MTG Salvation

Allies are close enough to "5 color all lords" that the distinction is minute and rather pedantic.

They might as well have used allies. What exactly is gained by calling these hack-jobs "slivers"? How exactly are you evoking nostalgia when you're changing anything interesting or distinctive about the tribe?

Quote from Destructor

Uh, yeah, sure, whatever, bro,

Ohhh, so this is who the new "slivers" are supposed to appeal to.

Quote from pionusguy

I don't know what is the big upset about there not being slivers in black and blue. I think having just naya colored slivers is fine as those colors are usually the most aggressive. what is the big deal here? What am i missing that make black and blue slivers so important? Perhaps wizards doesn't what to have 5 color sliver decks while shocks are in.

One of the signature traits of Slivers is being spread over all 5 colors. It's not just a random decision, it's because they are open to all sorts of traits and all types of qualities; they're not tied to a particular subset of color philosophy. That's why all Sliver Legends are all five colors. In fact, Sliver Queen wasn't just the first WUBRG Legend, it was the first WUBRG card ever.

But like everything else that was interesting or defining about Slivers, it seems to have been thrown out the Window. This is literally nothing like the old Slivers at all. They don't have the defining mechanical rule of Slivers, they don't have the defining visual design of Slivers, and they aren't even spread across all 5 colors (or so it seems anyway).

They could have invented a completely new race for this and called them "Predatorians" and no one would have batted an eyelash.

I know I made that joke about slapping down a picture of some broccoli and calling it a sliver... I didn't know Wizards was listening.

Quote from jshrwd

http://io9.com/magic-the-gatherings-summer-set-preview-megantic-s-505918785

The Hive is returning! And by hive we mean.... lol. Does the creative team know what a hive is? Is this a hive of treefolk giants, plus robots, plus dreadlock-men, etc.? This may be the stupidest use of the word "hive" in any science fiction/fantasy setting, of all time.

Indeed: As the man says, Visually and in terms of mystique, Slivers are done. An iconic creature type ends. Not with a bang, but with a click, a chitter, the crack and snap of flesh hardening into more of the same.

Quote from AttentionDeficitGuy

Seriously, if you're comparing the Sliver redesign to Diablo 3, you're blowing this WAAAAAAAAAAY out of proportion.

True, D3 wasn't actually that bad.

Quote from ssjevot

I thought the old Slivers were popular. I wish I could see this marketing data they have, because I just don't understand where they're getting the idea that people want to play a game that's humanoid creatures running into each other on the battlefield.

If you've ever worked in a large corporation, you know that marketing research and focus-group testing are the pinnacle of human wisdom. Getting a marketing degree is like injecting yourself with essence of Don Draper. That's why Hollywood releases so many daring and creative new movies each year.

According to the ads, anyway...

Quote from DarkSapphire

This is my point. This is why the six new Slivers not having a consistent feature doesn't bother me: consistency is not a trait the Hive has in spades. Slivers are constantly evolving new and different mechanisms to advance the Hive. That constant evolving nature is the exact opposite of consistency.

This argument is just empirically wrong. Slivers, however adaptable, did not randomly and drastically change looks each time in every block because of "instant evolution". That is something you are retroactively hand-waving into place now, in an attempt to try and make the changes look sensible. Winged Sliver did not turn into a bird because new players know that birds can fly. Fungus Sliver did not turn into a mushroom. Rather, each retained the primeval form, but were altered to explicitly reference the ability visually.

Until M14, we hadn't seen art that changed any of the Big Three characteristics. That's fine! I know why they did that - because to a degree consistency is a good thing when it comes to art. Being able to instantly identify a Sliver based solely on the art isn't a bad thing.

They did it because this was part of the design identity of Slivers - they shared a basic primeval form, which was changed in a very specific way to reflect the particular ability of that Sliver. This was a strong, clear design aesthetic which is one of the reasons they are so recognizable and loved by casual players.

The problem with the classic Sliver look is that it is extremely limiting. We have seventy-six Slivers, and many of them look very, very similar.

Like Doug Beyer, I feel that you are missing the point. "Extremely limiting" is the point. Retaining that strong, clear design aesthetic is, or rather was, the point. Right now there is essentially zero design aesthetic beyond some vaguely tentacular motifs which are shared with any number of other creatures - and even this is not particularly clear (Sentinel Sliver just looks like a robot).

Even if we wanted to change the look of slivers, the new attempt is particularly incompetent given that even minor races and sub-races in other blocks often have clear visual motifs. Take a look at the Exarchs from Scars of Mirrodin block, for example. The Myr have a clear visual motif. The Kor have a clear visual motif.

