Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/20/09 01:39 PM, RNNR wrote:

At 2/20/09 01:16 PM, MadCow wrote: it'd be easier to do if your website had a mascot, or symbol or w/e, like how ng has the tank. if it was just the thing that said "NEWGROUNDS - Everything, by Everyone." and had some lameass cube next to it, that's not really interesting or memorable.

Not to get all defensive at the slightest bit of critique, but isn't a 'lameass cube' a symbol either?
I could give a few logos used by well known companies who wouldn't be 'interesting' or 'memorable' based on what you just said.

Now I know I need to get something that 'pops' and really conveys what we're all about at a glance, but don't go around dissing things because you don't like it.

oh yeh? well fuck you pal all i ever try to do is be your friend and you're a total a**hole to me! i hope you and your shitty company die horribly because you are both equally homosexual.

At 2/20/09 05:46 PM, RNNR wrote:

At 2/20/09 05:29 PM, HandsomeJake wrote: The second one you made has been the best so far. You've got kind of a knack for this!

Truth be told, I really like that one as well. Nevertheless I'll just keep on doing this until I get bored, I love doing it so far.
Thanks!

These are all good designs so far, keep going until you find your one 'perfect'.

At 2/20/09 08:32 PM, MadCow wrote: oh yeh? well fuck you pal all i ever try to do is be your friend and you're a total a**hole to me! i hope you and your shitty company die horribly because you are both equally homosexual.

I like you already *wink*

Whatshisname's comment on making it 'airy' gave me an idea.

I have succesfully attempted legal text.

change the color of the megaphones handle (assuming that's a megaphone) It looks like you're partially covering up an O because it's the same color as the text right under it

At 2/21/09 03:41 PM, Captain-Ben wrote: change the color of the megaphones handle (assuming that's a megaphone) It looks like you're partially covering up an O because it's the same color as the text right under it

Nice catch Blanco Niño!

At 2/21/09 04:14 PM, RNNR wrote: Nice catch Blanco Niño!

im liking this alot, well done

At 2/20/09 09:03 AM, Shreddy wrote:

At 2/19/09 02:17 AM, Bolo wrote: Hey, how's about making it way fucking better?

hahahaha thats fucking shite bolo, the OP's one was far more original

I disagree; the Topical Poster was wholly convinced that a circular design for each individual letter made for a more pleasing aesthetic. In this belief he was fundamentally flawed, and it was quite obvious that he needed to improve it. Having suggested in no uncertain terms that an improvement was necessary, I then set out to show him that in two minutes I could create something that was slightly better than his, at that time, formulaic and frankly uninteresting attempt at creating a recognizable and unique logo, as it were. I did so, and the text looked better for one reason, which he has since taken to heart.

He has indeed made a noticeable improvement in his design, which is commendable. He has recognized that modifying each individual letter of the design is what makes a logo terrible and overwrought, which was the entire point of my post. Such designs overemphasize and distract, whereas a good logo is simplistic and readable. It is for this reason that his most recent few designs have shown a quite obviously superior use of color and space, not to mention text.

He has taken my commentary to heart, and it was because I phrased it abrasively. Tres bien, Topical poster.

At 2/21/09 04:56 PM, Bolo wrote: I disagree; the Topical Poster was wholly convinced that a circular design for each individual letter made for a more pleasing aesthetic.

I was? I just did something and threw it out there. If I was so 'convinced' of myself I would've just gone with the logo I posted and leave it at that. I wouldn't have posted it up here actually questioning whether it was a good logo or not.

if I was so 'sure of it' I wouldn't have kept exploring designs, much less posted any of them.

:In this belief he was fundamentally flawed, and it was quite obvious that he needed to improve it. Having suggested in no uncertain terms that an improvement was necessary, I then set out to show him that in two minutes I could create something that was slightly better than his, at that time, formulaic and frankly uninteresting attempt at creating a recognizable and unique logo, as it were. I did so, and the text looked better for one reason, which he has since taken to heart.

