IPOF's - General Discussion Thread | Current Topic: Artists and Audiences

RE: Fan Fakes - General Discussion Thread | Current Topic: Conventions vs Creativity?

Current Topic: Conventions vs Creativity?

When one tries to come up with a fake Pokémon or a fake card, one sometimes bumps against the edges of what's been done before. It might be tempting to create a 4-stage evolution line, to have card effects which drastically change the way the game is played, to add a type, a new special condition, a new kind of attack, a new ability, etc. This of course leaves one with a choice: to pursue those weird avenues, or to stick to the traditional ways. What decisions do you make in this scenario? Do you try to alter the source material to suit your whims, or do you engage the challenge of trying to be creative within the conventions?​




Personally, I by far prefer restrictions. In my experience making fake cards, it's far harder and far more rewarding to come up with interesting effects within the traditional rules of the Pokémon TCG than it is to add new mechanics (like counters, variations on EX/LvX, etc.). Restrictions make art that much more impressive. Any decent artist can create a rough copy of the Mona Lisa, few can do it in MS Paint.

But I'd love to hear your opinions. If you have examples where you think you've done some amazing things while staying between the margins, or where you've been able to accomplish some great things by freeing yourself of the shackles of convention, feel free to share them as well.
 
RE: Fan Fakes - General Discussion Thread | Current Topic: Conventions vs Creativity?

Well, the two aren't mutually exclusive. You can be creative and conventional, or just the opposite.

Edit: Damn straight that Mona Lisa was impressive.
 
RE: Fan Fakes - General Discussion Thread | Current Topic: Conventions vs Creativity?

Wow, that Mona Lisa was quite impressive!

But more related to the topic, I generally like taking risks, but in a way that still stays within general boundaries of plausible cards. I think this would be related to the fact that I try to participate in CaCs, which do have an area for plausibility so that I'd generally try to not go with too dramatic changes. I guess for me, stuff like attack/ability names I'd be more creative with; I'd also try to add more to their effects but while staying in something that could normally be on a card. I guess TPCi does that as well, kinda, but maybe with less creativity in general (but there are some standouts of course, none of which I can currently recall).

However I do take exception to (gah I forgot whose how awkward) Steelix EX Lv.X * something ... that was truly spectacular! but it's a shame I forgot whose it was and where it was :/
 
RE: Fan Fakes - General Discussion Thread | Current Topic: Conventions vs Creativity?

rev3rsor said:
However I do take exception to (gah I forgot whose how awkward) Steelix EX Lv.X * something ... that was truly spectacular! but it's a shame I forgot whose it was and where it was :/
Click to expand...

COPY-UPSIDE-DOWN (ɔ) 2013 NOD3
 
RE: Fan Fakes - General Discussion Thread | Current Topic: Conventions vs Creativity?

Ah, I had a feeling it was you! A very interesting card indeed.
 
Current Topic: Creating Your Very Own Set

Many fakers at one point or another decide that instead of designing individual cards, they want to make their own set. For those of you who have, what motivated you to do this? How much planning was involved? Did you try to go for a specific theme, or did you simply want to create a loosely connected collection of cards of all shapes and sizes? Did you try to add any sort of competitive balance, either within the set itself or as part of whatever format your set would belong to? If you've never made a fake set, why not? Do you feel it would limit your creative options, or that it would at some point become a chore? Either way, feel free to share your experiences with fake sets, why you did what you did, how you did it and what lessons you've learned.​





When I decided to make my fake set (which seems to be on hiatus, but still), all I really wanted to do was make a fun collection of cards based on the ones I've made for CaC. I quickly realised though that set design is quite different from just designing single cards. Instead of just creating a lot of creative cards which work on their own, I also made a lot of open-ended cards, cards which would be nice techs, and cards with specific synergies. Instead of wanting to create a bunch of fun cards, I decided to create a fun play environment. For example, I've specifically made 1 of the Porygon 2 play well with the other Porygon 2 and even with one of the 2 Porygon. While these Porygon are fun by themselves, together they form the basic of a potentially quite fun and powerful deck. As another example, I made a Magneton which not only plays well with the other Magneton, but also with quite a few other Pokémon (most of which are still in the design file). This is the sort of stuff creating single cards would not have allowed me to do. While making a set might be a bit tedious and restrictive at times, I feel it can really enhance the creative possibilities.
 
Many fakers at one point or another decide that instead of designing individual cards, they want to make their own set. For those of you who have, what motivated you to do this?

I had the dream team - a spoilers lackey (me), a Photoshop lackey (Kronar), and an art lackey (Xous). Eventually, Kronar bailed, and it forced me to get reacquainted with Photoshop.

How much planning was involved?

