ugly logo?

[JeanBaptiste]

"you can use 3 fonts on a logo"[/B]: erm, yes, but it's not a rule or a law, it's more of a guideline for beginner graphic designers to not use too many fonts at the same time (to steer them away from the Church bulletin board look). In my opinion 2 fonts is the max you should use (if you must).

Agree that 2 fonts should normally be max. I also underlined that they also only used 2! In your OP you argued that they didn't share any connection and accordingly I wanted to make a point that it is "ok" to use other fonts and in cases like this you should (to create a differentiation effect)

I thought that the OP was badly substantiated and as I'm becoming a bit bored with all the tiresome rant threads on this forum I thought this was another one. However your following posts was a lot more convincing and I've also come to agree more with you that it doesn't feel finished (or is it like others asked?). I'm not a big fan in general of the super-glossy game logo examples you provided us with and I enjoy more the overall artwork of CiV that has a more minimalistic and elegant attitude. But you can def. improve the new Gods&Kings addition.

I don't think this is an unnecessary topic to discuss and agree with you that details like this can enhance the overall impression of a game. But trashing on it like you did originally felt over proportioned.

It feels nice that we seem to be having a mature discussion about this!

 

[wannabewarlord]

Agreed, both with the OP and JeanBaptiste.

While I stated I find it nit-picky and pointless, I must revise this statement and say that it is actually refreshing for a change to do design critique instead of reading the same rants and snippish answers over and over. go go go designers!

 

[PieceOfMind]

The inevitable has arrived! DIY logos!
Here's mine (that I made just for fun):

Nice work!

 

[Camikaze]

To clarify my earlier comment; I liked the new logo until I saw sukritact's.

 

[snarzberry]

I agree that sukritact's logo rocks. I dig symmetry and I don't like the lop sided nature of the original and the sticking out bit on the end of the 'kings'. But it is just a logo and matters bollocks.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

That sword is not visible enough, Id dint' even notice at first look.

 

[OrsonM]

Sukritacts logo just makes the expansion seem much better than the original logo. Sure it needs a bit of polishing here and there, but however it just works better. Maybe it's the positioning respecting expansion pack logo conventions (by placing it below, where we expect to see it) or that the font works better with the current sans serif font.

 

[wannabewarlord]

But it is just a logo and matters bollocks.

And the collective mind of all designers in this world cries out in outrage. How dare you!

Not to go into a lengthy debate, but as OrsonM and others mentioned before, design, logotype and package do matter; I think people just don't pay them the necessary attention (whether that is willingly or subconsioucly). Otherwise graphic designers wouldn't do much good, right?

 

[Brichals]

Sukitracts one is great if not a little busy down the middle. With a bit of touching up it would be perfect e.g. make the sword a little less strong or a lighter grey so it doesn't mix with the letters.

Now back to the original, I like it. I'm not sure if Sid Meiers and Civilization 5 are in the same font. gods and Kings is in a different font. All 3 have different shading.

I would say Put Civ5 and Sid M in the same font, keep the Gods and Kings font separate. Keep Sid M in solid grey but apply the same shading on both Civ5 and G+K so they both appear to have the same depth. I think the logo is very good but maybe needs some touching up. As soon as your eye notices differences in shading etc it already starts to ruin the image imo.

 

[snarzberry]

And the collective mind of all designers in this world cries out in outrage. How dare you!

Not to go into a lengthy debate, but as OrsonM and others mentioned before, design, logotype and package do matter; I think people just don't pay them the necessary attention (whether that is willingly or subconsioucly). Otherwise graphic designers wouldn't do much good, right?

lol, okay I give. I'll adjust it to '..matters bollocks to me'. that's probably more accurate

It's not that I don't like beautiful things, I like a good logo as much as the next guy. But if the expansion rocks and the logo is average, well I'm just perfectly ok with that.

 

[The_J]

You should consider that the logo is not made for YOU .
The logos are mainly made for people who don't know anything about whatever is in there. If you walk through a shop, and look for a new game or a new book, and you have no idea for what you're searching, what do you do then? You take a look at the logos, and you'll take a closer look at whatever appeals to you.

Logos might not matter here. We're here the hardcore fan basis.
But it matters for everyone else (and everyone else is the majority of the people who buy the game).

 

[Louis XXIV]

That being said, in a brick and mortar store, it's the box as a whole that is designed to catch people's attention, not just a logo by itself.

 

[The_J]

With the rest of the thing being purely black, I don't think there's a real difference between the logo and the box for Civ5.

(which I think is overall not very eye catching, but that's another matter)

 

[Deggial]

I *really* don't think, the black is final!

 

[Louis XXIV]

Civ5 original had a similar black background teaser logo. Obviously, that's not what the final box looks like. This might be the logo we see after we get through the intro video, though.

 

[snarzberry]

You should consider that the logo is not made for YOU .
The logos are mainly made for people who don't know anything about whatever is in there. If you walk through a shop, and look for a new game or a new book, and you have no idea for what you're searching, what do you do then? You take a look at the logos, and you'll take a closer look at whatever appeals to you.

Logos might not matter here. We're here the hardcore fan basis.
But it matters for everyone else (and everyone else is the majority of the people who buy the game).

This is true, point conceded. The logo could be GODS AND KINGS and I'm still buying it on day one, like most of you other addicts

 

[forty2j]

I don't necessarily agree that the logo quality is indicative of the game quality. However, it does go a long way towards promoting confidence in the brand. And my first impression was the same as the OP's (although I quickly forgot about it when reading about the changes).

The inevitable has arrived! DIY logos!

You need to send a bill to 2K. Seriously, that's what the logo should be. It's on-theme, it's integrated with the original, and it even has its own shorthand - just as the big V is obviously Civ V, the big V with the sword/cross through it is obviously G&K.

 

[sukritact]

You need to send a bill to 2K. Seriously, that's what the logo should be. It's on-theme, it's integrated with the original, and it even has its own shorthand - just as the big V is obviously Civ V, the big V with the sword/cross through it is obviously G&K.

I'd be thrilled if they decided to adopt or even just use my custom logo as inspiration for a redesign (plus it'll be something nice to throw in my portfolio when I apply for university). Unfortunately neither seems likely and resources would probably be better spent somewhere else. (also, like OrsonM says, it still needs some polishing, particularly on the sword.)

Still, I'm really glad you like it so much!

 

[Deggial]

I suppose they won't use it - not even as inspiration, as you could impeach them for intellectual property violation.

By the way, as there is all the buzz about the logo:
Is it a matter of fact, that this is *really* the final logo and not only something, they tailored together to have a picture when presenting the add-on news? After all, it is very likely that the black backgroud is *not* final.

Is there anything known about an interim logo when the vanilla game was announced?
__

Edit: By the way, I like the logo, too. You nicely solved my objection about the "falling apart, if the subtitle is placed beneath the title because the big V" with your big ampersand.
My only concerns are, that there is a little bit much going on in the center part, now. But anyway it looks *much* nicer than the original one!

 

[forty2j]

Is it a matter of fact, that this is *really* the final logo and not only something, they tailored together to have a picture when presenting the add-on news? After all, it is very likely that the black backgroud is *not* final.

I don't think we can answer that affirmatively. However, generally speaking you don't start marketing a product until the branding and style guide are in place, and the logo would certainly be a big part of that. This thing has the feel of "hey, we should announce to the public that we're doing something... oh, crap, we don't have a logo yet! Johnson! I need a logo in half an hour!". But that's not the way it (usually) works.