|
Post by House Turtle on Feb 22, 2012 15:18:08 GMT -6
Apparently this goes on a lot more than I realized but I looked into this while looking at my Fallen Empires set. I really miss alternate art for cards. I wish they would go back to doing 2 or more pictures for a card. I also wish there was more of where the art on 2 or more cards was part of a larger picture. Here's a fun topic and loads of examples of that being done. boardgamegeek.com/thread/376758/polyptychs-and-diptychs-panoramic-images-on-mtg-ca
|
|
|
Post by Baron Sengir on Feb 22, 2012 16:01:10 GMT -6
Yeah that's really cool; never realized that but it makes sense that they would do that.
|
|
|
Post by Orzhovan Council on Feb 22, 2012 17:42:49 GMT -6
I'm not that big of a fan of multiple pictures on the cards, but I would like to see more cards that are from the same larger overall picture.
|
|
|
Post by House Turtle on Feb 22, 2012 18:04:58 GMT -6
Well, with reprints I guess it takes care of my craving for multiple pictures. For collecting a set its a pain. I just used to think it was silly every Serra Angel was supposed to look the same.
|
|
|
Post by Maraxus of Keld on Feb 24, 2012 15:45:06 GMT -6
From what I remember, Fallen Empires and Homelands were the only sets that had multiple pictures for cards other than basic lands. Those two sets were unique in a lot of other ways as well, like not having rares, coming 8 cards to a pack*, being priced extremely cheap compared to other sets, and not really going up in value as the years passed.
*Actually now that I think about it, a couple of the other really old sets like Arabian Nights might have been 8 cards to a pack as well, but those were unavailable mostly by the time I started buying cards so I'm not sure.
Whether any of those things are connected to the multiple pictures I'm not sure. I can certainly see why they would choose not to do that, as it makes sets more expensive to print and doesn't really make them any more money in the process. On top of that, most of the time only one of the pictures was any good anyway, or they were similar enough to each other that there wasn't much point in having four different artists' take on the same scene.
I definitely like it when reprints get new art though, unless it's a particularly iconic picture or it gets replaced with a terrible one.
|
|
|
Post by House Turtle on Feb 25, 2012 8:34:40 GMT -6
It isn't practical I just liked the artists and artwork in the early days of magic. When I think Magic there are certain iconic cards that i remember seeing. Prodicial Sorcerer being one of the earliest cards I seen and its what drew me into the game. I honestly couldn't give the name of a new artist to save my soul. When I think of the magic artists names like Dan Frazier, Mark Tedin, Edward Beard Jr, Anson Maddocks and even Phil Foglio come to mind.
|
|
|
Post by Baron Sengir on Feb 26, 2012 16:16:28 GMT -6
It isn't practical I just liked the artists and artwork in the early days of magic. When I think Magic there are certain iconic cards that i remember seeing. Prodicial Sorcerer being one of the earliest cards I seen and its what drew me into the game. I honestly couldn't give the name of a new artist to save my soul. When I think of the magic artists names like Dan Frazier, Mark Tedin, Edward Beard Jr, Anson Maddocks and even Phil Foglio come to mind. Yeah I'm a sucker for the old artists also.
|
|
|
Post by Maraxus of Keld on Feb 27, 2012 17:51:50 GMT -6
Although I don't necessarily agree with the specific artists you mentioned (Phil Foglio in particular I don't care for), as a general rule I would agree. The vast majority of the art on cards anymore looks very samey to me. Even if I knew who the artists were anymore, I couldn't tell one's art style from another because they mostly look like they were made on the computer by the same person.
|
|
|
Post by House Turtle on Feb 27, 2012 18:23:51 GMT -6
Actually I can't stand about 99% of Phil Foglio pictures its just his art you know is his.
|
|
|
Post by Maraxus of Keld on Feb 28, 2012 1:34:44 GMT -6
You mean since everyone and everything in his pictures has a beard? There must be a picture he's done where a beard has a beard.
|
|
|
Post by House Turtle on Feb 28, 2012 12:57:04 GMT -6
Well, the beard and the cartoonish look is pretty distinctive. Only picture I can think of lacking a beard is Conch Horn. As for a beard with a beard that would be so awesomly bad it would be funny.
|
|