I disagree new art could be REALLY cheap, their are ALOT of no name artists with tallent. go to any anime convention to artist ally they will sell you stuff for as little as a buck a design. Custom for $20. Hell I bet the MTG community would it for next to nothing if you framed it as an mtg art contest where all submissions give theire rights to WOTC and winning design will be put on cards with you name credited and we will send you 25 FOIL versions of "your" card.
I disagree new art could be REALLY cheap, their are ALOT of no name artists with tallent. go to any anime convention to artist ally they will sell you stuff for as little as a buck a design. Custom for $20. Hell I bet the MTG community would it for next to nothing if you framed it as an mtg art contest where all submissions give theire rights to WOTC and winning design will be put on cards with you name credited and we will send you 25 FOIL versions of "your" card.
There are flaws and risks with this sourcing from the community.
* Art consistency is completely lost. Some people complain about the "sameness" of modern MTG art, but WotC wants art consistency on purpose. Having a contest for community art is a crapshoot.
* From previous interviews with commissioned artists, they all received creative briefs and art guidelines. Drawing to sell for the artists' alley is not the same as drawing for a corporate client.
* Just as game companies don't accept community ideas for legal reasons (NDAs, copyright), WotC would likely have the same issues getting art from the community.
* While this might work once or twice as a promotional contest, if WotC tries to do this for a significant amount of art, the professional art community will no longer do business with WotC. Good artists making a living do not do spec work. Anybody who inspires to do art for a living should not do art "for the exposure."
I disagree new art could be REALLY cheap, their are ALOT of no name artists with tallent. go to any anime convention to artist ally they will sell you stuff for as little as a buck a design. Custom for $20. Hell I bet the MTG community would it for next to nothing if you framed it as an mtg art contest where all submissions give theire rights to WOTC and winning design will be put on cards with you name credited and we will send you 25 FOIL versions of "your" card.
You are vastly underestimating the quality of Magic art, and the price tag associated with it.
Look at this or this. Look at the illustrations here. These are not the sketches you'll get at an anime convention.
Wizards pays its artists $500-$1000 per card illustration. There's no reason to believe WotC is paying well above a reasonable market rate. If they could get equal quality art at a cheaper price, do you think they would have ignored such an opportunity for decades?
Even $1000 may not seem a lot when you're looking at a corporation's costs - but consider that there are ~250 cards in a set, and you're suddenly at $250k just for illustrations, in addition to every other cost of the set. Plus, that's just the portion paid to artists - there is going to be additional cost for art directors (and more new art means more art directors) and logistics overhead.
I do also think you're overestimating the value of collectibility. That is certainly a factor, but Magic is a game first and foremost. Outside of Un-sets, artwork has little to no effect on gameplay. Doubling the number of unique arts would not double the number of Magic purchases; I doubt it would even increase purchases by 5%.
Real talk, it cracks me up how draftguy's plan to save magic is underpaid teenagers.
Well, corporate America seems to believe underpaid everybody is the solution to problems and that money seems to grow out of the aether itself. This isn't helped much by people tending to undervalue their skills on the job market. It mostly comes down to the company being willing to make better products.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Personally I hate the Mtg art of today.
I like abstract and whimsy you saw on some of the older cards, but most of all I liked the idea of not knowing what the art would be before I opened the pack. It is called variety, and I hear humans rather like it.
Each set should have a loose style to match the theme, sure, I can envisage good reasons for that. Each block? Always the same. Oh look, digital art depicting some guy called Gideon with ludicrous muscles and presumably shrunken genitalia and a failing liver from steroid abuse. I know what the artwork on the next Gideon will be too. The same. Always literal. Generic. Dull. Anodyne. Could you make Mishra's factory winter under the new guidelines? No. It would look like a factory. Some of the most talked about cards in history arose partly from the art. Drew tucker, the Foglios, Rebecca Guay etc. Look at Jones's Stasis. Iconic, debatable, and noteworthy. I see John Avon stuff now and it looks like everyone else's.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
People with belligerent signatures are trying to compensate for something....
Personally I hate the Mtg art of today.
I like abstract and whimsy you saw on some of the older cards, but most of all I liked the idea of not knowing what the art would be before I opened the pack. It is called variety, and I hear humans rather like it.
Each set should have a loose style to match the theme, sure, I can envisage good reasons for that. Each block? Always the same. Oh look, digital art depicting some guy called Gideon with ludicrous muscles and presumably shrunken genitalia and a failing liver from steroid abuse. I know what the artwork on the next Gideon will be too. The same. Always literal. Generic. Dull. Anodyne. Could you make Mishra's factory winter under the new guidelines? No. It would look like a factory. Some of the most talked about cards in history arose partly from the art. Drew tucker, the Foglios, Rebecca Guay etc. Look at Jones's Stasis. Iconic, debatable, and noteworthy. I see John Avon stuff now and it looks like everyone else's.
Riku of Two Reflections - Copy, then copy again | Shattergang Brothers - Token Sac&Recur | Gahiji, Honored One - Multiple attack steps | Karametra, God of Harvests - Landfall, Creaturefall, Shroud | Ruhan of the Fomori - Stop hitting yourself | Zurgo Helmsmasher - Equipment&Wraths | Crosis, the Purger - Dragon Tribal Reanimator | Derevi, Empyrial Tactician - No stax, just tap and untap fun | Anafenza, the Foremost - Enduring Ideal Enchantress | Sharuum, the Hegemon - Sphinx Tribal Control | Noyan Dar - Spellslinger | The Mimeoplasm - Counterpalooza
Lists can be found here.
Still convinced the guy on Beseech the Queen is wearing a Mitra-type hat. Wake up sheeple!
Personally I hate the Mtg art of today.
I like abstract and whimsy you saw on some of the older cards, but most of all I liked the idea of not knowing what the art would be before I opened the pack. It is called variety, and I hear humans rather like it.
Each set should have a loose style to match the theme, sure, I can envisage good reasons for that. Each block? Always the same. Oh look, digital art depicting some guy called Gideon with ludicrous muscles and presumably shrunken genitalia and a failing liver from steroid abuse. I know what the artwork on the next Gideon will be too. The same. Always literal. Generic. Dull. Anodyne. Could you make Mishra's factory winter under the new guidelines? No. It would look like a factory. Some of the most talked about cards in history arose partly from the art. Drew tucker, the Foglios, Rebecca Guay etc. Look at Jones's Stasis. Iconic, debatable, and noteworthy. I see John Avon stuff now and it looks like everyone else's.
Preach brother!
Today's homogenized "art" barely qualifies to be called by the name. I wonder if there is any "joy" when the people commissioned to churn out this stuff actually create it or if its more akin to a McDonalds line worker slapping together a Big Mac.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing since 1994: Currently MAGS (HomeBrew),Standard & Pauper (Pioneer and Modern are degenerate trash formats)
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Wizards is basically taking the modern comic book art approach with MTG art, which is why there is homogenization of the card art. Specifically, WotC is treating the Gatewatch like Marvel or D.C. characters, so they have to have a consistent art style.
