Pohatu has a U.F.O. for a head, mask is vahish, orange?

Kopaka's mask looks like Toa Whenua's mask, ice toa do not fly, there's something red in his eye

Lewa has a turbo engine thingy on his right arm?

 

Most of all, no more gear functions.....

 

For the record, there is a story reason for the change in look that'll be told in the next book...

 

Personally, while they aren't completely recognizable as their previous forms, I do think that they are immensely better than the Mahri. To be honest, I actually like these, though probably because I wasn't expecting sets that look insanely similar to their 2002 forms. And there are actually more similarities than I had anticipated -- Pohatu's still squat(ter) and his tools look like his old claws, Kopaka still has the scope, even though it's on the opposite side as before, and Lewa's sword has the same basic shape as his old air katana (and if nothing else, you could use the ones on Tanma in place of it).

 

But I'm not here to change your opinion, I know you didn't to me about the Mahri that I still so despise. At least the villains are cool, no...?

For the record, there is a story reason for the change in look that'll be told in the next book...

 

Personally, while they aren't completely recognizable as their previous forms, I do think that they are immensely better than the Mahri. To be honest, I actually like these, though probably because I wasn't expecting sets that look insanely similar to their 2002 forms. And there are actually more similarities than I had anticipated -- Pohatu's still squat(ter) and his tools look like his old claws, Kopaka still has the scope, even though it's on the opposite side as before, and Lewa's sword has the same basic shape as his old air katana (and if nothing else, you could use the ones on Tanma in place of it).

 

But I'm not here to change your opinion, I know you didn't to me about the Mahri that I still so despise. At least the villains are cool, no...?

Yes, Greg's mentioned that reason... I'm very curious, because I want to know how something that involves a complete change in almost every aspect of appearance can be "elegant."

 

Oh, yes, they're far, far better than the Mahri in set design. Worse in the resemblance aspect (and the Mahri, as a group, were bad enough there), but completely ignoring their "identities" I don't think they're bad sets. That's for a future entry. I do hate "Lewa"'s sword quite as much as Kopaka's wings just in appearance, though. Just another thing to make me completely ignore them story-wise and just insert the original Nuva while reading the books.

 

Villains... I'm waiting until we actually see them from the front instead of from above to properly judge them.

Lewa: Lime

Pohatu: Orange

Kopaka: no shield (and misplaced eyepiece)

All: Bley limbs.

 

I could rant, but that's for my blog. For your's:

You make some good points on color and pieces. The Big Katana is probably the best part. (edit: you don't like it) I really don't like Lewa's lime or Pohatu's coloring in general. And Kopaka's lack of shield.

And they look like Inika.

 

I do like the bad guys, for now. They seem interesting. (I've seen better pix. I'm surprised these pix got posted and not the German catalog) I also like orange toa feet in the matoran. (but the other two have bley...why?)

 

In the end, it's about the pieces. Almost.

 

-CF

Well, I kinda had a feeling that Lego wouldn't follow the excelent design you came up with, and would just make new Toa sets. But I have remembered that the Nuva, while excelent in the story, weren't great sets when compared to the Mata, so the change won't bother me. The high point here is that we'll get our heroes back, with their complex personalities and deep backstories, and we won't have any more shallow Toa characters for 08.

 

Just my perspective, and yes, I do agree with you... when reading the books I will certainly imaging the Toa Nuva in their original forms.

 

Why indeed. ><

 

Good thing we have ToM here to revamp them later.

 

But yes, I agree that they screw them all up. The masks should have remained exactly the same, and the airplane wings look terrible. And Pohatu doesn't have claws, those are propellers. Look closely.

 

And Kopaka does have a sword, its hidden behind his cannon, but he lost his shield, which will be surely missed.

 

Let it be known I fully support your views and I personally will be revamping them as soon as I get them.

They should have Lhikan-ized the original Nuva masks.

 

Greg has said that the set designers knew they were re-making the Nuva when they started, but it seems more like these are just random Toa with the Nuva's names added on. And when will they realize that the Inika and Piraka parts have been re-used enough?

This is my opinion. Unless you can provide me with a logical, evidence-based reason for Lego to have left almost no resemblance to the Nuva (and as yet no one has, so until someone does I will not see logic in this travesty), I ask that you allow me to keep it in peace.

This is a matter of taste, not true opinion.

