MakutaOfWar

Original Bionicle vs CCBS discussion

Recommended Posts

6233045354_aa2dcae46f_z.jpg

Great example of what I'm saying, thanks. It's clear that a lot of skill went into building this, but there are still so many contrasting textures all over this thing. Honestly, the most cohesive parts of the model design-wise are the spine, tail, and the inside of the neck. Everything else is really cluttered - it's difficult to even make out what shape some parts of the model are.

Big and complicated does not necessarily equate to good looking.

Edited by LewiMOC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm on a fence which system is better at this point, but I can trust CCBS overcoming the old system. It already has shown it has greater selling potential by being able to produce more than just robots/biomechanical creatures (which still look like robots and I hope for some organic looking stuff so people can finally think that Bionicle sets might not only represent a robot, only Barraki ever touched this).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It already has shown it has greater selling potential by being able to produce more than just robots/biomechanical creatures (which still look like robots and I hope for some organic looking stuff so people can finally think that Bionicle sets might not only represent a robot, only Barraki ever touched this).

Organic characters made out of CCBS still look way too mechanical, so it's not superior to the old system in that aspect.

Great example of what I'm saying, thanks. It's clear that a lot of skill went into building this, but there are still so many contrasting textures all over this thing. Honestly, the most cohesive parts of the model design-wise are the spine, tail, and the inside of the neck. Everything else is really cluttered - it's difficult to even make out what shape some parts of the model are.

Big and complicated does not necessarily equate to good looking.

Same thing with big CCBS MOCs - in most cases they're made out of shells cluttered together just like the pieces on that dragon MOC.

Edited by Voxovan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahem.

Are you kidding? Neither of those look cohesive. The first looks like a jumbled mess of shells, the other is also a jumbled mess. Neither looks at all good.

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

See, this is where your argument falls apart: all of those MoCs are using a ton of CCBS parts... Which most people aren't going to have access to. On the smaller scale it's always going to be the same dull skeleton over and over and over and over again. Gearboxes won't change that.

With CCBS however, everything's a lot more cohesive.

Most hilarious statement of the day.

And calling CCBS a part of the technic system is like calling system a part of the technic system because studs can attack to beams. (By the way, the jet machine was surge's machine, not furno's machine.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, this is where your argument falls apart: all of those MoCs are using a ton of CCBS parts... Which most people aren't going to have access to. On the smaller scale it's always going to be the same dull skeleton over and over and over and over again. Gearboxes won't change that.

And what of classic BIONICLE components? Are those not equally dull and samey when used on a small scale? yes, the singular parts are more detailed, but, if not using liberal amounts of Technic, can those detailed parts actually be used in interesting ways on a small, 8-14" tall MOC?

Neither CCBS nor classic components can do anything truly unique at a small scale without Technic, but CCBS provides a lower skill floor and greater versatility, whereas classic BIONICLE provided a far more detailed aesthetic, with the caveat that to keep said aesthetic cohesive, each new wave of figures needed a crippling number of new molds, which encouraged the designers to make clone sets, and which was an inefficient way of doing business.

Though the designers began to deviate from this philosophy during 2007 and continued with more varied builds throughout '08 and '09, all of the truly unique builds, such as Takadox or Ehlek, required basic Technic to make functional, and as such are hardly a proof of classic BIONICLE's versatility, but instead an example of basic Technic's incredible usefulness.

So, I agree that small-scale CCBS is often (though not always) samey, but I think the same was true of classic BIONICLE, and I also believe that their samey appearances at smaller scales can be solved with the application of well-placed Technic parts.

Edited by The Kumquat Alchemist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

The reason for that is obvious: G1 Bionicle has been around for longer (not to mention that fewer MOCists building with current parts use Brickshelf, since it's frequently unreliable these days).

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

If the builds of Lesovikk and Toa Ignika can be considered remotely "non-standard", that's just an indication of how much more creative "standard" CCBS models are than "standard" G1 Bionicle models. I mean, what did Lesovikk do creatively? Really nothing, besides using what had previously been a weapon piece as chest armor. Otherwise its torso beam, lower limbs, upper limbs, and shoulder armor were utterly conventional, using parts that had been designed specifically for those purposes. That kind of model is the very definition of a "Toamod".

