What don't you like about CCBS?

[LegoSWfan]

I was apologizing for not seeing that your post was sarcastic.

[jmflem]

Oh well you still haven't answered my question

[LegoSWfan]

do I have skeleball sets?

[jmflem]

Do you own any CCBS sets and/or new bionicle sets, and if so how many/which ones?

[LegoSWfan]

I have a baggie of skeleball parts that were mixed in with bionicle parts I got of ebay. I hade the new toa, tried them out, thought "this isn't for me" and sold them.

[Nidhiki of the Shadows]

I don't really like the lack of pin and axle holes for the joints. It gives less opportunity for G1 armour parts to be used in conjunction, but thankfully the joints from the last gen are still compatible so it's not too big a problem.

 

-NotS

Edited May 1, 2015 by Nidhiki of the Shadows

[Mocmaker]

CCBS is real plain and generic.  As a moc person, CCBS doesn't work too well for me. (Not enough connections, sometimes instability with it)  A lot of it depends on your building style.

[Sergei Rahkmaninoff]

I think its biggest problem, for me, is a lack of variety. I really like the system overall, and it is really nice to have pieces consistent in shape and texture, but sometimes I need a piece in an exotic shape that CCBS shells, bones, and add-ons simply don't supply. That's where Gen1 pieces, despite (or perhaps because of) all their flaws, really shine. And as time goes on and Gen2 and other Constraction sets introduce more pieces, that's hopefully going to become less and less of a problem.

[Toa of Gallifrey]

My biggest complaints with CCBS are:

 

A-Lack of specialized shells. I know they're designed to be more akin to System bricks and there's textured add-ons, and while the textured add-ons look great as armor on the Toa, when used for the Protectors' chests they make them look potbellied which is much more noticeable with the Technic-ball extender required to cover both the front and the back. This in itself isn't a bad thing per se but when there's no way to make them more reduced while still keeping the texture, I see it as a problem.

 

B-The way all non-torso shells are designed to cover the sides pretty well requires not just one Technic-ball extender behind the bone to be added to add a shell to the back (like the torso) but two, which usually makes the armor look too clunky. For this I would like a type of shell that is designed to cover primarily the side of the bone it's facing and be used in conjunction with the already-existing shell.

 

C-Lack of compatibility with classic shells. I love classic shells yet hate classic bones due to how brittle they are, so I can't use classic shells much in my primarily-CCBS MoCs. I know it kinda goes against what CCBS is for but I'd like a type of CCBS bone that has just pinholes instead of the ball. Something like the summer bone but with pinholes instead of the bone-y look. I know it's not very practical for sets but at least it being available at pick-a-brick or something would be lovely.

 

D-More colors for all shells. A problem I have with CCBS is that it emulates System really well but has a big drawback System doesn't - no mass production for pick-a-brick and therefore colors only exist for when the sets demand it. I know they already tried this once and people were confused, but I still hope for the day when constraction figures will be well-known enough by parents for it to warrant its own pick-a-brick section where you can get all the colors and all the sizes available.

[Rahkshi Lalonde]

B-The way all non-torso shells are designed to cover the sides pretty well requires not just one Technic-ball extender behind the bone to be added to add a shell to the back (like the torso) but two, which usually makes the armor look too clunky. For this I would like a type of shell that is designed to cover primarily the side of the bone it's facing and be used in conjunction with the already-existing shell.

 

what about a shell that only sweeps back to one side so if you use two of them they cover as though the shell had all four sides? o:

[Lyichir]

 

B-The way all non-torso shells are designed to cover the sides pretty well requires not just one Technic-ball extender behind the bone to be added to add a shell to the back (like the torso) but two, which usually makes the armor look too clunky. For this I would like a type of shell that is designed to cover primarily the side of the bone it's facing and be used in conjunction with the already-existing shell.

 

what about a shell that only sweeps back to one side so if you use two of them they cover as though the shell had all four sides? o:

 

That would be interesting, but it would have to attach in a different way from standard shells, unless you build the legs/arms like Kopaka's legs. A standard limb bone only has one central ball joint.

 

Several of the new CCBS Star Wars figures pair their new leg armor shells with the Invasion From Below beast tail/talon to armor the lower legs from all sides. It'd be nice to see something like that used in Bionicle.

Edited May 2, 2015 by Lyichir

[Rahkshi Lalonde]

 

 

B-The way all non-torso shells are designed to cover the sides pretty well requires not just one Technic-ball extender behind the bone to be added to add a shell to the back (like the torso) but two, which usually makes the armor look too clunky. For this I would like a type of shell that is designed to cover primarily the side of the bone it's facing and be used in conjunction with the already-existing shell.

