:o
Wake me up when Emmanuel's Clipped Wings gets out.
Well, it certainly is unique.
"The shatterer can communicate through his sound waves"
That is an awesome power. Think of all the cool things you could do if....
Wait a minute isn't that just talking?
I am a big fan of Peter and his work and have several of his decks. That said, this one seems quite... busy? I still pledged for some but concerned it won't get funded.
-C
In regards to "thecardcollector", I am guessing this is the same person who sent me a personal message of encouragement from the Kickstarter campaign that said:
"You guys actually thought this deck was a good idea? All I can say is YIKES! As a collector I have no interest, and poker players certainly won't. Don't really see the point to this, but I do see a funding failure, sorry to say. Victor "
While I can appreciate the fact that he likes to collect playing cards, I also feel there are other types of collectors and card designs that folks like too. I understand that on the card collectors side there hasn't been a huge following for semi-transformational in the past 20 years or so. Maybe that is what prompted me to like that particular art even more.
douche
a word to describe an individual who has shown themself to be very brainless in one way or another, thus comparing them to the cleansing product for vaginas.
While i'll agree with Don that there might be some novelty appeal, those type of decks usually fare pretty bad on KS as it seems most backers aren't interested in novelty or souvenir decks.
I'm in for 2 because Victor is an ass.
It's not cool what you do Victor. Your a jerk. It's one thing to email a project with some constructive criticism, but to just bash something you don't like is just being a douche.
Victor- in case you don't know what that means-
from Urban DictionaryQuotedouche
a word to describe an individual who has shown themself to be very brainless in one way or another, thus comparing them to the cleansing product for vaginas.
For someone that is supposedly so supportive of the playing card community. All you do is spew negativity. So shut the F up!
Getting over the... interesting color scheme, I'm noticing way too many grammatical errors. Add that to the weird, cheezy dialogue, the mediocre art, and the completely nonsensical theme, I can't see why anyone would buy this.
Also, the bear seems to just be copied and altered on every card. Like the artist only knew how to draw one bear.
Getting over the... interesting color scheme, I'm noticing way too many grammatical errors. Add that to the weird, cheezy dialogue, the mediocre art, and the completely nonsensical theme, I can't see why anyone would buy this.
Also, the bear seems to just be copied and altered on every card. Like the artist only knew how to draw one bear.
Mr Mollusk, I know this deck is not everyone's "cup of tea" but I have to ask, do you not ever read comic books and catch the "cheesy" part of some of them? That is what we are trying to capture while again trying to bring back an OLD style playing card art design.
On art, everyone has an opinion. Your opinion sounds like it may be tinted with a little bit of "Bikini Bottom" criticism that is not really constructive.
On the teddy bear faces, my guess is you never owned or saw a teddy bear either? You probably haven't looked at the bears on Vermont Teddy Bear or Build a Bear either. While there are minor changes, it is not much. As we roll out more images there are some bears that have a different look...but again, they're teddy bears!
Grammar, yep, there are some things that need to be changed. Thanks to those who pointed them out either here or sent me a PM. We will be uploading those shortly. We LOVE constructive criticism.
No offense, but maybe you should come out of your mollusk or pineapple for a little and actually just say you have lived a sheltered life that doesn't understand different types of artwork, comic books or teddy bears. For that matter, you do not seem to understand the historical part of semi-transformational decks. ;)
Sorry everyone, I could not resist the puns on the name of MrMollusk who looks like he is showing a blinking fish that says "My Eyes" from Spongebob. Oh my. BTW, should I make up a more fictitious name for this forum so I can say anything I want with no body really knowing who I am? The rude comments by some of these people are what has kept me and I'm sure others from sharing any opinion or comments. If I want all this negative garbage that doesn't mean squat I'll just go to a family reunion or something.
Psst...MrMollusk, be sure to CLOSE YOUR EYES! You won't want to see anything out of your norm.
====[ A FINAL THOUGHT ]=====
Perhaps one more SuperVillain is called for:
Named "Mr. Mollusk" (or, perhaps, "Dr. Mollusk"), his supervillainous power would be discouraging the hero with pointless and vacuous non-constructive criticism. The hero ends up losing interest in what he or she was trying to accomplish.
