Jump to content

Which Toa Mata version is the best?


Mish

  

22 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

 

They aren't that bad.

 

Let me put it this way, the Toa Mistika/Phantoka deserve 3/10 at the very most and even that is being easy on them IMO.  

 

By that standard, the Mata and Nuva would probably be zero and a decimal. 

  • Upvote 1

bZpOwEr

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

They aren't that bad.

 

Let me put it this way, the Toa Mistika/Phantoka deserve 3/10 at the very most and even that is being easy on them IMO.  

 

By that standard, the Mata and Nuva would probably be zero and a decimal. 

 

 

Only by unfairly stacking the ratings against them by including criteria like posability, which have far more to do with an overall trend than features of the sets themselves; if the Mata had been made coming off the same history of progressively better posability the Phantoka/Mistika had been, then of course they'd have the full 16 points of articulation.

 

Visually, the Mata (and to a slightly lesser extent Nuva) have always had a significantly higher appeal to me than the Phantoka/Mistika. They have more vivid, elemental-feeling, and appealing color schemes, more elemental motifs, more iconic-looking and significantly less over-detailed mask designs, and overall just a more team-like feeling.

 

Opinions may vary (that said, if you prefer the Phantoka/Mistika to the Mata, your opinions are garbage) but to me, there is just so much the Mata do very, very right (and much of which the 2015 Toa actually managed) that the Phantoka/Mistika did very, very wrong, and no amount of improvement in articulation and other increased constraction standards can hide that.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

They aren't that bad.

 

Let me put it this way, the Toa Mistika/Phantoka deserve 3/10 at the very most and even that is being easy on them IMO.  

 

By that standard, the Mata and Nuva would probably be zero and a decimal. 

 

 

Only by unfairly stacking the ratings against them by including criteria like posability, which have far more to do with an overall trend than features of the sets themselves; if the Mata had been made coming off the same history of progressively better posability the Phantoka/Mistika had been, then of course they'd have the full 16 points of articulation.

 

Visually, the Mata (and to a slightly lesser extent Nuva) have always had a significantly higher appeal to me than the Phantoka/Mistika. They have more vivid, elemental-feeling, and appealing color schemes, more elemental motifs, more iconic-looking and significantly less over-detailed mask designs, and overall just a more team-like feeling.

 

Opinions may vary (that said, if you prefer the Phantoka/Mistika to the Mata, your opinions are garbage) but to me, there is just so much the Mata do very, very right (and much of which the 2015 Toa actually managed) that the Phantoka/Mistika did very, very wrong, and no amount of improvement in articulation and other increased constraction standards can hide that.

 

You're probably right when you consider the improvements that the group made to the sets over the years. But that doesn't excuse the fact that the Phantoka/Mistika are simply better sets, even if they did come later. This is the equivalent of saying that a machine gun from 1914 is better than a modern one because it had a better paint job. The fact that the Phantoka/Mistika had so many better qualities than the Mata/Nuva that's used in this excuse ignores the blatantly obvious improvements that the Phantoka/Mistika sets had.

I'm not saying that Lego could have done better with designing the Mata/Nuva, they were probably trying their best to make them good sets. But in 2008 their design methods improved, and thus the sets released were better than those from 2001 and 2002. 

  • Upvote 2

bZpOwEr

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can say a Ford Escape is objectively better than a Model T because it runs better, but keep in mind there will still be those who prefer the aesthetics of the latter, and will criticize the former no matter how much better it runs.

 

Since LEGO sets aren't functional things like cars, it makes even more sense for aesthetics to be considered alongside functionality. Why would you ever judge a set purely based on functionality? I can make a sturdy tower, but if it looks terrible, how many people are going to buy it?

 

Also, you say "so many better qualities", but the only one that comes to mind is 13 points of articulation. Everything else about them to me always felt worse.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can say a Ford Escape is objectively better than a Model T because it runs better, but keep in mind there will still be those who prefer the aesthetics of the latter, and will criticize the former no matter how much better it runs.

 

Since LEGO sets aren't functional things like cars, it makes even more sense for aesthetics to be considered alongside functionality. Why would you ever judge a set purely based on functionality? I can make a sturdy tower, but if it looks terrible, how many people are going to buy it?

 

Also, you say "so many better qualities", but the only one that comes to mind is 13 points of articulation. Everything else about them to me always felt worse.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather have Lewa Phantoka's mask than whatever the heck he had as a Toa Nuva.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You can say a Ford Escape is objectively better than a Model T because it runs better, but keep in mind there will still be those who prefer the aesthetics of the latter, and will criticize the former no matter how much better it runs.

