I'm curious why the designers chose to lay out the cards the way they did rather than follow the old design aesthetic. Example: Strongholds would have the Title at the top, then on the right hand side have Province Strength, Gold Production and Starting Honor. The new cards have these three kind of equivalent stats all around the card. Province Strength bonus is now upper left hand corner, fate production is at the bottom middle and starting honor is in the lower left hand corner. These aren't even full bleed cards, so I'm curious as to why design went that route. Another question about card layout, why are the card titles all in different spots depending on card type? Why not just color code them the way the old game did? If there is anything I disliked about AGOT 2.0, was this similar design philosophy in regards to the titles. I don't find this to be intuitive at all to playing the game. If anything really bothers me about New L5R, it's the layout of these cards. With personalities, you could have even kept their design aesthetic by putting military strength on the left and political strength on the right, (though that could confuse people who think it's chi, but whatever.)
I'm really left wondering why change the aesthetic?
~~Laz
EDIT: I don't need an explanation on HOW the card titles work with the bonuses etc. I understand that.
Card Layout and aesthetics Question.
Well attachments have the name on the left because they modify military and political stats which are on the left hand side of the card. Meaning they are meant to splay on the left hand side under the character.
I actually really dig it. Also holdings are similar I believe.
Edited by BayushiCroyAttachments have information to the left so you can put them under the characters and do a sum of stats easily. Province bonus stuff in the upper part so it can be easily seen. Etc?
2 minutes ago, BayushiCroy said:Well attachments have the name on the left because they modify military and political stats which are on the left hand side of the card. Meaning they are meant to splay on the left hand side under the character.
I actually really dig it. Also holdings are similar I believe.
I understand this design. They use it in AGOT 2.0. I'm not a fan.
Yeah seems far more intuitive to me than colour coding it. They already have the general colour of cards dictated by clan...so you don't want even more colours on there.
It's fine how it is, just try and get excited about this new upcoming game. Getting tired of all these posts....... "Why don't they do it the way I'm thinking in my head.....which is obviously better?"
Edited by hoonZilla2 minutes ago, EviLaz said:I understand this design. They use it in AGOT 2.0. I'm not a fan.
Why?
I am glad the cards are not laid out the same as the CCG. This is a different game and It should look different.
Just now, BayushiCroy said:Why?
For the same reason I don't like meat loaf.
1 minute ago, EviLaz said:For the same reason I don't like meat loaf.
?
You start a thread with specific details about aesthetics, and ask why they exist.
I respond with why they exist and that I like them.
You say you don't like them.
Cool, why?
And then I get a sassy, non answer.
I'm sorry I really thought you were looking for a conversation. I know better now.
1 minute ago, sasuma said:I am glad the cards are not laid out the same as the CCG. This is a different game and It should look different.
I have no problem with different. I have a problem with it not looking good. Maybe that's my ultimate critique here. They sacrificed (in my opinion) a good looking card for some functionality, when they didn't have to.
Just now, BayushiCroy said:?
You start a thread with specific details about aesthetics, and ask why they exist.
I respond with why they exist and that I like them.
You say you don't like them.
Cool, why?
And then I get a sassy, non answer.
I'm sorry I really thought you were looking for a conversation. I know better now.
Apologies for the sass. I don't like the card aesthetic because I don't like it. It doesn't look good, but that's my opinion.
1 minute ago, EviLaz said:I have no problem with different. I have a problem with it not looking good. Maybe that's my ultimate critique here. They sacrificed (in my opinion) a good looking card for some functionality, when they didn't have to.
I suppose its a matter of taste and thus subjective.
I like what I have seen from the previews so far.
Just now, sasuma said:I suppose its a matter of taste and thus subjective.
I do like the card art. I just don't like the lay out. Maybe I'm the only one. I also don't like the fonts they use... but that's really me being petty.
Yea
2 minutes ago, sasuma said:I suppose its a matter of taste and thus subjective.
This. It's subjective.
Why did you think other people wanted to hear that you don't like it?
Just now, EviLaz said:I do like the card art. I just don't like the lay out. Maybe I'm the only one. I also don't like the fonts they use... but that's really me being petty.
You don't like what you don't like, no problems with that! There have been plenty of layouts I have not loved!
@BayushiCroy
gave you an objective reason why it is the way it is. This includes being clear and fast to understand when learning and playing, all of which are legitimate reasons to make a design a certain way. After all, design is not just about "pretty" but about "useable", too! Thus, the cards also
needed
to look different, so that people wouldn't be confused.
Ah, seeing your later comments, let me just say this: Fair enough. I don't understand why you don't like it, as it looks quite pretty to me, but that's okay. I don't understand the point of this thread, then, though?
I like new design, if I had to be picky, I would say that the top left fate flower icon is a little bit effy.
We still haven't seen all, like spells etc, those can be a signle attachment, but who knows...
It helps people like me, who are terrible at perceiving colors, to have yet another way of quickly differentiating between cards without having to read them.
Oh, colorblindness, I hadn't even thought of that! Also something good design takes into account.
Edited by Myrion16 minutes ago, EviLaz said:I understand this design. They use it in AGOT 2.0. I'm not a fan.
If you understand the design, not sure how you cannot understand why it is not like in the CCG.
Not being a fan is a matter of personal choice so that is ok.
9 minutes ago, EviLaz said:They sacrificed (in my opinion) a good looking card for some functionality
These cards look far better than any of the CCG versions and have better information layout (or so would seem). Absolutely imho.
This is getting outside the scope of the topic I think (philosophically speaking) : but yes, while liking things and not liking things is subjective, you still need to back up and say why. "just because" is NEVER good enough. Even if it's subjective.
You don't like meatloaf. Why? The answer isn't "because I don't like it". The answer is because it doesn't taste good, or it's mushy, or whatever.
You don't like these cards because of the same reason you don't like meatloaf? So the cards taste bad?
That's why I was frustrated. You have made a judgment about a thing and then when asked how you came to that judgment, you don't have one. Very flippant.
Also @Myrion is right and aesthetic is about about form and function. And I think these combines the 2 well. Also I like it because I think it looks good and serves the function understanding the board state whole maintaining simplicity. Probably.
After all we haven't seen other cards and the game could be a hot mess.
Edited by BayushiCroy47 minutes ago, EviLaz said:I understand this design. They use it in AGOT 2.0. I'm not a fan.
Well, your post did start with "I'm curious why the designers chose..." That's a very different topic than "I don't like this."
2 hours ago, EviLaz said:For the same reason I don't like meat loaf.
C'mon, "I'd Do Anything for Love (But I Won't Do That)" is a classic!
4 hours ago, hoonZilla said:Yea
This. It's subjective.
Why did you think other people wanted to hear that you don't like it?
Nothing wrong with expressing dislike of something. You chose to come in here and reply instead of ignoring it. *shrug*
Unpopular opinion: the old card templates were dull in both design and color choice. The illustrations on the cards always popped for me because everything else looked so dull.