bonesiii

Vector Art In Powerpoint: Quality, Inexpensive, Easy But sorry, GB -- I didn't have time for your av request this time. I think I know how it's gonna turn out though.

Today the Bones Blog presents the method I use to produce quality vector graphics with Powerpoint. I'll organize this by basic tools and concepts you need to understand, using screenshots to illustrate key aspects. Click image thumbnails for full images -- these contain important details too. Also note the cursor is auto-removed in these printscreens, so sorry for any confusion that causes. Part 2 is now available here: Coolifying With Powerpoint Vector Art Powerpoint as a Vector Graphics Program Many people have asked me how I make art such as my "Coolified Stuff" (see bonesiii_topics), and curiousity goes up when I say I used Powerpoint. A lot of people think "Powerpoint" means words in a slideshow designed to bore employees and students to death. If you read any basic description of Powerpoint, you will be hard-pressed to even find a mention of graphics creation. It can actually do a large percentage of what high-end vector graphics systems like Macromedia Freehand or Adobe Illustrator can do. This is great, because those programs are very expensive -- Freehand is listed on its website as 400 US dollars, for example -- but Powerpoint comes automatic with Microsoft Office, which most PCs have standard. It is about as close to free as you can get. Many of you probably already own it. I have used both Freehand and Illustrator, though I cannot afford to own them, and it is certainly true that if you want to get into professional graphic art, Powerpoint ain't gonna cut it. However, the most important tools those programs offer, Powerpoint can replicate easily, so when you buy those, you are paying for many extras you probably will never use, especially if you just want to make an avatar for your BZPower account that will be too small to make out many details anyways. So, do consider those programs, if you have a lot of disposable cash, but otherwise, Powerpoint is far more accessible. Note that this guide will be written for PC use. I hate Macs. Much of what I'm going to show you is a little harder with a Mac, despite what their ads might lead you to believe. Not even sure if Powerpoint comes with these options for Macs. But Mac users can make the best out of this, hopefully, figuring out the closest method to use. (For example, the Macs I've seen have no right mouse button so you have to hold down the CONTROL key on the keyboard to get the rightclick menu. Ugh.) Also note: The banner for this entry shows some of my favorites I made with Powerpoint. Note that the upper left hand image was an old avatar made with a different (raster/pixel) program, that isn't included in this guide as it's a rare program; I used that image for inspiration while making my currect av, which you can see in the center. To the upper right you see half of the new Reference Keeper Team shared account's avatar, and to the lower left you can see the original coolified Rhotuka drawing. One final note: I had planned to use an avatar request from Great Being #1 as the example of this entry, but I've run out of time and space to add it in, and as I went it was clear I could illustrate how to do this easier with simpler things made from scratch. Sorry, man. But there's so much more to the actual coolifying process, I plan on making a second entry focusing on that. When homework lets up again... in the distant future... Polygon/Freeform Tool Powerpoint has a whole range of various graphics tools, most of which you are probably aware of, such as drawing a square or circle. But one tool in particular is the key to vector graphics -- the polygon tool; also called the "Freeform" tool. Click for full image. Here you can see the "lines" toolbar with the freeform tool selected. In the full image, you can see how to get this toolbar; go to Autoshapes, Lines, then click the top part and drag out of the menu to make the toolbar stay in easy access. You can snap it into the bottom of the window with the other buttons or move it anywhere in the work area. I prefer to move it out right next to what I'm working on; easier to grab it. Also note where the zoom control is (the red arrow in the image above). You'll want to zoom in a lot, like 150% to 300% to draw your shape, so that when you zoom out to printscreen when you're done, any jagged edges in mock-curves will look curved, and just so that you can more easily control the mouse as you draw. Pay attention to what the line thickness looks line in the final zoom, the size you want your actual image to be, not the thickness when you're zoomed in. Before Using the Polygon Tool: Two important settings must be fixed before we can continue: Click for full image. Make sure these options are turned off. The grid forces each click into rigid squares that make artistic drawing nearly impossible. By default the first one is on, so you'll have to fix that every time you make a new file. Also, be aware that each time you make something with the tool, you'll have to select the tool again to make a new thing, so you won't accidentally make a new polygon everywhere you click, heh. Four Polygon Abilities There are four main abilities of the polygon tool. 1) Click, release, move mouse, click release again, so you create a polygon. Close the shape by end-clicking where you started, or finish the unclosed line by double clicking. This is what I use most. 2) Hold and drag to draw with a pencil. Only use if your hand-mouse coordination is strong. When you release it generates a polygon roughly in the shape you drew. I never use this. 3) Filled areas -- usually, close the polygon and a fill color comes up automatically. Settings can also create this and manipulate it in some useful ways. I use this with gradient effects to create mock-3D surface lighting effects in my coolified avatars. Double click an object or rightclick and select properties to get to the color options. 4) Edit points (right click on a made object for menu) -- after you've drawn something, you can edit the points of the polygon, even make them curve points, to fix minor mistakes without needing to start over, or even to reshape the shape completely. Sometimes I only put down two starting points and draw totally with this option. Here's an ubercheesy example of all four: Objects (Autoshapes) When you draw a shape with the polygon tool, the square, circle, or any other Autoshape tool, it becomes an object. It is not pixels like in Paint -- that would be raster art, but this is vector. These are mathematical formulas that can always be selected, moved around, modified, even after you draw other shapes. Click an object you've made to select it. It gets eight white dots around it, plus a green dot at the top. Right click it for a menu full of options, the most important being "Format Autoshape." Here are three major things you can do with an object just by selecting it and clicking something: 1) Hold and drag to move it around. Hold Shift to force its movement into straight lines up, down, or to the sides. 2) Drag the white dots to expand or shrink the object. Hold Shift to keep the shape undistorted as you resize it from the corner dots. Side dots stretch/compress it sideways. 3) Drag the green dot to rotate it. Hold Shift to snap its rotation into the major angles like 45 or 90 degree angles. (The result of the above is #4 in the image below) Click for full image. Click on white space or another object to deselect an object. Here are some of the basics of the Format toolbox for objects: 1) Fill Color options. Select from preset colors, mix your own, and more. More on this later. 2) Fill Transparency. This can create cool effects with backgrounds. Note that any lines of objects behind will show through, which sometimes creates problems with complex multi-event objects such as my avatar -- if I made that transparent at all, lines of the skull would show through the mask, which would look weird. But used carefully, this is cool. Also, more on this in the color section later. 3) Note you can also type in an exact transparency. 4) Line color. Similar options as the Fill color, except minus some features since lines are one dimensional. 5) Line thickness. I usually go with the standard 0.75, but sometimes if you're making an exceptionally large artwork, you'll want them thicker. Or thinner for tiny details, etc. Note that the line thickness is relative to the zoom, not to the artwork itself. If you zoom out far enough, the lines look way too thick compared to the artwork itself, as you can see in the second of the following images with my avatar art. More on this in the Printscreen section below. Click for full image. Grouping Multiple objects can be combined into one by grouping them. This makes manipulating a whole group much easier as you can select everything in the group with one click and reduce the chance of mistakes that would move one part of the whole artwork where you don't want it. Here's the details on grouping: 1) Select the objects you want to group. You can click and drag a box over them, as shown in the example. You can also click one object, then hold down Shift as you click each object individually. Sometimes there might be one object in the box range that you don't want to include, so the clicking method can be used to avoid including it. 2) Rightclick, go to Grouping, and click Group. 3) This shows the grouped ubercheesy skull object. 