Quote from SecretInfiltrator »Quote from Mergatroid_Jones »Eugh... Being unwilling to make obscure references because they are obscure is not a good sign. Sure, you have to make sure to resonate with your larger audience, but part of the point of delving into something like European fairytales is just that: delving. You get into some weird interesting stuff pretty fast, and that's what's cool about it.
Quote from mikeyG »Well, that's certainly concerning.
No, it isn't - or at least it shouldn't be. They always used recognizability as a metric to choose which tropes they include in their final product and yet we got an Argus-reference on Theros which they didn't consider all that recognizable. Why? Because cool concepts are going to make it into the final product on their own merit as well. And if it happens to be a reference to an obscure piece of lore, they aren't obliged to remove the reference. And they will always throw some bones to those who like to delve deeper into the material just because that's actually a part of player engagement and good design doesn't ignore it. All they tell us here, is that they focus on the well-known tropes.
If anything the Green Knight might still be in there, both because MaRo got to name drop it of the top of his head, and Maro literally is a Green Knight (i. e. the illustration - MaRo's favorite piece of art in the game - is a pretty obvious reference to depictions of the Green Knight seen in architecture).
I think we're getting into the subjective area of taste here, but I do not like when they lean heavily on easily recognized tropes executed at a very shallow level. It feels lazy and base to me and even if I can understand where their motivations come from (recognizable tropes create resonance which in turn can help build player interest in a setting and therefore a set), it concerns me when they put the focus on expies with little depth. I don't mind expies when used sparingly (I think they help sell a setting without requiring a lot of exposition or explanation) and when they're utilized to help establish the tone/rules/story/etc of the setting and provide a lens, particularly if the major focus of the flavor is on the less recognizable elements of the inspiration and/or the unique elements created without direct reference.
Basically, I find the settings where they directly lift elements from the source material without much twist or depth to be derivative. My favorite settings have been the ones with largely unrecognizable inspirations or really great balance between recognizable and unrecognizable elements. Innistrad, I think, got that balance bang on. Ravnica is another example. Eldraine, though clearly still mostly unknown to us, does not seem to be heading in that direction based on our limited information. Introducing the setting with "Come see our versions of classic fairy tales presented with about as much as variation from the source text as Shrek managed in 1999 meshed with elements of Arthurian legend (but only the famous parts because research showed most people didn't recognize secondary aspects of those tales so we stuck with shallow depictions)!" is not inspiring confidence in me. It feels like a lazy grab at dark Disney nostalgia if I'm being frank and I'm viewing the setting through that lens.
That said, I'd like to be proven wrong. They do almost always lead previews with the most recognizable elements of a setting (be it favorites from a past set if revisiting a setting, or recognizable elements from the source material for new settings) and maybe this will be more like Innistrad to me when we see the finished product.
1
1
But a almost DIRECT reference (take the Goldilocks (oh wait excuse me,....flaxen intruder
We can agree to disagree, but Fairy Tale world sounded pretty awesome....then I saw the Arts and was extremely dissapointed by the Direct correlations and it turned me off.
1
Only one top 8
1
Those arts are so specific that the"inspired by" doesnt come across as much as "this is the gingerbread man/house, sleeping beauty, etc etc, rapunzel..you know exact reference instead of inspired by.
1
1
We play open form 60 card multiplayer games. We yell at eachother, mess up turn orders, misplay things all the time. We build decks that range from $10 - $1000. We all win, lose and scoop multiple times a night. THIS IS Magic to me. I have never really went to LGS because none were around. We have all been playing this way for 20 years + (taking multiple hiatuses for months or years at a time.
Its super awesome and we love it when one of our high dollar decks cant get past a frickin Whip Vine from homelands sometimes. We love to rag on eachother for the casualness of our decks or the uber competitiveness sometimes.
Absolutely enjoyable. Dont care about Tier 1, turn 3 wins, making money. Just want to crack some packs and play some Magic.
1
1
2
You guys keep giving excuses for BAD cards and they will keep printing BAD cards
1