Clone sets

[Zidonaro]

Do you like the clone sets concept ? Why ?

Don't like ? Why ?

Like it only under certain conditions ? Why ?

 

Let's discuss the use and practicality of it !

 

I personally like it, tho only for Toa/Matoran. There's some magic in seeing that line of heroes having the same exact build, only differing in colors, masks and tools. But I do believe villains would be better if they were different, like Hero Factory's villains.

 

But that's only me. What about you ?

[Axilus Prime]

No, because you don't really get much out of buying them all when they're the same. A degree of uniqueness should be present. I don't consider the Inika, Metru, Mahri, Phantoka, or Mistika clones, because while simple and similar they have that degree of uniqueness. Barraki obviously weren't clones. Piraka were though.

 

Bohrok definitely were, but it made some sense for them. Not that I'd ever buy more than I needed to make a Kaita that involved Tahnok. When sets are absolutely clones, I definitely don't want any more of them than I need for a combiner.

[Munty]

Do you mean like the Toa mata being the same sets with different masks/weapons? And Bohrok being essentially identical? I think this works for the Toa in storyline terms, especially in those first few years. I definitely prefer the clone Toa to the wierd mess they made with the Phantoka/Mistika year. Even the Toa from the same line had nothing in common and looked wierd and disjointed (despite some of them having pretty cool builds) I agree somewhat regarding enemies though, the Barraki in particular gave us 6 very different sets as there was really no reason for them all to look the same. That said I prefer the Piraka to the Barraki any day but that's just because I prefer their overal design. If Lego could come up with 6 unique designs that were each as cool as the Piraka build then that would be a great year...

 

Now that we're seeing new releases it's different as I think we epect more from Lego, and we're somewhat used to set diversity from Bionicle now so we don't EXPECT clone Toa anymore. The 2015 sets benefit from being more individually unique (though each design still has it's shortcomings) whereas the Cloned protector sets do very little to ecite me. So I think while Clone sets was once quite a good thing it's pretty much had it's day.

 

NB. From a financial point of view, I expect Lego is fully aware that children are far less likely to get excited enough to buy six sets at a time if they are virtually identical so it makes sense for the new line to be as diverse as possible. I don't like Onua for example, so if all 6 looked like him then they lose out on 6 sales whereas now I can still buy the other 5 happily (though I will of course buy Onua too!) 

[Sad-Machine]

They can give you alot  of varity for parts in diffrent colours but i dont really want to be spending money of the exact same set just recolored.

[Toa Alvarno]

Clone sets are the solw reason I stopped buying after 2003 because I realized I was buying the exact same set in different colors. I hope we can continue to see variety from here on out.

[Taka Nuvia]

Yes and No. For me, it's okay if one year has a certain clone build - as long as the next year does not utilize the exact same clone build with only a tiny variation.

 

Thus I voted yes because if used sensibly, a clone build can create a certain 'unity' in the sets that having vastly different builds does not achieve as easily. (obviously it is possible, in mask and armour design and whatnot, but IMO probably a bit harder to achieve)

[Lyichir]

I voted no. Back in the day I appreciated clone builds for giving a team a unified appearance. But since then I've realized that the lack of a unified aesthetic for teams like the Toa Mahri was less the fault of their diverse builds and more the fault of classic Bionicle parts not forming any sort of consistent system, with different parts being functionally identical but having chaotic, disparate styles. With the CCBS (and especially with the new Bionicle sets), Lego has proven that they can create a consistent and unified aesthetic for characters without having to use the same parts and builds for all of them. The new Bionicle sets are, in my opinion, better than clone builds could ever allow. The new Toa represent a wide range of body types and each provides a unique building experience. But unifying features like their printed/stickered chest plates and masks help to tie them together, and their diversity makes them much more interesting as a group.

