Will there ever again be a Magic set that understands how to create a sense of dread as much as the original?
For what it's worth I dread every new EMN spoiler.
>>47922042
we've abandoned the metal as fvck aesthetic for black because... idk, i guess it doesn't sell
i love it though
>>47922042
No, the new art is all way worse desu.
>>47922042
No, Lovecraft is now racist and le slenderman is the pinicel of horror. Digital art is cheaper and looks just like my Marvel movies. Who is Rebecca Guay?
>>47922083
Because someone decided that every Magic artist needs to work in exactly the same house style. Any artists whose work is identifiable are cut down like tall poppies, leaving only mediocrity. That's why nobody remembers new Magic artists but everyone remembers old ones.
I don't associate bad art with spooky, sorry.
>>47923612
>"I like art drawn by kindergarten autistic babies"
Not surprising considering you seem one.
>>47923723
Idk Wayne Reynolds' art is pretty distinguishable
>>47922042
Whats your favorite old art /tg/?
>>47923835
This one. New Magic art can't even compare.
>>47923805
Yeah, because it's crap
>>47923835
I really like the old Icy Manipulator.
Red mana battery looks neat as hell too,I think there's just something about old artifact art that I just liked.
>>47923835
Easily this one (it's bog wraith), but ABU Dark Rit comes close as well. I'm >>47922083, I love the look of the old black stuff
>>47922042
innistrad got close.
>>47922076
zing
>>47924142
The borders help. The rusty brown looked much better.
>>47924702
>The borders help. The rusty brown looked much better.
This is very true, the old artifact borders remind you of actual artifacts - the new ones you'd expect to see in some sort of space-age game.
I try to get old artifact frames of artifacts where possible for this very reason.
>>47924339
Shame about the bad CGI art.
>>47923835
Stasis.
>>47923612
>No, Lovecraft is now racist and le slenderman is the pinicel of horror.
When was Lovecraft not racist?
This card actually gave me nightmares as a kid.
This fucking thing
This isn't exactly terrifying, but it's a step in the right direction, in my opinion.
>>47924320
>Donaldtrump joins a cult
>>47924702
What the fuck, I didn't know Bill Sienkiewicz did Magic art
>>47923896
That's gotta be a false flag.
>>47924994
Digital is only the medium. That's like saying watercolor is inherently bad or something.
>>47923723
Except for the fact that they keep Terese Nielsen around (and Johannes Voss to a lesser extent) I agree with you. It's a damn shame.
>>47927050
>false flag
Do you mean ironic, as in, the card art isn't that good but the poster is saying it's good?
False flag is more so a situation where one party pretends to be another knowingly, in order to make that second party look bad. Jews pretending to be Nazis to make Nazis seem more extreme, etc.
That's different from the literary irony, meant to draw out reversals and contrasts, while in life it is an alter to unpredictability.
I'm not attacking you, I just don't think you're using the term right.
>>47927121
I'm using it exactly as you understand it.
>>47925434
Apparently he was a lot less racist around the end of his life. Even married a Jewish girl.
>>47927080
Doesn't Richard Kane Ferguson work entirely in watercolor?
>>47929455
Richard Kane-Ferguson and Drew Tucker did that, yeah.
I always liked Richard Thomas' cards.
>>47929605
Hey you're right
Funny, they both worked on Eventide and I think that was the last set they both did new pieces for. I can't think of an MTG artist since that has worked in watercolor
Most artifacts with the old border do it for me. AB dark rit is also fantastic and recently i've been digging on the tempest printing too.
>>47932307
Metal as fuck, but I like the Ice Age Dark Ritual better.
>>47932340
The Mirage one was always my favorite. The biggest thing that disappoints me about Magic today is the lack of reprints: I like playing with old cards. The only old cards I can run in a standard deck are basics and painlands.
>>47927080
While it is only a medium, the reason for picking it over more classical mediums is not because it looks better. This is the primary strike against it in my opinion
>>47932556
(Tempest) Counterspell is my favourite counterspell, what's yours anon?
And honestly I wouldn't worry too much over lack of reprints, since the reprint will just completely change the card borders and cardboard. I mean just feel the old cards and how solid they are, compare this to the new inky cards they make.
>>47923990
You take that back!
>>47932693
>And honestly I wouldn't worry too much over lack of reprints, since the reprint will just completely change the card borders and cardboard. I mean just feel the old cards and how solid they are, compare this to the new inky cards they make.
I think that's exactly what he means. He wants to run his old printings of cards in new formats.So do I.
>>47932693
I like the tempest one a lot, but I think the Ice Age and Masques are both pretty and underplayed.
>>47932745
Exactly. When I could run my FBB Bolts, I played standard. Now that nothing I have is standard legal, I dont even think about it.
>>47927166
>Even married a Jewish girl.
If I understand right, he also constantly talked bad about Jews in front of her.
Urza's Saga was fucking amazing
>>47932937
Apparently his racism roughly matched how depressed he was.
He was a NEET fuck for much of his life and that's when he wrote all that NIGGERSNIGGERSNIGGERS stuff but when he actually started corresponding and going out and meeting people it subsided quite a bit.
>>47933094
...So you're saying that his life was a mirror of the modern anonymous imageboard user. Some things never change.
>>47933154
>mirror
We're the shadow, HPL is the ideal.
The flame is Pepe and the cave is memes.
>>47922042
Terrible card, but possibly my favorite piece of MtG art. The Dark, in general, had great flavor.
>>47935296
The Dark, Ice Age and Arabian Nights all had really cool flavor. As much as people liked Innistrad, to me it still paled in comparison to what came before.
Shadows over Innistrad was pretty pitiful, flavorwise. Just because a creature has the creature type "Horror" does not make creature horrific.
There was a thread a long while back I remember where people were debating different printings of cards and which had the best art. There was a lot of back and forth on some of them, others had clear winners, but it wasn't always the old cards that won.
>>47937092
I usually say old art always wins, but I think the only stinker in that bunch is the promo one. Beta Plows are pretty boss though.
>>47937092
Well obviously most people prefer the new art direction. /tg/ is not indicative of Magic players in general. I know that a lot of people prefer the new border and don't like to play with old-bordered cards.
>>47938072
>Obviously most people
I would disagree with this. Most people that I play with prefer the old border cards, but that might be because I only play legacy.
I did hear some people talking about how much they liked the new pyroblast art, and I had no idea why.
>>47929667
looks like moebius
>>47938222
Well it makes sense that Legacy players prefer the old borders but there are a lot more Standard players than Legacy players.
>>47925781
Nils hamm is amazing
>>47922042
No, because we've grown as a culture and gotten better at it, so we really wouldn't want to take such a big step backwards.
>>47922083
>>47923723
Having a coherent theme and discernible art style isn't a bad thing. There are plenty of other places you can get abstract art.
>>47932937
>>47927166
>>47925434
>>47933094
Lovecraft was exceptionally racist for his time, and while I haven't actually seen anything to confirm the fact that he was less racist in his later years, his marriage of a Jewish woman had more to do with the fact that she was "well integrated". He still worried her with some of the vitriol he'd spew if he got started.
>>47932556
They picked it over the classical media (the plural of medium) because it's cheaper, and yes, it does look better for what they want, which is a cohesive art style. A lot of these more abstract cards wouldn't fly, aside from the one or two callbacks on hard to depict spells. And it's important to keep in mind that cards like Spirit of the Night and Stasis were never the norm, or even an intentional stylistic choice. Also important to keep in mind is the fact that there are still a few traditional artists, but ultimately if you don't need to buy paint and brushes and canvases, you're going to be a lot cheaper and able to create the art within the deadline.
These threads always end up being a lot of people bitching that a) the art is clear and makes sense, instead of being abstract and weird, and b) its digital, even though the difference is barely noticeable anyway, doubly so on a tiny card frame.
>>47938514
>No, because we've grown as a culture and gotten better at it, so we really wouldn't want to take such a big step backwards.
What? You're saying that we've developed as a culture, therefore everything that came before was worse?
The problem is that the coherent style is relatively bland. If you take every artist and ask them to "Draw like this" where "this" is the expected style, you do not get as much of each individual's style.
