A friend told me that there was a complaint about too sexualized art in the cards and since then Wizards is more conservative with the art. Is this true? I could not find any article about this.
Censorship I believe there is a background story about the card, but I think it's more based on the 'short' removal of pentagrams, demons and devils (because it's assumed evil).
There wasn't some specific complaint made, it's just a gradual ethos shift away from it from within the company. It's not new, either. The last five years has shown a big inclusiveness effort but it's been happening since very early on.
Similar is happening within the broader industry, as well. Awareness of social issues is higher than it's ever been, and gaming isn't the "boys' club" it was in the 90s. It'd be pretty baffling if Earthbind was reprinted with the same art today, and the important thing to keep in mind is this is the result of a gradual shift rather than solely being the decision of one company. Basically, Wizards is following the trend, not setting it.
I mean, this is the same community that complained about Triumph of Ferocity but had zero issues with Triumph of Cruelty and don't you dare say anything against the agenda push the industry (this, movies, comics, games, etc.) has been getting.
I mean, this is the same community that complained about Triumph of Ferocity but had zero issues with Triumph of Cruelty and don't you dare say anything against the agenda push the industry (this, movies, comics, games, etc.) has been getting.
If I recall, the issue was that Triumph of Ferocity's art looked like straight-up domestic abuse, while Triumph of Cruelty got off scot-free (rightfully in my opinion, but that's neither here nor there) because it looked basically no different from most "one character defeats another" art.
As for the toning-down of art in general, I don't think it came about because of complaints from the audience; rather, it was just a decision made by Wizards to appeal to a wider playerbase.
I mean, this is the same community that complained about Triumph of Ferocity but had zero issues with Triumph of Cruelty and don't you dare say anything against the agenda push the industry (this, movies, comics, games, etc.) has been getting.
Yeah man, like once this chick summoned up these zombies, and they like pulled me down. I still think about it.
EDIT: And yes, some art has been censored, and certain pieces would likely never see print again. Earthbind.
I wouldn't call it censorship. Maybe self-censorship, but I'm not sure on that either. As some others have said, Wizards is just following the broad trend of the times. It could be that they partly do this in order to prevent backlash, but for the most part its a PR and self-presentation thing.
I have to say that I always start to get pretty weirded out when people venture deeper into complaints about this topic ("WotC hates beauty now", "they're losing their core audience by not printing sexy girls" etc), but to some degree I can understand the sentiment of wanting a bit more "sexy back". For example, they've eliminated "boob armor/plate" so thoroughly that it would be interesting to see it appearing again on a few individual cards where it makes sense in-universe (f.e. ceremonial armor, armor whose main use is to impress, gladiator-style, or armor used by a person so powerful/confident that they (think they) don't need it or something).
They don't do a Yugioh where printing a card in another language results in the card having a reduced bust size, changing clothing lengths, etc.
There is some talk of people being like "Well Force of Will is better because so much fanservice that MTG won't do" as a pushback response. Yet if people wanted fanservice on their cards in MTG, there is this handy thing called alters which allow for much creativity and fanservice is one of those areas.
As for no complaints being made when the art looked sexy, its so false I don't even know where to start.
Wasn't there something about Drudge Skeletons -> Something Something Zombie for the asiapac market back in the early '00s?
There are a few cards that got different art for the Chinese market because of strict censorship laws. There's a decent summary of it over at Magic Librarities.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[Pr]Jaya | Estrid | A rotating cast of decks built out of my box.
You know, I honestly wonder why this game is moving towards being more conservative, especially the humans, when some of the popular stuff on TV can go full on graphic like Game of Thrones and the Walking Dead. It clearly shows that a mature consumer base has no true problem with sexy and bloody so long as there is an engaging plot.
Now it should be stated that there is a difference between objectification and art. The Statue of David and the Venus De Milo are art with no real ulterior motive behind them (as far as I know, I am not an arts major.) A good example of objectification would be those old Hardee's commercials were a scantily clad attractive person eats a burger in an attempt to get you to buy product. And yes if art is done wrong it can become a conduit of objectification, like with serum visions fnm card. But I do not ever remember Magic really using sexy to sell their product.