Bulk from 2012, a $13 set just like the Phantoka or Glatorian, is considerably more creative than that, using what had originally been designed as a paw or claw as shoulder armor and what had originally been a foot as back armor. For that matter, CHI Cragger, a 15 Euro set, uses limb beams as neck and tail joints, and as mounting points for shoulder armor.Of course, it helps that CCBS elements are designed to be less function-specific in general. Any shell or beam is designed so it can be used on any part of a figure's body.

Larger-scale titan and vehicle sets are rare in CCBS not because they can't be built, but because they just generally don't tend to sell as well as more average-sized action figures. It's also worth noting that besides in 2001, titan and vehicle sets have ALWAYS made up a mere fraction of the sets in any given year, and since the introduction of CCBS, most years have had fewer constraction sets in general than during Bionicle G1.

Nevertheless, the Darth Vader and General Grievous sets from the upcoming Star Wars lineup certainly qualify as titans, showing it's not something the LEGO Group has completely given up on. And if Lesovikk qualifies as a titan, then most of the new Bionicle villains easily do as well, since they're all considerably more creative and complex.

Organic characters made out of CCBS still look way too mechanical, so it's not superior to the old system in that aspect.

This is your opinion, but I personally have to disagree. Even if neither system is perfect for building organic characters, CCBS at least makes it possible without any extraneous mechanical details like pistons, something that can't be said for G1 Bionicle (or in most cases, for basic Technic).

Just compare the Technic-based Jango Fett and Darth Vader sets from 2002 with the CCBS-based Jango Fett and Darth Vader sets from this year. The CCBS versions are smaller, less expensive, and have lower piece counts, but it's obvious which feel more like armored living characters and which feel more like robots.

See, this is where your argument falls apart: all of those MoCs are using a ton of CCBS parts... Which most people aren't going to have access to. On the smaller scale it's always going to be the same dull skeleton over and over and over and over again. Gearboxes won't change that.

My statement was in direct response to the claim that there aren't big CCBS MOCs. If I wanted to find examples of creative MOCs at a smaller scale I could do so with ease. However, I'm getting a little bit fed up with fishing for links for people who, if they even cared, could find them on their own. Maybe I should put some time into coming up with some sort of directory of impressive CCBS MOCs that I can just point people to when they're too lazy or ignorant to do their own homework.

I will say that even in actual sets, some of the smallest CCBS models have also been some of the most creative — consider Thornraxx, Toxic Reapa, XT4, Jawblade, and Tunneler Beast.

The majority of CCBS MOCs are simpler humanoids for the same reason that the majority of classic Bionicle MOCs, back when that style of building was in vogue, were "Toamods": builders who are just starting out will generally build simple creations based on the sets that are currently available. Nowadays, of course, a lot of the G1 fans who used to build Toamods have advanced to more complex models, while novice builders are starting out with what's more current: CCBS.

Which is not to say there's ever been anything wrong with smaller, simpler models. The "bigger is better" mindset held by some people in the community is an incredibly frustrating one, and if you WANT to build a small, simple humanoid without any unusual functions, creating an elaborate custom skeleton is fairly pointless.

Also, have you ever heard of Sturgeon's Law? Believe it or not, it often applies to LEGO creations, no matter WHAT system they use. To say that the majority of CCBS MOCs are simplistic, cluttered, or uncreative ignores that the same is generally true of G1 Bionicle MOCs.

Something else I have to point out: a lot of people keep talking about the G1 Bionicle sets as if they represented one cohesive system called "Technic". But this is not the case. The G1 Bionicle parts were Technic-based, but they were hardly a "system", at least not an organized one. G1 Bionicle was not built on a foundation of basic parts in modular sizes like System bricks and plates, Technic beams and axles, or CCBS beams and shells. Rather, it was a mishmash of parts with specialized shapes and textures, accumulated over a decade of sets.

