. Either we follow aesthetic logic, or not
It's my bad here for introducing the word "logic" when discussing aesthetics, as clearly they're two separate qualities.
Aesthetics can look consistent, or not. Our goal is to try to keep them that way. We use different colours for different factions: Is that aesthetic consistency? Yes, within each faction it is. No, between faction it isn't.
. If not - why bother with re-coloring the template?
Why do we use different colours for diff factions? My reason is not
aesthetical, at least not primarily. It is functional.
Since it adds function it is good, especially since that function should ideally be around when playing the game: It aids in identifying faction belonging, card type (to a degree) and also to get an instant overview of the table as a whole
which is impossible to get otherwise unless you look at every cards corner for a symbol. That is why the templates have and should have diff colours: It's better design. Once we decide to use it because of function the next issue is aesthetics - if we have something around, then why not make it look "good"?
Just switch faction logos, loyalty marks and we're finished.
Imagine a game that is 2 or 4 players, mid game, with each player having around 5 to 10 face upp cards on table, and these changing every turn. Also imagine that 50% of the players have multifactioned decks. Now, in such a scenario it is hard as hell to get an overview of how much from what faction is around. You can't by just glancing quickly at the table. You would need to check "closer", even if you can see the logo from a far.
Faction colouring turns the whole card into a signal of faction belonging and is easier and faster to process when getting such an overview. This is obvious when playtesting with b/w cards, and same thing seems to apply no matter the colours. I myself am alwyas totally clueles about what is on the table if it a) lacks art b) lacks colours and c) lacks an instant way of identifyind different classifications (for example, gaian or not, cheap or not, creature or not, etc). This is maybe me having a handicap, but I don't fathom I'm all that unique and don't think making life as easy as possible for the player is a bad thing...
Just switch faction logos, loyalty marks and we're finished. It will still look really pretty. And if we do - I think oddly colored logos shouldn't be used, doesn't matter if what is being represented by those is or isn't faction-specific.
I agree it would look perfectly good and I don't have any issue at all with that from an aesthetic point of view. If anything the game would feel/look more "mature". That set aside, I think we lose what I try to describe above and that it is less functional. It takes parts of what we can learn from how games have been designed and just declares it as invalid without any other reason other than us being lazy/lacking manpower/not affording proper templating
which is kind of a totally different issue.
Let me take an example here: Semphore lights. They have faulty design if you ask me. What's good is that they all look the same wherever you are. They also have a certain order in which they are placed, and also a specific formation. What I can't see any logical explanation for is why on earth they are all round, when it would be so much better (colour blinde, memory etc) if they had different shapes? Say red stop is a square, yellow is a triangle and green is circle. You use not only order, formation and colour, but also geometry.
We don't even have to have those icons there, to be honest. They'd help 4 yo ADHD kid to memorize things, seasoned players won't need much bling-bling.
One might reason that it "isn't needed". Sure, it isn't needed
. But so what? In a strict sense NO colours at all are needed in a traffic light. It would suffice if all 3 were black and only one bulb went on and off in them, at a time. In another sense there isn't even the need for 3 of them, even though the yellow can be explained as somewhat functional, then again - seasoned drivers will know when to start or stop a car, how long he/she has been standing there, so why bother...
Personally I agree that the icons aren't needed
. We have very few variables in that area - 2 of them - and it doesn't require
icons to learn what they do. The more stats we would have had there, the greater the need of icons, colours, and what not.
But how does this tell us to ditch them? They aren't a problem. (Or am I missing something?) What I wanted to know was how diff colouring might affect the player/game. It is a really easy thing to do to recolour them. And they do add yet another dimension to memorising and identifying rapidly.
The first one I didn't get - there is no use of the extra field since you extended the name field instead, but I think that was to just save time. I wouldn't want the name field to have the atk/def values mixed in as they are in it though: It is cluttered enough in it as it is, and having to look at the text in the middle/next to it makes little sense as the eye will also always see the other text all around it, creating what I'd describe as "visual noise".
As for the other I think something like that could work excellent and would def. use it if it wasn't for the fact that we lack a reason for removing the shaped containers and replace them with a single one, while there is a reason for keeping them.
Edit: I'll do thematic colouring of them as well and put them in here soon.