The CCBS vs Technic Building System Topic

LEGO BIONICLE
1

I understand we have a CCBS topic, however this has been made for the sole purpose of debating which is better - the CCBS (Character and Creature Building System) or the original Technic/Bionicle system.

Keep it civil, guys. I highly encourage discussion, and would love to see it here. But don’t be jerks. And don’t attempt to shut it down, either.

As for me… Well, I actually recently made a video regarding this (It’s currently on Vessel for Early Access), so I’ll wait until that comes to Youtube before spilling the beans. So until then, let’s see what you guys think (and how long I can hold out).

10 Likes
2

I think that Ccbs is a fine system and works well for what it’s supposed to be. But I feel that is misses the complexity and higher detail that technic/bionicle had.
More example:
CCBS is smooth clip on armor pieces with prints to add detail. While technic is built up and highly detailed molds.

4 Likes
3

I think they’re both good, but I think right now CCBS is the best system to use. For one thing, it’s easier to build with. As great as complex builds are, I imagine most kids probably want to play with their toy relatively soon after getting it, it is it’s main purpose afterall, to be played with. Also, kids, well actualy most people, prefer the smooth aesthetic. Think cars, alot of new cars are these smooth sleek things, because thats what people like. CCBS is better for this generation,because a smooth aesthetic is more visually appealing to kids these days.

1 Like
4

after a full year of mucking about with ccbs i think it is overall better, because of how much less specialised and specific (Most) of the shells and bones are. While the technic system was good in it’s own right, it’s definitely not gonna work with much else other than bionicle. Putting it in context, imagine the new star wars ultrabuilds using the old technic system - it wouldn’t work, because the parts look too greebly and too robotic too work. As a system for bionicle, technic was great, but ccbs takes the cake for me, simply because of how unspecific and and how versatile it is.

2 Likes
5

if you look at Micheal Bay’s transformers, they look so detailed with a million pistons and moving parts that are exposed you start to wonder if stuff can get stuck in there and hinder movement or something like that, I feel like the old technic system had that problem. With CCBS yeah it might be more boring to look at but makes a lot more sense for machines that they would hide all they’re parts under armor, kinda like Data from star trek yeah he has a lot of complex parts, but they’re hidden inside of him so they don’t get damaged, and i think the bone pieces add to that robotic skeleton feel too with the way they’re designed.

3 Likes
6

Both of these building systems are great in their own right. There is no need to compare them. And they become even more amazing when combined with each other.

Did I use the right right? Feel free to correct me if I didn’t.

There, issue solved.

1 Like
7

Hehehehe… Sure, buddy. Sure. =P

3 Likes
8

Basically I see CCBS as essentially the LEGO bricks of constraction. For example, one can take normal system pieces and organize them in many ways and it could look much like what it’s intended to be if done right. CCBS is like that too, it’s used to build creatures, normal figures, titans, and more. Both are smooth and include specialized molds that are used to make the figure look more detailed.

Technic (as in Bonkle molds) are versatile and while they do look good, they don’t really fit with anything except BIONICLE. Kinda like Galidor pieces, except not really because Galidor scares me.

4 Likes
9

Well no matter what, I do legitimately feel that the two building systems work well with each other.

3 Likes
10

Old Technic/Bionicle:
-Have detailed molding
-Tend to reintroduce old molds in recolors
-Set were cheaper and more quantity (2001-2007)
-Certain parts allowed heavier amount of detail on moc’s
-Have functions up until 2006 on “normal” sets.
(and re-introduced gearbox in 2015)
-Fair amount of clone sets
-Some parts break; especially 2008
-Alot of specialized molds

2011-2015 (Since 2016 isn’t release global to compare) CCBS:
-Stronger durability
-Very compatible for pass CCBS parts
-Introduced Ultra Build Figures
-Heavily Ball Joint/Socket reliant
-Set are mostly smooth
-Many set have uninspiring builds
-Price increase
-Gotten less recolor and new molds overtime
-Aimed for a young audience

4 Likes
11

referring to an economic issue as a con towards ccbs is rather illogical.
saying it’s more expensive because of inflation is actually incorrect, as Jangbricks has pointed out in his videos, lego’s price-per-part ratio has only decreased over the years.

