Would it be any consolation if they did reprint the older slivers? Besides complexity concerns, it shouldn't be too bad that we'd have a smattering of slivers that still affect all?
By superficial, I was pointing out to the art direction. It's arguable that their appearances still indicate their function to a degree.
I also encourage your fight for your beliefs. This tension is actually constructive, and I won't stop you.
Again, i'm just stating my opinion that the new slivers aren't so bad. You can pretty much blame the fact that they're dumbed down in core sets and design felt compelled to change them a little too much than what most of us are comfortable with. I personally think it would have been more well received if they had some semblance of anthropomophicism, but in a subtler way than outright bipedalism.
There have been several posts which dissected the reason this change "sucks" in a very interesting fashion (particularly, here and here). It seems like you are arguing against something that you want to exist so you can beat up on this straw man, not something that actually exists.
Not really. I appreciate arguments for and against, and I'm perfectly fine with well articulated reasons people dislike them too. Your claim intrigues me. I feel that I am addressing what others put forth, and acknowledging those who genuinely dislike it within reasons that I feel are backed up.
Enjoy part of what, exactly? The name "slivers"? Or the actual flavor concept behind them? Using the name as a reference to years of printing an iconic race in MTG means nothing to new players; you know, because they're new players. So if you're throwing out the flavor concept in favor of a new one, there's no reason at all to preserve the name for new players. These could be a Robot tribe. Or a Predator tribe. If you use Slivers, you are intentionally bringing in a lot of existing baggage.
Wizards very deliberately evokes things that are popular with the existing fan-base. Like I said in an earlier post, they are trying to have their cake and eat it too.
Ah, you personally find it trivial so it's universally trivial. Gotcha.
The fact that they're so iconic is exactly why Wizards is attempting to bring them back. They won't be the same, mind you, but at least there is some attempt (successfully or not) to appeal to older players as well as foster some interest and curiosity among the newer. The flavor's still there, albeit not superficially. And don't put words in my mouth here. My beliefs are my beliefs, and you're free to have yours. I'm only laying claim that its trivial to me.
Oh, don't you worry about that. I know what bias is, and statistics is rife with them one way or another. Again, the ideal is to survey everyone possible, but lacking that we have to use what we can get while keeping in mind of such bias. I actually encourage you to gather data from polls outside of MTGS to make a more definitive answer. But for the time being and to make use of something tangible for the time being, I used that poll to simply point out that even among us a lot don't really care, and the only people vocal about it are the haters. Pure and simple, yes?
Please, read my post. I'm not complaining about how the new slivers don't look like the old slivers. At all. In fact, I'm complaining about quite the opposite thing. The new slivers don't offer ANYTHING new at all. They look like many of the stuff they've been coming up with lately (phyrexians, eldrazi, etc). When RotE and NP came out, I liked the designs, even if I'm not a fan of something too sci fi in Mtg (considering NP). But them taking an old creature type and "improving" them by making them look exactly like something they had just realeased is what I'm complaining about.
Oh, don't worry. I'm not disagreeing with you. Offering nothing new is fundamentally different from nostalgic disgust with seeing change at all.
Ah ok I understand. Yeah, as with any change, some people in this thread can certainly fall into that category. However, please be careful. I feel you are using it to describe anyone who isn't a fan of the Sliver's new art direction. Doing so is very disrespectful and dismissive. People are allowed to not like things and just because you find the changes irrelevant, others do not and have a right to feel so; even WOTC is clearly aware of this fact. I'm not a fan of the new art direction because it tries to humanize creatures that are decidedly non-human in their actions/thoughts & individuality (or lack there of), behavior, etc. Why am I not allowed to fell that?
I apologize if it comes across as such, but I do try to use the term exclusively for those who outright dismiss the new art directions simply because it's different without giving it a chance. I want to make this clear, I'm not a proponent of neither new or old art direction, and I'm more in the camp of being appreciative of both. Also there's a fine distinction between hate and dislike.
It's rather astonishing the lengths to which people will try to "objectively prove" that their dislike is actually rooted in something that is quantifiable
Pretty much. None of us are immune to neophobia. Lots and lots of research indicates a cut off date to certain things we'll like and hate anything thereafter.
I mean I'm sure I have some of those moments myself. At least I also have fun arguing for the adage "The more things change, the more things stay the same".
Ahem.
