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."

Comments

Does anybody care?

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

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.

Re:Does anybody care?

[kisrael]

I, for one, find logo design kind of interesting, I guess because of my interest in the visual qualities of things, and because they can often be a little bit of cleverness packed into a very small, flexible space.

I think a logo tends to be a smallish part of a brand, but a useful hook for it, and if it gets big enough you can start to have fun with it.

Re, your $20 jeans...the fact is how we dress, including brands, is the short story we tell ourselves to the outside world. Whether you like it or not you are sending a message "I am either poor or don't give a damn about this kind of issue".

Me, I tend to wear "Old Navy", which is kind of a non-brand brand, or at least it says "I care a bit about fashion and how I look, but not enough to want to spend a lot of money or time on it, and I like to keep things on the casual/youth-ish side."

The funny thing is, as much as you want to dismiss this kind of shallow, first-impression thinking, it's actually quite powerful and surprisingly accurate. I can't find the reference, but I remember a study where they had students give their gut reaction to a professor after a very short exposure, and then asked them how they felt at the end of the semester, and the results were very similar...and they could even make that "initial expousre" ridiculously small, like less than 30 seconds of reocorded video, and it didn't change the results much. (And whether its self-fufilling prophecy or not is almost immaterial)

So just because you're not into branding, and/or wish people weren't so damn "shallow", well, too bad, it's how the world works, especially one as crowded as this one.

80% of the market cares*

[2nd Post!]

*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.

Re:80% of the market cares*

[2nd Post!]

You're right, a logo and a brand are not interchangeable, but a logo is part of a brand, and definitely part of a product.

I also think the OP used the word logo interchangeably with brand because people don't tend to buy logos, though if they do like a company they may buy other products with that logo (Apple t-shirts, XBox mugs, whatever).