Examples: the Mark Tedin cards from Alpha are all pretty amazing, but specifically Time Vault and Winter Orb are both very distinctive cards which would not exist if there was an art style at the time. Although an art direction does not kill creativity, it does stifle it.
>>47938572
Jumping straight to you final points, on a) you oversimplified the argument and I would disagree with b). Looking at the latest spoiler, such hits as Duskwatch Recruiter and Pious Evangel really stand out.
Art on stuff like Stasis and its ilk are not the primary concern, its things like Cave People, City of Shadow and Blood Moon. The straightforward art is still way more evocative than shit like Dauntless Cathar. The sterility of a uniform art direction kills the mystery or the mood that any individual card could create.
>>47938315
I might have a different frame of reference, but I play with a lot of people who just play with their cards from when they first started playing and turn up their noses at new border cards. I believe that it has more to do with when you started. How many pre 8th people still play, I do not know.
>>47938707
I'm saying that what you think was better is not better.
>Art on stuff like Stasis and its ilk are not the primary concern, its things like Cave People, City of Shadow and Blood Moon. The straightforward art is still way more evocative than shit like Dauntless Cathar. The sterility of a uniform art direction kills the mystery or the mood that any individual card could create.
Except that the cards you listed look amateurish, and Dauntless Cathar is not meant to be a single card standing alone, it's supposed to be one card of many that sells a world, which it does. You act like it's a horrible terrible card. It's not even like every card isn't evocative, although, again, it's not even a bad card, and I could point to hundreds of shitty cards from around the time of the ones you listed; at least they don't let Phil or Kaja Foglio near cards anymore.
I mean, let's compare Blood Moons.
The first one is honestly pretty plain. It's head on, the art is flat, and the ground is a vague shapeless mass that's maybe some smooth, rock ground. The colour is faded and washed out looking, and the real glow seems to be coming from behind the moon.
The second one is angled, with the curve of perspective used to highlight the moon, which glows a bright, hellish red. The landscape is visible and distinct, and it actually *is* bathed in a deep crimson light. The details on the moon itself are stronger as well, and while it may be intentional, to me it looks like a skull.
Let's also throw Paraselene in for comparison, since it's a similar Lunar focus. Once again the viewpoint is on the ground, looking up. The moon is close, but trees are in the way, showing how close it is in the sky. The titular phenomena is on full display, and it actually looks like moonlight scattered and shining through ice crystals. You can also practically hear the ring of holy light.
>>47922076
This, even though Eldritch Moon is almost clickbait on youtube right now, and making the vids are good for my channel, I personally hate the set. Same with every new set where old characters/creechas I was fond of get reprinted and ruined. Sets on new planes are fine.
>>47939108
This is some whiny bullshit.
Are you unaware that Magic used to be on the same five planes over and over?
>>47939124
Yes, but The characters and their stories were never ruined by reprinting stupid shit
>b'cuz magik
>inb4 muh lore
>>47939207
No, they were just ruined by being bad stories to begin with.
>>47939248
They were decent.
>kamahl goes from an ambitious fighter to a reverant druid.
Acceptable
>ulamog and kozilek goe from lovefraftian gods to oversized dumb monsters from the Rampage videogame series.
SOILED IT!!!
>>47925610
man I hated that card as a kid, hell it still gives me the jibblies even looking at just a thumbnail
>>47939316
I remember that too. I lost all of my oldies except my birds and my ruby. Would love to get my hands on a vintage collection with the good prints of classic black art.
>>47939268
Except the original Magic plotlines were dumber than the ones now. And the Eldrazi are even more interesting the second time around. I don't see how they look anything like Rampage, either.
>>47939431
>Look like rampage
No, get out.
They turned them into the equivalent of rampage characters, because all they did was destroy shit.
Atleast emmy will pay homage to her lovecraftian origin.
>>47939465
Did we see the same sets?
Nothing drastically changed for Ulamog and Kozilek, other than a few design tweaks to make their Broods stand out.
have no idea how people can unironically prefer the old borders, from alpha and ice age and such, they were ugly and the text boxes were also poorly formatted
they got a lot better around the time of Urza's saga and after, like torment and onslaught era, but i still prefer the modern border most of the time
that said, there was a lot of great art in the older sets and in general the art direction was better, rather than having everything be the same, cgi, sterile look, with no stylistic pieces at all, there was diverse art and artists like rebecca guay and Richard Kane Ferguson were allowed to work their magic
the most beautiful of magic cards combine the best of the two, the clean modern border look but before the art became sterile and uninteresting, rebecca guay's work in the lorwyn block comes to mind
>>47939564
this art is excellent, too bad the card is beyond shit
>>47939570
this art is awful, but the card is playable
>>47923990
I've seen this meme all around, but where does it come from?
His shapes are amazing and his painting technique is pretty solid.
>>47939089
i have to say, i agree with you about paraselene, that card has beautiful art
but i disagree about the blood moons
the redness of the newer art is pretty hamfisted in my opinion, it fits the flavor text more but i think the older art has a better moon itself and i think the subtle red is spookier than the ultra saturated red of the new blood moon art
>>47939509
>there was a lot of great art in the older sets and in general the art direction was better, rather than having everything be the same, cgi, sterile look, with no stylistic pieces at all, there was diverse art
This is factually untrue and relies on rose tinted glasses.
There literally wasn't any art direction in early sets. Shit, Terese Nielsen even wrote an article comparing the direction she was given for the first Force of Will and the one she was given for Eternal Masters.
http://originalmagicart.com/art-in-focus-force-of-will-by-terese-nielsen/
Also, I just learned that Terese Nielsen is queer. She's got four kids, but she's had a wife since the first Force of Will. Weird that she only ever gets mentioned in passing. She's in none of Terese' bios, but she doesn't have a problem namedropping Dawn on her blog or twitter.
>>47939722
Because his stuff is very comic booky and anime and "modern" and people hate that because they've got bad taste. Although he does tend to do big stylized clunky boots, and characters carry tons of junk dangling from them. Personally I like that. They actually look like they're adventurers.
>>47939750
The first Blood Moon is very plain looking, while the second is the kind of dynamic and dramatic card you'd want in a high fantasy game. The original's moon is also washed out and flat. It doesn't feel spooky to me, it feels boring. The new one isn't so much spooky as it is dramatic. It feels impressive, while the first one feels boring, and isn't even as red as a real life blood moon.
>>47939795
>Because his stuff is very comic booky and anime and "modern" and people hate that because they've got bad taste.
Anime? I don't see it. And I work in an art-related sector so wut.
>Although he does tend to do big stylized clunky boots, and characters carry tons of junk dangling from them. Personally I like that. They actually look like they're adventurers.
Yeah, i like that too.
>>47939795
i misspoke when i said the art direction was better
ive also heard as you said that art direction was quite lacking in the old sets and sometimes cards were even accidentally given art that failed to depict what the card intended do to ambiguity in the name of the card
what i meant was only that they let the artists make stylized pieces that showed off their talents, as opposed to every card being uniform but none of them being interesting
the old blood moon art looks like a real blood moon, sometimes they can be more red but in general they look like the original blood moon art
i dont know what to tell you if you think its boring, except to say that you're wrong
you can reply and say thats not much of an argument but "boring" is not either, we simply disagree
>>47939089
dont see how anybody could possibly think the moon in the new art is better done than the moon in the old art
maybe you prefer the red landscape of the new one, but the old art has a truly beautiful moon while the new one has a stupid caricature of a moon
>>47939795
>big stylized clunky boots, and characters carry tons of junk dangling from them. Personally I like that. They actually look like they're adventurers.
Thieves and rogues are best drawn this way. It just looks better.
While I'm on the topic, the newer Jhessian Thief art is qt.
>>47939089
Kaja foglio has done some great cards though, rainbow vale comes to mind
Phil foglio art is always garbage tho I agree
>>47939959
Phil Foglio is fun but i aggree that it should be reserved for unglued/unhinged editions or promotional art.
I don't mind different styles but this is just too much for official art.
