With the Artakha contest there has been an arguee about what means a G1 esthetics.
Every year BIONICLE changed its design, adding new pieces. The major change was in 2004 in my opinion, with a change in the color palette of the characters and a change of the head of mask users (Inika were presented as a special case). Despice this, all this sets and pieces belong to G1.
So, independly if the MOC contest should or not have a G1 esthetics, I wanna know what you consider as G1 esthetic. Maybe is the exclusive use of pieces and colors made before 2010, the use of BIONICLE pieces (including G2) or you donât think that exist a G1 esthetics what so ever.
The G1 aesthetic can be separated into a couple of different subcategories, but generally, I think that an important part of G1âs esthetic is itâs clunkiness. They donât just look like humans wearing armor. They have exposed gears, pistons, and levers. They have mismatched arms and holes in their bodies. They have alien-looking blasters attached to their bodies. They look robotic, and out of this world.
Clearly, as G2 2016 proved, G1 is simply slap 32 pistons on a chest piece and call it a day.
Ok not really. For me personally its a useage of pieces from the G1 area that is a majority - whos highlights were detail, pistons, tubing, slightly greebled armor, etc. Stuff that uses system or CCBS is more than fine, unless it ends up dominating the creation to the point it really doesnât feel like a G1 creation, or that it would fit in with the aesthetic of prior G1 sets.
Like @Atobe_Brick already said, there are 3 aesthetic ages.
The first was introduced in 1999 with the Slizer/Throwbot line and ended in 2003.
The second was introduced with the Metru sets and seperated itself from the old Technic-like aesthetic.
The third one were the CCBS sets of G2.
When people talk about G1 aesthetic they are usually talking about the first one, with a close resemblance to Technic.
Iâve found people typically mean both that first AND second one. It loses itself to G2 because its just⌠different. If I had describe G2 to me it just comes off as sets that were designed to be more like the cartoons in which they were animated
âBionicle G1 aestheticâ is a term moc critics on the internet use to look smart. Bionicle G1 had a wide variety of aesthetics from the very mechanical toa mata to the very organic barraki so I have no idea what these people mean half the time.
The big thing for me is textures and angles. This includes mechanisms like gears, or the pistons that were molded into a lot of pieces, but it also includes subtle things, like that of the Inika shins, or the Rahkshi backs. Heck, it could even include the pin holes that were often left open.
I think that is about as specific as I can get, since the specifics of âG1 aestheticâ shifted from time to time, as others have described above.
Really, as long as it isnât smooth plastic, I consider that âG1 aestheticâ.
That isnât to hate on System or CCBS. The CCBS addons often had G1-esque textures, and System greebles exist. Even System wedges can fit in well. I just have a problem with rectangular system bricks, or bare CCBS shells.
The g1 aesthetic has a very loose definition, but itâs definitely a thing in my opinion. Bionicle characters look mechanical. Even sets like the barraki and Piraka have pistons and tubes. Additionally, g1 aesthetic builds tent to use a lot of technic parts; the holes in the Technic parts look like screws and bolts, which help to make it look more mechanical.
I think you nail it with this. The G1 BIONICLE were gappy (in construction and pieces) and is something I love from them. Other series like Knightsâ Kingdom II or BIONICLE G2 never caught my attention because they were too solid, making them less interting to me.
I will add to this, saying that even if the MOC has a CCBS base, but his armor is primarily composed of G1 pieces, it could still look like a G1 set.
Yeah, but Mata Nui Robot doesnât look like a set. I love his design but if LEGO had released a set that somehow were exactly to this, it wouldnât fit with the rest of the sets.
As @Takutanuva said, at least when I refer to G1 esthetic is from the first and second one, because they are part of G1 BIONICLE.
This I consider the breaking point. My major problem with CCBS is the shells are too smooth to my taste, making the sets looking like a solid action figure, rather than a bunch of pieces conected together with many holes to connect more things.
Are you telling me that if you were to at a glance look at a G1 set and G2 set not be able to really notice a discernible visual difference? Thats either poor pattern recognition or denial
It depends which G1 and G2 sets. If you were to compare creature of water to any technic-heavy set from G1 then I could not tell you any aesthetic difference. I would also like to note the Bionicle G2 Uniters would fit in with the Glatorian Legends. Both lines mix and match textured with smooth pieces.