 

Anyway, the way I see it, if LEGO were to put out a set one year, and then put out a very similar set a different year, it would deter a lot of people from buying it. The older fans would think of it as "nothing new" and such. The newer fans, well, their reaction would be (to me) somewhat unpredictable.

 

LEGO has to make distinct sets every year so as to better insure that they will satisfy more of the fanbase.

This is a matter of taste, not true opinion.

 

Anyway, the way I see it, if LEGO were to put out a set one year, and then put out a very similar set a different year, it would deter a lot of people from buying it. The older fans would think of it as "nothing new" and such. The newer fans, well, their reaction would be (to me) somewhat unpredictable.

 

LEGO has to make distinct sets every year so as to better insure that they will satisfy more of the fanbase.

How many times has Hasbro released Optimus Prime? Hundreds of times? And yet people still buy him. I fail to see how that doesn't also apply to Bionicle.

 

 

~D

And Kopaka does have a sword, its hidden behind his cannon, but he lost his shield, which will be surely missed.

 

Let it be known I fully support your views and I personally will be revamping them as soon as I get them.

 

The equivalent of having a bayonet on a bazooka... I fail to see the effectiveness of such a weapon.

 

Long live the ToM!

 

They should have Lhikan-ized the original Nuva masks.

 

Greg has said that the set designers knew they were re-making the Nuva when they started, but it seems more like these are just random Toa with the Nuva's names added on. And when will they realize that the Inika and Piraka parts have been re-used enough?

 

I agree on both points. They really look nothing like the Nuva at all.

 

Of the three, Kopaka looks the most like his Nuva self, and that's really in color scheme only. The eye piece doesn't count, as most Ice Toa have eye pieces.

 

I suspect that Lego forged the new sockets from fragments of the essence of Satan, for they are evil beyond words.

 

...

 

Perhaps they were forged from fragments of Richard Simmons's essence.

This is a matter of taste, not true opinion.

Certainly it is a matter of taste, but how on earth is this not true opinion? I have seen the sets, I formulated my thoughts on them, and thence comes my opinion of them.

 

Anyway, the way I see it, if LEGO were to put out a set one year, and then put out a very similar set a different year, it would deter a lot of people from buying it. The older fans would think of it as "nothing new" and such. The newer fans, well, their reaction would be (to me) somewhat unpredictable.

 

LEGO has to make distinct sets every year so as to better insure that they will satisfy more of the fanbase.

In addition to what Ca'gerrin said, why couldn't the rebuilt "Nuva" have been greatly different in build, but similar in overall appearance? Why couldn't, for instance, Lewa have used the build he has now, only with bright green instead of dark grey, and with a mask that actually looked like the Miru Nuva? That hardly qualifies as "nothing new" given that the two would barely have one piece in common, but he would still be recognizable as Lewa. Also, since it will have been five years since the Nuva first came out, the old fans' opinion of them hardly matters, so old fans' (many of whom have moved on from Bionicle) not buying them wouldn't be much of a factor.

 

Munkiman ~ My thoughts exactly. It is claimed that the designers "went into this knowing they were redesigning the Nuva" (paraphrased), but the result looks far more like completely new Toa with Nuva names slapped onto them than they resemble their supposed former selves.

 

Cap'n Bionicle ~ Whoo for revamps! But that's what I've been doing for the past two weeks in Project Nuva – Nuva redesigns that actually look like the Nuva instead of these things. (Mind you, these are my personal revamps, not something I think Lego would have been likely to do exactly as I did – in rapture though I would have been over that.) Though, as Toro pointed out (and as I told him ), Kopaka doesn't have a sword – he has a small blade stuck into that gun-thing, meaning he has a bayonet and airplane wings instead of a sword and a shield... Pohatu actually does have claws, though; they become his propellers, as far as I can tell. An idea that I like and find quite acceptable as a revamped Nuva tool, especially to make a flying Toa...

This is my opinion. Unless you can provide me with a logical, evidence-based [i.e. a bones-post] reason for Lego to have left almost no resemblance to the Nuva (and as yet no one has, so until someone does I will not see logic in this travesty), I ask that you allow me to keep it in peace.

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"?

Why should LEGO make them very recognizeable?

Perhaps fans wanted to see more than just their names return?

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?

LEGO has no obligation to give older fans any treats at all, because not enough matter in terms of sales.