>>47937092
That promo one is horrible
>>47923723
Nils Hamm says fuck you.
>>47939089
I like Meat Planet. The card isn't called Full Moon.
I know Blood Moon is a real thing, but fantasy.
>>47925610
>>47925696
let me tell you about nightmares
>>47939840
But uniform art direction is better. It creates cohesive, coherent sets that work together with each other, creating a distinct style for the setting and conveying the sense of the world. The blood moon doesn't look like a real one, it's washed out and faded. The ground doesn't even look like real ground, it looks flat and lifeless. More than that, this ISN'T supposed to be real, it's supposed to be fantastical.
Almost every old card that gets brought up in these threads is a terrible example of selling what the card is supposed to represent, and an even worse way of selling what the setting is like.
>>47939859
No, the original looks flat. It's literally displaying poor technique. When I say "flat", I don't just mean lifeless, I mean that the image literally doesn't have enough texture. The moon itself is only vaguely detailed, and the landscape doesn't look like real land. It looks smooth and grey, with sharp lines. It's like volcanic glass, but without the sheen and a grey colour instead of deep black.
>>47939894
I like all adventurers like that. People who actually look like they live out of a backpack. Valeros (the Pathfinder iconic) looks really good. In Magic, Rafiq, although he kind of looks like he belongs in Warhammer, with all those sigils. NONE PURER.
>>47940249
Yes, it's fantasy. And one of them is bland and the other is fantastical. The first one literally puts the moon at eye level. Christ, if you linked it in /ic/ people would shit on you.
>>47939482
And being vulnerable to friendship fire.
>>47940626
Oh no, the ages 10+ game wasn't gritty and dark, how terrible.
I have zero problems with teamwork making the dream work. Or with the mana of Zendikar's entire plane being used to pop an Elder God like a zit.
>>47940626
They jumped through more hoops than Lovecraft ever did when he had the victims win.
>>47940647
It just ruined the point of their existence and removes all the dramatic tension from defeating Emrakul as well. Seriously, Innistrad is my favorite plane and I can't make myself give a shit about EMN. At least the Phyrexians still seem threatening (until Mirrodin 3.0 has Jace defeat them and become the Living Mirrari or some shit).
>>47940676
I love Eldritch Moon so far.
Also, seriously, people who bitch about Jace constantly and act like he's everywhere and everything are the worst Magic fans.
Jace is ok as a MC, but not really interesting as a support char.
Gideon is boring as a MC but he's really enjoyable as a support char.
More or less the same for Chandra.
Nissa is really boring as a MC and pretty boring as a support.
So out of the four I'm glad it's Jace who have the more spotlight.
>>47940700
Eldrazi already convinced me to quit Modern during EW (format was sick before, that was just the last straw) and unless the value is very high in Eldritch Moon, they will keep me from buying any sealed product for it. And I really liked SoI drafts.
>>47940723
I wish they had kept Ajani as the flagship White walker. I find him much more interesting than Gideon.
>>47940778
My friend refuses to use Ajani cards because he's a lion person and he doesn't like animal people.
This is the sort of person that makes WOTC make the main 5 all humans.
I like Gideon's mechanical gimmicks (making people punch him, becoming a dude), but his character is pretty dull. Oh and his BFZ card didn't really feel like a Gideon to me.
>>47940778
Yeah, but still, i'm interested in knowing what kind of shit will Ajani storri up on Theros, with his zarathoustra pilgrimage shenanigans.
But Ajani is a veteran when Gideon's still wet behind the ears, so i guess he'll work better as a protagonist for the new players.
>>47940579
The original Moon might look 'lifeless' to you, but to the rest of us its pretty creepy. I think that might just be a preconceived notion of yours. The whole set had that going for it. The original moon is ominously looming there.
The new moon is a giant red moon, in case people didn't know that a blood moon is red.
I think this answers your point that apparently the old cards "Sell what the setting is like". Cards like Spawning Pit might not make sense to everyone on the planet, but its pretty clear what it is. Its just a different way of showing it.
I would rather be looking at interesting art then having every card be a hyper literal representation of what the cards name is. To be quite honest, I don't see how cards like Season of the Witch and Dan Dan are somehow wrong for representing something that might confuse some people.
I don't care that WotC wants Innistrad to be "Gothic" looking, the cards are almost uniformly very dull.
>>47940531
It looks like one of the Hardly Boys from South Park
>>47940531
I always thought the OG printing of Terror was pretty spooky. I remember as a kid it freaked me right out.
>>47923835
Drew Tucker
Best looking, most flavorful card ever
>>47924828
>the old artifact borders remind you of actual artifacts
That's what their initial flavor kinda was. The referred to figures from the past whose stories hadn't been fleshed out yet. Like Sunglasses of Urza.
Now it's just "anything manmade." Which is stupid since apparently that's what enchantments are too. Like, practically, what's the difference between Brain in a Jar and Vessel of Paramnesia?
>>47942850
Flavorful in that it is depicting the beautiful friendship of aliens and robe wizards?
Time Vault's art did age rather gracefully though. It is pretty great.
>>47942931
One is made of magic, the other is made of metal or wood, typically.
The vessels were admittedly then deliberately being cute and cheating though. They wanted to support delirium. From a card design perspective, they are colored artifacts. Much like the way they cheated when they made the fonts to support constellation.
>>47937092
Am I the only one who thinks Ice Age is the best STP?
>>47943144
Not the only one. But I don't care for it.
>>47943144
You just might be.
>>47943096
They should've made them Seals, like Seal of Cleansing, since they have precedent for them. Sometimes just proper naming is a huge part of selling the flavor.
>>47937092
People's appreciation for the old art isn't about individual cards themselves judged in comparison to new cards. It's about overall art direction, variety, medium, etc.
>>47943204
Foglio art has a dedicated fan club, so no
>>47943144
I agree
I also see that art a lot in legacy events, so I would actually guess it's the most popular
>>47943204
>>47943239
Which one do you prefer?
Well, /tg/?
>>47923835
>The faces are clocks
>Time is literally walking
BRAVO
>>47943449
Nah
>>47943522
>>47943557
>>47941310
>to the rest of us its pretty creepy
That's because you have nostalgia goggles like hard.
Spawning pit is not what I'm talking about. Nothing modern is what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the old boarder cards that everyone loves even though they're shitty and amateurish. Season of the Witch doesn't show a fucking thing. Dan Dan is actually fine, visually, though it's a shit card.
You may not care, but everyone else does. Wizards actually does product testing. You can complain all you want, but your opinion is a minority. Nevermind that Innistrad was one of the highest rated sets in terms of design.
>>47943648
You can't just say it's nostalgia, that doesn't explain why the card isn't creepy or ominous.
Season of the witch is a representation of an abstract concept; I prefer that to a picture of two scared people.
Wizards may do product testing, but this does not address this. They don't present people with cards with old school art and cards with new art. They present all cards with new style art and get opinions on those.
>>47943738
I'm sorry, I'd rather have a meaningful and coherent art bible than random bullshit. If bland watercolours are spooky to you, fine, whatever.
But you're a minority.
I don't agree with old MTG art=always better, but season of the witch is fucking great as far as art goes. No idea how someone could think that looks bland or not evocative.
>>47943449
the old art is definitely superior for both swords, but the gap is closer for the sword of light and shadow
>>47943775
How is an art bible meaningful?
How do "pictures of scared people" set a mood?
One final hypothetical: 10,000 kids read Diary of a Whimpy Kid. 500 of them then read Tom Sawyer. Of those 500, 400 prefer Tom Sawyer. Are kids who prefer Tom Sawyer a minority?
>>47943922
Have you actually taken their product surveys?
Also, it's meaningful because it makes sure that all the cards actually look like they fit together. Your "pictures of scared people" strawman bullshit is stupid, especially since "being scared" is indeed a mood.
>>47943449
My favorite thing about the swords is how they're indicative of their time.
The originals look like they're being held up for inspection after they've just finished being forged. They're from an age of innovation and experimentation, and they look as much like they were created for their artistic merit as for being weapons.
