Have you considered that the market force of "sexual objectification doesn't play as well as it used to" might be behind Wizards' move?
Well there "data" is terrible and making judgment of that data is just as random as it ever was.
They are not even consistent and in the end their political agenda is pushed more and even ignoring what the "market" would ask for, even in despise of the market, the agenda is more prevalent among WotC employees.
So yes i have.
If there's no room for nuance in your arguments, then we aren't going to get very far. The world isn't a simple place, and if you try to remove context from everything (for instance, seeing no difference between a man about to beat a woman and a bunch of zombies knocking a man to the floor), you're going to find you're left with arguments that don't match up with reality.
So funny enough you are aware that some form of violence is justified and thats always depends on the viewpoint and can be completely different from person to person.
To be consistent, violence in fantasy art is just as valid no matter "who" is doing it against who ever.
If you swap Garruk and Liliana in place, it doesnt suddenly become acceptable, its either BAD or not, and if either is fine and the other is not, than its not consistent and made up crap that has no place.
You also didn't address the fact that your willful blindness to something that members of minority groups see as being completely obvious is more indicative of a privileged mindset than anything else. The argument essentially boils down to "I personally don't see it so it must not exist." Nor did you address the accusation that you're willfully denying that patterns exist despite there being clear statistical trends (nothing but isolated incidents, perhaps?).
I do not like to think of groups, and especially not claim what makes a "minority" group. That kind of thinking is toxic and opinions based on that kind of grouping are purely evil as they have the gravest of effects and never truly help an individual, but just put people into boxes, and thats never ever a good thing to begin with.
And you are talking WAY more into all of this than you can chew.
You even go as far as claiming a moral highground and even bring up accusations out of nowhere. Your thinking is problematic, you are the problem, try to think about your intentions.
If you want to get into what businesses are "supposed" to be doing, then it's entirely one thing: Maximizing shareholder value.
Debatable.
You can maximize shareholder value in short term by completely trashing your product and selling out, and even disvow your ideals and crap on everything you build.
OR
You can maximize shareholder value in long term, by building an honoring your values.
Two very different things.
WotC shifting into a political motivated agenda is among the most terrible choices they made, as its hurtful to crap on your long term fanbase.
Artists should get the freedom to produce whatever art they claim to be good and fitting, end result is more diverse art and better results. Thats what people want and value of the "old" artworks, and what we very rarely get today.
Your tastes do not line up with overall audience trends, so Wizards no longer caters to them. It's not political. They're just trying to make the most money they can, and they aren't going to do that by keeping the same art style as 20 years ago. That's the ultimate reason you don't see Earthbind-style art anymore, and Basandra-style art is nowhere near as prevalent as it used to be. Don't mix up the beliefs of the players with the beliefs of the company making this game, because the reasons each group holds its respective views are very, very different.
WotC would have fired and shun Terese Nielsen , but fans wanted her to make magic cards, and the artwork sticks out very visible.
Thats one of the kind of artwork people WANT to have, as it brings a form of diversity in artwork.
That does NOT mean that every artwork on every magic card has to be a Terese Nielsen art.
Magic has plenty of artists, granting them more freedom would be greatly appreciated.
Wizards never betrayed you, because they never owed you anything to begin with. The only people who matter to a corporation are the shareholders, and unless you own enough shares for Hasbro to take notice of you, then you can either accept the shift in presentation or quit the game. That horse isn't going back into its stable.
Oh they did. As a customer a company owes you the promise of making a good product, and if you stop doing that, you earn the fruits of your bad job.
Betrayal of your customers is among the worst decisions a company can make, and plenty of companies learn that the hard way, as getting a customer BACK is much more costly then keeping them happy.
If the group "some people" is undefined, then the argument carries no weight because there's absolutely no guarantee that those people even exist and aren't just made up for the sake of argument.
Thats the essence of a thought example, you might not be familiar with.
I am a bit confused on that one. She had a fight with Garruk and actually won in the end. Would it be a better fight if things were totally one-sided and Lili just pummeled Garruk into submission? I honestly think that was one of her stronger moments to recover from that and prevail in the end. Why would you not want to show that?
I'm just saying that if one is "Garruk on his back surrounded by zombies" then it wouldn't have been a bad decision as if the other art was, say, Liliana backed into a corner by Garruk's beasts.
Well there "data" is terrible and making judgment of that data is just as random as it ever was.
You have a citation on how their data is "terrible" and "random"? Actual data, that is.
I do not like to think of groups, and especially not claim what makes a "minority" group. That kind of thinking is toxic and opinions based on that kind of grouping are purely evil as they have the gravest of effects and never truly help an individual, but just put people into boxes, and thats never ever a good thing to begin with.
Saying "I refuse to think about these things" is just intentionally setting yourself apart from established discourse on the subject. It's actively disruptive and unhelpful.