This is by no means untrue. They have no obligation. It's a sad trend not just with Lego, but most businesses nowadays.

 

But can you tell me that the older fans stopped buying Bionicle (or Lego in general) and Lego adjusted their goals based on that movement, or could it be that they listened to impulse market research and the older fans just felt ignored? It's all speculation here, bones. Just like who wants what.

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.

 

 

But can you tell me that the older fans stopped buying Bionicle (or Lego in general) and Lego adjusted their goals based on that movement, or could it be that they listened to impulse market research and the older fans just felt ignored? It's all speculation here, bones. Just like who wants what.

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).

Bones.

 

Bones, bones, bones.

 

My opinion covers both categories into which you divide opinions. There is my personal taste, and also what I think Lego should do. I have organized my thoughts on the latter into a logical conclusion, and as yet I have seen nothing to contradict it, nothing to make it seem unreasonable. My reasoning is not flawed. There is nothing fallacious about it. I am not "making a mistake."

 

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.

No, it does not. As I've told you before, I am arguing this side because I would prefer it to what Lego has done, but never once did I say that the reason Lego should do it that way is because I like it so.

 

I can show my preference to be a logical course of action for Lego to follow.

 

The Inika sold exorbitantly well; there are statistics to prove it. The Mahri seem likely to have gone in the same direction, and if the general reaction of BZP to the Nuva is representative of that of most fans, the Nuva 2 probably will, too. I am looking at what most fans want: sets that look very cool. You seem to think I am saying Lego should do something other than this – I am not. This is a very sound course of action for Lego to follow.

 

But what there are not is statistics showing the Inika would not have sold just as well had they resembled their Matoran selves. There are not statistics showing that the Nuva 2 bearing fair resemblance to their former selves would have harmed their sales. I cannot back this argument with evidence, because there is none, because Lego never tried what I am proposing – I can only support it with logic. Unless Lego presented the focus groups with two sets of, for instance, Toa Nuva 2, and those focus groups decided they would buy the non-resemblant Nuva 2 over the resemblant ones, I do not see why Lego would not have made the Nuva 2 recognizable as themselves.

 

(What I am proposing, for clarity, is something so simple as a color scheme change on Lewa Nuva 2 – make his dark grey bright green, and he will be recognizable as Lewa. He would be in an entirely new form, but he would be recognizable as his old form. My personal taste is illustrated by Project Nuva – I would be in rapture if Lego did that, but I am not trying to say that the best course of action is uniquely for Lego to do exactly what I did.)

 

I am not trying to argue that Lego should do exactly as my most personal taste would like. I am saying that the Nuva have not been in stores for five years, that by Greg's own word the newer fans would not care about the Nuva 2's appearance so long as they looked cool, that thereby I do not see why making the Nuva 2 recognizable could have possibly hurt sales. I am saying that a perfectly reasonable, quite possibly just as profitable, course of action is for Lego to make the Nuva 2 look both like their former selves and thrill the newer fans, thereby getting the best of both worlds.

 

 

What I am open to is a logical argument showing that it would have been bad to make the Nuva 2 recognizable. If someone can provide me with such an argument, I will understand why Lego did not choose to make them resemble their former selves. Until someone does, then I will, from a purely logical standpoint, see my "Lego should" opinion as an equally logical one, and from there my personal taste will therefore make me prefer the recognizable-Nuva path over the one Lego took.

 

Was it a wise decision on Lego's part to make sets that are likely to sell very well? Of course it was. I never said, or intended to imply, that the Inika should have sold poorly because they did not look like the Matoran. I am not saying that about the Nuva, only that I personally do not like the way Lego chose to rebuild them.

 

In fact, what I am saying is that this is my opinion, it strikes me as equally logical to the course of action Lego took, and I would like to be able to have that opinion without it being contradicted and called "making a mistake."

 

This is my blog; it is about my opinion, however you want to define that; and I would very much like to be allowed to keep that opinion in peace (as I have allowed others who do like the Nuva 2 to keep their opinions in peace), rather than continually have to defend it, because it is every bit as valid as yours, bonesiii.

 

 

[An edit, because another debate occured while I was typing:]

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.

And I'm saying that they can please everybody – that's the crux of my argument. Lego can probably make Nuva 2 that both look like Nuva and grab the new fans' attention, so I think they should, but they didn't, and so I do not understand why not.