The new versions have an air of desperate resolve around them. They're magnificent treasures still, but there's a sense of hope pinned to them. A feeling of "with this, we might be able to save ourselves". They're brilliant weapons in an age of war, symbolic of resistance and the will to fight.
![$_57[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/XsWhcKr.jpg "$_57[1].jpg")
>>47943522
>>47943557
>>47943597
>>47943804
Let me take care of this for you.
>>47943412
I started in M12, so I don't have much nostagia but Jesus and Black Man is fine.
>>47944051
I know that measures they use are not valid for the purposes you are trying to use them for.
They have data that says that people like the current art. You are trying to use this to prove that people like the current art AND do not like the old art. You have to prove the second half of that.
I am postulating that there exists a significant portion of the set of people who like the new art that have no exposure to the old art.
Show me the most evocative card from Innistrad. None of the cards I've seen are anything more than people, people looking scared, or creatures with the type 'horror'.
>>47925434
>When was Lovecraft not racist?
Since "free speech" changed to mean "keep your speech free of censorwords". Racism is an insulting word, which means you can't call someone's speech racist because you're censoring them.
>>47944226
I like ths one.
>>47944347
>>47944226
This one is neat too.
>>47923835
always liked the looming shade from urza
>>47944226
>None of the cards I've seen are anything more than people, people looking scared, or creatures with the type 'horror'.
http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?output=spoiler&method=visual&action=advanced&block=+%5b%22Innistrad%22%5d
Take a better look then.
Some cards I like include:
Cobbled Wings
Commander's Authority
Descent into Madness
Grave Exchange (I pulled a foil once and it's particularly nice)
Make a Wish
Paraselene
Typhoid Rats
>>47944406
>>47944347
>>47944226
This one has some great stuff going on.
>>47944423
>Urza, there's a skeleton taking spooky shits in your machine RIGHT NOW
>>47944487
>UU for counter creature instead of straight up counter, doesn't even have extra effect like Nullify and Psychic Barrier
>(1) for Draw a card
>(1) for ???
>>47944727
Oh yes, the card is garbage, but the art is phenomenal.
>>47944727
I can think of worse ways to go.
Wait a minute... that mana cost...
It really is the worst way to go.
>>47944727
It's actually free investigate and 2 to sac the clue
>>47945214
That sure is one optimistic view, nevermind you're still overpaying AND investigate gives you a special artifact that has many secondary functions while this does not.
Don't you dare justify this again.
>>47945214
The beauty of clues is that you get you crack them at your leisure when you have two mana to spare
>>47945180
Always liked this art but was never sure exactly what we're looking at here
Are those just weird shaped Windows into a workshop with orange light from forged?
>>47945287
I think so, with smokestacks in the background. Foglio art is awesome.
>>47945321
I only like Kaja foglio art but I do love her stuff
>>47944334
>You don't have the freedom to criticize the things I like
>Valid complaints are "insulting"
Grow up. You don't like Lovecraft being insulted? Too bad, whiny baby.
>>47944226
Do you even play the game? None of the card art people bring up in this thread tends to be more than "random bullshit from an artist that couldn't do proper forms".
Always Watching
Angelic Purge
Descend Upon the Sinful
Not Forgotten
Paranoia Parish-Blade
Broken Concentration
Confirm Suspicions
Fleeting Memories
Just the Wind
Manic Scribe
Sleep Paralysis
Startled Awake//Persistent Nightmare
I could go on. These are all cards that add to the atmosphere and theme of Innistrad.
Cards like Ongoing Investigations couldn't even exist in the Alpha/Beta/Unlimited era. Much less ones like Startled Awake, or my favourite transformer, Illusive Tormentor//Insidious Mist. And you know what? I'm 100% fine with that. I'm 100% with a loss of card art like >>47945180
>>47922042
>>47922083
>>47923835
>>47924142
>>47924320
>>47924702
>>47925610
>>47925696
>>47939564
>>47939570
>>47940531
>>47942850
>>47944423
and others where the artists were barely given any instructions and barely had any talent. Most of them have an unsteady, shakey look. Every time people show up they're badly drawn and blobby, looking like something out of a middle school art show. Half the time people bring up good card art from back in the day that ain't like it used to be, it's all close ups and blank backgrounds and amateur shit that wouldn't be fit to put in a portfolio because it's lifeless and has bad layout. If you get high res versions of most of the art, I guarantee real people--not people who played back in the day--will say the old shit is garbage.
And you've been defending the old Blood Moon without any sort of explanation, other than "it looks scarier if it's washed out and flat" and "It totally looks more realistic."
For fucks sake, Misha's Workshop looks like a spooky magma elemental, not a workshop
>>47947597
So you're arguing that all of the artists from alpha didn't know how to draw a human body? Im afraid the only response I have to that is "Lol".
The Dark Blood Moon looks creepy even though it isnt hyper saturated, yes: its an ominous moon looming over a dark, twisted landscape. Thats fucking cool.
>>47947597
Don't forget that the original art commissioned for Volcanic Island became the art for an entirely different card - Birds of Paradise - because the focus was so wrongly placed on the foreground bird and not the island waaaay off in the background.
It's not shitty art but the art direction was clearly awful/nonexistent.
>>47948495
>A fluid art direction is necessarily bad
If the BoP art was used for Volc, it would have been terrible. But they didn't. I don't see whats wrong with that. Its still a classic and instantly recognizable card.
>>47932307
This is my favorite.
>>47948380
Not all, but many.
Also, seriously, stop arguing in favour of the original Blood Moon.
>>47948560
I'm not even sure what you're arguing. The point is that the artists had no idea what they were doing, even when they could draw. Terese Nielsen is amazing, but nothing about Force of Will belongs on its card.
>>47948495
I'm not even saying that all the artists are bad, but there are clearly a lot of them who have no fucking idea what they're doing, and did the kind of amateurish thing that usually gets dealt with these days. Things that are too close up, not dynamic, flat colours, awkward shapes. You still get mistakes and weird shit, but overall the art is better. And I mean simply from a technical standpoint. There's a much better understanding of things like composition.
>>47948690
Stop arguing that the reprint is somehow a better looking card.
The point is that WotC wasn't getting bad art. They would re-purpose what they had if they had to. Force of Will is a great example: It was originally some red barbarian, but the art fits the card perfectly.
You keep saying that old cards have "flat" colors. Revised cards are washed out. Everything else looks pretty brilliant. The "awkward shapes" you appear to be referring to are different ways of stylizing the human body. We aren't just using photo's, there has to be some amount of stylization. The current style is considered by most to be pretty bland. You're the minority here man.
>>47948834
Force of Will literally does not fit the card.
My favourite Magic artist is Wayne Reynolds, so no, I'm not saying that "stylized" is bad. I'm saying that literally some of the cards that show up in these threads do not seem to understand anatomy.
>The current style is considered by most to be pretty bland.
Grognards are not most people.
>>47948993
Force of Will depicts a barbarian with a grimace on his face absorbing a spell into his hands. I don't know if you've ever cast a Force, but thats pretty much what the card feels like.
Point out one card which "does not seem to understand anatomy".
Are you just trolling?
>>47947597
>awful taste
>awful attitude
>awful person
Kys
>>47948993
>My favourite Magic artist is Wayne Reynolds
>>47949627
I like high adventure fantasy. He's not the *best*, but I like his style the most. Nils Hamm, Daarkan, Zoltan Boros, Jason Chan are all good; Igor Kieryluk did one of my favourites (Elesh Norn, and also that gorgeous Fyndhorn Elves I'll never have). But Reynold's has the most obvious style, and it's a style I like, even if his art overall isn't at the top.
>>47949208
Pointing out the flaws in your argument isn't being an awful person, or having an awful attitude. I've repeatedly articulated why certain cards are bad.
>>47950127
>I like high adventure fantasy.
I'm not the guy you've been arguing with, but this is the reason people have different tastes in MTG art. People like the art that matches up with how they imagine the game.
Older art conjures up abstract mental battles, the pages of dusty old spellbooks, and bizarre, ancient relics of a bygone era. A lot of it is weird, but sometimes that adds to the mystique, making it feel really magical and powerful.