[Aanchir]

I had to say no. Don't get me wrong — I do like sets that are meant to go together as a group to have unifying features. The Hero Factory Breakout series was a good example — all the heroes had the same hero cores and similar printed or stickered chest plates. But they were still not clone sets in the same strict sense as the Toa Metru, Vahki, and Bohrok. They had lots of armor and equipment that varied between them, not just their masks and weapons.

 

This latest wave of BIONICLE is also a very good example of how characters can have unifying features without being complete clones. All the Toa have ornate chest patterns, similar gear functions, dual-function weapons, and the new piston shell detail. But they have extremely diverse proportions, and they use their armor pieces and colors in very different ways. Even though they're obviously a team, they don't feel like mere palette swaps or otherwise extremely slight variations on one another. Each Toa has a unique personality that isn't just limited to a couple specialized pieces created to convey that personality. And yet they still end up feeling more unified than the Toa Mahri, whose main unifying traits were their tube-like gills and Cordak Blasters.

[Munty]

*snip*  The new Toa represent a wide range of body types and each provides a unique building experience. *snip*

 

Not sure I agree with that, at all really. I haven't watched all the unboxings and such but it seems to me that for the most part at least they're simply fancier Toa Nuva builds. Don't get me wrong, MUCH fancier Toa Nuva builds but my point is the underlying build seems like it will be quite similar between the new Toa TO A POINT. The final detail layer is where there's a bigger difference but even that doesn't seem hugely different. That said though I think there's just about the right sort of balance in the new sets between keeping them unified and making each one unique. The Phan/Mist Toa had too much of the latter in my opinion so I'm hoping (and expecting) the 2015 sets won't fall into that same trap.

[Banana Gunz]

Honestly, not in any way, shape or form. Every set should be unique in a fair amount of ways to make it worth buying, or else it's just a waste of money for both Lego and their consumers. If I'm getting six matoran, I want each one to be unique in colors, body proportions/shape, tools, masks, and extra little things that make them have more character (Like adding little details that make it more than just an average matoran. Something that makes it particularly special and have meaning).

 

Sure, it's arguable that sometimes it's good to have clone sets because it makes the choice easier to make if a consumer can only get one or so and they don't have to be significantly upset that they're missing out on anything, but I'd rather be able to pick one super cool and special set that's different from other so it means much more to me.

 

Clone sets just aren't a good idea. Every set should be special and have something making it worth buying.

[Rahkshi Lalonde]

Only good if they're bohrok. honestly.

[Pohatu: Uniter of Stone]

The Bohrok and the Kal were nearly totally clones. But somehow, they were also some of the best sets ever. Probably because:

 

• Their "cloneness" is because they are part of a swarm, so getting lots makes it even cooler.
• They could curl up into a ball and roll.
• They could turn into a fierce action figure.
• They had a collectible- Krana.
• They could swing their heads forward to knock off a Toa's, a Matoran's, a Turaga's or even a Rahi's mask.
• They could launch their Krana at the foe, controlling it!
• The Krana gave them powers- just like how the Toa had mask powers.
• Their packaging resembled a pod, and they could be positioned to look like they were sleeping inside it.
• Good price.
• Awesome pieces.

There you go.

[Hasreadit]

I actually do like clone sets to a degree. I like them if what they're cloning is actually worth cloning. For example, I have every Toa with the Metru build ever made, and even though their designs are pretty similar, I like all of them. With the Toa Muva and Mata, their cloniness made them look like a team. Also, the Matoran looking almost the same makes perfect sense to me. With swarm villains, clones also make sense because swarms should look the same. Even though I'm just buying sets with different colors and the same design, it just doesn't bother me.

 

Also, with non-clone sets, some of them just aren't very good. For example, while Ehlek, Carapar, Hahli Mahri, and Nuparu Mahri are all great sets, Hewki and Pridak and meh...

