Discussion: Your opinion on important features of Bionicle sets & MOCs

[Lesnichiy]

Yep, another session of weird questions from me.

So, in its run, Bionicle showed us many styles of Sets and MOCs, with many different features, from Muaka and Kane-Ra with complex Technic functions to Brutaka, with no functions, yet he is one of the best sets of all (by opinion of many).
What are your preferences on the matter? Do you buy/build to put the figures on a shelf, to make beautiful posing and photos, or to play with? Or there is something else?
Interesting part here, that those features are actually something that connects Bionicle with other Lego themes (for me, at least).
Count G2 too.

What are most important features for you in Lego sets (i.e. something you buy/acquire)?

Lego Sets

• Functions
• Poseability (mechs, walkers)
• Look, detalization
• Blaster/Launcher
• Color scheme
• Unique or interesting ideas and concepts
• Collectibles and Minifigures
• Accuracy (licensed themes, recreations)
• Other

What are most important features for you in Bionicle sets?

Bionicle Sets

• Functions
• Poseability
• Look, detalization
• Blasters/Launchers
• Color scheme
• Unique or interesting ideas and concepts
• Collectibles and Minifigures
• Other

What are most important features for you in Lego MOCs (no separation here, as a lot of Bionicle MOCs use System and everything, by “in MOCs” I mean something you like in other’s creations, or something you usualy try to incorporate in yours)?

MOCs

• Functions
• Poseability
• Look, detalization
• Blasters/Launchers
• Color scheme
• Unique or interesting ideas and concepts
• Accuracy (licensed themes, recreations)
• Other

And since Contests are back, I’d like to ask specific questions on Hagah (people can use that knowldge to make better entries too).

What type of hand for Toa Hagah specificaly would you (as a voter) like to see in ehtries?

Hands

• Classic Bionicle Socket connectors
• Glatorian fists
• Custom hands with poseable fingers
• Other

What type of shoulder connection for Toa Hagah specificaly would you (as a voter) like to see in entries?
(second option is this)

Shoulders

• Classic Metru Build connection, with no balljoint
• Popular solution with Socket connector
• Custom arms connected via balljoints
• Other

In what style would you (as a voter) like to see entries made in?

Style

• Super-close to existing Hagah
• Just classic, simplistic, Set-like
• Something in between
• Complex, detailed
• Very alien, unique

My opinion

Overall, I really like functions in sets - when you can hold it in your hands and do something with it. It also the most important factor for playability in my eyes. Though I still like 2006-2009 Bionicle sets, as I see blasters as adequate replacement (more-or-less). It is all the same with regular sets actually.

In MOCs though, I actually searh for everything. I like both simple and complex MOCs, with functions and with a lot of articulation. But the “Interesting Ideas” option is by far most important for me.

With Hagah though, I actually don’t know. All options are even to me (ok, I prefer classics more). Socket connectors are classic, Glatorian fists are nicely detail, Custom Hands are somewhat cool and admirable, plus additional articulation. Somewhat same with second poll.

So, share your thoughts here! If I forgot something, bring it up, make a poll! Discuss!

[AlexanderTG]

Since the original Toa Hagah didn’t have balljoints in the shoulders I don’t see the point in changing it in MOCs. If two entries are the same except one has balljoints and the other doesn’t, I’ll vote for the latter for the sake of consistency with Norik and Iruini.

[LegoDavid]

Functions were very important in the early years of Bionicle, because it started out as a Technic subtheme (and Technic is all about functions). As it drifted away from its roots, Bionicle become less dependent on gear functions and started being more of its own thing. I’d say the looks and unique ideas or concepts conveyed are the most important things to me personally.

[THE_DOOR_OPENER]

For the poll on the shoulder connectors, could you put an option for people who don’t care either way? Of course, most have already voted, and the data as is is all still useful, but it’d still be interesting.