Newer art conjures up images of brave adventurers, powerful monsters, and flashy spells. It's more inviting and cohesive, but because of that it loses some of the occult power that the older cards had.
The last point is that the old, painterly feel of the early art would look out of place on the new borders, so the game can't really return to that style. I think giving artists a bit more freedom (and paying them more) would be a good thing though, and some stylized pieces look fine on newer borders, like pic related.
>>47943144
I like the version of it in a modern border. The picture in general feels very holy and Christian, like you've successfully converted an enemy to the faith. It's a rare feel nowadays.
>>47950446
The only thing I would add to that is that while the current art tells the story, the old art tells a story.
>>47925426
Is there a version without the censor?
>>47950127
You're clearly a very aggressive individual. You really can't understand why he would call your attitude awful?
RKF is the best artist to ever work on this game.
http://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=1685&type=card
>>47950446
I feel that people mistake the old art for "abstract mental battles" when it was more "zero art direction". I mean, Season of the Witch is an example. So is All Hallow's Eve. Some are just bad, like the original Fyndhorn Elves. Is anyone at all going to defend the art from Legends? I'm just going to go through art for ABUR, Arabian Nights, Antiquities, Legends, and The Dark and call out some shitty art.
Actually, there's so much here that I'd be there all day. Most of it isn't dusty tombs or bizarre relics, it's just amateurish art you'd see hanging in a high school.
I disagree that the artists should have more freedom, partly because I don't think they have none. I've even seen some of the artists talk about how much they prefer good art direction and a strong setting bible that gives visual examples of what they're looking for. Most of what people here seem to mistake for creative and wonderment is actually just a lack of focus. And that lack of focus makes cards barely fit together. In the old days, two cards depicting people from the same place could look completely different.
>>47950791
But that's not true. The new art tells just as much, if not more, story in single images. Old art rarely does. In fact, the kind of art that started this thread--and that filled it--tells no story. All those things I linked don't tell stories. Mishra's Workshop, Season of the Witch, Abomination, Spirit of the Night, Time Walk, Pestilence, Icy Manipulator, what story do these tell? Ebon Praetor certainly tells... SOME kind of story, though it's clearly the kind you hear from a drunken friend.
>>47950941
>Make calm, reasoned points
>People repeatedly ignore them
Gee...
>>47950446
I think I am the only person who actually likes the Future Sight frame.
>>47951053
I like the frame. It's cool.
>>47951053
Are there even people who do dislike the frame? Every card from that set looks awesome.
>>47950988
The new art tells the one story that WotC wants to tell. You can come up with a million reasons why Ebon Praetor looks the way it does; Why some creepy motherfucker is working with the easter bunny. It makes you wonder and ask questions.
Its all basic "Show, don't tell" shit. Season of the Witch shows that something eerie is coming out of the woods. Ebon Praetor leaves a lot up to the imagination. Spirit of the Night looks metal as shit. Thraben Inspector leaves no room for wondering. Always Watching leaves no room for your own story.
You also seem to be confusing ignoring and disagreeing. No one agrees with you because you aren't making good points. You can say "All the artists from the 90s were amateurs. Today they're all geniuses because they have direction!" all you want, it won't make people believe it.
>>47950988
>But that's not true. The new art tells just as much, if not more, story in single images. Old art rarely does. In fact, the kind of art that started this thread--and that filled it--tells no story. All those things I linked don't tell stories. Mishra's Workshop, Season of the Witch, Abomination, Spirit of the Night, Time Walk, Pestilence, Icy Manipulator, what story do these tell?
If you can't see how these tell a story then you have no imagination or sense of wonder and /tg/ is not the place for you.
>>47951053
>>47951080
I personally liked the colorshifted frames. They look just plain cool.
>>47951160
DESU I'm pretty sure that person is on the spectrum. They're struggling with abstract concepts, can't understand how people can have a different opinion then them and are very fixated on minor details.
>>47951160
This is what the art direction always reminds me of
>>47951159
But... it isn't. I feel like you're coming up with justifications that have nothing to do with intent or purpose.
Also, i'm not saying everyone then was shit and everyone now is great. I'm saying that the new art accomplishes what it's intended to much better, and in most cases shows a better understanding of artistic theories. You're literally defending bad art while arguing that the new art is actually bad because it's coherent. The old art tells a story if you try to make one, but that doesn't mean it's intentional. It just means that the human mind is made for finding patterns.
>>47951182
>>47951160
Oh grow the fuck up. You're getting butthurt that people point out abstract art isn't a good design choice. Why don't you tell me what story is being told, since apparently one exists.
>>47951246
Except that the art for that card is great, and that's a stupid forced meme by grognards who say new magic is for idiots.
>>47951363
Look at the card, friend. That Anon isn't talking about the art being shitty and straightforward. It would have been perfectly fine on its own in fact. The problem is the unnecessary flavor text removing all sense of mystery to the card. That sense of over accessibility is what he's feeling with modern art in general, not that specific card.
>>47943648
>That's because you have nostalgia goggles like hard.
>nostalgia goggles argument
Here's the problem with the "nostalgia goggles" argument. Nobody has nostalgia for anything old if it was truly terrible or shit so to bring up the nostalgia goggles argument is a misnomer.
The fact that many people here note that while some old art on cards aren't very good also notes that some of the more recent art is also bland or lacking that key aspect of what can provide impact when you see a picture for different reasons which notes that the nostalgia goggles defence is not a valid argument.
While I understand why people have that sense of nostalgia from bad art because they get to ignore the actual story and make up their own little shitty vignettes, I do like the vignettes we get nowadays even if they are clearly defined instead of slapdashed.
Like this card, very obvious, very simple story. Not really relevant to the main plot, but captures it.
I get that Warp Artifact makes you imagine a weird ugly bronze tablet. You don't know what the bronze tablet does, so you make a little story in your head and it is cool.
But I don't think that means we need endless endless amounts of threads complaining about new art. And the amount of pretension towards people who like the new art is staggering.
I love Drew Tucker. I love the weird water colors where you can't really tell what is going on. But I don't need that on magic cards and if they do put it, I like them using it sparingly.
>>47951498
>Nobody has nostalgia for anything old if it was truly terrible or shit
This thread is living proof that that's wrong.
>>47951498
> Nobody has nostalgia for anything old if it was truly terrible or shit so to bring up the nostalgia goggles argument is a misnomer.
This is a joke, right? My friend loved the Weatherlight books. He loved them. But he can't read them now without cringing hardcore.
>>47951519
No it isn't.
While there's still modern MTG artists that I do like because of their particular style there's more appeal from the older MTG cards because the art was hand drawn and some of the artists could convey a different reaction out of me whether it be the Hyperrealism style of Anson Maddocks(Living Wall) or the comedic cartoonish style of Phil Foglio(Recycle.)
>>47951458
I know what he's saying. I think it's stupid, and that the meme around that card is childish.
>>47951498
People very much have nostalgiagoggles for things that are bad.
Shit, half the times someone's childhood is LITERALLY RAPED, the original and the cash grab remake are about the same quality.
>>47951513
This.
Ongoing Investigation is such a great card because of how the mechanics and the title and the image come together to form a heartbreaking story.
>>47951570
Helps if I add the card.
I also love the amazing flavor of Illusive Tormentor.
Even non-Innistrad cards are interesting, like that one Eldrazi that sits by the stream contemplating things while holding a dead body.
>>47951535
I don't recall there being books for the Weatherlight cycle?
>>47951598
http://mtgsalvation.gamepedia.com/Rath_and_Storm
>>47951363
I feel like you're coming up with justifications that have nothing to do with intent or purpose.
>Make calm, reasoned points
>People repeatedly ignore them
Seriously, its that easy to dismiss someone without actually addressing them
>>47937092
Ice age one is best. Promo and original are good too. Terese is ok.
>>47951570
Heres my take: People can have nostalgia for bad things. When you go back and revisit it, thats when you find out its bad. Nostalgia is the memory of times past.
In this context, I've gone back to the old MTG art. I run it as much as I can. I think its great. You can't call that nostalgia; it's currently happening.