[Aanchir]

 

*snip*  The new Toa represent a wide range of body types and each provides a unique building experience. *snip*

 

Not sure I agree with that, at all really. I haven't watched all the unboxings and such but it seems to me that for the most part at least they're simply fancier Toa Nuva builds. Don't get me wrong, MUCH fancier Toa Nuva builds but my point is the underlying build seems like it will be quite similar between the new Toa TO A POINT. The final detail layer is where there's a bigger difference but even that doesn't seem hugely different. That said though I think there's just about the right sort of balance in the new sets between keeping them unified and making each one unique. The Phan/Mist Toa had too much of the latter in my opinion so I'm hoping (and expecting) the 2015 sets won't fall into that same trap.

 

I'd say they're much more diverse than the Toa Nuva (assuming you're talking about the 2002 versions). For starters, their proportions are much more diverse. Among the Toa Nuva, only Pohatu Nuva and Onua Nuva had very different proportions than the others. They were both 20 modules tall instead of 23 modules tall, and their necks were hunched forward. Pohatu Nuva also had unusually wide hips, and Onua Nuva had unusually short arms.

 

Among the new Toa, Pohatu is the smallest and simplest of the Toa, 23 modules tall with shoulders 9 modules wide. Gali and Lewa are both two modules taller, but Lewa's shoulders are also raised up two modules (level with his neck joint), giving him a slightly more ape-like appearance. Kopaka is a module taller than Gali and Lewa. His shoulder joints are one module higher on his torso and two modules wider than Gali's. Tahu is one module taller still than Kopaka (if you're keeping count, that makes him 27 modules tall), with shoulders the same height on his torso as Gali's or Pohatu's and the same width as Kopaka's. Finally, Onua is actually about the same height as Pohatu, but arguably the largest of the new Toa. His shoulder joints are a whopping 15 modules wide, and raised three modules higher than Pohatu's (slightly above his neck joint). His chest is much larger to match.

 

Besides proportions, you're right that the main differences are in the Toa's armor, but I think that makes a big difference. Lewa features spiked armor pieces to fill out his shoulders so the gearbox is less exposed. Gali and Tahu both have armor on their shoulders that moves with their arms. Tahu has large armor plates on his lower legs. Kopaka has beefy armor on his shoulders and lower legs that give him an extremely defensive look. Onua, of course, has his giant chest plate and some massive armor pieces on his shoulders (which are mounted in a rather ingenious way). It's also worth noting that their color schemes are very diverse, both in terms of what colors they use and how they're organized.

 

I think it will be a lot easier for the new Toa to feel like a cohesive team than the Phantoka/Mistika, in part due to the differences in the building system. In the old BIONICLE, different beam and shell pieces could have very different aesthetics, so Tahu's torso ended up looking very different from Lewa's, which in turn looked very different from Kopaka's and Pohatu's. With more of the parts having the same textures and motifs, the aesthetic differences between the new Toa will not be as divisive.

[Nescent]

I like them, but I'm glad that they are gone. There's something special about owning every Bohrok, every Toa Metru, etc. The only clone sets I really disliked were the Vahki...waaay too similar and with too few pieces.

 

Clone sets do look more like a team in my opinion, but the new system is much more interesting and I'm much more compelled to buy every set when each one is unique.

[Cambion]

i didn't mind clone sets back in the day, because i was a kid and i also didn't know any different. but when the Barraki came along, i realized that i much preferred non-clone sets. it made them more interesting to build, and having pieces unique to each set was much cooler than having the same pieces in six different colours.

 

i do think some of the clone sets (Bohrok, Kal, Rahkshi) were just fine as clones, because those types of creatures are supposed to be nearly identical. but having all the sets be clones is just kind of ridiculous. i would have loved it if the Piraka had varying builds, for instance, or the Toa Hordika.

[bioniclepluslotr]

I buy for the build and display. If they're all the same, I don't see any reason I should keep buying the same thing over and over. I realized that after the Bohrok Kal, I stopped buying more than two from each wave up until Barraki, when they changed things up, and I have them all since.

