The Complexity of the Old Bionicle Systems (Mata to Stars) Compared to the CCBS System

So, this is a debate I really find stupid
Why?
because the old bionicle isnt that complex as people make it out to be
Sure there are the titans
But quite frankly, most of them arent that complex either
See, lets take the nuva for example
They are so simple
Just a pair of feet, legs, two connectors to the body, the body, armour, head, and arms and armour for said arms
Next, take the average hero
feet, legs, body, arms, and head, then armour
basically the exact same thing

Like, look at the metru, mata, and inika
all very basic and simple builds
when a person complains about bah the hero factory system is baaaaaad
I want to slap them upside the head

None of the sets are complex
If anything, the mata rahi are the most complex things asides from the 08-09 vehicles
So, whats your opinion?
is the argument of bionicle being complex and hero factory being too easy to build a stupid argument?
or whatever?

15 Likes

It is a legitimate argument. Hero Factory's system is pretty simplistic and repeats itself more than BIONICLE did with the Inika build.

However, the new BIONICLE is making the CCBS system much better than Hero Factory ever has.

16 Likes

Ahem
breakout made it pretty cool, and the sets were less cloney
Same with the next two years
Which leaves two years of the system being used for clone sets
Compared to mr bionicles 3 years of using it

4 Likes

Then you forget how the Inika introduced it, which excludes that, and how the Mahri used the build for some pretty neat designs.

1 Like

Mahri were still using the inika build

so thats two years, with two years

You are repeating about what I just said.

Anyways, this still beats out that the majority of BIONICLE's run had different builds each year. Yes, I know about the Mata/Nuva, but you are only considering the Toa. Think about the VILLAINS. The Bohrok, the Rahkshi, the Vahki, the Visorak, the Piraka, ect. All had different builds each year, and each of these different builds adds up to the majority of BIONICLE's run.

2 Likes

all pretty simple
They didnt add on to anything, they were just different simple builds

Then I could argue all Hero Factory sets are also simple.

Hero Factory's run was majorly affected by the CCBS system, which caused redundant sets. Not to mentioned this led to the decline of sets being sold of Hero Factory.
This kind of thing affected BIONICLE after using the Inika build for too long, as well. But BIONICLE got more sales because at least it did something new to the Inika build each year.

How are the Bohrok and Rahskhi simple builds? They added so many new pieces and techniques!

4 Likes

I don't like this balljoint-stick-system that they use now. It's just.... no, I don't like it.

Which, is what I am saying
Its all simple
No one is a winner here
the argument just makes no sense imo

how are the bohrok simple
they arent that special m8 the building technique is really easy to replicate if you never got one
the rahskhi are really..really simple
Like, metru build simple

1 Like

BIONICLE has way more detail in their sets than Hero Factory even offered, even with the new sets.

Besides, each BIONICLE set from 2001-2006 came with a new function. Sure, they where simple, but their new functions lead to new designs.

What did Hero Factory bring to make things better? Sure, a new build, but it did not do anything for functionality. Even the new BIONICLE is leading to functionality to their mostly CCBS builds, which was something Hero Factory NEVER offered.

U do bring a good point
But the inika build did not come with a function
It came with a gimmick
same with most of the other sets from there on
Hero factory simply just used the formula bionicle was using
and making them wiith almost no functionalty

You miss the point, though. I'm not talking about just the Inika build. I'm talking about ALL Bionicle. Sure, the Inika build didn't come with functionality, but BIONICLE started with that. Hero Factory never had functionality with their sets (besides vehicles, but you can expect that).

Not to mention the fact that almost every Hero Factory set looked almost the same? At least BIONICLE could bring differences in sets with the Inika build.

3 Likes

Iwasmerelycorrectingyou
And how the hell do they look the same?
Honestly are you blind?
Sure 2.0 was bland
but there were obvious differences from the heroes 3.0 onwards

To me, the sets looked redundant and bland. But that's just me.

The animals thing was... A monstrosity.

Honestly, though, they kept the build for way too long, that a lot of people grew tired of seeing the same build over and over again. The new BIONICLE is changing it to make it better, and even show how Hero Factory's build was lazy.

You also forget that Hero Factory's hugest problem was that they kept the backs pretty much empty, bringing and incomplete look. BIONICLE did this better, where, even though the backs had nothing on them, it at least looked natural. Even the new BIONICLE is fixing this problem.

2 Likes

The average HF has the main pieces so it's basically the same build all the time just adding new parts. Bionicle however had different pieces throughout the years although this doesn't make Bionicle more complex then Hero Factory. If anything I'd say HF is more complex then Bionicle (judging by the basic sets) because of all the new ways to add armor and add other pieces. Easier but more complex in a way

Just kinda jumping in here, but @Chronicler, the majority of your argument is based off of personal bias it seems. Opinion, and this is why this entire debate is utterly pointless. I mean, you're comparing two systems that were meant to be different. Sure, there is a variety of BIONICLE builds and such, but you are ignoring the fact that A: the villains did have some unique builds and parts, B: The titans utilized a very creative build and C: There's no way to objectively judge how complex one system is compared to another because it's the people who are expected to make great builds.

LEGO may make sets, but what do you really use them for? Do you keep them around and do nothing with your parts, or do you challenge yourself to do something new and creative. Because it's all up to the user to make a system more or less complex, LEGO really just gives ideas. Look at JANGiBricks, he does really good CCBS MOCs that are incredibly complex, even if the pieces seem "Simple," the debate here is still over the system.

7 Likes

True. We do use them for building and being inspired, and combining them can make create creations. But this is about the complexity of the systems themselves. I do agree either can be used for great creations, but it comes down to complexity and design.

And yes, you are right about how people use it and what they do with it. But I was not trying to be biased when it came down to how the system was, and if I came across that way, I am sorry for doing such a thing.

1 Like

BioRaiders is quite correct, I don't think this sort of argument can go anywhere if you're purposely closing your ears to answers.

Also, one does not compare CCBS to BIONICLE as a whole, because BIONICLE consisted of multiple systems, especially during its first five years. Then the Inikabuild came and stood as a solid system for five years. As a result, one cannot argue that "the BIONICLE system is better" because BIONICLE isn't a system. It's a group of systems, one that, individually, are lacking to CCBS, at least from set form. Arguments such as this:

are great when you're comparing the MOCs of people that for some reason don't mix their systems, but arguments like this where we argue about the complexity of the sets are irrelevant.

Again, a matter of personal opinion. The add-ons have a level of complexity equal to or greater than BIONICLE details. Also, not every single part in a BIONICLE set is super detailed -- upper limb pieces and sockets come to mind. As a general rule, BIONICLE sets have relatively more detail, but "way more detail" is taking it too far.

One does not simply talk about "all BIONICLE". Your argument is invalid.

1 Like

Well, like I said, complexity in and of itself is too hard to judge with two systems made to be different. You cannot make a logical basis for saying "Technic system is more complex" because there's a lot of different ways for someone to use each of the systems. Maybe the Technic system has more possibilities, but the CCBS system makes you have to experiment and think. Not saying Technic doesn't, make you think, or CCBS doesn't have possibilities, but it's still all in the way you use it. You can make Technic as simple as possible (Turaga) and you can make CCBS as complex as you want. (Seriously, look up JANGiBricks.) This debate is all about personal preference and you really can't change someone else's preference by stating your own, unless you apply the Authority Figure Fallacy, in which case you really don't have an argument at all.

2 Likes