|
The Shortest Path posted:It wouldn't be clumsy or hamfisted at all, single mana color creature hosers exist all over the place. Deathmark is a great example, and colorless-only hosers are more narrow and therefore less powerful than colored ones. Deathmark is a hate card for black's enemy colors tho, I'm not sure colorless fits into that paradigm
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 12:18 |
|
|
TheKingofSprings posted:*After Affinity I don't think Affinity would be that great of a wasteland deck just because (as I understand it) it has basically zero slots for lands that don't advance its plan somehow
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
Lets Pickle posted:I literally can't imagine a good card to hose Eldrazi decks that doesn't specifically have the word "Eldrazi" in the text somewhere. I think an Eye of Ugin banning is forthcoming. they usually print a hoser in the same set/block as a new mechanic, to make sure things don't get out of control. Old example: leyline of the void was in standard with dredge
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
Price of progress just destroyed eldrazi in scg philly. 2 mana for 12 damage is a thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
Hardened Scales vs Rally all day in Houston
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
TheKingofSprings posted:*After Affinity Does Affinity have the slots for Wasteland?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
http://originalmagicart.com/art-in-focus-force-of-will-by-terese-nielsen/quote:Setting: NOT SETTING SPECIFIC
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
Jesus, if that's what their art notes are like these days no wonder cards look so samey and boring.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
Ciprian Maricon posted:Jesus, if that's what their art notes are like these days no wonder cards look so samey and boring. Yeah, like, I think Terese Nielsen might know how to paint iconic art for Force of Will, guys.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
Ciprian Maricon posted:Jesus, if that's what their art notes are like these days no wonder cards look so samey and boring. That's a hell of a lot of words. Even dictating the colours. Not even "magic disperses around her", no it's a huge wave of fire, and her chin is slightly up to look down at the camera, and her magic is BLUE. I'm ok with the representation though. Just... Do they HAVE to 'micromanage' so much?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
Serperoth posted:That's a hell of a lot of words. Even dictating the colours. Not even "magic disperses around her", no it's a huge wave of fire, and her chin is slightly up to look down at the camera, and her magic is BLUE. It's a reprint and probably the most iconic card in the set, I think they might be forgiven for micromanaging it a little more than usual, especially after the reaction to the judge foil version
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
Barry Shitpeas posted:It's a reprint and probably the most iconic card in the set, I think they might be forgiven for micromanaging it a little more than usual, especially after the reaction to the judge foil version I don't have any more definite knowledge than you do, but at a guess, I'd assume that the problem with the judge foil was not "was not micromanaged enough" (because it probably was)
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
Do you guys ever read art descriptions in the arcana? They've had really specific descriptions for like every art piece for a long time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
Serperoth posted:That's a hell of a lot of words. Even dictating the colours. Not even "magic disperses around her", no it's a huge wave of fire, and her chin is slightly up to look down at the camera, and her magic is BLUE. Would you prefer the absurdly vague followed by "no this isn't right, make it ICONIC" with no follow up information other than that and having the artist have to submit multiple versions of the art just to figure out what the actual request is? You've clearly never taken design instruction from someone who gives lovely directions, this is not micromanaging so much as it's asking for what they want and expecting the artist to deliver. The alternative is way, way worse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
Elyv posted:Do you guys ever read art descriptions in the arcana? They've had really specific descriptions for like every art piece for a long time. Yeah but they're not usually that specific quote:Color: None (artifact creature)
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
Barry Shitpeas posted:Yeah but they're not usually that specific To be fair, this was for Force of Will's reprint, with the art being done by the gal that did it originally. Edit: Oh for gently caress sake Jeff don't play a deck that makes people think Chandra, Flamecaller is good enough for legacy. I need to keep it a secret 
Count Bleck fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Feb 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
Telex posted:Would you prefer the absurdly vague followed by "no this isn't right, make it ICONIC" with no follow up information other than that and having the artist have to submit multiple versions of the art just to figure out what the actual request is? Is there no middle ground? "Strong woman (ideally black) is countering a spell. We can see she is calm and collected, but focused. The spell is dissipating, she is unharmed, but defensive. Frontal shot, ideally emphasis on the face. Force of Will, iconic piece for the new set. Will be on a blue card frame." I've never taken any instruction, but is that terribly unreasonable? Hell, they know Nielsen and what she can do, etc. If there's something specific they want to avoid, you can have that, rather than all the rest. "Strong woman (not a storyline character)" or something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