Granted, some Bionicle sets (especially larger ones) USED lots of basic Technic beams and axles, just as many CCBS sets like Fire Lord, Furno XL, Breez Flea Machine, and Skull Basher do. But they were not the foundation of either building system. CCBS was designed with its own foundation of parts from the ground up, while it took Bionicle years to put together a consistent foundation for building — the end result of which, the so-called "Inika build", was the closest to CCBS that Bionicle ever came, but still fell short in terms of versatility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is your opinion, but I personally have to disagree. Even if neither system is perfect for building organic characters, CCBS at least makes it possible without any extraneous mechanical details like pistons, something that can't be said for G1 Bionicle (or in most cases, for basic Technic).

Just compare the Technic-based Jango Fett and Darth Vader sets from 2002 with the CCBS-based Jango Fett and Darth Vader sets from this year. The CCBS versions are smaller, less expensive, and have lower piece counts, but it's obvious which feel more like armored living characters and which feel more like robots.

Well yeah, let's compare a set made entirely out of technic pieces from 2002 to a set that is coming out 13 years later. No wonder those new Star Wars figures feel more like "living character" rather than those statues, so did Toa Inika. That's not the point I was making.

Jango and Vader from the upcoming Star Wars Constraction line are looking good as CCBS figures, because their movie counterparts are completely covered by a futuristic armor, there's nothing pointing out that they are organic, you may just say that they're robots in armor and it would make no difference - that's why they look good in CCBS.

But, let's take a look at, for example, Chima or, urgh, DC/Marvel ultrabuilds. Those figures are meant to represent fully-organic characters that aren't fully covered by armor. Heck, some of them are just simply humans (Joker, Batman, Captain America). But it's hard to believe that those are organic because of the visible black/gray bones in all places, bones that are even exposed when you look at the figures from some angles (that's another issue with CCBS, that you can cover a bone piece from all sides) or with gaps between the body and the back armor. I mean, yeah, it's Lego, so you can't make a figure like that out of it, and I'm not hating on CCBS, it's a great system, it allows for many things that I wouldn't even dream of during the old G1 days, but still, it isn't a system that should be used for making organic characters (I dare to say that Galidor figures looked more organic than CCBS ones). But that's just my opinion :L

Edited by Voxovan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, let's take a look at, for example, Chima or, urgh, DC/Marvel ultrabuilds. Those figures are meant to represent fully-organic characters that aren't fully covered by armor. Heck, some of them are just simply humans (Joker, Batman, Captain America). But it's hard to believe that those are organic because of the visible black/gray bones in all places, bones that are even exposed when you look at the figures from some angles (that's another issue with CCBS, that you can cover a bone piece from all sides) or with gaps between the body and the back armor. I mean, yeah, it's Lego, so you can't make a figure like that out of it, and I'm not hating on CCBS, it's a great system, it allows for many things that I wouldn't even dream of during the old G1 days, but still, it isn't a system that should be used for making organic characters (I dare to say that Galidor figures looked more organic than CCBS ones). But that's just my opinion :L

Of course Galidor figures looked more organic than CCBS ones. That's because they were hyper-detailed action figures with lots of specialized shapes and textures to resemble organic body parts or clothing. I won't dispute that, but I also wouldn't call it an advantage over CCBS. Just like how G1 Bionicle parts look out-of-place on anything but a mechanical creation, so too do many Galidor parts look out-of-place on anything that is not organic.

I don't consider the inability to armor all sides of a bone a huge disadvantage of CCBS. That's just a reality of building with LEGO, like how you generally can't hide every anti-stud on a System model or every pin or axle hole on a Technic model. Galidor is really the only building system that ever didn't seem especially exposed from at least one side, although some of the new Star Wars constraction sets do a good job armoring things like the backs of the legs that normally go un-armored (though that is partly possible just due to them being at a larger scale than previous organic CCBS characters).

Personally, I felt some of the Super Heroes constraction sets were quite good for their time, particularly Batman, who effectively avoided the use of mechanical textures except on his wing pack. And the Chima constraction sets were generally even better — CHI Cragger from last year is a favorite of mine due to his tasteful armor and delightfully unique posture. They're not flawless, but I don't expect them to be. What they are is the best I could reasonably expect any LEGO action figure of an organic character to be at the time without resorting to hyper-specialized, Galidor-esque elements. And I don't think not being able to achieve perfectly lifelike figures is reason enough for LEGO not to make action figures of organic characters at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the builds of Lesovikk and Toa Ignika can be considered remotely "non-standard", that's just an indication of how much more creative "standard" CCBS models are than "standard" G1 Bionicle models. I mean, what did Lesovikk do creatively? Really nothing, besides using what had previously been a weapon piece as chest armor. Otherwise its torso beam, lower limbs, upper limbs, and shoulder armor were utterly conventional, using parts that had been designed specifically for those purposes. That kind of model is the very definition of a "Toamod".

