Bristol - I said what I said. I refined the position over the course of the thread because other people have made very good points. When somebody puts a perfectly valid dent in my argument, I don't try to hammer it backout from the inside. I try to accept the new shape as something better, since it accounts for information and ideas that I didn't know or think of. I know conceding points and being convinced by logical discourse aren't very popular practices. And maybe I'm just not being clear enough about it; I wouldn't know.
For the record, I'm grateful for what other people have said. It was enlightening. I'm serious. If I haven't duly acknowledge that, I want to do so now. Bristol (correct me if I'm wrong) doesn't seem to want me in this thread, so I'm withdrawing. Stay awesome.
So it's gone from offensive and insulting to just a little tasteless, sometimes? If it was at any point offensive and insulting, you would think you could also call it outrageous. Your position on this is convoluted at best, changing from post to post and makes little sense as a whole. You've even claimed that somehow Wizards is taking advantage of the player base with their display of a little cheesecake every now and then. I fail to see how that's at all true. Really, I fail to see the point of this rambling mess of a thread.
Well, that's... unnecessarily mean-spirited. You're jumping to conclusions and interpolating new definitions so that you can call me inconsistent. Or you could have asked me to break it down for you.
It's insulting(/offensive) to me when I buy a booster box and see A. Siren staring at me from the box top. Knowing the mechanics of the card, I know that it wasn't chosen because it's rare, or powerful, or even big. It's just... big in a different way. I'm going to have this thing hanging around my house for at least a few days, and it will likely be brought in as overflow storage for my cards. And I really just don't want to see that. it's not particularly attractive, and I think it says something about what Wizards thinks of me as a consumer.
I did not say that the player is taken advantage of. I said that he/she is objectified. Targeted with a marketing strategy that presupposes that they have a desire to see fanservice. Careful reading: it's not just for English majors anymore!
It's not outrageous in that, though it sends a clear signal, it's still cleavage. If the Siren had been fully nude, that would be taking it into outrageous territory, at least for a kids' game.
I've qualified my position by acknowledging that not everybody is offended, that I am not so devastated by this that I don't love the game, and that Wizards has indeed become more tasteful over the years. This does not negate my initial points; it merely defines the extent to which they apply. A problem does not need to be universal, systemic, or earth-shatteringly important to be a problem.
@ Madding: yeah. It's largely a personal problem, though I'm not the only person who feels this way. But that was what the question was about. Personal feedback. As I am a consumer of Wizards' product, it is only fair that they contribute to my satisfaction to the extent to which I (and those who share my opinion) contribute to their revenue. And if I feel that something they're doing devalues the product, I believe I'm within my rights to say something. The reason I posted it hear was because I wanted to know what other people thought about the topic, and get some feel for what the community at large feels.
@ The_Paladin: You seem to be equating context-specific conservatism with religious conservatism. My family is Christian, and I personally hold to fairly conservative, reformed theology. But that's more or less incidental to the fact that I don't particularly want to see fanservice on my strategy game, which is what I meant. I'm not approaching this based on my theology, but on the implications of Brand featuring these pictures prominently.
The difference between cards that represent ideas borrowed from my religion (e.g. Wrath of God) and a Perilous Forays is that Creative does not expect anyone to believe that the Lord of the Pit is an accurate reprentation of a real demon, or that the wrath of God (presupposing his existence) looks like a big white ball of explodey. They aren't making an appeal to your belief system; they're just borrowing a trope. Whereas erotically charged art is generally making an appeal to emotion/instinct.
@ A.Laquatus: Not sure that you read anything past the first post of this thread. For your first point, I haven't known that to be the case, and I read fantasy and science fiction voraciously for about a decade. And to your second point... how many times have I already addressed this? Three? Five? Twenty?
I'm not saying the art is outrageous. It isn't. (At least, almost never.) It's just kind of tasteless sometimes.
As I've said a couple times, I don't see it as an all-consuming plague upon everything that is Magic. That would be Raffinity. =P And I'm not saying that there's no artistic merit to it, or that there is never a reason to put less-than-maximal clothing on a card.
@ vligerdragon: re: the purpose of art: colon: I agree that successful art effectively evokes the desired response. However, I'm not sure that that's quite relevant, since if the goal is to evoke lust, then it's still a questionable choice of artwork for something as prominent as a box or WoW.