You can maximize shareholder value in long term, by building an honoring your values.
Can you name a comparable corporation that's successfully done that?
Because this subject is literally what I have a degree in and I couldn't give you any Hasbro-sized examples of that working out (could give you plenty of values-based examples for why companies tanked, most notably "the Internet is a passing fad wait why am I going bankrupt?" examples from the turn of the millennium).
Thats the essence of a thought example, you might not be familiar with.
Hypotheticals are irrelevant. When I speak of people here, I only speak of real people. For instance, the intersection of "victims of domestic violence" and "Magic players" who aren't going to be particularly comfortable with a big burly dude about to punch a woman, despite the fact that it's a fantasy game. If nobody was actually put off by the art, then it would be a very different matter. Same with sexually objectified art and other areas Wizards has improved upon lately.
I am a bit confused on that one. She had a fight with Garruk and actually won in the end. Would it be a better fight if things were totally one-sided and Lili just pummeled Garruk into submission? I honestly think that was one of her stronger moments to recover from that and prevail in the end. Why would you not want to show that?
I'm just saying that if one is "Garruk on his back surrounded by zombies" then it wouldn't have been a bad decision as if the other art was, say, Liliana backed into a corner by Garruk's beasts.
imo if Ferocity's art had been something like Garruk swinging an entire tree that would have been fantastical enough to get away from the domestic violence comparison.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
Seems like bias is showing when it comes to Ferocity and Cruelty again. As both depict similar situations (hand/hands used to restrain), aside with garruk being harmed as his blood is spilled in Cruelty but no harm displayed in Ferocity, just the wind-up. If we wanted to use the domestic abuse angle, both are a depiction of it especially when acknowledging that the undead hands are just an extension of Liliana's might. Both depict one in a place of power and the other in the role of the victim. As it can happen in either manner, a man abusing a woman OR a woman abusing a man. To put more emphasis on it, both pieces of art are from a horror plane and if they cause horror in the viewer when viewing because it reminds them of something awful, then it succeeded.
TL;DR: Both Ferocity and Cruelty are domestic abuse and should be treated equally.
I demand a more accurate depiction of Magic Playing, males and females. None of that magical nonsense. Unless it's Una Fricker. Getting away with that, she can do whatever she wants. She deserves it.
Not trying to be a troll here but it's hard to read these posts that read like some sort of weird one sided argument. What I read when I look at these posts is the attempt to disassemble the advances by women human race in the last 100 or so years. Arguing that we shouldn't depict abuse is like arguing we shouldn't acknowledge the existence of abused women and men everywhere.
Not saying it should be glorified, but sweeping it under the rug isn't answer. So yeah... sorry but I just can't get on board with that argument.
Regarding homogenization of art style (rather than how men and/or women are portrayed), I think that's largely the result of modern reliance on computer techniques in minor, and desire for sky-high realism (well, as realistic as a world of sorcery can be compared to our sorcery-less world) in major. In a word, immersion. It's a concern I have with how computer games are marketed, at least by word-of-mouth, that immersion is a major selling factor. I do worry that people are often looking to utterly forget the physical world for a time. Yet I fear that that way lies addiction.
As for fantasy aesthetics "properly" being that which proliferated in the 1980s...At least one problem. Namely, the very subjectivity of the term "fantasy". Cleaving to the 1980s variant usually means sticking to a fantasy that was mostly defined by young white males, whom I wouldn't be surprised to learn defined their "ideal" men and women to comport to their peers (q.v. the toxic variety of masculinity being in large part performative--towards other men). Which largely precludes females and non-whites already. And then there's the matter of how extra-voluptuous might not be an omnipresent desire. (I know I'll take "lithe" over "voluptuous" any day...) It's arguably a form of...ageism?...in that it says that the older aesthetic ought to be catered to just because it's been around longer. That essentially denies the validity of younger fantasies. By that logic, one could say that 1920s/1930s fantasies should receive priority over 1980s fantasies (and I doubt too many people in this day and age would like relentless Conan-cover art, Vallejo fans aside--and possibly even with them. Note, by the way, that Robert Howard was kind of notorious for his racism even back then, so at least his precepts weren't omnipresent then.).
This is why someone like, say, Alesha is important. She, in effect, supplies a fantasy of strength et al. for transwomen that doesn't require them to abjure their particular experiences. I also appreciate Alesha because her existence, among other details, acknowledges the Multiverse as being its own place, not just a vehicle for wish fulfillment, with many of the details our own non-sorcerous world contains. (Let's just say my suspension of disbelief can only go so far, yes?)
I would expect WotC, even without shareholder pressure, to want to expand the audience of the game beyond just 1980s/1990s archetypal fantasy, if only out of love for the game, and thus desire for it to be enjoyed by more people. That requires them to encompass the younger fantasies' precepts--and their critiques of older fantasies. Just because it's a fantasy, doesn't mean it should be immune to analysis and criticism.
