Rune Tarot - upcoming borderless deck

[tarot heart]

Originally Posted by sapienza

But is this done well? I'm asking that genuinely as I really don't know when it comes to CGI. The people seem to me to be floating in some of the images, and somehow it just doesn't look real. Also, the stones in the Moon card look like they are floating on top of the water. I'm really curious as to whether this art would be considered good or not.

It does seem to have that vibe to it.

I really can't tell if it's done well or not, that's the problem. I was just commenting that CGI is not necessarily a bad thing.

I don't like the runes aspect of this deck. It doesn't fit. But I do like the coloring on the cards, at least the ones in the photo. This seems to be one of those decks that you won't know for sure if you like until you hold them in your hands. I have seen decks online that look gorgeous only to hate them when they arrived and vice versa, so who knows?

You really need to look at the photograph of the tuck box and cards layed out on the table on the Kickstarter page to see what I'm talking about.

kickstarter link removed by Moderator

[Le Fanu]

How funny to see that borderless decks have now become a genre of their own and reason for buying a deck!

I'm not sure I would compare CGI techniques like this with baba's merging of antique engravings, but I think I know what you're getting it, as one guilty of "falling over" trying to buy their decks.

I shalln't be buying this deck. It wins the award for managing to make Eight flying Wands ("movement, swiftness, speed...") look curiously motionless.

[Aulruna]

Just another RWS clone, a far cry from incorporating even the tiniest bit of Rune lore into it, and as I've become picky about adding to my collection (as opposed to being a completionist), this one won't get my money.

[gregory]

It looks almost as good as the Heroes. Same kind of floating stuff.... I don't think LoS would have taken it - but there is always gamecrafter...

[marimorimo]

Originally Posted by gregory

It looks almost as good as the Heroes. Same kind of floating stuff.... I don't think LoS would have taken it - but there is always gamecrafter...

In fact I like it better than the Heroes, which is making me wonder if he had tried submitting to Schiffer.... Looks like something they might consider

The images do look decent on a spread when seen from afar (as seen in the kickstarter page), but I know now from experience that if a card does not appeal to me close-up as well as from afar, I would most likely hate it. Like with some people here, I am allergic to computer-modelled CGI. The decks I own with CGI juxtaposed on photos (Sacred Circle and Grail Tarot) were disappointing purchases.

[Aurora369]

The deck doesn't do anything for me. Runes are runes and I do not like mixing up Tarot and Runes. As frac ture pointed out, the runes spell out the card and a bit poorly too. No thanks.

[garmonbozia]

Originally Posted by sapienza

But is this done well?

Great question, and I really cannot tell.

I don't care for the individual images as they look too "fake" (too CGI), but in his photo of the actual deck at the bottom of his Kickstarter page, they do not.

Does that mean the art would look good to me on the actual cards? I have no idea.

Maybe it's the fact that it is a photo of the cards that is displayed on my monitor that makes it look better to me?

[tarot heart]

Originally Posted by Le Fanu

I'm not sure I would compare CGI techniques like this with baba's merging of antique engravings, but I think I know what you're getting it, as one guilty of "falling over" trying to buy their decks.

Yes, the antique engravings of the Victorian Romantic are beautiful, unique and very well done. But it's the only one of their decks (I believe) that uses actual engravings. Of course, MRP do their decks very,very well.

Still, I think this deck has some potential. I still don't like the scans but the borderless cards in the photo are quite interesting. I particularly like the 5 of Pentacles. Really dislike the 10 of swords. Oh, and the boobs are overdone...alot...gives new meaning to "silicone valley."

[Chiriku]

I know nothing of runes, but this description of the Two of Swords makes it sound as though the author didn't just spell out names of cards in runes but that s/he made an attempt to pick runes that had a connection to each card's meaning.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/the-r...03868646294969

I appreciate the author's story of struggling to work on this for so long and of rejection by publishers, and so forth, and I am generally inclined towards solidarity with artists and creative types. So, I wish this person all the best and hope the deck finds a ready market.

I am not part of that market, however; CGI, computer-manipulated, or even non-digital photographic art are all anathema to me. The notable exception is collage (whether digital or pasted together by hand), which I like, because collages make no attempt to look "real" (whether real is described as hand-painted or photographic) and thus do not fall short of the mark. Most digitally-created or manipulated art seems to be playing at NOT looking like what it is, and it thus inevitably fails for me.

I would get the Illuminati when it comes out because it simulates collage, but never this deck, no matter how nice borderless cards laid out on a table look from a distance.

[garmonbozia]

I just noticed that this deck, along with two other new tarots, is available on GameCrafter. Three new decks since I checked yesterday.