Has WotC stopped trying?
The Blind Eternities forum
Posted on April 10, 2016, 8:48 p.m. by capriom85
SOI is a cool set, for sure, but has anyone else noticed some of the cards are, well, weakly named? A little too literal? Redundant even?
Thing in the Ice Flip? Are you kidding me? No one could do better? I mean, it is technically a thing in actual ice, but damn.
Magnifying Glass...ok, it is what it is. How about something like Inquisitor's Oculus? Way more flavor.
Shard of Broken Glass. Redundant redundancy. A shard already implies it's broken...
Brain in a Jar...are you freakin kidding me?
Did I miss anything? Anything else you can think of that someone just dropped the ball on naming?
Not everything needs to have some cool-guy name on it. In fact, in this case there is a lot of obfuscation going on, so having clearly named things adds a bit of grounding in my opinion. So much is unknown to this point: why is Avacyn going nuts? Why is Sigarda not? The clues imply a fair bit of uncertainty too. Having simple things in there adds a bit of "known" to latch onto. That's my $.02 anyway.
April 10, 2016 8:59 p.m.
Well, understanding the nature, set, and style of the set makes most of these names sensical.
Thing in the Ice Flip - Bunch of sailors find a "thing in the ice," and snag it. Seems fine.
Magnifying Glass - In a set with clues, investigation, mysteries, and enigma, it would seem wrong to name it anything else. Would it not seem odd if Sherlock Holms called his magnifying glass the ultimate tool for sleuthing?
Shard of Broken Glass - This one is redundant. Should just be Broken Glass.
Brain in a Jar - In an evil lab, could you not have a brain in a jar? However, I could see it named (person's name) brain instead.
I think they're doing fine as ever. Some bad, some good, most just okay.
That's my 2 cents.
April 10, 2016 9:01 p.m.
slightly off, yet on, topic, but does anyone else feel as though the flavor and theme of the original Innistrad block has been ruined? I was big into the Zombies v Humans v Vampires v Spirits v Demons v Angels v Werewolves thing... this new stuff seems lackluster compared to the awesomeness that was Innistrad...but maybe it's just me...
April 10, 2016 9:01 p.m.
grumbledore says... #8
I'm by no means a lore expert, but isn't innistrad heavily focused around humans? that alone, at least to me, would explain the less convoluted naming conventions. i feel that battle for zendikar had pretty interesting names that seemed to fit flavor wise. just my .02.
April 10, 2016 9:02 p.m.
One of the themes of Innistrad is the every day being intruded upon by the supernatural, for example Blazing Torch, Sharpened Pitchfork, and Butcher's Cleaver. It's supposed to evoke a very basal feeling of vulnerability, which to most people it does very well. MtG shouldn't and doesn't have to go overboard with mythos-babble in order to be an amazing fantasy IP.
April 10, 2016 9:03 p.m.
grumbledore says... #10
also i would argue that 'shard of broken glass' isn't redundant. is it a pile? is it a sliver? or is it just the half-peeled off label of the beer bottle? lol. 'shard' implies 'weapon'. at least to me.
April 10, 2016 9:03 p.m.
I disagree. These are pretty much all tropes that the cards were built around. What's the point of making a card that's supposed to be a brain in a jar if you don't say it's a brain in a jar? Why call it something else when the whole point of the card is that it's something that shows up in horror all the time?
As for shard of broken glass, that's a thing people say all the time. I guess it's a little redundant, but it's a common thing to say, and the whole point of it's flavor is that it's not a weapon as much as something that's just sitting around that you're using to defend yourself with, because you're alone and there's zombies in the room.
And as for Magnifying Glass, I get no more flavor out of your suggestion. It's just fancier wording. Flavor is what the card is trying to evoke from a lore perspective. What this specific card is trying to invoke is a magnifying glass. I'm not a fan of the idea of a magnifying glass from a lore perspective, but calling it an 'oculus' doesn't making it more flavorful. It's still a random magnifying glass, which I guess is a reference to Sherlock Holmes investigating? The problem is that doesn't fit into horror in the first place, not that the name is bland.
April 10, 2016 9:05 p.m.
Theres a joke where its actually Sorin naming these things. He's quite literal.
April 10, 2016 9:07 p.m.