(And as a note to 652089...Your denigration of groups isn't really a good idea. Humans are, for the most part, intrinsically social. Seeking a group identity is kind of a default setting for the dominant, allistic set--and that's not necessarily a flaw in their psyche. I don't feel the need to be part of a group, but that's probably ascribable to my autism.)
It´s a shame we will never see ART like this in magic anymore. Not ever
That card is a great example. I've often wondered if that's actually based off of Julie herself. Those big honking feet, almost shapeless body, sharp hawk-like nose and red hair pulled back. Late 90's saw people like Glen Plake rocking colored hair and extreme styles.
Regarding homogenization of art style (rather than how men and/or women are portrayed), I think that's largely the result of modern reliance on computer techniques in minor, and desire for sky-high realism (well, as realistic as a world of sorcery can be compared to our sorcery-less world) in major. In a word, immersion. It's a concern I have with how computer games are marketed, at least by word-of-mouth, that immersion is a major selling factor. I do worry that people are often looking to utterly forget the physical world for a time. Yet I fear that that way lies addiction.
As for fantasy aesthetics "properly" being that which proliferated in the 1980s...At least one problem. Namely, the very subjectivity of the term "fantasy". Cleaving to the 1980s variant usually means sticking to a fantasy that was mostly defined by young white males, whom I wouldn't be surprised to learn defined their "ideal" men and women to comport to their peers (q.v. the toxic variety of masculinity being in large part performative--towards other men). Which largely precludes females and non-whites already. And then there's the matter of how extra-voluptuous might not be an omnipresent desire. (I know I'll take "lithe" over "voluptuous" any day...) It's arguably a form of...ageism?...in that it says that the older aesthetic ought to be catered to just because it's been around longer. That essentially denies the validity of younger fantasies. By that logic, one could say that 1920s/1930s fantasies should receive priority over 1980s fantasies (and I doubt too many people in this day and age would like relentless Conan-cover art, Vallejo fans aside--and possibly even with them. Note, by the way, that Robert Howard was kind of notorious for his racism even back then, so at least his precepts weren't omnipresent then.).
I definitely agree that aesthetics change (and have to change), and not everything in the 70s and 80s fantasy was good (much of it wasn't), but as with every genre and art form, it has a period in which it peaks and I think that era was it. I don't see newer MtG art adding anything to it, other than technical proficiency. If anything, the ideas seem in short supply and many fantasy worlds that are supposedly new in fact feel extremely familiar and well trodden. The moment you see two or three pictures from Amonkhet or Kaladesh you immediately know what the rest is going to look like without even needing to engage your imagination. A counterpoint to this was perhaps Mirrodin, which, while having a lot of poor art was an indisputably original, MtG defined setting.
It's not so much that Magic needs to slavishly copy 80s art forever, but that it should emulate it's pioneering spirit (which it has shown from time to time) and resist the urge to serve up prepackaged products that the accountants know will sell.
The supposed Viking expansion is the prototype of this for me - I'm bored of it, and I don't know if it will ever see the light of day. But I know what it will look like, because that look is set in stone already in pop culture and I will eat my slipper if an MtG set of that sort would diverge significantly from popular imagination - should it be printed.
But I know what it will look like, because that look is set in stone already in pop culture and I will eat my slipper if an MtG set of that sort would diverge significantly from popular imagination - should it be printed.
I know that precept worried me about Amonkhet. I was hoping it would hew more to actual Kemetic myth, if not all of the custom, because it would actually make for a more novel story for the mostly Anglophone audience. (I suppose I can forget for now my hopes of an Indonesia-inspired plane...)
It does seem a bit odd that people want the same style/story/etc. repeated ad infinitum (whether we're talking pop understandings of Kemet/Scandinavia/etc. or archetypal 1980s fantasy). Why do they not get tired of it? I honestly wonder whether what they're actually looking for isn't a new story, but rather constant validation. Which...runs into the problem of "fantasy" so often being slotted into "wish-fulfillment". I know David Brin has said that fantasy is primarily/inherently (I forget which) conservative/reactionary in nature, as opposed to science fiction. I wonder if the validation/wish-fulfillment aspect is to blame.
I suppose what I want is for the fantasy to actually hew to science fiction ideals (your choice whether soft or hard). Sci-fi that replaces FTL and high technology with sorcery, perhaps. Rosewater did say that Kaladesh was very likely the most technologically sophisticated we'd get for a plane...And it actually makes sense, given that sorcery probably does certain things better than machinery ever could.
Rosewater did say that Kaladesh was very likely the most technologically sophisticated we'd get for a plane...And it actually makes sense, given that sorcery probably does certain things better than machinery ever could.
It's more that they're operating under the absurd "guns and technological technology can't be FantasyTM" thing writers tend to crutch on when they aren't creative enough to be able to integrate magic and technology.