Despite the homogenization of the art, the effort needed to create that art is still substantial and technical. It's definitely not equivalent to fast food production of a burger. There is still "joy" in the creation of commercial art. If the paid artists didn't enjoy their work, then they wouldn't be able to get commissions from WotC or any other client. Artists can still make their own art for personal projects or to sell standalone, but few artists can make a steady living that way (unless you're willing to draw some explicit stuff...there seems to be a Patreon market for that kind of art).
Personally I hate the Mtg art of today.
I like abstract and whimsy you saw on some of the older cards, but most of all I liked the idea of not knowing what the art would be before I opened the pack. It is called variety, and I hear humans rather like it.
Each set should have a loose style to match the theme, sure, I can envisage good reasons for that. Each block? Always the same. Oh look, digital art depicting some guy called Gideon with ludicrous muscles and presumably shrunken genitalia and a failing liver from steroid abuse. I know what the artwork on the next Gideon will be too. The same. Always literal. Generic. Dull. Anodyne. Could you make Mishra's factory winter under the new guidelines? No. It would look like a factory. Some of the most talked about cards in history arose partly from the art. Drew tucker, the Foglios, Rebecca Guay etc. Look at Jones's Stasis. Iconic, debatable, and noteworthy. I see John Avon stuff now and it looks like everyone else's.
Preach brother!
Today's homogenized "art" barely qualifies to be called by the name. I wonder if there is any "joy" when the people commissioned to churn out this stuff actually create it or if its more akin to a McDonalds line worker slapping together a Big Mac.
Just because you do not like the modern art aesthetic, does not mean the art took no time to create, that artists take no joy in what they create or that everyone shares your personal preferences.
Personally I hate the Mtg art of today.
I like abstract and whimsy you saw on some of the older cards, but most of all I liked the idea of not knowing what the art would be before I opened the pack. It is called variety, and I hear humans rather like it.
Each set should have a loose style to match the theme, sure, I can envisage good reasons for that. Each block? Always the same. Oh look, digital art depicting some guy called Gideon with ludicrous muscles and presumably shrunken genitalia and a failing liver from steroid abuse. I know what the artwork on the next Gideon will be too. The same. Always literal. Generic. Dull. Anodyne. Could you make Mishra's factory winter under the new guidelines? No. It would look like a factory. Some of the most talked about cards in history arose partly from the art. Drew tucker, the Foglios, Rebecca Guay etc. Look at Jones's Stasis. Iconic, debatable, and noteworthy. I see John Avon stuff now and it looks like everyone else's.
See, I want something radically different. I want card art to be a portal into a world. Notably, not a single plane, but the whole conceptual world of the game. Stasis may be something that someone would be willing to put up on their wall, but it doesn't show me a world. And I don't believe that Cloud Pirates, Auramancer and Admonition Angel show me the same world.
Significant style switches like that are as jarring as watching a movie that has some characters drawn like Studio Ghibli and some drawn like Rick and Morty.
I'm not going to say those other art styles are bad - I love Foglio's work and I follow it in Girl Genius, where it's consistent. I have played Ascension, which has a consistent art style a lot like Guay's work, and think that works just fine for that world.
I don't want the art to be debatable. I want it to be cool when I'm looking at it. There is a place for art that draws attention to itself as art; but I don't want it on my Magic cards. I want to be able to forget that it's art and think that I'm seeing a creature/spell/planeswalker.
Real talk tho, if Return to Theros has Admonition Angel style art for the mortal world and Auramancer style art for the gods, that could be really cool.
Otherwise, if stuff is on the same world I want it to look similar.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
Personally I hate the Mtg art of today.
I like abstract and whimsy you saw on some of the older cards, but most of all I liked the idea of not knowing what the art would be before I opened the pack. It is called variety, and I hear humans rather like it.
Each set should have a loose style to match the theme, sure, I can envisage good reasons for that. Each block? Always the same. Oh look, digital art depicting some guy called Gideon with ludicrous muscles and presumably shrunken genitalia and a failing liver from steroid abuse. I know what the artwork on the next Gideon will be too. The same. Always literal. Generic. Dull. Anodyne. Could you make Mishra's factory winter under the new guidelines? No. It would look like a factory. Some of the most talked about cards in history arose partly from the art. Drew tucker, the Foglios, Rebecca Guay etc. Look at Jones's Stasis. Iconic, debatable, and noteworthy. I see John Avon stuff now and it looks like everyone else's.
See, I want something radically different. I want card art to be a portal into a world. Notably, not a single plane, but the whole conceptual world of the game. Stasis may be something that someone would be willing to put up on their wall, but it doesn't show me a world. And I don't believe that Cloud Pirates, Auramancer and Admonition Angel show me the same world.
Significant style switches like that are as jarring as watching a movie that has some characters drawn like Studio Ghibli and some drawn like Rick and Morty.
I'm not going to say those other art styles are bad - I love Foglio's work and I follow it in Girl Genius, where it's consistent. I have played Ascension, which has a consistent art style a lot like Guay's work, and think that works just fine for that world.
I don't want the art to be debatable. I want it to be cool when I'm looking at it. There is a place for art that draws attention to itself as art; but I don't want it on my Magic cards. I want to be able to forget that it's art and think that I'm seeing a creature/spell/planeswalker.
So much this. I love some of the classic old artwork. I think the story how Jesper Myrfors got together his classmates from CCA to create the art for Alpha is amazing. But I also think Magic artwork has undergone a very positive evolution between then and today. I love diving into new worlds every time a new set releases, I love how immersive and well-rounded it is. Granted, there are some things that I think could still be better (there always are), but I am pretty happy with most of it.
Riku of Two Reflections - Copy, then copy again | Shattergang Brothers - Token Sac&Recur | Gahiji, Honored One - Multiple attack steps | Karametra, God of Harvests - Landfall, Creaturefall, Shroud | Ruhan of the Fomori - Stop hitting yourself | Zurgo Helmsmasher - Equipment&Wraths | Crosis, the Purger - Dragon Tribal Reanimator | Derevi, Empyrial Tactician - No stax, just tap and untap fun | Anafenza, the Foremost - Enduring Ideal Enchantress | Sharuum, the Hegemon - Sphinx Tribal Control | Noyan Dar - Spellslinger | The Mimeoplasm - Counterpalooza
Lists can be found here.
Still convinced the guy on Beseech the Queen is wearing a Mitra-type hat. Wake up sheeple!
Personally I hate the Mtg art of today.
I like abstract and whimsy you saw on some of the older cards, but most of all I liked the idea of not knowing what the art would be before I opened the pack. It is called variety, and I hear humans rather like it.