[Click]

I actually voted yes, to an extent. Clone builds, as others have said, give a unity to the team, and it makes sense for a Team of Toa from similar backgrounds would look similar, like the Mata, Nuva, and Metru. Besides in story, it's a great way to stock up on parts in various colors for MOCs. Because of the Bohrok, Mahritoran, and other sets, we can build a huge diversity of Matoran builds in many different color combinations. For some sets, like the Mata and Bohrok, cloning really worked because getting a lot of the same sets in new colors was justified by something.

 

I will admit that clone builds can go too far. The Nuva would be my case in point. They used practically the same builds as their Mata counterparts with a new limb piece and armor slapped on. The diversity of the Mata builds, brought about using only switching the position of a few ball sockets and limb pieces, was gone. The Metru at least had a lot of new parts in new colors.

 

And then not cloning can go too far as well, such as the Mahri. The designers picked a few parts and then just went from there. Each one has a drastically different aesthetic and color scheme, and if you saw them sitting in a line with a bunch of other sets, the only way to really match them up would be the tubing and process of elimination. The Inika were near clones with a constant design, but they were far too diverse.

[Toa Smoke Monster]

I voted no. I believe a set should have some variety in its design when compared to others in its wave of sets. That helps it standout more IMO. Just having fix recolored versions of the same set with only their masks and/or weapons being different became really boring after a while when it came to purchasing sets. I'm glad that they changed their designs from one another in the later years of Bionicle, and I'm very glad they are continuing to do so in the reboot.

[Irrie]

Well, it depends on the context. 

 

The Vahki, Bohrok, Bohrok Va, and Bohrok-Kal were good clone sets because they were supposed to be robots. That made sense. Others like the Visorak were not good as clone sets, since they were a species, not a group of machines. 

Edited November 9, 2014 by The Irrational Rock

[Sumiki]

Yes, for building reasons; I'd rather have new molds in a variety of colors.
 
From a strictly aesthetic viewpoint, too, the clone sets were some of the best. Everyone gives the Inika build a hard time, but when it came out, it was one of the best designs the designers had yet come up with. Why else do you think they used it so often? It was a very versatile part because of its connection points and was superior to every other pre-made torso part we'd ever gotten; there's a reason it stuck around when the Piraka torso was phased out.
 
On the flip side, having all the Toa from a line look different can be a plus if variety is what you look for in sets, and I'm sure that the clone builds kept some fans from purchasing more than one set from a particular wave. On the flip side, the money that you might get from investing in non-clone builds might not be worth it if sales don't go up to at least offset the cost of production. From a business point of view, I see why clone sets were so popular.

[Aanchir]

On the flip side, having all the Toa from a line look different can be a plus if variety is what you look for in sets, and I'm sure that the clone builds kept some fans from purchasing more than one set from a particular wave. On the flip side, the money that you might get from investing in non-clone builds might not be worth it if sales don't go up to at least offset the cost of production. From a business point of view, I see why clone sets were so popular.[/font]

Non-clone sets don't necessarily cost more to produce than clone sets. They just need more effort put into their individual designs. For instance, new molds are some of the biggest expenses when designing a series of sets. The Toa Mata had just seven new body part molds, six new mask molds, and six new weapon molds. The Toa Metru had eleven new body part molds, six new mask molds, and six new weapon molds. But the Toa Mata were unquestionably the more diverse sets as far as their designs were concerned.

 

In fact, part of the reason why clone sets even exist in the first place is that using a specialized new mold across multiple sets helps offset the cost better than keeping it exclusive to a particular set. That's part of why "cloned" designs don't tend to show up nearly as often in LEGO themes that contain fewer new molds.

Edited November 9, 2014 by Aanchir

[Zeb]

I voted no. But only because I prefer that sets have more variation other than just colors & a few swapped out parts. I still like the sets themselves like the Bohrok, but I like it better when each set has something unique to it.

[Zidonaro]

Yes and No. For me, it's okay if one year has a certain clone build - as long as the next year does not utilize the exact same clone build with only a tiny variation.

That's exactly what I wanted to say, only didn't know how to...

