Were BIONICLE fans dumber in 2007?

[TwistLaw]

I found this old article from BZPower where they say at a certain point that

So, year after year, when this group sees the sets getting simpler, it’s like striking another stake through the heart of what was supposed to be a lifelong loyalty.

did I read that right? In 2007 BIONICLE sets were simpler than in the past? I know BZPower has a huge fetish for gears, but I really never saw them as a fundamental part of a set, above all something that makes the set more complicated. Canister sets were much more detailed than in the past, with real armour and joints, while titan sets gave indeed up some pieces in favour of poseability. I also feel it's important to remind that the richness of sets like the '01 rahi wasn't followed by anything comparable. The Bahrag and Boxor/Exo-Toa were indeed intricate toys, but nowhere near as a Muaka&Kane-Ra or Manas.

In defense of this article in february 2007 there still was no information about the vehicles from 2008 or even 2009, sets that really set high the bar of complexity and features.

But to say BIONICLE was getting simpler in its sets... what do you think about it?

[Fulcrumfan91]

That has to be one of the most ludicrous things I've ever heard. This person does not speak for the whole population of kids in 2001 that were interested in either LEGO System or Bionicle. I'd love to ask this person what exactly they mean by 'simplicity' in a set. According to this person, huge pieces that could barely ever move (Toa arms, legs) were more complex because they had gear functions (which were all the same in every set save for one). If this person is talking about rahi....yeah, function was sacrificed in order to gain a better aesthetic , as well as be able to pose figures better. How on earth is that simpler than 30 big block pieces? The Inika, the Titans exhibited a great deal of designer complexity...I'm also a bionicle fan speaking from my experience beginning in 2003 when I myself was 12 years old. Some people have their opinions, which is fine, but to blatantly attack a Bionicle line via accusing it of being less complex than the one in 2001? I highly disagree with that statement. I think this person was too swallowed up by nostalgia to even consider progress as a positive idea.

Edited August 20, 2015 by lambda_cla3391

[Naijel]

lambda_cla3391, after reading the article I don't know how you could characterize it as being from someone bitter. I thought it was quite balanced in tone. I don't think the writer is necessarily correct at all in their analysis, but that's another question.

Edited August 20, 2015 by Naijel

[Fulcrumfan91]

lambda_cla3391, after reading the article I don't know how you could characterize it as being from someone bitter. I thought it was quite balanced in tone. I don't think the writer is necessarily correct at all in their analysis, but that's another question.

Yeah, I admit I used the term erroneously. I think it was more my dislike for what they were saying showing.

[vexorian]

dumb is a slur.

Anyway, I think that if you consider only the main sets and not warriors, 2006 was a simplification of build. The Inika build was a standard way to get bipedal things with articulation AND very specific new decoration bricks. In a way, it was the first step towards the CCSBSCCS.

Titans in 2006+ were much better, but I think if you focus on the main sets, it might appear the builds are simplified. Here simple doesn't mean easy.

Of course, it all seems silly now in 2015 after we've seen exactly what lengths Lego can go in simplifying the action figure build. But if all you knew in your life was pre 2006 and Inika, this might be something you could believe.

[One Very Agile Cat]

Since when does simpler = dumber? That's some hot garbage thinking right there. That doesn't even make sense, as the 2007 were the Inika with more parts and more creative builds.

EDIT: Does this site seriously have an auto-correct that turns "A-s-s" into "Megabloks" spelled wrong? That's dumb. No wonder there's so few casuals here. Slandering other brands and their fans? That's okay, but using a bad word tame enough for daytime television? HEAVENS NO!

Edited August 20, 2015 by One Very Agile Cat

[TwistLaw]

The Inika build was a standard way to get bipedal things with articulation AND very specific new decoration bricks. In a way, it was the first step towards the CCSBSCCS.

I don't see how it does translate into a simpler build. Does it really make a set more complicated the use of FOUR gears? I mean, FOUR. Not thirty. This ain't no 199$ Technic set.

[One Very Agile Cat]

I don't see how it does translate into a simpler build. Does it really make a set more complicated the use of FOUR gears? I mean, FOUR. Not thirty. This ain't no 199$ Technic set.

Plus, when you go from limbs that are about three pieces to limbs that are at least six, I don't see how that's simpler anyway. Not to mention they went from single-piece bodies to three-part torsos. (not counting pins)

[Fulcrumfan91]

Plus, when you go from limbs that are about three pieces to limbs that are at least six, I don't see how that's simpler anyway. Not to mention they went from single-piece bodies to three-part torsos. (not counting pins)

Could not agree with you more.

[Lyichir]

I don't think that one comment should be considered indicative of all Bionicle fans in that era. There have always been (and will always be) fans who are smart and fans who are... not so smart. Lord knows that the sentiment that "Bionicle was better back in the good ol' days!" hasn't just gone away over time. In fact, there are probably fans now who would consider 2007 to BE the good ol' days, back when we had leg shells that attached with good old fashioned Technic pins instead of this newfangled CCBS, and we didn't have to worry about the arms swinging around crazily with gimmicky gear functions.

[TheGreatSpirit]

First we had the 2006 profit thread, now we have this... inb4 2008 was worst year thread.

[vexorian]

I don't see how it does translate into a simpler build. Does it really make a set more complicated the use of FOUR gears? I mean, FOUR. Not thirty. This ain't no 199$ Technic set.

It's not about the quantity of gears or the quantity of bricks.

2006 is the first year in which there's a standarized build between Toa and the bad guys. This was not the case until then. The Bohrok and the Toa Mata, the Vahki and The Metru and whatever happened in 2005 had very distinct builds for each kind of character. Move on to 2010 and all the Glatorians follow the same template, what varies is the decorations used and some other smaller differences.

[DuckBricks]

I don't think that one comment should be considered indicative of all Bionicle fans in that era. There have always been (and will always be) fans who are smart and fans who are... not so smart. Lord knows that the sentiment that "Bionicle was better back in the good ol' days!" hasn't just gone away over time. In fact, there are probably fans now who would consider 2007 to BE the good ol' days, back when we had leg shells that attached with good old fashioned Technic pins instead of this newfangled CCBS, and we didn't have to worry about the arms swinging around crazily with gimmicky gear functions.

This I totally agree with. You can't generalize an entire fanbase based on one user's comment.

[TwistLaw]

This I totally agree with. You can't generalize an entire fanbase based on one user's comment.

Sure, my bad, but this opinion comes from the most important BIONICLE place in the web back in 2007. It wasn't a random post on 4chan.

First we had the 2006 profit thread, now we have this... inb4 2008 was worst year thread.

Blame the leak drought :P

[Lyichir]

Sure, my bad, but this opinion comes from the most important BIONICLE place in the web back in 2007. It wasn't a random post on 4chan.

Yes, but the source doesn't change the fact that it's just one member's opinion–even if they are a news reporter for a major fansite, that doesn't mean their opinion aligned with the entire userbase, let alone the entire fandom. It's no more universal or relevant than Huw's obnoxious editorializing on Brickset.

Now, granted, you could use that to argue that BZP has changed since back in those days, and you'd be totally correct. As the site's userbase (including staff) has matured, the news in turn has started being presented more professionally. But even then, it's not a question of "dumbness" but rather of a more journalistically responsible separation of news and opinion.

[TwistLaw]

Now, granted, you could use that to argue that BZP has changed since back in those days, and you'd be totally correct. As the site's userbase (including staff) has matured, the news in turn has started being presented more professionally. But even then, it's not a question of "dumbness" but rather of a more journalistically responsible separation of news and opinion.

I really like your point of view. I think my question has been answered.