiny holes in the shells, but there's just not much use for those beyond the shell-addons.

Remember, some of us also said that we feared BIONICLE was ending in 2016. But some of you also said that it 'obviously wasn't', to paraphrase. Then, generation two ended.

Oh dear... do I have to explain why the ability to integrate Technic and CCBS for larger builds is not a weakness of the system, but by design?

The problem with the previous "system" is that it was hardly a system at all. There were pretty much only two lengths of lower leg piece, despite the many almost redundant varieties. Same goes for upper legs. To do anything else, you had to go custom—and that really only worked for going larger, not going smaller.

CCBS was designed to have the same customization potential, but also to provide more built-in opportunities as well. Now there was a wide-ranging scale of limb beams, on par with the existing systems of Technic axles and beams. The same went for shells. And the simplicity of those parts meant that they were easier to use in custom configurations, not harder—you could use smaller bones structurally on a larger MOC much easier than you could use specialized, heavily detailed parts like Rahkshi legs. Making models out of "pure" CCBS is not and has never been the point, because it is still designed as a Technic-integrated system for the specific purpose of that sort of customization. I mean, you CAN make models out of pure CCBS—especially smaller ones—but that's just one possibility out of many, and an asset rather than a flaw.

Getting back to the advantages of CCBS over Mixel joints (since you've finally drawn me into this argument, may as well make it complete), the sturdiness of CCBS is a huge benefit. Brick-built construction offers loads of customization potential but ultimately, a Technic-based build (especially one that can use single-piece "bones" for the underlying skeleton) is much sturdier than a comparably sized System build, and can stand up to more robust play.

Edited October 8, 2017 by Lyichir

[Aanchir]

Honestly, most of the biggest and best constraction MOCs I've been discovering lately (including ones I DON'T tend to see here or on BZPower) use CCBS, Technic, classic Bionicle, and System parts in tandem. MOCs like Alieraah's self-MOC, Astorix's Talidak, Red's AD.AM, Primus's Herakles, Gamma-Raay's Gamma Dragon, chubbybots's Umarak revamp, Djokson's Dekaimano Buster V, IGU's Makuta the Elements Lord, etc.

If CCBS were truly so limiting and inconvenient to use there's no reason these builders would have to use it — it's not as though G1 Bionicle parts are rare or sellers who have these parts are reluctant to let go of them. And these MOCs' use of Technic doesn't somehow indict or forsake the use of CCBS. CCBS is fundamentally a Technic-based system, with the Technic ball joint at its core. Many CCBS sets have used basic Technic parts just as extensively as many of their G1 Bionicle counterparts. And many of the biggest and best constraction MOCs have always eschewed prefab body segments and opted for more Technic-based and System-based customization, even during G1.

[ZORK64]

To add my 2 cents to this debate, I sometimes get the feeling that most G1 Bonkle fans seem to forget how many very specialized molds Bionicle had back then. While it would be probably exaggerated to say that you can't utilize all of them in more than one way, most parts that were introduced with CCBS are far more versatile in their use, and just like Lyichir said, the simplistic design language of CCBS works much better with Lego System than the more detailled approach of Bonkles.

Furthermore, I'm inclined to say that it's easier to build a cohesive titan out of CCBS than with the G1 approach, as CCBS parts selection also offered a wide array of parts that make this faster and easier. Just compare titan-sized sets of G1 Bionicle with those of Hero Factory and G2 Bionicle in terms of pricing, parts count, poseability and stability. I'm pretty certain that most of the HF titans surpass their precedeccors here. This is for me also a reason (besides growing up and getting an income of my own) why I purchased more titan sets during the Hero Factory era than during G1 Bionicle - they were easier affordable.

Regarding Mixel Joints and Brick-Built construction, I would appreciate it if TLG would find ways that would make Brick-Built constraction figures as stable as CCBS. I adore the Mixel joints, but it's true that stability (and thus, playability) of these isn't as good as that of other constraction themes.

[Azani]

9 hours ago, Ikaatril said:

The opinions of other people are not 'objectively untrue'.