[Ford]

I don't mind clone sets. I like the fact that I can get the same parts, but in a different color. It comes in handy when you're a purist MOC builder like me. I tried using rubbing alcohol before, and it didn't go well...

Let's just say that the part I was trying to get the printing off of shattered to bits at the connection points and was rendered pretty much unusable. :3

Edited November 11, 2014 by Fordianl

[bioniclepluslotr]

As someone who doesn't MOC and doesn't care about part colors, clone sets leave a lot to be desired.

[Nidhiki of the Shadows]

Sure I guess. I did like having six sets with different colours of the same pieces, for variation. It also didn't hurt to have some variation in height, design of piece count as well. The thing is, clone sets get boring. The Toa Mata/Nuva were great because of subtle differences that added variety and character, such as Onua and Pohatu. When you get six of the exact same sets like the Rahkshi, Vahki, or Bohrok Kal that have the same secondary colour scheme and a 100% identical build throughout, it starts to get boring. One thing that clone sets did however, was make everything very organized.

 

Thankfully Bionicle starting experimenting canister set variation more come 2007 which introduced some of the most diverse teams such as the Barraki and Toa Mahri, which showed organization even without following the exact same builds, which was an impressive feat.

 

I don't mind clone sets but variety is nice. 

 

-NotS

[bioniclepluslotr]

Sure I guess. I did like having six sets with different colours of the same pieces, for variation. It also didn't hurt to have some variation in height, design of piece count as well. The thing is, clone sets get boring. The Toa Mata/Nuva were great because of subtle differences that added variety and character, such as Onua and Pohatu. When you get six of the exact same sets like the Rahkshi, Vahki, or Bohrok Kal that have the same secondary colour scheme and a 100% identical build throughout, it starts to get boring. One thing that clone sets did however, was make everything very organized.

 

Thankfully Bionicle starting experimenting canister set variation more come 2007 which introduced some of the most diverse teams such as the Barraki and Toa Mahri, which showed organization even without following the exact same builds, which was an impressive feat.

 

I don't mind clone sets but variety is nice. 

 

-NotS

For things like Bohrok and Vahki that were supposed to be mass produced, it seemed odd to only have one of each kind, where in the story they're usually massed within their own types. But then again, it's not fun buying a bunch of the same set.

[Tuuli]

I liked it for some of the earlier sets, Toa, turaga and matoran. That's just about it, for me. I mean the Mata's/metrus

[Iblis]

I voted no. (Fine to do it with one group of villains in 1 wave: Bohrok = okay, Bohrok-Kal = bad, ^{Rahkshi = if it were today I would expect more variation + maybe another 6 months if the Kal-clones still happened.})

 

But in all honesty over the course of two waves I would like to see a good 90% of pieces in the six main &/or secondary colours ^(etc.) or them in a 'neutral colour' ^{(typically gold or or silver or grey)}, so I think this allows for a plenty of sets comparable to the Barraki in terms of diverse design; however I am also entirely open to a series of sets that all use 90+% the same parts but use them in a very different way so that the complete sets look quite different ^{(but can still share an aesthetic)} but you get the bonus of having a majority of pieces in different colours!

& I think that last one is a lot more viable now that we have sets of 60-90 pieces; easier to dedicate the same piece to different roles and not look to awkward. Mind you I wouldn't count any of the Voya Nui Matoran as this because even though they had a few different pieces they general size and shape of their torsos was always the same; they were given a bit of a different feel but fundamentally it just made them seem just deformed compared to one another...

 

Generally though clone sets are usually going to occur most at the Matoran -> Protector level; so if they aren't going to actually release more than ~3 pieces that aren't in the other sets that wave then they might as well just go the 2008 route ^{(I think that year had some good ideas; they just didn't work out...)} of having different things entirely e.g. 2 Matoran & 2 Hydruka. (of which getting the pieces in other colours isn't really an issue as they all came out previously ^{(biggest exception being 'Toa Hagah' Masks)}. Sometimes this wouldn't make sense from a story perspective - e.g. the Protectors, & set wise that works as they are good sources to be cannibalised for parts.