Each set should have a loose style to match the theme, sure, I can envisage good reasons for that. Each block? Always the same. Oh look, digital art depicting some guy called Gideon with ludicrous muscles and presumably shrunken genitalia and a failing liver from steroid abuse. I know what the artwork on the next Gideon will be too. The same. Always literal. Generic. Dull. Anodyne. Could you make Mishra's factory winter under the new guidelines? No. It would look like a factory. Some of the most talked about cards in history arose partly from the art. Drew tucker, the Foglios, Rebecca Guay etc. Look at Jones's Stasis. Iconic, debatable, and noteworthy. I see John Avon stuff now and it looks like everyone else's.
See, I want something radically different. I want card art to be a portal into a world. Notably, not a single plane, but the whole conceptual world of the game. Stasis may be something that someone would be willing to put up on their wall, but it doesn't show me a world. And I don't believe that Cloud Pirates, Auramancer and Admonition Angel show me the same world.
Significant style switches like that are as jarring as watching a movie that has some characters drawn like Studio Ghibli and some drawn like Rick and Morty.
I'm not going to say those other art styles are bad - I love Foglio's work and I follow it in Girl Genius, where it's consistent. I have played Ascension, which has a consistent art style a lot like Guay's work, and think that works just fine for that world.
I don't want the art to be debatable. I want it to be cool when I'm looking at it. There is a place for art that draws attention to itself as art; but I don't want it on my Magic cards. I want to be able to forget that it's art and think that I'm seeing a creature/spell/planeswalker.
They weren't supposed to be a literal "portal" into another world. The cards are supposed to be literal pages from a book. Look at the original Alpha/Beta starter packs, you can see the book spine and pages. The card backs are supposed to represent the book cover. We, the original Planeswalkers, assemble each of our books (decks) from individual pages (cards). If we're cannibalising other books that spans hundreds or thousands of "years" and planes, then it stands to reason those pages are discovered, written and illustrated by different spellcasters and inserted into said book before we came along.
In a nutshell, the early cards was like witnessing history as written, drawn and photographed by many different people, each with their own experiences and viewpoints. The modern cards are more like watching a movie as filmed and edited by a single individual with a camera showing us the world from one view.
Don't get me wrong, both methods are valid. I do, however, agree with drmarkb. Magic is trying too hard to be homogenized with the art when it shouldn't be.
Personally I hate the Mtg art of today.
I like abstract and whimsy you saw on some of the older cards, but most of all I liked the idea of not knowing what the art would be before I opened the pack. It is called variety, and I hear humans rather like it.
Each set should have a loose style to match the theme, sure, I can envisage good reasons for that. Each block? Always the same. Oh look, digital art depicting some guy called Gideon with ludicrous muscles and presumably shrunken genitalia and a failing liver from steroid abuse. I know what the artwork on the next Gideon will be too. The same. Always literal. Generic. Dull. Anodyne. Could you make Mishra's factory winter under the new guidelines? No. It would look like a factory. Some of the most talked about cards in history arose partly from the art. Drew tucker, the Foglios, Rebecca Guay etc. Look at Jones's Stasis. Iconic, debatable, and noteworthy. I see John Avon stuff now and it looks like everyone else's.
See, I want something radically different. I want card art to be a portal into a world. Notably, not a single plane, but the whole conceptual world of the game. Stasis may be something that someone would be willing to put up on their wall, but it doesn't show me a world. And I don't believe that Cloud Pirates, Auramancer and Admonition Angel show me the same world.
Significant style switches like that are as jarring as watching a movie that has some characters drawn like Studio Ghibli and some drawn like Rick and Morty.
I'm not going to say those other art styles are bad - I love Foglio's work and I follow it in Girl Genius, where it's consistent. I have played Ascension, which has a consistent art style a lot like Guay's work, and think that works just fine for that world.
I don't want the art to be debatable. I want it to be cool when I'm looking at it. There is a place for art that draws attention to itself as art; but I don't want it on my Magic cards. I want to be able to forget that it's art and think that I'm seeing a creature/spell/planeswalker.
They weren't supposed to be a literal "portal" into another world. The cards are supposed to be literal pages from a book. Look at the original Alpha/Beta starter packs, you can see the book spine and pages. The card backs are supposed to represent the book cover. We, the original Planeswalkers, assemble each of our books (decks) from individual pages (cards). If we're cannibalising other books that spans hundreds or thousands of "years" and planes, then it stands to reason those pages are discovered, written and illustrated by different spellcasters and inserted into said book before we came along.
In a nutshell, the early cards was like witnessing history as written, drawn and photographed by many different people, each with their own experiences and viewpoints. The modern cards are more like watching a movie as filmed and edited by a single individual with a camera showing us the world from one view.
Don't get me wrong, both methods are valid. I do, however, agree with drmarkb. Magic is trying too hard to be homogenized with the art when it shouldn't be.
Don't you think we still have that effect today? If you build a Commander deck, for instance, you usually have cards from all kinds of different sets and worlds. You have Esper spells next to creatures from Innistrad or Ravnica. I always liked this from a flavor standpoint, because I thought it captures this "planeswalker travelling the Multiverse and learning new tricks from all kinds of different worlds" feeling quite well. At the same time, each individual set functions as a self-contained, coherent snapshot of a particular world (with considerable variety in terms of tribes, races, places, colors of magic etc...).
Again, I can see how one can criticize the art in terms of purely artistic quality or originality. But Magic is not trying to create meaningful, high art. It wants to create entertainment. It wants to be a Superhero blockbuster movie, not a French black-and-white film.
Riku of Two Reflections - Copy, then copy again | Shattergang Brothers - Token Sac&Recur | Gahiji, Honored One - Multiple attack steps | Karametra, God of Harvests - Landfall, Creaturefall, Shroud | Ruhan of the Fomori - Stop hitting yourself | Zurgo Helmsmasher - Equipment&Wraths | Crosis, the Purger - Dragon Tribal Reanimator | Derevi, Empyrial Tactician - No stax, just tap and untap fun | Anafenza, the Foremost - Enduring Ideal Enchantress | Sharuum, the Hegemon - Sphinx Tribal Control | Noyan Dar - Spellslinger | The Mimeoplasm - Counterpalooza
Lists can be found here.
Still convinced the guy on Beseech the Queen is wearing a Mitra-type hat. Wake up sheeple!
Personally I hate the Mtg art of today.
I like abstract and whimsy you saw on some of the older cards, but most of all I liked the idea of not knowing what the art would be before I opened the pack. It is called variety, and I hear humans rather like it.
Each set should have a loose style to match the theme, sure, I can envisage good reasons for that. Each block? Always the same. Oh look, digital art depicting some guy called Gideon with ludicrous muscles and presumably shrunken genitalia and a failing liver from steroid abuse. I know what the artwork on the next Gideon will be too. The same. Always literal. Generic. Dull. Anodyne. Could you make Mishra's factory winter under the new guidelines? No. It would look like a factory. Some of the most talked about cards in history arose partly from the art. Drew tucker, the Foglios, Rebecca Guay etc. Look at Jones's Stasis. Iconic, debatable, and noteworthy. I see John Avon stuff now and it looks like everyone else's.