Bulk from 2012, a $13 set just like the Phantoka or Glatorian, is considerably more creative than that, using what had originally been designed as a paw or claw as shoulder armor and what had originally been a foot as back armor. For that matter, CHI Cragger, a 15 Euro set, uses limb beams as neck and tail joints, and as mounting points for shoulder armor.Of course, it helps that CCBS elements are designed to be less function-specific in general. Any shell or beam is designed so it can be used on any part of a figure's body.

Kiina used a limb piece for torso armor. Gorak used a neck piece as feet and had four arms by creative use of parts. Bitil used an upper limb piece for an extended neck long before Cragger and had wings that were made by using an upper limb piece and "outdated" parts from 9 years prior. Matoro Mahri used a Mata foot for both torso armor and a neck connection. Pridak used a neck piece for a torso connection. Matoro and Jaller used the same piece as shoulder armor and torso armor respectively. Jaller reused his own upper torso armor for a crab. Iruini used a shield for torso armor, and Norik used armor sized for Matoran for the same purpose. Do I need to mention the Nui-Rama? And what of the dozens of Matoran designs that rarely used new parts for their construction?

The Gen 1 system had its own set of rules as well - anything that can be connected to a Technic pin can be connected to somewhere else. And while a lot of BIONICLE sets suffered from the limitations of pricing and its system (some of which are on the list I just gave) there's no end of CCBS sets that feature the same design problems - and worse. CCBS is more versatile than the BBS in the right hands, and the BBS is more versatile than the CCBS if also in the right hands.

Frankly, both of them suck because neither of them fully capitalize on what has been the true core of creativity when it comes to constraction: Technic. Technic was always what allowed for creative designs prior to the CCBS (and I'm going to give the BBS some leeway on the Technic side because it would fall apart without it) and the CCBS itself relies on Technic all too often for a system that was "designed to be better" to the point where back armor was such an issue that they had to use a foot for back armor and even then it was lackluster. The shell system has overt flaws just like the limb designs of the original BBS. A system that relied on what the BBS did well and the CCBS did well but based heavily on Technic would have been a better option and made backwards compatibility far easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Mandate, to me both suck without Technic. As an MoCer, I favor CCBS, but to me the various textures have always looked too awesome for me to not like them. I guess that's what I liked most about Bara Magna, an excuse for having awesome hodgepodge-y vehicles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no "BBS". The first BIONICLE series used a base Technic system and then random, assorted molds to make random, assorted things. It had no real "base", and no organization. It wasn't a system, as we're talking about CCBS, Technic itself, or even system bricks. It was just an amalgamation of parts that accrued over the years mixed with technic, simply because the line had debuted under the Technic label. Both the random BIONICLE parts and CCBS are subsets of the Technic building system, to say they "need" Technic to do more than their functions is silly, they're designed to utilize Technic connections at their base to expand outward. It isn't a flaw to say a system works as it was designed to be used.

Great example of what I'm saying, thanks. It's clear that a lot of skill went into building this, but there are still so many contrasting textures all over this thing. Honestly, the most cohesive parts of the model design-wise are the spine, tail, and the inside of the neck. Everything else is really cluttered - it's difficult to even make out what shape some parts of the model are.

Big and complicated does not necessarily equate to good looking.

Amen and amen until the end of days. I've seen that MOC in person several times, and it's technically impressive, but the visual mishmash is disorienting and distracting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kiina used a limb piece for torso armor. Gorak used a neck piece as feet and had four arms by creative use of parts. Bitil used an upper limb piece for an extended neck long before Cragger and had wings that were made by using an upper limb piece and "outdated" parts from 9 years prior. Matoro Mahri used a Mata foot for both torso armor and a neck connection. Pridak used a neck piece for a torso connection. Matoro and Jaller used the same piece as shoulder armor and torso armor respectively. Jaller reused his own upper torso armor for a crab. Iruini used a shield for torso armor, and Norik used armor sized for Matoran for the same purpose. Do I need to mention the Nui-Rama? And what of the dozens of Matoran designs that rarely used new parts for their construction?

