And that's how it was with the original Nuva. And with the Hagah.

Take a look at the Mata and the Nuva, Smeag -- it was the same way then.

Nonononono. Don't you guys pull this with me. I have never said the Nuva were great sets--in fact, I'm not that fond of them. You're trying to pin a stereotype on me. As I said in my recent review of Nuparu Mahri, it's been six years sicne Lego released the first Bionicle sets. Design standards have improved. The sets should reflect the higher standards, not stay in the same rut they've been in since 2002.

I thought Kongu Mahri was plenty "shook up," and many of the same people complaining about the new Nuva hated him.

Have I? No, I have not, so please do not put words in my mouth. I find Kongu to be one of the better Mahri.

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.

And that's a good thing. The original toa torso, while good for its time, is extremely outdated and wouldn't cut it in any set anymore.

LEGO has a good reason for reusing the same pieces,

Which would be what?

I personally like this construction,

Ah, but as Big Bones always says, that's just personal preference.

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.

How are they better than you could have logically expected? You're just saying things without giving examples to back them up, which is another cardinal mistake according to Bones.

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.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying these sets, these specific sets, don't display originality at all, because they are copies in design (and right down to the pieces, too, in a lot of places) to the past two years' sets. The design was news and original when it debuted with the Inika. Now it has been used thrice. There's nothing "original" about it anymore. As I said, it's the same case with the Kal and the Toa Nuva--they weren't original at all, and were rather inferior as sets. if you badmouth the old Nuva, then logically, you should badmouth these guys too.

You can maintain the same popular design aesthetic with copying the design. This isn't a "technicism" versus "modernism" (sorry, but I can't use your personal buzzword, "coolified," due to my personal tastes! ) thing. Don't try to slap that stereotype on me. This is about truly good set design and innovation, something Lego's designers have proven they're capable of but are not delivering.

I understand that the kids these days aren't into the "technicism" style (which always baffles me; when I was young, nothing seemed cooler than a toy that could actually do something...but I guess times change). I'm not saying Lego should return to that (though I do feel they could please both camp rather easily, with sets like the Metru, who have full poseability in addition to an unobtrusive action function--but I digress), if it doesn't sell. I'm am saying, simply, that Lego could easily maintain the..."coolified," if you insist...design aesthetic without making clone waves. Sure, these'll still sell well. But doesn't it seem illogical to assume that something different, but equally appealing, would sell worse? I would predict it would sell better.

So, in short, please don't automatically assume I am a personification of a crusty "geewunner" stereotype. Just because I have different personal tastes doesn't mean I think Lego should make its sets conform to exactly what I want, nor does it mean I'm "illogical." I'm not stupid, and I'm not trying to push an agenda or tell you that you're wrong just because you misunderstood me or disagree with me. Please treat me with the same respect.

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.

Fair. I'm just not convinced. But you're talking mostly about colors -- that I can understand, and I don't think it would have hurt sales -too- much for Lewa Newva to be Mata green. Thanks for answering my question on that. How would you do Pohatu and Kopaka?

What I'm pointing out is, as Greg said:

As for the designers knowing who they are designing -- yes, because it was decided in late '06 that we would need to bring the Nuva back in 2008. At the same time, they were not told to prioritize making them recognizable to their 2002 forms, because the vast majority of the 2002 fanbase is long gone. Most of the current six million or so fans started in 2004 or 2005, and have no idea what the Nuva used to look like or any sentimental attachment to those forms.

So given that, can we agree on this -- there's no reason LEGO "should" absolutely have chosen your idea (for Lewa, let's focus on). They could have gone either way and prolly not that much problem, right?

Now, I'll concede that your idea of keeping them just as (or more) "cool" and yet also more recognizeable, if possible, would be wise. It's that "if" that concerns me. But this is worth discussing.

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.

That does indeed sound good. And with the Miru, the top of the Nuva mask was a little "cooler" (more spikiness) than this mask.

