Yesterday, Aaron Forsythe presented a new card frame that will be used on all Magic cards from M15 going forward. I tend to be a bigger supporter of change than the average Magic Twitterer. (The only thing I didn't love about the M10 rules changes was the way deathtouch worked—and they changed that to match my suggestion soon enough.) I'm mostly a fan of this change too.Changing the typeface of the card name, type line and power/toughness box is a nice upgrade. I mean, I still can't look at Waste Not without thinking how much it shares in common with earlier imprecise mockups of the card, but looking at the new Wall of Fire, I'm a big fan. If they had messed with the rules text, I might have had a problem, but adding a little flare to headline copy can only aid the magical flavor of the cards.
The alignment of copy and symbols in those boxes has also changed, but that needs improvement. The vertical alignment of the symbols in the card's mana cost is a clear improvement over the last card frame where it was too low, but that and all the copy in boxes are 1 pixel too high. Text needs more room above than below; that's been a typographical standard forever. This obviously isn't a big deal, but why say nothing when I see a way to improve the best game in the world, even just slightly.
 |
| New official card frame |
 |
| Old official card frame |
The enhanced collector info is of little interest to me, but comes at almost no cost, so it seems like a clear upgrade. The only exception to that is that this change seems to have begotten the addition of a black area at the bottom of each card, to aid with optical character recognition. To this, I must bear my knowledge in both graphic design and the programming of computer imaging to call bullshit. I'm calling bullshit not on Wizards but on the third party that told Wizards that area had to be black to minimize errors in the OCR process. This area needs to be a solid color and un-textured, and it needs high contrast relative to the copy, but it doesn't have to be black. I am sure about this and qualified to say so.
The decreased border size is pure awesome. More room for text and images is a win for everyone, and the fact that the printer has the precision to make this change possible means fewer errors elsewhere as well.
 |
| Proposed alternative card frame |
|
| New official card frame |
Should you see any improvement in the proposed card frame here, let Wizards know. Politely.
I like what you're going for with the proposed card frame. The vertical alignment of the new one (not your proposed one) seems almost sloppy to me. It's like they just said 'oh it's too low? well raise it up!' and didn't actually notice that they'd raised it too high. who knows, maybe there's some other reason that i don't know about why it can't be centered. I agree that the area at the bottom doesn't have to be black (how can i dispute such a fact!) but i will say that i think their black border with the curves and everything is slick and makes the card look newfangled and different than before. I don't think it's obtrusive and i'm personally a fan of it.
ReplyDeleteI also like the way the bottom bar curved. I've since updated my proposal to match that.
DeleteI'm not a fan of the text box hanging down like some kind of apron.
DeleteI like the colored OCR area on the bottom, but the curved bottom bar creates a weird complex arrangement of lines and also seems to be attracting my eye to that area. I wish the colored areas on the side didn't curve and came down to the level of the text box.
Jay, can you tell how much of an issue would dropping the alignment a pixel cause, considering the new font has such dramatic extensions on certain letters?
ReplyDeletePersonally, I only perceive the symbols as being slightly high, which I think is more an optical illusion caused by the positioning of the number within its little bubble.
I've dropped the symbols and boxed copy 1px in the proposed version, so you can directly see how it would look, and how it compares to the official image. The descender in the 'F' of "Fire" does get closer to the box, but it's still not touching. I think it looks a bit better.
DeleteIn fairness, I am biased by years of playing with the old frame.
Actually, I'm less enthusiastic about dropping the card name and power/toughness as I am about dropping the mana cost and type line.
DeleteWe know what the F looks like. It's very possible that other letters (such as T, J, Y, etc.) also have long descenders. Of course, if Beleren is a good font, they'll all be evenly proportioned, but we haven't seen the whole thing yet.
DeleteI never noticed it until now, but ugh, that descender on the F just looks so out of place. I fail to see how it could be an improvement on the original font.
DeleteSpeculation: The designer credit is going to be used for celebrity-designed cards (Day9, Felicia Day, old pro players, etc.). I highly doubt it's going to be used for regular R&D members.
ReplyDeleteI highly doubt random "celebrities" will be designing Magic cards any time soon, but I do think there's a different sort merit to your speculation in that this could be a signal that the Invitational (or something like it) is returning.
DeleteIt'd be extra neat if they reprinted all the old Invitational cards in M15 with their original art, but I don't think they can actually do that due to issues with the use of set-specific keywords, multiple multicolor designs, and the power level of Snapcaster Mage.
I love the 1-pixel drop-- the height of the card title and type line has been bothering me ever since I saw the new layout. I suspect it's a result of the new font, since the F in particular seems to require a lot of room on the lower end.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sold on the solid-color-background idea for the collector info, though. I like that it's effectively part of the border in the Wizards version; the dark-red area you propose makes the layout more complex and less slick-looking.
While I'm on board with most of the changes, I can't say I think the idea of making a very obvious and (to me) intrusive change in the design of only one class of cards (rares and mythics) is a good idea. YGO has had a Holofoil stamp on every card since day one, after all. If you're going to fight counterfeiting, the sensible thing is to fight counterfeiting for every card, not just the moneymakers, if only for basic PR reasons!
ReplyDeleteI'm also find the way the red part of the border curves into the "filigree border" really, really awkward. I mean, seriously, it looks like a printing misalignment! I'm on board with the black area, but this doesn't seem like the better looking solution at all.
Why should they care about counterfeit commons? Surely those have no impact on sales.
DeleteIt blatantly says "We don't care if you buy counterfeit cards unless they're the moneymakers" instead of of "We care avoiding our customers being defrauded, period."
DeleteCirceus, you're not totally in the wrong. But do you really think there's a significant counterfeit common operation? In contemporary sets for which this change applies, it's rare for a common or uncommon to accrue enough secondary value such that someone would risk counterfeiting them in a great enough quantity that it would harm WotC's customers.
DeleteAnd unless a card has secondary valuation such that it becomes a trading commodity, rather than a gameplay facilitator, it being counterfeit has no relevance to the consumer. I am not harmed by counterfeit Qasali Pridemages, and because real Pridemages are in such abundance because they were a common, an equivalent abundance of counterfeit Pridemages can't realistically affect the market value of Alara Reborn packs.
When you are printing literally millions of cards every month, even minor changes you make in your printing process can have very significant financial implications. I have little doubt that the omission of the holofoil from commons and uncommons was simply a cost-saving decision.
DeleteWhat Evan said. Basically, it's a cost-benefit analysis. The cost of holofoiling commons and uncommons would easily exceed the value they would gain by being certifiably non-counterfeit.
DeleteOne of the easiest ways to counterfeit cards is to do it using other existing cards. That way the card stock is identical, the back is identical and you can wash off the ink on the face of the card. By printing fewer cards with the Champstamp, you effectively raise the cost of counterfeiting be requiring bulk rares be used. It's certainly still possible, but it cuts at that profit margin a little.
DeleteYour proposed cardframe is better.
ReplyDeleteI like the new alignment. I wasn't sure at first, but seeing them next to each other really highlights how the spacing gives the text a little extra "height" even if it's an illusion.
ReplyDeleteAs to the backing on the collectors information, it's good to know that they can have machine readable info on different colored background. That keeps the dream of silver bordered alive. But highlighting that area with a tint doesn't do much for me. I appreciate the information that's there, but I like that the new design really de-emphasizes it, putting it into the black space instead of "on" the card. After all, people come to see the movie, not the credits. They're important, absolutely, but nonessential to the game play or flavor. This is where the designer credits fail to me because they are a bit too "meta" to be on the body of the card. I guess we'll have to see what else uses them, but so far I'm not impressed.