Other graphics: The logo

It would be appropriate for the Phylomon game to have a special logo/typeface of its very own, to help with the 'branding'. Here's my first attempt:

Taking away the Photoshop magic, here's how that logo looks as solid black letterforms and as a set of outlines:


These letterforms can be used in other words. As an example, here's how my proposed alternate name, Phylogen, looks in those three styles:

I think the logo should look more... organic

The designs are kinda cool, very slick looking.

I'm going to agree this looks very "hard" and artificial and doesn't quite convey it's about plants and animals. Robots I'd believe, not animals.

I'm also concerned about how this would look at a smaller size. Keep in mind it has to look good at both a large size and at many smaller sizes. I'm not sure this would be easy to read when taken down to easy to fit on an internet button banner.

It would be great if we could use animals to spell out the words, or have a series of ants creating the "bridge" to make the word L, a leopard resting within the middle part of the P.

fenrislorsrai wrote:I'm going to agree this looks very "hard" and artificial and doesn't quite convey it's about plants and animals. Robots I'd believe, not animals.

[nods] I see your point; that logo looks the way it does because I was going for a sci-fi kind of 'feel', in large part because of the "seeding a blank planet" schtick I proposed for an overall theme. Something with a higher level of organicness might well be better...

I'm also concerned about how this would look at a smaller size. Keep in mind it has to look good at both a large size and at many smaller sizes. I'm not sure this would be easy to read when taken down to easy to fit on an internet button banner.

Yep; that's why I did the "solid black" and "outlines" versions, either of which should be better-able to cope with low-res presentation than is the "full Photoshop magick" version.

rawrchiteuthis wrote:It would be great if we could use animals to spell out the words, or have a series of ants creating the "bridge" to make the word L, a leopard resting within the middle part of the P.

Hmm. Not sure about that -- it seems to me that this idea would necessarily involve a bunch of fine details which would likely be lost at lower-resolution sizes.
Right now I am pondering the notion of 'assembling' the letterforms out of readily-identifiable parts of living things: For instance, the initial "P" could be two octopus-tentacles entwined together. The big question, for me, is making sure that everything remains readily recognizable at low resolutions.

Cubist wrote:

fenrislorsrai wrote:I'm going to agree this looks very "hard" and artificial and doesn't quite convey it's about plants and animals. Robots I'd believe, not animals.

[nods] I see your point; that logo looks the way it does because I was going for a sci-fi kind of 'feel', in large part because of the "seeding a blank planet" schtick I proposed for an overall theme. Something with a higher level of organicness might well be better...

I see your point. What about a logo with an artificial and an organic part? (Anything looking like the Eden Project would be cool ;-) )

Good news here. One of the forum folks here is an art director with a great looking portfolio. She'll be having a crack at logo design. Also, on general card look (which has a technical problem that we're trying to see if we can get around*).



*This being that having special "backgrounds" is problematic. The website pieces the cards via CSS positioning, so that you can look at the card on the web (looks nice), as well as print dynamically at highres. However, if you position images on top of each other, there's issues with the printing side of things. This, we've determined, we can get around by pdf generation scripts, but then that creates a much larger server strain, which could be problematic if the project gets really popular. Anyway, because of all of this, we're looking into a card "border" as oppose to a background (at least initially).

Oh and read this (https://phylomon.forumotion.net/phylomon-f1/what-s-in-a-name-t12.htm#131).

New name for project is potentially a simple "phylo"

How's this look?

davehwng wrote:How's this look?

Hmmm... don't really care for it. IMAO ( = In My Arrogant Opinion), this typeface/design is just too overtly juvenile -- children within a specific age-range may well love it to pieces, but I kinda suspect children outside that specific age-range will not go for it (and we'll be lucky if they 'only' don't care about it one way or another, as opposed to being repulsed from something that's blatantly "for little kids").

Cubist wrote:IMAO

lol

I actually like the design.

I LOVE it! Toning down the kiddie aspect a bit should be relatively easy by bringing down the size, and moving to a solid black or gray color will help.



