Bionicle 2016 Sets Discussion

[TFGuy89]

Interesting reading, but do kids really care about all this stuff?

I think that's the question we all try to answer, but honestly have no idea about. I do worry about how Bionicle is perceived by kids. Of course, there is nothing to say that it isn't successful, but I keep hoping Bionicle G2 will be a special line that kids will treasure for years to come.

[Lord-Vorahk]

Back in Gen 1, new Bonkles tended to get this reponse:

2003 Wave 1: Sweet, new Bohrok! And they're silver!

2003 Wave 2: They've got sticks! They must be ninjas!

2003 Large Sets: I need Jaller now!

2004 Wave 1: The Turaga are Toa now? Cool!

2004 Wave 2: They transform and this is awesome!

2004 Large Sets: *Gawks dumbly at Ultimate Dume*

2005 Wave 1: Oh hey, spiders. And they have spinners that go for fifty feet!

2005 Wave 2: Oh hey, mutants. These are cool.

2005 Large Sets: Why does this Bionicle have boobs?

2005 Playsets: Hello, Christmas Present.

2006 Wave 1: Light up eyes! I want one!

2006 Wave 2: The Matoran from old waves are now Toa and they have lightsabers. I need this in my life.

2006 Large Sets: Axonn and Brutaka are the best thing ever. Axonn has fingers!

2006: Playsets: Toa minifigs with articulation!

2007 Wave 1: This thing is a glow-in-the-dark mantis-man. I need it.

2007 Wave 2: Still the old Matoran and still awesome. Also, gatling guns!

2007 Large Sets: Maxilos is the new best thing ever.

2007 Playsets: These look cool but the colours are wrong.

2008 Wave 1: The old Toa and they can fly, and they're fighting creepy vampire Makuta and they fuse with Matoran? Best. Year. Ever.

2008 Wave 2: These are kinda lame but I still want them.

2008 Large Sets: I need this Takanuva and Icarax

2008 Battle Vehicles: Oh. My. Gods.

I didn't even care about most of the issues until 2009, when that came about more because I didn't like the new story setting. And that faded away immediately when I watched a video about leaked Bionicle summer sets and I saw Mata Nui.

Bionicle's marketing tended to work perfectly on me,and clashing textures and such things didn't matter to me at all. In fact, I loved how super-detailed the sets were.

[Fulcrumfan91]

That wasn't at all my point. My question was: do kids care about clashing textures in their toys? As a kid I disliked the Barraki because they looked ugly, not because they had never before seen textures.

Also, regardless of what people may say, Brutaka is my favourite set since 2006. No matter how badly its textures do clash.

Brutaka is probably one of my favourite if not my favourite Bionicle G1 set...and I missed out on him. To this day, I cannot tell you how much I regretted not being able to buy him in '06 (I was much younger...it wasn't feasible and Brutaka was no longer available anywhere by the time I could get him by myself). Kids like different things, texture could be one of them...who knows? I was never interested in the lines after the Mahri in '07...not until '15 when Bionicle made its glorious return (and I'm an adult now). Part of the reason I like the new Pohatu so much is that his mask does have some of that circular awesomeness of the Olmak.

[dviddy]

Interesting reading, but do kids really care about all this stuff?

Maybe not consciously? Have you ever seen a set and knew it was ugly, but didn't have the words to articulate why? You mentioned the barakki (consequently, the one line I never bought a single set from, because I agree: they were ugly). When pressed as to what you didn't like about it, your only answer was that it "looked weird" or "was just ugly" or "I just don't like it?" Things like design theory and design languages aim to articulate what these things mean in a manner to help content creators mold their choices to the widest audience. I've said this before, but there's a reason most friendly aliens in films, books, tv shows, etc, all stay as close as possible to the human design, and that's because humans are biologically wired to trust the human form more than other forms. It's more attractive to the brain and causes us to imprint upon it.

Do kids understand that? Heck, do most adults? Maybe not in words, but they do in their subconscious.

Personal tastes and preferences go a long way in design and theory, but there are entire realms that exist to define and understand the human relation to certain colours, textures, the interplay between them, etc. This goes into everything, from logo design, to costume design, to weapon design, to toy designs, to comic book character designs, etc. This research and field helps define nearly all the media around you, even things you've never thought about before- and a lot of times that's the point. It's why Walmart's logo is blue, it's why certain stores use certain colours in certain sections, etc. The desire is to create a subconscious realization that attracts the proper attitude (generally: buy this, and do it ASAP) at the certain time.

IDK, I spend a lot of time reading and researching this, because it's incredibly important to me. This is a long answer to a probably flippant question, but the TL;DR is: no and yes and no and yes.