[Lesnichiy]

@AlexanderTG Though I am not that strict, I somewhat share your point actually.
@LegoDavid Don’t know, brought back gear functions are probably the best thing in G2 for me. Give some 2001 vibes too.
@THE_DOOR_OPENER Boards are made in way that I can’t edit polls after first 5 minutes (which is, well, reasonable), so sadly I am unable to do what you ask. Clicking “Other” is probably a solution here.

By the way, I noticed that many people voted for “Other” options in all polls, @Ghid especially. I should’ve wrote “please, specify” from the start, but since I haven’t, I ask for it now. Can you guys elaborate on those choses? I am really interested in what you exactly meant!

[THE_DOOR_OPENER]

@Lesnichiy

@THE_DOOR_OPENER Boards are made in way that I can’t edit polls after first 5 minutes (which is, well, reasonable), so sadly I am unable to do what you ask. Clicking “Other” is probably a solution here.

Ah, unfortunate. Still, it makes total sense why it is the way it is. Thanks for your poll anyways, man! I’d also be interested in hearing what the people who voted other have to say.

[ajtazt]

Now that I have a moment to comment, when it comes to Lego sets overall, I think all the options are important and then some. There isn’t just one thing that’s absolutely thee important feature by itself, it’s all the features combined. You can almost have them all on sliders, each moving up and down depending on how important they were to the goal of the product. So it depends on what the set is out to achieve.

For some, accuracy would very important and in other cases it’s near pointless. If you gave me a robot T-Rex that was also a hot rod, I’m not going to be complaining about how the T-Rex has more fingers than it should. Or that the hot rod was one too many exhaust pipes for a car of its make. That’s not the point of the set, it’s supposed to be this cool hybrid of awesome stuff.

So I include Other for things not included on this list, such as multiple different models (2-in-1, 3-in-1, etc.). The box art and general set presentation, the pieces included in the set, the number of pieces, the cost of purchase, and so forth. All of these can equally attract and detract the set for me.

But what ultimately pushes one Lego set over the edge of another set or product for me is immaterial value outside of the set itself, story. A story associated with the products ends up being the final motivating push I need to buy a set. Not always, almost never the case for Technic or Creator sets, but oft the case for most System lines. But story can equally be a detractor if it’s poor or bad. Ninjago has had several sets I might have bought if they were under another line.

MOCs on the other hand I have a different set of standards. Ish. If I’m viewing someone else’s MOC, I am going to judge them as I would with official Lego sets. So as to not be too harsh on the toxic “masterpiece” builders out there, I’ll keep this section of answering “other” towards myself. Which is the building experience. Funnily enough, I don’t usually consider the building experience when piecing together sets as Lego tends to do a good enough job for me to not experience issues. But in MOCing? If the building experience while making a MOC was not fun, then I don’t care about any of the other qualities. If it wasn’t fun, enjoyable, or in some way bring about personal satisfaction by the end, it was completely worthless. I build for myself, I only bother to share my works in case there are others out there of similar mind who might enjoy what I made. They might only be decent at best, but I’m at least happy with it for the moment.

[Lesnichiy]

Thank you for such a detailed comment!

@ajtazt

So I include Other for things not included on this list, such as multiple different models (2-in-1, 3-in-1, etc.). The box art and general set presentation, the pieces included in the set, the number of pieces, the cost of purchase, and so forth.

2-in-1 is actually something I forgot about. Though, technically and subtly, it can fall under “functions”. The box art isn’t that important I think, especially for those experienced fans that know how Lego sometimes cheats on box images. Cost is something I don’t usually count, because look at it this way: if you have two sets with same prices, but one is all about functions and stuff, but somewhat messy though and another one is mostly static (building etc.), but is incredibly beautiful, which one would you pick? It’s like judging not quantity of a feature in a set, but saturation of given feature in the set.

@ajtazt

A story associated with the products

Ah. Yeah. That’s really important and I of course forgot about it…
Maybe, absolutely wierdely, we can put it in Collectibles section, as if the whole set was one big Collectible.