Lastly I think that this move to more conservative art makes the game less engaging and fun. Case and point is my favorite Legendary Radha, Heir to Keld. Her first card is just a perfect example of sexy confident woman without objectification. The angle and facial expression are perfect in empowering the character along with some awesome flavor text, heck even the angled art gave the feeling of see her through the eyes of a dead or dying man. But the New card Grand Warlord Radha feels flat and emotionless her pose is not dianamic and her facial expression makes her look she has zero emotion, even the flavor text is bland.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Never forget whose grace and favor led to your success and always give your thanks, otherwise you might be doomed to loose it.
Yet if people wanted fanservice on their cards in MTG, there is this handy thing called alters which allow for much creativity and fanservice is one of those areas
Handy huh? Not as handy given the possibility that you can’t use these alters in sanctioned/competitive event since the judges can ultimately decide whether you can use them or not at their discretion with no justification needed. Nice try though.
It just has to do with the shift away from the game focusing solely on white boys/men and now opening up to all genders and ethnicities. This is why you are seeing more minority characters on cards (like Herald of Faith) that otherwise would have just been a generic white person before. Removing lots of overt sexualization makes sense too as it makes the game more appealing to a broader, more diverse audience.
Lastly I think that this move to more conservative art makes the game less engaging and fun. Case and point is my favorite Legendary Radha, Heir to Keld. Her first card is just a perfect example of sexy confident woman without objectification. The angle and facial expression are perfect in empowering the character along with some awesome flavor text, heck even the angled art gave the feeling of see her through the eyes of a dead or dying man. But the New card Grand Warlord Radha feels flat and emotionless her pose is not dianamic and her facial expression makes her look she has zero emotion, even the flavor text is bland.
I completely disagree. Not everything needs to have sexualised or violent art. It makes me actively not enjoy the game more, but each to their own.
The same with Radha. I never enjoyed her old art, but her new one shows her as more intimidating.
Lastly I think that this move to more conservative art makes the game less engaging and fun. Case and point is my favorite Legendary Radha, Heir to Keld. Her first card is just a perfect example of sexy confident woman without objectification. The angle and facial expression are perfect in empowering the character along with some awesome flavor text, heck even the angled art gave the feeling of see her through the eyes of a dead or dying man. But the New card Grand Warlord Radha feels flat and emotionless her pose is not dianamic and her facial expression makes her look she has zero emotion, even the flavor text is bland.
I completely disagree. Not everything needs to have sexualised or violent art. It makes me actively not enjoy the game more, but each to their own.
The same with Radha. I never enjoyed her old art, but her new one shows her as more intimidating.
I like both Radha's cards, but I think they illustrate the development of the character well. Radha, Heir to Keld is a young, firey warrior. Grand Warlord Radha is an older, more mature leader. She's a Warlord now, and that shows.
You know, I honestly wonder why this game is moving towards being more conservative, especially the humans, when some of the popular stuff on TV can go full on graphic like Game of Thrones and the Walking Dead. It clearly shows that a mature consumer base has no true problem with sexy and bloody so long as there is an engaging plot.
Being more conservative would by definition mean being opposed to art style changes. What you're looking for instead of "conservative" is "inclusive," because shows like Game of Thrones are in fact noted for the violence and nudity being gratuitous rather than necessary. Since there's no particular need for Magic art to be fanservicey, the game loses nothing by adopting styles that don't passive-aggressively reinforce hostile atmospheres.
I will admit that I honestly don't understand why some people so badly want sexy tcg art. Maybe this is because I'm also the kind of person who doesn't care for fanservice in anything else. Because, to me, if a piece of media isn't meant to be themed towards sexuality or if sexual themes aren't important to a character or plot point it really doesn't serve any purpose other than what feels like a cheap attempt to reel in attention. Like a Hardee's/Carl's Jr ad. This is a burger commercial, I want the burger, not the titties. Or rather, this is a fantasy tcg, I want the swords and sorcery, not the titties.
