MTG Salvation

Quote from KamikazeArchon »

Quote from TheOnlyOne652089 »

It all depends what is more important to you.

Either a believable setting
or
just putting randomly everything everywhere without context

You think your unbelievable is everyone's unbelievable. But it's not.

There's nothing unbelievable to me about equal male and female representation.

There's nothing unbelievable to me about black people and white people coexisting as part of one culture - regardless of how that culture was previously portrayed.

There's nothing unbelievable to me about a transgender hero. Or a pansexual hero. Or any other thing you might think is "unbelievable".

Because of how you think about the world, you think that these things need to be forced on a storyteller. You think they're external forces that intrude on the story. This is not an objective fact; it's a consequence of your worldview.

Storytellers don't need to be forced to represent men and women equally. Storytellers don't need to be forced to include gender-stereotype-breaking characters. Some storytellers just want to do that.

Because of your worldview, you think these things are random and without context. But for others, these are naturally part of a rich context and a rich world - both speaking of the context of the real world that the game is embedded in, and the story world that we explore.

Wizards is telling a beautiful story. You're trying to say the story is bad, that the story is damaged, but that's not what your complaints reveal; they show that it's just a story you don't like.

Well, that's unfortunate for you. Wizards gets to tell the story they want to tell. Those who like it will partake of it. I like the stories Wizards are telling now. I like them more than the ones Wizards used to tell. So I'm going to support it.

All those things are believable to you. They are also not realistic, and do not happen in real life nearly as often as you think, if ever. Female and male equal representation among wizards? Sure. Among knights and warriors? Give me a break. A transexual hero? Who exactly is following someone with gender dysmorphia into battle?

You guys focused on the wrong critique. My concern is largely two-fold. First, the large-scale recycling. 3 in a row of Ravnica, after having shifted to a system where one set tells the entire flavor of the block rather than 3, is disturbing. Second, the fact that Ravnica is not color-balanced makes a large set that is not color balanced extremely visually displeasing (for me at least). I have always loved the color-balance of Magic, I thought that aesthetic is very satisfying on multiple levels. Singleton Ravnica blocks do not do that. Why not at least to a small-small-big block, if you will do it this way?

And I actually have presented evidence of decline. Hasbro's own numbers for one. The amount of loud discontent another. The rising cost of product (which is not a product that has actual rarity like diamonds) a third. $80 for a Grand Prix as an amateur? Come on!

Quote from BonSequitur »

Quote from hyalapterouslemur »

I was prepared for a righteous rant about how most players don't live in the US or Japan, how he has no idea the ethnic background of those US players (yo), or their sexual orientation, or how high school clique doesn't matter worth a lick in the real world but if we must go that route, Bob Maher (yes, that Bob) started playing after a sports injury, so, fractal wrongness ahoy!, but I think it'll be easier to just remember that the general response to this attitude among gaming companies is #ByeFelicia and leave it at that.

Yeah, for good reason. Having bigoted grognards be the audience for your game is poisonous. For a PC game dev, you're looking at the segment of the audience that supports key resellers, refunds games after beating them, and will harass you if a youtuber tells them the game doesn't run at 60fps. Catering to people who have naked contempt for game devs isn't very attractive to the vast majority of people in the industry.

"Bigoted": White males with money to spend on hobbies and a lack of better, more social things to do. You are now bullying the bullied because they do not agree with your worldview.

And your cancerous "we don't need those fans!" view is sick for many reasons, but particularly because it is NOT YOUR HOBBY! See, you are proving my point by stating that "you" don't need "them" in your hobby. The only way this is possible is if you are in the driver's seat, which you actually almost are, because people with your worldview work at Wizards. So you admit then that you will keep pushing your worldview, and "they" (meaning me) can leave. There is a reason Dominaria has been the most flavorful and well-designed block in a while: "we/you" did not lead the design exclusively, Richard Garfield was involved. He tried to, dare we say, Make Magic Great Again?

And the argument that AlphaInvestment's Rudy knows nothing because he is in a basement is moronic. They guy makes quite a bit of money on the game, meaning he both knows quite a bit, and also has a bit to lose if the game tanks. So maybe, on this one, lend him your ear?