 

Since LEGO sets aren't functional things like cars, it makes even more sense for aesthetics to be considered alongside functionality. Why would you ever judge a set purely based on functionality? I can make a sturdy tower, but if it looks terrible, how many people are going to buy it?

 

Also, you say "so many better qualities", but the only one that comes to mind is 13 points of articulation. Everything else about them to me always felt worse.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather have Lewa Phantoka's mask than whatever the heck he had as a Toa Nuva.

 

 

And I'd rather have any of the Mata masks than the over-detailed, barely-reminiscent Phantoka/Mistika masks.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

You can say a Ford Escape is objectively better than a Model T because it runs better, but keep in mind there will still be those who prefer the aesthetics of the latter, and will criticize the former no matter how much better it runs.

 

Since LEGO sets aren't functional things like cars, it makes even more sense for aesthetics to be considered alongside functionality. Why would you ever judge a set purely based on functionality? I can make a sturdy tower, but if it looks terrible, how many people are going to buy it?

 

Also, you say "so many better qualities", but the only one that comes to mind is 13 points of articulation. Everything else about them to me always felt worse.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather have Lewa Phantoka's mask than whatever the heck he had as a Toa Nuva.

 

 

And I'd rather have any of the Mata masks than the over-detailed, barely-reminiscent Phantoka/Mistika masks.

 

Kanohi Mata: Good.

Kanohi Nuva: OH MATA NUI WHAT THE KARZAHNI IS THAT?!

Kanohi Phantoka/Mistika: Still better than the Nuva. 

 

All in all, Mata were the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this order:

 

2001 Toa - Love the colours, the details and the overall feel of them. Very good for a flagship product of the first successful Constraction line.

 

2015 Toa - A good feel for a return to form. What they lack in distinct colours they make up for in unique characterization. For the first time (in what I consider ever) the oa are significantly individual enough to match their personalities.

 

Toa Nuva - An interesting concept, they definitely felt like powered up versions of the same character. Even their mask's unusual departure from the iconic feel of the series, they absolutely felt like the same character as their prior incarnation.

 

Adaptive Armor - They have elbows.

  • Upvote 6

20383310448_7d514f8ffa.jpg

 

Spoiler Alert

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing that the Mata/Nuva could do was use their gear function, pose a tiny bit, and play the mask game (which isn't very practical compared to the way the rahi incorporated it). The later sets had amazing articulation that allowed for so much more playability. With a gear function, you could do one action, and that was whatever the function allowed you to do. With enhanced articulation, the actions are practically infinite. The Phantoka/Mistika also had blasters, stable masks, a Metru head that didn't cut your fingers when you tried to remove the eyestalk, and creative uses of secondary weapons, namely Pohatu's helicopter blades and Tahu's rotating shield.

The Mata/Nuva on the other hand had so few playability factors when you compare them to the Phantoka/Mistika that it's almost cringeworthy. The Nuva were a little better with their duel-function weapons, but that wasn't very practical seeing that it required a good deal of time to attach whatever weapon they had to their feet. 

  • Upvote 2

bZpOwEr

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a Metru head that didn't cut your fingers when you tried to remove the eyestalk

 

How on earth have you been removing your Metru eystalks?

 

Also pretty much 50% of what you said was "articulation" in a lot of words. Improved articulation is great, but I'm really missing how it's supposed to make me abandon the idea that aesthetics matter to a set.

 

You also listed the only two secondary weapon functions the Phantoka/Mistika had, which seems like a considerable step down from the Nuva, who had it across the entire team. In fact, 50% of the Phantoka/Mistika only had their (large, clunky, overspecialized) blaster for a weapon, resulting in, bizarrely, less team diversity than the Mata and Nuva.

 

Their colors were boring, their masks were ugly, their proportions were generally simian, and they bore little to no resemblance to any of their previous forms. But they're supposed to be inherently better because they have elbows and blasters? I really don't understand your point here.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Their colors were boring, their masks were ugly, their proportions were generally simian, and they bore little to no resemblance to any of their previous forms. But they're supposed to be inherently better because they have elbows and blasters? I really don't understand your point here.

 

You seem to be under the impression that the presence of obnoxiously bright colors is what makes a set good or not. What if I don't like bright colors, what if I do like the metallic accents and the larger masks? 

I think that by this point we're simply arguing over preferences, which is why I don't see why either of us should continue this. 

Edited by The Irrational Rock
  • Upvote 3

bZpOwEr

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Their colors were boring, their masks were ugly, their proportions were generally simian, and they bore little to no resemblance to any of their previous forms. But they're supposed to be inherently better because they have elbows and blasters? I really don't understand your point here.

