Um, what makes you think they did?

Pirakahrinika!

Just that.

-Ikk

Dude,you think that's all that's wrong?

Toa olda=>toa nuva=>new nuva.

Toa metru=>hordika=>toa metru.

Toa inika=>mahri.

Toa hagah=>rahaga

Toa nidhiki=>spider nidhiki

All teams or parts of a team end up transformed.Basic(repetitive) mutation is standard for all Toa.I think I'de rather stay a matoran then.

The Kal and other clonism was characterized by tools looking almost identical, with the case of the Kal, nearly identical faces (just slightly different patterns, as I recall), and the whole team looking mostly identical. All of the sets you showed are miles more differentiated than any Kal -- isn't that obvious?

Re-used pieces are also nothing new. 2001 had many from Slizer/Throwbots, not to mention just Technic. It's the overall design that was the problem with the Kal; there was so little difference in the whole thing between each other and the past Bohrok. Look at a Piraka's spines, though, and compare them to Kopaka Nuva's wings, and it's crystal clear they are not clones of each other.

Also, you're comparing Bohrok, which were a unique "out there" shape with humanoids. Humanoids are "special" -- because we are humanoid (obviously), that's one shape that it's safer to return to again and again. With Kal, it was an unusual shape the first time, but the second time, it was just copying.

As I put it in my blog entry yesterday:

I was hoping for a few more new pieces than we see here, but old pieces in new colors are cool too. The best part of that is that now, seven years in, Bionicle has finally built up a good collection of varied pieces for legs, arms, feet, etc. This makes it much less expensive to reduce clonism today than in 2003 (for example), and is something I've been looking forward to for a long time. Still, almost all of the limb and feet pieces are recycled (possible exception being Pohatu's arms).

Finally, remember that many of the usual "complainers", especially in the MOCing community, on here have been asking for more reused pieces in new colors. But can't please everybody.

Good question, though.

Edit:

Dude,you think that's all that's wrong?

Toa olda=>toa nuva=>new nuva.

Toa metru=>hordika=>toa metru.

Toa inika=>mahri.

Toa hagah=>rahaga

Toa nidhiki=>spider nidhiki

All teams or parts of a team end up transformed.Basic(repetitive) mutation is standard for all Toa.I think I'de rather stay a matoran then.

KDT, it's "wrong" in your eyes, because of your own tastes -- it shouldn't be surprising that others see things differently. But I believe Ikki has pointed out other things he dislikes about these before, and nowhere here did he say this was "all".

Edit: MUST you have a sidebar on each side of your blog, Ikki? Really cuts into the comment width...

Nonononono... I got naught against transformations, mate! I DO, however, have aught against clonism, whatever the story excuse. Similarities within set groups are great, perfect, excellent, but 30+ nigh-identical sets in three years? Please, no!

Oh, and regarding that trade of ours...

EDITSIES (oh great): bones, you stalker. I'll reply in a minute.

EDITSIES 2: Actually, it'll have to be later tonight... dinner's up an' ready! For the quick record, I lovelovelove Tanma...

-Ikk

It's very subjective, Mandra, like a lot of the things you and I tend to disagree on. To you, it's a bad thing no matter what the form, apparently. To me, it's the degree of it -- the Nuva are clearly far, far less cloned than most sets in the past, let alone the Kal, so slight instances of it aren't that bad to me. Ideally, though, I'd still like even less of it.

But even that might just be me. Some people actually like clonism, so it's actually possible this is the level of balance between clonism and nonclonism that most prefer. My sense is most dislike clonism, but they don't mind a slight amount of it in some ways so that budget can be allocated for new parts to reduce it in others and for other reasons like making new pieces for small sets, etc. (like the Matoran 2008, for example).

(I came up with the answer. )

Request heeded, bones.

I think where we differ is our view on clonism; whereas you approach the look and features of the set in question, I tend to look at construction mainly. Objectively speaking, it seems logical to say that the canister sets of this three-year arc are quite differentiated in terms of look, whereas they are very much similar, practically to the point of being clones, when it comes to build. Good, we're halfway to forty-two!

So, a well-reasoned guess could be that the majority of LEGO's fanbase cares little to zip about how the sets are built, and tons about how they look when actually built. That seems to match the fact that sets have gotten rid of complicated builds and likewise functions. That's interesting. I wonder why these kids are into a building toy in the first place?