Quote from BonSequitur »

are you seriously coming to a magic the gathering website and arguing that Abraham and ancient egyptian pharaohs were fair-skinned like modern Europeans

No, they were almond-skinned like many Mediterannean peoples, such as the Jews(Israelites/Canaanites), Carthaginians, Phoenicians, etc. They were certainly not North African or Arab as we think of it now.

Its not "bye" anything if the product stops selling. We discussed this Benalish nonsense already. Even if there were Jamuuran immigrants into such a tightly-knit society, the chances of them matriculating to Marshall is unlikely. Do we have any black 3 or 4 star generals? And we actively integrate, and are far from feudal.

No, most of Europe was white. Your lack of proof is not because there was a lack of evidence back then. There was evidence, it just does not favor you. Let me guess, Abraham was black too? As were the pharaohs?

The issue is not even than Lyria or Benalish Marshal is black; its that this is an ACTIVE attempt to force-feed a certain worldview. It's not natural diversity, like "hey draw some guy on a horse." The instructions are "black man on a horse."

I think Ravnica is a wonderful plane. I think 3 sets blocks are great as well, I think that paradigm worked. I am puzzled why we abandoned it for a 2-set paradigm, and then abandoned that for a large sets only, and then did this, which would have worked best as a small-small-big block.

Quote from BonSequitur »

Quote from Negator_402 »

Profits are down 20% for the division.

And no, actually, nice try, but I did not say that people who "look different" are part of a leftist tilt. I have loved the Teferi character for 20 years. Shanna, Huatli, Saheeli, all characters that make sense. The sets were set in those cultures, it does not feel forced.

But half of Benalia, including its Marshall (highest ranked military order) being randomly black after 25 years of it clearly being a white feudal society? Forced. Lyra, the leader of Serra's angels, randomly black? Forced. A transexual elf? Jesus freaking christ forced. These characters were not asked for by the community. They were asked for by a smattering of people, some of whom are not even players, and the rest of push came from inside WOTC.

And I do not think the decline is a coincidence. The same is happening (happened) in comics. I also think its hilarious how much uglier the female characters got, but that is besides the point. If I had the time, I would compare the number of busty women and muscular men in artwork in say Ravnica 1 versus Dominaria. One day maybe.

Dudes saying transparently racist things like "wow this black character in this fantasy artwork is so forced, I can't believe they didn't make this fictional society all white like I ignorantly believe real medieval europe was!" is way worse for sales than the recent dearth of cheesecake in card art

Ad hominem go! No, "bro", it is not racist to say that inaccurate over-representation that reflects neither reality nor the fan base (or even the fan-bases' politics) is not smart or fair. I do not have to explain to you why inaccurate "diversity" is improper; the burden is on you.

And yes, Europe was overwhelmingly white. The trope is based on a pink washing of Medieval Europe, without the rape, plague, and generally toothless broken people. But yes, overwhelmingly white. Unless you count the Moors of Spain (who were outright invaders, and eventually expelled as a politically relevant people) or Jews, who were traders and merchants (I would know, my ancestors were amongst them.)

So they put MTG with Monopoly in that particular games division. I do not think TRU's closure/bankruptcy has crippled Monopoly sales so much to drag down that value, and MTG is not a product I think of as being marketed for TRU, or TRU making up a large chunk of wholesale orders.

Better question is how has MTG's price risen relative to cost of production. shipping, and cost of running local gaming stores. I remember in the early 2000's, when all PTQs were $20 entry fee. Maybe $25 for Sealed, unsure so many years later. What are they now? I know the cost of GP's has risen absurdly.

Profits are down 20% for the division.

And no, actually, nice try, but I did not say that people who "look different" are part of a leftist tilt. I have loved the Teferi character for 20 years. Shanna, Huatli, Saheeli, all characters that make sense. The sets were set in those cultures, it does not feel forced.