Rosewater did say that Kaladesh was very likely the most technologically sophisticated we'd get for a plane...And it actually makes sense, given that sorcery probably does certain things better than machinery ever could.
It's more that they're operating under the absurd "guns and technological technology can't be FantasyTM" thing writers tend to crutch on when they aren't creative enough to be able to integrate magic and technology.
Then they’d have another problem on their hands, marketing guns to kids and all. For the same reason you want “diversity”, you’ll probably never see guns in this game. Surprised you of all people couldn’t grab that parallel. As for technology, that’s a broad term. Aqueducts were technological achievements for their time. Fireworks as well.
@skynight gamma
Regarding homogenization of art style (rather than how men and/or women are portrayed), I think that's largely the result of modern reliance on computer techniques in minor, and desire for sky-high realism (well, as realistic as a world of sorcery can be compared to our sorcery-less world) in major. In a word, immersion. It's a concern I have with how computer games are marketed, at least by word-of-mouth, that immersion is a major selling factor. I do worry that people are often looking to utterly forget the physical world for a time. Yet I fear that that way lies addiction.
Emphasis mine. This is a huge problem when relying on realism to craft a setting. It makes it entirely to easy to forget that the world of MtG is, in fact, different than that of the real world. The same rules shouldn’t apply. The only thing that matters is that it makes sense in the setting of that fantasy world.
Ha, I was kind of thinking of firearms, there. Basically, do you necessarily have, for lack of a better phrase, selective pressure for firearms when wands exist? (This may vary depending on how easily wands are mass-produced. As well as how dense and fast a wand can make a chunk of ice.)
Granted we do have firearms in one place--namely, wherever it is the Alaborn exist--but those don't have magazines. (Yet.) The question might be, are the kinds of technology we're familiar with inevitable in technological progression? Especially if sorcery can meet the demand for the function you'd otherwise use machinery for more readily and/or safely. (This is actually the attitude Krynn of Dragonlance has. At least, with regard to Minoi technology. Gnomoi technology is a lot less cumbersome...but also a lot less well-known, outside of Taladas.)
Rosewater did say that Kaladesh was very likely the most technologically sophisticated we'd get for a plane...And it actually makes sense, given that sorcery probably does certain things better than machinery ever could.
It's more that they're operating under the absurd "guns and technological technology can't be FantasyTM" thing writers tend to crutch on when they aren't creative enough to be able to integrate magic and technology.
We have gotten a few cards with guns, like Goblin Sharpshooter (especially the Onslaught art, in which he appears to have a Gatling gun made of wood). Portal Second Age had a number of guns in the art, as well, like the Nightstalker creatures (Abyssal Nightstalker and Prowling Nightstalker as particularly good examples) and a smattering of others like Alaborn Zealot.
Guns are certainly not part of the current art direction, though, and even in older sets were very uncommon.
Rosewater did say that Kaladesh was very likely the most technologically sophisticated we'd get for a plane...And it actually makes sense, given that sorcery probably does certain things better than machinery ever could.
It's more that they're operating under the absurd "guns and technological technology can't be FantasyTM" thing writers tend to crutch on when they aren't creative enough to be able to integrate magic and technology.
yeah! that is the thing that was missing from magic, laser guns and some smartphones... that's the final nail in the coffin. Some day maybe I will tell you a story about a "tiger by the tail"
Ha, I was kind of thinking of firearms, there. Basically, do you necessarily have, for lack of a better phrase, selective pressure for firearms when wands exist?
Unless magic is something the vast majority of the population can use well enough to engage in combat with (and most settings don't fit that description), guns would actually be seen as a way for non-mages to be able to fight mages, so there'd be more pressure for an equalizer than there would be in the real world.
Guns are certainly not part of the current art direction, though, and even in older sets were very uncommon.
Yes, and the reasoning I gave is why they refuse to have guns or even gunpowder despite the fact that, in the real world, gunpowder is a thousand years old. There are some cannons and other stuff scattered around Magic, I suppose, but it seems guns cannot exist in any plane in the multiverse no matter the tech level or availability of magic, solely because of bad stylistic decisions.
Even Pathfinder has stats for firearms up to the Mosin Nagant, plus whatever firearms are in supplementary materials. Magic is too afraid to have so much as pike and shot.
Guns are certainly not part of the current art direction, though, and even in older sets were very uncommon.
Yes, and the reasoning I gave is why they refuse to have guns or even gunpowder despite the fact that, in the real world, gunpowder is a thousand years old. There are some cannons and other stuff scattered around Magic, I suppose, but it seems guns cannot exist in any plane in the multiverse no matter the tech level or availability of magic, solely because of bad stylistic decisions.
Even Pathfinder has stats for firearms up to the Mosin Nagant, plus whatever firearms are in supplementary materials. Magic is too afraid to have so much as pike and shot.