 

what about a shell that only sweeps back to one side so if you use two of them they cover as though the shell had all four sides? o:

 

That would be interesting, but it would have to attach in a different way from standard shells, unless you build the legs/arms like Kopaka's legs. A standard limb bone only has one central ball joint.

 

Several of the new CCBS Star Wars figures pair their new leg armor shells with the Invasion From Below beast tail/talon to armor the lower legs from all sides. It'd be nice to see something like that used in Bionicle.

 

 

oh yeah, to clarify, i meant using the beam-ball piece attatched to the back for a mildly thick but not too think(?) fully armoured leg. :0

[Gipsy Danger]

The original target audience for Bionicle was not teens. Every piece of product as far as I can remember listed ages as 7+, 7-16 or in the case of Bionicle Stars 6-16.

 

~60% of the age range is younger than teens. "Little kids" were always the main crowd, and teens were invited too.

But on google, it said so.  That was what LEGO also said on the lmbs.  Seeing all the action and fighting, tha looked like it would fit for the teen audience.  Just saying what I thought.

Gipsy, your last comment reads like a broken record. But I humored you and did in fact google "audience for old bionicle". I took the liberty to correct the spelling to get better search results. The first result are a few people complaining on the Lego forums about meaningless quibbles like masks giving "elemental powers" instead of "special mask abilities" being somehow worse, for some incomprehensible reason. The next results are Wikipedia's Bionicle article, some bloke on reddit and a rotten tomatoes review of a Bionicle movie, 

 

If this is your idea of substantiating your argument, it's very much lacklustre.

 

 

Instead, I turned to the old packaging of the 2001 Bionicle toys. Their age recommendation was 7+. Compare that to the current recommendations on Bionicle sets, which range from 6-12 on Protectors to 8-14 on the larger sets. I fail to see an appreciable difference.

 

Now, I realize that I am most likely having this conversation with someone about half my age, so please don't think I'm trying to be hostile. As I have said to DecepticonWarrior before, it is OK to not like the new stuff and to express that view. Just try to do so more cogently. You are doing yourself and the points you are trying to make a disservice.

I know its ok to not LIKE new bio.  We all see things differently.  Also, do not use wikipedia because they can have FALSE information.

Edited May 5, 2015 by Gipsy Danger

[believe victims]

I know its ok to not LIKE new bio.  We all see things differently.  Also, do not use wikipedia because they can have FALSE information.

 

 

Anywhere can have false information. Honestly, in my experience, Wikipedia is fairly consistent about being reliable. As long as you know when to double-check, it's a fine source of information. Anyone who says differently is more worried about the concept of an encyclopedia that, in theory, anyone can edit than the actual reliability of Wikipedia.

[Aanchir]

 

The original target audience for Bionicle was not teens. Every piece of product as far as I can remember listed ages as 7+, 7-16 or in the case of Bionicle Stars 6-16.

 

~60% of the age range is younger than teens. "Little kids" were always the main crowd, and teens were invited too.

But on google, it said so.  That was what LEGO also said on the lmbs.  Seeing all the action and fighting, tha looked like it would fit for the teen audience.  Just saying hwat I thought.

Gipsy, your last comment reads like a broken record. But I humored you and did in fact google "audience for old bionicle". I took the liberty to correct the spelling to get better search results. The first result are a few people complaining on the Lego forums about meaningless quibbles like masks giving "elemental powers" instead of "special mask abilities" being somehow worse, for some incomprehensible reason. The next results are Wikipedia's Bionicle article, some bloke on reddit and a rotten tomatoes review of a Bionicle movie, 

 

If this is your idea of substantiating your argument, it's very much lacklustre.

 

 

Instead, I turned to the old packaging of the 2001 Bionicle toys. Their age recommendation was 7+. Compare that to the current recommendations on Bionicle sets, which range from 6-12 on Protectors to 8-14 on the larger sets. I fail to see an appreciable difference.

 

Now, I realize that I am most likely having this conversation with someone about half my age, so please don't think I'm trying to be hostile. As I have said to DecepticonWarrior before, it is OK to not like the new stuff and to express that view. Just try to do so more cogently. You are doing yourself and the points you are trying to make a disservice.

I know its ok to not LIKE new bio.  We all see things differently.  Also, do not use wikipedia because they can have FALSE information.

 

You do know that Google can be just as unreliable as Wikipedia, and sometimes more so? And I don't know where on the LEGO Message Boards you saw LEGO say its audience was teens. It sounds a bit dubious. If you can give a link to the post in question that would help substantiate that claim.

 

Teens were definitely a part of BIONICLE's audience, just as teen and adult fans are a part of Ninjago's audience, but they were never either theme's core audience.

[T.B.O.C]

It'd be nice for some more colors, especially limb pieces in different colors rather than the typical black and grey. I'm also a fan of the idea to make more sorts of shells so not every set uses the same sort (which I'm seeing more of in the upcoming sets which is really nice)

 

I'd like more add on's too, honestly. We have one main one they've used for all the Toa but more BIONICLE-esque ones would be nice, and then it wouldn't have to change the base CCBS which would probably anger some.