Another intriguing question is, would it hurt LEGO to actually try out something groundbreakingly new in terms of construction? Obviously the sets can still be plenty humanoid, but sporting different techniques when it comes to assembling body, legs, arms, etc.

I hope and pray (actually just hope) that some of these things ARE going to be tried out after this arc ends... amusingly, the Barraki and seemingly the Phantoka-Makuta do actually feature, in part, new methods like I described. So, I would be mightily obliged if this began to appear in the hero sets as well fairly soon... who ever said you cannot please old and new fans alike?

Oh, BTW, I love the abundance of Old Pieces In New Colors (OPINC??), even if I may not have use for all of them. Just look at that orange Mata foot! And the Av-Matoran are delightfully sweet, as long as their bodies consist of more than one piece... as for the Phantoka, I'm so far kinda undecided -- I'll await differently angled pics for those.

-Ikk

I think where we differ is our view on clonism; whereas you approach the look and features of the set in question, I tend to look at construction mainly.

Yeah, seems so.

Objectively speaking, it seems logical to say that the canister sets of this three-year arc are quite differentiated in terms of look, whereas they are very much similar, practically to the point of being clones, when it comes to build. Good, we're halfway to forty-two!

Yes, that is more like how I would word it. That would explain why many who, like you, focus a lot on construction, have been saying basically that these aren't original, are cloned, etc. That's been puzzling me, as even at a glance it's clear they're not clones. But in terms of construction, they are pretty close, yes.

Hopefully I don't have to rehash all the reasons why.

So, a well-reasoned guess could be that the majority of LEGO's fanbase cares little to zip about how the sets are built, and tons about how they look when actually built. That seems to match the fact that sets have gotten rid of complicated builds and likewise functions.

Yes, correct, quick build preference. Those were the reasons in question, as have been rehashed to death many times over before in debate topics.

That's interesting. I wonder why these kids are into a building toy in the first place?

Yes -- remember that nothing about this says they dislike building -- they prefer a quick build. Most people do, when you think about it, just to a more or lesser degree. I don't mind complex builds myself, but I wouldn't want to have to build a Death Star. Got better things to do with my time that give more payback, yaknow?

So basically, these kids want to get right to playing with something that they built. My theory is that there's a thrill to them in playing out roles (roleplaying, which is what most fans are) with a toy they themselves just snapped together from pieces. So they don't like anything that they see as a waste of time that doesn't appeal to them in the toy, like an unnecessarily complex build or gears, etc.

And as I've observed before, it really shouldn't be surprising, given that Bionicle is a line based highly on both imagination and storyline in an action figure toyline -- combine those two keeping the fact that it's an action figure in mind, and you get roleplaying. Think through what a roleplayer would like best with a construction toy, and you get a quick-build preference. Voila.

(One area I differ from most fans in; I enjoy MOCing a lot more than roleplaying so I can appreciate complex builds.)

Another intriguing question is, would it hurt LEGO to actually try out something groundbreakingly new in terms of construction?

Depends -- in canister sets, or titans, and would it be seen as "needlessly complex" to kids who want the construction toy to be a good action figure, not a fancy construction? It seems doubtful. I'd look for something like that more in the Titans, myself. Also, from what I hear, they just did with Gadunka, which is also, of course, what makes some dislike him so strongly.

Obviously the sets can still be plenty humanoid, but sporting different techniques when it comes to assembling body, legs, arms, etc.

For humanoid hero canister sets? Let's take Toa specifically -- what about them, other than torso design (which is where I would also like more complex builds myself), can be done differently without sacrificing quick and easy builds? And can that be kept up year after year? Or are there really only so many ways to do it within the quick build style?

I'd be interested to hear example ideas.

amusingly, the Barraki and seemingly the Phantoka-Makuta do actually feature, in part, new methods like I described.

Yes, I agree, but notice they do so by sacrificing what fans want in a humanoid hero set -- a noble humanoid hero. That works for them because they aren't heroes, they're villains. But I think that explains why you don't see that so much in the heroes. Pity, yes.

So, I would be mightily obliged if this began to appear in the hero sets as well fairly soon...

Well, that brings up the Toa Hordika. I wanted more of that in them, but later found out they actually sold poorly because they had too much of it, from most fans' POVs. (Well, I didn't want the gears, but I mean more unique builds making them less humanoid -- I wanted them to be more like Rahi, which is what storywise they were.) Most fans wanted them to look more standard noble hero.