Yes, I agree with you. For MtG it's really only a flavor thing, though; mechanically nothing that a creature with a gun might do is going to be any different from a creature with a bow, so personally the lack of guns in MtG doesn't really rate very highly on my "give-a-*****-o-meter".
Other fantasy settings, OTOH, where I'm primarily reading stories over playing a game, the problem can matter more.
There are plenty of settings where they end up with "guns, but magic", which I can live with just fine.
Its because of oversexualization/objectification in the past, and an open and admitted desire to show diversity in ethnic/body types.
When was that, the 1990s?
Many have been complaining about WOTC going 'woke' (and thereby probably broke) and these nuns in armor are merely the latest effect of that political strategy. They'll learn their lesson when people quit playing the game.
If a bunch of manpig neckbeards decide to throw a fit and leave because the cards aren't eyecandy-ish enough for their tastes, I for one will not shed any tears.
Public Mod Note
(motleyslayer):
[mod] warning issued for flaming. [/mod]
All her other artwork gave the impression she was confident, charismatic, cunning, enigmatic and an aristocrat. Like she looked like she new she was better than everyone and liked it.
And that's exactly the kind of person that likely bullied (or had their basic congeniality perceived as bullying by the socially inept) the frumpy and insecure girls who now as adults and in such roles as marketing executive or art director would rather erase those girls who were cruel to them in high school from their product.
It's basically the Adam Sandler movie underdog fantasy.
As for depictions of violence. When you put a prefix on a word like justice, any prefix, it squarely isn't justice anymore. Justice is Just for all, prefix justice is justice for a select group at the exclusion of others. Liliana manipulating other men to mob Garruk is exactly as realistic as Garruk shoving her against a rock. Claiming ToF shouldn't be depicted because it's a thing that happens erases the experience of men who have been victims of mob justice incited by women. Not to mention people also get Murdered, Stab Wounded and even Incinerateed. So let's be sincere and admit the problem with ToF isn't the depiction of realistic violence, but the fact that it`s easily exploitable by clickbait politickers who keep shoving their propaganda into every aspect of culture.
When you put a prefix on a word like justice, any prefix, it squarely isn't justice anymore.
That's factually incorrect. There are variousvalidadjectives that you can use to describe justice. A deeper understanding of what justice is, what it entails, and the forms it can take is important for being able to put a real life context on justice, since real life is almost never as clear-cut as fiction.
Liliana manipulating other men to mob Garruk is exactly as realistic as Garruk shoving her against a rock.
Seriously, one in four women are affected by the same sort of violence that you see Garruk about to visit on Liliana. It's a serious problem in society and you're trying to downplay that fact with comparisons to things that simply don't happen in real life to any statistically significant degree. "Women manipulates a bunch of men to attack another man" isn't in the same ballpark as severe domestic violence. It's not even in the same league. Or the same sport.
So let's be sincere and admit the problem with ToF isn't the depiction of realistic violence, but the fact that it`s easily exploitable by clickbait politickers who keep shoving their propaganda into every aspect of culture.
"Things are only harmful if we let them be harmful" is the sort of thing said only by people who haven't been on the receiving end of anything seriously damaging. Is clickbait a problem? Sure. But your argument is willfully losing the forest for the trees, and that's unacceptable given the real-life parallels at play here.
You excuse vengeance and biases as justice, and only focus on the real-life parallels you want to, because you are not just. Not because it's right.
It's ok, you're an individual and you value your judgment and experiences over anyone elses. But we as a society (and as a subgroup of society, magic players) are diverse people who shouldn't be forced to adapt to certain biases just because previous events, knowingly or not, allowed for a different set of biases.
It's not possible to please all the people all of the time but going out of your way to discriminate in the name of justice is not and never will be just. In the context of entertainment, not too long ago companies understood this and had both majority appeal products and special interest products even within the same brands and IPs (i.e. DC Comics' Elseworlds line). This allowed more people to enjoy more things without discriminating against anyone. But now between Left Coast "woke at any cost" politics and mergernomics pushing so hard for earnings spikes to the detriment of long term stability, we've seen a lot of very questionable and very misguided attempts to make things for everyone that end up not being for anyone. Superficially diversyfying characters is perfectly fine, doing so at the detriment of character archetypes deemed obsolete not because of their characteristics, popularity, etc. but because of politics and then following all of this with "Look at us we're so diverse buy our stuff or you're Hitler #gamersaredead lololol!!!111" twitter campaigns is why DC sold more comics than Marvel in 2016 and 2017.
A lot more people would have been receptive to Jane Foster as Thor if it didn't come with a flood of "journalism" that pretty much ammounted to "Why this is not for you unless you have a particular inferiority-superiority complex, and why we at wokeclickbaitnews thinks that's ok". I guess it's true that a lot of the times what you say isn't as important as how you say it.
Well there "data" is terrible and making judgment of that data is just as random as it ever was.