@ajtazt

If the building experience while making a MOC was not fun, then I don’t care about any of the other qualities.

Wow, that’s strong. And building experience is yet another thing I haven’t thought of…

I see now what you meant by “Other”, and that helps a lot, thank you again.
It is actually quite interesting thought about backstory. As it is sometime not important what set is, but what it represents. Actually, the case with many Binicle sets: For example, Toa Mata are not so great sets by themselvesc(articulation issues mostly), but at the same time they are ones of the best, as they represent first, the most classic Toa form. It’s something Slizers (for example) lack.

[ajtazt]

@Lesnichiy

Cost is something I don’t usually count, because look at it this way: if you have two sets with same prices, but one is all about functions and stuff, but somewhat messy though and another one is mostly static (building etc.), but is incredibly beautiful, which one would you pick? It’s like judging not quantity of a feature in a set, but saturation of given feature in the set.

Because I am a Lego fan, I’d look at the piece count. Chances are, one will have a higher piece count and possibly more value. Though that does depend on the pieces included and their colors. Then there’s the more subjective value, does it look like it should cost this much? Price-to-part ratio is mostly made up by fans anyways, so does it look like it should cost that much?

And then on a very personal note, space. Which one do I have space for? If it’s a building, chances are I would want to display this piece, which means it eats up more dedicated space. And even if I don’t display it, a building tends to take up more space anyways.

As a huge fan of robots and kinetic sculptures, “messy” primarily function based creations are my jam. Between it and an “incredibly beautiful” building, they’re equally visually appealing to me. The one with the function just has more play value. And who knows, without specifics the function set may achieve more for what it’s trying to do than the building.

Cost is more than the literal price of the set for me to obtain it. It’s the value proposition contained within and well as the other costs of storing/displaying it or its parts. And, depending on the type of fan, there’s the betting of the set’s future value. One may cost more since its value will drop, or at least not rise, in the future. While the other one may cost less, because its value rises and it becomes more expensive for others to obtain later. Which is also where box art comes in, good boxes/containers and how pretty they look will increase their value.

[Tarkur]

I wont be able to go into all the intricacies of why I love certain LEGO products and hate certain products because it will take too long but what I can do is make a list of what I like dislike. (Also these aren’t hard rules I follow just things that may sway my interest):

Sets regardless what theme:
Like:

• Interesting and unique functions
• Astethics
• Building techniques
• Any set or theme incorporating or features board games or a board game feature
• Story
• Originality
• Cheaper more affordable sets

Dislike:

• Licenses
• Overused concepts
• Sets that are too much of a display model than a toy
• Dumb play features
• Overly detailed minifigs
• High priced sets

For Mocs I’ll do something different since those aren’t the same as sets.
Canon mocs:
Like:

• Simple
• Fit with the TOYS
• Have some sort of playfunction
• Be reproduceable
• Use older pieces from G1 with only very few parts from ccbs and system making cameos
• Work within established canon and scale good to other figures.

Dislike:

• Too much custom
• Biocup entry level mocs
• incohesiveness with rest of canon
• Failing to look like a G1 Toy
• Going crazy with system and ccbs

Stand alone mocs:
Like:

• About everything
• cool parts usages
• interesting building techniques

Dislike:

• That 52 billionth set revamp

[The_Blue_Panda]

I look for sets that have an abundance of pure Bionicle parts (i.e. limb pieces, weapons, torsos, etc.) and other useful pieces, which is why I gravitate lesser towards the Golden Age titan sets, especially from 01-02 because most of them are Technic, and don’t have much unique Bionicle parts with them. Not to say that technic isn’t useful; it’s just not pleasing to my eyes. This is the main reason why I’m a huge fan of the Ignition era sets and the ones from 2009. I also look for sets that have great poseability because I’m still one of those people that play with their MOCs or sets, but thats a given since I’m 13