Preach brother!
Today's homogenized "art" barely qualifies to be called by the name. I wonder if there is any "joy" when the people commissioned to churn out this stuff actually create it or if its more akin to a McDonalds line worker slapping together a Big Mac.
Just because you do not like the modern art aesthetic, does not mean the art took no time to create, that artists take no joy in what they create or that everyone shares your personal preferences.
Where did I say everyone shares my personal preference? Don't put words in my mouth, bub. I'd ask one of the artists what they think. But I'd ask one that is not currently on the dime of Wizards as you probably won't get an honest answer as current under contract artists want the paycheck. A lot of the current artwork is homogenized, cut and dried, digital media blandness (IN MY OPINION). I never said that it lacks skill or talent. But it lacks a certain heart and soul where JOY comes from. Their talents are being UNDERUTILIZED!!! Give them more room for artistic license and we will see what they can truly create. It could and can be "better".
Playing since 1994: Currently MAGS (HomeBrew),Standard & Pauper (Pioneer and Modern are degenerate trash formats)
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Personally I hate the Mtg art of today.
I like abstract and whimsy you saw on some of the older cards, but most of all I liked the idea of not knowing what the art would be before I opened the pack. It is called variety, and I hear humans rather like it.
Each set should have a loose style to match the theme, sure, I can envisage good reasons for that. Each block? Always the same. Oh look, digital art depicting some guy called Gideon with ludicrous muscles and presumably shrunken genitalia and a failing liver from steroid abuse. I know what the artwork on the next Gideon will be too. The same. Always literal. Generic. Dull. Anodyne. Could you make Mishra's factory winter under the new guidelines? No. It would look like a factory. Some of the most talked about cards in history arose partly from the art. Drew tucker, the Foglios, Rebecca Guay etc. Look at Jones's Stasis. Iconic, debatable, and noteworthy. I see John Avon stuff now and it looks like everyone else's.
Preach brother!
Today's homogenized "art" barely qualifies to be called by the name. I wonder if there is any "joy" when the people commissioned to churn out this stuff actually create it or if its more akin to a McDonalds line worker slapping together a Big Mac.
Just because you do not like the modern art aesthetic, does not mean the art took no time to create, that artists take no joy in what they create or that everyone shares your personal preferences.
Where did I say everyone shares my personal preference? Don't put words in my mouth, bub. I'd ask one of the artists what they think. But I'd ask one that is not currently on the dime of Wizards as you probably won't get an honest answer as current under contract artists want the paycheck. A lot of the current artwork is homogenized, cut and dried, digital media blandness (IN MY OPINION). I never said that it lacks skill or talent. But it lacks a certain heart and soul where JOY comes from. Their talents are being UNDERUTILIZED!!! Give them more room for artistic license and we will see what they can truly create. It could and can be "better".
You sound really smart. Much smarter than everybody else.
Riku of Two Reflections - Copy, then copy again | Shattergang Brothers - Token Sac&Recur | Gahiji, Honored One - Multiple attack steps | Karametra, God of Harvests - Landfall, Creaturefall, Shroud | Ruhan of the Fomori - Stop hitting yourself | Zurgo Helmsmasher - Equipment&Wraths | Crosis, the Purger - Dragon Tribal Reanimator | Derevi, Empyrial Tactician - No stax, just tap and untap fun | Anafenza, the Foremost - Enduring Ideal Enchantress | Sharuum, the Hegemon - Sphinx Tribal Control | Noyan Dar - Spellslinger | The Mimeoplasm - Counterpalooza
Lists can be found here.
Still convinced the guy on Beseech the Queen is wearing a Mitra-type hat. Wake up sheeple!
Personally I hate the Mtg art of today.
I like abstract and whimsy you saw on some of the older cards, but most of all I liked the idea of not knowing what the art would be before I opened the pack. It is called variety, and I hear humans rather like it.
Each set should have a loose style to match the theme, sure, I can envisage good reasons for that. Each block? Always the same. Oh look, digital art depicting some guy called Gideon with ludicrous muscles and presumably shrunken genitalia and a failing liver from steroid abuse. I know what the artwork on the next Gideon will be too. The same. Always literal. Generic. Dull. Anodyne. Could you make Mishra's factory winter under the new guidelines? No. It would look like a factory. Some of the most talked about cards in history arose partly from the art. Drew tucker, the Foglios, Rebecca Guay etc. Look at Jones's Stasis. Iconic, debatable, and noteworthy. I see John Avon stuff now and it looks like everyone else's.
Preach brother!
Today's homogenized "art" barely qualifies to be called by the name. I wonder if there is any "joy" when the people commissioned to churn out this stuff actually create it or if its more akin to a McDonalds line worker slapping together a Big Mac.
Just because you do not like the modern art aesthetic, does not mean the art took no time to create, that artists take no joy in what they create or that everyone shares your personal preferences.
Where did I say everyone shares my personal preference? Don't put words in my mouth, bub. I'd ask one of the artists what they think. But I'd ask one that is not currently on the dime of Wizards as you probably won't get an honest answer as current under contract artists want the paycheck. A lot of the current artwork is homogenized, cut and dried, digital media blandness (IN MY OPINION). I never said that it lacks skill or talent. But it lacks a certain heart and soul where JOY comes from. Their talents are being UNDERUTILIZED!!! Give them more room for artistic license and we will see what they can truly create. It could and can be "better".
You sound really smart. Much smarter than everybody else.
Nah, just some that I can think of. I'm modest too.
Some of you need to understand that some of us don't like what we see. I understand that you may like what you see. There are however other perspectives than "the one" in life. Relax, its art. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing since 1994: Currently MAGS (HomeBrew),Standard & Pauper (Pioneer and Modern are degenerate trash formats)
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
They weren't supposed to be a literal "portal" into another world. The cards are supposed to be literal pages from a book. Look at the original Alpha/Beta starter packs, you can see the book spine and pages. The card backs are supposed to represent the book cover. We, the original Planeswalkers, assemble each of our books (decks) from individual pages (cards). If we're cannibalising other books that spans hundreds or thousands of "years" and planes, then it stands to reason those pages are discovered, written and illustrated by different spellcasters and inserted into said book before we came along.
Maybe that is what they were "supposed to be" back in the time of Alpha/Beta. I don't know what the art directors at the time (did they have art directors?) were thinking. I know what I want, which is not "literal pages from a book". And I don't think that's what current art directors want either.
I recognize that there are people who like Alpha/Beta. Many of them started playing in Alpha/Beta, or near that time period. Others didn't play it but want to. But I don't want to. If the next set was Magic: Alpha again, I wouldn't play it. I think that's a valid opinion to express.