Count Bleck posted:Edit: Oh for gently caress sake Jeff don't play a deck that makes people think Chandra, Flamecaller is good enough for legacy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:Haha wow. Do we know how many he's playing? I'm only aware of a 1 of in the sideboard. BUT PYROMASTER DID THAT TOO! Was 50 bucks for like half a day.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
En Fuego posted:Command Tower updated for MTGO: No ETA on fixing it, though it's a 'high priority'! They're trying to do you a favor.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
Serperoth posted:Is there no middle ground? "Strong woman (ideally black) is countering a spell. We can see she is calm and collected, but focused. The spell is dissipating, she is unharmed, but defensive. Frontal shot, ideally emphasis on the face. Force of Will, iconic piece for the new set. Will be on a blue card frame." No, that's not good direction because they have a very specific look in mind for this card, because it is going to be the face of the set and the face of a new initiative to support eternal formats. The brief and the director's desires need to line up completely. If the director does not have strong desires, then they can leave it more open to interpretation. When they're looking for effectively a logo for the set and possibly beyond, they want to get very specific.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
Sigma-X posted:No, that's not good direction because they have a very specific look in mind for this card, because it is going to be the face of the set and the face of a new initiative to support eternal formats.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
That art direction is perfectly fine. I've dealt with more detailed ones, I've dealt with less detailed ones. Ultimately it depends on too many factors: - Does the Art Director know what they want? - Does the Artist know what the Art Director wants? - How important is the piece? - How much direction is the artist comfortable with. Some people hate being restrained, other want as much detail and reference as the person commissioning the piece can give. So yeah, this seems perfectly fine, and it's also how they've been commissioning art for a while now, at least judging by the previous art notes they've shared. Honestly, the reason a lot of modern artwork on cards is bland isn't the art notes, but the overall visual direction.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
Note: If possible we would like the art to be good. Note: Please do not make the art bad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
I mean, yes, we can accurately say that Terese Nielsen being micromanaged is a subset of the art in general being much more micromanaged, but that's not actually a satisfactory resolution to the problem, it's just shuffling the blame around.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
"Please make this iconic" is a completely useless phrase. On another note: Gaby needs to be with someone other than Marshall, she's not great at the "knowledgeable" commentary role, and neither is Marshall.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
My favorite thing about this thread is a bunch of non-artists talking about how art direction should be done. lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
Star Man posted:My favorite thing about this thread is a bunch of non-artists talking about how art direction should be done. lol Replace artists/art with magic players/magic
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
Star Man posted:My favorite thing about this thread is a bunch of non-artists talking about how art direction should be done. lol Pretty much. I'm not an artist myself, but most of my job involves translating between directors/creative leads and contracted artists, so I see a lot of this stuff. While direction that exacting may seem creatively stifling or whatever, holy poo poo, it does so much to cut down on the length and cost of the iteration process, and makes it so much more likely to end up with a piece of art that both directors and artists are happy with. You'd like to think they'd be okay just leaving more of it up to Nielsen's discretion, but I've seen enough big-name creators get an outline, a box of reference materials and a kiss for luck and end up months later with a bunch of work that's completely unusable on the project in question. At least it seems like the person who made this work order is really familiar with Nielsen and her strengths, and the resulting art reflects that. That said, I see specifications like "Make sure it's iconic," "make it cooler," etc. all the time and it's loving useless. You press the lead on it and they have nothing to add beyond "you know, make it, you know, iconic." Johnny Landmine fucked around with this message at 03:29 on Feb 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
I guess it comes down to the question of what qualifies as "completely unusable" for Magic card art. Like, I guess there are a handful of cards each set where Creative wants to make sure that the stick is depicted going up Jace's butt at precisely the right angle, but what (that could reasonably come out of a talented artist with experience working on Magic art) qualifies as completely unusable for "a wizard countering a spell through sheer strength of will," especially in a generic set like this one?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 03:55
|
|
|