He has indeed made a noticeable improvement in his design, which is commendable. He has recognized that modifying each individual letter of the design is what makes a logo terrible and overwrought, which was the entire point of my post. Such designs overemphasize and distract, whereas a good logo is simplistic and readable. It is for this reason that his most recent few designs have shown a quite obviously superior use of color and space, not to mention text.

He has taken my commentary to heart, and it was because I phrased it abrasively. Tres bien, Topical poster.

On the contrary, your comment was wholly unuseful and more of a nuisance, since I was looking for actual constructive critique rather than 'Hey look, I can do it WAAAAYYYY better.'
My improvement came from everywhere but you.

I see you're still riding that high horse, how's that working out for you?

At 2/21/09 05:31 PM, RNNR wrote: I was? I just did something and threw it out there. If I was so 'convinced' of myself I would've just gone with the logo I posted and leave it at that. I wouldn't have posted it up here actually questioning whether it was a good logo or not.

You would not have posted a logo if you were not convinced that it fit the bill in some capacity. It was assumed at the outset that this image was to be the launching point, not a dead end. Regardless of whether it was only affirmation and not critique which you sought (and I do believe that initially it was), you have really turned a deplorable attempt into something worth displaying on a wider scale.

if I was so 'sure of it' I wouldn't have kept exploring designs, much less posted any of them.

You began to explore the designs when it was revealed by commentary that your original was not up to snuff, and was thusly eviscerated. Your subsequent designs, as I have already mentioned, show a great deal of improvement.

On the contrary, your comment was wholly unuseful and more of a nuisance, since I was looking for actual constructive critique rather than 'Hey look, I can do it WAAAAYYYY better.'

Did you neglect to read the post which you quoted with such reckless abandon -- indicating a direct reply to the content therein?

In that particular post, I explained what my purpose was in the image-bearing post. I, per my normal behavior on this forum, made an indirect reference to your design, instead of a blatant and overt critique, and offered a single specific design directive that was quite clearly expressed. This directive was, as already explained, in accordance with the text of your original design, which was totally unreadable, and which was distracting to an extreme degree.

You'll notice that in my image, the individual letters of the font are not distracting, because they are utilitarian; they serve a purpose, and that purpose is to inform a viewer of the product or service being sold, in this case the "Open Game Development" brand. The paint splatter in the background is irrelevant, as it exists in lieu of a background, and serves only as a backdrop to the text. It is evident that the text is the focus of the image, and it was to this text that attention was intended to be diverted.

You have taken this design directive of simplicity and readability of text to heart, and your most recent ideas have been a great improvement over the initial image for that reason.

In my image post, I did NOT claim, as you assert that "I can do it WAAAAYYYY better." If you'd read the text itself, you would have realized that I said, and I specifically quote, "Hey, how's about making it way fucking better?" I was giving YOU the directive to make it better, not claiming that I myself could. This is called advice, and it would've and in fact did behoove you to follow it upon receiving it.

My improvement came from everywhere but you.

You may believe that if you desire, but regardless of your perceptions, the fact remains that your later designs follow to the letter the advice which I provided to you free of charge, but with an ever-so-slightly-abrasive aftertaste.

I see you're still riding that high horse, how's that working out for you?

Speaking as one who has done nothing but give advice, and see it followed, I'd say that I am not in the least bit needful of riding upon such a stallion as that; to do so would indicate an indignation which I do not feel towards any person within the confines of this thread.

Look not a gift horse in the mouth, my friend. Carry on.

At 2/21/09 04:56 PM, Bolo wrote:

loads of stuff

there is absolutely no way im going to waste my time reading that

Bolo, you're coming off as presumptious, arrogant, pretentious and self-absorbed, especially with the fancy words and all. I'd like it if you would drop the attitude or leave.

At 2/21/09 06:38 PM, RNNR wrote: Bolo, you're coming off as presumptious, arrogant, pretentious and self-absorbed, especially with the fancy words and all. I'd like it if you would drop the attitude or leave.

I'm going to address all of these points with due explanation, as is tradition.

Presumptuous
1. full of, characterized by, or showing presumption or readiness to presume in conduct or thought.
2. unwarrantedly or impertinently bold; forward.