4) Click object inside the group to manipulate only them. Hold Shift to select multiple parts of the group. This option you will use less often, because you can do the same thing without grouping, but it can save time once you've already grouped something and you realize there's more to change about it. 5) The results of manipulating parts of the groups -- a color change, obviously. 6) You can also ungroup by rightclicking, selecting Grouping, and clicking Ungroup. If you want to move parts of the artwork around related to other parts, you'll need them to be ungrouped. Click for full image. Fill Color Options Note that I've drawn a polygon and a circle (with the actual circle tool) for this example. When you doubleclick an object or rightclick it and select "Format", then click the Fill Color menu, you get the following: Click for full image. You can select those colors, or select No Fill to remove the fill. If you click "More Colors..." you get this toolbox with two tabs, "Standard" and "Custom": Click for full image. Controls of those are pretty self explanatory. If you click "Background", whatever color the background of the slide is set to will fill the object you have selected. Not that useful. If you click "Fill Effects", you get this toolbox with four pages. This takes some in-depth explaining. First page has four main uses: Click for full image. 1) Gradient. Most useful one. Gradients are one color fading into another. You can use this to create lighting effects, to an extent. Note that they cannot be curved in Powerpoint polygons, though -- this is the one main weakness Powerpoint has compared to the expensive vector art programs. Used carefully, though, it can still create roughly 3D lighting illusions, as I have shown with my coolified stuff many times. Just depends on where you put the gradients. Somtimes gradient objects with no lines can be effective, placed carefully in radiating formations to create an illusion of a curve. Here's a quickie example: 2) Preset gradient. Try these out; they can sometimes be useful. Most of them contain more than two colors, which is impossible to create on your own with Powerpoint (at least not in one object). 3) One color -- darkness or lightness gradient. Works off of the color you selected. Can be useful in shading effects. 4) Double Transparency. This one is very useful; you can have one color non-transparent, but have the other totally transparent to create all sorts of cool effects. Perhaps the coolest is if you use the "From Center" option in a circle or oval with the edge transparent (trying "From Center" with all other objects gives an awkward squarish effect, but not so with circles/ovals). Can be used to make shining effects too. The second page of the "Fill Effects" toolbox has a selection of textures to choose from. Click for full image. Here's the Full Selection of Default Textures. You can also import other textures. Sometimes I draw my own textures with my other program and import them. The other two pages of "Fill Effects" are self-explanatory so I won't bother screencapping. Patterns are made of just two colors. Not that useful, at least not with "cool" in mind. Picture is useful if you have a photo or other such image you want to use to fill a shape, though I can't recall ever using it. BZP Blue One of the most important colors for BZPower avatar creation is BZP blue, the color that's exactly between the two slight variations of background blue in BZPower posts (for some reason, the two slightly different colors alternate with each new post, though it's hard to tell). This color can be used as a background sqaure for av art in powerpoint, like with the examples you see in the banner for this blog entry. Then you can make it transparent with a gif program later, and all pixel fading on the edges looks natural still when such an av is used on BZPower. BZP Blue's RGB settings are Red 237, Green 244, Blue 252. Symmetry Usually you want both sides of your artwork to look identical, although of course there are exceptions. When making most Kanohi, symmetry is essential. It's virtually impossible to draw symmetrically on your own -- the trick is to draw only one half of the artwork, on a vertical line, then copypaste and flip the half to form the complete shape. For example, when I designed the Kanohi Ehkuata, the mask of Reference, I began with a square (use the square tool) colored BZP blue. Then I put a vertical line (using the line tool and holding Shift as I drew it to make sure it's perfectly vertical). This gives me an artpad on which to work: Then I used the polygon tool to draw the parts of the mask that touch the vertical guideline, clicking on the line to start, and clicking on the line to end. Note that this gave me an unclosed shape, so by default it had no fill, as you can see in the first image below and the second showing it without the guideline. So I had to go into properties and give it a fill -- this can be done without closing the shape. These unclosed parts are essential to the final product, as it makes sure there's not a mysterious black line going down the middle of the final mask. I drew the rest of one half of the Kanohi. Note that from time to time you may want to skip ahead to the copypaste step and then delete the copied side, just to remind yourself of how wide the final product will look. Many times I have drawn what I thought looked reasonable when I was only looking at one half, but when I put the two halves together, it was far wider than I wanted it. Then I select all of one side (being careful not to select or click on the artpad and guideline), group it, and copypaste it. It's very important that you group it before copying and pasting, as you'll see. Note my use of transparency for the visor. Click for full image. So now we've got two overlapping identical halves. To put them together, we have to use a few tools. First, select both by dragging a box over them or by holding Shift and clicking both. Go the "Draw" menu, click "Align or Distribute", and click the bar at the top to drag the menu out to float. Make sure "Relative to Slide" is off, click "Align Left" then "Align Top". Now you've got both halves perfectly overlapped. Click for full image. Click in whitespace to deselect both halves. Then click the top half. Go to The "Draw" menu, select "Rotate or Flip" and click "Flip Horizontal." Hold down Shift and drag to the left until the two halves meet at the vertical guideline. Use the left and right arrow keys on your keyboard for precision once you've got it roughly in place, so that you cannot see the guideline through any crack in the middle. Be careful to use Shift and not to move either half up or down! Then move the guideline to the back, or delete it, and stitch up the errors in overlap in the center (see below for details). Layers Since these are objects, not pixels, each individual object is either on top or below other objects on the powerpoint slide. You can move objects to the "front" or to the "back", or select them and move them forward or backward with relation to other objects to change how objects overlap. For example, you might be drawing something, but realize you want one shape to be behind something you already drew. Simply draw the new shape, and send it back a few layers. The Layer control buttons are found by rightclicking an object, going to "Order", and pulling that menu out. 1) Bring to Front 2) Send to Back 3) Bring Forward 4) Send Backward After I've put both halves together, I usually send the vertical guideline to the back rather than deleting it, so it is behind the BZP blue square, and can be brought forward again in the right spot easily should I need it again. Click for full image. Now, you can see that there are overlap problems. This is because the entire left half-group is totally on top of the entire right half, and when I drew it, I must have been off by a pixel-width or the like. Rather than getting a headache trying to edit points and recopy, simply ungroup everything and rearrange the order as needed. In this example, I select all of the "gaps" in the mask's forehead (really shapes on top filled with BZP blue), and bring them all to the front, then move them left and right with the arrow keys until their fills meet. Make sure you move both sides the same amount towards each other -- count your taps of the arrow keys. Since all of those are now on top, nothing from the mask below will overlap it, and I can also move in the halves of the mask below that are overlapping. I also shift a few other pieces of the mask around and move them forward or back so there are no line-ends sticking out too much. Zooming out to 100%, I have a complete mask! Printscreen it! Zoom out to 100%, or whichever zoom makes the artwork fit the scale you want the actual image to be. Check your line widths again. Then press "Printscreen" on your keyboard, paste the image into Paint or some other image editing program, crop it, make sure it's within av or sig guidelines if that's what it's for, and upload to brickshelf, majhost.com, or another image hosting site. Voila, there's your pic. You can also use gif programs to select BZP Blue as the transparent color. I use Microsoft Photo Editor, which has also come with all my versions of Microsoft Office (though some people who have Office tell me they do not have this; there are free online gif programs too). Whaddya think? Should it be my new avatar? Post comment any questions you may have. And stay tuned, if you're not GB#1, for the guide to coolifying. If you are GB#1, stay tuned for that and your avvie. Edit: Part 2 is now available here: Coolifying With Powerpoint Vector Art