 

I can show my preference to be a logical course of action for Lego to follow.

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.

 

 

I am saying that a perfectly reasonable, quite possibly just as profitable, course of action is for Lego to make the Nuva 2 look both like their former selves and thrill the newer fans, thereby getting the best of both worlds.

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.

 

 

 

 

 

This is my blog

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.

 

 

 

 

And I'm saying that they can please everybody – that's the crux of my argument. Lego can probably make Nuva 2 that both look like Nuva and grab the new fans' attention, so I think they should, but they didn't, and so I do not understand why not.

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).

 

 

 

No, it does not. As I've told you before, I am arguing this side because I would prefer it to what Lego has done, but never once did I say that the reason Lego should do it that way is because I like it so.

 

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.

 

 

 

 

however you want to define that; and I would very much like to be allowed to keep that opinion in peace (as I have allowed others who do like the Nuva 2 to keep their opinions in peace), rather than continually have to defend it, because it is every bit as valid as yours, bonesiii.

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*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Inika sold exorbitantly well; there are statistics to prove it. The Mahri seem likely to have gone in the same direction, and if the general reaction of BZP to the Nuva is representative of that of most fans, the Nuva 2 probably will, too. I am looking at what most fans want: sets that look very cool. You seem to think I am saying Lego should do something other than this – I am not.

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:

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.

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.

 

 

 

 

 

There are not statistics showing that the Nuva 2 bearing fair resemblance to their former selves would have harmed their sales. I cannot back this argument with evidence, because there is none

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I do not see why Lego would not have made the Nuva 2 recognizable as themselves.

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What I am proposing, for clarity, is something so simple as a color scheme change on Lewa Nuva 2 – make his dark grey bright green, and he will be recognizable as Lewa.

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.

 

 

 

 

My personal taste is illustrated by Project Nuva – I would be in rapture if Lego did that, but I am not trying to say that the best course of action is uniquely for Lego to do exactly what I did

Good, good, you're answering many of my questions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am saying that the Nuva have not been in stores for five years, that by Greg's own word the newer fans would not care about the Nuva 2's appearance so long as they looked cool, that thereby I do not see why making the Nuva 2 recognizable could have possibly hurt sales.

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.

 

 

 

 

What I am open to is a logical argument showing that it would have been bad to make the Nuva 2 recognizable.

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

If someone can provide me with such an argument, I will understand why Lego did not choose to make them resemble their former selves [more, you mean?].

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bones.

 

Bones, bones, bones.

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.

Why LEGO didn't? I already said that -- to be original.

Except that these sets are not original.

 

Take a look at the Inika. Then look at the Mahri. Then look at these sets.

 

All three waves are nearly identical. Lego is rehashing the same sets over and over again, right down to most of the pieces. We all complained about ti with the Kal. The situation now is almost identical, except there's not even an in-story reason for it this time.

 

Think of it this way: AC/DC is a good band. However, most of their songs sound exactly the same. They developed a good formula that people like, and then, in the words of their guitarist, Angus Young, "made the same album twelve times." They are good albums. But Led Zeppelin, another hard-rock group with high-register vocals, is a superior band (don't claim this is just my opinion; I can guarantee that the majority of people on this planet would agree Led Zeppelin is a better band than AC/DC, as would almost all professional music critics. I don't think I've seen any AC/DC album, even Back in Black, rated as an "A." Led Zeppelin's fourth album and Physical Graffiti almost universally are.). One of the primary reasons why is because they didn't just stick with one sound. They experimented, they recorded songs in albums of all different genres--from Hard Rock to Heavy Metal to Reggae to Country and more. Their first album was extremely successful, with a heavy blues-rock sound. They didn't just stick with that formula however; Led Zeppelin III's folksy sound is entirely different. Led Zeppelin made albums that weren't merely good, but great.

 

Do you follow the analogy? Lego may be making good sets with these clone waves. They could make great sets if they shook up the formula more, as they did with the Barrakki.

 

These sets aren't original. They're just more of the same. Sure, this forumla has proven to sell--but what;s to say another might not sell even better? Didn't the Toa Metru sell better than the Toa Nuva?[/color]

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...

I think he means lime green, Lewa's secondary colour.

 

So that would make him Green [base] and a lightrer shade of green [secondary]. An easy throwback to the original Mata that costs nearly the same, if any difference at all.

