Alright. It's time again for another "Matt's Review" on yet another, deck that... well let's just say, this thing needs help. Like, no-joke-level help...Here we go...
Right off the bat, you don't need Photoshop or ImageReady to tell that the back design fails the radial symmetry test. It failed the test pretty hard core too:
I've taken some time to piece apart the deck box's design and branding approach:
1. Not enough spacing between focal points and box folding points:
- Left margin of "Poker Size".
- Right margin of "Limited Edition".
- Left and right margins of "Mystic" logo, star bursts and "Techno Edition" on box front.
- Micro text and company branding on box bottom.
2. Various areas where typography is not aligned with similar elements:
- "Made in USA" is not vertically centered or on the same line as "Air Cushion Finish".
- "United States Playing Card Company" is not vertically aligned or provided room for breathing.
3. Three fonts are being used in the design of the box. One for "Mystic" and generic copy, one for the Gaff, and an additional font for the "Techno Edition". I didn't count the 4th since it's part of the company's "brand" (if that's what could be considered a brand, anyhow)
4. The "xXx" imagery does not follow any kind of symmetry, not vertically, nor horizonatally
5. The deck is branded as two different types of editions, one says "Limited" the other says "Techno" which is it?
6. The deck name branding is terribly off balance and leans heavily to the left since only one capital letter was used. No additional typography was performed upon the letters to make them unique from simply entering the text into a text layer in Photoshop.
7. The legibility of the font being used for the body-copy on the back has poor distance visibility and is also low contrast. Too much happening behind the text, and the text is too close to being the same color as the surrounding area.
General Personal Qualms with the design:
1. The "Crosshatch 4" brush from the "Assorted Brushes" Photoshop brush group was used as a primary graphic element. A brush is just as bad, if not worse than using clip art for a primary design feature.
2. The color is terrible and not at all printable. The nearest matching swatch is 51% less saturated and 37% less bright. The color turns out to be a grayish-purple. The color is also not exactly what I would call "unisex".
3. The odd pixel-art approach to design prototyping is never a good idea since what we see on screen is less than a third of the number of pixels that USPCC puts into 1 inch of paper.
With that being said, this deck does not even receive a grade in my book. I will continue to believe this was an "Ecstacy-laced beer induced MS Paint design session while thinking about playing cards". Just does not fly.
