Friday Facts #12

[Nova]

Maybe I'm the wrong person for such question. I just think: there is no function of a logo. It tells the person: yeah, this is called "Factorio", it's a game about machines and factories, so we use metallic fonts. The gear is the iconic element of factorio and so we replace one letter "o" with a gear.

*sign* Maybe I'm the wrong person for such question. ^^

[Psycho0124]

It's very good to know your preferences about texturing and colours, really. But the discussion here is mainly about the general shape.

Woah, didn't mean to offend! You do bad-ass work Glex, that's obvious! We're just tossing opinions out there like we were asked to!

Regarding the general shape; it's my humble opinion that the new logo is a little too 'thick'. It's more reminiscent of walls than factory components (which seems to conflict with the games emphasis on automation).
The fewer teeth and rectangular axle hole on the gear suggests it's part of a coarser machine to me. Again, just the humble opinion of one customer.

[Albert]

Woah, didn't mean to offend! You do bad-ass work Glex, that's obvious! We're just tossing opinions out there like we were asked to!

Nobody is offended here, don't worry about that, really : )
.. ¿? .. I think you misunderstood my message, I'm very sorry about that.

When I say that the subject here is the general shape, I mean just that. As I said in posts before, the logo is subjected to changes depending on the main subject of the release or its context (or it's supposed to), that's why I make a big difference in between general shape (logo core) and textures, colours materials, lighting etc... Of course colour is important, but after, when the shape is absolutely clear, I'll make a proper colour study.
When you see the Coca-cola's logo in plain white, red, or 3D textured with water drops and ice splashing in the background, still being the cocacola's logo. That's what I mean. we're talking about the shape that makes it recognizable.
hope it helps, and I insist, nobody is offended here. Of course.

[ssilk]

Well, i mean the shape is this round wheel with its teeth in contrast to the edgy forms of the most factorio entities. Let an o be the round form and the other letters the edgy and voila you are at the above design.

[SilverWarior]

When I say that the subject here is the general shape, I mean just that. As I said in posts before, the logo is subjected to changes depending on the main subject of the release or its context (or it's supposed to), that's why I make a big difference in between general shape (logo core) and textures, colours materials, lighting etc... Of course colour is important, but after, when the shape is absolutely clear, I'll make a proper colour study.

I have education in marketing and what we were taught in school is that logo should have some distinct features which alow it to be easily recognizable. But logo should not be changed often and if it is these changes should be small and in a way that they don't afect the most distintive features of logo.

When you see the Coca-cola's logo in plain white, red, or 3D textured with water drops and ice splashing in the background, still being the cocacola's logo. That's what I mean. we're talking about the shape that makes it recognizable.

And when you see white text on red surface which is a bit similar to th one used in Coca-Cola's logo it will stil remind you of Coca-Cola at first but you will recognize it is not Coca-Cola.
But when you see same font taht Coca-Cola uses with different color on different bacground you won't think of Coca-Cola first.
Take a look at Coca-Cola zero. It uses red text on black bacground adn you won't asociate it with Coca-Cola until you will take a closer look at font which is compleetly the same.
I bet now you are thinking: "That's is exactly what I was talking about. Coca-Cola uses distinctive font which is recognizable as its logo.". Yes that is true.
But take a look now at Windows logo and how it was evovling through time. And you will surely recognize that windows logo has other distinct feature. And that disticnt feature are thous four red, green, blue and yelow squares. This means that whenever you see four squares with similar color it will asociate you to windows logo. And if you take a look at Windows 8 logo which no longer has these four distinctive colours but only has four squares I bet you won't think of that being proper logo for Windows.

So what I'm trying to say that it is not necessary for shape to be distinctive feature of the logo. The color can also be the distinctive feature.
And if you sak me what is the most distinctive feature of the original logo that I like so much is that 12 tethg gearwheal which is used instead of first O.


As far as presenting newest implemented features of the game. Don't change the logo. Change the bacground itself. You have full screen of blacknes available for this.
I would love to see the concept art pictures as a baground to show latest implemented features into game.
And the best thing about this idea is that you can actually involve comunity in making these concept art pictures. This will strengthen the bonds between comunity and developers and it might also give you some more ideas for the future.

[Pika]

I like the logo on the right because it's easier to read.
Comments about shapes(I hope these the kinds of comments you want?):

• I think it's a little weird having the vertical parts of the C, T, and i be wider than the vertical parts of other letters.
• Also, the only lower case letters are the r and the i.
• The horizontal part of the r is a little too long, and the vertical part is a little too skinny.
• The gear:
  • it's taller than the other letters(when viewed from above), but also sticks out less than the other letters(when viewed from the side), if you get what I mean.
  • Also, the other letters are a little taller than they are wide, but the gear is not.
  • If you were to match the holes in the enter of the O and of the gear to look the same and maybe line up, that might help the gear look like an O.
• There's no gaps between any of the letters, but there is a gap between the i and the gear.
• I like how it kinda looks like all of the letters were cut from blocks that were all originally the same shape.
• I like how the F in the left logo is cut and rounds the word at the beginning, similar to how the gear rounds the end of the word, but I think a little too much is cut off the F.