This isn't to say that sexuality has no place at all in a game like this. But what is important is that it is used in contexts where it fits. Liliana, Gwendolyn Di Corci, various vampire cards, Enthralling Victor, etc have this kind of context.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Pop in, find a dragon, roast a dragon."
-Chandra Nalaar
You know, I honestly wonder why this game is moving towards being more conservative, especially the humans, when some of the popular stuff on TV can go full on graphic like Game of Thrones and the Walking Dead. It clearly shows that a mature consumer base has no true problem with sexy and bloody so long as there is an engaging plot.
Magic is marketed primarily to young teenagers. While I personally think they can handle it, and while I'm aware young teens sometimes watch those shows, it's not really comparable to adult shows in concurrent culture. You can't really compare this game to Game of Thrones in that sense.
They don't do a Yugioh where printing a card in another language results in the card having a reduced bust size, changing clothing lengths, etc.
Wasn't there something about Drudge Skeletons -> Something Something Zombie for the asiapac market back in the early '00s?
China. Interestingly enough, Chinese law does not actually ban skeletons, but Westerners have a habit of self-censoring.
Now, keep in mind other things can be banned, such as anything that "threatens Chinese national unity". So, don't expect to find any Doctor Strange comics in China, all that Tibetan mysticism. (However, this does not mean Portal: Three Kingdoms is out, even though it refers to a period when China obviously wasn't unified, because Chinese historians have written volumes upon volumes about the Three Kingdoms period, and Romance of the Three Kingdoms is required reading in Chinese literature classes.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
They don't do a Yugioh where printing a card in another language results in the card having a reduced bust size, changing clothing lengths, etc.
FALSE. The art for some cards in the Chinese market have skeletons while the non-Chinese versions do not. BTW, Google is your friend. Use it so you don't fail next time.
Lastly I think that this move to more conservative art makes the game less engaging and fun. Case and point is my favorite Legendary Radha, Heir to Keld. Her first card is just a perfect example of sexy confident woman without objectification. The angle and facial expression are perfect in empowering the character along with some awesome flavor text, heck even the angled art gave the feeling of see her through the eyes of a dead or dying man. But the New card Grand Warlord Radha feels flat and emotionless her pose is not dianamic and her facial expression makes her look she has zero emotion, even the flavor text is bland.
I completely disagree. Not everything needs to have sexualised or violent art. It makes me actively not enjoy the game more, but each to their own.
The same with Radha. I never enjoyed her old art, but her new one shows her as more intimidating.
I like both Radha's cards, but I think they illustrate the development of the character well. Radha, Heir to Keld is a young, firey warrior. Grand Warlord Radha is an older, more mature leader. She's a Warlord now, and that shows.
Also, only one of those two pieces of artwork I will actually remember as a striking piece that generated a strong impression on me, while the other one I'll instantly forget. Guess which one is which?
I hate this argument of "Radha is now a mature warlord so she looks older, etc" as an excuse for plain boring art. Both pieces of artowrk exemplify perfectly what's wrong with current MTG artwork IMO. I'M NOT saying that Radha shouldn't look more seasoned and authoritarian. That's great. What I'm saying is that you can make the seasoned warlord look and still not have it make look bland and uninspired (case in point: Lovisa Coldeyes. Either of them). The old Radha had an actual unique face, you could look at her and you could see the expression in her eyes. New Radha looks just dull and rushed. THIS is what's wrong with (most) MTG art nowadays.
I think I've learned to treat Magic cards like baseball cards: keep 'em in a binder in numerical order, don't play with 'em, try to finish the set and just keep my head down.
I guess it's not downright censorship per se, but the art is becoming bland as they need to include everyone in terms of demographics, so it needs to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Also, the more unified themed art makes everything looks the same. It's more controlled and planned which also inhibit varied art styles. Lately only promos seems a bit better (of course there are exceptions) in terms of consistency and creativity.