They weren't supposed to be a literal "portal" into another world. The cards are supposed to be literal pages from a book. Look at the original Alpha/Beta starter packs, you can see the book spine and pages. The card backs are supposed to represent the book cover. We, the original Planeswalkers, assemble each of our books (decks) from individual pages (cards). If we're cannibalising other books that spans hundreds or thousands of "years" and planes, then it stands to reason those pages are discovered, written and illustrated by different spellcasters and inserted into said book before we came along.
Maybe that is what they were "supposed to be" back in the time of Alpha/Beta. I don't know what the art directors at the time (did they have art directors?) were thinking. I know what I want, which is not "literal pages from a book". And I don't think that's what current art directors want either.
I recognize that there are people who like Alpha/Beta. Many of them started playing in Alpha/Beta, or near that time period. Others didn't play it but want to. But I don't want to. If the next set was Magic: Alpha again, I wouldn't play it. I think that's a valid opinion to express.
So maybe they should look into alternate art of certain cards in a set, done in a fashion with Unstable recently and back in the day with Fallen Empires. Have a modern homogenized version and a more liberal interpretation for the vintage/classic/non-traditional player or fan. Sure it could cost more money in artist fees, but choice is always nice.
Playing since 1994: Currently MAGS (HomeBrew),Standard & Pauper (Pioneer and Modern are degenerate trash formats)
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
No doubt you have to pay your artists some bucks to get something good in return.
But no matter what, they make money with selling magic cards and its a kind of cost they SHOULD pay, for the good of the game.
Theres a bunch of promo cards that get new artwork, and a lot of more or less random cards get new artwork too, its not like they dont do that already, they just dont do it CONSISTENTLY and this is an issue, as especially expensive reprints do never get a new artwork (or downright randomly what artwork they use). All the masterpieces had new artwork, and that alone was a good thing (given they completely went downhill with the "Egyptian" style , but thats an entirely different topic the kind of idiocy that should never ever repeat).
If they would stick a new art on every rare/mythic that gets a reprint would already be a start. But i still would DEMAND that they give a reprint something to make it different, a reprint that is the exact same card just with a different set symbol feels like an INSULT to me, its like selling the very same product again and again , thats incredible against everything a collectable card game should be , cards are supposed to be collected and traded, so different artwork helps TREMENDOUSLY in that sector.
----
Even if they make a new set with new artwork, they already print a lot of new cards a new set is FULL of cards with new artwork.
So a product especially like a Master set, that sells for triple the price should at the VERY LEAST have new artwork for all of them, the product is already incredible overpriced as it is, shrinking the costs by not giving them artwork is just laughable sorry, if not an direct insult to the players (which just suck it up, no matter what, players just want reprints a lot dont care at all, but a fair lot actually do, and they just dont question it, especially if some "random" crap cards get new artwork, while the big ones dont, and they deserve more art especially).
----
Also in terms of a collectable card game the artwork should have a value and a meaning itself.
If it becomes a mandatory Rule to provide new artwork for a reprint it gives ever single card with a nice artwork a real value and a price tag.
If you want a cheaper version with a less liked artwork, you can get cards much cheaper, while nice art might really go up in price (and thats especially true for foils, as these would be pretty much be a limited print run, as the art will never get reprinted, as a "guarantee" , that alone is a GREAT approval to the market and in collectors, the players couldnt care less, if they just want the cards for cheap, it even benefits them, if theres a particularly cheap artwork to grab them up for cheap).
The cost of good artwork should be a very real quality of Magic a real number of people just collect the cards for the artwork, they dont even play the game , they just like the art , so putting more money and effort into making artwork a REAL THING of the cards, that cannot be denied would make the game much richer and better.
Any reprint of a card with the very same art is just lazy and customers should demand to improve in that area (in every survey they made i clearly told them so in the comment boxes, if more people do so too, they "might" actually not ignore it, as thats how WotC works).
So, all facts considering... after seeing the challenger decks I want to go find some fireworks to celebrate the first honestly good MtG product that has been released since the Magic Origins Duel Deck. Heck, these strait up blow that duel deck out of the water. Please tell me this means Wizards finally started to listen to people.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Maybe that is what they were "supposed to be" back in the time of Alpha/Beta. I don't know what the art directors at the time (did they have art directors?) were thinking. I know what I want, which is not "literal pages from a book". And I don't think that's what current art directors want either.
I recognize that there are people who like Alpha/Beta. Many of them started playing in Alpha/Beta, or near that time period. Others didn't play it but want to. But I don't want to. If the next set was Magic: Alpha again, I wouldn't play it. I think that's a valid opinion to express.
Absolutely.
Especially earlier on (and even more so in core sets) there was no story , no world building, just cards.
It even was the total opposite.
Some cards like Shivan Dragon have an entire lore build around it AFTER it was printed. The card made an entire Plane (shiv) by its name, and was an incredible iconic card for magic for years and years.
In the early days they just made cards, a lot of spells and design is based on Dungeon&Dragons monsters, lore pieces, even real world ideology and ideas, theres even religion somehow involved (Wrath of the God, and all that) , and dark sadistic magic with demons and cruel stuff, that was for a long time completely outspoken and unprintable (we didnt get Demons till Grinning Demon, and they even didnt want to print stuff like "sacrifice a human" as they thought that just unprintable text on a card, totally crazy if you think about it now).
----
Early magic art is just ART , its artist that just painted stuff and they made cards for it, or they had some very basic idea of a card and wanted some art for it, very very basic.
Today they give a lot of informations to the artist and want to really BADLY include world building in almost anything, and give art directions how stuff looks and that every card fits in the theme of a set and all of that helps and damages the creative process at the same time, simply because it leads to a more one-dimensional kind of art design (which doesnt mean we cannot get great artwork, and we really do i like a lot of artworks too, but also a lot just lacks the excitement, and nothing stands out crazy much, as in the end, lots of art is just more and more only for the purpose of world building, and that is more important for WotC than the art of a card itself that stands for itself).
Compare that to the kind and style of some cards that we get as PROMO cards, there the world building is much more ignored and we just get some possible really really great artwork.
Bloodbraid Elf for example, makes sense in its first printing in Shards as the world is very animalistic, the card also looks to fit into the world theme.
But i very much prefer the "anime" look of the Bloodbraid Elf we got as an FNM card, that was just outstanding, it looked special, because it didnt fit into a world of normal magic, the card stands for itself.
Both works, but the focus is very different.
And for that reason a set full of reprints will have a much harder time, as they dont tell any real story, they dont even build a world, they just grab some cards, throw them together and call it "done" , thats MUCH MUCH more lazy (and sadly it sells, so they cannot give less of a about it) , but if you care for the artwork of cards, everyone should highly appreciate if we get new fresh and maybe even some "special" artwork from artists in which they can much more express themselves too, to make art that clearly doesnt need to bend to world building rules that a normal set has.
Thats why its so important that each reprint gets new art, its the exact best moment to do so, and ignoring these chances is a statement that people shouldnt just ignore , it tells you as a customer, we dont even care enough and just make the "cheapest" move possible, and thats just lazy, and lazy shouldnt be rewarded and shouldnt be accepted.