Edited September 23, 2015 by dviddy

[Fulcrumfan91]

I think that's the question we all try to answer, but honestly have no idea about. I do worry about how Bionicle is perceived by kids. Of course, there is nothing to say that it isn't successful, but I keep hoping Bionicle G2 will be a special line that kids will treasure for years to come.

Oh trust me, kids like Bionicle. These are action figures they can build and then play with. I actually think these new ones are way funner than most G1 ones, which were awesome back then (I still love Pohatu Nuva's kicking function...never got the original).

Maybe not consciously? Have you ever seen a set and knew it was ugly, but didn't have the words to articulate why? You mentioned the barakki (consequently, the one line I never bought a single set from, because I agree: they were ugly). When pressed as to what you didn't like about it, your only answer was that it "looked weird" or "was just ugly" or "I just don't like it?" Things like design theory and design languages aim to articulate what these things mean in a manner to help content creators mold their choices to the widest audience. I've said this before, but there's a reason most friendly aliens in films, books, tv shows, etc, all stay as close as possible to the human design, and that's because humans are biologically wired to trust the human form more than other forms. It's more attractive to the brain and causes us to imprint upon it.

Do kids understand that? Heck, do most adults? Maybe not in words, but they do in their subconscious.

Personal tastes and preferences go a long way in design and theory, but there are entire realms that exist to define and understand the human relation to certain colours, textures, the interplay between them, etc. This goes into everything, from logo design, to costume design, to weapon design, to toy designs, to comic book character designs, etc. This research and field helps define nearly all the media around you, even things you've never thought about before- and a lot of times that's the point. It's why Walmart's logo is blue, it's why certain stores use certain colours in certain sections, etc. The desire is to create a subconscious realization that attracts the proper attitude (generally: buy this, and do it ASAP) at the certain time.

IDK, I spend a lot of time reading and researching this, because it's incredibly important to me. This is a long answer to a probably flippant question, but the TL;DR is: no and yes and no and yes.

That's pretty interesting...personally, when I saw the Barraki, I loved them instantly. I have since questioned why it was I liked them so much, but back then, it made me go out and buy all six of them. I now know that they're weird to the extreme, but I've still kept Pridak and Kalmah because I do genuinely like them. I think the most obvious answer to the question of whether kids will like these is that it simply depends on a child's preference. I do not think at all that there is one universal subconscious idea in every kid's brain telling them that this is not as human, therefore I don't like it/want it. Some kids like the weird alien/monster things, like I liked (and still like) Brutaka.

[YellowCorvette]

That wasn't at all my point. My question was: do kids care about clashing textures in their toys? As a kid I disliked the Barraki because they looked ugly, not because they had never before seen textures.

I don't like the Barakki sets because I don't get what those things are suppose to be, but this didn't make them the worst set. They have various reasons for a children to dislike a set, not just because of the clashing texture.

[TFGuy89]

Maybe not consciously? Have you ever seen a set and knew it was ugly, but didn't have the words to articulate why? You mentioned the barakki (consequently, the one line I never bought a single set from, because I agree: they were ugly). When pressed as to what you didn't like about it, your only answer was that it "looked weird" or "was just ugly" or "I just don't like it?" Things like design theory and design languages aim to articulate what these things mean in a manner to help content creators mold their choices to the widest audience. I've said this before, but there's a reason most friendly aliens in films, books, tv shows, etc, all stay as close as possible to the human design, and that's because humans are biologically wired to trust the human form more than other forms. It's more attractive to the brain and causes us to imprint upon it.

Do kids understand that? Heck, do most adults? Maybe not in words, but they do in their subconscious.

Personal tastes and preferences go a long way in design and theory, but there are entire realms that exist to define and understand the human relation to certain colours, textures, the interplay between them, etc. This goes into everything, from logo design, to costume design, to weapon design, to toy designs, to comic book character designs, etc. This research and field helps define nearly all the media around you, even things you've never thought about before- and a lot of times that's the point. It's why Walmart's logo is blue, it's why certain stores use certain colours in certain sections, etc. The desire is to create a subconscious realization that attracts the proper attitude (generally: buy this, and do it ASAP) at the certain time.

IDK, I spend a lot of time reading and researching this, because it's incredibly important to me. This is a long answer to a probably flippant question, but the TL;DR is: no and yes and no and yes.

I don't doubt that there are certain aesthetic elements that appeal more strongly to people than others, often at a subconscious level. Symmetry, for example, is often accepted as something visually pleasing as compared to asymmetry, as research shows that human eyes gravitate and linger on bilateral symmetrical designs.