Why LEGO didn't? I already said that -- to be original.

Except that these sets are not original.

 

Take a look at the Inika. Then look at the Mahri. Then look at these sets.

 

All three waves are nearly identical. Lego is rehashing the same sets over and over again, right down to most of the pieces. We all complained about ti with the Kal. The situation now is almost identical, except there's not even an in-story reason for it this time.

And that's how it was with the original Nuva. And with the Hagah. Heck, when you think about it there hasn't been a story book where more than one normal Toa construction has been introduced.

 

Think of it this way: AC/DC is a good band. However, most of their songs sound exactly the same. They developed a good formula that people like, and then, in the words of their guitarist, Angus Young, "made the same album twelve times." They are good albums. But Led Zeppelin, another hard-rock group with high-register vocals, is a superior band (don't claim this is just my opinion; I can guarantee that the majority of people on this planet would agree Led Zeppelin is a better band than AC/DC, as would almost all professional music critics. I don't think I've seen any AC/DC album, even Back in Black, rated as an "A." Led Zeppelin's fourth album and Physical Graffiti almost universally are.). One of the primary reasons why is because they didn't just stick with one sound. They experimented, they recorded songs in albums of all different genres--from Hard Rock to Heavy Metal to Reggae to Country and more. Their first album was extremely successful, with a heavy blues-rock sound. They didn't just stick with that formula however; Led Zeppelin III's folksy sound is entirely different. Led Zeppelin made albums that weren't merely good, but great.

 

Do you follow the analogy? Lego may be making good sets with these clone waves. They could make great sets if they shook up the formula more, as they did with the Barrakki.

I thought Kongu Mahri was plenty "shook up," and many of the same people complaining about the new Nuva hated him. Anyway, your example of Led Zeppelin is a best case scenario-- shaking up the formula can just as easily lead to sets regarded by many as crummy-- do the Hordika ring a bell?

 

These sets aren't original. They're just more of the same. Sure, this forumla has proven to sell--but what;s to say another might not sell even better? Didn't the Toa Metru sell better than the Toa Nuva?[/color]

Not sure about that one. The Metru may have sold better than the Nuva-- but remember what happened after the Metru were released? That's right-- the Nuva torso piece was never used again. LEGO has a good reason for reusing the same pieces, and we are lucky we have seen as much innovation with them as we have. I don't remember the Mata or Metru torsos being able to be used as creatively as the Inika torsos have (exempli gratia, the ones in Gadunka).

 

I personally like this construction, aside from of course the Matoro Inika-style torso armor on Lewa Nuva-- while I don't mind its use, its thinness has made it almost inferior to Jaller Inika style since its creation. Well, except one thing-- Matoro Inika's style has practical pistons. So they're equal in my eyes.

 

Not to say I don't await innovation-- I have high hopes for next year. But in no way will I fail to appreciate these Toa as better than one (or at least I myself) could have logically expected.

I think he means lime green, Lewa's secondary colour.

 

So that would make him Green [base] and a lightrer shade of green [secondary]. An easy throwback to the original Mata that costs nearly the same, if any difference at all.

Well, if that's what he means, then I wouldn't like it as much as the grey. (Speaking only for me here.)

 

 

Except that these sets are not original.

 

Take a look at the Inika. Then look at the Mahri. Then look at these sets.

Take a look at the Mata and the Nuva, Smeag -- it was the same way then. Within the context of the taste style that is being targeted at any one time, they are original. That's all I meant -- and it's obvious that they have tons of original aspects, just like the Mahri and Inika did.

 

Within the context of the Technicism style of the Mata/Nuva (and indeed, many other sets from those years), the Nuva are original (but highly recognizeable).

 

Within the context of the "Coolified" style of the Inika/Mahri/Nuva, the Nuva Nuva are original.

 

Comparing them both, within their respective context, the Nuva Nuva are a lot more original than the 2003 Nuva were.

 

(Putting coolified in quotes because not everybody sees it as cooler, of course.)

 

 

What you said is only true if you take all of the sets out of context, and say that because the Nuva are still staying true to the "new" style that most fans like, they are unoriginal. Well, the problem with that argument is that most fans want the sets to stay within that style. To be original by that logic, the Nuva Nuva would have to establish a new style that's untested, which there seems to be no call for from what most fans want. There was a strong call to move to the "Coolified" style, as I argued for a long time before it happened, and now there's a strong call to remain within that context.

