I think the better example of that specific point would be (the actually defunct) Magic Deck Vortex. Ten years ago if I'd been seeking out wacky casual decklists and off-the-wall formats, I'd have gone there. But they were probably already waning in relevance even then.
While I obviously can't speak for Abe Sargent, my interpretation was that the problem isn't that some format isn't casual enough or that there aren't enough casual formats, but rather that there are now fewer formats (fewer options) and that those formats are not really fostering casual play. I think the homogenization is caused by a confluence of factors, and the internet definitely plays into it, but it's complicated. I mean, the world wide web is older than Magic: the Gathering. It's not as though there was this game that was wholly untainted by the influence of the internet, and then the internet came showed up and wrecked everything.
I just can't get used to 40-card decks. And a big part of the appeal of the game for me is to play a deck that does something more exotic and extreme, operating on a different axis to work its way to victory. It could be something competitive, like Vintage Dredge, or it could be something completely silly, like a coin flip deck. And Limited decks are almost always more straightforward. It's too bad, because otherwise, Limited would be more convenient for me. I do still have a few friends for some reason, but none that are still actively playing Magic.
Off the top of my head...
Maybe I misinterpreted the point of the article. My impression was not that there were fewer formats*, but that the existing formats were all stale (not sure if this is the right word) in such a way that no one could be bothered to play anything outside of a handful of proven decks.
Interesting example. I do think there are some strong parallels. Although I will point out that while both MMA and M:tG did homogenize and that some of the homogenization was probably for the same reasons, there are important distinctions. I think that a lot of the evolution of MMA was less about homogenization and more about a kind of arms race. There was a time period when wrestlers started getting good enough defense against submissions to win against one-dimensional BJJ submission experts and were able to sort of take over MMA by virtue of being able to take down and dominate their opponents. There was a time period when BJJ guys developed their kickboxing skills enough that they could pressure wrestlers with strikes and then capitalize with their submissions if the wrestlers became too hasty in going for takedowns. There was a time period when more judo/Greco-Roman specialized fighters started winning against hybrid kickboxing/BJJ fighters by closing the distance on the feet and controlling the fight from clinches and dominant ground positions. There was a time period when highly proficient striking specialists developed their grappling game to a point where they could escape and avoid attempts to take them down to keep them held in a clinch, keeping fights in striking range where they could dominate. There was the rise of younger, more generalist fighters who grew up with MMA and attempted to seamlessly blend fighting styles. Sure, there was overlap between these, and the system as a whole was more complicated, with highly skilled individual fighters showcasing styles that held a lot of attention but weren't necessarily as successful in the broader pool of athletes. And especially going back to the earlier days, there were different organizations with different demographics, different time lengths for rounds, different rules for ground and pound, different rules for gloves, different types and sizes of arenas, different refereeing patterns (which become especially important when it comes to how often fights on the ground are forcibly stood back up, and under what circumstances), different rules for weight classes, etc. Homogenization was definitely a thing that was happening in the history of MMA, but it was hugely complicated by other factors. I think the biggest trend was probably that once certain mixtures of styles, certain schools, or certain emphases started to become successful enough, other fighters would begin adapting to counter them.
Mostly, I just want to play Magic! But I do like variety. A sticking point for me is that I would prefer to play Magic, not Summoner Wars. I don't mean I don't like creatures or want them to be good. Not at all. But I like it if the environment allows for creatures to be used in different ways. Like you might have a deck that generates a huge board of over 200 creatures, or one that uses creatures to gain a bunch of life, or one that uses a bunch of activated abilities, or one that only uses creatures defensively, or one that tries to cheat big creatures out very quickly. If it's just a bunch of ordinary, unassuming creatures on both sides, wrestling over damage with evasion, tempo, and forcing trades in combat, I don't find it compelling. The game is called Magic and I want magical things to happen. I don't want to play Combat Math: the Gathering.
Oversoul said:
My rememberances are probably sentimental as well, but yes, since I *was* around when MTG began, I can say the Internet had almost zero impact on it in the beginning. This was my senior year in college and while I'm not sure when the first browsers came along (and not going to look it up now), we certainly didn't have any Internet access as what was popularized by browsers and AOL back then. Maybe usenet and text bulletin boards. Heck, we just got email that year also. For those first couple of years, the only source of MTG was The Duelist and maybe those card pricing catalogs.Oversoul said:
I was pretty young at the time and living in an area that was more tech-focused than most of the rest of the U.S. at the time (although, to be fair, also the same area where Magic started too). I didn't actually come to the game until a few years later, but based on what I've heard from people who did, I think your experience seems to be pretty normal. The internet wasn't a major factor in the game at first. That being said...
To be fair, WotC deliberately obfuscated such information at the time, in what would certainly have been called anti-netdecking measures if anyone had thought to coin "netdecking" as a term back then. Mark Rosewater later wrote about this, as he was covering the finals. He had Zak Dolan and Bertrand Lestrée's decklists for his own use, but was forbidden from publishing them. In internet discussions, people pieced together decklists (either complete or very, very close to it) by collating and puzzling through all of the information that had been released.I think that Dojo history article a few months back explained the growth of MTG and the role of the Internet pretty well, actually. While I'm pretty sure Magic might have been discussed on said usenet/bulletin boards/local groups, it didn't "explode" in knowledge globally until later. You certainly don't read those early Duelist interviews with Zak Dolan and other tournament winners that they scoured the Internet to get an idea of the meta so they could practice against it.
Yeah, The Dojo was a gamechanger with this stuff, although I contend that the stage was, in some sense, set for it. What I find odd about the history of this stuff isn't that it took a few years for Magic players to begin organizing and developing systems that gave the game a real presence online, but that it took Psylum to lead the way in the first place, rather than WotC doing so themselves. In the early 1990's, other companies were asking, "How can we use the web to enhance our business?" Even companies that were kind of old-fashioned were at least trying to innovate and not fall behind the curve. Meanwhile, with Magic, a game made by a company filled with nerds, they were apparently asking, "What techniques can we use to obfuscate our game and make it as mysterious as possible?"
I'm not disagreeing with any of that; I mentioned usenet myself.
I certainly tried on my own
Obviously homogenization implies a progression, so we couldn't pinpoint an exact moment when we jump to this being a problem. I think it's multifaceted and some of the trends going on really were set in motion back in the 90's. But the stuff that he describes as causing the game to drift into a vague, poorly defined sense of malaise? I don't think it's that old. I think it's a confluence of factors and maybe it got started earlier, but it wasn't pervasive a decade ago, which is what he's trying to get at with the comparison of website content.
) ; this was at a time when tons of the players who had gotten into the game as teens years before had now graduated from college, and another wave of players who'd joined up a little later were entering college, and the current block, the one people weren't buying, had some of the crappiest crapfest turds of sets the company ever put out (Kamigawa Block). Not citing that particular example as a huge factor in what has happened since, but rather as an indication that WotC has historically used some extremely dubious guidelines that have affected their decisions when it comes to shaping the game.