At the same time, I feel it's extraordinarily difficult to say how combinations of visual elements interest different people. Certain elements may work well in isolation, but together may not form an aesthetically pleasing picture for everyone. I think the difficulty is in achieving a consensus on what is beautiful. Even in terms of symmetry, excessive symmetry can be seen as boring and unimpressive. And very often asymmetry works too, if used properly. For example, I appreciate 2015 Pohatu's asymmetrical arms as they form part of a unique visual identity that separates him from the symmetrical Toa.

I think that though there are universals in terms of design (not everything is relative and subject to taste), a significant portion of design elements remains subjective. Tastes differ based on what the viewer is looking for in a design. You for example, dislike Darth Vader's gappy torso, while I find it very visually pleasing. I think the gaps in his torso hint at his nature as a constructible figure and separates him from say, a Hot Toys or a Sideshow figure. Yet, the shapes come together to form gestalt closure, which to me is an example of good design.

Make no mistake, I believe the realm of design is important, and research needs to be done to be able to identify what is aesthetically popular. At the same time, I'm really not sure it's easy to discover that without some form of market research. I suppose we can keep our fingers crossed that LEGO is doing all the research in the right focus groups. Meanwhile, we can continue to debate whether we think the designs work.

Oh trust me, kids like Bionicle. These are action figures they can build and then play with. I actually think these new ones are way funner than most G1 ones, which were awesome back then (I still love Pohatu Nuva's kicking function...never got the original).

I really do hope so! Not just for the future of Bionicle but for constraction as a whole. There really is nothing like it on the market.

Edited September 23, 2015 by TFGuy89

[dviddy]

I don't like the Barakki sets because I don't get what those things are suppose to be, but this didn't make them the worst set. They have various reasons for a children to dislike a set, not just because of the clashing texture.

That was one of the points Scott and I were making above: there are many factors that go into whether someone likes or dislikes something, we just happened to be talking about the textures and visual design cues at this moment. There are things like the ability to pose, the action features, the colours themselves, the expressions, the assumed playability, which parts are available in which colours, the story role, etc. These things are always nuanced beyond belief, we just happened to be honed in on one area during this segment of the discussion.

@TFguy89: I think you'll find that you and I are in near one hundred percent agreement in your entire post. Design is important, many design elements are universal and not subjective, many areas of criticism are objective and not to be countered with a "but that's my taste" argument, but at the same time what a person is looking for can ultimately form and skew their view of what makes the design good or bad. I also like Pohatu's asymmetric design, for the same reasons you listed. Not everyone is looking at a new set for the same reasons, and those reasons help shape a purchase or lack thereof.

Edited September 23, 2015 by dviddy

[TFGuy89]

That was one of the points Scott and I were making above: there are many factors that go into whether someone likes or dislikes something, we just happened to be talking about the textures and visual design cues at this moment. There are things like the ability to pose, the action features, the colours themselves, the expressions, the assumed playability, which parts are available in which colours, the story role, etc. These things are always nuanced beyond belief, we just happened to be honed in on one area during this segment of the discussion.

@TFguy89: I think you'll find that you and I are in near one hundred percent agreement in your entire post. Design is important, many design elements are universal and not subjective, many areas of criticism are objective and not to be countered with a "but that's my taste" argument, but at the same time what a person is looking for can ultimately form and skew their view of what makes the design good or bad. I also like Pohatu's asymmetric design, for the same reasons you listed. Not everyone is looking at a new set for the same reasons, and those reasons help shape a purchase or lack thereof.

Oh yes, there's no doubt about that. Like you said, we're just honing in on and analysing one aspect that may or may not be important in terms of sales.

Edited September 23, 2015 by TFGuy89

[Kalhiki]

Thank you so much for this riveting and informative conversation. I'm being completely serious. Learned a lot about design and such from you guys. So thanks.

That being said, I keep looking at the sets, and I still can't tell if I like them or not. The Toa, anyway. The Creatures, I'm all for. They're adorable and I love small sets. Plus they come with flippin' mobile Bear Trap that look like they just walked out of Rupture Farms. I'm so stoked for those little guys.

[MakutaOfWar]

I'm a little bummed that it appears the bear traps don't come with the larger sets. Could be wrong but they show the extra masks the Uniters contain, but not the extra bear trap, unless the ones between Uniters and Creatures is suppose to show it's included in both. Only bummed because of how awesome they are, I really thought the designers would've had a hard time figuring out another decent "battle in a box" gimmick, guess I was wrong.

