What's in a name?
April 17th 2008 01:54
Lisa: A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
Bart: Not if you called them stenchblossom.
Homer: Or crapweeds.
Marge: I'd hate to get a dozen crapweeds for Valentine's Day. I'd rather have candy.
Homer: Not if it was called scumdrops.
It's time for me to write a sentence that has never been written before in the history of mankind: both Shakespeare and the Simpson family are right about this. The reason is that the Bard was talking about when you know someone or something's true nature, and labels and appearances no longer matter. The line Lisa quotes is Romeo's, from just before the balcony scene – makes sense, yes? The Simpsons were talking about the way something makes you feel when you first see it, and before you know things like its true nature.
Which of those is relevant to Magic: the Gathering? Since it is not only a game, but also has significant collectible and flavor elements, I suggest that the answer is actually the Simpsons' conversation. Sure, there are plenty of people who proclaim that they would play with their favorite (but more often the most powerful) cards even if their names were all things like "Goblin Number Three" and their artwork was drawn in crayon. That presumes, though, that the game mechanics side of the cards is somehow truer or more real than the art and the informational text. Since Magic cards are also pieces of artwork, how they make you feel when you look at them (read them) is extremely important. The flavor home runs are one of the reasons to play Magic as opposed to something else. And since the medium is basically entirely visual (art) and written (reading the names and text), you will be exposed to the flavor elements over and over again, even when you're in the final of the world championship.
To quote PlayMagic.com, "n the Magic game, you play the role of a planeswalker – a powerful wizard who fights other planeswalkers for glory, knowledge, and conquest. Your deck of cards represents all the weapons in your arsenal. It contains the spells you know and the creatures you can summon to fight for you.” Which of these two cards better fits that premise?
What were they thinking with the second card? “I’m going to ramp up the aggression in this duel… by stealing your pie?” Yeah, [i]that'll put the fear into those barbarian hordes.
The bad news about Magic right now is that the Lorwyn block gave us quite a few less-than-inspiring names. (Even I would rather have had “Goblin Number Three” than “Squeaking Pie Sneak.” Ugh.) The good news is that Shadowmoor’s card names are just as amazing as its art. Just from cards that have already been revealed, there are already such paragons of inspiring language as Beseech the Queen, Curse of Chains, Demigod of Revenge, Dusk Urchins, Fulminator Mage, Godhead of Awe, Prismatic Omen, Shield of the Oversoul, Swans of Bryn Argoll, Torrent of Souls, and Worldpurge. Shakespeare would have been proud.
Bart: Not if you called them stenchblossom.
Homer: Or crapweeds.
Marge: I'd hate to get a dozen crapweeds for Valentine's Day. I'd rather have candy.
Homer: Not if it was called scumdrops.
It's time for me to write a sentence that has never been written before in the history of mankind: both Shakespeare and the Simpson family are right about this. The reason is that the Bard was talking about when you know someone or something's true nature, and labels and appearances no longer matter. The line Lisa quotes is Romeo's, from just before the balcony scene – makes sense, yes? The Simpsons were talking about the way something makes you feel when you first see it, and before you know things like its true nature.
Which of those is relevant to Magic: the Gathering? Since it is not only a game, but also has significant collectible and flavor elements, I suggest that the answer is actually the Simpsons' conversation. Sure, there are plenty of people who proclaim that they would play with their favorite (but more often the most powerful) cards even if their names were all things like "Goblin Number Three" and their artwork was drawn in crayon. That presumes, though, that the game mechanics side of the cards is somehow truer or more real than the art and the informational text. Since Magic cards are also pieces of artwork, how they make you feel when you look at them (read them) is extremely important. The flavor home runs are one of the reasons to play Magic as opposed to something else. And since the medium is basically entirely visual (art) and written (reading the names and text), you will be exposed to the flavor elements over and over again, even when you're in the final of the world championship.
To quote PlayMagic.com, "n the Magic game, you play the role of a planeswalker – a powerful wizard who fights other planeswalkers for glory, knowledge, and conquest. Your deck of cards represents all the weapons in your arsenal. It contains the spells you know and the creatures you can summon to fight for you.” Which of these two cards better fits that premise?
What were they thinking with the second card? “I’m going to ramp up the aggression in this duel… by stealing your pie?” Yeah, [i]that'll put the fear into those barbarian hordes.
The bad news about Magic right now is that the Lorwyn block gave us quite a few less-than-inspiring names. (Even I would rather have had “Goblin Number Three” than “Squeaking Pie Sneak.” Ugh.) The good news is that Shadowmoor’s card names are just as amazing as its art. Just from cards that have already been revealed, there are already such paragons of inspiring language as Beseech the Queen, Curse of Chains, Demigod of Revenge, Dusk Urchins, Fulminator Mage, Godhead of Awe, Prismatic Omen, Shield of the Oversoul, Swans of Bryn Argoll, Torrent of Souls, and Worldpurge. Shakespeare would have been proud.
| 104 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