 

You seem to be under the impression that the presence of obnoxiously bright colors is what makes a set good or not. What if I don't like bright colors, what if I do like the metallic accents and the larger masks? 

I think that by this point we're simply arguing over preferences, which is why I don't see why either of us should continue this. 

 

 

I mean, usually, when I see the word "accent", I think "small bits here and there", not "at least 50% of the color".

 

Maybe that's just me.

 

Anyway, the only reason I was arguing as hard as I was was your implication that, because the Phantoka/Mistika had elbows and blasters, I must accept them as factually better than the (imo) aesthetically superior Mata, which just didn't sit right with me. They could have 600 points of articulation and I'd still prefer the Mata if I thought the Mata looked better.

Edited by Dina Saruyama
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Their colors were boring, their masks were ugly, their proportions were generally simian, and they bore little to no resemblance to any of their previous forms. But they're supposed to be inherently better because they have elbows and blasters? I really don't understand your point here.

 

You seem to be under the impression that the presence of obnoxiously bright colors is what makes a set good or not. What if I don't like bright colors, what if I do like the metallic accents and the larger masks? 

I think that by this point we're simply arguing over preferences, which is why I don't see why either of us should continue this. 

 

 

I mean, usually, when I see the word "accent", I think "small bits here and there", not "at least 50% of the color".

 

Maybe that's just me.

 

I think "The way someone talks".:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Their colors were boring, their masks were ugly, their proportions were generally simian, and they bore little to no resemblance to any of their previous forms. But they're supposed to be inherently better because they have elbows and blasters? I really don't understand your point here.

 

You seem to be under the impression that the presence of obnoxiously bright colors is what makes a set good or not. What if I don't like bright colors, what if I do like the metallic accents and the larger masks? 

I think that by this point we're simply arguing over preferences, which is why I don't see why either of us should continue this. 

 

 

I mean, usually, when I see the word "accent", I think "small bits here and there", not "at least 50% of the color".

 

Maybe that's just me.

 

I'm pretty sure that you knew what the point was that I was trying to convey without having to inquire me on my word usage. 

bZpOwEr

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mata 11/10

 

nuva 9/10

 

mistika/ phantoka 8/10

Where would you put twenty-fifteen on that scale?

 

 

 

 

You can say a Ford Escape is objectively better than a Model T because it runs better, but keep in mind there will still be those who prefer the aesthetics of the latter, and will criticize the former no matter how much better it runs.

 

Since LEGO sets aren't functional things like cars, it makes even more sense for aesthetics to be considered alongside functionality. Why would you ever judge a set purely based on functionality? I can make a sturdy tower, but if it looks terrible, how many people are going to buy it?

 

Also, you say "so many better qualities", but the only one that comes to mind is 13 points of articulation. Everything else about them to me always felt worse.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather have Lewa Phantoka's mask than whatever the heck he had as a Toa Nuva.

 

 

And I'd rather have any of the Mata masks than the over-detailed, barely-reminiscent Phantoka/Mistika masks.

 

Kanohi Mata: Good.

Kanohi Nuva: OH MATA NUI WHAT THE KARZAHNI IS THAT?!

Kanohi Phantoka/Mistika: Still better than the Nuva. 

 

All in all, Mata were the best.

 

If you look at the Kanohi nuva, they had many of the same details of the Kanohi Mata, just taken off and given to different shapes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

a Metru head that didn't cut your fingers when you tried to remove the eyestalk

 

How on earth have you been removing your Metru eystalks?

 

I'm pretty sure he was comparing the Metru heads of the Phantoka/Mistika to the Mata head of the Mata/Nuva, not comparing the Metru head of the Phantoka/Mistika to other Metru heads. The phrasing maybe could have been a bit clearer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

2015 2/10

Care to explain why? 

 

It has no detail and the plot should be overwhelmingly complex, despite just starting.

 

I think we're talking about the sets here, not the story.

And I hate to make opinions sound like facts, but it's kind of apparent that the 2015 Toa are the exact opposite of having no detail.  

But the main reason is because it uses skeleball.

By your reasoning, if you had one of the most complex, intricate, and well-designed set in existence, you would say it's not good because it uses CCBS?

Come on now, that's not very nice. 

  • Upvote 2

bZpOwEr

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

2015 2/10

Care to explain why? 

 

It has no detail and the plot should be overwhelmingly complex, despite just starting.

 

I think we're talking about the sets here, not the story.

And I hate to make opinions sound like facts, but it's kind of apparent that the 2015 Toa are the exact opposite of having no detail.  

