Would you like smaller, more compact sets?

[Zidonaro]

It's no secret that Bionicle is getting more and more complex as the years goes by. Unfortunately, price also goes up.

 

Would you prefer if Lego redesigned CCBS (Or even make another system) with smaller, more compact sets in mind? Think of something about the size of a 2011 Hero Factory Hero.

[Aanchir]

I wouldn't totally mind them. When the 2011 Hero Factory heroes came out, one thing that struck me about them was how they were sort of a "return to form", bringing models back to the approximate size and simplicity of the Toa Mata but with the improved articulation of the Toa Inika and a more versatile building system. Before the Bionicle reboot was announced I doodled some digital concepts of CCBS Toa sets similar in size and piece count to the Toa Mata or a 2011 Hero Factory hero.

 

That said, when the actual Bionicle reboot took place, the quality of the designs blew my nostalgia-fueled designs right out of the water. At this stage, with Bionicle G2 underway, I think it would be impossible to introduce smaller and simpler Toa without them feeling like a definite step backward — though perhaps not as much of a step backward as the Bionicle Stars were in 2010.

 

A series of Toa with a similar size and piece count to the Toa Mata or 2011 Hero Factory heroes would not likely be able to have gear functions, full armor coverage, AND a full 13 points of articulation like the 2015 Toa did. An average Toa Mata was 36 pieces, and an average 2011 Hero Factory hero was 30 pieces. The simplest a CCBS build with 13 points of articulation, full armor coverage, a mask, and two single-piece weapons (or one two-piece weapon) can be is 26 pieces. The simplest a 2015-style gearbox with no added friction can be is 13 additional pieces. And this 39-piece minimum assumes no decorative shell add-ons, no more elaborate weapon builds, no back armor, and a one-piece "skull" underneath the mask. Feasible? Maybe, but it wouldn't leave a lot of room for variety.

 

It's hard to say whether it'd be worth it. Yes, it would no doubt make the Toa more affordable, but it would also greatly limit their unique appeal. A lot of G1 fans already believe that the 2015 and 2016 Toa are simplistic and "samey" compared to G1 canister sets, even though that couldn't be further from the truth — I can't imagine that making the sets even simpler and more similar would boost their appeal with that audience. And if today's kids aren't interested in Bionicle, it's hard to imagine that price is the key barrier, considering that Bionicle is still one of the cheapest LEGO themes, and much more expensive themes like City, Star Wars, and Ninjago are still selling like hotcakes.

[evil_jaga_genius]

If by smaller, more compact sets you mean things like Matoran and various creatures, then yes.  Maybe not a complete overhaul of CCBS but maybe a few parts with the details molded right onto the plastic instead of added via a shell, like Gen1 parts.  It'd keep things looking interesting while not being bulky for small-scale builds.  Like, pieces the size of the Toa Metru arms with a ball joint on one end and a socket on the other.

[Kopekemaster]

In general, I'd say yes. I was always a big fan of the Matoran, Turaga, Rahaga, etc. sets, both for the fact that they tended to be more accessible to me financially and that I liked the compact designs. (Especially the Rahaga, for some reason.)

 

However, you give as an example of their designs the 2011 Hero Factory sets, which I place just a little bit above those of the Agori/Av-Matoran in complexity. Which is to say, I didn't really like them. Just having a standard torso piece (eg, this), standard armor plate, two arms and two legs that attach (via CCBS/BBS exclusively) to the torso, feet, hands, and one or two weapons does not seem to me to be a particularly intriguing design. It's, well, "standard", much in the same way many fans started getting tired of seeing the so-called "Inika build". Sure, colors, weapons, and masks provide a little bit of differentiation, but it's a quite boring design (to me). There isn't any (or very little) Technic-esque pieces or designs, it's all just held together by CCBS/BBS, which is where the difference between this style of set and the examples I gave earlier became clear. CCBS/BBS was incorporated, of course, otherwise it wouldn't really be "Bionicle", but there was a good deal more complexity, functionality, creativity, and so on, (some of) which was provided by the Technic-esque pieces.