New pieces being designed -- I want to make sure you're aware there's both pros and cons with doing that. I would like new chest and shoulder armor, as I said in my recent blog entry. Cooler chest armor especially is something I've been hoping to see since the Inika and have been dissapointed on. No idea if that's just me -- but the point is, spending resources on new pieces in the canister sets means there's less budget for new pieces elsewhere. So that's a con, that I wanna make sure we all understand here. A lot of times I've seen this fallacy being used on here -- we ask for less clonism, for example, so LEGO allocates money to improving that, and then we complain about the parts they took the money away from to do it (like making extra new pieces). Sometimes we forget the budget is largely fixed.

Again. Not accusing you of that. Just asking if we're clear on it.

That said, I would like your idea.

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.

Gotta disagree with parts of this (but you're wise to take a step back and look at the definitions here, as that is usually where a lot of disagreement/miscommunication stems from in debate) -- "Resemblance" is the most objective, because that has a very clear objective definition that can be measured, again, objectively.

It's clear that the Kakama Newva (as Pohatu's mask apparently could be called since Greg says it still has the power of speed) resembles the Kakama Mata, because many aspects of the shape are quite simply similar. The things on the side, the mouth area, the shape of the visor -- it is all measurable and cannot be subjective.

You see it as less recognizeable/believable because you associate it with the Vahi (if I'm understanding you correctly). That is more subjective, because for something to be "recognized", it must by definition be drawing upon what is inside your head -- if you know someone as a kid, they grow up, and you meet them again, you "recognize" them because your brain already has stored your idea of what they look like, roughly. Different people might store that information a little differently so they might or might not recognize someone who has aged, depending on who they are.

Believability I agree is purely subjective.

If you read this part of your statements carefully:

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

I would agree with it if you used "recognizeability" at the end. I haven't seen what Aanchir is talking about, though he's mentioned it in my blog comments, but whether or not he is right, and the degree of similarity/resemblance, can be objectively measured. Whether or not an invidual recognizes the resemblance, though, is more subjective.

Anyways, don't wanna waste space on this, but glad you decided to mention it, as I see you and I were using two of those terms in opposite ways.

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?

Yep. This is probably based a lot in my being an artist, especially one that "coolifies" (although I can't speak for you, since you in essence have done the same thing yourself with many of your MOCs). It's possible I recognize them a little easier than others, I dunno.

I don't think the "Miru Phantoka" (for lack of a current official term) is in any way recognizable as the Miru Nuva.

And that would be because your brain isn't storing the idea of the Nuva in the same way mine is (apparently); but I on the other hand recognized it instantly as a Miru Nuva-inspired Kanohi. To the extent that I wondered if this even made sense, because I was under the false impression that these would be new powers (now I think it does indeed make sense ).

You would agree with me on the mouth area and lower cheeks "resembling" (as in, having clear similarities to) the Miru Nuva, though? And that the upper half and eye-visor area is the main difference?

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.

Yeah, that's a good example of your brain storing information differently -- I have associated the Faxon with a Kaukau, myself, and more with Hahli than Lesovikk. So the color similarity didn't affect me that much when I was first seeing the Miru Newva, I guess.

The same occured with the "Kakama Phantoka" – I instantly thought of the Vahi.

And again, I didn't. The Vahi has always been similar to the Kakama, so that 1) isn't surprising, and 2) doesn't bother me. Impossible to make a Kakama-like mask without some similarity to a Vahi. And Vahi doesn't have a visor-top. Still, putting some plastic up there other than the visor might have been wiser -- if that had been done, would you have associated it more with the Kakama, you think?

Rhyme not intended.

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.

In this sentence I think you're defining the words the same way I was.

(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.)

Actually, I wasn't thinking that at all. I don't see that as relevant, personally, since, as you say, it's simply quite true, so I would assume somebody who likes greater recognizeability would have had a problem with that too.

But I disagree with that. You are claiming my "Lego should" opinion, derived as much from logic as yours, is invalid.

