(note to self, stop trying to do cool, original, detail oriented things with playing cards to people happy...it's not possible)
As Mike likes to say, we don't sugarcoat things here. And this isn't even a matter of personal taste, at least not purely.
Repeating courts have always been considered a bad choice, for obvious reasons.
As for the size of the courts, it's one of those things that just doesn't work well on playing cards. The medium is small enough as it is, so leaving lots of empty space is not a good idea regardless of how good and intricate the actual artwork may be.
see_squared wrote:
(note to self, stop trying to do cool, original, detail oriented things with playing cards to people happy...it's not possible)
Yes, because no one in this or other forums has ever complained about court cards being too small before. And they've certainly never complained about repeating courts either
Chris, I'm not sure what your exact role was in these cards (seems like a consultant role), and I love the Whispering Imps cards - all versions - but this deck appears to have been designed without seeking any feedback from the community and whoever was providing consulting advice should've either noticed the issues with the courts, or if they were fine with them, should've still expected the reaction from this community.
Sorry if this is sounding harsh, but you're not new at this so high expectations came as a result of your involvement.
see_squared wrote:
(note to self, stop trying to do cool, original, detail oriented things with playing cards to people happy...it's not possible)
If you would just LISTEN instead of sitting on the pity pot you might have come away with an amazing deck. No one said this wasn't a cool, original, detail oriented deck; in fact, it's all of the above. And I would also add that it's a great theme and VERY well illustrated. What people are saying is that it came *that* close to being a must-have for everyone on this forum. Repeating courts (and repeating back designs on the AoS as I pointed out) are a turn-off to most here but as ecNate pointed out there are other ways to handle criticism instead of being passive aggressive.
I apologize for my snarky tone. As I'd posted earlier, I actually like the art very much. But, as I also mentioned, the smaller size of the courts had me sitting on the fence. Finding out that the courts are repeating pushed me off the fence into "not for me" territory.
As others have mentioned here above, I and others have posted at length on other project threads at how very much I/we dislike repeating courts. I went on at length about how repeating courts made the Revelation and the Fulton October decks fall far short of what could have -- should have -- been greatness, because they had all of the other elements necessary for greatness. But repeating courts totally kill the deal for me.
Like Revelation and Fulton October, this deck has everything else I look for and enjoy in a deck: great theme, great design, and artwork that appeals to me (and, I'll note that the artwork in Sleepy Hollow is *much* more professional, and the theme is more compelling because it's very specific).
That said, while repeating courts are pretty much universally reviled here at the UC, Dan & Dave keep insisting on repeating courts, so they must not be having trouble selling them to the customer base they've tapped into.
As a fellow artist (albeit in a different medium), I understand that it stings for someone to so cavalierly dismiss your hard work, and I try not to be as snarky as I clearly was in my earlier comment. My apology is sincere.
I am trying to understand why the size of the courts would matter in this type of deck. To me this is obviously not a deck i would use for cardistry or to play at my monthly poker game. This deck to me is more of a "collector" deck to be added to the collection for its unique art and design. So in this case I really don't care if they are tiny... As far as repeating courts, well we have been getting lots of decks in the past year with unique courts and I understand the gripe. But in the end it's not enough for me to stay away and will probably add this deck to the collection
badpete69 wrote:I am trying to understand why the size of the courts would matter in this type of deck.
I think this says it all:
MagikFingerz wrote:As for the size of the courts, it's one of those things that just doesn't work well on playing cards. The medium is small enough as it is, so leaving lots of empty space is not a good idea regardless of how good and intricate the actual artwork may be.
Ecnate... Yeah i saw Tom's comment but I still put it in the context of actually playing with the cards. When I look at the pics of the courts , the art seems big enough to me as it relates to a design on a piece of 2.5" x 3.5" paper...
With the scrollwork on the faces of the cards, increasing the size of the characters would probably mess up the composition of the artwork.
Quite a lovely deck of cards from what I can tell from the pictures. I'm already in for a few of these and plan to grab a few more in the future if I get a chance.
Yes, I might be the guy you remember from that thing at that place way back when.
Why are we giving so much attention to an art deck? Either you like it or you don't. An art deck don't have any rules. This is not a playable deck. Can you honestly say you wouldn't mind breaking out this deck at your next poker night? Of course you wouldn't, this deck is just for looks and the repeating courts don't help it.