If by this statement you mean to suggest that I have unnaturally projected some sort of supposition that was not borne out clear as a mountain stream by the evidence and words in this very thread, then I implore you to explain the exact offense of which I am guilty.

Arrogant
1. making claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights; overbearingly assuming; insolently proud: an arrogant public official.

Despite having already explained that I harbor no ill will or condescension towards you or your advocates, I am still held accountable for these transgressions, in the incorrect assumption that I committed them? By most accounts, the throwing of stones at the innocent, whilst residing in a house of glass, constitutes an arrogance unmatched.

Pretentious
1. full of pretense or pretension.
2. characterized by assumption of dignity or importance.

In calmly explaining and disseminating advice to you and others in the way already described, with the use of the English language as the platform from which to do it, I am indeed guilty of pretense -- guilty of presupposing that my listeners are able to understand me. I give them all the benefit of the doubt, and I believe that the have the capacity to understand florid and occasionally archaic vocabulary, If they would perhaps try.

Self-absorbed
1. preoccupied with one's own thoughts, interests, etc.

For rendering unto others the advice they apparently seek, I am found to be pre-occupied with myself? For helping others and providing fairly accurate (albeit slightly obscure) critique, I am found to be so deeply concerned with my own affairs that I am completely unable to provide any service which does not directly benefit myself, despite having just done so?

I do think that there must have been a bit of a miscommunication whereby one or more statements of mine have been misconstrued and wrongly interpreted. I implore you to read what has already been said, and to understand that I do not hate nor do I dislike you. It was in the spirit of mutual cooperation and the interest of the common good that I provided my critique, which has been taken to heart, and has been adapted sufficiently to the work in question.

Take no offense, because none has been cast.

Drop the attitude, or leave.

At 2/21/09 06:08 PM, Bolo wrote: In my image post, I did NOT claim, as you assert that "I can do it WAAAAYYYY better." If you'd read the text itself, you would have realized that I said, and I specifically quote, "Hey, how's about making it way fucking better?" I was giving YOU the directive to make it better, not claiming that I myself could. This is called advice, and it would've and in fact did behoove you to follow it upon receiving it.

lol fail bolo, that wasnt advice that was trying to show off, helping would be listing possiblities or criticizing the logo constructivly. and that paragraph right there is a fancy coat for your ego to hide behind.

"Hey, how's about making it way fucking better?" that text linked to your picture is perfect proof for RNNR that you did claim that yours is better not proof for you.

anyway... RNNR

You could sketch down all your ideas that come to mind when you think of the word 'open'. that might help you come up with some logo's.

good luck

At 2/21/09 07:25 PM, RNNR wrote: Drop the attitude, or leave.

This is not a constructive addition to the conversation. I do wish you would participate. Your indignation is to me a strange response when I have done nothing but assist you, and you have done nothing but continue to perpetuate a false belief that my harshness was meant as a condemnation of your existence, rather than the critique which you quite clearly requested.

At 2/21/09 07:33 PM, Lemmiwinks91 wrote:

At 2/21/09 06:08 PM, Bolo wrote: In my image post, I did NOT claim, as you assert that "I can do it WAAAAYYYY better." If you'd read the text itself, you would have realized that I said, and I specifically quote, "Hey, how's about making it way fucking better?" I was giving YOU the directive to make it better, not claiming that I myself could. This is called advice, and it would've and in fact did behoove you to follow it upon receiving it.

lol fail bolo, that wasnt advice that was trying to show off, helping would be listing possiblities or criticizing the logo constructivly. and that paragraph right there is a fancy coat for your ego to hide behind.

Did I not already explain it multiple times? Perhaps a grammar lesson will be necessary to explain. When one writes the following words:

"Hey, how's about making it way fucking better?"

"How's" is an address to a specific audience, a suggestion, as it were. There is no POSSIBLE WAY that the informal "How's" could ever be interpreted as "I personally am capable of," and to suggest as such is to butcher the language in which you profess a proficiency.