[WorkbenchManiac]

I know its ok to not LIKE new bio.  We all see things differently.  Also, do not use wikipedia because they can have FALSE information.

You seem to have misunderstood me. Wikipedia's Bionicle article is among the first search results for the quoted search term, but that does not imply that I visited or cited from it. I merely tried to illustrate that your recommended google search did not yield the results you claimed it would.

 

As to the essence of your point: Do you actually dispute that the age recommendation given on the packaging of the original Bionicle toys was 7+ ? It's a matter of trivial effort to verify this claim.

 

Another point I'd like your opinion on: Does the recommended age actually matter for your enjoyment? Would you like the current toys any better, if the recommended age on their packaging was 12-16?

 

On another and before I forget it: Aanchir, in another topic ( I forgot which one, sorry) you quoted from a book named "Brick by Brick" concerning audience profiles for the Bionicle line, drawing my attention to its existence. Thanks a lot, it has been a very enjoyable read I might have missed otherwise.

Edited May 3, 2015 by WorkbenchManiac

[Aanchir]

On another and before I forget it: Aanchir, in another topic ( I forgot which one, sorry) you quoted from a book named "Brick by Brick" concerning audience profiles for the Bionicle line, drawing my attention to its existence. Thanks a lot, it has been a very enjoyable read I might have missed otherwise.

Yeah, Brick by Brick is an amazing book and I try to recommend it as often as possible to other LEGO fans, especially BIONICLE fans (since it devotes an entire chapter to BIONICLE, how it was created, and why it was so incredibly successful when so many other new themes from the late 90s and early naughts were not). A lot of BIONICLE fans know that BIONICLE saved LEGO, but not so many fans understand the details of how and why it was able to do so, or even why LEGO was on the brink of bankruptcy in the first place.

[Gipsy Danger]

 

I know its ok to not LIKE new bio.  We all see things differently.  Also, do not use wikipedia because they can have FALSE information.

 

 

Anywhere can have false information. Honestly, in my experience, Wikipedia is fairly consistent about being reliable. As long as you know when to double-check, it's a fine source of information. Anyone who says differently is more worried about the concept of an encyclopedia that, in theory, anyone can edit than the actual reliability of Wikipedia.

 

Oh, ok.  Thanks  

 

 

The original target audience for Bionicle was not teens. Every piece of product as far as I can remember listed ages as 7+, 7-16 or in the case of Bionicle Stars 6-16.

 

~60% of the age range is younger than teens. "Little kids" were always the main crowd, and teens were invited too.

But on google, it said so.  That was what LEGO also said on the lmbs.  Seeing all the action and fighting, tha looked like it would fit for the teen audience.  Just saying hwat I thought.

Gipsy, your last comment reads like a broken record. But I humored you and did in fact google "audience for old bionicle". I took the liberty to correct the spelling to get better search results. The first result are a few people complaining on the Lego forums about meaningless quibbles like masks giving "elemental powers" instead of "special mask abilities" being somehow worse, for some incomprehensible reason. The next results are Wikipedia's Bionicle article, some bloke on reddit and a rotten tomatoes review of a Bionicle movie, 

 

If this is your idea of substantiating your argument, it's very much lacklustre.

 

 

Instead, I turned to the old packaging of the 2001 Bionicle toys. Their age recommendation was 7+. Compare that to the current recommendations on Bionicle sets, which range from 6-12 on Protectors to 8-14 on the larger sets. I fail to see an appreciable difference.

 

Now, I realize that I am most likely having this conversation with someone about half my age, so please don't think I'm trying to be hostile. As I have said to DecepticonWarrior before, it is OK to not like the new stuff and to express that view. Just try to do so more cogently. You are doing yourself and the points you are trying to make a disservice.

I know its ok to not LIKE new bio.  We all see things differently.  Also, do not use wikipedia because they can have FALSE information.

 

You do know that Google can be just as unreliable as Wikipedia, and sometimes more so? And I don't know where on the LEGO Message Boards you saw LEGO say its audience was teens. It sounds a bit dubious. If you can give a link to the post in question that would help substantiate that claim.

 

Teens were definitely a part of BIONICLE's audience, just as teen and adult fans are a part of Ninjago's audience, but they were never either theme's core audience.

 

I got taunted at my old school because I liked Ninjago.  I see what you mean with Ninjago, but I STILL don't see what you guys mean for Bionicle.

Edited May 3, 2015 by Gipsy Danger

[Lyichir]

 

I know its ok to not LIKE new bio.  We all see things differently.  Also, do not use wikipedia because they can have FALSE information.

