Generally I appreciate it when Mocs look like they could fit in with official sets. Clean colour schemes are also important for me
8 Likes
I don’t really have a lot of boxes that need to be checked; Everyone’s got a different style and I appreciate the opportunity to see them all. As long as it’s cohesive unto itself, I’m generally satisfied. Even then, if we’re looking at a moc from a beginner (or from an experienced moccist’s past), I overlook cohesion as well, because I’m just grateful to see the progress of someone’s practice.
8 Likes
For constraction at least, I tend to comment a lot on wanting MOCs to “commit to the bit” - if there’s a bit of fire elements on an otherwise straightforward MOC, I want to see more fire elements, et cetera. A good concept makes something stand out more than technical proficiency at this point, so even when a concept lends itself to pitfalls in building, I like to critique based on what they could do to avoid those pitfalls and finish the concept.
8 Likes
There is a difference between MOCs which are “good” and which ones I tend to enjoy. Many MOCs are well built on a technical level or have excellent presentation, but still get a passing glance from me. And what ones I enjoy entirely depends on the context.
For example, if you’re making a character that’s supposed to be in the G1 Bionicle world, I would prefer them to look like they belong there. They don’t necessarily have to look like the sets, they don’t have to look like a mess that some combo models or Dark Hunters are notorious for, but still belong. To be in the spirit of the era and design language, even if you’re using parts that weren’t around at the time. Especially if said parts are mostly new Technic pins, beams, etc. used in the internals.
Using CCBS in these MOCs doesn’t make them bad, but depend on how it’s used can take me out of the narrative in a sense. May still like and enjoy the MOC, but it gets placed in a much farther flung AU than ones who don’t. Didn’t use to bother me to such an extreme until the TTV Canon Contests. All Bionicle MOCs are fanfiction, so it was fine. None of them were being canon, so it was fine. It became not fine very fast.
Same goes for Hero Factory, Knights Kingdom II, etc.; belong and fitting the spirit tends to be more important to me if that’s the goal. Though if your goal is to design ultra/ultimate versions of existing characters, then almost everything is fair game. But if someone is just slapping on Bionicle or related for optics and has nothing to actually do with it, then it doesn’t matter how well built the MOC is, I’ll dislike it on principle.
Also, much like sets, I have a strong bias towards small builds and massive titans. Little micro and nano friends to the megas. All mid-range builds (which is what I also frequently build) is more of a tossup.
7 Likes
I’ve come to the conclusion that any MOC is a good MOC as long as the builder is happy and proud of what they’ve made. Doesn’t matter what kind of MOC it is - if the creator likes it, it’s good.
Generally speaking, I appreciate simplicity. Why use a whole ton of small parts when fewer also do the job? I’m not talking about simplicity on the level of your average canister set - MOCs can, and in most cases should be more complex than those, but there’s no need to overdo it.
7 Likes
So in other words, there are no good mocs because everything is entirely subjective?
2 Likes
I think the scale of good and bad exists within the scope of a given stylistic expression (i.e. how well do they emulate a given culture’s artistry, or a particular artist’s style/How well do they accomplish certain tasks like color blocking or texturing) but in the grand scheme of things I agree that the most important thing is the designer’s satisfaction with their own work
4 Likes
I’d say same criteria I have for normal art:
Effort - Did the creator try at all on this piece, or is it a throwaway filler piece?
Talent - Does the piece display some level of talent with the medium?
“Uniqueness” - Is the piece contributing something new to the scene? (In other words, is it new and special or is it something that’s been overdone?)
There’s normally more criteria for stuff like art you’d hang in a museum or something, though I don’t know if I can apply them to Lego creations. So, those three are what I go with.
Applying these criteria, it’s perfectly reasonable to find someone’s MOC “good” for that particular creator while not being a very good MOC compared to others. For example, I think my self MOCs are consistently my best and most unique MOCs but comparing them to something by Jayfa or Droconis just because I tried my hardest wouldn’t really be fair because they also tried their hardest, and they demonstrate more talent than me.