Question is, is it the most logical course of action? Looking at it with our feet in LEGO's shoes? I see reasons to say no, it probably isn't. Showing "a" logical course isn't enough, because LEGO has to pick one. Let's try to cut to the chase here rather than be so wordy -- this is very vague, abstract language. It would be too easy to agree with these words without knowing how you mean them -- give examples. Well, you already have -- the MOCs you gave. Are those how you would do it? They don't include real pieces, so I'm assuming it's only partway what you would do. How would you do the masks? Would they be new faces as 2001 rules would allow? Or more like the real Nuva Nuva, with similarities to the older masks? Would you rebuild the bodies as was done? Would you include gears? All of that is asking not what you would PREFER -- but what you think would fit with what I quoted above; what you think LEGO should have done. Why do people always post this in blog comments? We are on this site to discuss -- and issues like this are the one thing that are actually important to discuss, unlike most of what we do on here which is just for fun. We should be able to do so both with agreement and disagreement. I'm assuming you agree with this statement. Blog or not. If anybody ever wants to disagree with me in my blog, please do so. It's a noble idea, but it never works out, ToM. Nothing LEGO's done has ever pleased everyone. What I see in the faces of the Nuva Nuva is masks that bear some similarities to the Nuva's, so it seems that what you stated has already been done. But not the way you prefer. Look, you've given examples of what you would prefer, and I've told you that I don't like them. So why do you still think everybody can be pleased? You've posted images of what you would do, at least within the piece ranges you would like. And I can guarantee you that fans like me would never be as excited about those as the real Nuva Nuva. Fans like me being the key phrase -- the question is, are most fans like you on this, or like me? You can't have both -- they contradict each other. That's what logic and evidence need to look for. In my experience following debate topics, sales, research, etc. closely over the years, the evidence says most of them are a lot closer to me than to you (so much so that I even know where I differ -- such as with brown). To be clear, there's nothing wrong with that -- otherwise, I would have to recuse (sp, lol?) myself from all discussions on why the newer style is best for LEGO to use, since I happen to like it best. What's important is that when it comes to our "LEGO should" opinions, whether or not our opinions happen to coincide with our tastes shouldn't matter -- because what LEGO should do depends on things outside us. So the question is, are you willing to consider that you're wrong, and that LEGO actually shouldn't make them that recognizeable? If so, cool. Again, which definition of opinion? It is vital that the two be seperated, because you say you are also discussing a "LEGO should" opinion. That sort of opinion should not be "kept in peace" regardless of whether it's right or wrong. If LEGO really shouldn't do as you wish they could, wouldn't it be best for you to acknowledge that? And I'm a logician, I know what is valid and what is not. But if I say "LEGO should" and you say "LEGO shouldn't", the two opinions cannot possibly be equally valid, because logical validity includes a law of non-contradiction. But if you just mean taste, you're right, but not sure why you're repeating it, since we already agree on that (and I've been the one saying it for years, lol). I'm interested in discussing the issue of whether LEGO really should have made them more recognizeable or not. That is relevant. In order to discuss that validly, we must each look at what evidence and logic says the fans want. You titled your entry "Why", and I think the "why" of this is very important to understand and discuss. If we cannot do so and come to that understanding, then things will inevitably boil over and lead to flame -- I've seen it so many times I could write the script. Maybe I should write the script, in fact. Might help illustrate... could be a blog entry... *gets thinking* Good so far; I was clear on this, as I believe I said. Or should have said. But what there are not is statistics showing the Inika would not have sold just as well had they resembled their Matoran selves. This is just not true, ToM, as I have shown. Sales from before, when this tactic was being used, were lower. As I said: Certainly, it's possible to go to the opposite extreme and have no similarity at all -- as the Inika pretty much did. I am seeing far more similarity in the Nuva Nuva than in the Inika -- would you agree? But look, ToM, what I am trying to say here is that it isn't the recognizeability that matters -- it's the old style that most fans disliked that must be brought back more in order to be more recognizeable. Unless you can show an example of what you have in mind that goes far beyond the MOCs you posted. I'm just working with what you're giving me so far, and the examples you posted show that you would pump tons of the old style back into the sets in order to gain more recognizeability. Think this through -- we've had the old selves in set form, ToM. There is hard evidence on this. Like I said, I don't have enough of it to be sure -- I don't have the Nuva sales specifically, and I should really get around to looking into it. But that evidence exists whether you or I know it or not, and LEGO knows it. Those stats do exist. And as stated already several times, every time we see the style you are apparently wanting back for recognizeability in play, we see it hurting sales. Rahi, gears, etc. The "Technicism" style, that is, as opposed to the "ruthless elegance" style (or whatever the term) of today. But I don't think I can get any farther in this post without seeing examples of what you have in mind. You mean more recognizeable, right? Honestly, since the sets already are more recognizeable than the Inika or Mahri were, I doubt they would worry about making them even more so. They probably expected a few on here to be saying they want more recognizeability, but then there's always a few wanting more more more, so I don't see why they'd bother worrying about it. Good, an example, though now I'm a little confused about what you mean by bright green. You mean the light green Nuva 2 already is? And remove dark gray so he's all one color? Or you mean the original Lewa Mata Kanohi green? I'll call it... Miru green... Hard to judge on this one, but I can predict two things: 1) That wouldn't be anywhere near good enough to please most of those on here arguing for more recognizeability. Might you -- but it wouldn't "please everybody" as you said. There would still be a call for "more more more". 2) My sense is that removing dark gray is a bad idea. Personally I love that color and having that as a mix with light green looks awesome, placing Lewa as second on my favs of the 2008 sets I've seen so far -- second only because Pohatu is orange, man! That's just me, and this is an example of how I can seperate my tastes from my opinions -- I can only theorize that most fans might think the same way because I happen to be similar to them in some other known ways, and it is quite possible this is one area we would differ on. Without clarity on which colors you mean, though, I can't comment further. Good, good, you're answering many of my questions. It's that "so long as they looked cool" part that gets tricky. What I have observed among many on here (not you, per se) who want more "recognizeability" is that to them, the word means more of the style that most fans do not see as cool. BTW, are you factoring that older fans who already have the Nuva won't largely want to buy new ones too close to the originals? You probably are, just thought I should bring it up... Heck, it's quite possible this is already a factor. Here's where I'm coming from -- I think you and I can probably come to an agreement here. But I think that whatever we can agree on, won't be enough for most of the complainers I've seen wanting more recognizeability. One example today was Pohatu's torso. One member felt like he'd been punched just because it was right-side up, not inverted. A mere color change (not sure what colors you'd suggest for him though) wouldn't please that person. So I think it depends on how recognizeable we think LEGO should go for. I have shown that it would definately be bad to make them too recognizeable. But how far is too bad? I dunno, but realize it's a sliding scale -- there will always be some not happy unless they look like your MOCs, and even the slightest difference from the real Nuva Nuva would displease somebody. Why LEGO didn't? I already said that -- to be original. LEGO's into being creative primarily here, not into being repetitive. When you're being creative, ToM, you are playing a whole different ball game than when you're looking to revise something old. When you're making MOCs of how you would love the Nuva Nuva to look, you are thinking in terms of repetitiveness. But when LEGO is putting out new canister sets each year, their top priority must be creating something new. Why is that a good thing? Because originality is what made Bionicle successful in the first place -- otherwise Kanohi never would have existed and everything just would have been Rahi-style Technic sets Can you understand that, at least? Regardless of how much repetitiveness can also be afforded, if we list the two in a priority list for LEGO to actually focus on, repetitiveness is way, way down the list. Right? What we're debating, I hope, is how far down exactly. But I also have to ask you, why do you keep implying there is no similarity? Are you just saying that to type fast? Or are you saying there really is none? Like in the last quote -- you say LEGO "did not choose" to make them "resemble" their old selves, when in fact their masks look closer to the originals than the Inika's or Mahri's. In Pohatu's case, it even looks more like the Kakama Olda than Nuva. But I hope after this post we can stop going around the abstract stuff in circles and discuss examples. What would you do if you could control LEGO? Tell me how you would make each of them more recognizeable. The three we've seen, that is. I'm just doing what has proven to improve BZP's atmosphere when it comes to complaints and debates, ToM. It's always an uphill battle, as my kind of approach as a logician is highly extraordinary to most people, but it's worth it in the end if we can, as friends, find the truth. I'm used to never getting encouragement, believe me, but the results in the end are always positive, so that's all the encouragement I need. No, I'm not reading anything into the quote.