>>47951652
Your feelings for them are influenced by the past perceptions of them and remind you of good times.
Some people still enjoy watching Power Rangers, even though it is clearly bad, because it is fun and the bad aspects of it don't matter because they remember how it made them feel when they were a kid.
>>47951615
>Rath and Storm was originally billed as Weatherlight Cycle book I, which would be followed by Mercadian Masques as book II. However, later Wizards of the Coast decided to pull Rath and Storm out of the cycle, which was then renamed to the Masquerade Cycle.
No wonder I had trouble trying to find a chronology for this, the whole thing came out of the wrong cycle. This book should have been a Tempest cycle book(Rath cycle) then they retroactively slammed it into Weatherlight. But eh I don't know much about MTG Novels, I don't think most of them are even canon.
>>47951680
So your argument is this: because I enjoyed it in the past, it is impossible that I can enjoy it now. Thats a terrible argument.
The form you are using is this:
If A, then B
B, therefore A
That does not follow.
>>47937092
Part of me likes the judge promo one even though I feel it is the weakest at conveying what the card should represent just because it looks like some anime character is making some clones into a farmer.
>>47951680
>Power rangers is clearly bad
get a load of this pleb
>>47951698
My argument (not the same guy) is that it is easy for nostalgia to cloud judgement.
There can easily be things that are just as good now as they were back then, but that's not easy to determine.
Like this guy. He liked the Weatherlight Saga. He thinks it was good then and it is good now, but that's because back when he was reading those books, he wasn't as discerning and he idealizes them.
Look, I'll concede there was a lot of great art back then. But it is foolish to say that modern MTG art has no intrigue or that old MTG art was all genuinely beguiling.
>>47951698
"If you have nostalgia towards something, then you will enjoy it now.
You enjoy it now.
Therefore, you have nostaliga."
Is the same as
"If it is raining outside, then you will be wet.
You are wet.
Therefore, it is raining outside."
>>47951570
>People very much have nostalgiagoggles for things that are bad.
Only would be valid if said things were never good to begin with on any level. And if it was never any good to begin with then it would have never invoked any feelings of nostalgia towards them.
>Shit, half the times someone's childhood is LITERALLY RAPED, the original and the cash grab remake are about the same quality.
I don't think so. There's cartoon series(both western and japanese) that reboot/remake an old series and the quality is much higher but at no point does it render the old one obsolete.
>>47951772
It is possible =/= it is the case.
Its pretty dismissive to say "Thats just nostalgia". Firstly, you can't prove it. Secondly, I can't disprove it.
I guess I wouldn't say that all modern MTG art is awful, but I sincerely do not believe that the uniform style has made it a more interesting game. I probably would not have started playing today, I used to just trade for the cards that looked cool. The game was secondary to that.
>>47951812
Are you genuinely arguing that nostalgia never makes people think that things that were actually bad were good?
>>47951830
Yes because there has to have been something good about it in the first place to even invoke feelings of nostaliga. If it was truly terrible in all degress in the first place then you would have no inclination to defend the subject matter in question of being any good quality of any level. Furthermore if it was truly terrible in every way then there would be no dissenting opinion against the platform in question.
>>47951827
>I guess I wouldn't say that all modern MTG art is awful, but I sincerely do not believe that the uniform style has made it a more interesting game. I probably would not have started playing today, I used to just trade for the cards that looked cool. The game was secondary to that.
That's fine. That's the great thing about opinions, you can't really argue with them, because they are incredibly subjective.
I still trade for cards that look cool. I still find MTG's art cool. I'll admit I haven't played for very long (M12), but I remember seeing this art in the fat pack booklet and being blown away. It looked amazing.
I interact with a lot of legacy players. Our shop is full of them. People who have been playing for ten, fifteen years. I put up with a lot of pretension, so I get fairly defensive. But ultimately, opinions are just that. I try to be as even-handed as I can be. Undeniably, there are bad cards in both eras, but I wish less people would lump all of the cards together and try to categorize it as good or bad.
>>47951868
Kids are stupid. They are not discerning consumers of media. There was something good about it, because you weren't aware of better options.
Hell, I used to LOVE a game called Egg Mania. I played it constantly. But that is just because it was the only puzzle game I had at the time. It was also a time when I could just play video games all day long. When I think of that game, I imagine how fun it was.
But that doesn't mean it was actually good. It just means that I liked it back then. Some people don't seem to realize that, so they start to argue that it WAS good. Like this guy:
>>47951735
>>47951929
Heres where I believe we diverge: as you say, you go back and play it again. You then realize how bad it was. If that was the case here, why does the old art still look so much better?
>>47951772
Was that from Blogatog?
The Star Trek formula isn't having a ship's crew with different roles, it's having an overarching journey with episodic subplots along the way. That's why Gene Roddenberry jokingly called Star Trek "Wagon Train to the Stars".
>>47951929
>Kids are stupid. They are not discerning consumers of media. There was something good about it, because you weren't aware of better options.
You state this like those kids don't ever learn or become adults. Those kids grow up and then can look back on those things again and then discern whether or not the same feelings were there or whether it was just all 100% trash. Also that Egg Mania game actually wasn't bad. It's a fairly solid game which actually doesn't make it a bad game on any points.
>Some people don't seem to realize that, so they start to argue that it WAS good. Like this guy:
Yeah and I'm the same guy. What now huh? I loved the monster and megazord designs of power rangers as a kid and I still like those designs now as an adult. I loved the monster costumes and colours put into them and the show wasn't all CGI rendered which makes me appreciate the small details they put into certain scenes to make things appear a certain way to this day.
>>47952063
He knows, that's why he said they fly from place to place. Having an overarching thing with episodic subplots.
>>47951997
I can not give you an example of where I personally have gone back and not realized it was bad and considered it good. The reason is because I wouldn't be aware of that. I'm sure it has happened as it seems to happen to lots of people. You talk to someone, they hype it up, they genuinely don't see the flaws until you start pointing them out and they start thinking more analytically and stop making excuses.
Some people are too stubborn for that. Look, I'm not gonna try to convince you that Recycle has genuinely awful art. I can't. It is subjective and it would require a lot of talk and for both me and you to be a lot more receptive.
But can I at the very least ask you not to make sweeping statements that muddle the issue? Talk about cards whose art you like, talk about cards whose art you don't like. But don't lump all "old art" and all "new art" all together. It is what makes your points seem primarily based on nostalgia (which I know isn't the case most of the time).
>>47952115
Ok Recycle has great art. Its Squee feeding Gerrard literal poop. You don't see that kind of shit anymore!
>>47952107
Have you genuinely never grown out of something but still had misplaced or misguided notions of something's quality? That is so strange to me.
I've definitely argued with people over stuff I was CONVINCED was good, but as I talked to them, considered it more, weighed the positives and negatives, I discovered I was wrong. And I would've continued being wrong had someone not shown me otherwise. Had I not brought out a second opinion, I would've continued to ignore the flaws and idealize the positives.
>>47952166
Yeah, because it is a stupid and childish featuring...
Okay, okay, I specifically I wasn't gonna try to convince you. Hey, man, you do you. I actually don't hate Foglio art like some people do. I just don't like that piece.
>>47952209
Its childish, yes. But the story is for children. Being able to not take yourself so damn seriously is part of what made the Weatherlight Saga so endearing.
The art isn't artistic, but it does represent one the only time a main character is depicted literally eating poop. That's special.
>>47952166
My own feelings on Foglio aside I'll give him this, he certainly has his own style
>>47952115
i gotta say i love this art to be honest and i mean that
>>47952115
Im not arguing old vs new, but I would like to point out that in all of these cases there is no control group. Theres nothing impartial to test it against. For that reason, I legitimately do not think that the nostalgia/hype factor is worth discussing.
>>47952265
Yeah? Want to fill me in why? I won't even argue.
>>47952298
I mean theoretically, there are some standards that all fantasy art can be held against and judged accordingly, but I think that is a pretty stupid notion on the whole.
Anyway, here's another Phil Foglio piece I like.