Also I think the standard Uniter's masks will keep the trans clear(I suck at color terms) as it looks like the gold masks will have a respective trans blend.

[Fulcrumfan91]

I'm a little bummed that it appears the bear traps don't come with the larger sets. Could be wrong but they show the extra masks the Uniters contain, but not the extra bear trap, unless the ones between Uniters and Creatures is suppose to show it's included in both. Only bummed because of how awesome they are, I really thought the designers would've had a hard time figuring out another decent "battle in a box" gimmick, guess I was wrong.

Also I think the standard Uniter's masks will keep the trans clear(I suck at color terms) as it looks like the gold masks will have a respective trans blend.

Yeah, that's a bit of a shame...but on the bright side, the sets kind of look good! Though I continue to look at Pohatu's arm that is visible....it looks like an awkward connexion to his torso...eh...I might be ok with that. After looking at them over and over, I think the Toa are very much the same builds...similar weapon pieces. That's good for me, because I definitely will not be getting all of these guys. Umarak and likely Pohatu/Ketar...maybe Kopaka...I have to see official pics.

[Dr_Chronos]

I will say that the Toa this year have a lot more complicated or unique builds. Some might even say it's unnecessary complex, but I like to think of it as encouragement for kids to experiment with their own designs. I'm not too bothered by only one new weapon mold. It kind of makes the Toa look more like a unified team. I am a little disappointed at the loss of weapon dual-functionality, but the combining gimmick makes up for that.

All of the creatures look pretty fantastic, especially the Phoenix and fish. I might skip on a Toa or two but I'm definitely picking all the creatures up.

As for Umarak, he's without a doubt the best villian set yet, and this isn't even his final form! I have no idea how Umarak the Destoyer is going to top this. Maybe by being a centaur? One can only hope.

Edited September 23, 2015 by Dr_Chronos

[Fulcrumfan91]

What're the chances we get official pics/official unveilings of the new sets during NYCC? Not directly AT comicon, but during comicon.

[TwistLaw]

This is one of those moments in which I really enjoy being part of this community: discussions that go beyond the toy itself by bordering philosophy and personal beliefs.

I agree 99% with what DV said, especially the part where you explain the biological reasons we like certain things instead of others. Notions I never thought about when talking about Bionicle: what made me dislike so much the Barraki was actually how they were a distorted human shape. Not a flat out creature like Nidhiki, but a mutation of our shape.

Also a reason why I regard the Metru as the best canister sets of G1.

Edited September 23, 2015 by TwistLaw

[Ikaatril]

I guess sets like the Bohrok and films like ET don't exist any more do they? I remember the bohrok being the best-selling sets of G1. Or ET's so very human design.

Kids clearly do not care about this thing.

[Mandate]

I guess sets like the Bohrok and films like ET don't exist any more do they? I remember the bohrok being the best-selling sets of G1. Or ET's so very human design.

What do Bohrok and ET have to do with each other? ET was already old news when Jurassic Park was released.

Kids clearly do not care about this thing.

Because if kids did care about the line, LEGO would've continued G2 in 2016.

[GK733]

The piston add-on we got this year got stale pretty fast imo and that really shows with Onua and Tahu now, it looks so out of place and the new "shell" actually looks like something that could go on for multiple years and it doesn't help that they seemingly are from different material as well, Kopaka's/Tahu's/legs/Creature's chest piece is made from the same material as the 2.0 foot when the this years piston add-on was from the same as the weapons.

Edited September 23, 2015 by GK733

[Ikaatril]

What do Bohrok and ET have to do with each other? ET was already old news when Jurassic Park was released.

Because if kids did care about the line, LEGO would've continued G2 in 2016.

Yes, clearly I was talking to you and not about the freaking discussion that's literally right above that post. Apparently the discussion that goes on for several posts right above that post of mine doesn't exist.. I wasn't talking to you anyway. If I was I would have quoted you.

What do Bohrok and ET have to do with each other? Instead of leaping to attack me, maybe read the posts above and gain some context?!I

[Fulcrumfan91]

Yes, clearly I was talking to you and not about the freaking discussion that's literally right above that post. Apparently the discussion that goes on for several posts right above that post of mine doesn't exist.. I wasn't talking to you anyway. If I was I would have quoted you.

What do Bohrok and ET have to do with each other? Instead of leaping to attack me, maybe read the posts above and gain some context?!I

Dude, calm down, he wasn't attacking you at all...he was answering your comments. Also, this discussion has nothing to do with 2016 set pics or rumours. At all. I'm guilty of continuing it too.