:D
I am (generally) NOT a fan of "semi-transformational" decks (those, like this one, in which each card has the right number of pips, but they are located, oriented, sized and skewed in whatever way the artist feels best serves his or her concept for the card)....Appreciating all of that, I tend to think of "semi-transformational" cards as somewhat a product of creative laziness (of course, if I ever designed and created one myself, my appreciation for them might increase tremendously).
Robert, even though MrMollusk has a different opinion about the Fantastic Fur deck than you do, it's not right to make a comment like this.
Also..
From our correspondence (since 2012) about playing cards and transformation decks, this is a bit disappointing to hear. I was supportive of the deck concepts and images you shared with me, but your recent statements make me question how genuine your support was of my work back then. To each his own though.
I didn't say it because his opinion was different than mine. I said it because I think that his opinion was stated in a non-constructive way.
And you say that about MY comment, but say nothing about the several much HARSHER (if memory serves) comments which others made about him above??
Hi RSL,
nice to see you here!
If i might interject my own opinion... I read back through the entire topic, and I think you (RSL) might be confusing Mollusk with Victor/Vjose/CardCollector.
most of the other posters on this thread were reacting to Victor's usual negative and offensive bull$hit. Mollusk, while he did have a pretty negative first post, came back with much more constructive and detailed criticism later.
seems like you got them mixed up, at least that's how it looks to me. Hope that helps clear the air a bit.
Also, I'm not understanding the historical significance of semi-transformational decks? How is this even RFEMOTELY historical? It's pretentious to even assume that this decks honors the historical significance of semi-transforational decks. You can't throw a few hearts or clubs into a drawing and say "Hey, look! We're cultured! It's semi-transformational!". The card's aren't designed with the pips or suits in mind. The pips are modified to fit the cards. You completely missed the essence of a true transformation deck. Check out the Clipped Wings deck or the Stranger and Stranger Ultimate deck for some more inspiration.Sorry, but not only is this not constructive criticism, but it is inaccurate.
I am (generally) NOT a fan of "semi-transformational" decks (those, like this one, in which each card has the right number of pips, but they are located, oriented, sized and skewed in whatever way the artist feels best serves his or her concept for the card)....Appreciating all of that, I tend to think of "semi-transformational" cards as somewhat a product of creative laziness (of course, if I ever designed and created one myself, my appreciation for them might increase tremendously).
From our correspondence (since 2012) about playing cards and transformation decks, this is a bit disappointing to hear. I was supportive of the deck concepts and images you shared with me, but your recent statements make me question how genuine your support was of my work back then. To each his own though.
Bob, admittedly it was a little harsh to read your post. Additionally, if I'm being honest, it gets a little tiring to see statements that a semi-transformation deck has less merits than a pure transformation deck (for example, any thread related to the Eclecdeck here). With that said though, I can't fault you for liking what you like, and I apologize if I came across as angry.
Also, thank you to Newtsgames and Firdawesome!
Sorry, but I don't recall: are any of your decks full-transformation decks? If so, did you find designing them to be more difficult, less difficult, or just as difficult as designing your semi-transformational ones?
To me, the key difference does not lie in whether its a full-transformation deck, or a semi-transformation deck. To me it is rather whether the pips are used meaningfully, or simply added on after the fact to make it a transformation deck. The design should definitely revolve around making the graphics work with the pips, rather than simply adding in pips here and there after the fact. There is a vast difference between the two.
Comparing this deck and Emmanuel's decks, we can see the stark contrast with what i just highlighted. Emmanuel's decks are simply in a different world, there is no argument against that.
To call Peter's artwork "slap-dash", "fast and easy" or to agree that it is "lazy" is offensive to say the least.
And, with full-transformational cards, an observer KNOWS that the pips were not just added, slap-dash, after the rest of the card was drawn.
From what I recall of your decks, your designs do not play as "fast and easy" with all of these things as do Peter Wood's semi-transformational decks.
And, for what it's worth, I don't recall any of your designs striking me as "creatively lazy" in the least. Far from it, in fact.I guess you may have been saying some other deck was "creatively lazy", but again, since you are writing in this thread and we've already had the artwork called "lazy", childish, it looks like a kid drew it, etc. then without a doubt I became more defensive and sensitive. This forum is already cut throat for the most part and not very open to different forms of art. I have actually stayed away from it just for that reason. Instead of just saying they don't "like" something, well, I'm not going to beat a dead bush, we know how some respond.
Named "Mr. Mollusk" (or, perhaps, "Dr. Mollusk"), his supervillainous power would be discouraging the hero with pointless and vacuous non-constructive criticism. The hero ends up losing interest in what he or she was trying to accomplish.