>>47952335
>>47952115
These two pieces have the same artist, by the way. Mark Poole.
Death Ward and Mardu Shadowspear.
To me, I'd say he has improved a lot.
>>47952387
Agree to disagree
>>47952169
No because I don't just discard my beliefs or feelings on a subject matter I enjoy or feel passionate about just because a bunch of other people didn't like them at one point. If they do not understand then I explain or show them how I see things from my point and how I enjoyed the subject matter in question or how it made me feel and the intimate details of the subject in question. If they still do not see or understand how I see it then that is fine, i've done all I can to show them my view and I leave it at that. My personal belief is that I don't care if what you like or your viewpoint on a matter is popular or not, if you feel strongly about it then you must back it up 100% with some solid arguments or views.
>I've definitely argued with people over stuff I was CONVINCED was good, but as I talked to them, considered it more, weighed the positives and negatives, I discovered I was wrong. And I would've continued being wrong had someone not shown me otherwise. Had I not brought out a second opinion, I would've continued to ignore the flaws and idealize the positives.
In regards to what specifically? You can't ever truly be 100% wrong on abstract subjects (like MTG art in this thread). By god if there's something you like about something you back it up with relative facts to your observations as to why you like something. There's a large amount of terrible works out there that still had some stuff that was good to them lets say in regards to illustrations, literature, music etc. Like sometimes there are things that are bad enough that they wraparound to being actually good in some way(e.g Street Fighter: The Movie.) Also the people you may have talked to were just bitter pretentious hipster fuckwits who can't enjoy anything. Beautiful flowers can still grow from shit.
>>47952387
20 years of practice'll do that.
>>47952434
I am the kind of person who can concede that a LOT a lot of things I like or have liked are genuinely awful and I like them because my brain is wired wonky or I have some sort of bizarre psychological connection.
Sure, art and media in general, you can't really be objective about, but just because something I enjoy something doesn't mean I consider it good.
Though I do think MTG art is actually good, not just me being crazy. But Frogger 1 on PS1? Nope, despite being my childhood and entertaining me for hours and hours.
>>47952415
Mmm.
>>47952483
Well is Frogger just bad on its own or was it just bad on the PS1 version? Personal case in point I enjoyed playing the fighting game Marvel Super Heroes aka MSH, I love fighting games and I grew up playing a shitload of arcade games. Yet MSH is absolutely trash and horrible on PS1 because of so many issues, you almost have three years to dodge Ironman's Unibeam attack.
>>47952335
>Yeah? Want to fill me in why? I won't even argue.
sure but before i start i just want to say thats my only other post in this thread and i don't even really care about new art versus old art, they both have their merits to me. so i'm not fighting with you at all.
i like death ward for a few reasons
1) i like the dark colors and high contrast, especially on a white card. 80% black on a white card is cool
2) i like this old flat art style. i know other people don't but idk. i'm weird i guess. or its nostalgia. but i think i would like it today either way.
3) because of that art style, which i'll admit is not as technically good as a lot of other cards, new and old, it makes i feel a lot more... rustic? like to me it really feels like some hedge mage is warding death off from someone out in some fucked up part of the planet you don't want to go to and you would consider to be out in the boonies.
4) similarly, i like the setting sun a lot of old art features. i guess thats nostalgia in a way, but i think i like it either way. setting suns are just cool. again, especially on white it feels cool.
5) i like the outfits these guys have. idk why.
maybe those are all bad reasons, i'm not sure. it just seems like such a snap shot into something weird and unpolished in a way i really like.
again, i'm not really anti new art, but that unpolished quality is lost in a lot of newer art imo, for better or for ill.
not baiting or anything, sorry if this kicks off an argument.i also want to say that i am an artist (not in the same capacity at all as mtg artists) and i have a large appreciation for more outsider and folk art. so that definitely affects my tastes on old versus new mtg art. also i'm bad at writing and really inarticulate sorry.
>>47952434
> You can't ever truly be 100% wrong on abstract subjects (like MTG art in this thread). By god if there's something you like about something you back it up with relative facts to your observations as to why you like something.
Different guy, but but you can realize your memory is faulty or biased.
For an example, I was convinced for a long time that DS9 had a great ending episode runs.
Then I talked about it, and realized that this was because I'd mentally edited out all the Pa Wraith bullshit.
This wasn't a subjective thing, that stuff existed, and was terrible, even I thought it was when I remembered it, but I'd edited it out of my mind. Similarly, Bab5 is a better show in my memories, because it's 80% the G'kar and Londo show, and I know that is not an accurate reflection of reality.
On a more complex issue, I know I don't think the graphics are the original X-com are that bad, but people who didn't play it at the time insist that they are. And I know they are the ones who are correct, because they insist that the original Deus Ex graphics are fine, but I didn't play it at the time, and without the nostalgia filter in place, it's not a good looking game.
To apply this back to MtG art, while your opinion on individual pieces being good/bad might be preference based enough that it can't be claimed as objectively right/wrong, it's very likely that your memory and perception of these things has undergone a bias. And that memory bias is not the same as just being preference in terms of being beyond critique.
You've edited out the bad, or even decidedly mediocre art of those sets, while not doing the same for modern sets. There is a legitimate argument that you are wrong about the overall content of the sets art quality, because it's not a matter of preference but selective memory.
>>47951363
How about you stop falling back on le "IT'S ALL LE NOSTALGIA XD" thought-terminating cliche and actually consider that certain things may have been better in the past?
One of my faves.
Holy shit, this thread is 100% shills from WotC.
Here's a tip, WotC: when you hem in your artists/flavor writers and make them zero in on generic conventional crap, you will make forgettable cards and sets. It's not harmonious. It's not aesthetic. It's just boring.
When artists were given less direction and allowed to bring something of themselves to the project, it evoked a universe of wonder and mystery with tantalizing unexplored realms of imagination at the edges. It was a game that existed in the weird internal realm of intuition and inner vision more than cookie cutter fantasy crap.
But whatevs, your stock price has tripled, so just keep on your path to NeoBlizzard and get into the business of Totally EPIC gaming experiences for Everyone rated T for Teen.
>>47939089
Yeah, lensflare made it better!
End yourself.
>>47952564
Memory can be faulty if it wasn't for the case that the MTG art pieces in question in this case are all 100% preserved perfectly and are exactly as is. So I can quickly make an analysis from a quick look at the piece in question again.
I can't say anything about the other subjects like DS9 and Bab5 because I'm not familiar with them but in regards to graphics in saying that the original X-COM and Deus Ex being good and bad I can say this.
The fundamental flaw between an argument comparing graphics in those games is that one game is 2D and one game is 3D. 3D video games always age terribly, there will be a point where you look at it and realise at one point it was the pinnacle of cutting edge technology but it's so far heavily outdated now. In cases of 3D graphics this isn't really an abstract concept as many old 3D games are visually bad compared to recent games. And in time those games will probably look bad in the next 30 years too. So it actually baffles me that those same people say that the old X-COM has bad graphics and that original Deus Ex graphics are fine makes me wonder how they are coming to this conclusion and I don't know how you think are correct on this merit. The only concept I can think of those people concluding that the old X-COM having bad graphics is if they're looking at it on a massive resolution with a non-CRT monitor when the sprites would have been created to be view on specific resolutions. There is one particular aspect of X-COM visuals that I do concede is a problem and that is that Muton on any Jungle tileset map can be very difficult to spot sometimes due to using the exact same green colour palette. But otherwise I don't think that the graphics in original X-COM are bad at all in any way. Sprites from games like Street Fighter 2/Street Fighter 3 and Heroes of Might and Magic 3 are fantastic and still hold up to this day.
Why do people call anything with tentacles and a dark atmosphere Lovecraftian?
Why do people think Lovecraft wrote in a single style like some sort of robot, anyways? Compare, say, Herbert West: Reanimator to The Color Out of Space.
>>47952789
I dunno man. Popular knowledge of popular authors rarely scratches the surface of their oeuvre.
Robert E Howard wrote a lot of horror fiction and some of it even had Cthulhu references, but you don't hear about that.