They are not even consistent and in the end their political agenda is pushed more and even ignoring what the "market" would ask for, even in despise of the market, the agenda is more prevalent among WotC employees.
So yes i have.
So funny enough you are aware that some form of violence is justified and thats always depends on the viewpoint and can be completely different from person to person.
To be consistent, violence in fantasy art is just as valid no matter "who" is doing it against who ever.
If you swap Garruk and Liliana in place, it doesnt suddenly become acceptable, its either BAD or not, and if either is fine and the other is not, than its not consistent and made up crap that has no place.
I do not like to think of groups, and especially not claim what makes a "minority" group. That kind of thinking is toxic and opinions based on that kind of grouping are purely evil as they have the gravest of effects and never truly help an individual, but just put people into boxes, and thats never ever a good thing to begin with.
And you are talking WAY more into all of this than you can chew.
You even go as far as claiming a moral highground and even bring up accusations out of nowhere. Your thinking is problematic, you are the problem, try to think about your intentions.
Debatable.
You can maximize shareholder value in short term by completely trashing your product and selling out, and even disvow your ideals and crap on everything you build.
OR
You can maximize shareholder value in long term, by building an honoring your values.
Two very different things.
WotC shifting into a political motivated agenda is among the most terrible choices they made, as its hurtful to crap on your long term fanbase.
Artists should get the freedom to produce whatever art they claim to be good and fitting, end result is more diverse art and better results. Thats what people want and value of the "old" artworks, and what we very rarely get today.
WotC would have fired and shun Terese Nielsen , but fans wanted her to make magic cards, and the artwork sticks out very visible.
Thats one of the kind of artwork people WANT to have, as it brings a form of diversity in artwork.
That does NOT mean that every artwork on every magic card has to be a Terese Nielsen art.
Magic has plenty of artists, granting them more freedom would be greatly appreciated.
Oh they did. As a customer a company owes you the promise of making a good product, and if you stop doing that, you earn the fruits of your bad job.
Betrayal of your customers is among the worst decisions a company can make, and plenty of companies learn that the hard way, as getting a customer BACK is much more costly then keeping them happy.
Thats the essence of a thought example, you might not be familiar with.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
I'm just saying that if one is "Garruk on his back surrounded by zombies" then it wouldn't have been a bad decision as if the other art was, say, Liliana backed into a corner by Garruk's beasts.
Edit because Sarnathed:
You have a citation on how their data is "terrible" and "random"? Actual data, that is.
Saying "I refuse to think about these things" is just intentionally setting yourself apart from established discourse on the subject. It's actively disruptive and unhelpful.
Can you name a comparable corporation that's successfully done that?
Because this subject is literally what I have a degree in and I couldn't give you any Hasbro-sized examples of that working out (could give you plenty of values-based examples for why companies tanked, most notably "the Internet is a passing fad wait why am I going bankrupt?" examples from the turn of the millennium).
Hypotheticals are irrelevant. When I speak of people here, I only speak of real people. For instance, the intersection of "victims of domestic violence" and "Magic players" who aren't going to be particularly comfortable with a big burly dude about to punch a woman, despite the fact that it's a fantasy game. If nobody was actually put off by the art, then it would be a very different matter. Same with sexually objectified art and other areas Wizards has improved upon lately.
Art is life itself.
Now that I look at the cards again. Triumph of Cruelty with Garruk in the back and Lili on the ground seems more extreme to me.
Hands to the sky
Give a round of applause
For the great Miss Y!
TL;DR: Both Ferocity and Cruelty are domestic abuse and should be treated equally.
Note that Benson created the iconic Shivan Dragon and Nightmare.
Unfortunately, I take issue with nearly all of Benson's art.
Aerathi Berserker
Cloud of Faeries
Fiery Justice
Fire Elemental
Marble Priest
Ragnar
I demand a more accurate depiction of Magic Playing, males and females. None of that magical nonsense. Unless it's Una Fricker. Getting away with that, she can do whatever she wants. She deserves it.
Not trying to be a troll here but it's hard to read these posts that read like some sort of weird one sided argument. What I read when I look at these posts is the attempt to disassemble the advances by
womenhuman race in the last 100 or so years. Arguing that we shouldn't depict abuse is like arguing we shouldn't acknowledge the existence of abused women and men everywhere.Not saying it should be glorified, but sweeping it under the rug isn't answer. So yeah... sorry but I just can't get on board with that argument.