It shouldn't be sad, though -- because LEGO can't please everybody all at once. If LEGO appealed more to the minority, the majority would have the same temptation to see it as "sad". I don't see it as sad that LEGO is listening to their fans. What's sad is that LEGO can't please everybody. I wish they could. But that's just how reality works. Nothing LEGO, or indeed any company from any time period, can do about that. Same way it's always been -- same reason LEGO moved to plastic, moved to bricks, etc. I listed many things that are not just speculation. Mak, do you honestly think I would state something as a fact if I was merely speculating? I'm a logician. I had hoped that by now yall would figure out that when I speculate, I say so. (For example, this post just today.) Doesn't mean my opinion is right -- but if not, I wanna know the reasons. Yes, I can also answer that question factually -- vast majority of older fans leave toylines. Bionicle is no exception. The old fans you see on here are a tiny tiny minority who stuck with it. Admirable (I'm one of you in that sense, obviously, and probably older than most of you). Which why LEGO does give us these treats now and then. But we have to be careful not to take it too far. Also, you seem to be forgetting that the "movement" has been towards what most fans have wanted all along -- the Rahi sold poorly in 2001. Remember 2001 was an experiment to target Technic fans, but what most fans (roleplayers) like was the cool styles in Kanohi and tools, not the things LEGO expected them to like most. So since then LEGO's been researching this and moving closer to the more "Bionicle" style and farther from the older Technic styles. That is primarily what LEGO has been adjusting to. The Nuva 2003 and many other minority favorites were still designed to appeal largely to the Technic taste-group, but since then when LEGO has begun improving (in most fans' eyes) the sets to crank up the "coolified" style that was hinted at by the Kanohi, etc. in 2001, sales have gone back up. So in short, the Nuva are an improvement, as most fans see it. How much so is certainly up in the air -- sales will see -- but the fact that they are an improvement to most is a fact. Also, I would like to point out that I predicted the Inika would sell like mad before I knew those results, and I was right, based on everything above. This is not just speculation I'm telling you. This is something I've been saying for years and have put out there as a theory that has proven itself accurate 100% of the time. I'm pretty confident it will hold true with the Nuva Nuva (and the Mahri, incidentally, which improve many things beyond the Inika as far as I understand what most fans want).