Never did I say G1 Bionicle sets weren't creative. And I admire all those part uses you mention. Though Bitil's neck joint is not a good comparison with Cragger's at all, because my point about Cragger was that his neck was custom-built from four limb beams, not just extended by a single limb beam — I should have made that clearer in my post.

Overall, though, I was just commenting on the weirdness of defining figures like Lesovikk and Toa Ignika as titans because they had "non-standard" designs when in fact their builds were way more "standard" than the canister sets themselves, and CCBS designs of all sizes are regularly less "standard" than either of those two figures. They did come with vehicles, but those vehicles too were rather simplistic even for their time — though to be fair, they were at a lower price point than ANY Hero Factory vehicle sets, which were all at least $35 instead of $20, Invasion from Below "battle machines" notwithstanding.

In short, I was just explaining why I stand by my definition of a titan as a figure larger than a "canister set", and my assertion that the term "titan" really has little meaning when talking about CCBS. Defining the term according to some abstract notion of "non-standard designs" just opens a whole other can of worms

The Gen 1 system had its own set of rules as well - anything that can be connected to a Technic pin can be connected to somewhere else. And while a lot of BIONICLE sets suffered from the limitations of pricing and its system (some of which are on the list I just gave) there's no end of CCBS sets that feature the same design problems - and worse. CCBS is more versatile than the BBS in the right hands, and the BBS is more versatile than the CCBS if also in the right hands.

Fair assertion. I can't argue with that. Though I do think, building value aside, CCBS has greater aesthetic versatility since most of the parts lack specialized textures that immediately single them out as mechanical or organic parts. Can we agree on that much, at least?

Frankly, both of them suck because neither of them fully capitalize on what has been the true core of creativity when it comes to constraction: Technic. Technic was always what allowed for creative designs prior to the CCBS (and I'm going to give the BBS some leeway on the Technic side because it would fall apart without it) and the CCBS itself relies on Technic all too often for a system that was "designed to be better" to the point where back armor was such an issue that they had to use a foot for back armor and even then it was lackluster. The shell system has overt flaws just like the limb designs of the original BBS. A system that relied on what the BBS did well and the CCBS did well but based heavily on Technic would have been a better option and made backwards compatibility far easier.

You have a point that both systems probably have room for improvement. However, this topic isn't about comparing CCBS and G1 Bionicle against a hypothetical ideal building system, but rather against each other. And as DeeVee points out above, both systems are Technic-based and designed to integrate with Technic. Even System sets often rely heavily on Technic for larger models that aren't affixed to a base, like Galactic Enforcer. Technic is ideal for adding structural stability or mechanical action features to sets, no matter what building system they're based on (well, except Duplo, maybe).

Finally, I think you're underestimating the "backwards compatibility" of CCBS. There are still plenty of ways you can attach Bionicle parts to CCBS parts (Jawblade, a Hero Factory set I particularly like, even used G1 Bionicle parts for its fins and eponymous bladed jaw). But "backwards compatibility" doesn't mean you can always continue using the same parts in the same ways. Even over the course of G1 Bionicle, designs were always marching onward in such a way that while you could always connect parts together, the ways you'd use those parts would change. For instance, you can't just stick a Toa Nuva's arms on a Toa Inika torso the same way you'd attach them to a Toa Mata torso. Likewise, you can't just stick a Piraka thigh shell on a CCBS beam without any Technic in between. But that doesn't mean that Piraka thigh shells are no longer usable in CCBS MOCs.

I often avoid many G1 Bionicle parts in my own MOCs for several personal reasons: because I love the aesthetic, because I find the building process therapeutic, because it helps show people that the parts aren't as useless as they're often made out to be, and because I'm afraid to use certain G1 parts in MOCs for fear of breaking them. But there's nothing wrong with a MOC that uses them together tastefully, and I've seen plenty that do. Some of DeeVee's own MOCs are good examples, like his Toa revamps that use Bohrok feet as elbows. It can be hard to use certain G1 parts with CCBS, just as it can be hard to use certain Toa Mata parts with Inika-era parts. But that doesn't mean it's not possible.