 

Anywhere can have false information. Honestly, in my experience, Wikipedia is fairly consistent about being reliable. As long as you know when to double-check, it's a fine source of information. Anyone who says differently is more worried about the concept of an encyclopedia that, in theory, anyone can edit than the actual reliability of Wikipedia.

 

It's also worth noting that Wikipedia being able to be edited by anyone generally makes it MORE reliable, not less. Traditional encyclopedias can be unreliable because it's impossible to correct errors after publication, but Wikipedia's crowdsourced model means that misinformation and vandalism are generally addressed promptly by the vast majority of good-intentioned editors.

Edited May 3, 2015 by Lyichir

[Gipsy Danger]

 

I know its ok to not LIKE new bio.  We all see things differently.  Also, do not use wikipedia because they can have FALSE information.

You seem to have misunderstood me. Wikipedia's Bionicle article is among the first search results for the quoted search term, but that does not imply that I visited or cited from it. I merely tried to illustrate that your recommended google search did not yield the results you claimed it would.

 

As to the essence of your point: Do you actually dispute that the age recommendation given on the packaging of the original Bionicle toys was 7+ ? It's a matter of trivial effort to verify this claim.

 

Another point I'd like your opinion on: Does the recommended age actually matter for your enjoyment? Would you like the current toys any better, if the recommended age on their packaging was 12-16?

 

On another and before I forget it: Aanchir, in another topic ( I forgot which one, sorry) you quoted from a book named "Brick by Brick" concerning audience profiles for the Bionicle line, drawing my attention to its existence. Thanks a lot, it has been a very enjoyable read I might have missed otherwise.

 

@Italics, I see them as suggestions.  I got Pacific Rim guys before I was 13.  I was careful with them.  For me, age ranges are suggestions.  Also, have you seen the videos and read the story for the OLD Bio?  It sounded like it was for teens, like the way they described it.  Go to www.biomediaproject.com and check out their stuff.  First check out the Piraka animations.  They have this video showing what the problems were and they showed the parts of the animation that were cut out because it was too violent.

Edited May 5, 2015 by Gipsy Danger

[WorkbenchManiac]

No, I have not read much of the old story. I imagine reading a Bionicle book to be quite harrowing, since it's probably not aimed at my reading level, the same way I would not pick up a book of, say, "Animorphs" anymore. It would be interesting if anyone here would actually recommend them as literature in their own right, to someone not particularly invested in the Bionicle story. In other words: Are they good reads?

I have seen the movies, although only recently. Suffice to say, I was not impressed by the storytelling. But then I am far out of hte target demographic.

 

Furthermore, my comparison regarding the intended age ranges was only between the 2001 and 2015 sets. To be honest, I don't even know what a Piraka is, nor do I have any particular desire to find out. I looked up an image, and the toys did not appeal to me at all. But I did take a gander at their packaging, and their recommended age range is 7-16.

I would conclude from this, that teenagers were absolutely part of the intended audience, but absolutely not the sole target.

 

 

And the point I'm trying to get at remains: Even if I were to agree that these Priaka were intended solely for teens, would that have made them any better or worse?

 

Take a movie like Wall-E, by Pixar. That movie can be watched by children of all ages, and is still a very mature and smart movie, with rich cinematography and elegant storytelling.

 

Pacific Rim on the other hand is not suitable for small children, but is in no way a smart or mature movie (to be fair, it did not set out to be one).

 

The point is, the true measure of maturity is sophistication, not violence, sex or "darkness".

 

Another point would be this: Things for little kids can be enormously fun. My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic is targeted at little girls, but I haven't had that much fun with a cartoon in ages.

[Aanchir]

No, I have not read much of the old story. I imagine reading a Bionicle book to be quite harrowing, since it's probably not aimed at my reading level, the same way I would not pick up a book of, say, "Animorphs" anymore. It would be interesting if anyone here would actually recommend them as literature in their own right, to someone not particularly invested in the Bionicle story. In other words: Are they good reads?

I have seen the movies, although only recently. Suffice to say, I was not impressed by the storytelling. But then I am far out of hte target demographic.

 

Furthermore, my comparison regarding the intended age ranges was only between the 2001 and 2015 sets. To be honest, I don't even know what a Piraka is, nor do I have any particular desire to find out. I looked up an image, and the toys did not appeal to me at all. But I did take a gander at their packaging, and their recommended age range is 7-16.

I would conclude from this, that teenagers were absolutely part of the intended audience, but absolutely not the sole target.

 

 

And the point I'm trying to get at remains: Even if I were to agree that these Priaka were intended solely for teens, would that have made them any better or worse?

 

Take a movie like Wall-E, by Pixar. That movie can be watched by children of all ages, and is still a very mature and smart movie, with rich cinematography and elegant storytelling.