 

So basically, I would love to see more compact sets like those of the Rahaga, 2003 Matoran, Turaga, or even Bohrok (as I think they might fit into that category as well), but not so much the standard "small set" build that we saw a lot of from 2008-2011.

[FrozenPancake_]

I would have been fine with that. 

 

However, I prefer the Toa as they are now. They look powerful and imposing, but in a good-guy way. If they changed size at this point, I would dislike it because it'd be a huge step back, as others have said. 

 

On the other hand, G2 could've taken a different route set-wise; the Toa could've started out as more compact, but retaining gearboxes. (Torso integration a la 2001-2004, anyone?)  Thus, the Toa would be less pricey (probably around $10 or so). Even better, a lower parts count on the Toa would allow a greater budget for villain sets, which could lead to more imposing and impressive designs. Toa would be appealing as inexpensive, unique, and compact good guys, and their foes could be equally cool. This would have been a better path for G2 in my opinion, especially from a business standpoint, but also from a fan's perspective.

[Disciple]

As Aanchir pointed out, I think it's a little late in the game to be shrinking the Toa. However, I'd be happy to see more Protector-sized sets-- especially as bad guys. I like the idea of having an army of midget-sized horde villains for the Toa to fight, maybe something like this MOC designed by Pohaturon.

[Pohaturon]

 maybe something like this MOC designed by Pohaturon.

 

*blushes*

 

Thanks for the shoutout, mate!

 

 

As for the topic at hand, like others above have said, while I'd love to see more small sets across the board, 2011 HF isn't the direction I'd like to see them go. Something more along the lines of, say, the 2005/6/7 small sets would be awesome, but the Turaga and 2003 Matoran were cool too. Despite the re-used parts and small stature of the Rahaga, I really liked them. With the Voya Nui Matoran, I loved the variety and interesting build solutions. The Turaga carry obvious nostalgia value, while the 2003 Matoran were just pretty solid builds.

 

However, I'd love to see CCBS implemented in a more creative way than the standard humanoid skeleton plus armor approach. I like the Protectors of 2015, however re-doing a similar build would feel repetitive. The hybrid technic/CCBS Creatures of this year are absolutely magnificent, and I'm really excited to see what the small sets turn out to be like next year.

 

While the large sets seem to get much of the spotlight, I really enjoy seeing the solution put into small sets, especially in G1 and the Creatures. The smaller budget, part-count and stature force the designers into coming up with new things. As they say, necessity is the father of ingenuity.

 

The 2004 Matoran and the Av-Matoran/Agori are examples of this going south. However, they seem to be the exception. I for one, would love to see small sets released in both waves each year. Their price makes them more accessible, and somehow I just love fiddling with smaller sets.

 

On a more personal note, my own small MOCs tend to turn out better than the medium or large ones. Coming up with various Matoran builds is a favored passtime of mine (though quality-wise, I might as well be Karzahni fixing Matoran badly.)

 

[32one]

CCBS works quite well with small sets due to the varying bone lengths, the main issue is how the shells are 3 modules wide and deep. There is only one style of shell and making it look different means making it even bulkier through the use of an add-on.

 

Perhaps Mixel joints could partially replace the standard size ball/socket to give more variety to small and standard sized sets.

 

Maybe replacing CCBS with a something which has closer integration with System would not only benefit small sets, but improve the variation in larger sets without the need for new add-on molds, and draw more interest from System fans who currently see CCBS as being a specialised system for kids with no useful parts for System MOCs.

[Paleo]

Not really. Personally, my biggest issue right now is the rapid departure from the smooth, clean look of the first G2 sets into the over-detailed mess that is the beasts. 

[Endless Sea (Alaki Nuva)]

The winter 2016 sets didn't take long to grow on me, and I really like how they turned out... but I do indeed consider the term "mess" to be a rather accurate descriptor of Storm, Quake, and Lava Beast.

 

I think the Creatures were rather excellent, though.  Nonstandard designs, built-in functions, and most of them look pretty dang good too.