Edited by Aanchir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mismatching textures wasn't that much of an issue with G1 Bionicle or HF sets themselves, but it's very apparent with the G2 toa and the SW figures. I don't think that textural contrast is necessarily bad, though.

CCBS and the G1 Bionicle "System" can be used to create good titan sets, but unfortunately CCBS only has 2 or 3 proper titans and some pseudo-titans such as Fire Lord, Black Phantom and Tahu. It'd be great to see another set like Witch Doctor.

I think CCBS would be almost unanimously better than any of the G1 "systems" if it didn't use balljoints to connect armour.

The CCBS shells require the bones to have balljoints, so you can only put the shell on that specific part of the limb. If you want to move the shell up or down a module, you'll run into problems as it can't connect to the technic pinholes. The 2015 Toa and Skull Grinder exemplify this problem where the back armour of the toa protrudes out by 1 module too much and Skull Grinder's ribcage and chest armour stick out by a module which creates a very apparent gap when viewed from the side.

The use of balljoints also lead to the shells not hugging the bone pieces. As a result, the CCBS shells look okay when seen DIRECTLY from the front or sides, but at any other angle the gaps exposing the bones are very obvious, which is rarely a flattering look that isn't particularly organic or mechanical. This is evident with pretty much every CCBS set and made worse by how LEGO is very fond of using black and grey bones that are often not part of the colour scheme.

The balljoints on the limbs also affects the usability of the limb's technic pinholes because of it's slight protrusion. With regular technic beams, you can be almost sure that you can properly attach part x onto it, but with CCBS it's often an illegal or unstable connection.

So why did LEGO decide to use this connection type for the shells? It offers less versatility than the Barraki armour and I can't really see any advantages that it has over pin/axle connections. Did LEGO think that younger builders struggle to use the small technic pieces? (just like how young builders apparently can't handle character names, differentiate CCBS limbs, or connect a piece to the right pinhole without a guiding pin)

Edited by bidiminished

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no "BBS". The first BIONICLE series used a base Technic system and then random, assorted molds to make random, assorted things.

I assume you have a better name for it, then?

It was still a building system in its own right that featured its own formula for making action figures. The Inika, Piraka, Mahri, Barraki, Phantoka, Mistika and Glatorian had a common blueprint to them in most cases. The only difference between the development of each system was that one was developed gradually over time to "improve" itself whereas the other was made with the explicit purpose of having to not go through that again and having been built from the ground up.

*snip*

Because of how smooth the base pieces of CCBS are, the pieces are a lot more consistent in creations for the most part. The ball joint system can be a pain to work with, but as long as you have plenty of ball pieces lying around you can create impressive things easily.

*snip*

Fair points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*snip*

This.

Hasbro has a similar system for their Construct-o-Bots Transformers figures, but is uses clips instead of balljoints to attach armor. I think that type of connection would have worked much better in CCBS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that type of connection would have worked much better in CCBS.

So you think it'd be better if the bones were less versatile, and much much less backwards compatible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you think it'd be better if the bones were less versatile, and much much less backwards compatible?

How would they be less versatile? The would still attach to the rest of the body by balljoints and ballsockets and the longer ones would still have technic pin holes in them, they would just use a different connection for the armor. And how could they be less backwards compatible? There's zero armor pieces from G1 that you can attach to a standard-lenght CCBS bone piece (at least using "legal" connections). How would clips make this even less backwards compatible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there was a different connector instead of a balljoint in the middle of the bone, then bones or parts with sockets couldn't be clipped onto bones at that point, which would take a lot of versatility away - you'd only be able to make long strings of bones, as opposed to fanning out for, say, a torso design (See: Stormer XL). Also, the shells for these bones wouldn't connect to balljoints, which would be a loss of a lot of different design possibilities (See: Gali, Tahu and Kopaka's shoulder pads).

TL;DR: You can do more with balljoints than you could with clips.

