The Logo Poll
- Thread starter EvilDragon
- Start date
- Status
Bosbeetle
Terminally lost
I guess for the logo it will be the same as with the name... you'll get used to it. There was heavy opposition to the name but now it cooled down and allmost everybody got used to it.
All 4 logos are based on fire, which makes sense because the "pyr" in "Pyra" means "fire" in Greek, and because fire is the main link between Pyra and (Evil) Dragon (Box).
Logo number 2 somehow reminds me of the NVIDIA logo style:
I think something like proposal 4 or one of its variants would be more original.
Logo number 2 somehow reminds me of the NVIDIA logo style:
I think something like proposal 4 or one of its variants would be more original.
Bosbeetle
Terminally lost
I voted for 1 mainly because it is not segmented, it seems clean and clear and easily appliable.
You can get accostumed to everything. That's why I follow logic (that's why I'm against ABXY labelling). Also maybe you are accostumed to something but it produce something on you (for example n°4 is aggressive to me).
And we are already convinced but we have to think about new users because appearance, especially logo because it shall represent the device, matter.
Last edited by a moderator:
doragasu
Member
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2008
- Messages
- 325
Number 4 without a doubt. The fire looks also like a "d" and a "p", suiting perfectly "Dragonbox Pyra". It has symmetry (I usually prefer symmetric stuff) and is pretty elegant.
What I dislike about number 4 is the typography. I think Font for logo 2 is better.
What I dislike about number 4 is the typography. I think Font for logo 2 is better.
ible
professional vim user
my new profile pic is my two cents on the venerable option number 2.
I like the angles of the original 2, and wanted to play with some negative space and pointiness.
I like the angles of the original 2, and wanted to play with some negative space and pointiness.
Yep, mostly vote for the emblem, not the font type.
bzar
A Commando
It's similar in style, not form.
Even other people are saying it has a connection to fire, so I'm not getting your point here.
How about I say, like the imagery of fire. Happy now?
So,you want one over the other.
I like I said, I made the assumption base on that post and your obvious distaste of vertical logos on the Pyra shown on this thread.
Anyway, this is really making a mountain out of a molehill.
Link
Not sure where you getting this tribal sticker impression, vs all the other logos.
I guess you miss the (""). I was trying to express that all of them are vertical logos, so you
really can't use that as an argument for n°4 specifically.
Oh, please. That logo came from n°4.
Well, clearly "Two". Not even one letter from eye is in there.
Seriously tho, I agree.
Although...
It looks more like this. Link
How does it look more unique than number 4?
Last edited by a moderator:
God Ginrai
Godmaster
God Ginrai
Godmaster
IMHO, I'd prefer half of the earlier logo suggestions instead of #2. I don't understand why so many people like it. Although I do like the font for "Pyra" used below it.
-God Ginrai
-God Ginrai
comradekingu
Glowing ember
Saber:
There is no neccecity in that the creator of the logo will let you change anything.
Also, as both font and artwork lisence is missing, a vote is at best vague idea of preference.
Nr 4 is for example a known trademark that is in use.
Changing anything also invalidates the decisiveness of a vote, and the integrity of the logo.
To talk of unsubstantiated change to a for case of argument final design is not fair to the creator.
My nevrotic inner being hurts when you do that. Respect the work at least enough to throw up a scetch of your proposed change.
Also what happens with that, is your idea might be shared by many, or not, and you run into mutual exclusiveness where i for example like ambigrams, but
would rather have the 2 than 4, whereas others think it can change into entirelly different designs. Then you have to decipher what the bar means, who means what, which is a lossy process.
With design by commitee any holistic approach to making sense is lost.
Design by community can work, but this is not how.
ED:
If you go through management you get a watered down version of what could have been a good idea.
Changing the colour palette for example, makes nr 3 worthless based on what it was. Who does that?
The guy whos money is on the line, is just as good an answer as it is terribly bad. Think about it.