If the actual concept of Slivers has suddenly changed from "incredibly strong visual motif" to "random grab-bag (because evolution lol)", then I can't say I'm impressed. It strikes me as contemptuously lazy.

Quote from The Phasewalker

Humanoids are easiest for newer players to define with.

Slivers are a hugely popular casual tribe. How did they get that way?

My first real deck that I built myself was a sliver deck with Tempest slivers. I was a new player. I guess their huge popularity was a result of their humanoid appeara- oh. Wait...

Quote from DarkSapphire

Oh come now, you can't say they don't have any real unifying aesthetic or design when one of the biggest problems people are having with them is that they look humanoid.

Not all of them do. When we say "they" look humanoid, we mean the ones that do- the ones that look totally out of place (Steelform and Battle are the two worst ones for this). Take a look at Blur Sliver and get back to me on that "unifying aesthetic or design". Groundshaker is also neither here nor there, it doesn't look the same species as Steelform OR Blur.

Personally, I'm more terrified of a human-looking Sliver that suddenly grows two extra arms and attacks me from behind.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that Magic does not need it's most iconic race- from visual and design perspective- turned into yet another humanoid race.

It's not as if we are LACKING in humanoid races. We have every ****ing humanoid race imaginable from elves to goblins to Hobbits to Blue People to Albino Chalk People. We have Elephant-People, Rhino-People, and Cat-People. We even already have an abundance of "creepy looking Robot-Flesh People"- they're called Phyrexians, if you remember them.

Quote from tomthumb

All of that flavor usually boils down to lol magic when it comes to stuff like this. I'm sorry if that offends you, but it's objectively true.

Objectively true, eh? I await your proof.

Quote from tomthumb

Really? Intelligence can't help a race survive? Thumbs are useless and only get in the way? I don't think real world scientific concepts can apply to the mtg universe, but this is really quite absurd. Evolution selects for the traits that make organisms more likely to survive given a specific environment, and some of the things that humans are able to do are very useful. Additionally, the slivers on Rath were always distinct from slivers in general.

If you think Slivers suddenly turning into generic space-dudes has any basis in or relation to actual evolutionary theory or the operation of natural selection... or even the fantasy-world evolution they were doing previously...

Time to read up on some evolutionary science.

The new slivers not only lack any real unifying aesthetic or design, which was one of their strongest hallmarks previously, they also have a range of forms that basically amounts to "slap some **** down and call it a sliver". I think someone said, you could take a pic of some broccoli and it would fit right in.

Quote from tomthumb

This is a fantasy game and "lol magic" is a good enough explanation.

Time to fire the creative team, replace it with one guy scrawling "lol magic" on a napkin.

You know what people who care about flavor like? They like effort, and skill, and smart design, not "lol jus rite sum flavur d00d".

Quote from Axelle Blitzer

I fail to see the difference.

Writing a lot of words about the product you crafted doesn't improve the craftsmanship. The design of an object is in the details of that object. Everything else is just marketing, aka hand-waving.

Do you buy think a Ford has the engineering of a Porsche just because someone wrote awesome words about it? It doesn't make the car perform any better. Similarly, writing a bunch of words about how your paint scribbles are an allegory for the American Revolution doesn't make them one.

Quote from wallycaine

For you, perhaps. Some of us enjoy the 'hand-waving blather', and enjoy looking to see how it was incorporated into the designs.

This has nothing to do with enjoying the fluff (no matter what the quality of the fluff... that is a separate issue). It has to do with thinking that fluff is a substitute for effort, not an adjunct to it.

"We have an explanation for why this is bad and generic" does not mean something stops being bad and generic. If the design stands, it stands on its own merits, without any attempt to solve the issue by mere force of declaration.

Quote from hairlessThoctar

Just so you know.

The actual result of all that hand-waving is robotic/CG looking dudes with dreadlocks.

Design is in the actual details, not the hand-waving blather.

Quote from Flame Master Axel

Its nice to see something new.

These designs don't look original to me in the slightest. If you were to look at this set of art in a pile of other creature art from various blocks, they would be indistinguishable as a group. I didn't know "new" meant "generic".

Quote from Crownclown

Love this. Absoulutley love this. So many cry baby's. I hope they ruin something with a bigger casual appeal than slivers next time.

Payback for countermagic/Land D/ and now removal being weaker and ruined.

I think you have some issues.

Quote from bLatch

I think you are stretching as hard as you can to try and make these slivers "not slivers".

They are slivers becasue they share the common characteristic of slivers: present in all five colours and sharing abilities with their hive.

Genetics and that crap is just you trying to force them into your "not slivers" box.

1) those were not the only characteristics of slivers

2) these slivers don't even have those characteristics; they don't share everything with the hive, only with slivers you control. That is not the same both mechanically and flavor-wise.