>>47952748
I didn't say individual pieces, I said sets as a whole. There are individual good pieces in basically every set. Few people try to argue against this, and they are typically proven wrong quickly.
What people will argue about is that 'there are more x', or 'the set is full of x', or other things about the overall set and it's proportions.
>x-com sprites look fine
until someone points out that several of them look downright silly (floaters). The fact that it can't scale beyond tiny screens is a real problem, and is comparable to 3d video low polygon count.
Then there is the interface being an utter mess, which fan (including me) forget, because we'd finally figured it out, and gotten it to work, and forgetten the literal hours it took us to do so. A thing which we would find unforgivable if it appeared in a modern game.
Nostalgia shifting our perspectives is real. It could even apply to individual art pieces when someone might point out say, that the facial expression in Death Ward. The anatomy on the hands.The anatomy in general.
>>47952789
Yes. It's pretty common to boil authors down to one easily digestible bite. Most of the people who use the term "lovecraftian" can probably not tell you the name of a human character from any Lovecraft story.
>>47952810
Not me! I remember he made Shuma-Gorath!
>>47952789
>Why do people call anything with tentacles and a dark atmosphere Lovecraftian?
It's a popular aesthetic now and people don't have anything else to call it. I understand, I'm not a fan of it either because 90% of the stuff that gets the label entirely misses the themes of Lovecraft's writing. The Eldrazi are a great example, barring a few flavorful cards.
>>47952789
>>47952810
well, the themes of corruption, madness, cults, paranoia, isolation, gothic ascetics mixed with alien ascetics (Lovecraft was a huge fan of poe, who was a huge fan of European gothic architecture and art).
There is more Lovecraft than tentacles, it's just that Eldritch moon and Shadows has those other things as well. Shadows if anything more than Eldritch Moon
>>47952855
Honestly, I feel like the Lovecraft aesthetic can't coexist with Jacetice League.
Actually, good settings in general can't coexist with Jace & Company.
Planeswalkers were a mistake.
>>47952825
Actually, you've just been inculcated with "best practices" that are rarely more than a Procrustean bed to saw everything down to the same flavor of bland and sterile.
The interface isn't an "utter mess." It's serviceable. It's a complicated game that requires a complicated interface. If it wasn't that complicated interface, it would be another complicated interface. Is there room for improvement? Possibly, but it's not a disaster.
Limitation becomes affectation. Game makers today affect the style born of low pixel counts in 16-bit games. There's nothing wrong with it. It can work. It's a style. It worked then, it can work now.
>>47952825
I don't see how Floaters look silly. They are quite easily recognizable and are distinct enough to be different from other aliens.
>The fact that it can't scale beyond tiny screens is a real problem, and is comparable to 3d video low polygon count.
That's a technical issue and not actually a fault or to do with the visual designs of the graphics.
>Then there is the interface being an utter mess, which fan (including me) forget, because we'd finally figured it out, and gotten it to work, and forgetten the literal hours it took us to do so. A thing which we would find unforgivable if it appeared in a modern game.
The interface isn't an utter mess. Everything is explained in theInstruction Manual.Every button has an illustration that can easily be recognised as to what it does later. Also it was a very complex game of its time and Modern games can still have just as confusing of an interface for certain games but that is not always the fault of the game and can be the fault of the user themselves. I must admit I am very bad at navigating Hearts of Iron 2 despite multiple attempts.
I've had a friend argue that original X-COM was bad and that it was impossible to finish without a guide to which I flat out pointed out that was wrong since I personally finished the game myself without one and have witnessed others doing so including my 12 year old nephew. On another matter this same friend also said that D.va needed a nerf and that Mcree needed a Buff in Overwatch when it really needed to be the polar opposite so go figure as to what he's thinking when he says some shit.
>>47952968
>this same friend also said that D.va needed a nerf and that Mcree needed a Buff in Overwatch
Some people are just scrubs. It can't be helped.
>>47952878
I get why they included them, because it lets them have perspective thoughlines between sets which they didn't really have when they got done with the Weatherlight and the massive metaplot that had dominated the set before.
What I personally feel would have been better is to have the continuing perspective be primarily investigators and interlocators, looking at and interacting with the main movers who are local to the plain.
If they wanted to power down planeswalkers, they could use this, have the planeswalkers not be the most powerful things in the set.
They've been rather inconsistent in how they did this, and the results it produced. In New Phyrexia the were largely minor actors, swept up in the plot, and it largely worked. In BFZ it was all about the planeswalkers with local heroes basically being sidelined and was bad.
That's why I kinda liked Shadows, Jace was there, but he did do much, he just learned about the goings on and let us as the audiance learn these things too. If Jace wasn't present, the events of Shadows would have happened almost exactly as they did.
The rest of the BFZ club showing up in Eldritch Moon is the main thing killing my interest in the set.
>>47952995
Eh he's not a bad guy but he tried to argue that he knew what he was talking about since he put more time in the beta than I did. But I had been playing more time in retail than he has so I felt I was more accurate and up to date on the matter. His other argument was that he was finding it difficult to kill D.va because she runs away and gets in her mech again.
He did change his mind quickly when he was playing Reinhardt and Winston and a Mcree killed him after a flashbang and one volley of fan the hammer.
>>47952879
no, I've talked with enough indepentant interface designers, it's and x-coms was BAD.
It's not that it was complicated, it's that it was extremly hard to understand the complexity, there was nothing to teach the aspects, the usefulness of those aspects differed wildly and did not correspond to how much of the interface they took up.
And that's just the in mission interface. Trying to Set up for the mission, that was balls shitty. There is a reason UI mods for the game are popular.
>>47952968
I don't know how you think the floaters didn't look silly. It wasn't even a matter of the low pixel count, because the detailed look from the research pages upped that silliness.
>That's a technical issue and not actually a fault or to do with the visual designs of the graphics.
hence comparable to the low polygon count of old 3d games.
Some things aren't as badily hit by these limitations, and work fine with lower graphical processesing even know. Others are clearly hemmed in by those constraints.
Squad tactics games don't necessarily need the full graphical powers of modern games, but the original x-com was straining against it's graphical constraints. The type of game it is wants more than the game gave it.
>original X-COM was bad
I would never argue that, it's a great game. But it has flaws.
One of which is the UI. Being complicated is not an excuse, more complicated games have better UIs. Some don't, but those are problems too.
Now the instruction manual info not being accessable from within the game is a fault of it's period of gaming. Not every game has learned this, but I'll stand by it, I should be able to learn the meanings of all the mechanics of the game without turning off the game.
But even with this, getting to the useful an necessary info of the game was often awkward and buried in useless info.
Again, loved and love the fuck out of the game, but serious flaws exist.
>>47922076
>>47939108
I have a question, are the new werewolves intentionally an homage to Rage, or is it just a coincidence/copyright infringement?
>>47943449
Man, I really don't like those disembodied arms in the Darksteel versions of the swords. They're just ugly.
>all this discussion about new art versus old art
>not just combining both kinds in glorious plastic sleeves
>>47952387
This art is pretty meh. Generic as shit. You can find that in any modern production.
>>47939795
From the article
>I would like this to be a black woman please
Disgusting.
>>47953411
Nice try shill, no one's going to fall for something as stupid as literally buying a card twice just to calm someone else's art autism.
![Hymn-w-website[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/BHmPYNA.gif "Hymn-w-website[1].gif")
>>47938381
aw yiss, order of the ebon hand. my favorite version though is the guy with the cleaversword and rotosaw shield
I can't remember off the top of my head which art is my favorite, so I'll continue the fallen empires theme and post my favorite hymn to tourach and OH SNAP looking for that image lead to a blog post about it's creation, today is a good day /tg/
http://www.lizdanforth.com/2014/11/hymn-to-tourach/
>>47953559
>my favorite version though is the guy with the cleaversword and rotosaw shield
my fuckin' nigga
For the contents of the thread, I always found the tempest shadows to be pretty spooky. They're all drawn in a very weird way.
>>47950863
Yes, but it can't be shown in a Christian manga.
>>47953695
Protestants to the rescue!
>>>/d/6891609