 

Pacific Rim on the other hand is not suitable for small children, but is in no way a smart or mature movie (to be fair, it did not set out to be one).

 

The point is, the true measure of maturity is sophistication, not violence, sex or "darkness".

 

Another point would be this: Things for little kids can be enormously fun. My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic is targeted at little girls, but I haven't had that much fun with a cartoon in ages.

 

The books are good reads, but if reading an Animorphs book is harrowing due to their target age range, reading a BIONICLE book will probably not be any better. They are not high literature by any stretch of the imagination.

 

 

 

I know its ok to not LIKE new bio.  We all see things differently.  Also, do not use wikipedia because they can have FALSE information.

You seem to have misunderstood me. Wikipedia's Bionicle article is among the first search results for the quoted search term, but that does not imply that I visited or cited from it. I merely tried to illustrate that your recommended google search did not yield the results you claimed it would.

 

As to the essence of your point: Do you actually dispute that the age recommendation given on the packaging of the original Bionicle toys was 7+ ? It's a matter of trivial effort to verify this claim.

 

Another point I'd like your opinion on: Does the recommended age actually matter for your enjoyment? Would you like the current toys any better, if the recommended age on their packaging was 12-16?

 

On another and before I forget it: Aanchir, in another topic ( I forgot which one, sorry) you quoted from a book named "Brick by Brick" concerning audience profiles for the Bionicle line, drawing my attention to its existence. Thanks a lot, it has been a very enjoyable read I might have missed otherwise.

 

@Italics, I see them as suggestions.  I got Pacific Rim guys before I was 13.  I was careful with them.  For me, age ranges are suggestions.  Also, have you seen the videos and read the story for the OLD Bio?  It sounded like it was for teens, like the way they described it.  Go to www.biomediaproject.com and check out their stuff.  First check out the Piraka animations.  They have this video showing what the problems were and they showed the parts of the animation that was cut out because it was too violent.

 

It wasn't until reading this comment that I checked your profile and realized you are only thirteen years old. I'm struck by the irony of your insistence that G1 BIONICLE was aimed at teens in spite of you having experienced it long before becoming a teenager.

 

Have you not considered that perhaps the things you loved about G1 BIONICLE, the things that made it seem so grown up to you, were in fact aimed squarely at you and other people your age? As C. S. Lewis put it, "To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence." In other words, it's normal for kids to pursue interests they think are "grown up", and as such it's a viable strategy in marketing to make things seem like they're for an older audience in order to appeal to a younger audience. As my mom often points out, the magazine "Seventeen" is typically read by girls much younger than seventeen, while actual seventeen-year-old girls are more likely to read magazines aimed at adults. Likewise, all BIONICLE had to do to get kids to love it is make kids think it was for teens, even though the actual audience was dominated by kids ages seven to twelve.

 

However, this marketing strategy is a bit dishonest, to say the least. Also, we're reaching a point as a society where nerdy is the new normal. Things like superhero movies, video games, and Disney animated musicals that would have once been dismissed as cheesy and childish are now considered quality entertainment even for adults. This also applies to LEGO. BIONICLE G1 was created to attract kids who thought they were too grown-up for "classic LEGO", but who weren't yet old enough for LEGO Technic. But nowadays, "classic LEGO" is enjoyed by all ages, and being an Adult Fan of LEGO has gone mainstream. The interests of kids and adults are not anywhere near as pretentious as they used to be. And thus distancing BIONICLE from classic LEGO in terms of tone and aesthetics is no longer useful or necessary.

[WorkbenchManiac]

The books are good reads, but if reading an Animorphs book is harrowing due to their target age range, reading a BIONICLE book will probably not be any better. They are not high literature by any stretch of the imagination.

I'd like to clarify that me not wanting to read Animorphs anymore is not due to the content at all, but because the prose is aimed at a younger audience. It made it a good choice for me to read when I was still learning english at age 11 (I'm not a native speaker, cheers from Germany!), because it was accessible to my younger self, not overwhelming me with complex sentences or uncommon vocabulary. But nowadays such fare is a bit tedious to read. No age snobbery intended.

 

 

Also, very good points in the rest of your post.

[Aanchir]

 

The books are good reads, but if reading an Animorphs book is harrowing due to their target age range, reading a BIONICLE book will probably not be any better. They are not high literature by any stretch of the imagination.

I'd like to clarify that me not wanting to read Animorphs anymore is not due to the content at all, but because the prose is aimed at a younger audience. It made it a good choice for me to read when I was still learning english at age 11 (I'm not a native speaker, cheers from Germany!), because it was accessible to my younger self, not overwhelming me with complex sentences or uncommon vocabulary. But nowadays such fare is a bit tedious to read. No age snobbery intended.