No, I think you've clarified that. I apologize if I implied that; that wasn't my intention. I remember more asking you to clarify what you mean than judging your logic, because I wasn't clear what your logic was. How could I say it is invalid without knowing what it is?

I think you've clarified it well, and I think it is indeed valid (the idea that your idea could be just as good as what LEGO did). Now we can discuss if it's sound.

But I suspect we're going to have to agree to disagree on parts of this, because we just don't know how some ideas would play in terms of sales, because as you say, it hasn't been tried. One thing I'm pointing out is, fans who like lime green better than Mata green (like me) would like a Mata green Lewa a little less. (Question would be, how many of us are there? I have no data on that, so that's why it's prolly an agree to disagree moment.)

Or "agree to agree that we don't know", as I would prefer to put it.

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?

Nothing -- you are absolutely correct. The question then moves more to soundness -- to how many fans would prefer one or the other. If they're roughly equal, then cool. Either way would work.

It just rarely works that way. There's almost always a majority on any such taste issue.

But I dunno which is which here.

Well, as I see it there is either recognizability or there isn't, not degrees.

I can see the point, but what I mean is, if the Miru Newva was even closer to the Miru Nuva, as you had suggested earlier, I would recognize it even easier. So that's what I mean by 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).

Yes.

I don't think the Nuva 2 are similar enough to be recognizable.

This is where I suspect you might be wrong -- IF (if) you mean not enough for most older fans who remember the Nuva. If, on the other hand, you just mean for you, no problemo.

And please don't say both man. I'm seperating the two because I'm only interested in debating the "thought" side of it, the "what should LEGO do" part, because the point you're raising could be a real problem, so it's worth discussing.

If you mean just taste, I do enjoy discussing those differences as they can help understanding of differencs. But not debating, cuz there's nothing to argue about with individual taste.

Anyways. Sorry if you're already clear on that.

For the I-don't-know-how-many-th time, making Nuva recognizable does not mean they have to be repetitive.

Gotta disagre, though -- to go back to your Miru idea. If you added spikes on top of the Miru Newva just like the Nuva had(for example), it would be more recognizeable, and it would be, literally, a "repeat" of a past shape. Now, I think you've got a point that it wouldn't be too repetitive. But let's not mince words -- it would be more so than the Newva we've actually got is.

(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.)

Yeah, that's all I meant.

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.

Since (I think) you're speaking only from your own perspective, no complaints with that statement. I just tend to doubt that's how most of us older fans are reacting to it.

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

There is no reason this has to be a "huge argument". As I say, all I'm interested in is, as I call it, a "search for the truth among friends."

I'm not going to overthink a lot of what you say next, because I think you were misunderstanding a lot of what I was saying; in that I wasn't judging your thoughts so much as asking you to clarify, as you have largely done. Still wonder what you'd do with Pohatu and Kopaka, though.

I feel like I'm being criticized or reprimanded for doing absolutely nothing other than stating my opinion.

I think you're confusing disagreement with that opinion with "criticizing for posting the opinion". Again, that blog entry I mentioned "Can Opinions Be Wrong" dealt directly with that confusion. I want to find other people's opinions. I track your blog because you have some of the clearest and most thoughtful opinions in the blog section, IMO. I'm just discussing where I disagree, or might disagree, or would like clarification/expanding on. You are not being reprimanded in the slightest.

Of course, if I see you using an actual logical fallacy, I'll call you on it. But I don't think you were.

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.

The reason I reacted that way to the blog comment is based on why I do what I do -- Debates and complaints used to be a subject much like religion on BZPower. It was impossible to discuss them without flamewars breaking out, and complaint topics pretty much always got closed. So we sorta got an unfair reputation of stifling debate. (This was before blogs, keep in mind.)

Well, being a logician, I decided I should try to "moderate" such complaint topics (as in a debate moderator, not a forum moderator), challenge people to think through things in ways they maybe weren't, rather than just react emotionally and jump to conclusions like "I hate this; LEGO is evil for doing it". In doing so, my hope was actually that I could keep these topics civil enough to remain open, so that complaints could keep being posted. Because -- what if one of those complaints really was a real problem?