So with all these restrictions, artists have few ways to express their style, so they just aim for technique. Mostly wrong ones for such small frames. They abuse muted colors, very fuzzy edges to give more realism, CG treatment, and so on. They are fine in big frames, but just muddled in a MTG card frame plus bad printing practices.
The art department may be mostly neo-post-whatever-insert your favorite hate liberal agenda goons, but corporations in the end just want to make money the safest way possible, so going bland and safe is the best. I believe lot of old school players fell in love with MTG just for the art. It had a bite, was goofy, unique, provocative, varied, and so on. You remember Stasis, Darkness, or any of the bad art forever. Today most of the art aren't bad per se, just forgettable. I can't name most of the new batches of artists. It seems they are just going for the paycheck as they have so many restrictions.
You can see that in most commercial stuff for the general public, not only MTG.
Similar is happening within the broader industry, as well. Awareness of social issues is higher than it's ever been, and gaming isn't the "boys' club" it was in the 90s. It'd be pretty baffling if Earthbind was reprinted with the same art today, and the important thing to keep in mind is this is the result of a gradual shift rather than solely being the decision of one company. Basically, Wizards is following the trend, not setting it.
UBBreya's Toybox (Competitive, Combo)WR
RGodzilla, King of the MonstersG
-Retired Decks-
UBLazav, Dimir Mastermind (Competitive, UB Voltron/Control)UB
"Knowledge is such a burden. Release it. Release all your fears to me."
—Ashiok, Nightmare Weaver
If I recall, the issue was that Triumph of Ferocity's art looked like straight-up domestic abuse, while Triumph of Cruelty got off scot-free (rightfully in my opinion, but that's neither here nor there) because it looked basically no different from most "one character defeats another" art.
As for the toning-down of art in general, I don't think it came about because of complaints from the audience; rather, it was just a decision made by Wizards to appeal to a wider playerbase.
Yeah man, like once this chick summoned up these zombies, and they like pulled me down. I still think about it.
EDIT: And yes, some art has been censored, and certain pieces would likely never see print again. Earthbind.
Spirits
I have to say that I always start to get pretty weirded out when people venture deeper into complaints about this topic ("WotC hates beauty now", "they're losing their core audience by not printing sexy girls" etc), but to some degree I can understand the sentiment of wanting a bit more "sexy back". For example, they've eliminated "boob armor/plate" so thoroughly that it would be interesting to see it appearing again on a few individual cards where it makes sense in-universe (f.e. ceremonial armor, armor whose main use is to impress, gladiator-style, or armor used by a person so powerful/confident that they (think they) don't need it or something).
There is some talk of people being like "Well Force of Will is better because so much fanservice that MTG won't do" as a pushback response. Yet if people wanted fanservice on their cards in MTG, there is this handy thing called alters which allow for much creativity and fanservice is one of those areas.
As for no complaints being made when the art looked sexy, its so false I don't even know where to start.
Now it should be stated that there is a difference between objectification and art. The Statue of David and the Venus De Milo are art with no real ulterior motive behind them (as far as I know, I am not an arts major.) A good example of objectification would be those old Hardee's commercials were a scantily clad attractive person eats a burger in an attempt to get you to buy product. And yes if art is done wrong it can become a conduit of objectification, like with serum visions fnm card. But I do not ever remember Magic really using sexy to sell their product.
Lastly I think that this move to more conservative art makes the game less engaging and fun. Case and point is my favorite Legendary Radha, Heir to Keld. Her first card is just a perfect example of sexy confident woman without objectification. The angle and facial expression are perfect in empowering the character along with some awesome flavor text, heck even the angled art gave the feeling of see her through the eyes of a dead or dying man. But the New card Grand Warlord Radha feels flat and emotionless her pose is not dianamic and her facial expression makes her look she has zero emotion, even the flavor text is bland.
Handy huh? Not as handy given the possibility that you can’t use these alters in sanctioned/competitive event since the judges can ultimately decide whether you can use them or not at their discretion with no justification needed. Nice try though.
