[QUOTE=pentium;48593592]Congrats google, your hipsters and infestation of numb-minded 25-30somethings who think they know what the future will be have made you a joke. Microsoft is already sending you a cake.
First it was Youtube, then it was Chrome. Now your logo looks like it was done by a pussy who didn't want to see what other fonts he had loaded.[/QUOTE]
how can someone possibly get this mad at a logo change
[QUOTE=Snickerdoodle;48593755]It's Pentium. He's always reactionary about anything new.[/QUOTE]
I feel like Pentium is trying so hard to hang on but can't keep up with the times, and since he doesn't want to admit personal failings he complains about every instance of change - even something as meaningless as Google's logo losing serifs. (How does losing serifs cater to hipsters and indicate a loss of personal integrity, btw?) It's ridiculous and hilarious.
At least it's not helvetica.
I really like their new logo, maybe its not quite right for Google but I like it. Then again, I really like that style of font. One of my favourite fonts is the one garry uses (used?) for the gmod logo which this reminds me of.
Here's my two cents:
Logos have been trending towards retro for a while now, but there is a charm that old logos had that they miss, and its hard to exactly pinpoint. Old logos were minimalist most of the time, but retained a few interesting yet memorable differentiation. The old Google logo in itself was a bit like this, with the g at the end.
Here is a modern Warner Brothers logo, a flat image:
[QUOTE][IMG]http://mobilityindia.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/warnerbros_logo.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Frankly my eyes hurt when I look at it.
Here are two older logos:
[QUOTE][IMG]http://www.rockyrama.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/exorcist-2-heretic.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://www.rockyrama.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/candidate.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
The lines are a bit softer, but it remains simple. It seems like eye blisteringly crisp lines are the new thing.
theory: modern logo designers are groundhogs
if they see a shadow they get scared and have to hide for 6 weeks
[QUOTE=pentium;48593592]Congrats google, your hipsters and infestation of numb-minded 25-30somethings who think they know what the future will be have made you a joke. Microsoft is already sending you a cake.
First it was Youtube, then it was Chrome. Now your logo looks like it was done by a pussy who didn't want to see what other fonts he had loaded.[/QUOTE]
lmao
[QUOTE=Incoming.;48593964]
[IMG]http://www.rockyrama.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/exorcist-2-heretic.jpg[/IMG]
The lines are a bit softer, but it remains simple. It seems like eye blisteringly crisp lines are the new thing.[/QUOTE]
The lines here are only softer because of the shitty resolution and compression of the DVD the picture is from. It isn't supposed to be like that. There has never been a point where fuzzier lines have been popular, it's always been as sharp as possible. In fact, the WB logo you linked is one they've used since 1993. It's the print version. The colored one is still used in movies
[QUOTE=Eric95;48594025]The lines here are only softer because of the shitty resolution and compression of the DVD the picture is from. It isn't supposed to be like that. There has never been a point where fuzzier lines have been popular, it's always been as sharp as possible. In fact, the WB logo you linked is one they've used since 1993. It's the print version. The colored one is still used in movies[/QUOTE]
You kind of missed the point.
They might of been trying to make it crisp, but to my eyes and I assume a few others, the softer edge makes it better to look at regardless of initial intentions. It just turned out better in the end.
At the very least add a less obnoxiously bright colour.
This was a rush job but I think this would have been an interesting take for those who liked serif a lot
[img]http://i.imgur.com/2UzJ27r.png[/img]
[QUOTE=KingKombat;48594093]This was a rush job but I think this would have been an interesting take for those who liked serif a lot
[img]http://i.imgur.com/2UzJ27r.png[/img][/QUOTE]
Rockwell?
Oh, yeah. Probably. I consider Google to be more work-oriented and that would probably be the best choice for looking "business casual", if you ask me. Looks like a playful spin on a typewriter font.
imagine if
[t]http://i62.tinypic.com/ere838.png[/t]
[QUOTE=Sand Castle;48594179]Rockwell?[/QUOTE]
Reminds me of westerns, which doesn't match, unfortunately.
I don't mind the serif-ditching, and I don't mind material design.
Switching to Bing
[QUOTE=JXZ;48593971]theory: modern logo designers are groundhogs
if they see a shadow they get scared and have to hide for 6 weeks[/QUOTE]
Logos are supposed to be as simple as possible, meaning shadows have to be very well-incorporated, very simplistic, and absolutely important for the design before it becomes justifiable. The only time I can think of shadows being fair-game are either retro shadows, or long-shadows. (And long-shadows have become cliche.)
I think you might be criticizing Material Design or flatness as a whole, but even then shadows are still utilized to distinguish elevation: [url]https://www.google.com/design/spec/what-is-material/elevation-shadows.html[/url]
[img]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/965202/ShareX/2015/09/2015-09-01_12-11-15.png[/img]
The only thing I'd criticize without being able to provide a solution for is the abrupt straightness in the G logo and how it kind of clashes with how curved everything else is. I really don't know how you would do anything to fix that, though, because if you were to curve the edge heading inwards, you'd end up distorting the perfect roundness of everything.
But that's me being a nitpicky armchair designer, and I don't really give a shit.
it looks bad
Love it, very clean, exactly how I imagined the next iteration really
let's all take a moment to appreciate people getting mad over pixels
[QUOTE=FunnyStarRunner;48593487]Wonder how many seconds it took them to come up with this ingenious logo redesign.
Fuck sans serif logos.[/QUOTE]
Considering they created their own font for it, probably a lot of seconds.
[QUOTE=assassin_Raptor;48594413]Considering they created their own font for it, probably a lot of seconds.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps even [I]minutes[/I]
[QUOTE=Larry'sNod;48594364]let's all take a moment to appreciate people getting mad over pixels[/QUOTE]
While I agree that some people are over-reacting, it's stupid to say that everything is "just pixels". If you really want to compare everything like that you could say that people who are watching live beheadings are just looking at "pixels". Pixels come together to form a representation of something.
If you haven't checked out their home page yet, there's a new doodle
[img]https://www.google.ca/logos/doodles/2015/googles-new-logo-5078286822539264.2-hp.gif[/img]
Everybody is moving towards more and more minimalist design nowadays.
I figure this logo change has something to do with them creating a parent company.
Alphabet's homepage has alphabet blocks on it. Google's new logo is shown drawn with crayons on their homepage. They're going with a more childish feel. Maybe it's to symbolize simplicity or user-friendliness?
[QUOTE=proboardslol;48594629]Everybody is moving towards more and more minimalist design nowadays.[/QUOTE]
That's not a bad thing.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