 

Generally I think Complete Clones are essentially always a bad idea; the biggest exception I have for this is for the Toa, Bohrok & Rahkshi; that's obviously nostalgia & the thrill of extra joints affecting it. For un-mutated Matoran/Toa/Turaga I would generally overlook it because back then I thought it would either be too many pieces to bulk things up in different spots on different Toa, & they couldn't be too different as having mutated ^{(different to 'upgraded'/'transformed')} Toa all the time could be tiring, but these Toa show that that is no longer an issue, & if people are going to call these Toa clones then I suppose I don't have a problem with clones.

 

Honestly I think it's going to be much less of an issue now just because of piece count & the creators are going to want to make things interesting. IMO; it's just going to be how much less

Edited November 12, 2014 by Iblis

[fishers64]

I vote yes - with today's CCBS, all sets are clones and at the same time none of them are. CCBS makes it so you want like ten of each part in different colors, and clone sets are a great way to get that. 

[Aanchir]

I vote yes - with today's CCBS, all sets are clones and at the same time none of them are.

That's a very weird and slightly confusing way of putting things. Personally, I don't feel like CCBS sets really qualify as clone sets most of the time. There are some that are very close to being clone sets, like the 2011 Hero Factory heroes, but most of the time sets these days are a lot more diverse than sets I'd consider "clone sets" such as the Toa Metru or Toa Inika.

 

I think if I had to compare CCBS sets from the past couple years to sets from BIONICLE G1, I think one of the closest comparisons might be the Voya Nui Matoran. They all use a lot of the same sorts of parts and textures. Most don't rely extensively on new or unique parts. There are certain building techniques that they use very frequently. And every now and then you even have a couple sets that are near-identical like Garan and Velika (in the new BIONICLE, that would probably be the Protector of Jungle and the Protector of Stone, who have similar weapons and identical body proportions). But the designs still generally tend to be very diverse, using the same parts in a variety of different ways.

[fishers64]

 

I vote yes - with today's CCBS, all sets are clones and at the same time none of them are.

That's a very weird and slightly confusing way of putting things. Personally, I don't feel like CCBS sets really qualify as clone sets most of the time. There are some that are very close to being clone sets, like the 2011 Hero Factory heroes, but most of the time sets these days are a lot more diverse than sets I'd consider "clone sets" such as the Toa Metru or Toa Inika.

They all use the same bones, torso bone, etc, and the same armor shells. They just use different combinations/colors of each of those things. 

 

I'm not saying that they haven't introduced some new stuff (they have). But 2011 Willaim Furno has the a similar torso bone to 2015 Tahu, they both have red shells in the same shape, so they're clones. But good old Furno looks quite different from 2015 Tahu - they changed his torso shell, his mask, weapons, added a gear function, and behold Tahu. It's the same build - build legs, attach legs to torso, torso shell, head/mask, weapon. (Tahu has gear function too, but yeah.)

 

If you compare 2011 Furno to all of his other 2011 counterparts, the difference is apparent (head, color, weapon) which is exactly the same as the Toa Metru. Clones. All of 2015 Tahu's friends have (mask, color, weapon) changes. All have similar builds.

 

At the same time, none of them are clones. All of them have minor parts/building differences. Evo's big tank arm is different from Furno of that year - saying it's a clone of him is wrong. Tahu has a different gear function than Onua. But they all use the same parts and the same basic structure. They tack on more parts that are differentiating than the Metru did, but the basic idea of it doesn't change much.

 

Keep in mind I'm not talking about Dragon Bolt or Thronraxx here, unlike the Heroes who had big clone tendencies. I was pretty confident 2012-2014 that if I bought one set out of the wave, I had bought them all in terms of building experience for the most part. There were some exceptions like Speeda, and I had to resist Furno Jet Machine, but still.  

[Aanchir]

 

 

I vote yes - with today's CCBS, all sets are clones and at the same time none of them are.