I think you meant "haven't". I'm mostly with you on this -- I am waiting for page-spread images as I always do before I judge for myself. But to an extent, I can tell a lot from these pics, because they're pretty reasonable quality, and as an artist I am skilled at "reading into" an image because I know how "write into" them. So I can already tell I like Pohatu and Lewa best, for example, not so fond of Kopaka, except for the wings.... But I also have questions -- like I can't make out what exactly Pohatu is holding. I might not like it -- but I can't tell what it is, so will have to wait on that... But to play devil's advocate, I know many would say they can always tell from the pics.

Perhaps -- I'm asking for the same thing ToM asked for. Logical, evidence-based reasoning. Not just speculation. Some fans want that. We know this. But they seem to be the ones that also like a lot of other unpopular things about Bionicle -- the minority. So the question is -- do most fans want that? And if not, shouldn't LEGO do what most fans want? Besides, more than that has returned -- Kopaka has an assymetrical lens thing going on, Lewa's mask resembles the Miru Nuva, and Pohatu's mask resembles the Kakama visorified. Not what this is about, then -- it's about how much recognizeability is wanted. It looks to me like LEGO listened to you guys as much as they could get away with as far as the majority is concerned. But some seem to just want "more more more" to an unreasonable extent. Taking it for granted -- unwise, IMO. LEGO has no obligation to give older fans any treats at all, because not enough matter in terms of sales. Don't you think this kind of response to LEGO's generosity comes across as overly demanding?