I was being sarcastic.:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the main reason is because it uses skeleball.

I agree with your ratings for all but G2, G2 is good, improves the colour schemes of Mata, and not by darkening them and removing the secondary colours. It has around as much articulation as Phantoka/Mistika and the Toa are actually reminiscent of themselves, Onua, for example, being his signature short and stocky look while still giving him much better weapons, which can be used in a similar way to the mata weapons, if one so desires. Your logic is faulty and you need to sit in a corner with CCBS until the two of you get along.

 

Not to mention that G2 manages to pull off both possibility and gearboxes within the same sets.

Edited by D5 Petewa
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say the Gen 2 Toa are the best Toa that the lego group has ever released. The new weapon pieces are so fitting for the characters, the masks are very close to their Gen 1 counterparts, but more: They are ACTUAL MASKS! No axle connection, but real face-covering masks. The design of the new head and masks are brilliant! I really admire how they designed and engineered the new battle masks. The gears/posability combination is killer as well. Nostalgia or not, these new sets destroy all the old ones in my opinion. I do miss some of the Gen 1 pieces, but it's a small price to pay for such great sets!

  • Upvote 5

evergrey_l01.gif


Other great bands:


Iron Maiden    Journey    Mercenary    The Unguided    Trivium


Boston    Stratovarius    Symphony X    Epica

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But the main reason is because it uses skeleball.

Is skeleball basically ccbs?

 

it's another way of saying it, but most people who use the word are speaking negatively about CCBS. It's basically like when you call someone "pizza topping" because of their acne; it's not a wrong description, but it's kinda mean and definitely negative

  • Upvote 1

evergrey_l01.gif


Other great bands:


Iron Maiden    Journey    Mercenary    The Unguided    Trivium


Boston    Stratovarius    Symphony X    Epica

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

But the main reason is because it uses skeleball.

Is skeleball basically ccbs?

 

it's another way of saying it, but most people who use the word are speaking negatively about CCBS. It's basically like when you call someone "pizza topping" because of their acne; it's not a wrong description, but it's kinda mean and definitely negative

 

Okay.

A signature is supposed to be this:

 

Jaeger_Gipsy_Danger_Decal_02.png

 

and BTW https://screen.yahoo.com/star-trek-convention-000000768.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

But the main reason is because it uses skeleball.

 

Is skeleball basically ccbs?

it's another way of saying it, but most people who use the word are speaking negatively about CCBS. It's basically like when you call someone "pizza topping" because of their acne; it's not a wrong description, but it's kinda mean and definitely negative

It's not ment as a derogatory term, mearly a more descriptive and adaptive word

 

Skeleball n. 2014, a skeletal frame used in "constraction" builds that utilizes a ball-and-shell system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

But the main reason is because it uses skeleball.

 

Is skeleball basically ccbs?

it's another way of saying it, but most people who use the word are speaking negatively about CCBS. It's basically like when you call someone "pizza topping" because of their acne; it's not a wrong description, but it's kinda mean and definitely negative
It's not ment as a derogatory term, mearly a more descriptive and adaptive word

 

Skeleball n. 2014, a skeletal frame used in "constraction" builds that utilizes a ball-and-shell system.

And Character and Creature Building System isn't a descriptive and appropriate word, being the name of the system? Skeleball is just derogatory, a name given in ignorance by those who are so nostalgia-blinded by G1 that they can't objectively judge architecture, let alone a toy that sixty percent of the world ignores precisely because those who play with it seem aggressive and juvenile.

 

CCBS is much easier to type as well. The only reason for not using it is to be one of the aforementioned who would start recoiling if confronted with a pair of crossed CCBS bones.

Edited by Regitnui
  • Upvote 3

:r: :e: :g: :i: :t: :n: :u: :i:

Elemental Rahi in Gen2, anyone? A write-up for an initial video for a G2 plot

 

I really wish everyone would stop trying to play join the dots with Gen 1 and Gen 2 though,it seems there's a couple new threads everyday and often they're duplicates of already existing conversations! Or simply parallel them with a slightly new 'twist'! Gen 2 is NEW, it is NOT Gen 1 and it is NOT a continuation. Outside of the characters we already have I personally don't want to see ANY old characters return. I think it will cheapen the whole experience to those of us familiar with the original line...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm very tired.

My sympathies. Should I take my post down, sir?

