Reply With QuoteAlso, thanks to everyone who entered. I was pleasantly surprised by the quality and depth of the entry field.
Phil
New Crayon Logo [Final 6]
[Edit - the contest is now over - see the winning result at www.newcrayon.com]
(New URL - final 6) www.philsteinmeyer.com/games/logo2
No decision by me yet, but here are the entries:
(old url with all 81) www.philsteinmeyer.com/games
Feel free to comment. Be kind - some entries are by folks who appear to be less experienced with this kind of thing. But there are also a lot of good entries as well - 81 entries total, at least half are reasonably solid (IMO), and probably at least a dozen that are real contenders (to me) for the prize. I will withhold my particular opinions (and a decision on the winner) for a few days, and in the meantime, I welcome feedback.
Quick notes: I rescaled stuff to be roughly equal size. In some cases where someone submitted 4 or 5 variants of the same logo, with only color variations or other minor differences, I trimmed it down to the one or two best versions. Other than that, AFAIK, all entries are shown here. In a few cases I included monochrome versions of the logos that were submitted along with the color version, but I'm not entirely consistent about this.
If any logos appear to be too closely similar to a major corporate logo, please let me know - I didn't spot anything that was a direct rip-off of another company, but obviously I'm not aware of all logos out there.
Feel free to discuss here - if you have private comments, you can send them to me at psteinmeyer A T charter D 0 T net.
Order on the page doesn't really have much meaning, except the page is loosely chronological (I added to the bottom as entries came in).
The last entry came in 11 minutes before the deadline. C'mon - he could have gone out for a cup of coffee and still made it in
Last edited by Phil Steinmeyer; 09-06-2005 at 06:22 PM.
Also, thanks to everyone who entered. I was pleasantly surprised by the quality and depth of the entry field.
Phil
12, 41 & 79 are the best I reckon
I like 14. It'll look good on splash screens and such.
I like #13, #14, #41 and #44. I think #16 is a terrible idea
Gabriel Gambetta
Google Zürich - Formerly Mystery Studio
really like
13, 14, 41 ,71
top 2 in my opinion are 13 and 14
29 - A good quality logo suitable for all kinds of games. Gives a good impression and makes YOU look good - one of the prime things you need from a decent logo. It is also trustworthy. It is the one I would choose for my company.
It looks like a brand to me. I'm fully aware it didn't take much work to make: but thats not the point of a good logo. When you choose, don't choose a logo that looked like it took the artist hours. Or reject one that uses well known fonts.
The perfect logo makes your company look great and helps people see you, not a faceless website. With so many high quality logos, I found it almost impossible to choose, but choose I have and it's 29.
Don't take my word as gospel as there's several others I think are real close contenders but I have to choose just one or it's not helpful IMHO.
I have to say.. You got way way better results than mike did for the r64 logo. A lot of these are quite good.
Steve Verreault - Twilight Games
http://www.twilightgames.com --- http://www.indiegamer.com
"Do you really think it is weakness that yields to temptation? I tell you that there are terrible temptations which it requires strength, strength and courage to yield to.” - Oscar Wilde
i think they had alot more to work with in this contest.
you can get an clearer image of what a logo for New Crayon should represent then you can for Retro 64
edit: also I forgot about 29, I like that one and it's variation as well, though 13 is still my favorite.
14 and 44 for me. 14 looks good so long as you don't want to put it into 2 colours.
I guess people must want a PSP more than an iPod.
There are a lot of good ones there. I think I like #21 the best. It's bright, bold, and simple. #29 & #44 are close seconds for me.
#1 all the way
#1 is the best one by far. If it wasn't, I wouldn't have submitted it.
Last edited by Omega; 08-18-2005 at 09:59 AM.
My favorite is #13. But the blue writing should be more realistic. Doesn't look 100% like from a crayon.
I also like #81's style. Reminds me of 50/60-ies ads. The good old time.
Mike wouldn't tell us what he wanted. He said to do it any style.Originally Posted by svero
Lots of good stuff in here!
19 - This is very cute and I like it, but it might be considered too subtle by some.
21 - Close to what I envisioned when I thought about trying this. I like it.
71 - I *really* like this. The letters have slightly unexpected style. The coloring quality is crayony, but still crisp and readable. It's playful but not too kiddie, or too not-kiddie. The colors are my kind of colors. Downside? You might need the artist's input to make your website match it.
Lots of the others are nice too, these are just the three that interest me the most. (Now reading other comments to see what others picked)
41 - This is very nice, but it looks like a retail box logo. Great if you're doing a box! Don't know if it would fit as well on a site.
Personally, i think 41 is the most profesional looking, but, i think it doesnt perfectly fit with friendlyness and playfullness as i belive you are seeking.
Number 81 looks professional too, looks also like a toy company, wich is bad because of the audience you are aiming, also, it doesnt look playfull either.
69, looks good, it has a game on it, has to do with the name, but it lacks on visual impact, wich is bad.
67 also looks pro, but its too serious.
40 looks a little weird...
Its true that this logos are really good.
PS By the way, i sent you a last one not so long ago.
41 is nice but it reminds me a lot of other game company logos. "dice" (did Battlefield 1942) and "Red Storm". Not exact matches, of course, but the vertical shape and the red/white theme really clouds things.
Is it possible that people are skipping over #1 just because of it's placement in the top-left-most corner of the screen? The reason I ask is because I scanned the whole page looking specifically for my logo and could not find it for about 2 minutes. Then, I accidentally looked at the top-left and saw it there. So, I assume that other people are also ignoring the logos in the corners of the image.