The other thing is that a slight preference for branding towards the younger crowd might not be so bad, especially since the Science paper sort of tries to use Pokemon as the comparison model. This means that from a narrative point of view, working with the younger demographic (at least initially) is probably a smart thing (sorry for my PR lingo there).

Just for the record, the logo was put forward by Haley (https://phylomon.forumotion.net/phylomon-f1/ok-introduce-yourself-please-t1-15.htm#47). Initially, it was full length spelling "Phylomon."

I also like the phylo logo. Speaking as an elementary school teacher, the idea of getting young kids involved is something I'm really keen on. You would not believe how many children these days think going outside to a park or something like that to "play" is foreign idea.

I think the monocolor-style is a littel bit boring
We could put a picture in it:

If 6-year-olds think that Phylo(mon) is way-cool, that's great. If 13-year-olds dismiss Phylo as something that's "for little babies", now that may not be so great. All I'm sayin' is, we want to be careful about doing stuff which will entice one group of kids while, at the same time, repulsing other groups of kids.
It may be that we do want to appeal to one (or more) specific group of kids and not care about anybody else... but if we do that sort of thing, it should be a considered decision, not something that just kinda happened, yes?

If 6-year-olds think that Phylo(mon) is way-cool, that's great. If 13-year-olds dismiss Phylo as something that's "for little babies", now that may not be so great. All I'm sayin' is, we want to be careful about doing stuff which will entice one group of kids while, at the same time, repulsing other groups of kids.
It may be that we do want to appeal to one (or more) specific group of kids and not care about anybody else... but if we do that sort of thing, it should be a considered decision, not something that just kinda happened, yes?

Hmmm... that's a good point. We don't want to restrict ourselves too early in the game. Still, I'm wondering if we're making too big a deal over this artistic rendition of a font, but I think I have a good way to sort it out.

In terms of timing, it works out pretty well that my lab is hosting a high school student conference next Friday (link), and I'll make sure to get the opinion of the 100 or so teenagers there!

Cubist wrote:All I'm sayin' is, we want to be careful about doing stuff which will entice one group of kids while, at the same time, repulsing other groups of kids.

True.
Has anyone thought about how girls like collectible card games?

This is an interesting way of doing things. Negative space works well, and could easily stay readable.

Cute!!! Though... I'd suggest a simplified font with harder edges. Also, I think the layering of the letters is somewhat key.

If I remember, I'll throw together something when I get home.

(Edit: Sans-serif is also key! And no Helvetica, Arial, or Comic Sans because those are the equivalent of committing designicide.)

 naturalismus wrote:

Cubist wrote:All I'm sayin' is, we want to be careful about doing stuff which will entice one group of kids while, at the same time, repulsing other groups of kids.

True.
Has anyone thought about how girls like collectible card games?

I haven't. But now that you mention it, we definitely want to make sure that Phylo is good/attractive/interesting for females as well as males. No damn sense in blowing off 50% of the population, right?

davehwng wrote:

If 6-year-olds think that Phylo(mon) is way-cool, that's great. If 13-year-olds dismiss Phylo as something that's "for little babies", now that may not be so great. All I'm sayin' is, we want to be careful about doing stuff which will entice one group of kids while, at the same time, repulsing other groups of kids.
It may be that we do want to appeal to one (or more) specific group of kids and not care about anybody else... but if we do that sort of thing, it should be a considered decision, not something that just kinda happened, yes?

Hmmm... that's a good point. We don't want to restrict ourselves too early in the game. Still, I'm wondering if we're making too big a deal over this artistic rendition of a font, but I think I have a good way to sort it out.

"Too big a deal"? Disagreement. The logo will be Phylo's "public face" -- it will show up on the Phylo cards, in news media presentations about Phylo, on message board posts, etc etc etc. I believe it would be foolish not to worry about how the logo will appear in isolation, separate and distinct from any/every other part of the Phlyomon project. You never get a second chance to make a first impression, right?

In terms of timing, it works out pretty well that my lab is hosting a high school student conference next Friday (link), and I'll make sure to get the opinion of the 100 or so teenagers there!

Yay! I, for one, look forward to seeing how real kids will like Phylo.