 

 

Also, MOCers on here are often calling for old parts in new colors. Pohatu's orange leg pieces, for example. I'll be trying to get my hands on them, heh.

 

Didn't the Toa Metru sell better than the Toa Nuva? [i haven't heard that specifically, but I wouldn't be surprised]

If you look at the above "chart", you can see why that would be (if it is; not sure). The Toa Metru, within the context of the older style, were more original.

 

They were also a move to a newer "in-between" style, so like the Inika and Mata, they were the most original in terms of basic body structure. They had their successors, Lhikan and the Hagah (them especially, being very similar in concept to the Nuva and Mahri in how they mix new and old pieces up in original ways), and the Hordika (mostly new pieces but less originality in specifics that compare to the Metru). It wasn't until 2006 that "new", preferred style evolved fully, with the trimming of gears, the fulfilling of a more "biomechanical" style, and the introduction of the Piraka-basis body design.

 

 

 

Do you follow the analogy?

The analogy fits what I'm saying a lot better than what you saying, it seems -- Led was more original, and more popular. It is ToM and others arguing for less originality here (less ToM than others I've seen, though, as he has made somewhat clear). Again, going back to that "chart", the Nuva are clearly far less original within the context of the style of the time than the Nuva Nuva are within the new style's context. Look at their limbs and you'll see far less clonism, far more original uses of pieces, many new pieces unlike any we've seen previously in Bionicle, etc. etc. Plus the first orange stone set. Did I mention I love that? But anyways, within each context, it is clear the Nuva are more original. Thus I predict they will sell well.

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.

I never said it was the most logical course – I said my proposal (see immediately below) was equally logical to Lego's. Showing it to be equally logical is quite enough.

 

Said proposal being the example I gave later in my post of Lewa Nuva 2. Since much of what you asked me next I answered in that post, I'm skipping over it, since you found the answers...

 

Now, some terminology:

— Lime: speaks for itself, Lewa's original secondary color

— either just "Green" or "Bright green": Lewa's original primary color.

— Dark green: also speaks for itself, the 2004-7 color for beings of Air.

 

Again, my proposal isn't what is in Project Nuva, but something so simple as replacing the dark grey in Lewa 2 with green. You asked what I would do were I in the position to make new Nuva sets, so I think it would be something like this – if I used Lewa 2's design as a base, I would make the dark grey green, change his mask to be instantly recognizable as the Miru Nuva, and design a new duo of chest and shoulder armor pieces that could be easily recognized as Nuva armor.

 

Heck, I might even make this new Nuva armor be in the Toa canister lid colors from 2001 instead of uniquely silver. Copper for Tahu, the color of Lehvak Kal's Krana for Lewa, et cetera... But that's just me having fun with color, not something I would definitely do.

 

I think one problem we're having here is an ambiguity between "recognizable," "resemblant," and "believable." Believability is completely subjective, purely a matter of individual taste. Clearly you find the Nuva 2 believable; I do not. Resemblance is the most debatable, as it is possible to find similarities between many things. For instance, Aanchir thinks the Kanohi Inika resemble the original six; I do not think (most of) their similarities are sufficient to qualify as resemblance. Recognizability is, I think, the most objective, but because it involves individual interpretations it certainly has some subjectivity to it.

 

And so what I'd be interested in hearing from you is this: if you were shown Kopaka, Lewa, and Pohatu 2 completely out of the blue, ignoring your vast knowledge of storyline and forgetting that you first saw their redesigns with the names "Kopaka", "Lewa", and "Pohatu" attached to them – would you recognize them at a glance as the Toa Nuva?

 

I don't think the "Miru Phantoka" (for lack of a current official term) is in any way recognizable as the Miru Nuva. I can find similarities between them, certainly, just as I could find similarities between the Miru and Miru Nuva. As I've said, the instant I saw the first, blurry image of it, I thought "Faxon!", and the possibility of it being a Miru did not even occur to me. The same occured with the "Kakama Phantoka" – I instantly thought of the Vahi. With the "Akaku Phantoka," I immediately thought of the Great Matatu and Great Ruru more than the Akaku, due to the visor being on the left side of the mask.