You didn't state opinions. Rather, you claimed that CCBS was poorly recieved and not useful with technic, which is false.

I know that it's not fun to hear that some things that you said are wrong, but you have to start to learn to take responsibility for what you say.

Edited October 8, 2017 by Azani

[Lyichir]

3 hours ago, ZORK64 said:

To add my 2 cents to this debate, I sometimes get the feeling that most G1 Bonkle fans seem to forget how many very specialized molds Bionicle had back then. While it would be probably exaggerated to say that you can't utilize all of them in more than one way, most parts that were introduced with CCBS are far more versatile in their use, and just like Lyichir said, the simplistic design language of CCBS works much better with Lego System than the more detailled approach of Bonkles.

Furthermore, I'm inclined to say that it's easier to build a cohesive titan out of CCBS than with the G1 approach, as CCBS parts selection also offered a wide array of parts that make this faster and easier. Just compare titan-sized sets of G1 Bionicle with those of Hero Factory and G2 Bionicle in terms of pricing, parts count, poseability and stability. I'm pretty certain that most of the HF titans surpass their precedeccors here. This is for me also a reason (besides growing up and getting an income of my own) why I purchased more titan sets during the Hero Factory era than during G1 Bionicle - they were easier affordable.

Regarding Mixel Joints and Brick-Built construction, I would appreciate it if TLG would find ways that would make Brick-Built constraction figures as stable as CCBS. I adore the Mixel joints, but it's true that stability (and thus, playability) of these isn't as good as that of other constraction themes.

The tricky part with System-based Constraction is that bricks are just designed to come apart more easily than Technic in general. Avoiding larger models coming apart when you're trying to pose or play with them requires complex locking techniques, which are bulky and can ruin the look of a model, or single-piece "bones" as the basis for limbs (Knights Kingdom II used a system that sort of achieved this, but is very limiting in terms of scale without resorting to less sturdy custom limbs).

That's not to say it can't be done. There have been a fair number of awesome brick-built mechs, characters, and creatures over the years. But when designing a dedicated action figure theme from the ground up, it probably makes more sense to stick with a Technic-based system that already addresses those sorts of issues by design than to try and reinvent the wheel with a System base.

[ZORK64]

21 hours ago, Lyichir said:

The tricky part with System-based Constraction is that bricks are just designed to come apart more easily than Technic in general. Avoiding larger models coming apart when you're trying to pose or play with them requires complex locking techniques, which are bulky and can ruin the look of a model, or single-piece "bones" as the basis for limbs (Knights Kingdom II used a system that sort of achieved this, but is very limiting in terms of scale without resorting to less sturdy custom limbs).

That's not to say it can't be done. There have been a fair number of awesome brick-built mechs, characters, and creatures over the years. But when designing a dedicated action figure theme from the ground up, it probably makes more sense to stick with a Technic-based system that already addresses those sorts of issues by design than to try and reinvent the wheel with a System base.

Yeah, the stability is a good point here. I can confirm from my own experience building Transformers MOCs that brick-built figures are nowhere as sturdy, and this is probably going to be a very important criterion for constraction toys.

In that case, I hope we'll get at least a few more parts that would allow us to use Mixel Joints in more Technic-oriented builds. While we already have plenty of balls that are Technic-compatible (as they predated the Mixel Joints), all of the cups are still for brick-built figures, so a Mixel Ball Cup with a Technic connection (like a cross-axle) would be a nice new part.

[Ikaatril]

On 08/10/2017 at 10:12 PM, Azani said:

You didn't state opinions. Rather, you claimed that CCBS was poorly recieved and not useful with technic, which is false.

I know that it's not fun to hear that some things that you said are wrong, but you have to start to learn to take responsibility for what you say.

The opinions of other people are not 'false'.  When I have read many comments on youtube, twitter, facebook, and reddit, cesspools as they may be, I cannot deny - and you cannot deny (and I cannot take responsibility for things other people have said) - that a lot of them hate on BIONICLE G2 for using CCBS. I'm not sure how you'd categorise that as 'objectively false' when a quick google shows that it simply isn't false.  And the thing is: nobody really uses the technic pins on the CCBS limb pieces because they're fairly awkward to use when shells are taking into consideration. 