I also think my logo was made very small, and Games takes up half the space.
This is what the logo actually looks like, and the GAMES part is optional:
http://forums.indiegamer.com/attachm...tachmentid=150
alot of good submissions...
It's a top-down view of a crayon.
average person sees it as a circle, which may be why
One self-promotion post is funny. Repeated self-promotion is... odd. Especially as it was posted before (in the original thread, iirc) and everyone already saw it. Really. It's not invisible.
yeh, I was going to mention something in an earlier when you were trying to discredit the winner of the ipod contest, but I thought you may of been joking around... now I don't think you are.
I am posting my unbiased opinion. What's wrong with that? I don't make graphics for a living so how can it be self-promotion. Also, Phil's list of 4 logos that he liked in the Retro64 thread included one of mine, so of course I entered his contest as well. Fourthly, I'm not hiding that the #1 logo is mine. Fifthly, everybody is commenting on what they like about the winning logos, and I was wondering what they don't like about mine. I am more concerned with improving and taking over the world than with winning a contest. Finally, I was also surprised to learn in the last 5 minutes that people don't have the imagination I do, seeing it as a circle instead of a top-down view of a crayon. I think part of it is it being half the size of the other logos and in the top-left corner of the screen. It is really true that I could not find my logo even when I was looking for it because of its placement, and I haven't heard a comment yet that said people actually noticed #1.
It seems the concensus that people said they didn't think the circle represented a crayon, which is exactly the feedback I was looking for. Thanks!
Last edited by Omega; 08-18-2005 at 11:10 AM.
Okay, first I thought it was a blue bug that went kersplat on a windshield, but when it comes to making an identity it's not about how you see it with your imagination ( I just showed how I saw it with my imagination ) but how the general public is gonna see it. The shouldn't need to use their imagination or even think twice about it - you have to communicate the message instantly, because that's all the time you have in a fast paced world.
#69 is my favorite. It is the only one where an "identity" shines through. It conveys a certain position of the company. It's also the only one where a reference to games is made. It says "This is a new, creative game company". I couldn't "read" such a sentence in other logos.
#13 is fresh and crisp and has style. Originally it was my favorite and I still think it is one of the logos one can remember. I wish it would tell more about the game aspect.
#29 is very close to #13 I believe. It is a bit more "fine arts" but I like its simplicity. But again the game thing is missing.
#12 is a compact one. It feels strong and progressive, which might be good attributes to build a company identity upon. Only thing is that the "game" element is missing.
#67 is really simple, clever and nice, and it makes good use of the crayon concept, but it lacks the "game" thing (I hate to say this!).
I think a single crayon in the center and an orange button in the upper left would have turned it into something like an Atari joystick. (This is what # 24, 25 and 26 made me think of too.)
#19 looks creative and smart, but lacks the game idea.
#41 and 43 are very stylish and aesthetic. But I think the red crayons make them a bit unbalanced. In a way they rather distort than complete the design. Without crayons they would be much better.
#61 and 63 look very stylish and professional, but they are a touch too "big" or "serious", not like a company about games but more a company about fashion for men.
I would reserve a special place for #57 btw. I think as a logo it is very compact and well proportioned. Very good... It's just that it seems to be a logo for something else than a game company. Out of this context I would say it's my favorite.
Don't want to be unfair to others, I think many other designs are nice too, but the ones mentioned above were the most catchy ones IMHO. Seems like Phil will have a tough time to decide!
Last edited by cheese_phantom; 08-18-2005 at 11:48 AM.
Bon pour l'orient
By the way, isn't #39 spongebob squarepants? So are 70-73.
The shading in #14 is nice but it is nothing special without the shading.
I think #69 is the best logo for a company specializing in educational games. Considering that New Crayon sounds like a game company for 5 year olds, this logo is readable, and you get the feeling of games because everybody knows what tic-tac-toe is. It has an educational feel to it. As well, it is also the one that always attracts my attention for a few seconds whenever I scan the image. The blue-orange is nice. The only problem is that the sloppy lines give the feeling of a sloppy company. Maybe if the orange tic-tac-toe lines were straight and almost perfect, it would be the perfect logo. Also, maybe the lettering could be done in a crayon style, as well, like the text in logo #77.
However, the best logo for a generic games company that even a layman could understand and remember is #13. However, it loses the tie-in with the name "New Crayon", which really sounds like it is for educational products.
Since your true feeling is in EDUTAINMENT, according to this post on your web site, you should choose #69 and go with it, since that is your passion and not match 3 games.
Last edited by Omega; 08-18-2005 at 11:30 AM.
I think I'm the only one that thinks 80 is best. Love the retro square style.
Pete
13
21
71
57 - has personality, but yeah, feels unrelated
Omega: well... it's just not very good that's all, even knowing it's a top down view. Messy fonts, weird shading.. etc. Basically if noone comments then it's probably not worth commenting on, there's logic for ya
The fonts are not messy, it is just the compression and the small size of the picture. If I knew it was going to be only a few dozen pixels high and highly compressed I would have submitted a logo for that size without the Games, etc. I.e, different logos for different sizes. I believe I sent a Jpg, which was about half a computer screen in size, which was then resized to a very small size, which caused further loss, then finally saved as a jpg, causing 3 losses of quality and readability. The small size was the #4 loss of readability.
Posting Permissions