----
So as a rule, every reprint of a card should have a mandatory new artwork for it.
Everyone and i mean absolutely everyone would benefit from this, as magic benefits so much from its artwork.
Personally I hate the Mtg art of today.
I like abstract and whimsy you saw on some of the older cards, but most of all I liked the idea of not knowing what the art would be before I opened the pack. It is called variety, and I hear humans rather like it.
Each set should have a loose style to match the theme, sure, I can envisage good reasons for that. Each block? Always the same. Oh look, digital art depicting some guy called Gideon with ludicrous muscles and presumably shrunken genitalia and a failing liver from steroid abuse. I know what the artwork on the next Gideon will be too. The same. Always literal. Generic. Dull. Anodyne. Could you make Mishra's factory winter under the new guidelines? No. It would look like a factory. Some of the most talked about cards in history arose partly from the art. Drew tucker, the Foglios, Rebecca Guay etc. Look at Jones's Stasis. Iconic, debatable, and noteworthy. I see John Avon stuff now and it looks like everyone else's.
See, I want something radically different. I want card art to be a portal into a world. Notably, not a single plane, but the whole conceptual world of the game. Stasis may be something that someone would be willing to put up on their wall, but it doesn't show me a world. And I don't believe that Cloud Pirates, Auramancer and Admonition Angel show me the same world.
Significant style switches like that are as jarring as watching a movie that has some characters drawn like Studio Ghibli and some drawn like Rick and Morty.
I'm not going to say those other art styles are bad - I love Foglio's work and I follow it in Girl Genius, where it's consistent. I have played Ascension, which has a consistent art style a lot like Guay's work, and think that works just fine for that world.
I don't want the art to be debatable. I want it to be cool when I'm looking at it. There is a place for art that draws attention to itself as art; but I don't want it on my Magic cards. I want to be able to forget that it's art and think that I'm seeing a creature/spell/planeswalker.
They weren't supposed to be a literal "portal" into another world. The cards are supposed to be literal pages from a book. Look at the original Alpha/Beta starter packs, you can see the book spine and pages. The card backs are supposed to represent the book cover. We, the original Planeswalkers, assemble each of our books (decks) from individual pages (cards). If we're cannibalising other books that spans hundreds or thousands of "years" and planes, then it stands to reason those pages are discovered, written and illustrated by different spellcasters and inserted into said book before we came along.
In a nutshell, the early cards was like witnessing history as written, drawn and photographed by many different people, each with their own experiences and viewpoints. The modern cards are more like watching a movie as filmed and edited by a single individual with a camera showing us the world from one view.
Don't get me wrong, both methods are valid. I do, however, agree with drmarkb. Magic is trying too hard to be homogenized with the art when it shouldn't be.
Don't you think we still have that effect today? If you build a Commander deck, for instance, you usually have cards from all kinds of different sets and worlds. You have Esper spells next to creatures from Innistrad or Ravnica. I always liked this from a flavor standpoint, because I thought it captures this "planeswalker travelling the Multiverse and learning new tricks from all kinds of different worlds" feeling quite well. At the same time, each individual set functions as a self-contained, coherent snapshot of a particular world (with considerable variety in terms of tribes, races, places, colors of magic etc...).
Not really. What I'm describing isn't about different worlds, it's about different people. There's a difference and it's admitedly hard to put that into perspective sometimes given our current interconnected culture. But I'll try...
What you're describing might be the equivalent of a single individual, or a very small group of people together, visiting and photographing different countries and compiling it all into one film or tome. You naturally get the sense of each country, but you see it only through a single person or collective.
What I'm describing is what Kodak or Apple or whatever did years ago where they went around to different countries and handed a ton of different people a camera, shows them how to take basic shots, then told them, "film what you see and bring the film back." (As an aside, I think the participants got to keep the camera.) So by handing hundreds of people a camera of all varying ages and skills, you got a sense of all the different perceptions people experience of their cities, countries, whatever.
Someone mentioned a few cards. Cards like Stasis. Can you imagine the madness of watching your own death and there was nothing you can do? It reminds me of a short story (forgot the title) about wormhole travel and what would happen if you're awake as you go through. A mind with no body or sensory input, just your own thoughts, for eternity? How long before madness sets in? How about hilarity like Uktabi Orangutan that resulted in a tongue-in-cheek reference in an un-card? Or Horrible Hordes which I'm fairly certain is a nod to Wizard of Oz.
Not saying that new art is bad either. It took several seconds before realizing the M12 [c]Distress[c] art by Hayes is bonkers. And I'm particularly fond of the nuances in the Kaladesh lands.
Again, I can see how one can criticize the art in terms of purely artistic quality or originality. But Magic is not trying to create meaningful, high art. It wants to create entertainment. It wants to be a Superhero blockbuster movie, not a French black-and-white film.
What I'm basically saying is the adage, different strokes for different folks. WotC needs to realize that and play into that with their art
Personally I hate the Mtg art of today.
I like abstract and whimsy you saw on some of the older cards, but most of all I liked the idea of not knowing what the art would be before I opened the pack. It is called variety, and I hear humans rather like it.
Each set should have a loose style to match the theme, sure, I can envisage good reasons for that. Each block? Always the same. Oh look, digital art depicting some guy called Gideon with ludicrous muscles and presumably shrunken genitalia and a failing liver from steroid abuse. I know what the artwork on the next Gideon will be too. The same. Always literal. Generic. Dull. Anodyne. Could you make Mishra's factory winter under the new guidelines? No. It would look like a factory. Some of the most talked about cards in history arose partly from the art. Drew tucker, the Foglios, Rebecca Guay etc. Look at Jones's Stasis. Iconic, debatable, and noteworthy. I see John Avon stuff now and it looks like everyone else's.
Preach brother!
Today's homogenized "art" barely qualifies to be called by the name. I wonder if there is any "joy" when the people commissioned to churn out this stuff actually create it or if its more akin to a McDonalds line worker slapping together a Big Mac.
Just because you do not like the modern art aesthetic, does not mean the art took no time to create, that artists take no joy in what they create or that everyone shares your personal preferences.
Where did I say everyone shares my personal preference? Don't put words in my mouth, bub. I'd ask one of the artists what they think. But I'd ask one that is not currently on the dime of Wizards as you probably won't get an honest answer as current under contract artists want the paycheck. A lot of the current artwork is homogenized, cut and dried, digital media blandness (IN MY OPINION). I never said that it lacks skill or talent. But it lacks a certain heart and soul where JOY comes from. Their talents are being UNDERUTILIZED!!! Give them more room for artistic license and we will see what they can truly create. It could and can be "better".
Those artists put their hearts and souls into their work. You may not like what they create but that does not mean it "barely qualifies to be called [art]" or that their effort is "akin to a McDonalds line worker slapping together a Big Mac."
You don't need to disrespect the artists to say you don't like the art direction.
There are flaws and risks with this sourcing from the community.