It is exactly as has already been stated; a preface to the advice which proceeded it, in the form of a picture, as is the way I present critique, evidenced by many threads which I have made over the years, including the famous Predictable Topics thread. It simply a medium by which social critique is presented, a concept that should be quite surely familiar to frequenters of a forum dedicated entirely to artwork and the dissection thereof.

"Hey, how's about making it way fucking better?" that text linked to your picture is perfect proof for RNNR that you did claim that yours is better not proof for you.

It is proof that I told RNNR to improve his picture using the devices indicated, proof that I gave him advice, using the slang interrogative address of "How's," and not the imaginary words which you are obsessed with pinning on my unscathed record.

Answer me this, Lemmiwinks91: If I was making a statement of personal competency, would I have affixed a question mark to the end of the sentence, as if I were unsure of my own abilities? The obvious answer to this question is no, I would not have, because if my purpose were to showcase my own abilities, than my purpose would have been defeated by uncertainty. Those who read the entire post correctly have understood that my question was posed as a suggestion, and that the question mark indicates the ability of the Topical Poster to either accept or reject my suggestions at his own discretion.

As has already been explained, the picture itself serves as the critique, showing the way that text should be displayed in stark contrast to his earliest designs, and the text serves as an interrogative introduction, inviting RNNR to take my advice or leave it. The use of "fucking" indicates that it would be at his own detriment to ignore the advice. And the fact that he took my advice bears out the credibility of the wntire assessment

Please take the time to understand by going through the multitude of paragraphs, before posting and causing me to repeat any more of what's already been said. I am happy to discuss this topic, and the very nature of my criticism, but I do wish more attention would be paid to what I've thusfar made clear.

bolo, you've been here 4 years, shouldn't you be better than this? If you've got nothing constructive to say about any art work on this forum, don't bother posting at all.

we don't like a whole page of back and forth arguing about random bs. We want to see art that's worth criticizing/admiring.

At 2/21/09 08:16 PM, Fleshlight wrote: bolo, you've been here 4 years, shouldn't you be better than this? If you've got nothing constructive to say about any art work on this forum, don't bother posting at all.

we don't like a whole page of back and forth arguing about random bs. We want to see art that's worth criticizing/admiring.

I agree with you that art is what this forum was intended to showcase, but equally important to those who create the art is the critique thereof. The fact that my replies have been substantive is not a matter for vilification, but rather for appreciation, because few others would be willing to dedicate so much time to the explanation of the art in question.

My critique has been thusly indicated, and I don't understand why exactly I've been persecuted in such a disingenuous manner for putting it forth as was requested and even mandated by the Topical Post.

I have responded when my critiques have been questioned, and responded at great length and in great detail. Please do not proceed to question the "better" nature of my judgment, when I am simply explaining the processes by which the conclusions I came to had been reached; already, I am at the point of an angry sword for merely jumping through loopholes when requested by the artist, and the other contributors to this thread.

Being here for four years has allowed me the ability to construct a relevant point, and in detail, so that all might be able to benefit from the words which I express. If that is a demon which must be cast out of paradise, then something must be fundamentally wrong with the society which defines it so.

RNNR's art has tangibly improved, which impresses me, and I simply wanted him to know that I'm glad he took the advice offered, whether or not it was my own, because it's made him a better artist as a result. That is the singular and central purpose of this forum, when you boil away everything else; to make a better artist out of one that's already pretty good.

Bolo, if it makes you any happier, fine:

Your initial well phrased, super constructive and indeed very helpful feedback had me known right from the start that you are indeed the most awesome person on the planet and should be treated as such regardless of your perceived behaviour.
Us mere mortals who act normal in a most likely very boring and unsophisticated manner, being polite while honest for instance, can't begin to understand the inner workings of your mind.
Especially with words which go beyond our comprehension. No normal being could ever attain such a hold of the english vocabulary!
Your mere presence here inspired me to strive for a level akin to your own, even though I'm well aware that a mere human being like myself can't hope to reach that.

There. Now I ask of you one more time: drop it or take your bloated ego and leave. I've had enough of this bullshit derailing this topic.