Also, it's true... there are very few fat people on MTG cards. At least, none of the ones who are supposed to be cool are really overweight. Fat people tend to be the ones getting zapped, or fried, or bludgeoned, or cheated, or executed, or...
I hope I can be clear that this isn't keeping me from playing the game. But it's the biggest sticking point for me. I think this says as much about effective power creep management as it does about Creative or Brand.
@ flaming infinity: I'm going to bow to your aesthetic sensibilities on that one. (Being serious, not passive-aggressive.) But you see my point. And no, it isn't a huge, systemic, game-consuming trend to put sexy stuff in prominent places. I could be wrong, but I have a hunch that it wouldn't represent a major sacrifice to simply keep that stuff to more discrete venues, i.e. cards. As a PR move, if nothing else.
I should acknowledge that I'm definitely more conservative on this than many, possibly most MTGers. Equally important, I had to "sell" the game to relatively conservative parents. And while I imagine that there are much worse things out there, I'm not really thinking or talking about those things. I'm talking about Magic. The game is pretty much peerless in the Highly Portable, Asymmetrical, Fast-Playing Game category, so I'm treating it as sui generis.
For whether they're using sex as a selling point: can you think of any other criterion for the choice of 2010 box art for which Alluring Siren is the best option? As far as I can tell, the only category it really excels in is "bustiest."
I think a Magic RPG would need to use a system other than the d20 variety. In fact, there's likely a way to adapt elements of the MTG rules for an RPG. It's a very good idea.
@ flaming infinity: Lightwielder Paladin, then. I'm pretty much with meathook and Xcric. If you wanna put it on a card, okay. I get that the artists need some autonomy. But choosing it as the Wallpaper of the Week or as the booster box art is a different story. And I believe I said that. Also, I don't know if I made it clear that I think Alluring Siren is fine as art for a card called "Alluring Siren." I just don't want to have to look at it every time I bust out a box or boot my computer.
@ pixels, Valorale: my issue is not so much that the art is sexist as that it is sometimes gratuitously sensual. I focused on the females because attractive males are not as blatantly pandering to the consumer base's, er... baseness.
@ Allmother: Agreed. Not every portrayal of a female on a Magic card is tasteless. And it's getting better. But there are still some wtf moments. *coughcoughPondercough*
@ Bristol: my personal distaste for sexual pandering was not the only concern, and I acknowledged that not everyone would agree. And I wasn't saying that any person was being objectified or taken advantage of. Well, the players are, but hey, that's capitalism. As to fanservice coming with the territory... "Traditiooooon, tradition!" And my argument about illogic was not based simply on the fact that it's absurd. If my issue was with absurdity, I'd get a flyswatter. The problem is that the pandering doesn't really have an excuse. Oh, and having cleavage isn't insulting; wrapping a game in cleavage and selling it is.
@ everybody who made the RP rulebook argument: I happen to play Magic more than RPGs. But in any case, from where I'm sitting, "They're doing it worse" is not valid justification.
So, today I took advantage of the feedback feature on the MTG web site, and was asked what I would do if I could change one thing about the game we all love. I picked something that I think has struck a few other people, and was wondering who else agreed. Here's the text of my note:
I would stop playing the sex card with consumers. Yes, your target demographic is teenage and young adult males. I'm not saying that all females should be wearing full plate, but fanservice has a couple of problems attached to it. First, it's kind of insulting to players who love the game for its strategic depth and compelling flavor. I want to play an Angel of Despair, not an Angel of Cleavage. Awesome card, with an elegant design and a great Timmy factor, but I'm embarrassed to play it because the art is gratuitously sensual. It cheapens the game.
This can usually be ignored when presented on a card-sized scale, but becomes much harder to brush off when it's in a large format, e.g. on a booster box. Look at a Guildpact or Magic 2010 box (Angel of Cle-Despair and Alluring Siren, resp.), and tell me you'd feel good about showing that to your mother. So, not only is it a sticking point with some (admittedly, probably not too many) players, but it can alienate more conservative outsiders.
Yes, I read Matt Cavotta's November '05 defense of Perilous Forays. And I call rhox hooey, if for no other reason that that it doesn't explain the decision to feature this sort of art so prominently on MTG products. And, of course, for cards like Angel of Despair (or, for that matter, Perilous Forays), it's really illogical to have that much skin showing. I could hand a live squirrel in a sling to a one-eyed man with arthritis, and he couldn't miss the gap in that angel's armor. And the ranger must have misinterpreted when she heard "dressed to kill."