* Art consistency is completely lost. Some people complain about the "sameness" of modern MTG art, but WotC wants art consistency on purpose. Having a contest for community art is a crapshoot.
* From previous interviews with commissioned artists, they all received creative briefs and art guidelines. Drawing to sell for the artists' alley is not the same as drawing for a corporate client.
* Just as game companies don't accept community ideas for legal reasons (NDAs, copyright), WotC would likely have the same issues getting art from the community.
* While this might work once or twice as a promotional contest, if WotC tries to do this for a significant amount of art, the professional art community will no longer do business with WotC. Good artists making a living do not do spec work. Anybody who inspires to do art for a living should not do art "for the exposure."
Look at this or this. Look at the illustrations here. These are not the sketches you'll get at an anime convention.
Wizards pays its artists $500-$1000 per card illustration. There's no reason to believe WotC is paying well above a reasonable market rate. If they could get equal quality art at a cheaper price, do you think they would have ignored such an opportunity for decades?
Even $1000 may not seem a lot when you're looking at a corporation's costs - but consider that there are ~250 cards in a set, and you're suddenly at $250k just for illustrations, in addition to every other cost of the set. Plus, that's just the portion paid to artists - there is going to be additional cost for art directors (and more new art means more art directors) and logistics overhead.
I do also think you're overestimating the value of collectibility. That is certainly a factor, but Magic is a game first and foremost. Outside of Un-sets, artwork has little to no effect on gameplay. Doubling the number of unique arts would not double the number of Magic purchases; I doubt it would even increase purchases by 5%.
Art is life itself.
Well, corporate America seems to believe underpaid everybody is the solution to problems and that money seems to grow out of the aether itself. This isn't helped much by people tending to undervalue their skills on the job market. It mostly comes down to the company being willing to make better products.
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
I like abstract and whimsy you saw on some of the older cards, but most of all I liked the idea of not knowing what the art would be before I opened the pack. It is called variety, and I hear humans rather like it.
Each set should have a loose style to match the theme, sure, I can envisage good reasons for that. Each block? Always the same. Oh look, digital art depicting some guy called Gideon with ludicrous muscles and presumably shrunken genitalia and a failing liver from steroid abuse. I know what the artwork on the next Gideon will be too. The same. Always literal. Generic. Dull. Anodyne. Could you make Mishra's factory winter under the new guidelines? No. It would look like a factory. Some of the most talked about cards in history arose partly from the art. Drew tucker, the Foglios, Rebecca Guay etc. Look at Jones's Stasis. Iconic, debatable, and noteworthy. I see John Avon stuff now and it looks like everyone else's.
Tamanoa - Welcome to the Jungle
Lists can be found here.
Preach brother!
Today's homogenized "art" barely qualifies to be called by the name. I wonder if there is any "joy" when the people commissioned to churn out this stuff actually create it or if its more akin to a McDonalds line worker slapping together a Big Mac.
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Despite the homogenization of the art, the effort needed to create that art is still substantial and technical. It's definitely not equivalent to fast food production of a burger. There is still "joy" in the creation of commercial art. If the paid artists didn't enjoy their work, then they wouldn't be able to get commissions from WotC or any other client. Artists can still make their own art for personal projects or to sell standalone, but few artists can make a steady living that way (unless you're willing to draw some explicit stuff...there seems to be a Patreon market for that kind of art).
Just because you do not like the modern art aesthetic, does not mean the art took no time to create, that artists take no joy in what they create or that everyone shares your personal preferences.
Significant style switches like that are as jarring as watching a movie that has some characters drawn like Studio Ghibli and some drawn like Rick and Morty.
I'm not going to say those other art styles are bad - I love Foglio's work and I follow it in Girl Genius, where it's consistent. I have played Ascension, which has a consistent art style a lot like Guay's work, and think that works just fine for that world.
I don't want the art to be debatable. I want it to be cool when I'm looking at it. There is a place for art that draws attention to itself as art; but I don't want it on my Magic cards. I want to be able to forget that it's art and think that I'm seeing a creature/spell/planeswalker.
Otherwise, if stuff is on the same world I want it to look similar.
Art is life itself.
Tamanoa - Welcome to the Jungle
Lists can be found here.
They weren't supposed to be a literal "portal" into another world. The cards are supposed to be literal pages from a book. Look at the original Alpha/Beta starter packs, you can see the book spine and pages. The card backs are supposed to represent the book cover. We, the original Planeswalkers, assemble each of our books (decks) from individual pages (cards). If we're cannibalising other books that spans hundreds or thousands of "years" and planes, then it stands to reason those pages are discovered, written and illustrated by different spellcasters and inserted into said book before we came along.
In a nutshell, the early cards was like witnessing history as written, drawn and photographed by many different people, each with their own experiences and viewpoints. The modern cards are more like watching a movie as filmed and edited by a single individual with a camera showing us the world from one view.
Don't get me wrong, both methods are valid. I do, however, agree with drmarkb. Magic is trying too hard to be homogenized with the art when it shouldn't be.
Again, I can see how one can criticize the art in terms of purely artistic quality or originality. But Magic is not trying to create meaningful, high art. It wants to create entertainment. It wants to be a Superhero blockbuster movie, not a French black-and-white film.
Tamanoa - Welcome to the Jungle
Lists can be found here.
Where did I say everyone shares my personal preference? Don't put words in my mouth, bub. I'd ask one of the artists what they think. But I'd ask one that is not currently on the dime of Wizards as you probably won't get an honest answer as current under contract artists want the paycheck. A lot of the current artwork is homogenized, cut and dried, digital media blandness (IN MY OPINION). I never said that it lacks skill or talent. But it lacks a certain heart and soul where JOY comes from. Their talents are being UNDERUTILIZED!!! Give them more room for artistic license and we will see what they can truly create. It could and can be "better".
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Tamanoa - Welcome to the Jungle
Lists can be found here.
Nah, just some that I can think of. I'm modest too.
Some of you need to understand that some of us don't like what we see. I understand that you may like what you see. There are however other perspectives than "the one" in life. Relax, its art. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
I recognize that there are people who like Alpha/Beta. Many of them started playing in Alpha/Beta, or near that time period. Others didn't play it but want to. But I don't want to. If the next set was Magic: Alpha again, I wouldn't play it. I think that's a valid opinion to express.
So maybe they should look into alternate art of certain cards in a set, done in a fashion with Unstable recently and back in the day with Fallen Empires. Have a modern homogenized version and a more liberal interpretation for the vintage/classic/non-traditional player or fan. Sure it could cost more money in artist fees, but choice is always nice.
STOP using "dude/bro" as a pejorative or insult. Grow up.
Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
But no matter what, they make money with selling magic cards and its a kind of cost they SHOULD pay, for the good of the game.
