Slashdot Mirror
The Art of the Game Logo
Making game logos is an art form, and Hamagami/Carroll is behind many of the most recognizable ones on the shelf today. Gamasutra takes a look at what it takes to craft iconic imagery, talking to company co-founder Justin Carroll. From the article: "Typically, we're brought in fairly early in the process, as soon as they start building marketing plans, somewhere about halfway through, we're brought in and we start working on the packaging. Depending on the company we're working with, we're also working on the in-store display, we're working on sell sheets, materials for E3, and different parts of the brand identity."
With the number of sequels being put out these days, how much new work can these guys really get anymore?
You can't make me believe that they would get paid the same for branding and packaging on a new title versus putting a "2" and a sub-title on a pre-existing logo.
x = x + ++x;
I mean, from corporate logos to game logos, do we really care about them?
Graphic design in itself is useful for helping to differentiate products from one another, good box art will make the eyes drift to your game rather then a slew of similar games sitting on the shelf, but are we fixated on which game has a better logo?
I mean, if I bought Quake 4 because it had that highly noticable logo, wouldn't I still be dissapointed in the lack of innovation and originality in that franchise? Same goes for the Doom3 game.
Logos really only affect children and teens as they strive to be like everyone else, wearing name-brand jeans and Nike shirts with the checkmark because they seem to think these products are necessary and improve their social status. In reality, I am happy buying a pair of $20 off band jeans from Walmart instead of the Tommy Hillfiger's for $80 at some downtown boutique. When you compare them, they are the same thing, same stitching and materials with only a few subtle differences not including the logo.
Most games focused on logos are the same, largely similar with nothing really making them stand out except some box art the publisher probably spent more time and money on then the game itself. Put Civ 4 in a paper bag and I would have still rushed out and buy it, same with HL2 (which I actually didn't buy a physical copy of, just ordered it online through Steam). If the game is good, people will ask for it by name. Put it in a paper bag and save yourself some money rather then spending millions for some "designer logo artwork". Save logos for those losers paying 400% markup for a name-brand of clothing that comes out of the same Chinese factory as the $20 no-name brand.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Not to mention that logos have so many unwritten rules to follow: have to look good big and small, have to print in B&W well, have to be easily recognized, cannot offend a foreign culture, etc...
To tell you the truth, I'm considering just using a damn circle. :-p
- I voted for Nintendo and against Bush
I would argue that a good identity doesn't stand out like a bad one does. A good logo, one thats is well-designed and appropriate for its application just feels right. It looks natural within it's environment. The only people who will really appreciate it are designers.
:-o
A poorly designed logo, on the other hand, stands out like a sore thumb. At best, it is completely inappropriate for its application, at worst, it looks like an atrocity. There are countless examples of awful logos from the dot-com era, when everyone and their grandmother had those stupid swoops in their logos.
That said I don't really consider game titles logos. If you really want to stretch the concept of what is a logo, they qualify, but I don't see them as logos any more than the title of a comic book is a logo. Certainly there are logotypes that contain no graphical element, like Sony or Microsoft, to point out some of the more obvious examples. However, I see these simple as titles, done in an ornate style that reflects the theme of the game.
This company did a good job of recapturing the theme of the previous games from these respective developers. Although, it's something that any sensible design company would have done. I don't think game packaging is particularly creative. Everything I've seen follows the same basic template while trying to be as flash as possible. However, in the sea of crap I see on the shelves nothing stands out. I have a hard time finding anything because all the game art melds together in one giant blur of color. It's even worse with console games considering that they're forced to stuff additional elements on the front of their packages. It also doesn't help that retailers don't bother to keep anything neat and organized.
I think packaging for applications tend to be a lot more creative than game packaging, if you discount the illustrations which don't necessarily qualify as an integral part of the design since the designers are just using art provided by the client. In most commercial applications, however, the designers are responsible for producing the artwork and photography.
On another note, I notice that guy is working 14 hour days. But thats the design world for you; designers are some of the most over-worked, under-appreciated people you'll ever meet in the corporate world. There's no reason why designers are given such ridiculous deadlines, but with desktop publishing you've got your average idiot thinking they understand design. I've dealt with people that think it takes 15 minutes to lay out a complicated design because they know how to paste text into word and insert a photograph. And then they go and second guess everything I design even though they wouldn't know good design if it punched them in the face. The worst is when someone in sales tries to sound like a designer. Even worse is when you've got a boss who's 20 years out of date trying to cram his design style down your throat.
If only people were this demanding with auto mechanics, construction workers and politicians the world would be a much better place. I got carried away with my rant there...
*Number made up, of course.
The problem with your "logic" is that it isn't. It's your rationale for not buying logoed products, but it isn't actually logic.
The important question is, "Is a logoed product the same as an un-logoed product?"
The answer is, "Only if the unlogoed product is identical to a logoed product".
So the true logic involved is to actually determine that the products are identical. You spent how much gas, how much time, and how many pairs of jeans to compare the Tommy Hillfiger jeans to the Walmart jeans? Instead of paying $60, you actually have to do the work to compare, and for some people that isn't worth it.
Then there is brand reputation. Buying your kid an Apple iPod, with the Apple logo, vs the knockoff Chinese brand with the pear logo, is not an exercise in buying reasonable substitutes, as you imply. It's about product quality, trust, and reliability.
Of course there is also the people who buy for 'lifestyle recognition'. They are imitating other people who set the image. I buy an iPod, a Mazda3, or a London Fog because it's the best, while my peers and friends buy iPods because I buy iPods, drive a Mazda3, wear a London Fog, whatever. They don't have the skills, the resources, the time, or the energy to do their own footwork, so they let me do it instead.
GPL Deconstructed
The story behind Quarantine was that a chemical added to a city's water supply to make people docile had backfired due to bacteria already present in the reservoir. The city was now full of aggressive psychopaths, and was sealed off in order to "burn itself out".
You play a taxi driver in the quarantined city, splitting your time between carrying fare-paying passengers, running over pedestrians, launching missiles, and carving up other vehicles with the giant sawblade on your front bumper.
The logo was a stylized biohazard logo, with an inner circle to resemble a steering wheel, and a little asymmetric tail for the letter "Q". Find the logo at 3dgamers.
It IS possible that SOME people take pride in their work and see creating the logo as another form of expression. Just look at the logo for Double Fine, for example. Do you really think THAT went through a focus group? Some people like creating interesting shapes. Some people like putting a brand on their work, especially an appealing brand. Some people like their work to look cool.
I'm not saying that there isn't focus-grouping and market-grabbing done. I'm just saying that it isn't ALL about putting on airs. There are artists out there, if you'd care to look.
Has anyone here seen the new logo for Bandai/Namco.
"I am a kernel in the linux army"
I think that a company logo is more important than a product logo, but either does offer a form of recognition. Taking a quick browse through the local game shop, several of the games have rather decorative boxes, and related products don't always have similar boxings. Notice - say - the halflife logo on a new box might catch my attention a little faster were the sequel to come out, but then overally I'd probably end up noticing/buying it anyhow, but earlier sales are usually the higher priced.
And some thing just create their own lines. ID's logo was at one time imfamous for some damn fun games, and having a game created with the HL2 engine (and having HL branding) would at least to me indicate that it had a few good things going for it (physics and graphics-wise)... whether it filled in the rest would be for me to decide based on reading the box and perhaps checking up on it online etc.