There is also the issue that G2 had troubles with villains - the beasts for example are very weak efforts from the set designers compared to the likes of the Barraki or Mistika Makuta, who are brimming with personality and variety in their set design. The beasts suffer from using the same mask and not being particularly distinctive - a feat even the skull wave a year before managed, and the skull wave had its own issues with Skull Scorpio though on a lesser scale.

It does not help that every single CCBS titan, except Witch Doctor, has generally not been very good - and Umarak the Hunter and Skull Grinder don't count as titans if Tahu, Onua, and Kopaka's  Master and Uniter forms don't, especially seeing as compared to the builds of G1 titans they barely count. 

To keep on topic, If this rumoured theme is true (and let's be honest, it isn't, constraction (or CCBS) is dying and the writing is on the wall - even the Star Wars CCBS figures for The Last Jedi have been reduced to a wave of 4 from The Force Awakens and Rogue One's 6) then it needs to come up with some massive innovations if it wants to be successful. We can't just keep getting the same boring humanoid build over and over - that has been done to death and most CCBS sets are humanoids (for a character-creature building system, there haven't been many creatures). Most consumers are almost assuredly tired of the same old humanoid builds - without armour, so many sets may as well be the very same as the 2.0 wave that started CCBS. There needs to be a lot of thought into this design - what we need is more of what we see in MoCs, and sets like Grievous and Furno Jet Machine - the interlocking of CCBS pieces to create more complex designs, instead of relying on technic as a crutch. Perhaps then CCBS can truly prove itself to its doubters. 

 

[Azani]

2 hours ago, Ikaatril said:

CCBS is inferior to the technic system in every way, and is vastly less versatile - yes, some CCBS pieces have technic pin holes. But they're extremely awkward to use compared to the pin holes of G1 BIONICLE sets. 

The opinions of other people are not 'false'.

Quoting people here is incredibly tough.

What you said wasn't an opinion - a few anecdotes from trolls on the internet is not evidence. Uh, sorry for that, I guess?

Edited October 19, 2017 by Azani

[Strakk]

I am skeptical about this being true too (timing mainly). In any case, story is still a secondary reason to buy a Lego set, especially for the casual customers. They should try to come up with some unique features for the sets, just as the original Bionicle team did with the Bohrok, which could attract kids. In my opinion, those are what could interest them the most. In a sense, first toys then action figures as concept.

 

Regarding the whole TECHNIC-CCBS discussion, I do not think it was the deciding factor for the failure of Bionicle Gen2, which I think had the high price (yes, more parts, but there is a limit to what common kids can ask to their parents) as the main factor. Also the fact they released two consecutive hero waves with the same names did not help either.
Some users here posting disagreed with me back when Bionicle Gen2 was still ongoing, but I believe the cost was the deciding factor. Also, apart from the interesting gear box, as I mentioned before, they lacked of an unique feature to make them look distinct and original.

Yes, some CCBS pieces that look ok on robots (Hero Factory) lack of details on what are supposed to be biomechanical or even completely natural creatures.
This was improved with the Uniters, introducing some new pieces and fusing a bit CCBS with custom builds.

 

On ‎08‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 9:38 PM, ZORK64 said:

To add my 2 cents to this debate, I sometimes get the feeling that most G1 Bonkle fans seem to forget how many very specialized molds Bionicle had back then. While it would be probably exaggerated to say that you can't utilize all of them in more than one way, most parts that were introduced with CCBS are far more versatile in their use, and just like Lyichir said, the simplistic design language of CCBS works much better with Lego System than the more detailled approach of Bonkles.

Furthermore, I'm inclined to say that it's easier to build a cohesive titan out of CCBS than with the G1 approach, as CCBS parts selection also offered a wide array of parts that make this faster and easier. Just compare titan-sized sets of G1 Bionicle with those of Hero Factory and G2 Bionicle in terms of pricing, parts count, poseability and stability. I'm pretty certain that most of the HF titans surpass their precedeccors here. This is for me also a reason (besides growing up and getting an income of my own) why I purchased more titan sets during the Hero Factory era than during G1 Bionicle - they were easier affordable.