Not as much as I would have liked. Kronar bailed early on in the project, which meant that I was coming up with all the spoilers -and- putting them on cards. Xous was always so chill, he didn't really care about what was included in the set, he just liked drawing Pokemon.

Did you try to go for a specific theme, or did you simply want to create a loosely connected collection of cards of all shapes and sizes?

Our theme for what would eventually become the actually finished, completely done, you-guys-should-totally-check-it-out Platinum: Unsung Heroes was simple. We wanted a set of cards that were all somewhat competitive and were based on Pokemon that are terrible in the video games, like Farfetch'd and Ariados.

Did you try to add any sort of competitive balance, either within the set itself or as part of whatever format your set would belong to?

Of course. What's the point of putting in the time making an entire set if you're not going to try to balance them? Unsung Heroes was meant to be on par with the other cards in the Platinum bloc, but my MLP cards are all balanced in terms of each other (they are not to be played with real Pokemon cards). Having done it both ways, it's definitely easier to balance your cards to be played only with the cards you've made, but balancing them with actual cards in mind is definitely more rewarding.

If you've never made a fake set, why not? Do you feel it would limit your creative options, or that it would at some point become a chore?

To anyone who thinks making their own fake set limits creativity, I would laugh like a pirate and point them towards CMP's Neo Reduxhttp://www.pokebeach.com/forums/thr...hread-on-pokébeach-an-unexpected-interruption, which as of this post is sitting at over six hundred cards completed.

That said, making your own set can definitely feel like a chore if you're the only one doing a certain task. Xous liked doing art, but even he couldn't whip out art back to back to back (though he sometimes did because the man is just that good). I opened the floor to other artists, and that was the best decision I ever made; Xous got some breathing room, and the variance in art made the set look that much more like a real TCG set. In the end, I still did all the spoilers and Photoshop work, because I didn't trust anyone to maintain the high level of quality that I had.

That said, once the set was finally done, it was such a great feeling to see the result of what ended up being three years of work. I don't think that 104 cards should take anywhere near that long, but I procrastinated and for the longest time I only had one art guy so ;/

It's definitely fun and if I had the art guys, I would totally be open to collaborating on a new set.
 
With my custom set, Mysterious Aurora, I planned out everything through text-based cards first. I made up my own meta (far-future format) where the cards had an extra bite of the powercreep and that was okay - not great, but okay. I tied what I could together with the theme of ice and auroras, and it went really well for a while.

When I started working on the image-based cards, it became a lot tougher to progress through. It takes time to make image-based cards, and it takes creativity to make the artwork for those cards too. Some days or weeks I'd run out of time or creativity. And it felt really really bad to not be able to just make image-based versions of the cards I already have written out, so when something cool and new like the half-arts came along I jumped right on to that.

I think if I had to start Mysterious Aurora from scratch, I wouldn't plan it out so much. Having things planned but being somehow unable to finish it up was such a drain, it really made it tougher than just creating new cards on a whim. Even the 'promos' I've been making lately (all those half-arts) have been easy to make because I didn't plan them out as much as I did the Mysterious Aurora cards. Maybe next time instead of planning everything down to what would be on each card, I'll just set vague targets like "80 cards total, 6 Pokémon-EX" - that sort of target gives breathing room for the design side of things, which I didn't really have. But anyway, that set's still slowly coming along... just, really really slowly.
 
While I still haven't actually jumped into faking yet (have the resources, just been busy with other projects), I am actually planning on starting with sets (or, well, mini-sets) once I make my first few test cards and get acquainted with the process. For me, the reason is to help motivate me to keep going and to help me plan. I'm afraid that if I just started with making single cards I'd be struck with option paralysis and never get anything accomplished.
 
Faking Sets- I wish I could complete all the sets I make but I don't have the time. I'm extremely proud though because I did complete my last set, Space Sync.
 
Current Topic: Custom Mechanics

It is not uncommon when creating either text-based or image-based cards to start thinking of developing custom mechanics to help drive creativity. Fakers may want to dive into a deeper realm to explore how they can improve their own sets, grow interest in their thread, or may very well consider it to be a challenge they want to accept to see how far they can drive their own interest in creating unique mechanics.
Have you ever made custom mechanics in the past or are you currently doing so? What are they/how do they work? How has it been affecting the cards you produce? What would you consider to be most the most challenging aspect of creating those mechanics? What elements helped drive your idea to develop those custom mechanics in the first place?
​
 
I actually have a custom mechanic of my own that I hope to include in my next set. :D It's based on a Pokémon story-setting of mine and would involve adding Poison typing as a Dual Type to certain cards (to reflec these Pokémon growing and living in a toxic environment), and various synergy and support for these Pokémon. Ever since the Delta Species set, I'very loved the idea of new mechanics with a story around them.