To me its still very obvious. I think its been said before but G2 looks far less mechanical, more flat pieces, and honestly like it could be people wearing suits. It was obvious to me that G1 characters were mechanical themself but a lot of G2 looks like it could be people inside of a robotic suit of some sort
The early Hero Factory ccbs characters had a smooth look to them that was different from early Bionicle, I agree there, but those are the most extreme ends of the spectrum. The problem with building mocs for these contests is that some parts are color locked, regardless of whether theyâre textured or not, some shapes you simply cannot achieve in certain colors. Ex: there are no prefab shoulder armor pieces in sand green, there are no technic liftarms in gold, there are no inika or ccbs shells in teal, etc.
Asking for a 2010 inika/technic hybrid accurate Artakha using the brutaka/hydraxon/takanuva 2008/icarax/tuma/toa mata nui/rotor/von nebula titan formula is not possible without painting pieces or using digital renders.
The âG1 aestheticâ has never been a thing to begin with. Sure, we do have the unified aesthic of 1999-2003, but everything after that has been a mess of different aesthetics. To ilustrate my point, just try putting a Toa Mata right next to a Toa Metru, which would sit right next to a Toa Inika. See the pattern? Those sets donât have much in common aesthetically, other than the pistons.
From what I gathered, it seems like what people refer to when they use the term âG1 aestheicâ is usually having the set look mechanical and be covered with pointless pistons head to toe. And Iâll be honest here, I personally was never a fan of the way the G1 parts seem to be carelessly slapping pistons everywhere, regardless if it makes sense or not. Not to mention, the G1 parts are kind hard to use outside the context of Bionicle, becasue aesththically, they donât fit with any other parts LEGO has made. CCBS, on the other hand, fits pretty nicely with normal system bricks, making it a much more versatile building system.
I can understand the people who grew up with G1 and love itâs âaesththicâ but those people need to take off their nostalgia goggles, and accept the fact that CCBS simply cannot be ignored anymore when making MOCs. You can make a good compromise and use both CCBS and G1, and still get a visually coherent MOC.
And again it seems the point is missed. You acknowledged and denied it simultaneously. And the argument is only had when attempting to create a character that looks like its from G1. Other mocs utilizing both old and system parts are really cool and theres no problem. The only argument is made when creating something thats supposed to look older
@ToaOfPlastic
To me the Inikaâs faces and weapons were definitely unique, but their builds really reminded of a toa metru who got bigger and had mobility focus rather than gear function. And thats pretty much exactly what they were
To me âG1 aestheticâ can more or less be described by answering this question:
Could this MOC have been released between 2001 and 2010 and share a common general appearance with any of these years?
I want to emphasize âgeneralâ, because for example: I donât consider CCBS to go well with the G1 aesthetics, BUT that doesnât mean that it canât not be used un a MOC that resembles that G1 appearance, just well implemented and not overdone, because some large CCBS can leave a big flat area in the MOC, and thatâs something that catches your eye in comparison to G1 sets, they have pistons and details everywhere generally, even in pieces where they dont have them, they have some texture or greebling.
But I wouldnât say itâs just about CCBS, for example, extremly big and complex MOCs, whit lots of small pieces with bar connectors to donât leave any open gap, for example, I would say that can look veru different from what I consider G1 aesthetic. For me, even for big MOCs if you want to go for that, you should keep it simple, not too simple, but not overdo with super small deatails, If this helps you, I try to think as the designers when they made G1 sets, like: âOk, i want tho bouild this character that I imagined. I have to do it with the smallest number of available parts that I can, but not compromising his appearanceâ, and try to find a compromise there.
And finally, just to make clear about 2 things: I wouldât limit the G1 aesthetics just to G1 parts, but I think that G1 parts are really what will give you that because well, thatâs just what they are, they are the G1 aesthetic in little parts that you need to shape into a MOC. You can rely in other pieces like CCBS or small pieces, but if your MOC is 70% CCBS and small pieces to fill any gap, it will hardly look G1-ish.
And the final thing: I dont want to say with all of this that any MOC that does not fit with my G1 aesthetics is a bad MOC, I just think these 2 thing are separate things, a MOC can be awesome but not fit these requirements, or vice versa, although I wouldât say Iâm nobody to judge anyoneâs MOC.
Sorry If my English itâs not the best, itâs not my first language.