8 Likes
Does it look cool
Doesn’t matter how many parts are used or building techniques but if the moc looks cohesive and interesting, it’s a win on my book.
Colour blocking can also improve a moc in my eyes, as well as interesting colour choices
or if the moc is thicc thats a winner in my book as well
4 Likes
real
I appreciate mocs that have a clear intent, what I value above all else is character. For me the greatest potential fault for a moc is being boring
4 Likes
This is pretty much how I evaluate most things. If someone clearly cared enough about it that they had to make it well, and put effort into conveying that, then it’s good. If it’s merely for novelty or shock value, it’s rarely worth noticing because anyone can do that. Sadly, it feels like this reasoning hasn’t been used in official Lego media ever since 2013, as they used to feature really interesting MOCs in Lego Club, but the quality took a severe hit after the Brain Attack HF contest during summer 2013. After that, the quality of featured MOCs was the same as on the Lego Life app: mostly whatever someone photographed on their kid’s table first, or a set with some scenery in the photo.
I miss the cow AT-AT some kid made for a Castle contest… it worked really well, and he made a full siege diorama with it that got featured in Cool Creations.
5 Likes
Sounds about right. I don’t get the Lego Club magazine regularly anymore, but whenever I do, the Cool Creations section is frankly embarrassing. I doubt it’s gonna get better any time soon.
6 Likes
I never regularily got the club magazine as a kid (always wanted to be a member of the Lego club, but my parents didn’t allow it), but I did pick up one copy when I was 7 or 8 (about the age of most kids who sent in their models). Even at the time I thought half of those models were nothing, and having recently looked at the magazine again, only 4 or 5 of them really show any effort or creativity.
6 Likes
Mocs that use rigid hose with lots of parts spam are good in my opinion. Furthermore, mocs that use a lot of good ol’ system parts instead of ugly bionicle parts tend to look better.
2 Likes
Prior to the change to LEGO Life, whoever made the Cool Creations page always seemed to make sure at least one featured MOC was something demonstrating skill. Around late 2013, they started heavily leaning into the “we support creativity!” advertising, mainly featuring slop-tier creations (even in the contests - like seriously, how does a minifigure carry-case surrounded by the 2011 dragons from Ninjago beat actual trophy designs in a contest?!).
Lego Life exacerbated this, marketing itself as being focused on teens, yet being a slop-filled mess obviously designed for 8-year-olds (no comments allowed, no original creations, millions of reposts with stickers…) It’s very sad to me, because Lego used to actually care about their teen/adult customers when it came to ads, now it’s just “buy this $100+ technic set, buy this sitcom set because nostalgia, buy our store membership because you should be regularly buying from our online store…” No more showing the impressive possibilities, just a one-size-fits-all blanket of “creativity is whatever you want it to be” that allows uninspiring stuff everywhere.
5 Likes
I agree with you fully
Cool Creations fell off hard after a certain point and Lego Life was an absolute cesspool
I’ve been inspired, I’m gonna dig out all my old club magazines and document the best of the Cool Creations
4 Likes
lol I just had a look at the magazine page again and one of the featured models, called “Ninjago temple”, is literally just an unmodified set 2507 sitting atop a colorful pillar made of basic bricks. That’s everything.
Granted, the other “cool” creations don’t stoop as low (they are at least original builds, even if questionable at times), but why they chose that model is beyond me.
4 Likes
I’m going to exhume my copies of lego mania magazine to see what dinosaur bones I can find. 
Okay I’m back! Found this gem from the January-February 2002 issue of lego mania magazine.
In this creation, absolute chad Jonathan S. from Michigan proudly flaunts his wealth by displaying over forty-five dollars worth of vintage lego in the “Martian Control Base”, proving that you don’t always need skill to win.
3 Likes