I have looked up JANGiBricks (your assuming I haven’t? His stuff is awesome!) but I guess your right. There is no point to this argument besides the fact of opinion.
I am sorry for getting so upset about this, putting my emotion before logic. I am a man of beliefs, not logic, and I feel entitled to defend those beliefs. Just, please, leave me be now. I want to cool off and get my mind set straight again, so I can think properly.
Oh man.
Imma rip you all up.
I’m taking it back to the SLIZERS, dangit.
Slizers were creative. I’m not going to lie. They were all quirky and unique. Can you name two that looked like clones? Nope you can’t. Ones closest in build were Judge and Electro, and Jungle and Ski. What about the others? City was a friggin CAR. Yeah, nothing clone-like THERE. Now what about Mata? Sure they all had different colors, different weapons, and different masks and gear combos, but in the end they were all the same. They were all the same build. They had the same idea as Slizers, but LEGO wanted them all to be humanoid. I guess we couldn’t really relate to Lewa if he was driving around the jungle as a car. Nuva weren’t any better, as they just took the same base and slapped on some shiny armor. Metru? Nope, basically the same build with more movement and some bonus pins and armor. Don’t even get me started on the Hordika though. Even the heads looked similar. 06 wasn’t any more complex. They were all the same, basic, waist-torso-chestplate body, limbs then head build. Then the rest of the years used basically the same build, just with the odd modification. To be honest, if you asked me which was better build wise…BIONICLE, HF, or Slizer, I’d say Slizers. Even if they weren’t complex, they made use of the same parts in creative ways.
Now I suppose this is all invalid if you have an ounce of creativity and happen to decide to use the parts given to you to create massive wonders and creative models, but that’s not what we’re discussing.
My thoughts in a nutshell:
Slizer - Simple, but creative.
BIONICLE/Mata/Nuva - Simple, redundant, good for nostalgia though.
BIONICLE/Metru/Hordika - No, just no. Simple, redundant, also good for nostalgia, but lacks a creative concept.
BIONICLE/Inika/Mahri/Phantoka/Mistika/Glatorian/Legends - Too simple and repetitive. Also very disproportionate.
BIONICLE/Stars - Shaddup. I don’t want your plastic.
HF/1.0 - I already said I don’t want your plastic.
HF/CCBS - seemed new, fresh, and creative at the time. Then…it was used…and then used again…and they kept using it without adding some new flare to it, just changing the helmets and the enemy appearance. It just…no. Great for MOCs though, if you know how to use it.
But you see, that’s the thing. We’re trying to judge the complexity of the systems. It seriously can’t be done. Just because something has more pins and axles doesn’t mean it’s more complex that something made entirely out of ball joints. I agree that all the builds can get stale and they’re all relatively simple, but that’s just a product of relativity, not objectivity. An objective viewer would not be able to really say “Technic system is more complex” or “CCBS is more complex” because complexity is completely relative! Complexity is what you can do with a system, not the makeup of the sets they came in, or else none of these would be complex, just reiterations of the same concept with different parts.
Well said, my friend, well said.
Yes, the old Bionicle system wasn’t all that complex.
Yes, the (HF version of the) CCBS system isn’t very complex at all.
But…
The way Bionicle is using CCBS IS more complex than (I’d say) both of the other systems. I just hope that the ‘Titan’ sets for Bionicle use more Technic and are more complex.
Yes, this is my greatest hope, as well. I want to see more technic in the titans!
Like a certain hero villain that goes by the name
witch doctor
The creative value of each system I’d argue, is the same. It’s more about the person who builds with it then the system, I’ve seem amazing things made with all the systems. Neither, in my opinion, has more creative opportunity then the other, especially with all the CCBS parts we have now (when it first came out it needed time before it had the appropriate library of parts.).
I see the arguments here talking more about the complexity of the sets and not the system, which doesn’t seem relevant to me. That’s a whole different argument. Because it’s not really the system it’s self, it’s what’s done with the system that counts.
Thank you reasonable person.
Also, the topic is specifically “Complexity” not “Creativity.”
Not trying to be an a hole, but yeah…
Yes I know, which is why I was saying that they are pretty much equal in complexity, either can be as complex or as simple as what people do with them.
I, personally, have never, ever, payed attention to how complex the build was (that was for system sets). I bought constraction sets because I was interested in the characters. So I’m not the best man to argue the pros and cons of each system.
I understand this is a pointless argument here, but my only gripe with CCBS is that all the armor shells are essentially the same shape. Sure, there are tons of armor addons, but I wish LEGO would make different designs for the shells themselves… 
EDIT: Also I don’t like the fact that LEGO decided to use printing/stickers instead of extra pieces for eyes, mechanical bits, etc. (but I guess I can’t really fault them, it’s cheaper)
This made me laugh!
I know this topic is probably near dead, but imma talk here anyways!
It really all depends on what you define “complex” as. Most of what I’ve seen here, though, is talking about how repetitive they were as opposed to how complex. Repetition isn’t complexity. The actual definition of anything complex is that it is made up of two or more pieces or is hard to comprehend or anylyze. Well, really, it could go both ways. If you go with the first part, then sure, every constraction system is complex as long as it isn’t basically a statue. It has parts to it the connect and multiple assemblies, be it Throw Bots or Bionicle or CCBS. But if you’re going off of “is it intuitive or hard to build”, anything Technic fits the bill and CCBS gets the boot. It also really depends on how you use the system. In my opinion, any CCBS set up to now hasn’t quite used the system to its fullest potential. HF was introductory, Bionicle 2015 was the blend of form and function that earlier sets were lacking, Star Wars constraction elevated the use of Technic and new molds, and now Bionicle 2016 looks to be completely oriented around Technic based builds within the CCBS system. So really, I feel you can’t make a good comparison between CCBS and Bionicle’s complexity until we see what 2016 has to offer. My bet, though, is that the new sets will be more complex than almost anything we’ve seen before. If you compare Bionicle to HF, however, I’d wager that Bionicle was more complex build-wise, but only because it had more connectors, therefore more pieces, therefore more complexity.
Bionicle sets get more complex as their price point goes up, but since the title says “Mata to Stars” I’m assuming you mean complexity of the standard medium figures. I’d say they were at their most complex with the Toa Metru then got simpler from then on. The most recent Toa are actually a fair bit more complex than the Metru though, because you add the gearbox and armor separately from the frame, whereas in old bionicle the frame, armor, and gearbox were all usually the same piece. This was probably done as a way for lego to save money early on. It’s cheaper to make one detailed prefab than to actually spend the time to mold smaller detailing elements that interlock.
G1 “system” - Big, prefab parts with specific aesthetics, textures and shapes which often clash when used with each-other, that connect together using ball and socket joints and the occasional Technic pin or axle here and there.
CCBS - Basic parts with a broad spectrum of uses and a unified aesthetic which is easily expanded upon, that connect together using ball and socket joints and the occasional Technic pin or axle here and there.
I wonder if CCBS will evolve to the point of being a balanced fusion between the G1 technic-reliant system and traditional CCBS…heck, the 2016 Toa are showing first signs of it! Later on we might see CCBS shells with technic holes!
I like the CCBS pieces, I just wish that they had a little bit more detail and complexity with it’s build.
YES PLEASE
And ccbs bones with pin holes turned 90 degrees too.