But half of Benalia, including its Marshall (highest ranked military order) being randomly black after 25 years of it clearly being a white feudal society? Forced. Lyra, the leader of Serra's angels, randomly black? Forced. A transexual elf? Jesus freaking christ forced. These characters were not asked for by the community. They were asked for by a smattering of people, some of whom are not even players, and the rest of push came from inside WOTC.

And I do not think the decline is a coincidence. The same is happening (happened) in comics. I also think its hilarious how much uglier the female characters got, but that is besides the point. If I had the time, I would compare the number of busty women and muscular men in artwork in say Ravnica 1 versus Dominaria. One day maybe.

You misquoted me. I think Dominaria, flavor wise, is fantastic. I am a fan of nostalgia. I am not a fan of milking previous product rather than developing a sustainable level of new ideas.

Quote from BonSequitur »

I work in the games industry. There's a lot of different reasons companies have started recognizing/representing minority experiences more over the years. Some part of it is that designers/devs aren't just mindless profit-seeking automatons, we're working creatives trying to make something we're proud of. Some part of it is that it's legitimately good business: people of color, women, and LGBTQ people play games, and they're an underserved market in some respects. Making a game more inclusive requires legitimate effort, it's not a free roll, but lots of people in the industry think it's worth it for a combination of market and personal reasons. There's no sinister agenda at play here, we just think games are generally better (and they do better) if they're inclusive, and audiences (when you look at actual data and not angry yelling on internet forums) tend to agree.

The other secret reason for this of course is... the angry grognards who get mad about inclusion in games are just a bad audience. They won't buy or be interested in things that aren't the same four tired genres given the same four tired creative treatments. And they'll happily harass or attack devs over trivial nonsense; if you try to cater to that crowd, good luck when your game doesn't run perfectly on some youtuber's machine... expect to get review brigaded on steam, to have your game bought then refunded at the last minute, to get directly harassed on social media, to be told repeatedly that the game isn't worth the price tag, etc. Most devs just aren't interested in catering to an audience that has sky-high expectations mixed with seething resentment of game devs, unsurprisingly.

Except profits are down ever since the goal posts of what is "righteous" have been moved. People are not as interested, since the price goes up with the pedanticism. The average gamer is still a less-than-social white kid in middle America, or Asian kid in Japan. And they are not moved by transgender war leaders, or more female than male warrior (while none having more than an A cup). The numbers bear this out.

Ravnica always shares a common theme: two color combos. There is no other mechanical interaction. The result will not be 3 free-standing sets, but two sets hobbled by color imbalance. And Rosewater did mention mixing returns and new planes. I cannot find it because I do not particularly care to Shepherdize Rosewater. And yes, the game design is influenced heavily by the world-view of the few who design it, and not the many who play it. If you have a problem with this view, take it up with Magic's seemingly-dwindling profits, despite a rise in quantity of product released.

You have a point. I was much younger, but the Weatherlight crew never offended my sensibilities the same way. I think the game needs more emphasis on its plot, as a fantasy genre. As GOT proved, fantasy is far from dead in the public eye.

Hello,

Today, we had an announcement that everyone was expecting: Ravnica again! On its own, this is fun, because Ravnica is fun. However, the announcement that two (TWO) more large sets will be set in Ravnica as well (meaning that the Fall 18, Winter 19, and Spring 19 are all Ravnica) disturbs me. Here is why:

1. This is yet another flip-flop on the blocks versus single large sets change. Yes, each is a large set, but they are basically 3 sets conjoined by setting, theme (two-color combos) and plot (Bolas, again). In essence, this is a three-large-set block released over a full year.

2. This suggests that they do not have any new ideas. They stated that they want to layer new and old settings like bacon, 1 new, 1 old. This is a breaking of that promise. Ixalan was for children. Dominaria was fun but watered down power-wise. Surely they have a Viking world or Western world or post-apocalyptic world they can use in the next 12 months?

3. Each set will be drafted separately, as they are large sets. This leads to the stupidity of unevenly-colored limited play. This is why I did not enjoy Ixalan draft: the color combos are not balanced. Now, each of the first two large sets will have only have the guilds. Dragon's Maze was the most fun Ravnica to play in limited, and that will not happen this time around.