Edited by LewiMOC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there was a different connector instead of a balljoint in the middle of the bone, then bones or parts with sockets couldn't be clipped onto bones at that point, which would take a lot of versatility away - you'd only be able to make long strings of bones, as opposed to fanning out for, say, a torso design (See: Stormer XL). Also, the shells for these bones wouldn't connect to balljoints, which would be a loss of a lot of different design possibilities (See: Gali, Tahu and Kopaka's shoulder pads).

TL;DR: You can do more with balljoints than you could with clips.

That's just a matter of adaptation to a system. If some parts wouldn't attach with balljoints they would attach in a different way lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CCBS and the G1 Bionicle "System" can be used to create good titan sets, but unfortunately CCBS only has 2 or 3 proper titans and some pseudo-titans such as Fire Lord, Black Phantom and Tahu. It'd be great to see another set like Witch Doctor.

Just out of curiosity, how are Fire Lord and Black Phantom "pseudo-titans"? They're considerably taller than any Bionicle "canister sets" as well as several titans, at 32–34 modules in height each, and they each have more pieces than Nocturn. They also each have a custom leg construction.

Tahu's obviously a different case — he stands just 27 modules tall (slightly shorter than a Toa Inika), has just 87 pieces, and has a price per piece more consistent with G1 canister sets than G1 titans. But I think Fire Lord, Black Phantom, and Rocka XL all manage to meet any reasonable criteria for titan sets.

I think CCBS would be almost unanimously better than any of the G1 "systems" if it didn't use balljoints to connect armour.

The CCBS shells require the bones to have balljoints, so you can only put the shell on that specific part of the limb. If you want to move the shell up or down a module, you'll run into problems as it can't connect to the technic pinholes. The 2015 Toa and Skull Grinder exemplify this problem where the back armour of the toa protrudes out by 1 module too much and Skull Grinder's ribcage and chest armour stick out by a module which creates a very apparent gap when viewed from the side.

The use of balljoints also lead to the shells not hugging the bone pieces. As a result, the CCBS shells look okay when seen DIRECTLY from the front or sides, but at any other angle the gaps exposing the bones are very obvious, which is rarely a flattering look that isn't particularly organic or mechanical. This is evident with pretty much every CCBS set and made worse by how LEGO is very fond of using black and grey bones that are often not part of the colour scheme.

The balljoints on the limbs also affects the usability of the limb's technic pinholes because of it's slight protrusion. With regular technic beams, you can be almost sure that you can properly attach part x onto it, but with CCBS it's often an illegal or unstable connection.

So why did LEGO decide to use this connection type for the shells? It offers less versatility than the Barraki armour and I can't really see any advantages that it has over pin/axle connections. Did LEGO think that younger builders struggle to use the small technic pieces? (just like how young builders apparently can't handle character names, differentiate CCBS limbs, or connect a piece to the right pinhole without a guiding pin)

The obvious reason CCBS beams use ball joints to attach the armor is because it lets you attach pretty much any armor shell to pretty much any beam in pretty much any orientation. If they had used pin holes like this G1 beam, you would only be able to attach basic armor shells to one of two sides (the front or the back), and you'd need either additional Technic connectors or an entirely different beam like this one if you wanted to attach a basic shell to the left or right sides. Because of this, even if your parts are limited to a single CCBS set, you can rearrange the armor in far more ways than you could with any G1 Bionicle set that had a similar piece count.

Also, the ability to attach armor shells to the ends of a beam rather than just to points along the center is actually very useful, as can be seen in sets like Toxic Reapa, XT4, Furno Jet Machine, CHI Cragger, Protector of Fire, and Kopaka: Master of Ice. Not to mention MOCs! Some of my own MOCs like Caitlyn Gauss XL, Koboldon, and Wairuha Master of Wisdom use techniques that would not have been possible if the attachment point of a CCBS shell could not function as a hinge. Call it "adaptation to a system" if you must, but I assure you that there is no way nearly so simple to attach G1 shells to a model at an irregular angle.