There werent any design guidelines that restricted that logo to not work, for that reason alone one can not impose
those afterwards, because then it becomes something else.
Similarly, why the material, lighting and tooling and so on is important, is because an idea of something,
is not implementation. Moreso there is enough info missing to invalidate having an idea about it.
I have trouble seeing how design becomes better by _not_ taking things into account.
Info is needed beforehand and throughout to design something great. However great it may be, there is always a way to ruin it by changing something.
Many great designers adhere to the principle that good design exist when there isnt something left to change.
Imagine if some sound engineer said "just record it by singing into a microphone" or a photographer had an idea
and was just given any camera to realize it. Thats not how it works.
Think of this, you may have a designer house, if its made by someone who doesnt understand structural integrity its a gamble where it could be all junk.
Having a builder that says "I can build anything" is just as inept as the designer saying "build a vision" or effectivly trying to do so.
One can create a vision, and that is a relay, you are cutting it short at the implementation part.
Implying something can be just "done" without any continual feedback loop, is why it fails, even if not, that is not design, its accidental.
Bringing a design together is drawing on established ideas and the great randomness, that process is in no way impartial to the physical realm, which imposes a known set of restrictions.
edit: I still dont understand why the details cant be laid on the table and one can account for the accidents by voting on the greater set of logos, with first and second choice alternatives.
However, 2 was acceptible to me, and to answer
god ginrai:
I think people like it because its not easy to change into something better, I know this because ive tried.
There is no neccecity in that the creator of the logo will let you change anything.
Also, as both font and artwork lisence is missing, a vote is at best vague idea of preference.
Nr 4 is for example a known trademark that is in use.
Changing anything also invalidates the decisiveness of a vote, and the integrity of the logo.
To talk of unsubstantiated change to a for case of argument final design is not fair to the creator.
My nevrotic inner being hurts when you do that. Respect the work at least enough to throw up a scetch of your proposed change.
Also what happens with that, is your idea might be shared by many, or not, and you run into mutual exclusiveness where i for example like ambigrams, but
would rather have the 2 than 4, whereas others think it can change into entirelly different designs. Then you have to decipher what the bar means, who means what, which is a lossy process.
With design by commitee any holistic approach to making sense is lost.
Design by community can work, but this is not how.
ED:
If you go through management you get a watered down version of what could have been a good idea.
Changing the colour palette for example, makes nr 3 worthless based on what it was. Who does that?
The guy whos money is on the line, is just as good an answer as it is terribly bad. Think about it.
There werent any design guidelines that restricted that logo to not work, for that reason alone one can not impose
those afterwards, because then it becomes something else.
Similarly, why the material, lighting and tooling and so on is important, is because an idea of something,
is not implementation. Moreso there is enough info missing to invalidate having an idea about it.
I have trouble seeing how design becomes better by _not_ taking things into account.
Info is needed beforehand and throughout to design something great. However great it may be, there is always a way to ruin it by changing something.
Many great designers adhere to the principle that good design exist when there isnt something left to change.
Imagine if some sound engineer said "just record it by singing into a microphone" or a photographer had an idea
and was just given any camera to realize it. Thats not how it works.
Think of this, you may have a designer house, if its made by someone who doesnt understand structural integrity its a gamble where it could be all junk.
Having a builder that says "I can build anything" is just as inept as the designer saying "build a vision" or effectivly trying to do so.
One can create a vision, and that is a relay, you are cutting it short at the implementation part.
Implying something can be just "done" without any continual feedback loop, is why it fails, even if not, that is not design, its accidental.
Bringing a design together is drawing on established ideas and the great randomness, that process is in no way impartial to the physical realm, which imposes a known set of restrictions.
edit: I still dont understand why the details cant be laid on the table and one can account for the accidents by voting on the greater set of logos, with first and second choice alternatives.
However, 2 was acceptible to me, and to answer
god ginrai:
I think people like it because its not easy to change into something better, I know this because ive tried.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