[quote=“Square, post:10, topic:15963”]
-Aimed for a young audience
[/quote] you’re saying technic lines didn’t/don’t?
you can’t really only say that for one and not the other.

I find that ccbs is better suited for constraction, while technic is better for vehicles and supports, and I personally prefer the look of ccbs/proper technic over G1 bionicle, it’s not that I don’t like detail, I just prefer to not have a garbled mess of detail, for example: I love the metru build but I really dislike the molding.

3 Likes
12

CCBS is the superior constraction system.

No, I say Technic is.

Hey, why am I debating with myself?

That’s because Technic was barely a system when used with Bionicle.

But I like the aesthetic it gives.

You also like the aesthetic of the new 2016 sets.

3 Likes
13

I love both equally.

14

Cici-bus master race

1 Like
15

Personally for me it depends on what aesthetic I am trying to achieve, or whatever is handy. If I want a more rugged, detailed, mechanical look, I’ll use Technic and Bionicle parts. Most of my MOCs are primarily a mesh of those two.

CCBS is better for smooth looks, streamlining, shaping, pose-ability, and, have some rad colors too. Frankly, though, I find it an overall more utilizable system due to the limitless amounts of customization that is offered. Of course, Technic also has a customization element, but I feel that what it can do in some cases is a lot less appealing and visually less impressive than CCBS, and it ends up looking cluttered and distracting.

The two together work really well, however I feel like both still need to grow some more. Technic much less because, let’s face it, it was never meant to be used for figure building (the majority of Technic sets are vehicles and machines), the Bionicle system was a restrictive figure-only system, and CCBS, while having the ability for almost anything, lacks a superior integration with the much more widely used and owned Technic system. I feel the introduction of new bone elements (look online and you’ll see tons of interesting and useful fan models for parts), some Technic shells (not the Piece of Unification, I mean ball-snap shells with pin and axel holes), and more improvements like pin holes in ball joints like the Protector and Uniter torso pieces help a lot in that regard. A better integration as a whole. A pin whole…

Don’t kill me for that pun…

Which is better? That’s up to preference. Me personally? CCBS, due to its strength, endless limits, closeness to System bricks, and high quality.

It was never meant to. The original Technic line was made to provide a more challenging building experience for older and more skilled builders that traditional bricks couldn’t do. That’s like saying that DUPLO also caters to higher builders when there is a clear separation of age and skill level.

However:

Maybe slightly, but not exactly. More like more user friendly. Does it help young builders build their toys? Yes. Was it always meant to be sold specifically to younger kids? No. It just makes building a lot less of a pain for everyone.

4 Likes
16

That is why I prefer CCBS. It’s my favorite system to build with, and I have tons of my own creations in it. As a kid, I found Bionicle’s technic system hard to make things with. With CCBS, I feel like I have much fewer limits imposed on me. Part of what I like about it is that, well, it has more utility-focused parts that can be used in a variety of ways (rather than a bunch of single-purpose parts). Just my opinion, but I like a blend of them- like witch doctor, who used the CCBS and technic systems to create a synergy of sorts that allowed him to be big and cool.
In my creations, though, I tend to use mostly just CCBS.

1 Like
17

I’m aware some sets have more pieces with better durability than prior years and oil is in higher demand; but I don’t feel like getting my money-worth. Mainly the 20$ Masters. (Insert obligatory comparisons of Tahu and Brutaka)

Also when I said “Aimed for a young audience” I meant its better suited at the start before heading into something more techinc based.

18

you can’t hold inflation against the system. that’s an uncontrollable variable.
you may not feel like you’re getting your moneys worth, you can’t hold that against the system.

4 Likes
19

“Introduced Ultra build figures.”

Hah.

They’re called ‘titans’, and they were already a thing.

20

I do believe that ‘ultra build’ refers to constraction figures in otherwise system based lines.

And while you could make a loose argument that the old technic starwars statues technically could count, no ultra builds ever used (majoratively)bionicle parts.

2 Likes