Quote from Flamebuster »
Quote fromIf that's not feeling clear for you, by all means let me know which aspects you need more clarity on.
Typical smarmy MTGS attitude. But I can definitely fight fire with fire too
Actually, I was being legit because I was surprised and disappointed to see you making such a weak argument and I wanted to help you understand why I disagreed. But if you want to project and then act a fool, that's also typical MTGS behavior.
Magic's original concept was two (changed for multiplayer) powerful wizards summoning fantastic beasts and casting a wide array of powerful spells and utilizing tools for domination of the multiverse. It's a basic concept of fantasy that can be applied to any setting, earthbound fiction or otherwise.
Sure, that's the general conceit, though I still don't believe that means crossovers with other IPs fit the game.
For additional clarity for you, let me break it down into simpler terms so you can understand:
Yikes. Are you okay?
Magic's first expansion was literally an adaptation of the 1001 Arabian Nights, a real-time event/story that happened 1400-1500 yeara ago. Legends featured characters from the design team's D&D campaigns. Let's also not forget about the rare Middle Ages set that was out at one point, and...
I addressed that in my post. I don't feel the trial and error, spaghetti on the wall early days of the game justifies UB anymore than I think having worn black nail polish for a couple months when I was 14 means going full goth now wouldn't be a radical shift. I'd argue that decades of established identity trumps experimentation in the game's beginnings, at its heart that's why UB feels dissonant for a lot of people like the TWD stuff before it.