Designing a logo, Feedback appreciated. Also a look into process behind my logos.

BologniusMaximus

Hallo all,

I was contacted about 2 months ago about a logo. Some small development group were looking for a logo, for a new project they were starting which would be in essence a modification for a silly game called: S.T.A.L.K.E.R - Call of Prypriat.
Now I hate(read: LOVE) this game and so could not say no. Also I enjoy designing so when given a chance to do something for a community I love, I couldn't resist.

They wanted a nice logo. I had to ask them about 50 questions to really understand what they were looking for. In the end this is what I got from them:
1. Think Autumn
2. Stick to the game's canon
3. Wormwood / The Red Forest
4. Roots, and many of them!

So in the following posts I will upload some pics of what I came up with... starting with the very first 10 minute logo that I made! (Don't cringe too much)
PLEASE NOTE: These are links from imgur.com, was not sure how else to upload it. So please correct me so I can fix it if needed.


This was the first logo, and I hated it... but wanted to try something different. I'm glad this went down the drain fast.


This was the second option


Then this is the one we agreed upon, it just looks better. So this was the base that I used.

BONUS:
I created this after doing a lot of research into the Ukranian Military and Chernobyl. I thought it looked good, but it was never meant to become anything more then a quick sketch. (Read: a slaptogetherthing)

Can you guess what the writing says?

Okay so later I will upload what I came up with next...

BologniusMaximus

After sending that last batch off and getting some ideas... I started hating the ideas they sent back. Which seems to happen to many designers.
So while I was working on something they would enjoy, I was also creating something I thought looked good to me:


This first image is the one we agreed upon for me to continue working with.
I had about 6 different examples that I sent, they all look more or less the same. I was getting lazy and losing my inspiration due to my own stubborn selfishness. But some how they were still happy with this one, and I am grateful for that actually.

And these are the two examples I worked on by myself, please keep in mind that the typefaces used here are always just place holders. I enjoy creating my own font styles more.




Tomorrow I will post the next batch! Yay :D

ghost

Very cool, my favorite in there is the second last one with the silhouette of a man. Stalker (the word) in that one is a bit tough to read, maybe bring the text to the front.

Anyways, some really nice work there.

BologniusMaximus

ghost said:

Very cool, my favorite in there is the second last one with the silhouette of a man. Stalker (the word) in that one is a bit tough to read, maybe bring the text to the front.

Thank you, I love that one as well. The font there did get changed to a lighter color later on... Maybe I will look into it again. Other wise, yeah I really wanted to keep the guy in the logo. It just makes it look a bit more like the type of game it's supposed to be.

Tuism

Heyyy, good start :)

Your options are WAY busy hey, at the end of the day, legibility is much more important than cleverness - well, at least in the visual weighting. I always like some cleverness to a logo, but it shouldn't be the FIRST thing you notice/read. A logo's first job is to be read as what it is. Only then can whoever is looking at it understand it.

Also, always make sure the logo works in black and white - that's a good test for logo legibility. Remove greys. Cos it's completely conceivable that sometimes you'll need the logo to be in one colour (often in partnerships). The second last one is impossible to read without changing out the red for white - which is probably a better idea than red on grey anyway.

The font for the STALKER name is only really legible because it stands alone - if you look at a quick google of it you'll see that they will never drown it with other things: https://www.google.co.za/search?q=stalker+logo&espv=210&es_sm=91&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=LXs9U5jwAs6Shge51YCgBg&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1372&bih=758

Which makes your current configurations a bit overkill.

The one I like the most would be the last one, it's the cleanest of the lot, though there still feels like there's a lot of unnecessary "noise" that impedes the reading of the logo.

Try to build things into the logo, but subtly, and mod it in instead of just plonking it in. Try to keep it minimal - again, your logo is your logo because of the logo - not the tree. The tree is not the logo. The logo is the logo (how zen :P)

Oh and try to make sure you can read it even when it's small. How small? Use your discretion. The smaller it can go while remaining legible the better anyway.

Have fun! Logo making is one of my favourite things in design *IF* something cool comes up. :P And it's a journey! I usually splash 100s of things across my illustrator file while exploring :)

BologniusMaximus

Thank you for all the feedback! I'm taking it all to heart, however please keep in mind that these are old logos. And they were done with a lot of feedback from the client on exactly what they wanted.
You designers out there know how it goes, we have one vision and the client is imagining something completely different. It's never easy to find common ground in this job.

So after getting feedback from him, I decided to start using my own assets. So first thing I did was draw my own roots. However the client wanted them to be part of the wormwood, so I decided to draw the typeface by hand as well.

And here's what I sent him a while later:


This was a tough one to get right.
I didn't quite like how wormwood seems hidden. So tried something different below.






In the end this is the one we ended up liking the most.

On my next post I will share the final bit of changes he wanted done.

Elyaradine

This post may not be useful to you in terms of this particular logo, because you and the client may have worked quite far on already and exhausted much of your budget, but perhaps it'll help you with future work, but:

That really does look busy! One of the core mantras that they hammered into me when I was studying graphic design was "Don't decorate: communicate!" It's not about making things pretty; it's about knowing what you need to communicate, figuring out what's important and what can be left out, and what you can keep cutting out until your core message is impeccably clear. When that's the logo you've got, you can then place it in all kinds of contexts, whether it's on websites or letterheads or billboards or in colour or in black and white, or mix it with other designs for different themes or whatever, and it'll still work.