 

Understood! I didn't think it was snobbish or anything, just telling you that it might be hard to enjoy the BIONICLE books if you start reading them with high literary expectations. If you read them simply for the sake of experiencing the BIONICLE storyline, it can be a greatly rewarding experience, but if you read them hoping for Tolkien-level depth and complexity, you are more likely to end up disappointed.

[LegoSWfan]

I actually never cared for the books...

 

And I like to read.

[jmflem]

No, I have not read much of the old story. I imagine reading a Bionicle book to be quite harrowing, since it's probably not aimed at my reading level, the same way I would not pick up a book of, say, "Animorphs" anymore. It would be interesting if anyone here would actually recommend them as literature in their own right, to someone not particularly invested in the Bionicle story. In other words: Are they good reads?

I have seen the movies, although only recently. Suffice to say, I was not impressed by the storytelling. But then I am far out of hte target demographic.

 

Furthermore, my comparison regarding the intended age ranges was only between the 2001 and 2015 sets. To be honest, I don't even know what a Piraka is, nor do I have any particular desire to find out. I looked up an image, and the toys did not appeal to me at all. But I did take a gander at their packaging, and their recommended age range is 7-16.

I would conclude from this, that teenagers were absolutely part of the intended audience, but absolutely not the sole target.

 

 

And the point I'm trying to get at remains: Even if I were to agree that these Priaka were intended solely for teens, would that have made them any better or worse?

 

Take a movie like Wall-E, by Pixar. That movie can be watched by children of all ages, and is still a very mature and smart movie, with rich cinematography and elegant storytelling.

 

Pacific Rim on the other hand is not suitable for small children, but is in no way a smart or mature movie (to be fair, it did not set out to be one).

 

The point is, the true measure of maturity is sophistication, not violence, sex or "darkness".

 

Another point would be this: Things for little kids can be enormously fun. My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic is targeted at little girls, but I haven't had that much fun with a cartoon in ages.

 

I've actually never read any of the books, but if you want to learn the story while still being entertained and not bored by simple sentence structure , check out the comics. The story is fantastic and the art is quite good (though the artists do change throughout). I haven't read them in a few years but I do remember them being great.

[Ford]

No, I have not read much of the old story. I imagine reading a Bionicle book to be quite harrowing, since it's probably not aimed at my reading level, the same way I would not pick up a book of, say, "Animorphs" anymore. It would be interesting if anyone here would actually recommend them as literature in their own right, to someone not particularly invested in the Bionicle story. In other words: Are they good reads?

I have seen the movies, although only recently. Suffice to say, I was not impressed by the storytelling. But then I am far out of hte target demographic.

 

Furthermore, my comparison regarding the intended age ranges was only between the 2001 and 2015 sets. To be honest, I don't even know what a Piraka is, nor do I have any particular desire to find out. I looked up an image, and the toys did not appeal to me at all. But I did take a gander at their packaging, and their recommended age range is 7-16.

I would conclude from this, that teenagers were absolutely part of the intended audience, but absolutely not the sole target.

 

 

And the point I'm trying to get at remains: Even if I were to agree that these Priaka were intended solely for teens, would that have made them any better or worse?

 

Take a movie like Wall-E, by Pixar. That movie can be watched by children of all ages, and is still a very mature and smart movie, with rich cinematography and elegant storytelling.

 

Pacific Rim on the other hand is not suitable for small children, but is in no way a smart or mature movie (to be fair, it did not set out to be one).

 

The point is, the true measure of maturity is sophistication, not violence, sex or "darkness".

 

Another point would be this: Things for little kids can be enormously fun. My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic is targeted at little girls, but I haven't had that much fun with a cartoon in ages.

You know, if you don't want to go through the lengthy reading of the books, why not try BionicleSector01's Saga Guides? They helped me when I was getting back into Bionicle about two years ago, so I highly recommend reading them. If not, the books may suit you as the Saga Guides are not in the order of the books, but in the order of the story.

[Gipsy Danger]

No, I have not read much of the old story. I imagine reading a Bionicle book to be quite harrowing, since it's probably not aimed at my reading level, the same way I would not pick up a book of, say, "Animorphs" anymore. It would be interesting if anyone here would actually recommend them as literature in their own right, to someone not particularly invested in the Bionicle story. In other words: Are they good reads?

I have seen the movies, although only recently. Suffice to say, I was not impressed by the storytelling. But then I am far out of hte target demographic.

 

Furthermore, my comparison regarding the intended age ranges was only between the 2001 and 2015 sets. To be honest, I don't even know what a Piraka is, nor do I have any particular desire to find out. I looked up an image, and the toys did not appeal to me at all. But I did take a gander at their packaging, and their recommended age range is 7-16.

I would conclude from this, that teenagers were absolutely part of the intended audience, but absolutely not the sole target.

 

 

And the point I'm trying to get at remains: Even if I were to agree that these Priaka were intended solely for teens, would that have made them any better or worse?