Why Not? What do you mean by opinion? Do you mean emotion-based preference? Or a logic-based "LEGO should" opinion? See here. Sounds like you're mixing them up -- an Equivocation fallacy. If you are asking for me to reprogram your mind so that you will like the Nuva Nuva, I refuse to even try. Because it's impossible -- your preferences are wired right into you as much as your height, skin color, eye color, whatever. You shouldn't act defensive about how you feel about these sets. I do think it's possible to change our own preferences, like how I have come to like some foods I didn't like as a kid, but that is an individual decision and you have no obligation to do so. When it comes to thought, though, about what LEGO (something outside of you, so part of a reality not defined by your individual tastes) actually "should" do, you cannot look inside yourself to figure that out. You have to look at what LEGO has to look at -- what most fans want. So with that in mind -- addressing your thought-based argument about what you think LEGO should do, here is my reply: Why should LEGO make them very recognizeable? If it is fair for you to ask for logic and evidence, then you should show logical reasoning that shows that "LEGO should" do as you wish. I have asked for such an argument, and nobody has given me one. I have already showed why the reasoning you're using is flawed -- I'll do so again, briefly. You are saying this is a "travesty" and saying that in your "opinion" LEGO should make more resemblance. On what basis? The only basis you provided is your own personal emotion-based preference. This is like one vote. LEGO has to work with majorities, naturally, so each preference vote adds up into majorities and minorities. Sales for Inika are up despite them having virtually no similarity to their Matoran form. While I do not have sales results for the Mahri, the Nuva's following in this trend shows that LEGO has clear evidence that most fans prefer this. This is evidence, something the opposite argument does not have. So the majority obviously prefers what LEGO's done with the Nuva Nuva. It makes no logical sense to market toys to a tiny nostalgic minority who rarely buys sets anyways, being burdened with other demands on the wallet. Just not enough to support the line. Attempts to do this nearly drove Bionicle under in 2003. Your argument amounts to "LEGO should do this because I would prefer it" -- but you forget that there are many more "I"s out there who have their own preferences. Logically speaking, none of you can individually show your preference to be the "right" way -- it has to go by vote, by majority. If there's a flaw in my reasoning, I've asked over and over again for somebody to point it out. I'm still waiting. I have also given reasons NOT to do as you wish. For one, where exactly were all of you in 2001? We learned back then that Toa got new "faces" in order to get different powers. Bionicle was never supportive of any extreme need for recognizeability. When it was tried with the Kal and the Nuva, they were failures. I wish I had specific sales data on the Nuva, but we know from the Kal that what you see as "recognizeability" is to most fans "repetition", which kills sales. 2002-2003 were the decline of Bionicle in sales results, so to keep pointing to tactics used then as somehow smart to use is careless. It amounts to "LEGO did it before, so they should do it again", which ignores the results of doing it before. That's like saying to an inventor that they tried one way to make their machine work, so the fact that they tried it in the past means they should keep doing it that way forever. The inventor would point out the attempt failed, so no, thank you very much, he'll try something else. The Inika were supposedly going to fail for the same reasons you list about the Nuva Nuva -- yet they were a smashing sales success. Your argument has been tested and has failed to match up to reality, sorry. The new approach is proven in sales to work. So why should LEGO not go with a proven-successful approach? What I see happening here is an understandable mistake. You have your own preference. It's how you're wired, and you cannot imagine being wired another way. You can't imagine liking the Nuva Nuva looking so very different. So you assume that everybody else must be wired just like you. (And when LEGO does something to appeal to those who aren't, you react negatively to an extreme, using words like "travesty" that contradict your use of the word "peace".) That's just not how it works. In logical terms, ToM, you are committing the fallacy of Hasty Generalization. (Plus the Equivocation fallacy mentioned above.) You can meet people on here who do not share your preference -- I encourage discussion with them with an open mind to learn more about their preferences so you won't have such difficulty imagining how they see things. This is one reason why I spend so much time talking with complainers -- I want to be able to place myself in your shoes, and understand where you're coming from. Doing so helps avoid that mistake a lot. So here's how I think you should view this -- "I wish they could be more recognizeable. That's my preference, and nothing anybody can say will change it. However, I understand that most fans don't share this preference, so LEGO is making a smart decision by making them more original. So I can walk away truly at peace with this decision, even though I would still like it my way better." Not necessarily in those words, but yeah. In other news -- I've identified a new fallacy to add to my list -- "Whyism". This fallacy assumes that by asking the rhetorical question "Why", you prove that good reasons do not exist, and that instead the only possible reasons are laziness or deviousness. The fallacy is often a fallback argument for those who don't want to admit they're wrong but have had all their other fallacious arguments debunked too clearly to continue using them. It creates an illusion of implied superior intelligence and "know-how" on the part of the user. Obviously, the illusion falls apart when you simply ask "Why not?" It is logically quite possible for good reasons to exist for a decision, regardless of whether an observer knows or admits them. I'm sure you aren't guilty of it, ToM, lol, but I suspect that others on here are... Question is, all of you -- are you willing to accept "Why"?

Well, as I said in my comment to your State of Bionicle entry, two groups who like different things can still communicate respectfully, and through learning more about the others' preferences avoid worse future flameouts. That's what I try to encourage, and I have to respectfully disagree with the advice to "stop talking." I prefer to advise people to talk respectfully. True, though, if someone really cannot control themselves in debate and is tempted to flame, your advice is wise. But remember there's also the possibility of real problems existing with Bionicle, and so it's important to foster respectful debate, so that we can better identify them if they exist. That's one of the main things I devote my time to on here. So I for one don't have that option -- I have to keep entering discussions and bringing the logical side of things to the table, focused both on encouraging others to respect their differences and see each other as friends despite that, and on using logic to find the truth about what LEGO should do with Bionicle, when that is the issue at hand. I see that as a responsibility I have, both as a moderator, and as a logician. Because if you don't talk about problems, they're less likely to go away. They can just get worse and worse until things explode. It's the trap I've seen countless other franchise fan forums fall into, and it can even tear apart a franchise itself (Star Trek, for example, not to name sites...). Or, alternatively, if you don't talk about why something isn't a problem, the opinion that it is can get more and more radical until, again, it explodes. I don't wanna see that happen. As far as two sides just saying what they like or dislike and then throwing mud at each other because of their own ignorance, though, I agree, that is pointless, harmful, and should never be done. I see that as frankly akin to racism, because we are born with our tastes as much as we are our physical features. It's just harder to realize that's what it is, because we can't see our tastes directly. And of course tastes aren't purely genetic, but still. And of course, listening to each other is the key -- without that, all we could have is mudslinging in circles, which I have zero interest in.

I think you could seriously use the blog entry on how to do that that I am procrastinating on.

Punny! Posting is fun, not work. You people always think I take days to type these things up. Most of the time it takes a few minutes. It's disabled for normal members in normal forum divisions. We turned it on for the BRC. It's not that fancy, though, mostly just tables and colors. Okay, so any actual suggestions as to a new av?