Back on-topic:

At 2/22/09 09:05 AM, ShitBits wrote: I think the 'g' looks like more of a 'q' to be honest.

I see what you mean. It's the font I reckon, the actual 'q' looks like an 'o' with a line vertically through the lower bit.
Bah, hard to explain so I'll just show it, along with my latest effort.
That's the Q in the lower left.

I don't know. I'm still liking the one on with the cube at the bottom of the first page.

I think there is some good ideas, and I like the colours. But I still think that your logos don't link very well with the company name since all of your symbols (I think) have been closed shapes. I am a little short on better ideas right now, but something "open" would make more sence to me.

I quite like those logos. However, I'm afraid they would look bad on a different background.

I suggest that you either put a "box" around it to keep the white, or put a white (or perhaps blue) outline on the letters.

At 2/22/09 11:48 AM, Lundsfryd wrote: I think there is some good ideas, and I like the colours. But I still think that your logos don't link very well with the company name since all of your symbols (I think) have been closed shapes. I am a little short on better ideas right now, but something "open" would make more sence to me.

Huh, good point.

At 2/22/09 12:13 PM, Dalario wrote: I quite like those logos. However, I'm afraid they would look bad on a different background.

I suggest that you either put a "box" around it to keep the white, or put a white (or perhaps blue) outline on the letters.

The intent is to have white as a background as much as possible. Your're very right though and it's in the back of my head.

At 2/22/09 08:57 AM, RNNR wrote: Bolo, if it makes you any happier, fine:

Your initial well phrased, super constructive and indeed very helpful feedback had me known right from the start that you are indeed the most awesome person on the planet and should be treated as such regardless of your perceived behaviour.
Us mere mortals who act normal in a most likely very boring and unsophisticated manner, being polite while honest for instance, can't begin to understand the inner workings of your mind.
Especially with words which go beyond our comprehension. No normal being could ever attain such a hold of the english vocabulary!
Your mere presence here inspired me to strive for a level akin to your own, even though I'm well aware that a mere human being like myself can't hope to reach that.

There. Now I ask of you one more time: drop it or take your bloated ego and leave. I've had enough of this bullshit derailing this topic.

Back on-topic:

This is the best i think.
iI think you should try merging the O for OPEN, and the G for GAMES together to set the GAMES text scrolling downwards, and fit it all inside a box.
That might look good :D

At 2/22/09 12:57 PM, RNNR wrote:

At 2/22/09 11:48 AM, Lundsfryd wrote: I think there is some good ideas, and I like the colours. But I still think that your logos don't link very well with the company name since all of your symbols (I think) have been closed shapes. I am a little short on better ideas right now, but something "open" would make more sence to me.

Huh, good point.

This one I like more than the others. The general trend I see is symbol with words, which seems rather cliche. Try to incorporate the words in the symbol, or vice versa.

At 2/22/09 03:07 PM, LaughingTomato wrote: This one I like more than the others. The general trend I see is symbol with words, which seems rather cliche. Try to incorporate the words in the symbol, or vice versa.

Good point there, I'll get to it.
School has started once more though so I don't have all the time to spare any more. Nevertheless I'll keep at it.

Damn man, seven people's not much, but you, your designs are insane. Give it a sleek reflection of "Games", and the white background is a bit dull, but you decide that after you've found the design that appeals to many people.

Another thing is experimenting with colors. Certain colors appeal to people better than others. With the sleek reflection, it might not look so bad, but it all depends.

At 2/23/09 07:02 PM, ChocEliteBar wrote: Damn man, seven people's not much, but you, your designs are insane. Give it a sleek reflection of "Games", and the white background is a bit dull, but you decide that after you've found the design that appeals to many people.

Another thing is experimenting with colors. Certain colors appeal to people better than others. With the sleek reflection, it might not look so bad, but it all depends.

It's enough, for now... Thanks a lot there dude.
I'm getting the feeling I've worn this route out too much. I'll go talk with one of the graphic teachers over at school, see if they have any input. I need a new hook to explore creatively I feel.
Of course any input here is much appreciated =)