 

Take a movie like Wall-E, by Pixar. That movie can be watched by children of all ages, and is still a very mature and smart movie, with rich cinematography and elegant storytelling.

 

Pacific Rim on the other hand is not suitable for small children, but is in no way a smart or mature movie (to be fair, it did not set out to be one).

 

The point is, the true measure of maturity is sophistication, not violence, sex or "darkness".

 

Another point would be this: Things for little kids can be enormously fun. My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic is targeted at little girls, but I haven't had that much fun with a cartoon in ages.

MARVEL had violence, and a bit of language.  And I watched the pg-13 movies before I was 13.  Pacific Rim just has a bit of language, and sci-fi violence.  Honestly, why did Lego make Marvel?  And why don't they make Pacific Rim(I know that answer, so please don't tell me)?

[WorkbenchManiac]

I really appreciate all the friendly advice, thank you.

 

I am not particularly keen on delving into Bionicle's storyline (honestly rather reluctant), but your enthusiastic way of sharing your passion is quite infectious. I'll poke around the web a bit, try various related pieces of media, heeding your advice, who knows, there might be a hidden gem.

 

Again, thanks!

[Makaru]

MARVEL had violence, and a bit of language.  And I watched the pg-13 movies before I was 13.  Pacific Rim just has a bit of language, and sci-fi violence.  Honestly, why did Lego make Marvel?  And why don't they make Pacific Rim(I know that answer, so please don't tell me)?

 

Because Marvel is in the business to sell merchandise. That is how they make their money. The movies have always been an (albeit well constructed) vehicle to sell licensed goods.

 

Pacific Rim was never about that and that is not how Guillermo Del Toro chose to do his business.

 

We've strayed about as far from the topic as we can however. Let's wrangle this back on-discussion, please.

Edited May 4, 2015 by Makaru

[Rahkshi Lalonde]

soooo... about them shelletons.

 

i don't think it's been brought up yet(?) but i sorta don't like how the shells always make limbs so darn chunky, and then to add detail you need to make it chunkier,

 

one or two bones with slight piston/ribbing detail (keeping consistent w/ the details we've gotten so far, obvs.) would be nice to see, i think. :0

[Regitnui]

I think Onua's shoulder pads are a step in the right direction as far as styling goes. A few shells (not bones, since bones exist to be covered) with similar details will help the CCBS bionicle feel a little more like G1. The Metru Shoulders and that simple Inika/Mahri thigh armour would be good pieces to adapt, aesthetically.

[MarkSurge9411]

A few shells (not bones, since bones exist to be covered) with similar details will help the CCBS bionicle feel a little more like G1.

Not all of the bones. I point to this image I uploaded on my DeviantArt gallery (original image is from here, just can't find the article) of Skull Basher's legs. His femurs are very skeletal looking, with no ball to put armor on. And from that image as well, you see the (prototype) new armor add ons which have extreme detail on them.

[Mocmaker]

 

A few shells (not bones, since bones exist to be covered) with similar details will help the CCBS bionicle feel a little more like G1.

Not all of the bones. I point to this image I uploaded on my DeviantArt gallery (original image is from here, just can't find the article) of Skull Basher's legs. His femurs are very skeletal looking, with no ball to put armor on. And from that image as well, you see the (prototype) new armor add ons which have extreme detail on them.

 

 

His femurs are very skeletal and if he were a human they would be anatomically incorrect but this is a toy line we are talking about so I will not look at that seriously.  I disagree with you about the armor add ons having extreme detail.  Although I will say they do have slight detail.

[MarkSurge9411]

 

 

A few shells (not bones, since bones exist to be covered) with similar details will help the CCBS bionicle feel a little more like G1.

Not all of the bones. I point to this image I uploaded on my DeviantArt gallery (original image is from here, just can't find the article) of Skull Basher's legs. His femurs are very skeletal looking, with no ball to put armor on. And from that image as well, you see the (prototype) new armor add ons which have extreme detail on them.

 

 

His femurs are very skeletal and if he were a human they would be anatomically incorrect but this is a toy line we are talking about so I will not look at that seriously.  I disagree with you about the armor add ons having extreme detail.  Although I will say they do have slight detail.

 

Add ons + slight detail = no.

 

Saying the add ons have slight detail is like saying old Bio pieces had no detail.

[Gipsy Danger]

 

MARVEL had violence, and a bit of language.  And I watched the pg-13 movies before I was 13.  Pacific Rim just has a bit of language, and sci-fi violence.  Honestly, why did Lego make Marvel?  And why don't they make Pacific Rim(I know that answer, so please don't tell me)?

 

Because Marvel is in the business to sell merchandise. That is how they make their money. The movies have always been an (albeit well constructed) vehicle to sell licensed goods.