Theres a bunch of promo cards that get new artwork, and a lot of more or less random cards get new artwork too, its not like they dont do that already, they just dont do it CONSISTENTLY and this is an issue, as especially expensive reprints do never get a new artwork (or downright randomly what artwork they use). All the masterpieces had new artwork, and that alone was a good thing (given they completely went downhill with the "Egyptian" style , but thats an entirely different topic the kind of idiocy that should never ever repeat).
If they would stick a new art on every rare/mythic that gets a reprint would already be a start. But i still would DEMAND that they give a reprint something to make it different, a reprint that is the exact same card just with a different set symbol feels like an INSULT to me, its like selling the very same product again and again , thats incredible against everything a collectable card game should be , cards are supposed to be collected and traded, so different artwork helps TREMENDOUSLY in that sector.
----
Even if they make a new set with new artwork, they already print a lot of new cards a new set is FULL of cards with new artwork.
So a product especially like a Master set, that sells for triple the price should at the VERY LEAST have new artwork for all of them, the product is already incredible overpriced as it is, shrinking the costs by not giving them artwork is just laughable sorry, if not an direct insult to the players (which just suck it up, no matter what, players just want reprints a lot dont care at all, but a fair lot actually do, and they just dont question it, especially if some "random" crap cards get new artwork, while the big ones dont, and they deserve more art especially).
----
Also in terms of a collectable card game the artwork should have a value and a meaning itself.
If it becomes a mandatory Rule to provide new artwork for a reprint it gives ever single card with a nice artwork a real value and a price tag.
If you want a cheaper version with a less liked artwork, you can get cards much cheaper, while nice art might really go up in price (and thats especially true for foils, as these would be pretty much be a limited print run, as the art will never get reprinted, as a "guarantee" , that alone is a GREAT approval to the market and in collectors, the players couldnt care less, if they just want the cards for cheap, it even benefits them, if theres a particularly cheap artwork to grab them up for cheap).
The cost of good artwork should be a very real quality of Magic a real number of people just collect the cards for the artwork, they dont even play the game , they just like the art , so putting more money and effort into making artwork a REAL THING of the cards, that cannot be denied would make the game much richer and better.
Any reprint of a card with the very same art is just lazy and customers should demand to improve in that area (in every survey they made i clearly told them so in the comment boxes, if more people do so too, they "might" actually not ignore it, as thats how WotC works).
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
1. (Ravnica Allegiance): You can't keep a good esper control deck down... Or Wilderness Reclamation... or Gates...
2. (War of the Spark): Guys, I know what we need! We need a cycle of really idiotic flavor text victory cards! Jace's Triumph...
3. (War of the Spark): Lets make the format with control have even more control!
Absolutely.
Especially earlier on (and even more so in core sets) there was no story , no world building, just cards.
It even was the total opposite.
Some cards like Shivan Dragon have an entire lore build around it AFTER it was printed. The card made an entire Plane (shiv) by its name, and was an incredible iconic card for magic for years and years.
In the early days they just made cards, a lot of spells and design is based on Dungeon&Dragons monsters, lore pieces, even real world ideology and ideas, theres even religion somehow involved (Wrath of the God, and all that) , and dark sadistic magic with demons and cruel stuff, that was for a long time completely outspoken and unprintable (we didnt get Demons till Grinning Demon, and they even didnt want to print stuff like "sacrifice a human" as they thought that just unprintable text on a card, totally crazy if you think about it now).
----
Early magic art is just ART , its artist that just painted stuff and they made cards for it, or they had some very basic idea of a card and wanted some art for it, very very basic.
Today they give a lot of informations to the artist and want to really BADLY include world building in almost anything, and give art directions how stuff looks and that every card fits in the theme of a set and all of that helps and damages the creative process at the same time, simply because it leads to a more one-dimensional kind of art design (which doesnt mean we cannot get great artwork, and we really do i like a lot of artworks too, but also a lot just lacks the excitement, and nothing stands out crazy much, as in the end, lots of art is just more and more only for the purpose of world building, and that is more important for WotC than the art of a card itself that stands for itself).
Compare that to the kind and style of some cards that we get as PROMO cards, there the world building is much more ignored and we just get some possible really really great artwork.
Bloodbraid Elf for example, makes sense in its first printing in Shards as the world is very animalistic, the card also looks to fit into the world theme.
But i very much prefer the "anime" look of the Bloodbraid Elf we got as an FNM card, that was just outstanding, it looked special, because it didnt fit into a world of normal magic, the card stands for itself.
Both works, but the focus is very different.
And for that reason a set full of reprints will have a much harder time, as they dont tell any real story, they dont even build a world, they just grab some cards, throw them together and call it "done" , thats MUCH MUCH more lazy (and sadly it sells, so they cannot give less of a about it) , but if you care for the artwork of cards, everyone should highly appreciate if we get new fresh and maybe even some "special" artwork from artists in which they can much more express themselves too, to make art that clearly doesnt need to bend to world building rules that a normal set has.
Thats why its so important that each reprint gets new art, its the exact best moment to do so, and ignoring these chances is a statement that people shouldnt just ignore , it tells you as a customer, we dont even care enough and just make the "cheapest" move possible, and thats just lazy, and lazy shouldnt be rewarded and shouldnt be accepted.
----
So as a rule, every reprint of a card should have a mandatory new artwork for it.
Everyone and i mean absolutely everyone would benefit from this, as magic benefits so much from its artwork.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
Not really. What I'm describing isn't about different worlds, it's about different people. There's a difference and it's admitedly hard to put that into perspective sometimes given our current interconnected culture. But I'll try...
What you're describing might be the equivalent of a single individual, or a very small group of people together, visiting and photographing different countries and compiling it all into one film or tome. You naturally get the sense of each country, but you see it only through a single person or collective.
What I'm describing is what Kodak or Apple or whatever did years ago where they went around to different countries and handed a ton of different people a camera, shows them how to take basic shots, then told them, "film what you see and bring the film back." (As an aside, I think the participants got to keep the camera.) So by handing hundreds of people a camera of all varying ages and skills, you got a sense of all the different perceptions people experience of their cities, countries, whatever.
Someone mentioned a few cards. Cards like Stasis. Can you imagine the madness of watching your own death and there was nothing you can do? It reminds me of a short story (forgot the title) about wormhole travel and what would happen if you're awake as you go through. A mind with no body or sensory input, just your own thoughts, for eternity? How long before madness sets in? How about hilarity like Uktabi Orangutan that resulted in a tongue-in-cheek reference in an un-card? Or Horrible Hordes which I'm fairly certain is a nod to Wizard of Oz.
Not saying that new art is bad either. It took several seconds before realizing the M12 [c]Distress[c] art by Hayes is bonkers. And I'm particularly fond of the nuances in the Kaladesh lands.
What I'm basically saying is the adage, different strokes for different folks. WotC needs to realize that and play into that with their art
Those artists put their hearts and souls into their work. You may not like what they create but that does not mean it "barely qualifies to be called [art]" or that their effort is "akin to a McDonalds line worker slapping together a Big Mac."
You don't need to disrespect the artists to say you don't like the art direction.