I liked the old one better first, too, but after staring at the new ones they're growing on me pretty quickly. Good job so far. I love the idea of being able to change it the the style of the theme of the newest update.

[Albert]

Comments about shapes(I hope these the kinds of comments you want?)

Before anything, I want to thank you your accurate analysis. This is something that I really appreciate.

I like the logo on the right because it's easier to read. 
▶ You've got a good point here. But that doesn't mean that is completely illegible. I sacrifice a bit of legibility in order to get more personality.

Comments about shapes(I hope these the kinds of comments you want?):
▶ absolutely : ), you got it.

• I think it's a little weird having the vertical parts of the C, T, and i be wider than the vertical parts of other letters.
  ▶ Right. This is a good base to keep researching for a better legible font. But I guess the balance and composition overall is good.
• Also, the only lower case letters are the r and the i.
  ▶ In my opinion we have lower case in: a,c,o,r,i. ("T" would break everything in lower-case)
• The horizontal part of the r is a little too long, and the vertical part is a little too skinny.
  ▶ Right. The intention was to have a very rough font, that's why I made a very low-res font reticle, I think next version would be with a higher resolution font-reticle.
• • The gear:
  • it's taller than the other letters(when viewed from above), but also sticks out less than the other letters(when viewed from the side), if you get what I mean.
    ▷ Got it. When the gear is same size as the type, gear becomes too tinny. The gear has a lot more details than type, so the actual size in fact has the same proportion with the type. Also due the higher detail of the gear compared with the type, makes the logo more irreducible, so, we have a lot of reasons to make the gear a bit bigger.
  • Also, the other letters are a little taller than they are wide, but the gear is not.
    ▷ This is an optical effect. The type-font is oblique in height, but the gear not. If the gear would be oblique, it would be a fake-gear, or at least, too stylish. The intention is to get an iconical gear that makes the work of a letter, but is not a letter is a gear.
  • If you were to match the holes in the enter of the O and of the gear to look the same and maybe line up, that might help the gear look like an O.
    ▷ When you see the composition in a closer view, you'll find some rhythms inside the shapes of the letters [(F-A)(C-T-O)(R-I)(O)] that gives to the general shape a good balance and dynamism. By closing this "O" you break an entire rhythm group. What makes the gear relative to the font type, is the squared hole. Or is supposed to, by the way.
  • There's no gaps between any of the letters, but there is a gap between the i and the gear.
    ▷ The gear is a separated object that works as a letter. The important thing here is the composition. If the gear would be away from the type, then it wouldn't work as an "O", but i guess the "O" still there. Composition, shadow, the ultra-cut of the first F makes the job here.
• I like how it kinda looks like all of the letters were cut from blocks that were all originally the same shape.
  ▶ Me too, but remember we sacrifice a bit of legibility for it.
• I like how the F in the left logo is cut and rounds the word at the beginning, similar to how the gear rounds the end of the word, but I think a little too much is cut off the F.
  ▶ Another good point here..... maybe the higher-res reticle can help on this,..maybe not ¿?.

I liked the old one better first,
▶ I'd like to have an accurated analysis of this first logo ; ).

but after staring at the new ones they're growing on me pretty quickly. Good job so far.
▶ : )
I love the idea of being able to change the style of the theme of the newest update.
▶ Let's see how it goes, I love the idea too.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I want to thank you all the comments about logo, It was very interesting to me to know your opinions. I guess I replied every single important subject about it. To me, keep talking about the logo now is like falling in a loop.
So now, my time is for better trees-rocks-and many nice things that i hope will make the game much nicer to play.

Bye! : )
a)

[Malkasphia]

I feel the two new logos do not represent the attitude and "Tech-oriented" nature of factorio.

The old logo does with its vibrant "active" orange color that stands out starkly against the black ( representing striking out into the unknown and conquering it).

The old logo also is segmented and futuristic looking, showing the nature of a factory being built of its parts, unlike the new logos that are bulkier shaped stone, which is more reminiscent of minecraft ( i understand the marketing value here, trust me I get it).

The old logo's cog is much better than the flat lying stone cog in both of the new logos. Laying flat gives it a superficial, weak look. It is a turn-off to my eyes and my spirit. The fact that the new logos can be used in game as an object is awesome, I love that. But thats the only positive thing look about the new logos I can give.

TL DR- The logo needs to represent factories more, needs more active color schemes ( or at least some negative space to make the grey colors stand out), and a much better cog.

Thanks for letting us participate, and I hope it serves you well!

[ssilk]

Fantastic analysis. <applaud>

[Noro]

No matter how long I look at it, the square hole in gear looks wrong. The more I look at it the more wrong it looks.