As for fantasy aesthetics "properly" being that which proliferated in the 1980s...At least one problem. Namely, the very subjectivity of the term "fantasy". Cleaving to the 1980s variant usually means sticking to a fantasy that was mostly defined by young white males, whom I wouldn't be surprised to learn defined their "ideal" men and women to comport to their peers (q.v. the toxic variety of masculinity being in large part performative--towards other men). Which largely precludes females and non-whites already. And then there's the matter of how extra-voluptuous might not be an omnipresent desire. (I know I'll take "lithe" over "voluptuous" any day...) It's arguably a form of...ageism?...in that it says that the older aesthetic ought to be catered to just because it's been around longer. That essentially denies the validity of younger fantasies. By that logic, one could say that 1920s/1930s fantasies should receive priority over 1980s fantasies (and I doubt too many people in this day and age would like relentless Conan-cover art, Vallejo fans aside--and possibly even with them. Note, by the way, that Robert Howard was kind of notorious for his racism even back then, so at least his precepts weren't omnipresent then.).
This is why someone like, say, Alesha is important. She, in effect, supplies a fantasy of strength et al. for transwomen that doesn't require them to abjure their particular experiences. I also appreciate Alesha because her existence, among other details, acknowledges the Multiverse as being its own place, not just a vehicle for wish fulfillment, with many of the details our own non-sorcerous world contains. (Let's just say my suspension of disbelief can only go so far, yes?)
I would expect WotC, even without shareholder pressure, to want to expand the audience of the game beyond just 1980s/1990s archetypal fantasy, if only out of love for the game, and thus desire for it to be enjoyed by more people. That requires them to encompass the younger fantasies' precepts--and their critiques of older fantasies. Just because it's a fantasy, doesn't mean it should be immune to analysis and criticism.
(And as a note to 652089...Your denigration of groups isn't really a good idea. Humans are, for the most part, intrinsically social. Seeking a group identity is kind of a default setting for the dominant, allistic set--and that's not necessarily a flaw in their psyche. I don't feel the need to be part of a group, but that's probably ascribable to my autism.)
Real bummer. Also I was really lucky to enjoy cards like these in my time ages ago.
That card is a great example. I've often wondered if that's actually based off of Julie herself. Those big honking feet, almost shapeless body, sharp hawk-like nose and red hair pulled back. Late 90's saw people like Glen Plake rocking colored hair and extreme styles.
I definitely agree that aesthetics change (and have to change), and not everything in the 70s and 80s fantasy was good (much of it wasn't), but as with every genre and art form, it has a period in which it peaks and I think that era was it. I don't see newer MtG art adding anything to it, other than technical proficiency. If anything, the ideas seem in short supply and many fantasy worlds that are supposedly new in fact feel extremely familiar and well trodden. The moment you see two or three pictures from Amonkhet or Kaladesh you immediately know what the rest is going to look like without even needing to engage your imagination. A counterpoint to this was perhaps Mirrodin, which, while having a lot of poor art was an indisputably original, MtG defined setting.
It's not so much that Magic needs to slavishly copy 80s art forever, but that it should emulate it's pioneering spirit (which it has shown from time to time) and resist the urge to serve up prepackaged products that the accountants know will sell.
The supposed Viking expansion is the prototype of this for me - I'm bored of it, and I don't know if it will ever see the light of day. But I know what it will look like, because that look is set in stone already in pop culture and I will eat my slipper if an MtG set of that sort would diverge significantly from popular imagination - should it be printed.
I know that precept worried me about Amonkhet. I was hoping it would hew more to actual Kemetic myth, if not all of the custom, because it would actually make for a more novel story for the mostly Anglophone audience. (I suppose I can forget for now my hopes of an Indonesia-inspired plane...)
It does seem a bit odd that people want the same style/story/etc. repeated ad infinitum (whether we're talking pop understandings of Kemet/Scandinavia/etc. or archetypal 1980s fantasy). Why do they not get tired of it? I honestly wonder whether what they're actually looking for isn't a new story, but rather constant validation. Which...runs into the problem of "fantasy" so often being slotted into "wish-fulfillment". I know David Brin has said that fantasy is primarily/inherently (I forget which) conservative/reactionary in nature, as opposed to science fiction. I wonder if the validation/wish-fulfillment aspect is to blame.
I suppose what I want is for the fantasy to actually hew to science fiction ideals (your choice whether soft or hard). Sci-fi that replaces FTL and high technology with sorcery, perhaps. Rosewater did say that Kaladesh was very likely the most technologically sophisticated we'd get for a plane...And it actually makes sense, given that sorcery probably does certain things better than machinery ever could.
It's more that they're operating under the absurd "guns and technological technology can't be FantasyTM" thing writers tend to crutch on when they aren't creative enough to be able to integrate magic and technology.
Then they’d have another problem on their hands, marketing guns to kids and all. For the same reason you want “diversity”, you’ll probably never see guns in this game. Surprised you of all people couldn’t grab that parallel. As for technology, that’s a broad term. Aqueducts were technological achievements for their time. Fireworks as well.
@skynight gamma
Emphasis mine. This is a huge problem when relying on realism to craft a setting. It makes it entirely to easy to forget that the world of MtG is, in fact, different than that of the real world. The same rules shouldn’t apply. The only thing that matters is that it makes sense in the setting of that fantasy world.