What's more, we're nerds. By and large, Magic players like dragons as much as we like chicks in chainmail (or, more often, out of chainmail). I don't think it would cost you too dearly to put, say, the Bogardan Hellkite on the M2010 box. Not some constructed-unplayable Pyroclasm-bait whose chief asset lies in magnification.
The point, I think, that people who scorn MTG are trying to make is that it's just that: a waste of time. Ultimately, the game does not have the abstract strategic depth of chess, the interpersonal tension of poker, or the mature and dignified presentation of either. It's a great game, don't get me wrong, but let's face it: elves and boggarts.
Making matters worse, the rules are excruciatingly intricate. I imagine that relatively few people actually learn to play the game correctly the first time around. Magic, as we all know, is not a game for people who have anything less than way too much time on their hands, especially not on anything approaching a serious level. This has two major effects: it encourages elitism among players (hardly an attractive trait), and it makes the game seem even more ridiculous to outsiders.
and the cards are often painfully expensive. And, as I have stated, the rewards are not perceived to be terribly great by most people who don't play - I imagine that the common idea of it is poker with elves - or worse, Pokemon with elves. So the question that they ask is: you devote uncounted hours of your time and a solid chunk of money to something as silly as this?
Don't get me wrong. I love the game. It's exterior, though, is not what we'd call the best for encouraging popular interest. Even as a player who pours a lot of time and money into it myself, I can definitely see where people are coming from when they laugh at MTG. There are more productive ways that we could spend our resources, make no mistake. Only a very small handful of fortunates ultimately profit from the game in a tangible way.
With that said, it's nothing to be ashamed of. Just something to keep in perspective. Don't be too defensive or paranoid - learn to laugh at yourself. It's all good.
Incidentally, Casual Chaos Rules - the most vocal opponent of the game with whom I've spoken is one of the most intelligent people I know. There's a level of intelligence and maturity beneath which and above which the game seems silly, and within which the rest of us are slinging cards. =D
1. Jace Beleren has no place in an aggro deck. It's basically spending a card to do nothing.
2. Faerie Harbinger, by the same token, is very slow.
3. 22 land should do the trick. I recommend Whirlpool Whelm for tempo.
I don't know if something like this is already floating around, or whether I'll use it for sure, but it would be really nice to have the art from Brion Stoutarm with the words, "This... is... LORWYN!"
If nothing else, you'd have a good shot at MTG meme.
Blue fae, I think, will be nice in standard draw-go decks, with Rune Snag and Cancel. They're basically taking the place of Think Twice and Careful Consideration, turning the deck into something a little more aggressive. Spellstutter Sprite will, of course, do double duty.
I can't see the black ones doing much outside of limited, since those abilities have more to do with creature control and... life gain? In any case, I think it's more likely that we see Secluded Glen used to splash for just a touch of Last Gasp-edy goodness in Nameless Inversion, and (depending on the toughness of the aggressive red and white cards) maybe Peppersmoke for an aggro-on-aggro matchup.
And, of course, the fae are in Johnny Magic colors. Woots!
But back to block constructed: BDW is going to be a beast, but I think that Elves might just have enough speed to get their token creation into play in time to stop a ground-based offensive. Prowess of the Fair and Elvish Eulogist are going to be a pain for aggro decks to get through.
For the record, I'm grateful for what other people have said. It was enlightening. I'm serious. If I haven't duly acknowledge that, I want to do so now. Bristol (correct me if I'm wrong) doesn't seem to want me in this thread, so I'm withdrawing. Stay awesome.
Well, that's... unnecessarily mean-spirited. You're jumping to conclusions and interpolating new definitions so that you can call me inconsistent. Or you could have asked me to break it down for you.
It's insulting(/offensive) to me when I buy a booster box and see A. Siren staring at me from the box top. Knowing the mechanics of the card, I know that it wasn't chosen because it's rare, or powerful, or even big. It's just... big in a different way. I'm going to have this thing hanging around my house for at least a few days, and it will likely be brought in as overflow storage for my cards. And I really just don't want to see that. it's not particularly attractive, and I think it says something about what Wizards thinks of me as a consumer.