Regarding Mixel Joints and Brick-Built construction, I would appreciate it if TLG would find ways that would make Brick-Built constraction figures as stable as CCBS. I adore the Mixel joints, but it's true that stability (and thus, playability) of these isn't as good as that of other constraction themes.

Yes, it is certainly easier and faster, but some the best HF titans (e.g. Black Phantom, Witch Doctor that I own) had to use double leg pieces to improve the stability. Personally I find it less elegant and more stiff than the Bionicle piston support used since 2006, which worked ok.

As for pricing and part counts, it is actually not true. For example (even though some are missing), look on Brickset under the category "titans" (quick link) and order them by price per piece. You will see that the old Bionicle sets generally win.

Naturally, of course, inflation and salaries have to be taken into account too. In this sense, a definitive comparison is hard and may vary depending on your country. 

[Mitch Henry]

Personally, the whole Technic ≠ CCBS for mocing just comes down to preference. Do you like the clean simple approach of ccbs or the technical, mechanical approach of technic. Now if you're talking about piece count and price and other related stuff, then Idk. 

[Mechbuilds]

My biggest problem with CCBS armor pieces is that the backside is wide open and not covered by anything.. If it was all around armored then it would look great.. It's just that the shorter CCBS parts can only be attached with a single armor piece. 
I've only used CCBS for upper legs and built the lower part completely from technic and using a bohrok or G1 bionicle foot. 

[VBBN]

Okay so-

I've moved all posts from the future constraction themes thread and merged them with our pre-existing thread that we have to debate CCBS vs other building systems.

Let's remember that people will have different opinions than you, that's okay- please keep things civil and respect others opinions as such.

[ZORK64]

 

On 19.10.2017 at 12:37 PM, Strakk said:

Yes, it is certainly easier and faster, but some the best HF titans (e.g. Black Phantom, Witch Doctor that I own) had to use double leg pieces to improve the stability. Personally I find it less elegant and more stiff than the Bionicle piston support used since 2006, which worked ok.

As for pricing and part counts, it is actually not true. For example (even though some are missing), look on Brickset under the category "titans" (quick link) and order them by price per piece. You will see that the old Bionicle sets generally win.

Naturally, of course, inflation and salaries have to be taken into account too. In this sense, a definitive comparison is hard and may vary depending on your country. 

I think that's a matter of personal taste. I didn't like the piston system for more humanoid builds (such as Axonn, the one titan I got back then who had these), so I was fine with the workarounds used in Hero Factory.

My bad in regard to pricing and part counts, guess my perspective here was not objective. However, I want to mention that I live in Germany, so it might be possible that some titans were more expensive here back then (IIRC Makuta and Axonn were 24,99€ each, for example).

However, the newer titans still surpass the older ones in terms of poseability - this holds particulary true for sets that utilized the new friction sockets.

 

I must generally admit that a lot of G1 Titans didn't really do much for me. I'm uncertain if this was solely because of their pricing or their design, but I usually sticked to the regular sets.

[TwistLaw]

The biggest problem with CCBS is that LEGO decided to design a full system for something that would have had at best three themes running at the same time. That's a fairly low number when compared to System, which has an outstanding array of bricks for a dozen of themes per year.

In other words CCBS is too big for itself: with bricks you can build everything, with CCBS 99% of the times you're going to build a humanoid. That's the biggest limit of constraction, the fact you're basically going to assemble the same thing over and over again, and say what you want but G1 did one thing right for most of its run: it tried to overcome the biggest limit of its system (that is, of course, building four-limbed bipedals most of the times) by introducing wich each year an acceptable amount of new pieces. That's why a BIONICLE set from 2001 is vastly different from another one released in 2005, that's why a Hero Factory set from 2011 is visually extremely similar to a BIONICLE set from 2015. Parents are not stupid, kids neither, and they know when something is resembling beyond reason something else already seen for years.