Since I began doing this, BZPower's complaint topics have remained open for the most part, partly due to my logician's perspective "moderating" them, and also thanks to others who have also started doing the same thing. I am quite proud of that accomplishment, and it's why I work so hard to keep it up. So if you think I'm somehow criticizing the right to post negative opinions, you're dead wrong -- I'm trying to protect it.

When blogs started up, I've seen an unfortunate trend to sometimes treat them as if they are somehow exempt from that kind of debate-moderation simply because they're not a topic. That is dangerous because it can lead to some illogical negative ideas (and positive) getting so hard-wired into people's brains that we, again, get what we had before and it explodes at the most inopportune moment. Could rip BZPower apart as it's ripped many other forums apart, as I have witnessed. So I'm pretty adamant that we should all treat blogs pretty much the same as we do topics, and hold them to the same standards we would a debate when it comes to opinions. In order to protect your right to voice these kinds of blog entries without flame wars erupting.

Also note, nowhere did I say your view didn't matter. It's because I think it might that I'm bothering to discuss this.

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.

No offense taken, ToM. I want to make it crystal clear that I respect you immensely, as I do all staff members and indeed, pretty much anyone I talk to on here, heh. I accept blame for not communicating all this very well.

[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.

I see. Yes, I misunderstood you there.

(Note, board is whining that I have two many quotes, so I'ma double posting here. )

Nonononono. Don't you guys pull this with me. I have never said the Nuva were great sets--in fact, I'm not that fond of them. You're trying to pin a stereotype on me.

I get this a lot, and it always puzzles me -- it sounds a little as if you (and others) are mistakenly pinning onto me the idea that I am pinning anything onto you. I can't speak for Aanchir, but that was not my intent. I was using it as an example, nothing more.

I'm saying, you're right that the Nuva are less original than the Inika, or Metru, or Mata. But at the same time, that's nothing new, and there's really no way around it, as the Nuva, Takanuva, Hagah, Lhikan, Mahri, Lesovikk, and even Toa Ignika demonstrate.

Thus, if you keep them within that context, they are original. Just as the Hagah were or the Nuva were, etc.

My point that they are more original than the Nuva were was a side point that this discussion reminded me of, not directed at you. Sorry if that was confusing.

LEGO has a good reason for reusing the same pieces,

 

Which would be what?

Gotta call you out on this one, Smeag -- surely you can think of some yourself?

For one, limited budget given that they are already making more new pieces nowadays than ever before (roughly, I dunno about comparing to 2007 as that had a lot too, but don't forget we haven't seen all the 2008 sets yet so we don't know what's been allocated to those). For two, people have been asking for more old pieces in new colors for a long time; LEGO is now doing that. For three, the pieces fill the need in those instances (in the set designers' opinions, not necessarily mine in each case), so there's no urgent need to spend money on new pieces just to do it -- there's a much greater repertoire of Bionicle pieces to choose from now than there were a few years ago, so less need to do what they did from 2002-2005, making sixcloned new leg pieces for a whole team, for example.

And possibly other reasons, but those stand out to me.

How are they better than you could have logically expected? You're just saying things without giving examples to back them up, which is another cardinal mistake according to Bones.

I'll agree with you there, Smeag -- I dunno if I'll use the word "expected", but I was hoping for several things that I "logically" thought they could do, like more cool style on the new projectile weapon, new chest armor for Toa, etc. as I've outlined in my most recent blog entry. (See, examples. )

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.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying these sets, these specific sets, don't display originality at all, because they are copies in design (and right down to the pieces, too, in a lot of places) to the past two years' sets.

Again, gotta disagree still with this. This "copy" strategy you mention has been used three seperate times since 2002. See above. Again, you're talking out of context -- the Inika, Metru, and Mata were the most original out of that context. Would you agree?

