I'm not going to sit and argue that. It's an fact. there's no argument to be had.
What I will argue is that the only line I have ever seen out of LEGO that comes close to G1's storytelling prowess is Ninjago. Conveniently, also one of the most successful lines they have ever released.
What I'm saying is, when everything isn't all sunshine and rainbows and all the heroes live and there are no realistic consequences to be found, I lose all respect for a storyline. If LEGO was going for that kind of story, then I have a right to not want a G3 because it is no longer targeted at my audience.
Which I will immediately follow up by saying "THAT'S FINE!" There's no reason for LEGO to target their products at a 16 year old college student. If I'm uninterested in the story, it's likely because there's no reason for me to be. However, I still enjoy reading things about G1. I still enjoy the story. Therefore, the comparison is still direct.
I'm very aware it's an unfair comparison. But what I am getting out of the messages in response to my statement is "it only lasted two years so you should lower your standards to its level." There's a certain degree of storytelling I hold things to, and the first impressions are the most important. In the first impressions department, G2 miserably failed the moment the first wave hype faded, and it kept failing right until it was cancelled.
(yes, that is overly dramatic and harsh, but it is the most direct way of putting my opinion)
I won't bother to take offense to this since it would honestly be quite laughable. However, in response: To me it is only BIONICLE in name. It lacks the soul the original had to it.
I'm not here to proclaim G1 as a gift from God, nor am I here to bring down anybody who enjoyed G2. I'm simply stating a comparison - unfair as it may be - and leaving it as that.
We had the same characters: Completely stripped of the development that they had gotten, wiped of the personalities we had known, and reduced to cardboard stereotype.
Seriously, I realize it would be difficult for new fans to get in on the old story, but at least keeping the same personalities and traits would have been a good start towards creating a solid, stable character roster.
I guess where I'm going with this is that G2 failed the most important part of its journey. Once the 2014 "IT'S BACK" hype wore off, we had lackluster set design, frustratingly empty characters (or characters that simply did not exist at all), and a poorly written story that leaves me wondering where Greg and Faber were during the development process.
And much of what I'm saying here? Is my fault. I had certain expectations of the line based on the name and characters. I created those expectations off of 10 years of development, for which there is no culprit other than myself.
However, from my perspective, the edict remains unchanged: I do not want a G3. I want to see LEGO do something fresh, rather than tarnishing the name further.
Man, this is a lot of overly dramatic text over a toyline