this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2023
33 points (97.1% liked)
MTG
1961 readers
35 users here now
Magic: the Gathering discussion
General discussion, questions, and media related to Magic: the Gathering that doesn't fit within a more specific community. Our equivalent of /r/magicTCG!
Type [[Card name]] in your posts and comments and CardBot will reply with a link to the card! More info here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Everyone's really dumping on this line-up when we know so little about any of it yet. What's the deal? I'd love for this community to not just become a negativity echo-chamber like so many other places online.
My take is the two UB and MH3 in the lineup are very polarizing, leading to negative perceptions overall.
Yeah, it sucks being a magic fan who likes UB on the internet lately. Apparently the fact that I can enjoy UB ruins magic for people who won’t buy the sets?
Honestly, that's great that you enjoy them! I think the negativity is the sets aren't self-contained. Once they're released, they're a part of magic and the eternal formats forever. Especially for those who have played for decades, that identity shift of the game is jarring.
I first started playing between 4e & ice age, and it’s BECAUSE i’ve been playing magic for 28 years (well, off and on like many people), that I’ve been wanting to see optional UB-like special releases that reinterpret other universes as if they were a plane in the magic multiverse for over a decade.
Playgroups can very easily ban UB from their own eternal format playsessions, and I think in formats like legacy and commander where nearly anything goes anyway, it’d be silly to ban them. Perhaps there should be official “UB-friendly modern” and “core lore only modern”? modern is kinda the midway point between serious competitive and casual play anyway.
Plus in those 28 years, magic’s core lore itself has gotten way wackier, especially in the last decade and a half or so. We now have a whole bunch of weird magic planes that would have felt just as out of place in the mid-90s; there are now:
For most of the above, the only reason they’re not considered UB themselves is that the source material they’re copying is old enough to be in the public domain. And almost none of them feel like they fit in the universe magic was in its first decade or so. Even without UB, today’s landscape in mtg is far separated from the original/“pure” lore i grew up with (and even that took plenty of influence from classic public domain fiction).
A whole bunch of top-down sets have been “jarring” to people who have been playing magic for decades.
@rubythulhu @kajib it's very hard to control your play group when that includes games at a store or CommandFest. A large part of magic being fun is playing against strangers.
I think more people complain about UB than really cared deeply about the flavour of things, but UB is also tied to other trends in MtG that have been increasing, like the number of cards printed each year.
Correct, because some of those players will not have the same opinions as you; hell, some of them may actually enjoy UB releases. They also can’t control you ([[mindslaver]] and similar cards notwithstanding 😉).
We have public games, and we have private games with friend playgroups. It’s not a bad thing for public games to be more inclusive, especially in casual formats like commander.
[[card name]] to call
I share your concern about negativity. Fostering a positive atmosphere is everyone's responsibility in an internet forum, and for most of us, myself included, it seems to take conscious effort. I see you making that point in several comments over the past week and I don't want you to feel like you're shouting into the void.
About these previews specifically, unfortunately I have to say I'm in agreement with most of what's been posted here so far. Some of these concepts are so far from what I want out of Magic that it actually doesn't matter how good the art or gameplay are. For Fallout and Assassin's Creed, as for The Lord of the Rings, I liked and have fond memories of the source material -- and if I want to relive that experience, I'll go back to them. I don't understand the appeal of shoehorning such incongruous settings into Magic. I've sat out the LTR Magic set and I expect to do the same with future UB stuff.
Any time period from about the Industrial Revolution onward feels wrong as a Magic setting to me, and for most of Magic's history they didn't cross that line. NEO has some fun mechanics and I understand that the design team had to do something radically different in order to convince the suits to let them go back to Kamigawa, so, okay, it gets a pass. I wasn't playing when SNC was new so I'm mostly neutral about it. I guess I'm saying, I'm willing to be flexible about time periods but I'd still rather see newer eras be a rare exception. A Wild West setting... I'm not confident in their ability to make it feel like Magic, but I'll reserve judgment until it's here. Bloomburrow is definitely the most interesting thing in this graphic to me (and it's a year away).
Ravnica Remastered... I'll buy some of it, I'm sure, but I'd really rather they re-release the original Ravnica sets (and all pre-Arena sets) unchanged, and the more they do stuff like this, the less likely that becomes.
As someone who drafted MH2 and does not play Modern because I already thought its power level was too high, I actually enjoyed MH2. I gather that Modern players, however, are not fans of how its overpowered cards are now running the format. The MH3 announcement seems like Wizards is rushing to repeat that mistake. We'll see how it actually shakes out, I guess, but 30 years of history suggests that Wizards has no idea how to rein in power creep and isn't particularly interested in trying. Personally, I'll draft MH3 if someone else is paying for it but I assume it's going to be north of $300 for a draft booster box and that's way out of my price range.
I know that when I see Magic announcements I'm not interested in, I'm supposed to say "this product is not for me" and move on. But there's got to be a limit to what percentage of products you can say that about before you conclude that the entire game isn't for you. I'm obviously not there yet, but I'm frequently asking myself how close I think that line is. I think that's the fear underlying a lot of the negativity you're seeing in these posts. Some people have been with Magic, supported it with their money, time, and/or work, for 20 or 30 years and now it feels like Magic doesn't care whether they still like it or not, because there's money to be made.
I don't think I actually wrapped up the point I was trying to make here. What I'm getting at is, while I understand the argument that we don't know enough about these upcoming products to dislike them yet, I think it's fair to dislike a premise or concept by itself, especially if similar concepts have set worrying precedents. It's hard for me to imagine what Wizards could do to change my mind about "Universes Beyond" products, for example, because the whole idea seems, to me at least, to be an ill-fitting cash grab.
Who knows, maybe in a year or two I'll be eating those words. It'll be great if I do. If Wizards has something hidden up their sleeve that might change my mind, I wish they'd reveal it now rather than let my skepticism simmer for a few more months.
Thanks for the support, hah. It does feel like that sometimes. And just to be clear, I don't want to suggest that people have to like everything. False positivity can be just as toxic as excessive negativity. People are obviously free to have their own opinion on it all. But you're right that it can take conscious effort to not fall into negativity, which is important to remember. At the very least, regarding announcements like this, they should at least be given a chance and not torn apart at the barest hint of an idea.
Regarding your other points, I can definitely see where you're coming from, and I think it's a pretty widely held feeling too. While I disagree that standard sets have changed exactly, the bigger influx of product per year, especially UB product, has certainly minimized their apparent impact on the release schedule, and the feeling that a smaller percentage of the game is "for you" is relatable. Personally, I don't struggle much just tuning out product I'm not interested in. I admittedly don't play much in the way of extended formats, but I don't feel it would change my mind much if I did. Tbh, I can feel overwhelmed with just the pace of standard sets sometimes and need to take a break once in a while, but I view Magic as more than just one game, really, and when I'm overwhelmed or tired or just not interested in one part, my focus will drift to another aspect I am still interested in, so I just kinda bounce around like that and it works for me. Closely following every Magic product just sounds exhausting.
You’re totally right about keeping a positive attitude and I think thats a great frame to have, particularly when we don’t know much about the sets. It’s definitely how I’d like the general sentiment to be here.
I hate(d) to be negative in this thread but from what we do know (2 new IPs for UB sets and another Modern Horizons) it’s hard not to be disappointed; I understand others like them but I just don’t think they’ve been good for the game and I’m frustrated that so much effort is now going into them.
I’m hopeful about the two haunted house sets and Bloomburrow though.