[VBBN]

Yes, clearly I was talking to you and not about the freaking discussion that's literally right above that post. Apparently the discussion that goes on for several posts right above that post of mine doesn't exist.. I wasn't talking to you anyway. If I was I would have quoted you.

What do Bohrok and ET have to do with each other? Instead of leaping to attack me, maybe read the posts above and gain some context?!I

I would suggest you change your attitude, this is a place for discussion but you aren't handling this in a calm manner. This isn't a political debate.

[Mandate]

Yes, clearly I was talking to you and not about the freaking discussion that's literally right above that post. Apparently the discussion that goes on for several posts right above that post of mine doesn't exist.. I wasn't talking to you anyway. If I was I would have quoted you.

It's obvious you weren't talking to me, but who were you talking to? You hadn't quoted anyone, the discussion had already changed, and it seemed like you were just making an off-hand comment about Bohrok and ET and talking about how these sets aren't popular with kids, when they are. If you really were talking about the effort that goes into a piece and how it fits into a set and subjective opinion, please let me know how. Really, I'm interested to know what you meant by what you said if you were simply joining the discussion with DV and the others.

What do Bohrok and ET have to do with each other? Instead of leaping to attack me, maybe read the posts above and gain some context?!I

1) I wasn't attacking you.

2) ET is literally mentioned nowhere on this page outside of posts made by you and I, and the only person that has even mentioned Bohrok on this page except for Lord-Vorahk, and he was talking about the Bohrok-Kal. I physically cannot "read the posts above" to gain context on why you brought up ET and the Bohrok, and I also cannot find out who you were talking to, if anyone, because you did not quote anyone.

3) I had read the above posts, and I did not see how they related to your post

4) You didn't answer my question.

[YellowCorvette]

We need to stop the discussion about G1 sets, because it's already a off-topic discussion in this topic now.

Edited September 23, 2015 by ArmstrongYong

[Logan McOwen]

This discussion couldn't be any more relevant to what I wanted to talk about.

I’ve figured out what’s bothering me with Tahu - He’s too textured.

With the 2015 sets, each character had one unique texture alongside the sleek CCBS shells - the Toa had the piston addon, and the Skull Creatures had their cracked armour addons. Each figure had their own, cohesive look going on. This rule even applied to a lot of Hero Factory or Chima figures - Heck, even the Barraki, arguably.

Contrast this against, say, Ackar. Ackar mixes the bevelled shaping of his Inika legs and Torso, the flatter more organic shaping of the Mahritoran blades on his shoulders, and then the blocky shaping of the Vahki limbs in his lower arms. He ends up looking like multiple things bashed together, because… Well, he is.

2016 Tahu is like Ackar. He has 4 unique textures alongside the CCBS shells - the new Technic-y armour piece and firey addon, and then the piston addon and the cracked Skull Creature addons. That’s 5 different kinds of texture on one figure, not counting the new torso and weapons.

Put him next to 2016 Lewa, who is mostly textured with Vorox armour and CCBS shells, and you can see what I mean. He just doesn’t look cohesive. I don’t want to take this as an omen that LEGO are regressing design-wise with Bionicle (they likely aren’t), but Tahu is the leading ‘bot, so…

[TFGuy89]

This discussion couldn't be any more relevant to what I wanted to talk about.

I’ve figured out what’s bothering me with Tahu - He’s too textured.

With the 2015 sets, each character had one unique texture alongside the sleek CCBS shells - the Toa had the piston addon, and the Skull Creatures had their cracked armour addons. Each figure had their own, cohesive look going on. This rule even applied to a lot of Hero Factory or Chima figures - Heck, even the Barraki, arguably.

Contrast this against, say, Ackar. Ackar mixes the bevelled shaping of his Inika legs and Torso, the flatter more organic shaping of the Mahritoran blades on his shoulders, and then the blocky shaping of the Vahki limbs in his lower arms. He ends up looking like multiple things bashed together, because… Well, he is.

2016 Tahu is like Ackar. He has 4 unique textures alongside the CCBS shells - the new Technic-y armour piece and firey addon, and then the piston addon and the cracked Skull Creature addons. That’s 5 different kinds of texture on one figure, not counting the new torso and weapons.

Put him next to 2016 Lewa, who is mostly textured with Vorox armour and CCBS shells, and you can see what I mean. He just doesn’t look cohesive. I don’t want to take this as an omen that LEGO are regressing design-wise with Bionicle (they likely aren’t), but Tahu is the leading ‘bot, so…

Oh yes, Aanchir has mentioned this as a problem too. But when you bring up his similarity with Ackar, I think I kind of like him better. He really does look like Ackar.