That's a very weird and slightly confusing way of putting things. Personally, I don't feel like CCBS sets really qualify as clone sets most of the time. There are some that are very close to being clone sets, like the 2011 Hero Factory heroes, but most of the time sets these days are a lot more diverse than sets I'd consider "clone sets" such as the Toa Metru or Toa Inika.

 

They all use the same bones, torso bone, etc, and the same armor shells. They just use different combinations/colors of each of those things. 

 

I'm not saying that they haven't introduced some new stuff (they have). But 2011 Willaim Furno has the a similar torso bone to 2015 Tahu, they both have red shells in the same shape, so they're clones. But good old Furno looks quite different from 2015 Tahu - they changed his torso shell, his mask, weapons, added a gear function, and behold Tahu. It's the same build - build legs, attach legs to torso, torso shell, head/mask, weapon. (Tahu has gear function too, but yeah.)

 

If you compare 2011 Furno to all of his other 2011 counterparts, the difference is apparent (head, color, weapon) which is exactly the same as the Toa Metru. Clones. All of 2015 Tahu's friends have (mask, color, weapon) changes. All have similar builds.

 

At the same time, none of them are clones. All of them have minor parts/building differences. Evo's big tank arm is different from Furno of that year - saying it's a clone of him is wrong. Tahu has a different gear function than Onua. But they all use the same parts and the same basic structure. They tack on more parts that are differentiating than the Metru did, but the basic idea of it doesn't change much.

 

Keep in mind I'm not talking about Dragon Bolt or Thronraxx here, unlike the Heroes who had big clone tendencies. I was pretty confident 2012-2014 that if I bought one set out of the wave, I had bought them all in terms of building experience for the most part. There were some exceptions like Speeda, and I had to resist Furno Jet Machine, but still.

 

Ah, OK. I guess I get what you're saying. Personally, I never defined clone sets that way, because I feel like it's sort of the opposite of how LEGO building is expected to work. The reason so many CCBS beams and shells are repeated from set to set is that they're supposed to be the basic bricks of the building system, the same way 2x4 bricks and 2x2 bricks are for classic LEGO.

 

Just as an example, last year there was a building competition at our school. There were about four teams, and each team got multiple copies of this set. For the first round, the category was broad: "create something awesome". My team built this model of a giant robot fighting a giant monster. Both were built mainly from basic bricks in different colors, using extremely conventional building techniques. But was one a clone of the other? Of course not — the designs were very different, despite using many of the same parts for much the same purpose.

 

In the final round, our team used the same parts as before (about one bucket more, though, because we were able to use the parts from some of the teams that had been eliminated). The goal was to "build a castle". This was our team's entry. It was very different from the other team's castle. But again, it was built from mostly the same parts and used many of the same building techniques and connection styles. Would those models qualify as "clones"? I'd say they wouldn't.

 

This is sort of how I feel about the tendency of some people to call a model a "clone" just on account of what pieces it uses. Reusing existing pieces in different ways is what the idea of LEGO building is based on in the first place. The new Tahu and Lewa have a lot of parts in common, but I would never consider them clones — their proportions are considerably different, and there's no shortage of parts and techniques that differentiate them.

 

And when you think about the etymology of the term "clone sets", it really makes no sense to call sets that are built differently "clones", even ones that share parts like torso beams and torso shells! That would be like saying all human beings are "clones" because they're built from the same basic parts (arm bones, leg bones, hands, feet, muscles, skin, etc), just with different colors and proportions.

 

It seems that as sets have become less and less "cloned" from one another, a some people have pushed to expand the definition of clone sets more and more. Once upon a time, "clone sets" referred to sets like the Bohrok that were completely identical except for one or two parts that differentiated them. Before long, it grew to encompass sets that were built by selecting between a few predefined options on a template... so even though Toa Metru Nokama had a neck one module longer and a torso one module longer than Toa Metru Vakama, they were still clones. Still seems fair. When the Toa Inika came along, the definition of clone sets expanded even further. The color schemes of the Toa Inika didn't follow the same rules as all previous Toa — there weren't certain parts that were specifically in the set's primary or secondary or tertiary color regardless of the set in question. But they were still clones because the actual structure was unchanged between sets.