With 50 identical bricks you could build a spaceship just like a cottage. With the pieces from Protector of Earth, you could build a Protector of Earth and not much else. This alone speaks volumes about how constraction should have been handled ("Do you think you know more than LEGO?": I'll stop you right there, probably not. But considering the current state of constraction, neither LEGO knew best.)

And no, kids do still like action figures in this decade, so that argument is not gonna work. Sorry.

[ZORK64]

17 hours ago, TwistLaw said:

The biggest problem with CCBS is that LEGO decided to design a full system for something that would have had at best three themes running at the same time. That's a fairly low number when compared to System, which has an outstanding array of bricks for a dozen of themes per year.

In other words CCBS is too big for itself: with bricks you can build everything, with CCBS 99% of the times you're going to build a humanoid. That's the biggest limit of constraction, the fact you're basically going to assemble the same thing over and over again, and say what you want but G1 did one thing right for most of its run: it tried to overcome the biggest limit of its system (that is, of course, building four-limbed bipedals most of the times) by introducing wich each year an acceptable amount of new pieces. That's why a BIONICLE set from 2001 is vastly different from another one released in 2005, that's why a Hero Factory set from 2011 is visually extremely similar to a BIONICLE set from 2015. Parents are not stupid, kids neither, and they know when something is resembling beyond reason something else already seen for years.

With 50 identical bricks you could build a spaceship just like a cottage. With the pieces from Protector of Earth, you could build a Protector of Earth and not much else. This alone speaks volumes about how constraction should have been handled ("Do you think you know more than LEGO?": I'll stop you right there, probably not. But considering the current state of constraction, neither LEGO knew best.)

And no, kids do still like action figures in this decade, so that argument is not gonna work. Sorry.

I dunno, but I get the impression you're forgetting about the various CCBS Hero Factory Sets who broke away from the "traditional humanoid" formula. While it's true that the majority of the sets were still humanoids, we did get a fair share of unique builds out of the system as well - at least during Hero Factory's Run. G2 Bionicle was pretty big on humanoid builds again, though a lot of the baddies came with neat parts.

[TwistLaw]

1 hour ago, ZORK64 said:

I dunno, but I get the impression you're forgetting about the various CCBS Hero Factory Sets who broke away from the "traditional humanoid" formula.

Of course I remember about them, but all of them, at their core, were still a "torso+limbs" sets. Again, this is a huge limit of constraction it literally can't overcome (otherwise it wouldn't be constraction).
And CCBS does not compete with action figures, but with other LEGO themes (and systems) to whom is often compared, with all the shortcomings this comparison highlights.

Edited October 21, 2017 by TwistLaw

[Aanchir]

While it's true that G1 Bionicle often had more new molds per year than G2 Bionicle, I don't think that can really be held up as the way constraction should be, since it wasn't really sustainable. By the very end a lot of the theme's profits were being cancelled out by those types of expenses. It's also worth noting that G1 Bionicle also often had a lot more SETS per year than G2 did. In 2015 there were 27 new Bionicle parts across 18 sets (one and a half new molds per set). Ten years earlier in 2005 there had been about 52 new molds across 27 sets (two new molds per set). If constraction themes really need that many new molds every year to sell well, then that's probably a pretty valid reason for LEGO not to invest in them now that they can create even bigger hits much more economically.

[TwistLaw]

3 minutes ago, Aanchir said:

By the very end a lot of the theme's profits were being cancelled out by those types of expenses.

But how, since the last huge "parts update" happened in 2006, and the decision to axe BIONICLE happened in 2008, after three full years of the infamous Inika build on the shelves? Genuinely curious, since I always thought that from 2007 onwards new moulds were introduced according to much stronger necessities than in the past (weapons, launchers, gimmick-based torsos).

Edited October 21, 2017 by TwistLaw

[Strakk]

21 hours ago, ZORK64 said:

 

I think that's a matter of personal taste. I didn't like the piston system for more humanoid builds (such as Axonn, the one titan I got back then who had these), so I was fine with the workarounds used in Hero Factory.

My bad in regard to pricing and part counts, guess my perspective here was not objective. However, I want to mention that I live in Germany, so it might be possible that some titans were more expensive here back then (IIRC Makuta and Axonn were 24,99€ each, for example).