 

Therefore, I do not think the Nuva are at all recognizable, and because of that I do not think them believable. But I will agree in an instant that there are similarities – I just don't find those similarities sufficient; you do.

 

(I know you must be thinking "But the Kanohi Nuva weren't all recognizable as the Kanohi, by that logic," and that's quite true. I'm waiting until I learn exactly what the origin of these Kanohi is before I finalize my opinion of them in relation to story.)

 

 

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.

Certainly I might be wrong, but as yet I have seen not one thing to make me think so. This does not mean "I am right and everybody else is wrong," it means that my ideas have as much validity as others'.

 

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 I disagree with that. You are claiming my "Lego should" opinion, derived as much from logic as yours, is invalid. As I see it, both are well-supported by logic, so neither holds validity over the other. Lego had a choice as to which course they could take, so why can't differing opinions on that choice hold equal validity?

 

I do not claim to be a logician of any sort, but this is what seems logical to me – if two opinions on a hypothetical situation are both derived from equal processes of logic, what makes one more valid than the other?

 

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:

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.

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?

 

...

 

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.

Most of this is explained by my detailing of how a Nuva could be redesigned to please both old and new fans – making them exactly like their former selves would probably not be a great idea. This Nuva revamp would be entirely different from just Toa to Nuva or Bohrok to Kal – they'd be made of almost entirely new pieces; they'd just have a recognizable overall look.

 

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.

Well, as I see it there is either recognizability or there isn't, not degrees. If you want degrees, that's a quantification of similarity (for purposes of technicality of vocabulary, so we can both be clear on what the other is saying). I don't think the Nuva 2 are similar enough to be recognizable.

 

Of course it's impossible to please everything, but I think Nuva in the style of 2006 and beyond who also were recognizable as themselves would please a majority encompassing both the new and the old fans, instead of alienating the latter for the business of the former.

 

 

 

 

 

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.

It is ToM and others arguing for less originality here (less ToM than others I've seen, though, as he has made somewhat clear).

For the I-don't-know-how-many-th time, making Nuva recognizable does not mean they have to be repetitive. You can combine originality of design with familiarity of appearance very easily; the example I gave of Lewa is one way to do so.

 

(Though, yes, that was a misused word on my part. I ought to have said "not be recognizable as," because certainly there are similarities, though with just a glance, to me, they do not resemble their former selves.)

 

Sméag provided a nice analogy as to whether one considers the Nuva 2's designs original or not, so I won't bother going into that aspect.

 

 

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.

It is quite true that the "Kakama Phantoka" resembles the original Kakama more than the Kakama Nuva, but its instant recognizability as a Vahi overrides that resemblance. The same is true, in my view, of how much Lewa 2 resembles Lesovikk much more than Lewa Nuva.

 

 

This is my blog ...

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.

I'm quite open to discussion – I enjoy talking to someone, bouncing ideas off them and hearing their thoughts, then hearing their own ideas... But what I don't like is when something intended as a simple statement of one's thoughts turns into a huge argument (though remains perfectly civil, thankfully) where one party pecks those thoughts to death and calls them illogical, when they were quite valid to begin with. I, personally, feel attacked and offended when that is done, because what I feel like is not that I'm discussing something – I feel like I'm being criticized or reprimanded for doing absolutely nothing other than stating my opinion.

 

What's at the top of this comment is something I do like, a calm exchange of ideas that I find quite pleasant to both read and partake in. I had hoped that what I posted in this entry could be discussed in such a manner, others' ideas heard on the subject (and I would quite like to hear what you think of the Nuva 2 in your own taste-opinion), not that my own ideas would be completely torn apart.

 

As for why the "This is my blog" comment – I know I'm utterly insignificant with regard to the rest of the Bionicle fanbase, but this blog is about my opinions (both types, so please you, bones). Even though they often go against the vast majority of that fanbase, can't I voice them without being smothered on the basis of their not mattering? They matter a great deal to me.

 

(Perhaps all that last sounds more extreme than I meant it to, but it does express how I have felt... I don't mean to offend. I'd love to continue this as just an exchange on what we would have done, rather than a huge, ongoing argument that neither of us can win to begin with. )

 

 

[Edit:] Oh, completely forgot. The "Why" in the title is not asking "Why do they have to be this way?"; it's a statement that they are why I pursued Project Nuva. Unintentional ambiguity, I assure you.