I did not say that the player is taken advantage of. I said that he/she is objectified. Targeted with a marketing strategy that presupposes that they have a desire to see fanservice. Careful reading: it's not just for English majors anymore!
It's not outrageous in that, though it sends a clear signal, it's still cleavage. If the Siren had been fully nude, that would be taking it into outrageous territory, at least for a kids' game.
I've qualified my position by acknowledging that not everybody is offended, that I am not so devastated by this that I don't love the game, and that Wizards has indeed become more tasteful over the years. This does not negate my initial points; it merely defines the extent to which they apply. A problem does not need to be universal, systemic, or earth-shatteringly important to be a problem.
@ Madding: yeah. It's largely a personal problem, though I'm not the only person who feels this way. But that was what the question was about. Personal feedback. As I am a consumer of Wizards' product, it is only fair that they contribute to my satisfaction to the extent to which I (and those who share my opinion) contribute to their revenue. And if I feel that something they're doing devalues the product, I believe I'm within my rights to say something. The reason I posted it hear was because I wanted to know what other people thought about the topic, and get some feel for what the community at large feels.
The difference between cards that represent ideas borrowed from my religion (e.g. Wrath of God) and a Perilous Forays is that Creative does not expect anyone to believe that the Lord of the Pit is an accurate reprentation of a real demon, or that the wrath of God (presupposing his existence) looks like a big white ball of explodey. They aren't making an appeal to your belief system; they're just borrowing a trope. Whereas erotically charged art is generally making an appeal to emotion/instinct.
@ A.Laquatus: Not sure that you read anything past the first post of this thread. For your first point, I haven't known that to be the case, and I read fantasy and science fiction voraciously for about a decade. And to your second point... how many times have I already addressed this? Three? Five? Twenty?
I'm not saying the art is outrageous. It isn't. (At least, almost never.) It's just kind of tasteless sometimes.
Also, it's true... there are very few fat people on MTG cards. At least, none of the ones who are supposed to be cool are really overweight. Fat people tend to be the ones getting zapped, or fried, or bludgeoned, or cheated, or executed, or...
I hope I can be clear that this isn't keeping me from playing the game. But it's the biggest sticking point for me. I think this says as much about effective power creep management as it does about Creative or Brand.
@ flaming infinity: I'm going to bow to your aesthetic sensibilities on that one. (Being serious, not passive-aggressive.) But you see my point. And no, it isn't a huge, systemic, game-consuming trend to put sexy stuff in prominent places. I could be wrong, but I have a hunch that it wouldn't represent a major sacrifice to simply keep that stuff to more discrete venues, i.e. cards. As a PR move, if nothing else.
For whether they're using sex as a selling point: can you think of any other criterion for the choice of 2010 box art for which Alluring Siren is the best option? As far as I can tell, the only category it really excels in is "bustiest."
@ flaming infinity: Lightwielder Paladin, then. I'm pretty much with meathook and Xcric. If you wanna put it on a card, okay. I get that the artists need some autonomy. But choosing it as the Wallpaper of the Week or as the booster box art is a different story. And I believe I said that. Also, I don't know if I made it clear that I think Alluring Siren is fine as art for a card called "Alluring Siren." I just don't want to have to look at it every time I bust out a box or boot my computer.
@ pixels, Valorale: my issue is not so much that the art is sexist as that it is sometimes gratuitously sensual. I focused on the females because attractive males are not as blatantly pandering to the consumer base's, er... baseness.
@ Allmother: Agreed. Not every portrayal of a female on a Magic card is tasteless. And it's getting better. But there are still some wtf moments. *coughcoughPondercough*
@ Bristol: my personal distaste for sexual pandering was not the only concern, and I acknowledged that not everyone would agree. And I wasn't saying that any person was being objectified or taken advantage of. Well, the players are, but hey, that's capitalism. As to fanservice coming with the territory... "Traditiooooon, tradition!" And my argument about illogic was not based simply on the fact that it's absurd. If my issue was with absurdity, I'd get a flyswatter. The problem is that the pandering doesn't really have an excuse. Oh, and having cleavage isn't insulting; wrapping a game in cleavage and selling it is.
@ everybody who made the RP rulebook argument: I happen to play Magic more than RPGs. But in any case, from where I'm sitting, "They're doing it worse" is not valid justification.