What I think you need to understand is that the Hagah strategy, of copying a basic design of the main recent sets, is done in order to allocate money to other things, especially new pieces for other sets besides the heroes. Look at 2001, 2004, and 2006, and look at where most of the new pieces are -- they're with the Toa (and to a lesser extent, the canister villains except during 2001 when there were no canister villains). Look at 2002, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2008 -- the new pieces are primarily with the Bohrok, Rahkshi, Visorak, Barraki, and now Phantoka (or whatever the name is, lol; calling them that to not be so spoilery...).

The main exception is 2005, which broke this pattern with a Toa shape that hasn't been copied since then. Apparently for storyline reasons.

Would I like less copied designs in the newer Toa? Sure, and I've said so many times. But is it a problem? Not convinced of that.

I understand that the kids these days aren't into the "technicism" style (which always baffles me; when I was young, nothing seemed cooler than a toy that could actually do something...but I guess times change).

Hang on here -- I'm seeing the "new fans" fallacy here, if I'm reading you right. The Technicism style was less popular than the new style even in 2001, although certainly it is likely expanded since more fans of the "coolified" style have likely been brought in by the newer sets. Otherwise the Rahi should have sold well and the gears should have been popular even back then. But they weren't -- that's why a term like "modernism" doesn't work. It's not that the style is modern that matters -- it's that it's what most fans liked about Bionicle all along. They liked the Kanohi and tools in 2001, for example, or the Toa feet or some of the stylization of the limbs, etc. They mainly didn't like the things that weren't very "stylish", with is what I mean by "technicism".

It's not about doing something or not -- it's the style of what it does. Projectiles are doing something now just as gears were then. But they're a different style. Kids don't have anything against "gimmicks" that do something, as long as they're in the style they happen to prefer. You preferred the style of "technicism" (right?).

But doesn't it seem illogical to assume that something different, but equally appealing, would sell worse?

You're misunderstanding -- it's the "equally appealing" part that is still debatable.

I would predict it would sell better.

I would sell the same... If it's truly equally appealing, it would logically sell the same. Not better, not worse. Wouldn't it?

I get this a lot, and it always puzzles me -- it sounds a little as if you (and others) are mistakenly pinning onto me the idea that I am pinning anything onto you. I can't speak for Aanchir, but that was not my intent. I was using it as an example, nothing more.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and believe you. What I don't understand, however, is why you brought them up at all (considering I had even already voiced my disdain for such clones sets; even though I didn't mention the Nuva, it would be logically assumed that I include them), especially in a such a juxtaposed manner. Whatever your intent, the post came out looking like one in which you were trying to apply a stereotype to me--something that's been done before.

It just seems like pulling those sets into the discussion was entirely irrelevant.

I'm saying, you're right that the Nuva are less original than the Inika, or Metru, or Mata. But at the same time, that's nothing new, and there's really no way around it, as the Nuva, Takanuva, Hagah, Lhikan, Mahri, Lesovikk, and even Toa Ignika demonstrate.

 

Thus, if you keep them within that context, they are original. Just as the Hagah were or the Nuva were, etc.

Okay, I truly don't understand what you mean by this "context."

What I'm saying, put extremely simply, is "Nuva/Kal/Mahri/Newva = bad clones! Not original!"

My point that they are more original than the Nuva were was a side point that this discussion reminded me of, not directed at you. Sorry if that was confusing.

Oh, okay, I get that now; thanks. I'm still confused what this "context" you speak of though.

For one, limited budget given that they are already making more new pieces nowadays than ever before (roughly, I dunno about comparing to 2007 as that had a lot too, but don't forget we haven't seen all the 2008 sets yet so we don't know what's been allocated to those). For two, people have been asking for more old pieces in new colors for a long time; LEGO is now doing that. For three, the pieces fill the need in those instances (in the set designers' opinions, not necessarily mine in each case), so there's no urgent need to spend money on new pieces just to do it -- there's a much greater repertoire of Bionicle pieces to choose from now than there were a few years ago, so less need to do what they did from 2002-2005, making sixcloned new leg pieces for a whole team, for example.