Granted we do have firearms in one place--namely, wherever it is the Alaborn exist--but those don't have magazines. (Yet.) The question might be, are the kinds of technology we're familiar with inevitable in technological progression? Especially if sorcery can meet the demand for the function you'd otherwise use machinery for more readily and/or safely. (This is actually the attitude Krynn of Dragonlance has. At least, with regard to Minoi technology. Gnomoi technology is a lot less cumbersome...but also a lot less well-known, outside of Taladas.)
Guns are certainly not part of the current art direction, though, and even in older sets were very uncommon.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
yeah! that is the thing that was missing from magic, laser guns and some smartphones... that's the final nail in the coffin. Some day maybe I will tell you a story about a "tiger by the tail"
Unless magic is something the vast majority of the population can use well enough to engage in combat with (and most settings don't fit that description), guns would actually be seen as a way for non-mages to be able to fight mages, so there'd be more pressure for an equalizer than there would be in the real world.
Yes, and the reasoning I gave is why they refuse to have guns or even gunpowder despite the fact that, in the real world, gunpowder is a thousand years old. There are some cannons and other stuff scattered around Magic, I suppose, but it seems guns cannot exist in any plane in the multiverse no matter the tech level or availability of magic, solely because of bad stylistic decisions.
Even Pathfinder has stats for firearms up to the Mosin Nagant, plus whatever firearms are in supplementary materials. Magic is too afraid to have so much as pike and shot.
Other fantasy settings, OTOH, where I'm primarily reading stories over playing a game, the problem can matter more.
There are plenty of settings where they end up with "guns, but magic", which I can live with just fine.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
If a bunch of manpig neckbeards decide to throw a fit and leave because the cards aren't eyecandy-ish enough for their tastes, I for one will not shed any tears.
It's basically the Adam Sandler movie underdog fantasy.
As for depictions of violence. When you put a prefix on a word like justice, any prefix, it squarely isn't justice anymore. Justice is Just for all, prefix justice is justice for a select group at the exclusion of others. Liliana manipulating other men to mob Garruk is exactly as realistic as Garruk shoving her against a rock. Claiming ToF shouldn't be depicted because it's a thing that happens erases the experience of men who have been victims of mob justice incited by women. Not to mention people also get Murdered, Stab Wounded and even Incinerateed. So let's be sincere and admit the problem with ToF isn't the depiction of realistic violence, but the fact that it`s easily exploitable by clickbait politickers who keep shoving their propaganda into every aspect of culture.
That's factually incorrect. There are various valid adjectives that you can use to describe justice. A deeper understanding of what justice is, what it entails, and the forms it can take is important for being able to put a real life context on justice, since real life is almost never as clear-cut as fiction.
Women are disproportionately highly affected by domestic violence compared to men.
Seriously, one in four women are affected by the same sort of violence that you see Garruk about to visit on Liliana. It's a serious problem in society and you're trying to downplay that fact with comparisons to things that simply don't happen in real life to any statistically significant degree. "Women manipulates a bunch of men to attack another man" isn't in the same ballpark as severe domestic violence. It's not even in the same league. Or the same sport.
"Things are only harmful if we let them be harmful" is the sort of thing said only by people who haven't been on the receiving end of anything seriously damaging. Is clickbait a problem? Sure. But your argument is willfully losing the forest for the trees, and that's unacceptable given the real-life parallels at play here.
It's ok, you're an individual and you value your judgment and experiences over anyone elses. But we as a society (and as a subgroup of society, magic players) are diverse people who shouldn't be forced to adapt to certain biases just because previous events, knowingly or not, allowed for a different set of biases.
It's not possible to please all the people all of the time but going out of your way to discriminate in the name of justice is not and never will be just. In the context of entertainment, not too long ago companies understood this and had both majority appeal products and special interest products even within the same brands and IPs (i.e. DC Comics' Elseworlds line). This allowed more people to enjoy more things without discriminating against anyone. But now between Left Coast "woke at any cost" politics and mergernomics pushing so hard for earnings spikes to the detriment of long term stability, we've seen a lot of very questionable and very misguided attempts to make things for everyone that end up not being for anyone. Superficially diversyfying characters is perfectly fine, doing so at the detriment of character archetypes deemed obsolete not because of their characteristics, popularity, etc. but because of politics and then following all of this with "Look at us we're so diverse buy our stuff or you're Hitler #gamersaredead lololol!!!111" twitter campaigns is why DC sold more comics than Marvel in 2016 and 2017.
A lot more people would have been receptive to Jane Foster as Thor if it didn't come with a flood of "journalism" that pretty much ammounted to "Why this is not for you unless you have a particular inferiority-superiority complex, and why we at wokeclickbaitnews thinks that's ok". I guess it's true that a lot of the times what you say isn't as important as how you say it.