Statistics are:
"1
: a branch of mathematics dealing with the collection, analysis, interpretation, and presentation of masses of numerical data
2: a collection of quantitative data"
This. Seriously, would any of this art be out of place in the Porcelain Legion? Hell, they even remind me of the Ulamog line of Eldrazi, which had the exact same "tentacles forming the body with plate-like armor" concept.
That's a nonsensical comparison. Pokemon design didn't suddenly change between generations. Pokemon have always been colorful creatures that are usually (But not always) animalistic.
A better comparison would be Transformers pre-Beast Wars and Beast Wars (trukk not monky!), but that would also be a stupid comparison. Beast Wars transformers might have alienated people with the concept, but the ball-jointed figures and the incredible television series won over people. The Beast Wars era offered something new and awesome.
What do the updated slivers offer that's new? They're retreading the same abilities mechanically, while their new design just looks Phyrexian and rather generic. One of the reasons I was a huge fan of New Phyrexia is that they did a lot with the concept that was new, like making chrome-skinned scientists in Blue and portly workers in Red and oozing, slimy monsters in Green. I don't oppose change in Magic, I oppose change that takes something original and destroys that originality.
Pokemon is perfectly valid, if you took a deeper look into it. Trust me here, I've seen constant bouts about which gen is better. I've played pokemon competitively for years. And also I do make references to transformers if you look at the GeeWun definition. Do you know Raksha? Her GeeWunnist beliefs are outright hilarious, yet understandable.
But let's not argue on the examples if you get what I'm trying to argue for. You think that the new slivers ruined slivers forever, and I think they don't.
I'm only poking at the reasons people argue against these new slivers, since it almost always falls back on the statement, "It's not like they used to be, so it sucks", sort of thing in a sweeping fashion. Surely there ought to be more prevalent concerns besides aesthetics and niche functional change?
That was the whole point. Someone said that 'the silent majority says they like slivers'. Which is a weird thing to say, 'cause you can't know. Then that person said a poll proved it, and I just proved that it actually is bs ;).
Other than that you are certainly right. Though it's obvious that a lot of people do not like these slivers.
I'm still here, you know. And is it so wrong to at least attempt to use some statistical data? It's practically impossible to survey EVERY magic player, for one. And if you attempt to use that poll against me, can't I use it as well?
And it's not BS, sir and or ma'am. Consider my point again.
What is GeeWun? You keep saying that but I'm not familiar with the term.
.
Ah sorry. It's a term I picked up from the transformers community. More broadly it's an expression of individuals who claim that the original (or more precisely, the period they started it), was the best and all future adaptations ruin that perception. GeeWun is tongue in cheek for "Generation One". I use it here because a lot of the complaints are from those who experienced the first iteration and are less receptive to changes.
They changed the entire design and kept no elements in the old one in most of the cards we've seen (Striking and Blur Sliver obviously have the claw). That's not an insignificant change, and it's silly that you try to label it as one.
Let's just say that I'm more receptive to changes than, quite apparently, a few people out there. As long as I can still appreciate the essential spirit of the matter, it doesn't bother me. Heck, I'm one of those people who liked Pokemon as a whole as opposed to Gen I or IV or X.
I'm not trying to fight you, exactly. I'm expressing my opinions, and offering my perspectives on the matter.
You, aren't right either. The group that claim that they're perfectly indifferent is not within a significant range of difference from the people who dislike it. Now if you actually consider that and with those who liked the old slivers and are otherwise indifferent with the others, you've got my point still valid.
You failed to consider my argument was in regards to those who outright say that the new ones suck to those who don't mind or God forbid, like the changes.
Printing slivers in a core set is a pretty terrible idea. That's why it failed miserably. You can't make them too complex, and obviously they have made concessions to make it easier to understand for new players. New players would indeed get confused when their creatures also boosted other player's creatures.
So apart from the hideous artwork (hurl), I think the big mistake is that they brought back slivers in a Core set rather than a normal block.
You're the first person so far to have a legitimate complaint (in my opinion). While I appreciate the new art, the fact that something as crazy as slivers has a hard time being core-set-ified certainly does dampen their functionality. But hey, I can't see them in an expert set any time soon either.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
By superficial, I was pointing out to the art direction. It's arguable that their appearances still indicate their function to a degree.
I also encourage your fight for your beliefs. This tension is actually constructive, and I won't stop you.
Again, i'm just stating my opinion that the new slivers aren't so bad. You can pretty much blame the fact that they're dumbed down in core sets and design felt compelled to change them a little too much than what most of us are comfortable with. I personally think it would have been more well received if they had some semblance of anthropomophicism, but in a subtler way than outright bipedalism.