 

And possibly other reasons, but those stand out to me.

I'm all for re-using old bricks in new sets and I love getting pieces in different colors. What I do not like, however, is having them used in the exact same ways every time. I'd rather see them used creatively in all kinds of different sets, even outside Bionicle--look to Lewa Nuva's air katana, countless bohrok handshields, rahkshi spines, metruan limbs, et cetera--all have been used in many ways that are different than the original intended use. Not only is this much more interesting, it can give people new ideas for MOCing and such. At its core, my problem is that Lego is a toy line built on principles of creativity, yet it's failing to display or encourage creativity with its new sets

Again, gotta disagree still with this. This "copy" strategy you mention has been used three seperate times since 2002. See above. Again, you're talking out of context -- the Inika, Metru, and Mata were the most original out of that context. Would you agree?

Of course I'd agree--that's what I've been saying. The Mata, Metru, Hordika, and Inika, though all of varying levels of quality, are original. The Nuva, Mahri, and Newva are not.

What I think you need to understand is that the Hagah strategy, of copying a basic design of the main recent sets, is done in order to allocate money to other things, especially new pieces for other sets besides the heroes. Look at 2001, 2004, and 2006, and look at where most of the new pieces are -- they're with the Toa (and to a lesser extent, the canister villains except during 2001 when there were no canister villains). Look at 2002, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2008 -- the new pieces are primarily with the Bohrok, Rahkshi, Visorak, Barraki, and now Phantoka (or whatever the name is, lol; calling them that to not be so spoilery...).

Okay, the difference with the hagah being clones is that they were oneshot sets, not entire waves. I don't really have any issue with sets like Lhikan or the Hagah or Lessovik being clones of the current toa-type.

Would I like less copied designs in the newer Toa? Sure, and I've said so many times. But is it a problem? Not convinced of that.

But how many rehashes does it take before it becomes a "problem"? I don't see an end in sight. :|

Hang on here -- I'm seeing the "new fans" fallacy here, if I'm reading you right. The Technicism style was less popular than the new style even in 2001, although certainly it is likely expanded since more fans of the "coolified" style have likely been brought in by the newer sets. Otherwise the Rahi should have sold well and the gears should have been popular even back then. But they weren't -- that's why a term like "modernism" doesn't work. It's not that the style is modern that matters -- it's that it's what most fans liked about Bionicle all along. They liked the Kanohi and tools in 2001, for example, or the Toa feet or some of the stylization of the limbs, etc. They mainly didn't like the things that weren't very "stylish", with is what I mean by "technicism".

You misunderstand me. This isn't a "new fans/old fans" thing. This is a generational gap thing. When I was the age of the Bionicle target audience, I and my peers loved cool, functional toys. Man, if something did something when you pushed a button, it was the coolest thing. People in that age group nowadays (the general immediately following mine, depending on how you measure such things), however, don't seem to enjoy that as much. And that's cool. I'm not going to contest that, because I'm not in the target age group.

The only, only only only only, thing I'm complaining about here is the problem of the clone sets and I still don't see how anyone would logically consider a clone superior to an original set with the same appealing aesthetic style. You don't need to bother trying to dissect my posts to detect other complaints in what I'm writing, because they aren't there.

It's not about doing something or not -- it's the style of what it does. Projectiles are doing something now just as gears were then. But they're a different style. Kids don't have anything against "gimmicks" that do something, as long as they're in the style they happen to prefer. You preferred the style of "technicism" (right?).