The problem, of course, is that I'm better at the narrative than I am at the game mechanics. :p
 
To comment on both of the latest two topics, I started creating a complete set because I have certain ideas about a meta I would like to see, about certain core game mechanics that I believe would best convey the spirit of Pokemon.

I start out planning in Google Spreadsheets (rather than pure text, the cell-based layout is visually superior), creating first only names, then details.
Making the image-based cards is somewhat more work, but mostly in double checking everything is right (and even then I miss things regularly so C&C is always appreciated for that reason), rather than in graphics editing time. Once I finished my Photoshop template, the editing is easy.

The names helped me find a number of cards to aim for. The Pokemon I wanted to use are based on a certain logic where all types are attempted to be created equal.

Currently, the set is slated to contain 320 cards including trainers and basic/special energy but excluding secret rares, which I will keep secret for now.

The set contains new mechanics, some based on older ones, some are new to the TCG, such as weather, details of which I will also keep to myself for now.
 
I don't necessarily use custom mechanics, but I am a fanatic for new and exploring old design space. Nearly every card I've made in recent times attempts an minutely if not at all explored design space, from discarding the preevolution for some benefit to messing around -HPs. I've recently made a bank of more unique design spaces that will find their way to future cards. I personally don't find exploring design space overly difficult, but my thought process is quite "What if...?". I'd imagine this is similar to actual mechanics.

For some reason I prefer to stay away from designing too many mechanics. I think mechanics really should be quite reserved and I sorta find them a bit overused - both in the TCG and in fakes. I guess I don't mind many different mechanics in actual PTCG, although I really do hate when there are many mechanics that either stay underused (Team Flare Gear) or overused (EXs :VV). As of this next set, we will have EXs, Megas + Spirit Links, lots of unique Special Energies, Ancient Traits, Team Flare Gear and these mysterious BREAK cards. Too many ideas for a single era I say.

In fakes, I really haven't come across any new mechanic I've really found creative. I guess part of new mechanics is the actual card design - ATs on paper would be quite bland, but in its blank beautifulness the idea looks much nicer. Even then, I personally haven't seen any particularly original mechanic that I've gone "oh hey awesome idea wanna that effect for my set" type of thing.
 
I think mechanics are supposed to be like that, both in quantity and quality.

When there are more mechanics, the player can choose to build decks around any one of them, which diversifies the meta. You don't have to use all of them at once, assuming proper balance between them. This inherently results in mechanics that don't stand out, and that's a good thing, or the game becomes a slave to that one mechanic. The mechanics are there to support the game and to carry with them the spirit of the Pokémon universe, in my humble opinion.
 
Where feasibility is preferred most, I'm always afraid of disturbance of balance and I've hardly hit upon a brand-new mechanics. It seems to me that a conditional clause for attacks has some room, though, such as a conditional/inconstant recoil.
In fact I tended to create funny/enjoyable texts in my childhood in hope that a bit short of reality would give laughter and smile: for example, an attack named "Bazzazzazzash!" for Zekrom that does nothing if you miss to "pronounce this attack properly." (hey who evaluates the pronunciation? lol) This could be nice only as a sort of token, and I'm struggling for a feasible idea.
 
I think that adding "mechanics" shortens rather than sustains the life of a game. New design space should be explored within the confines of the existing rules. This is something 200x M:tG did really well, and something it currently does very poorly. The best way to counteract a dominant strategy is to improve and existing one, not add a competitor.
I apply this philosophy to my own card designs as well: if I set out to design a counter to EXs in my custom card creation (just as an example) I'm not going to create a new mechanic to make evolutions better or to hose EXs, instead making equally efficient (via ability/attack) cards that evolve. Scizor beats paper, without eliminating paper's usefulness against rock.
@Athena consider adding an Ability byline like Golurk, giving 'mons an ancient trait that says "This pokemon is [P] in addition to its other types" or a dual typing similar to how it used to be done. I would go the ability byline route since this game doesn't have keywords.
 
Current Topic: Most Time-Consuming/Difficult Artworks​

What is one of the most time-consuming/difficult artworks you have constructed in the past? What made it so difficult/time-consuming in the first place? Multiple attempts? Confusion on some aspects of the piece? Lack of inspiration? Was the end result well-received? Have you made a similar piece since then? If so, how was that received compared to your previous attempt(s)? How was the problem eventually resolved?

Feel free to share those art pieces!​
 
Japanese text.

Every.Damn.Time, they're pure evil and why I only do Mega's every now and again... lol

What makes them take so long, is because they're made from scratch, creating 3D images takes alot of time, but 3D typography is even worse. My last card (M Mewtwo EX), the 3D text layer total was almost as much as the actual art itself, pure madness.
 
I found sketching a Mega Rayquaza pretty time-consuming for sketching standard. Soooooo many parts to fix and get right. I had to turn this into this. xD
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top