:D
Sorry Robert, I did get defensive there. Since you are replying to a post on a thread for the "Fantastic Fur" deck and said things like...QuoteAnd, with full-transformational cards, an observer KNOWS that the pips were not just added, slap-dash, after the rest of the card was drawn.
Yes, this thread is about Fantastic Fur, but I think I was clear in the posts you quoted that I was comparing semi-transformational decks (in general) to fully-transformational decks (again, in general), and NOT Fantastic Fur specifically. I stand by the above quote, and believe it to be self-evident: With fully-transformational cards, an observer sees that the pips are sized, located, and oriented precisely where they are on a standard card. It's part of the charm of them, after all, seeing how the artist "transformed" a regular playing card into a scene, while leaving it still fully recognizable as a card. Whereas, with semi-transformational cards (some more than others, certainly), the pips are in different locations, orientations and sizes than on a standard card, sometimes making it very difficult to even figure out what card you are looking at without checking the indices (I own more than a few semi-trans decks which would be impossible to use in a game of cards). While some semi-trans decks do this in very clever ways ("Key to the Kingdom" being a good example), others do indeed have a very slap-dash look to them. Some (but by no means all) of Peter's semi-trans cards border on this. Back to your quoting me:
Then referring to Emmanuel you stated...QuoteFrom what I recall of your decks, your designs do not play as "fast and easy" with all of these things as do Peter Wood's semi-transformational decks.
Saying that Peter "plays fast and easy" with the size, orientation and location of the pips on his semi-trans cards is NOT saying, as I believe you said that I said, that his art is "fast and easy". It is, however, a statement of fact, and one I doubt Peter would disagree with.
Back to you...QuoteThen in another comment you tell Emmanuel....I guess you may have been saying some other deck was "creatively lazy", but again, since you are writing in this thread and we've already had the artwork called "lazy", childish, it looks like a kid drew it, etc. then without a doubt I became more defensive and sensitive. This forum is already cut throat for the most part and not very open to different forms of art. I have actually stayed away from it just for that reason. Instead of just saying they don't "like" something, well, I'm not going to beat a dead bush, we know how some respond.
And, for what it's worth, I don't recall any of your designs striking me as "creatively lazy" in the least. Far from it, in fact.
I agree with you Robert, it's time to move on. I love to collect playing cards. I love to create playing cards. I love to talk about collecting and creating playing cards. Sadly, on this forum, although it's getting better, it still just does not compliment any of those things...unless you fit in to their niche or art form.
On the Fantastic Fur project, I really don't mind listening to some of the feedback that you and others have given me here. We've actually been showing followers of the Kickstarter campaign some of those ideas and we are implementing them. I thank everyone for that. I was always told not to "engage" your critics. I guess I should have known better than to engage here. I should have just read the constructive comments and never replied back to anything.
To everyone, please, go collect some playing cards but also understand that different people like and collect different things. That doesn't make one worse, lazy, or because it was not drawn on a computer that doesn't mean a child drew it. There are lots of different forms of art and different types of playing cards to collect.
Named "Mr. Mollusk" (or, perhaps, "Dr. Mollusk"), his supervillainous power would be discouraging the hero with pointless and vacuous non-constructive criticism. The hero ends up losing interest in what he or she was trying to accomplish.
:D
I wrote three paragraphs explaining what's wrong with this deck, in a very rational manner. Don't peg it as "non-constructive" just because I don't think this technicolor abomination has any merit. Is it harsh? Of course. Does that mean it's vacuous? Hell no.
Named "Mr. Mollusk" (or, perhaps, "Dr. Mollusk"), his supervillainous power would be discouraging the hero with pointless and vacuous non-constructive criticism. The hero ends up losing interest in what he or she was trying to accomplish.
:D
I wrote three paragraphs explaining what's wrong with this deck, in a very rational manner. Don't peg it as "non-constructive" just because I don't think this technicolor abomination has any merit. Is it harsh? Of course. Does that mean it's vacuous? Hell no.
If you read the rest of the thread, you'll see that, as someone pointed out to me, I had you confused with someone else (victor). What I said about you, really was meant about him.
My humble apologies,
-RSL
So, gentlemen, can we call this case settled and get the topic back on track? It's always good to keep in mind how easily people's words can get misconstrued when your printing a conversation, in essence.