I would stop playing the sex card with consumers. Yes, your target demographic is teenage and young adult males. I'm not saying that all females should be wearing full plate, but fanservice has a couple of problems attached to it. First, it's kind of insulting to players who love the game for its strategic depth and compelling flavor. I want to play an Angel of Despair, not an Angel of Cleavage. Awesome card, with an elegant design and a great Timmy factor, but I'm embarrassed to play it because the art is gratuitously sensual. It cheapens the game.
This can usually be ignored when presented on a card-sized scale, but becomes much harder to brush off when it's in a large format, e.g. on a booster box. Look at a Guildpact or Magic 2010 box (Angel of Cle-Despair and Alluring Siren, resp.), and tell me you'd feel good about showing that to your mother. So, not only is it a sticking point with some (admittedly, probably not too many) players, but it can alienate more conservative outsiders.
Yes, I read Matt Cavotta's November '05 defense of Perilous Forays. And I call rhox hooey, if for no other reason that that it doesn't explain the decision to feature this sort of art so prominently on MTG products. And, of course, for cards like Angel of Despair (or, for that matter, Perilous Forays), it's really illogical to have that much skin showing. I could hand a live squirrel in a sling to a one-eyed man with arthritis, and he couldn't miss the gap in that angel's armor. And the ranger must have misinterpreted when she heard "dressed to kill."
What's more, we're nerds. By and large, Magic players like dragons as much as we like chicks in chainmail (or, more often, out of chainmail). I don't think it would cost you too dearly to put, say, the Bogardan Hellkite on the M2010 box. Not some constructed-unplayable Pyroclasm-bait whose chief asset lies in magnification.
Making matters worse, the rules are excruciatingly intricate. I imagine that relatively few people actually learn to play the game correctly the first time around. Magic, as we all know, is not a game for people who have anything less than way too much time on their hands, especially not on anything approaching a serious level. This has two major effects: it encourages elitism among players (hardly an attractive trait), and it makes the game seem even more ridiculous to outsiders.
and the cards are often painfully expensive. And, as I have stated, the rewards are not perceived to be terribly great by most people who don't play - I imagine that the common idea of it is poker with elves - or worse, Pokemon with elves. So the question that they ask is: you devote uncounted hours of your time and a solid chunk of money to something as silly as this?
Don't get me wrong. I love the game. It's exterior, though, is not what we'd call the best for encouraging popular interest. Even as a player who pours a lot of time and money into it myself, I can definitely see where people are coming from when they laugh at MTG. There are more productive ways that we could spend our resources, make no mistake. Only a very small handful of fortunates ultimately profit from the game in a tangible way.
With that said, it's nothing to be ashamed of. Just something to keep in perspective. Don't be too defensive or paranoid - learn to laugh at yourself. It's all good.
Incidentally, Casual Chaos Rules - the most vocal opponent of the game with whom I've spoken is one of the most intelligent people I know. There's a level of intelligence and maturity beneath which and above which the game seems silly, and within which the rest of us are slinging cards. =D
Furthermore, I was the newb who spent his first two months playing the game in a state of fear. Why? Skyreach Manta. That card was broken.
Fae Aggro
4 Secluded Glen
10 Island
8 Swamp
Creatures
4 Nightshade Stinger
4 Spellstutter Sprite
4 Scion of Oona
4 Pestermite
4 Ringskipper
4 Sower of Temptation
2 Wydwen, the Biting Gale
4 Peppersmoke
4 Nameless Inversion
4 Whirlpool Whelm
The basic differences are:
1. Jace Beleren has no place in an aggro deck. It's basically spending a card to do nothing.
2. Faerie Harbinger, by the same token, is very slow.
3. 22 land should do the trick. I recommend Whirlpool Whelm for tempo.
If nothing else, you'd have a good shot at MTG meme.
I can't see the black ones doing much outside of limited, since those abilities have more to do with creature control and... life gain? In any case, I think it's more likely that we see Secluded Glen used to splash for just a touch of Last Gasp-edy goodness in Nameless Inversion, and (depending on the toughness of the aggressive red and white cards) maybe Peppersmoke for an aggro-on-aggro matchup.
And, of course, the fae are in Johnny Magic colors. Woots!
But back to block constructed: BDW is going to be a beast, but I think that Elves might just have enough speed to get their token creation into play in time to stop a ground-based offensive. Prowess of the Fair and Elvish Eulogist are going to be a pain for aggro decks to get through.