I like the way the very literal names contrast with all of the mystery of the art and the set. It fits nicely that we have something literally named thing in the ice or brain in a jar so that we don't have to focus on what it seems like at first glance and instead ask, "why does a blandly named vampire card have tentacles?" I feel like this set has been a home-run flavor wise. The art and flavor text give off a genuinely unsettling feeling for me. Just my 2 sense.
April 10, 2016 9:26 p.m.
Well it doesn't get much more unsettling than the Angels sworn to protect the humans turning on them and destroying them by the village load. I say home run on the set for the story so far and setting the stage for a plane totally twisted upside down. Some of the cards in the set, and the last Innistrad block, just seem odd to see literally named. I'm not caught up on the myth is necessarily, but we generally don't see a lot of every day wording.
April 10, 2016 9:53 p.m.
Hickorysbane says... #15
I think it'd be overkill to give them fancy names. Like...it's not a fancy tool. It's just magnifying glass :p
Although I like Thing in the Ice. Like they use the word thing as in this ominous ohmygodwhatisthis unknown entity. Not like "Hey dude I found a...thing. Might be part of a screw"
April 10, 2016 10:25 p.m.
ComradeJim270 says... #16
Yeah, "Thing in the Ice" actually does work perfectly for a set that references horror, and also Lovecraft (big on the 'incomprehensible monster' thing). It's too mysterious to be called anything more specific...
April 10, 2016 11:28 p.m. Edited.
DERPLINGSUPREME says... #17
I agree completely.
I mean, fuck the flavor of innistrad. what kind of bullshit people find common household objects and turn them into weapons anyways?
I mean, Heavy Mattock? cmon. its just a fuckin mattock. TRY THE FUCK HARDER.
what the fuck is next? stupid place names? "house"? "chapel"? "Forest"? "ISLAND"?!
wtf is next?!
:\
April 10, 2016 11:37 p.m.
iBleedPunk says... #18
Screw it, I vote we rename them Pokey Stabby Thingy and Jarred Einstein
April 11, 2016 12:53 a.m.
Ok, ok. I concede to the wave of "literal names for the bill". As far as the original Innistard and this one go, things like Heavy Mattock and Magnifying Glass are fine. I understand the purpose and when it comes down to it that's exactly what they are. Not a Lovecraft fan, so the "mystique" of naming Thing in the Ice Flip just that is lost on me. I get what you're getting at, it's just not my thing. I mean, I wouldn't call the Magnifying Glass anything too myth like, making it a legendary thing: "Jace Spy Disk of Brilliance".
0 mana to cast. "Opponents play with their libraries revealed and aren't allowed to draw cards. During oppinent's upkeep they exile their library and shuffle their pocket lint into their library. Shuffle their library into your library and draw 100 cards."
I understand the absurdity of that...it just struck me as, hmm this is a bit strange. Everything is named exactly as it is. Maybe the fact that the Elsrazi have such crazy names like Breaker of Armies, Bearer of Silence, etc. the "bland" names came off weird. I think some of them are comical by comparison.
April 11, 2016 7:42 a.m.
What I like is that all of these blandly named items have actual clues within the art. Since we know what a regular version of the item would look like, we can focus instead on what is strange within the artwork and "investigate" ourselves. I understand how thing in the ice can be a bit disenchanting for someone, I think it's just a matter of opinion.
April 11, 2016 9 a.m.
Probably right. This is also one of the first sets that I delved deep into the lore and invested my time in beyond playing the game. I amDriving myself nuts trying to understand who is at work and who is in League together and it's literally just a blank wall in front of me.
Care to share what "clues" you picked up in the artwork, Murpy?
I mean, I think the fact that we have quotes from Gisa, but no Gisa present screams she is at work in the Drownyard with all those Zombies. Blaming Liliana is a decoy. What is the purpose of the Temple erected there?
The cryptolith share made of metal so Nahiri is the obvious one to blame, but again I say decoy. She is just there to attack Sorin. But also, her card name, the Harbinger: what is "bringing" or "announcing". So maybe that is her. Also, why is Avacyn going nutter-butters and Sigarda is not? Are Bruna and Gisela just following Avacyn blindly or are they actually affected the same way as she is?
Why does Jace go nuts when he tries to investigate what's going on?
Where the hell is Tamiyo? I expect a new version in "Moon" since she is already depicted in some card art with Jace.
Why is Sorin also so scarce?
Just so many questions...
FAMOUSWATERMELON says... #2
I'm willing to bet that Thing in the Ice Flip was named that way just so it could have the nickname Titi :)
April 10, 2016 8:55 p.m.