I may not find the deck to be my cup of tea, but it's not hard to see where some people would. That doesn't mean I need to get into a public shouting match about it.
I may not find the deck to be my cup of tea, but it's not hard to see where some people would. That doesn't mean I need to get into a public shouting match about it.
Was this a "shouting match"? For my part, it was more of a "trying (none-too successfully) to clarify myself" match.
I think I'm missing something . I tried reading back from the first posts but ended up with an aneurism. SO!!
Could someone explain.The transformation part of these decks, also I'm a bit confused as to why the bears. I think I'm just confused in general
My kids and grandkids played with "transformers" - some kind of toy that changed from say a person into a vehicle. Maybe this is a Transformer deckI think I'm missing something . I tried reading back from the first posts but ended up with an aneurism. SO!!
Could someone explain.The transformation part of these decks, also I'm a bit confused as to why the bears. I think I'm just confused in general
Well... A full transformation deck has all the pips in the original, traditional locations and creates artwork that incorporates the pips as they are. A semi-transformation deck (like Curator and the soon-to-be-released Clipped Wings) allows the artist a little more freedom in that the pips can be rearranged to whatever degree the artist likes. But this... I'm not sure either term is an accurate description. I don't think that the spot cards have all the pips they're supposed to have, in which case it's more of an art deck.
My kids and grandkids played with "transformers" - some kind of toy that changed from say a person into a vehicle. Maybe this is a Transformer deckI think I'm missing something . I tried reading back from the first posts but ended up with an aneurism. SO!!
Could someone explain.The transformation part of these decks, also I'm a bit confused as to why the bears. I think I'm just confused in general
Well... A full transformation deck has all the pips in the original, traditional locations and creates artwork that incorporates the pips as they are. A semi-transformation deck (like Curator and the soon-to-be-released Clipped Wings) allows the artist a little more freedom in that the pips can be rearranged to whatever degree the artist likes. But this... I'm not sure either term is an accurate description. I don't think that the spot cards have all the pips they're supposed to have, in which case it's more of an art deck.
The real point is how in the hell is he planning to create, package and ship 1,152 decks (that's 8 gross, folks - 96 dozen) on a budget of $1,500? That's a fraction over $1.30 for each deck - for a run this short I don't even know of a printer that will make the decks that cheap, never mind the fulfillment! It's either being seriously subsidized or something's fishy in Newtropolis.Sorry Don, you really did not think this comment through too well. First of all, as explained on the campaign, this Kickstarter campaign is simply meant to "KICKSTART" the campaign, not fund the whole project. Second of all, if I only get maybe 150 backers to "fund" the campaign then I am only shipping out ~150 decks...not the full 1,152 decks. I can't believe you wasted all of this time to make up fake stuff just to slam the deck that we clearly know you do not like. That's cool that you don't like it, but if you could please stop posting fake, non-existent stuff it sure would be cool.
Assume everyone gets their decks at the cheapest asking price: $30 for four decks, or $7.50 each, with no international orders. Further assume that no other more costly add-ons are requested - everyone just wants cheap decks shipped within the US. It takes only 200 decks to reach the goal. But if that's it, if the project barely crosses the goal, they have a minimum of 200 decks to pack and ship. Call it 50 packages, which when added to packing material will come probably close to a pound each. Media mail rate is $2.69 each package, running to $134.50 just for postage - let's round it to $200 including the packing material.
Sorry Don, you really did not think this comment through too well. First of all, as explained on the campaign, this Kickstarter campaign is simply meant to "KICKSTART" the campaign, not fund the whole project. Second of all, if I only get maybe 150 backers to "fund" the campaign then I am only shipping out ~150 decks...not the full 1,152 decks. I can't believe you wasted all of this time to make up fake stuff just to slam the deck that we clearly know you do not like. That's cool that you don't like it, but if you could please stop posting fake, non-existent stuff it sure would be cool.
Don, I'm also sorry you don't like Peter Wood's artwork. I know I'm not alone to say that I love it. Again, we have different taste.
I'm kind of saddened again that all this forum seems to be able to do is slam ideas that do not fall within their idea of what they might like. To the point of making up bogus scenarios like Don has done here, who is the moderator. Seriously, if you are truly going to be a "playing card forum" then maybe you should become that and welcome ALL COLLECTORS and not rip apart those who might like something different. Not to mention rip apart artist like Peter Wood. My goodness.