However, the newer titans still surpass the older ones in terms of poseability - this holds particulary true for sets that utilized the new friction sockets.

 

I must generally admit that a lot of G1 Titans didn't really do much for me. I'm uncertain if this was solely because of their pricing or their design, but I usually sticked to the regular sets.

Yes, I think personal taste plays a big role. 

Naturally, there are things that have been improved since 2010 as you mentioned.

It is the opposite for me in terms of designs. However, our impression may be different depending on how old we were when we first saw the sets. For example, when HF started I was already in my final years of high school, whereas I had most of the BIONICLE sets during elementary school and junior high school, when I probably formed my taste.

 

48 minutes ago, TwistLaw said:

But how, since the last huge "parts update" happened in 2006, and the decision to can BIONICLE happened in 2008, after three full years of the infamous Inika build on the shelves? Genuinely curious, since I always thought that from 2007 onwards new moulds were introduced according to much stronger necessities than in the past (weapons, launchers, gimmick-based torsos).

The number of molds is certainly a crucial factor in the overall cost, but you have a point.

In fact, Aanchir has been posting these statistics for quite a while and, even though they are correct, in my opinion they don't give the whole picture.

As you said, there had been several years with almost the same Piraka/Inika build, when the decision to end BIONICLE has taken. Personally, I think the molds should be considered as a kind of investment and important, not just in terms of their number, but mainly in terms of which sections of the set are going to contain them.

If you do not innovate the sets in their fundamental parts (main body) is quite natural that sets sales will decline at some point. Both children and parents will lose interest in the line after a while. As you said, most of the new characters were built almost identically varying mask and weapons. In the first BIONICLE years, risks were taken and fortunately most of them were successful, keeping the sets "fresh". In the period 2001-2006, only the Mata-Nuva and Bohrok-Bohrok Kal were very similar as waves. Starting from 2006, the designs were mostly human-like (excluding the Barraki, I would say), maybe considered to be "safer" than others in terms of sales.

HOWEVER, alongside with this idea, the price (and parts) increase probably played the BIGGEST role. It did not surprise me that the first wave of HF went back to a lower price (and parts) range.

I may be repetitive, but LEGO needs to create a new "Bohrok" line if they want to be again successful with the action figures. Yes, there are certainly risks, but I doubt humanoid figures can carry a long-lasting line by themselves, also because many toy companies produce them too (even cheaper).

 

 

 

Edited October 21, 2017 by Strakk

[Aanchir]

2 hours ago, TwistLaw said:

But how, since the last huge "parts update" happened in 2006, and the decision to axe BIONICLE happened in 2008, after three full years of the infamous Inika build on the shelves? Genuinely curious, since I always thought that from 2007 onwards new moulds were introduced according to much stronger necessities than in the past (weapons, launchers, gimmick-based torsos).

Because the number of new Bionicle molds didn't actually decrease for some time after the introduction of the Inika build. 2006, 2007, and 2008 each had around 60 new molds. It wasn't until 2009 that that number went down to about 45, and at that point, the decision to start winding the theme down had already been made. While the "Inika build" was a step up from previous torso builds in terms of versatility, for the first few years it didn't result in any fewer new torso molds each year, nor did it really result in any meaningful changes to other parts of the build other than the torso. Also, it's worth noting that the Inika build years also coincided with a steady increase in the number of figures with unique face/mask pieces and the number of different armor styles.

Edited October 21, 2017 by Aanchir

[ZORK64]

19 hours ago, TwistLaw said:

Of course I remember about them, but all of them, at their core, were still a "torso+limbs" sets. Again, this is a huge limit of constraction it literally can't overcome (otherwise it wouldn't be constraction).
And CCBS does not compete with action figures, but with other LEGO themes (and systems) to whom is often compared, with all the shortcomings this comparison highlights.

*Ahem*

Also, pretty much every creature, humanoid or not, boils down to "torso + limbs". That's basic anatomy. Not to mention, G1 wasn't much better in that regard, as pretty much everything back then also was torso + limbs, and more often than not humanoid to boot.