I hope you don't mind me posting a short (for me :-P) reply to your last post in the "Destroying" topic that was closed due to leakages: As I see it, this is the heart of your argument -- would you agree? What I've been pointing out again and again is that fans do care, they care quite a lot, about a set's appearance. They didn't like the older, more Technicy style as much, and so that would cause them to buy less. The Rahi's poor sales and the Bahrag's proved this, as well as the fact that gears were the #1 complaint. I'd like to bring up these MOCs you've been showing in your blog, and my tastes, as an example -- personally, they aren't that attractive. They're not worse than the originals, which weren't horrible IMT. But they're far too "technicy" looking to please me much. I would never, never spend money on something like that. Of course, that's me and that's, admittedly, mostly because I already have the originals so I wouldn't want mere jointed rehashes. I'm sure most fans would at least consider buying it, and many would. But what you seem to be missing is, since that style doesn't appeal very well to most fans, that would indeed hurt sales. They wouldn't see it as "cool", it seems. Also, it's a misnomer that it's so much about "old" versus "new." It's about two different taste groups. I'm more in line with the one you're calling "new", but I've been with Bionicle from Day 1. And I've met some people who joined Bionicle late but still prefer the older style best. The only thing that's old or new is which taste Bionicle has tried to appeal to the most. And both back then and now, the "new" taste is the one that has brought greater sales. Remember, that's why the Rahi sold poorly even in 2001. I try not to call it "new" -- I call it "most fans", because that has been true from Day 1 and it's still true. I know it would help to come up with a nickname for 'em but I haven't found a good one yet other than "Biomechanism fans", as opposed to "Technicism fans". And the tastes that you mention your MOCs often appealing to, on here, are usually in the minority, so actually it could be a bad sign if your MOCs were to face the market. What the minority likes strongly, the majority often dislikes strongly. Whatever small gain in sales your idea would bring in, would most likely be counteracted by a bigger loss. Not saying it wouldn't be worth a try -- but canister sets are not the place to do such a risky experiment, especially not the heroes -- those are the main sellers so they need to be top notch. For the record, though, I loved your Reidak MOC. That's fine, as long as we all realize LEGO wasn't really aiming for that, and seems to have good reasons not to. (But it's still worth debating those reasons, as Greg has said.) And I agree that change is not automatically good -- but realize that by now, it is you and others on here who are arguing for a change to a proven successful design tactic, since the Inika sold so well despite (or because of) being largely unrecognizeable.