 

And then we got to where things started to get ridiculous — people decided that a set like Kalmah, Toa Mahri Hewkii, or Mistika Toa Tahu was still a Piraka clone because they used the same two torso pieces as the Piraka and the same basic leg structure as all sets since 2004. Some people would even refer to a set like Antroz as a Toa Inika clone, despite having hardly any parts in common with the Toa Inika and considerable differences in his proportions. On a certain level, ANYTHING that involved snapping beams together with ball joints and then sticking shells on some of the beams qualified as a clone set.

 

And finally we get to the introduction of the CCBS. And suddenly, a person can unironically claim that Tahu Master of Fire is a clone of Furno 2.0 on account of a shared color and a handful of shared (or in the very least, functionally similar) parts! That's like saying that the Toa Mahri and Glatorian were all clones of the Toa Metru because their entire lower bodies had the same basic structure, and they had a lot of leg and arm pieces in common, and what difference does a gearbox make, anyway? No offense, but that's extremely silly.

 

Frankly, part of the reason why a lot of BIONICLE parts weren't used year after year the same way the basic CCBS parts have been is that they weren't designed for that kind of long-term usefulness in the first place. Parts like the Bohrok or Toa Metru torsos were custom-tailored for particular uses in particular builds, not as the foundation of a building system. And that's part of why the constraction category has always had such a hard time being accepted by the AFOL community. Non-stud-based systems like LEGO Technic tend to be fairly niche to begin with, but you don't have nearly as many people insisting they're "not real LEGO" as with BIONICLE.

[Archon~]

I like to see basic similarity, like the Inika Torso that was reused (sue me I LUV IT), but the minor differences that were introduced with the Mahri/Nuva/Glatorian were amazing. I do think the Glatorian body should have been made to look a little more... Organic (prolly by using the softer plastic and meatier parts).

[Lyichir]

I like to see basic similarity, like the Inika Torso that was reused (sue me I LUV IT), but the minor differences that were introduced with the Mahri/Nuva/Glatorian were amazing. I do think the Glatorian body should have been made to look a little more... Organic (prolly by using the softer plastic and meatier parts).

In the case of the Glatorian torsos, the main reason they weren't more organic (apart from "to make the most use of older molds) was because an organic look was never a consideration in their design. That was a story change Greg made himself, probably to help differentiate their species from the Toa, but it had no basis in the set designs and the set designs, as always, were what had come first.

[Archon~]

No, I'm aware of that, but wishful thinking is wishful thinking! If anything, I think 2009 would have been a good year to introduce new torsos from the set designers' side.

[bioniclepluslotr]

No, I'm aware of that, but wishful thinking is wishful thinking! If anything, I think 2009 would have been a good year to introduce new torsos from the set designers' side.

It might not have been worth it since that was basically the last year.

[Cambion]

 

No, I'm aware of that, but wishful thinking is wishful thinking! If anything, I think 2009 would have been a good year to introduce new torsos from the set designers' side.

It might not have been worth it since that was basically the last year.

 

it wasn't planned to be, though - the decision to end Bionicle in 2010 was made mid-2009. Archon is right, 2009 would definitely have been a good opportunity to bring out some new build types.

[Zidonaro]

 

 

No, I'm aware of that, but wishful thinking is wishful thinking! If anything, I think 2009 would have been a good year to introduce new torsos from the set designers' side.

It might not have been worth it since that was basically the last year.

 

it wasn't planned to be, though - the decision to end Bionicle in 2010 was made mid-2009. Archon is right, 2009 would definitely have been a good opportunity to bring out some new build types.

 

 

I believe Greg said the decision to end BIONICLE was made around september 2008.