Oh.
Doh.
Well, only the SW ultrabuilds were any good.
I prefer to mix the two.
2 Likes
Well, in the case of Bionicle itās simple for me:
10 years of Technic based sets + childhood memorys just overpower CCBS, sorry. I admit that CCBS has the overall looks, but I just canāt put myself to using CCBS stuff on Bionicle MOCs, because it doesnāt fit in for me.
The only real thing that buggs me about CCBS in itself, though, is the lack of axle and pin holes on the shells. Instead there are those ā¦ ālittle holesā (however you call them) and those make it pretty difficult for someone who has mostly G1 stuff and doesnāt like to mix system parts with his Bionicle parts to achieve much detail.
Iām also no big fan of those pieces that you can connect to just one other part (the chestplates of the Toa for example) - I feel like this reduces your options while building tremendously. But then I have just very scarce building experience with CCBS.
2 Likes
CCBS is great on itās own. Technic is great on itās own. Theyāre great when combined too. Thatās all Iām gonna say.
2 Likes
This discussion has been surprisingly civil.
2 Likes
I think the Bionicle/Technic system was just that. A system made for Bionicle that worked with Technic. But CCBS appears to be a system thatās supposed to fulfill any role and create any character, which is why it worked for HF, CHIMA, Marvel/DC Ultrabuilds, and the new Star Wars figures. Granted, most of those themes used it poorly, except maybe CHIMA, and definitely excluding SW but it was still able to be more than one thing. I forget what show it was in, but some TTV member mentioned that, when used with the standard system, Bionicle parts looked out of place, like an āin between Lego lineā or knockoff. The B/TS worked well for what it was supposed to do, but thatās just one thing. CCBS is meant to do just about anything you want it to. So yeah. Thatās a thing.
3 Likes
Yes, because the Inika for 4 years and Av-Matoran for 3 was so inspiring.
5 Likes
Yeah, thatās true.
IMO, CCBS often has way better builds by making something different out of the same parts (which is more possible with CCBS IMO).
Throughout hero factories run, many set were meh at best. And the marvel/DC figure wereā¦ Ugly at best, those didnāt turn out well. And ya the ignika build was done for 4 years, but there was plenty of unquie sets in those years.
With ccbs, they can only do so much with the price range/budget. And with the lack of technic holes, they can only add so much armor/add-ons; with the basic figure that they use, they are super limited.
1 Like
Are we talking about Marvel, Hero Factory, or Bionicle here. Cause the Bionicle CCBS line has done wonders.
1 Like
So has the bionicle line, Iām saying that itās left us with less set that wow us. Like sure hf had some good sets, but it had so many that were meh.
Both systems have worked wonders, that is true, I think that the lack of complexity in the sets made hf less appealing to constraction fans. And donāt get me wrong, I love ccbs, itās a fun system to use and build with, it just is overly simple to appeal to a younger/broader audience. Which is smart for business, but at the same time ccbs leaves the sets pretty expensive. Like the whole system is just click and done, while technic is build up your sets.
1 Like
Anyone who says CCBS lacks complexity is wrong from the start. End of discussion with such ignorant people.
2 Likes
Tell me then why itās so complex?
Well, no. The CCBS is simple. Itās quite straight forward, actually. Itās just that people on either side view that as a strength or a weakness. It all depends on its usage.
4 Likes
I believe what he tried to say was that CCBS pieces in itself is simple, but its simplicity makes it easier to build wide variety of possible combination. Kinda like the way system bricks can be used to build almost anything, including complex structures. So, in a sense, CCBS is simple AND complex.
4 Likes
I agree that ccbs can be used in complex ways(Star Wars sets, but they use technic also), but the majority of sets are not complex, or do not look complex. And like I said, I like ccbs, the smoothness can work well; I mean I use it in my self moc. But all the complex ccbs sets, have heavily relied on technic or were deemed ugly(stormer xl).
Yes ccbs can be complex, but most of the ways Iāve seen it become complex is to integrate it with technic and bionicle pieces so it looks complex and smooth.
2 Likes
No eljay, you missed the point. Its complex cause you can build complex things with it.
1 Like
For me I like the original better. Though I do agree it depends on the use. My moc Nakashi is more smooth so Ccbs, Kaosa is kinda a mixture of the two, and aquaria is mostly g1 technic. Generally for me the build is technic but I usually mix hf plates as decoration or for aesthetic purposes.
As for everything else; Iāll take the toa over the masters any day. Just more peices for us experienced moc builders in g1. Nearly every Ccbs builds just looks too similar to eachother also while g1 had the technic detail that helped distinguish the builds.
If only the 2007 + set parts just had the stability of Ccbs parts than g1 bionicle would win hands down.
G1 reused molds as much as ccbs, except with more detailed parts it made the sets look even more alike. I donāt see how you can say they were more different.
Sure ccbs uses the same shells, but they werenāt designed for a specific set in mind, whereas G1 parts were molded for a specific aesthetic each year, you canāt tell me with a serious demeanor that a mata limb and an inika limb look like they match.
3 Likes
Ccbs is intentionally not a complex system to appeal to a larger audience. Saying something that is simple but can be complex is like saying paper is complex because you can make all sorts of stuff out of it. just because a thing can be complex doesnāt mean it is inherently.
2 Likes