Hopping Ghost posted:Pretty much. I'm not an artist myself, but most of my job involves translating between directors/creative leads and contracted artists, so I see a lot of this stuff. While direction that exacting may seem creatively stifling or whatever, holy poo poo, it does so much to cut down on the length and cost of the iteration process, and makes it so much more likely to end up with a piece of art that both directors and artists are happy with. You'd like to think they'd be okay just leaving more of it up to whatever Nielsen wanted to do, but I've seen enough big-name creators get a box of reference materials and a kiss for luck and end up months later with a bunch of work that's completely unusable on the project in question. At least it seems like the person who made this work order is really familiar with Nielsen and her strengths, and the resulting art reflects that. Absolutely. The pinnacle of my art career is being in a student juried show once, but from what I've taken from all those art lessons is that it's about creating solutions to problems. A detailed assignment gives the artist better tools to work with. A piece of art gains its iconic status with time, and in a situation like illustration for a game, an illustration becomes iconic because of its association with a well-known card. Christopher Rush's Lightning Bolt is an image long-time Magic players know well and associate with a powerful burn spell, but any of the four illustrations for Shock don't have that same status because it's not Lightning Bolt. Now, if I want Magic illustrators to get creative, then I want something like Dan Frazier's Forcefield.  The barrier is not something that Frazier rendered himself. It's the natural pattern of the marble paper that he painted the image on. I'd kill for a printmaker to do some Magic illustration, but that's a shitload of work for a commission of only a few hundred dollars.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
Star Man posted:
This card art went from meh to absolutely amazing in one two sentences.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 04:26
|
|
|
I've done a little art direction and I usually give more or less the same amount of detail, with the caveat that the artist is free to tweak the fine details as long as they run their idea by me first. A more hands-on art direction is usually a good thing, a lack of attention to art direction is way more noticeable (in a bad way) than an excess of it. As others have said before though, telling Nielsen to make the new FoW "iconic" merits an eyeroll if not a laugh. It is the kind of useless and unnecessary comment I'd expect out of someone doing this for the first time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 04:27
|
|
|
I only read here once in a while, but I must post this terrible tragedy I have spotted. https://twitter.com/leyawn/status/703728132247912448 How could anyone do that to a black lotus even if it was Unlimited?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 04:49
|
|
|
JerryLee posted:I guess it comes down to the question of what qualifies as "completely unusable" for Magic card art. Like, I guess there are a handful of cards each set where Creative wants to make sure that the stick is depicted going up Jace's butt at precisely the right angle, but what (that could reasonably come out of a talented artist with experience working on Magic art) qualifies as completely unusable for "a wizard countering a spell through sheer strength of will," especially in a generic set like this one? Just to clarify, by "completely unusable," I didn't mean the resulting art/music/design work was necessarily bad - just not in line with the overall direction for the project. Resistance to said overall direction is a different frustration that I definitely understand and sympathize with, even if I don't necessarily agree with it (the current MTG style is not my favorite, but it's what people who'd know better than me and, yes, most artists themselves, have decided is the best thing for the game right now; art leads tend to have art backgrounds themselves, plus more experience and insight into corporate's needs). What I'm commenting on is the idea that it's undesirable micro-managing, which... I mean, it looks like it is to people outside of this sort of industry, but briefs like that are at worst a necessary evil and at best the most effective way to make both parties as happy as possible. Particularly when it's the marquee image of the entire project, as Sigma-X noted, I don't think there's much reason to assume the artist would be able to make these decisions as effectively on their own. Though for what it's worth, art briefs are rarely understood as absolute, ironclad orders to be followed to the letter. I think they will go off the much-lamented "style guide" more for this set - if anything, the Force of Will art brief and the fact that it was clearly tailored to get the work that it got from Terese Nielsen seem to indicate that pretty positively.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
Fair enough. Also, there is one bona fide example of "completely unusable" art in Magic that I know of, and it's a pretty funny story. The art for Dragon's Mask was originally supposed to be on Crimson Hellkite but it came out so horribly as a representation of a majestic dragon that they punted it to a card where it was supposed to look like a goofy zoomed-in dragon face. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
Lord Psychodin posted:I only read here once in a while, but I must post this terrible tragedy I have spotted. lol, I know the guy who has these in his possession. He was not the original commissioner of the artwork. I believe suicidesteve has seen these in person
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
Lord Psychodin posted:I only read here once in a while, but I must post this terrible tragedy I have spotted.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 05:15
|
|
|
They pop up on the internet every now and then and hilarity ensues. They're currently for sale on the High End MTG facebook group and some of them have been sold already so get on it quick!JerryLee posted:Fair enough. Hahahaha, I remember hearing there was some fuckup associated with that card's art but I did not know it was meant to be something else entirely.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 05:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 12:18 |
|
|
AgentSythe posted:lol, I know the guy who has these in his possession. He was not the original commissioner of the artwork. I believe suicidesteve has seen these in person I have played against (and defeated) this very same set of power. tl;dr: The guy who originally got them done was a very, very strange person. He sold them to someone else as a cheap set of backup power for his girlfriend to play with. He sold out of the game and now they're on eBay.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 05:18
|
|