And at that point, you've got a whole lot of justifications for your decisions, because each element has a purpose, and is part of an overall design, while also being grounded in strong art/design fundamentals. Every line, every element, has meaning, has a reason for being there. And because your justifications are strong, the client learns to trust you, because you're a professional, and you've been doing this for a while, or you've got a degree in it, or something, and they don't.

What sucks about it is that working with them that way means you're basically teaching them to be graphic designers so that they can learn to evaluate what you've given them with educated eyes and appreciate why they're actually hiring a professional to do it. But the bright side is that you're seldom making compromises, because you're not doing what either of you "would like just because you think it looks better". Communication is successful, or it isn't. Your justification adds up, or it doesn't. It's like solving a maths proof. And when you work like that, you also seldom end up showing people work that you're not happy with, because you don't have to compromise on the integrity of how you got there. It's still a creative medium, and there are different paths you can take, depending on the importance/priorities you place on the inputs to the problem, and there's certainly still some wiggle room for ways to interpret things, semiotics, symbolism, and the design might still be quite personal because you're not a machine, but the fundamental decision making -- what makes graphic design graphic design -- to me is uncompromising.

(I don't do graphic design any more though, because making games is much more satisfying to me, but the same kind of thinking often applies in terms of communicating things to the player, so it's great that it's applicable elsewhere, if under another guise.)

BologniusMaximus

Elyaradine said:

This post may not be useful to you in terms of this particular logo, because you and the client may have worked quite far on already and exhausted much of your budget, but perhaps it'll help you with future work, but:

That really does look busy! One of the core mantras that they hammered into me when I was studying graphic design was "Don't decorate: communicate!" It's not about making things pretty; it's about knowing what you need to communicate, figuring out what's important and what can be left out, and what you can keep cutting out until your core message is impeccably clear. When that's the logo you've got, you can then place it in all kinds of contexts, whether it's on websites or letterheads or billboards or in colour or in black and white, or mix it with other designs for different themes or whatever, and it'll still work.

And at that point, you've got a whole lot of justifications for your decisions, because each element has a purpose, and is part of an overall design, while also being grounded in strong art/design fundamentals. Every line, every element, has meaning, has a reason for being there. And because your justifications are strong, the client learns to trust you, because you're a professional, and you've been doing this for a while, or you've got a degree in it, or something, and they don't.

What sucks about it is that working with them that way means you're basically teaching them to be graphic designers so that they can learn to evaluate what you've given them with educated eyes and appreciate why they're actually hiring a professional to do it. But the bright side is that you're seldom making compromises, because you're not doing what either of you "would like just because you think it looks better". Communication is successful, or it isn't. Your justification adds up, or it doesn't. It's like solving a maths proof. And when you work like that, you also seldom end up showing people work that you're not happy with, because you don't have to compromise on the integrity of how you got there. It's still a creative medium, and there are different paths you can take, depending on the importance/priorities you place on the inputs to the problem, and there's certainly still some wiggle room for ways to interpret things, semiotics, symbolism, and the design might still be quite personal because you're not a machine, but the fundamental decision making -- what makes graphic design graphic design -- to me is uncompromising.

(I don't do graphic design any more though, because making games is much more satisfying to me, but the same kind of thinking often applies in terms of communicating things to the player, so it's great that it's applicable elsewhere, if under another guise.)

Thanks Elyaradine, I appreciate the honesty and feedback. I do actually have a much simpler logo which works great in black & white and suits the project perfectly. I'll get to it later in time and show you guys. Yes I know these logos are very busy. Every time I look at them I feel the same about it.

Maybe the next couple of images (when they are uploaded) will give you a better idea of what we finally came up with.

watson

Good work, I vote for the one with the silhouette of the guy, looks pro man, I am not digging the last four , the roots wormwood not working for me, the three logo's after the one the badge look good

BologniusMaximus

watson said:

Good work, I vote for the one with the silhouette of the guy, looks pro man, I am not digging the last four , the roots wormwood not working for me, the three logo's after the one the badge look good

Thank you kind internet person! I might just work on that one again a bit and make it look better. Possibly, maybe. On the other hand, I have no clue how to get those roots to look better.

Tuism

As @Elyaradine said, you only need to suggest roots instead of drowning the whole word out in roots. The same thing with the foresty stuff. The same thing with any element that you want to include in the logo - as long as the element says "root" it's don its job - it doesn't have to - nor should it - say roootrootrootrootrootrootwormwood. It shoud say WORMWOOD. root.

BologniusMaximus

Tuism said:

As @Elyaradine said, you only need to suggest roots instead of drowning the whole word out in roots. The same thing with the foresty stuff. The same thing with any element that you want to include in the logo - as long as the element says "root" it's don its job - it doesn't have to - nor should it - say roootrootrootrootrootrootwormwood. It shoud say WORMWOOD. root.

Thanks, will keep this in mind. Muchly appreciated.