4. The beauty of Ravnica is that it never needed a top-down plot of theme; the color pie, and the two-color guilds were the plot, and their identity and interrelationship was what made it fun. It was world-view tribal, rather than race type tribal. Now, it will be overshadowed by the serialized cartoon style of Gatewatch v Bolas, and only two years after Amonkhet (less really), which already did this.

However, there is a larger problem. The Battlebond set disclosure released with this makes me wonder what direction WOTC is moving with the game. They are trying to market to a casual audience, but if that is there focus (rather than being like Dota, and building around a popular professional scene with millionaire players), why invest so many resources into pro points, e-celebrity, and perks for Magic's "elite"? There is a lack of focus. They are releasing too much supplemental product, and the main product is suffering, Dominaria aside.

What makes this more disturbing is that Ravnica is a precious resource that should be tended to with care. It's a setting that is always going to be enjoyable, unless its milked to exhaustion. This, combined with the casual-and-pro-at-once shotgun approach, makes me feel almost like WOTC is strip-mining its own IP for short-term gain.

Ironically, where this can be seen is a product quite opposite to MTG and its player base: the UFC. Under Zuffa and the Fertitta brothers, the UFC was built around a theory that the best should fight the best, and that the sport was for warriors. Each weight class was tended to in order to set up compelling challengers to the belt whether the present champion defended or was dethroned. Great matchmaking and fighter development produced stars like Ronda Rousey, Georges Saint Pierre, Jon Jones, Brock Lesnar, and eventually, mega star Conor McGregor.

However, when WME-IMG (a Hollywood management company far removed from the Italian mobster sons that ran Zuffa), the sport began experiencing a similar strip-mining. "Money fights" rather than compelling top-notch fights became soup dejour. Michael Bisping defended his belt against his old rival in #13 ranked, 44 year old Dan Henderson. Ronda Rousey took a title fight immediately upon her year-long absence ending rather than a tune-up (and being soundly smashed by a girl who punches like a dude). McGregor took leave of planet earth and fought Mayweather in boxing, halting the sport's biggest star for 2 years, while holding up 2 weight classes. Brock Lesnar came back for one fight, won, failed a steroid test, and left again. All short-term gain, all long-term loss.

The attitude has landed the UFC, 2 years later, with aging and fading stars, few rising heroes, a roster of fighters using trash talk to sell a possible money fight with an irrelevant opponent, and dropping numbers. UFC 224 was so horrendous they did not market it, and the PPV numbers are looking hideous. They did not develop their product, or use their on-hand resources wisely. They planned around today and tomorrow, not next year. Using Ravnica 3 times, in three separate stand-alone sets, while making the plot Bolas-v-Gatewatch centered, bothers me. It is the same as the UFC since July 2016.

This, combined with the far-left tilt of the virtue signaling in Magic, makes me feel like the current team lacks both creativity (right brain) or business sense (left brain). Or did I get that backwards? Anyway, this is my take, and its too long, but it is what it is. I feel like the IP is being wasted, and ideology and culture is overshadowing ideas and logic.

I stopped playing Magic in tournaments in 2003 as a result. Too many reclusive, ill-mannered, or social non-integrated people. But then again, I also stopped playing Dota because its community is just horrendously toxic.

When I read Invasion/Planeshift/Apocalypse as a 17/18 year old, I thought the writing was epic, while also being somewhat confused by a lot of the seemingly-random twists and turns (Primevals) and the really wonky metaphysics (so Yawgmoth is a stadium AND all of its occupants?)

Having read Jay's various pieces, as well as Multiverse In Review, the feeling I seem to get is that people liked the skeleton of the story, but maybe not some of the filled-in pieces. When I first read these, I did not dare question canon, but now, years later, I feel the same way.

I think that the setup to Invasion was really great, and things could not have been better at the moment the first planar gate opened and plague ships started pouring out. I also think the aftermath, where Freyalise dedicates the Tomb of the Fallen/Martyrs in front of many thousands (millions?) was great. But in between, what would you guys change? I will give my own ideas later.