Well, you might want to check out this comment of DV's in Mandragora's blog. It sounds like they already do that -- and what would make you think they aren't? Again, how do you define "quality"? That's subjective and varies from person to person. It seems clear to me that they are working hard to provide the highest quality -- in the eyes of most fans. The problem is that everybody likes different things, so no set will be seen as high quality to everybody. On BZP many of us are in the minority, so we often see that as low quality. That's how I see what's going on here. Teamwork is one thing -- but what goals the team agrees are wise to pursue are quite another. Lol. Why do I always get that? Well, J, I do appreciate your thoughts. I'm not sure what to say to that, as I made that perfectly clear. I said I wasn't arguiing with you -- I was just posting my own reactions to your comments based on my own tastes (for the most part, though there were a few logic-based things I believed I saw flaws in with your post). The only reason my comments are posted in your blog is because that is where the comments they were a response to were posted. I think that's the best way to get to the kind of respect of each other, despite our differences in taste, that you mentioned in your blog -- not to stop talking, but actually to talk. By learning more about each others' differences, it becomes much easier to respect each other. That's what I've found through my experiences in debates. Of course, somebody has to start the respect, which is what I am trying (but not always succeeding, certainly) to do. In my experience, when both sides just hold it in and ignore each other, that's a recipe for resentment to grow until it bursts out at the worst time. Better to discuss our differences. I know I sound like a psychobabblist, lol. But it's true. Yes, absolutely. Looks like this is where our disagreement is coming from. I canNOT do it based on my own tastes, of course. However, through logic and sales results and other research that is often commented on by Greg and other sources such as news articles, the objective state of Bionicle can indeed be determined. At least on some things, though not on everything when data is not available. Of course, that isn't what we were discussing. But that's my point -- to call it the "state" of Bionicle is, IMO, a poor choice of words, because it seems to imply you did intend to discuss it, when you did not. You posted in your most recent article that we shouldn't be bickering -- I agree, but I analyze by nature, so I've learned a lot about what kind of poor choices of words like that often spark conflict. I would word it more like "My current feelings on Bionicle" or the like. Of course, "State of Bionicle" sounds cooler. That's really more of a nitpick than anything else, but I did feel it was worth bringing up, because I've seen that kind of wording lead to conflicts like that time and time again. Interesting. Well, lemme ask you this -- what did you see as the meat in the original comics? What specifically went missing, in your eyes? It's obvious to both of us that something is different, and again, not saying any of this means it's good/bad per se. But still, I am curious what you think about it. Okay... but weren't the original comics the same way? With mask collecting, for example -- this was one of the big reasons I personally wanted 2001 to be more fleshed out -- we never saw the vast majority of those masks get collected. With Makuta's MNOG battle -- if you follow only the comics, that was arguably the most confusing jump in the franchise. The Bohrok Saga, I would agree, didn't really have this issue. But the originals, to me, did. I guess I just see it as part of the nature of the comics. I see. So, you were much happier with the original books, and probably the earlier 2004 books? That was how I saw them. Personally I found that boring -- I wanted the books to stand out as their own stories. But that's coo'. There wouldn't be anything wrong with that though -- it isn't an insult. I have often discovered I was thinking something different than I realized. It's part of being human. It's not intended as an insult. But look, the trend that you and I agreed exists exists, so there must be a reason. I think the reason is that we prefer different things with the characters. That's cool. Along the lines of something Mandragora said to me recently -- it helps when you provide that kind of thing; what you disliked along with what you liked. Can't help but notice you said you felt the sets were awesome -- did you mean the Rahi? Again that is a classic sign of the kind of taste I often call "Technicism"; a liking basically of the highly mechanized style of the Rahi, just like past Technic sets (not to generalize, though; I'm sure you had your favs and not-favs). I, on the other hand, loved the battles in 2001, and I didn't like the Rahi sets, but I felt the art presentation and story presentation was fun and "improved" the sets images in my eyes. Again, this is telling me it's probably taste talking when it comes to this difference in how we see the comic characterizations. And again -- that's not a bad thing! I'm just identifying what I see as a difference between us. So what you said seems to actually back that up further. I am not arguing that this is 2001 vs. 2007 -- that would far too simplistic, and besides, I'm saying things I liked about 2001 too. I was around back then, but I also had different preferences back then. I'm saying I think it's between one type of taste, and another, both of which are basically wired into us. Everything you're saying is identifying you as within the taste group I'm talking about, for the most part (though no individual is the same). And don't lose sight of this -- the reason I'm saying all this is that I think when we can recognize that difference, and be at peace with it, we can walk away happier, even though Bionicle isn't neccessarily appealing to our own tastes. In 2001, I had no problem with the sets being a style I didn't like that much (the Rahi, that is; I loved the Toa, except gears, lack of knees... but that's another story). They just weren't my cup of tea, and I was happy for those who did like 'em that they got them. Now, I do wish that old style could come back for your guys' sake. I can see why it probably can't, unfortunately -- as you agreed you do too -- but clearly recognizing all of this helps, at least to me, to be more at peace with it. Lol -- did you ever read my blog entry about the two meanings of the word "opinion"? Nobody said it's fact, but some kinds of opinions are intended to be "theories" about fact. I would say this isn't opinion (in that sense), but taste and preference. At least for the most part. And I've got no qualms with the paragraph before, except I guess for the Fire part -- that's more physics than personality. But I will concede that I don't see the characters evolving in the comics; that's in the books. Good point there. (I just never really saw it in 2001 either -- especially when they kept forgetting they'd learned to work together over and over...) Fair enough, but remember it's usually the more involved fans like us who pay attention to the story anyways. But yes, that was what I meant -- I was talking about those of us who follow the story for its own purposes. My impression is that most fans, mainly in the lower end of the age group, don't do that -- when they read the comic, they're mainly focused on the cool images and fights of the characters (cool in their minds -- though we tend to see much of it as childish, because it is, intentionally). Then they go from the comic (like an ad) to the store or the like. So yes, there is a difference there as well. Ya ya, not saying you shouldn't say that. Firstly -- understood. (I keep saying that over and over I know, but I just wanna be crystal clear here.) Effective characters -- well, they were. In your tastes. Again, my very point is that it's subjective -- to you, they were effective characters, to me they weren't so much. There's gotta be an explanation for why we see them differently -- I think it lies in taste. One-liners -- Again, fair enough; that is mostly in the books, as I conceded above. So would you say the dialogue/speech is one of the main "meats", to you? In my tastes, I don't mind that, because they give one-liners in the situations were it makes sense to, and Ican go to the books for the "real" characterization. Also, they aren't as stereotypical in the comics or books, Jaller not being hot-headed, etc. But you obviously don't mind the elemental "stereotyping" of the mata/Nuva. That's cool. Heh. Well, that answers one of my questions above. So you did like that. Interesting. See, this is why I say it's good to discuss this. Now I know someone out there actually liked that, and took away something of value from it, even! That's great! In my eyes, it felt like laziness on the part of the story team. And I dont' know that it was or wasn't. But I think it's a lot like how you feel about the Inika one-liners. Those feel like laziness to you -- to me I see real people in dangerous situations trying to distract their enemies with words rather than pure fighting. Also, "taste" is the word I would use there, rather than "pure opinion" or "perspective". Back to that blog entry I mentioned -- "opinion" is actually a lot stronger a word than you probably meant there. Perspective is a clear word, though. I would also say "preference." Cool. I would agree with that. There you go -- that is a taste difference. You read something into it based on your own background that makes sense. This is much like what happens in writing workshop classes. Often I've had the professor in my current class say that something felt shallow, but I comment that I took something else away from it that he didn't get. He's talked about the same thing I'm saying -- that it's our different "aesthetic", as he calls it, that makes us see it that way. I agree, although I call it "preference" or "taste". Hopefully I'm communicating what I mean about our tastes making us see things differently better than I was before. That's really cool that you took that away from it.

I just wanna post the word "Amen" over and over. Omi, I couldn't have said it better myself -- and believe me, I've tried. Man, have I tried. So I think I'll have to dig this up: I don't hand that out lightly -- heck, I'm tempted to draw a new one just for the occasion, but I got homework and I am so tired I can't see what I'm typing.

Well said, dmmcg. Not to beat a dead horse, but it's important we don't lose sight of what LEGO is and what Bionicle is -- a toy company, a toyline. Sometimes I think on BZP we get lulled into a sense that the story exists independent of the sets as its own self-sustaining entity. That's partly due to Greg and others doing such a good job that it isn't Power Rangers, I'm sure -- it is such high quality that it can be enjoyed for itself. But we do have to keep in mind that this story is supposed to do the same thing the most annoying marketing ad you ever saw is for -- to sell the sets. Also, this rule means the characters in the story will be what most fans want, don't forget. So it's more of a benefit than a limitation.

That would be work.

Yep -- or at least it better be; if it isn't, you should post about the error in the suggestion topic that launches in S&T tomorrow.

Correct.

You're special, just like everybody else.

I suppose that depends on your timezone but in EST, it's going up later today. Although today it will be empty. Starting tommorrow the actual reference resources go live, one per day.

So I hear.

No.

No, only the shared account (and me and admins). There will be a suggestion topic, probably in S&T, where members can post suggestion/errors, and a talkback to discuss the project. And I'm glad you enjoyed it. I can't wait to reveal it.