I completely disagree. Not everything needs to have sexualised or violent art. It makes me actively not enjoy the game more, but each to their own.
The same with Radha. I never enjoyed her old art, but her new one shows her as more intimidating.
I like both Radha's cards, but I think they illustrate the development of the character well. Radha, Heir to Keld is a young, firey warrior. Grand Warlord Radha is an older, more mature leader. She's a Warlord now, and that shows.
GENERATION 12: The first time you see this, copy and paste it into your signature and add 1 to the generation number. It's a social experiment.
Being more conservative would by definition mean being opposed to art style changes. What you're looking for instead of "conservative" is "inclusive," because shows like Game of Thrones are in fact noted for the violence and nudity being gratuitous rather than necessary. Since there's no particular need for Magic art to be fanservicey, the game loses nothing by adopting styles that don't passive-aggressively reinforce hostile atmospheres.
This isn't to say that sexuality has no place at all in a game like this. But what is important is that it is used in contexts where it fits. Liliana, Gwendolyn Di Corci, various vampire cards, Enthralling Victor, etc have this kind of context.
-Chandra Nalaar
Magic is marketed primarily to young teenagers. While I personally think they can handle it, and while I'm aware young teens sometimes watch those shows, it's not really comparable to adult shows in concurrent culture. You can't really compare this game to Game of Thrones in that sense.
China. Interestingly enough, Chinese law does not actually ban skeletons, but Westerners have a habit of self-censoring.
Now, keep in mind other things can be banned, such as anything that "threatens Chinese national unity". So, don't expect to find any Doctor Strange comics in China, all that Tibetan mysticism. (However, this does not mean Portal: Three Kingdoms is out, even though it refers to a period when China obviously wasn't unified, because Chinese historians have written volumes upon volumes about the Three Kingdoms period, and Romance of the Three Kingdoms is required reading in Chinese literature classes.)
On phasing:
UBBreya's Toybox (Competitive, Combo)WR
RGodzilla, King of the MonstersG
-Retired Decks-
UBLazav, Dimir Mastermind (Competitive, UB Voltron/Control)UB
"Knowledge is such a burden. Release it. Release all your fears to me."
—Ashiok, Nightmare Weaver
FALSE. The art for some cards in the Chinese market have skeletons while the non-Chinese versions do not. BTW, Google is your friend. Use it so you don't fail next time.
Also, only one of those two pieces of artwork I will actually remember as a striking piece that generated a strong impression on me, while the other one I'll instantly forget. Guess which one is which?
I hate this argument of "Radha is now a mature warlord so she looks older, etc" as an excuse for plain boring art. Both pieces of artowrk exemplify perfectly what's wrong with current MTG artwork IMO. I'M NOT saying that Radha shouldn't look more seasoned and authoritarian. That's great. What I'm saying is that you can make the seasoned warlord look and still not have it make look bland and uninspired (case in point: Lovisa Coldeyes. Either of them). The old Radha had an actual unique face, you could look at her and you could see the expression in her eyes. New Radha looks just dull and rushed. THIS is what's wrong with (most) MTG art nowadays.
So with all these restrictions, artists have few ways to express their style, so they just aim for technique. Mostly wrong ones for such small frames. They abuse muted colors, very fuzzy edges to give more realism, CG treatment, and so on. They are fine in big frames, but just muddled in a MTG card frame plus bad printing practices.
The art department may be mostly neo-post-whatever-insert your favorite hate liberal agenda goons, but corporations in the end just want to make money the safest way possible, so going bland and safe is the best. I believe lot of old school players fell in love with MTG just for the art. It had a bite, was goofy, unique, provocative, varied, and so on. You remember Stasis, Darkness, or any of the bad art forever. Today most of the art aren't bad per se, just forgettable. I can't name most of the new batches of artists. It seems they are just going for the paycheck as they have so many restrictions.
You can see that in most commercial stuff for the general public, not only MTG.
Spirits
What artists are those in your opinion? I'm asking because I would like to Google them and see their artwork both in and outside of MtG