:r: :e: :g: :i: :t: :n: :u: :i:

Elemental Rahi in Gen2, anyone? A write-up for an initial video for a G2 plot

 

I really wish everyone would stop trying to play join the dots with Gen 1 and Gen 2 though,it seems there's a couple new threads everyday and often they're duplicates of already existing conversations! Or simply parallel them with a slightly new 'twist'! Gen 2 is NEW, it is NOT Gen 1 and it is NOT a continuation. Outside of the characters we already have I personally don't want to see ANY old characters return. I think it will cheapen the whole experience to those of us familiar with the original line...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm very tired.

My sympathies. Should I take my post down, sir?

 

I'll start the coffee machine! I'll also nudge us back on topic by expanding upon my original post:

 

While I think the Gen 2 ones are the best representations of our beloved toa, my least favorite would have to be the Adaptive Armor versions because aside from Lewa's mask, all of the designs were kinda weird in my opinion, and just bad in the case of the Mistika masks. While I like the launchers, I really didn't like their weapons, particularly The fact that most of them solely had a launcher of some sort; Tahu & Lewa were the only true exceptions considering Onua's shield was more like shoulder armor and Pohatu's blades were used for flight. The best toa from this incarnation, in case you haven't got it yet, was Lewa in my opinion. His mask was alright, his colors were actually very nice, and he had a good sword piece. But my final complaint was that they all had the same eye color. I know we don't need individual eye colors for each one (that would certainly be awesome, though), but all toa with the same single color? That's kinda lame, not to mention lazy when we used to have more varied eye colors!

 

I like the Toa Mata & Nuva about the same so they're tied for the 2nd place. I prefer the Nuva weapons/armor, but I do have to agree that I like the original mata mask designs better. I also really liked the dual functionality of the weapons as surf boards, wings, etc.

Edited by Evergrey_Toa
  • Upvote 2

evergrey_l01.gif


Other great bands:


Iron Maiden    Journey    Mercenary    The Unguided    Trivium


Boston    Stratovarius    Symphony X    Epica

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I now have the 2015 Pohatu. It actually is quite impressive. The design itself says a lot about the character, which lacked in the other three. As a writer, this is something I love to see. However, the 2001 is still most iconic. Despite being less posable. So I am tying 2001 and 2015 with an equal score.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hard question. My least favourite design for them is the Mistika/Phantoka line so that's out (too much grey/silver and mostly awful mask and weapon choices).

 

Nuva were really cool for the most part - I for one actually liked the organic-looking masks and the dual weapons were undoubtedly awesome.

 

The Mata are classic and will always win special nostalgia points. That being said, they look extremely solid even today. Their builds don't hold up but they are aesthetically pleasing. The sleek mask design and simple yet effective weapons (or should I say Toa tools?) were some of the best visual language Bionicle has ever used.

 

The 2015 Toa though, I have to say have impressed me all around. They have combined the best parts of all 3 iterations of these classic Toa and created something beautiful. The way that they utilize dual weapons, adrenaline mode, gear functions, mask triggers, and power-up modes make them all-around some of the most robust sets to have hit shelves. And many complain about the CCBS, but with the addition of the gearbox and older Bionicle elements, In my opinion they feel just as Bionicle as ever.

 

-NotS

  • Upvote 2

tahubanner.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hard question. My least favourite design for them is the Mistika/Phantoka line so that's out (too much grey/silver and mostly awful mask and weapon choices).

 

Nuva were really cool for the most part - I for one actually liked the organic-looking masks and the dual weapons were undoubtedly awesome.

 

The Mata are classic and will always win special nostalgia points. That being said, they look extremely solid even today. Their builds don't hold up but they are aesthetically pleasing. The sleek mask design and simple yet effective weapons (or should I say Toa tools?) were some of the best visual language Bionicle has ever used.

 

The 2015 Toa though, I have to say have impressed me all around. They have combined the best parts of all 3 iterations of these classic Toa and created something beautiful. The way that they utilize dual weapons, adrenaline mode, gear functions, mask triggers, and power-up modes make them all-around some of the most robust sets to have hit shelves. And many complain about the CCBS, but with the addition of the gearbox and older Bionicle elements, In my opinion they feel just as Bionicle as ever.

 

-NotS

I agree with the 2015 toa combining the best of all 3 and making something beautiful. I also agree that the Nuva masks aren't that bad (I still like the original ones better, but the Nuva masks still look pretty good). Also the gearbox really does add the Bionicle feel to it. Without it, I would have to say that it wouldn't be as pleasing. I might also add that the Golden Masks add a huge plus to the new line.

  • Upvote 2

evergrey_l01.gif


Other great bands:


Iron Maiden    Journey    Mercenary    The Unguided    Trivium


Boston    Stratovarius    Symphony X    Epica

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...