I've never really been bothered by shells not hugging the beams, honestly. It doesn't seem any more obtrusive to me than exposed pin and axle holes. Besides, one of the only reasons so many Bionicle shells DID hug the beams like they did is because if they were only attached by a single pin, they had to hug the beams at some point along their length so they wouldn't pivot. Besides that, there were plenty of G1 shells that did NOT hug the beams, like this, this, this, this, and this. Many CCBS shells and beams result in limbs and torsos a LOT less gappy than some of those examples! As for beams and shells being in contrasting colors, as a Bionicle fan that layered look is just something I got used to YEARS before CCBS, and eventually learned to love.

Edited by Aanchir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one thing I currently dislike about CCBS is its evolution towards the use of multiple different coloured bones in a set. I'm not saying that it cannot work, there are perfect examples of it where it certainly does work ( Black Phantom being an excellent example of this ), but I dislike it when there's no purpose to it aesthetically.The current Toa have this, where the bones alternate between black and grey, and in my opinion it doesn't always look good.

I know the reason behind it is to avoid confusion, but honestly, I believe there's a limit to what you should sacrifice in terms of aesthetics in order to avoid said confusion. Honestly, I'm not entirely sure how you'd even confuse the top and bottom bones really, but I guess some people do. TBH, in cases like the figures you built with CCBS, it doesn't have major consequences when you mess up, does it ? It's not like you have to spend 5-10 mins. de-constructing your figure to fix the error.

Though, I do understand why Lego does sacrifice the aesthetics for the prevention of confusion ( aka the short axles only being in red now ), to me it's important not to do this with the bones. Especially as the bones are essentially quite visible when building with CCBS, which makes them a very important part of the colour scheme, more so than it did with the G1 "system". Sacrificing the colour flow there to avoid confusion is kinda throwing away one of the few benefits of the more exposed bone pieces.

-Iben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I greatly prefer the original Technic elements than CCBS. I tried build a giant MOC using only CCBS pieces and it ended up being a hallowed mess.

I'm just gonna say the great Toa sets that we have now wouldn't look near as good without the help of the original building system.

Edited by MonkeyChud

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I greatly prefer the original Technic elements than CCBS. I tried build a giant MOC using only CCBS pieces and it ended up being a hallowed mess.

I'm just gonna say the great Toa sets that we have now wouldn't look near as good without the help of the original building system.

Again, when has this become about "only" using CCBS parts? The vast majority of larger CCBS models Technic parts in conjunction with CCBS parts. The point of CCBS isn't to be used to the exclusion of all else, but rather to create a much more reliable foundation for constraction building (as opposed to the classic Bionicle parts, which lacked that sort of organized system and as a result cycled through new parts at an unsustainable pace).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wouldn't look near as good without the help of the original building system.

Technic. The pieces you're talking about are Technic parts, they are not the defining aspect of the original sets, which were the ball-and-cup usage they had wholesale taken from Throwbots. Both the original BIONICLE line, and the current CCBS-based one, are designed to integrate Technic parts wherever necessary. Technic parts are a vital part of both building experiences, and is a purposeful design move for both. It's more than a little disingenuous to keep saying the new line suffers because it "has to" rely on Technic for larger things, when that is what it was designed to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what to believe anymore. :P

They both have their pros and cons. G1's building system (technic, G1 Bionicle. Whatever. I'm calling it G1 to make things easy) I feel possesses more connection points and I find it easier to build with. Of course, that could also be because I'm more used to it. However, when I build, I often like to thread tubes through pinholes to have things coming off at weird angles. Considering G1's parts had more pinholes in more of its parts, I find it to be much easier to do zany things like that. Though that's just one technique I enjoy, so personal preference deal there.

HOWEVER. Textures can pose a problem as expressed before in the topic. Also, I find it harder to build larger-scaled figures with G1's parts. But that may be because I have limited parts selection.

CCBS is... More fun, I'd say. I enjoy seeing what crazy skeletons I can make and then dressing them up with cladding. Larger scale figures also come together much more quickly I find. I just need to make a hollow skeleton and cover the gaps. Boom.

That all being said, I enjoy using them both in tandem.

So... I guess I just look at it all as... Lego. They're all pieces. I can't say I prefer one over the other because they're not different systems. They're just parts. And I can use whatever I darn well please.

Eh. Just my two cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.