Not really. I appreciate arguments for and against, and I'm perfectly fine with well articulated reasons people dislike them too. Your claim intrigues me. I feel that I am addressing what others put forth, and acknowledging those who genuinely dislike it within reasons that I feel are backed up.
Tell me, who is this straw man you speak of?
Oh, don't you worry about that. I know what bias is, and statistics is rife with them one way or another. Again, the ideal is to survey everyone possible, but lacking that we have to use what we can get while keeping in mind of such bias. I actually encourage you to gather data from polls outside of MTGS to make a more definitive answer. But for the time being and to make use of something tangible for the time being, I used that poll to simply point out that even among us a lot don't really care, and the only people vocal about it are the haters. Pure and simple, yes?
Oh, don't worry. I'm not disagreeing with you. Offering nothing new is fundamentally different from nostalgic disgust with seeing change at all.
I apologize if it comes across as such, but I do try to use the term exclusively for those who outright dismiss the new art directions simply because it's different without giving it a chance. I want to make this clear, I'm not a proponent of neither new or old art direction, and I'm more in the camp of being appreciative of both. Also there's a fine distinction between hate and dislike.
Pretty much. None of us are immune to neophobia. Lots and lots of research indicates a cut off date to certain things we'll like and hate anything thereafter.
I mean I'm sure I have some of those moments myself. At least I also have fun arguing for the adage "The more things change, the more things stay the same".
Ahem.
Statistics are:
"1
: a branch of mathematics dealing with the collection, analysis, interpretation, and presentation of masses of numerical data
2: a collection of quantitative data"
Polls are:
"4
a (1) : the casting or recording of the votes of a body of persons (2) : a counting of votes cast
b : the place where votes are cast or recorded —usually used in plural <at the polls>
c : the period of time during which votes may be cast at an election
d : the total number of votes recorded
5
a : a questioning or canvassing of persons selected at random or by quota to obtain information or opinions to be analyzed"
Basically polls are a means to collect data to use for statistics, which I have demonstrated earlier. I look at who likes, dislikes or don't care for the slivers, and I make an interpretation of that data. Hence. Statistics.
Pokemon is perfectly valid, if you took a deeper look into it. Trust me here, I've seen constant bouts about which gen is better. I've played pokemon competitively for years. And also I do make references to transformers if you look at the GeeWun definition. Do you know Raksha? Her GeeWunnist beliefs are outright hilarious, yet understandable.
But let's not argue on the examples if you get what I'm trying to argue for. You think that the new slivers ruined slivers forever, and I think they don't.
I'm only poking at the reasons people argue against these new slivers, since it almost always falls back on the statement, "It's not like they used to be, so it sucks", sort of thing in a sweeping fashion. Surely there ought to be more prevalent concerns besides aesthetics and niche functional change?
I'm still here, you know. And is it so wrong to at least attempt to use some statistical data? It's practically impossible to survey EVERY magic player, for one. And if you attempt to use that poll against me, can't I use it as well?
And it's not BS, sir and or ma'am. Consider my point again.
Ah sorry. It's a term I picked up from the transformers community. More broadly it's an expression of individuals who claim that the original (or more precisely, the period they started it), was the best and all future adaptations ruin that perception. GeeWun is tongue in cheek for "Generation One". I use it here because a lot of the complaints are from those who experienced the first iteration and are less receptive to changes.
Here's an article on the term: GeeWun
Let's just say that I'm more receptive to changes than, quite apparently, a few people out there. As long as I can still appreciate the essential spirit of the matter, it doesn't bother me. Heck, I'm one of those people who liked Pokemon as a whole as opposed to Gen I or IV or X.
I'm not trying to fight you, exactly. I'm expressing my opinions, and offering my perspectives on the matter.
You, aren't right either. The group that claim that they're perfectly indifferent is not within a significant range of difference from the people who dislike it. Now if you actually consider that and with those who liked the old slivers and are otherwise indifferent with the others, you've got my point still valid.
You failed to consider my argument was in regards to those who outright say that the new ones suck to those who don't mind or God forbid, like the changes.
You're the first person so far to have a legitimate complaint (in my opinion). While I appreciate the new art, the fact that something as crazy as slivers has a hard time being core-set-ified certainly does dampen their functionality. But hey, I can't see them in an expert set any time soon either.