[Eilrach]

Kinda surprised that ‘pieces’ wasn’t an option for LEGO sets and Bionicle set
Very interesting seeing what people are thinking with the contest related polls

[Toa-of-Snow]

Few things:

• None of the “I like because of ___” options at the beginning had build as an option! I feel like the building experience is a very important part of a good set.
• Additionally, none of the “I like because of ___” options at the beginning had anything to do with story. I will sometimes buy a set (Bionicle or otherwise) if I like the setting or character it tributes even if the the set isn’t that great. That’s why I have characters like Matoro Mahri, Rahaga Kualus, and Kopaka Mata - they’re not great builds, but I like them anyway.
• Also I was surprised to see accuracy so low on the list. When it comes to a Lego recreation of a licensed anything, I always appreciate details, little nods, and content that makes it a better rendition of the thing it’s depicting, rather than a hollow 2D diorama that misses the spirit of the thing.

[Lesnichiy]

@The_Blue_Panda

because I’m still one of those people that play with their MOCs or sets, but thats a given since I’m 13

I will be 60 and still will play with my sets. And no one will ever stop me.

@Eilrach

Kinda surprised that ‘pieces’ wasn’t an option for LEGO sets and Bionicle set

As I already mentioned, since price is not something I count (previous comment), buying sets for pieces for me is buying pieces. Like, those features are something a built set has, not individual pieces. Look at those as if you buy set without intention of ever disassembling it or anything.

@Eilrach

Very interesting seeing what people are thinking with the contest related polls

Actually yes. I expected all the results being upside-down.

@Toa-of-Snow Me too surprised about accuracy. Like there is that GSR Ideas project for example, and what really makes it cool, is that it looks like Christian Faber’s sketch in 3D.

Also, I think I really messed up with the first 2 polls, and so I want at least try to fix the mistake (like it won’t make anything worse, huh?):

What are most important features for you in Lego sets (i.e. something you buy/acquire and keep assembled)?

Lego Sets

• Unique or Interesting Ideas and Concepts
• Look, Detalization
• Colour scheme
• Story, Background
• Accuracy (licensed themes, recreations)
• Poseability (mechs, walkers)
• Functions (non-launchers)
• Blasters, Launchers
• Collectibles and Minifigures
• Price (price-to-weight/amount of parts ratio)
• Amount of Models (3-in-1 etc.), Combo Models, that include the set
• Aesthetics
• Building experience, Build
• Other

What are most important features for you in Bionicle sets (i.e. something you buy/acquire and keep assembled)?

Bionicle Sets

• Unique or Interesting Ideas and Concepts
• Look, Detalization
• Colour scheme
• Story, Background
• Accuracy, Realism (like fingers, elbows, knees)
• Poseability
• Functions (non-launchers)
• Blasters, Launchers
• Collectibles
• Price (price-to-weight/amount of parts ratio)
• Amount of Models (2-in-1 etc.),Combo Models, that include the set
• Aesthetics
• Building experience, Build
• Other

[CalamitousT]

Doesn’t this put MOCists in bit of a bind? I’ll probably submit designs that can be easily changed between ‘original’ Metru shoulder articulation and ‘improved’ versions, but which one do I choose for my submission picture?

Because some people are going to prioritise entries that show greater articulation, and apparently some people will vote against the same thing - even if the model can easily have both that are completely interchangeable.

Isn’t this degree of rigid thinking kind ironic given the customisable nature of Lego?

[Cordax]

Aight, I feel like I should explain why I chose other. First and foremost, I’m a moccist. When I get a set bionicle set, it’s usually either because, 1: It’s price is really good, or 2: It has some pieces that I would want to use in a moc. With normal lego sets, I kinda just buy them because they look cool, and if they’re reasonably priced. So, to sum it up, I chose other because I’m a moccist and I want interesting pieces to build with.

EDIT: Whoopsy dhoopsy I just realized it said sets that you keep together