 

Pacific Rim was never about that and that is not how Guillermo Del Toro chose to do his business.

 

We've strayed about as far from the topic as we can however. Let's wrangle this back on-discussion, please.

 

Ok.  No wonder.

 

 

 

A few shells (not bones, since bones exist to be covered) with similar details will help the CCBS bionicle feel a little more like G1.

Not all of the bones. I point to this image I uploaded on my DeviantArt gallery (original image is from here, just can't find the article) of Skull Basher's legs. His femurs are very skeletal looking, with no ball to put armor on. And from that image as well, you see the (prototype) new armor add ons which have extreme detail on them.

 

 

His femurs are very skeletal and if he were a human they would be anatomically incorrect but this is a toy line we are talking about so I will not look at that seriously.  I disagree with you about the armor add ons having extreme detail.  Although I will say they do have slight detail.

 

Add ons + slight detail = no.

 

Saying the add ons have slight detail is like saying old Bio pieces had no detail.

 

No.  Not really.

[Makaru]

Saying the add ons have slight detail is like saying old Bio pieces had no detail.

 

Pretty much. Though I think they could have implemented them a little better than what we are seeing.

[MarkSurge9411]

 

 

MARVEL had violence, and a bit of language.  And I watched the pg-13 movies before I was 13.  Pacific Rim just has a bit of language, and sci-fi violence.  Honestly, why did Lego make Marvel?  And why don't they make Pacific Rim(I know that answer, so please don't tell me)?

 

Because Marvel is in the business to sell merchandise. That is how they make their money. The movies have always been an (albeit well constructed) vehicle to sell licensed goods.

 

Pacific Rim was never about that and that is not how Guillermo Del Toro chose to do his business.

 

We've strayed about as far from the topic as we can however. Let's wrangle this back on-discussion, please.

 

Ok.  No wonder.

 

 

 

A few shells (not bones, since bones exist to be covered) with similar details will help the CCBS bionicle feel a little more like G1.

Not all of the bones. I point to this image I uploaded on my DeviantArt gallery (original image is from here, just can't find the article) of Skull Basher's legs. His femurs are very skeletal looking, with no ball to put armor on. And from that image as well, you see the (prototype) new armor add ons which have extreme detail on them.

 

 

His femurs are very skeletal and if he were a human they would be anatomically incorrect but this is a toy line we are talking about so I will not look at that seriously.  I disagree with you about the armor add ons having extreme detail.  Although I will say they do have slight detail.

 

Add ons + slight detail = no.

 

Saying the add ons have slight detail is like saying old Bio pieces had no detail.

 

No.  Not really.

 

Yes, really.

[BrickPharaoh]

 

Huge, clunky, monopiece torsos.

 

This isn't?

 

http://brickset.com/parts/design-53545

 

I mean, you need another piece for the waist and a couple pins, but its very specialized, and quite clunky.

 

Also, this piece:

 

http://brickset.com/parts/4589953

 

is quite versatile. Sure, you're not gonna be using it for limbs or what-not, but it's the same deal with a Mata or Metru torso (which are much less versatile). It's basically limited only to torsos (an Inika upper torso is as well), but that's not a bad thing. This piece has quite a few Technic holes to attach lots of different bits. Also, adding a gearbox to it adds a lot more function and interesting Technic building. It's very general but that means it can be used with other things. It can also be used for creatures (most parts can, hence the first C in CCBS), as I've done here:

 

 

 

And as for colors, I do really hope they come out with more. That'd be very nice. I think it's reasonable to expect more darker earth tones. Hero Factory was more playful than Bionicle and therefore had brighter colors. This first wave of Bionicle's colors are bright as well, but it's only the first wave. The first wave of G1 was bright as well. I think in the future we should see more colors.

 

Even the newer types of feet are woefully unavailable in many colours.

 

???

 

http://brickset.com/parts/design-90661

 

 

CCBS sells itself for its versatility. I, for one, do prefer textured parts to smoother components normally, but sometimes the textures are in the wrong places and stand in the way of coherence a wee bit too much. CCBS avoids that by having next to no textures, which is also a drawback.

 

CCBS excels in giving models more degrees of articulation using the same (or possibly less) amount of pieces as old Bionicle. However, uniqueness is usually the price paid for this trade-off. Almost all CCBS sets are a bit too similar to each other, with a few exceptions. Witch Doctor, for example, is a mix of CCBS and Technic, and I must say that's my favorite HF set of all time.

 

You said torsos are only good for torsos? En contraire! I've built titans whose legs are basically torsos. One of my current WIP's uses two sets of torsos in each of its legs, which says something about this platform's versatility.

 

At first I had my doubts about CCBS as well, but I think I like it for Bionicle as much as I did for HF. It grants you poseability and coherence at the expense of blandness and over-simplicity.