Quote from sleeper agent 2.0 »Quote from HighHolder »Still way better than the previous two versions. But the question is, why does such a boring legend warrent three iterations?
In all fairness, I thought she was pretty critically important to the Time Spiral storyline, right? A would-be planeswalker who had her spark taken in order to close one of the time rifts, and now leading Keld in existing Dominaria?
Quote from HighHolder »Still way better than the previous two versions. But the question is, why does such a boring legend warrent three iterations?
Quote from Fan-of-"Fanservice" »To bring this back to talking about the actual game (and I hope this point wasn't addressed already, I only had time to skim through the pages):
When a player plays a card that depicts horrible actions or concepts, does that make you think that player condones such actions or concepts in real life?
I believe that's the question it comes down to in this game, as well as in the entertainment industry as a whole.
Can we view the depiction of horrible actions or concepts within the framework of *escapist* mediums as a benign, or at least harmless, form of artistic expression? Or is every depiction of horrible actions or concepts automatically an endorsement of those things?
The Lorwyn Elves were essentially an entirely racist society, yet we are still fine with playing cards like Eyeblight Massacre, right?
Murder is a thing in the real world, sad as that is, and still we can acknowledge that a player playing that card isn't automatically okay with actual murder, right?
In the end, I believe most of us agree that addressing what WotC wanted to address as well as trying to make a real difference in that regard is good and necessary.
Magic was heading in a good direction there, ramping up the diversity in characters depicted in their product. They also have a long history of doing so in regards to black people with great characters like Teferi, Sisay, Crovax, Agrus Cos, Alexi or Jolrael and I believe many of us liked the expansion of that inclusive direction in general.
In short, is it possible for us to acknowledge the good in WotC's proclaimed goal while still criticizing their chosen method do achieve that goal? Or will we always automatically claim that whoever has a problem with the action is automatically also against the intended outcome of those actions?
Quote from Neuroticneurok »Is that really such a bad thing? If a store decides to be greedy and demand more money for a product that isn't worth the new price, the only group that's really going to be hurt by this is the store itself. If Walmart and Target can offer better prices for packs and decks, why wouldn't you want to shop there?