Inasmuch as it having more complex construction and more varied and interesting gimmicks, yes, though I have no problem with the "modern" design aesthetic (except in the department of masks; I liked the more tribal feel of most of the older Kanohi). The reason I have such a fascination with the three "titan" sets of '02 is due to their beautifully complex, ingenious constructions. Pieces connect in those sets in manners I never would have imagined, and when building them--which is definitely not a short, slap-together affair for any of them--you see that none of the pieces are just for decor: everything is a small but essential piece contributing to the whole, and the whole looked really cool, too (THAT EXO-TOA! THOSE GIANT BAHRAG JAWS!). That, to me, is a truly beautiful design.

But I understand that the target audience prefers a short, forgettable construction and limited functionality. The loss of those, though sad to me, is not what I complain about. That would just be silly.

I haveta make a quickie reply for now, more later:

The only, only only only only, thing I'm complaining about here is the problem of the clone sets and I still don't see how anyone would logically consider a clone superior to an original set with the same appealing aesthetic style. You don't need to bother trying to dissect my posts to detect other complaints in what I'm writing, because they aren't there.

I'm seeing a confusion over a term a lot these past few months, and I wish we could get this cleared up. The issue of "clonism" that LEGO decided needed addressed was when six members of one group were all cloned.

The issue raised by the Kal, which is what you are also talking about with the Nuva/Mahri/Newva, is usually called repetition, rather than clonism (or it used to, back when the issue of clonism was still a problem).

Look at the sets now, you can see they're not clones in that sense. Clonism was fixed. We clear on that?

As to "repetition", I am clear that that's what you're saying. More later...

I'm seeing a confusion over a term a lot these past few months, and I wish we could get this cleared up. The issue of "clonism" that LEGO decided needed addressed was when six members of one group were all cloned.

 

The issue raised by the Kal, which is what you are also talking about with the Nuva/Mahri/Newva, is usually called repetition, rather than clonism (or it used to, back when the issue of clonism was still a problem).

 

Look at the sets now, you can see they're not clones in that sense. Clonism was fixed. We clear on that?

 

As to "repetition", I am clear that that's what you're saying. More later...

Now, Bonesiii, we don't need to mince words and muddle ourselves in semantics (especially fandom semantics; I speak English, not Fandom). We're both much smarter than that.

You understood exactly what I was saying; trying to chastise me for using linguistically synonymous words just distracts the discussion from its point. Let's please stick to the topic at hand rather than allowing the entire discussion to become a mess of irrelevant tangents. That would be highly illogical of us.

Smeag, man -- you don't need to be so defensive. I think you're forgetting that I'm not talking just to you -- blog comments are just as public as forum posts, so I design them to be understandable to an audience as well as the person I'm talking to.

I've seen the term used the "new" way several times in the last two months, so I know you're not the only person using it, and by clearing up how I mean it, I can prevent the need for clarification later. Once it's cleared up, we can then better understand what we are both saying with the topic at hand. And in this case, my pointing out the difference between the two has a point -- though in all fairness, it's directed at a recent entry in Ikki's blog more than at anyone here.

Remember the saying that 90% (or whatever) of disagreement is caused by confusion over terms, so it's wise to take a step back now and then and define how the terms are being used to avoid any possible equivocation fallacies/confusion by readers.

No need to be defensive about it. You'll notice I was not defensive when ToM stepped back and did the same thing earlier; I commended that as a wise choice, and I stand by that statement.

All you had to do was answer the question "yes."

And I don't think it's out of line for me to point out that I don't appreciate my responses constantly being replied to with some sort of "now now" comment. I don't mind honest reactions -- I use 'em too -- but that particular one is getting mighty old. The way I'm posting these comments is the way that has been honed over years of debate now, but of course no single strategy of speech is going to resonate the same way with everybody; people are like snowflakes, as I say. (Again, this is not directed only at you either, Smeag. I am demonstrating that I am fully familiar with this particular topic by posting a complete and coherent explication of that topic, as it were.)

When you see making these kinds of posts, it's carefully designed with several factors in mind; I'm not just posting random thoughts. But I understand, of course, that that fact isn't inherently obvious. I guess it'll be time for another blog entry I can link to, sigh... (Not that I don't make mistakes!)