Name a more soulless redesign

Name a more soulless redesign.

Attached: DmCaLA_UYAAG9eM.jpg (500x335, 35.08K)

While the font in the former is too busy, they could have easily incorporated a racoon with a bindle with a cleaner font.

No can do.

I wonder how much more expensive the redesigned logo was than the original? You just know that with that stupid minimalist bullshit they always pay out the nose for it.

Attached: evolution_doc.jpg (1772x448, 67.17K)

Miss this little nigga like you wouldn’t believe

Second and fourth are so bad holy shit

How is it too busy? I'm pretty sure you'd have to have some kind of eyesight problem to not read it clearly.

It's honestly an ugly font.

He almost got a game too.

2003 is soul.

Its not about eyesight, its about presentation, A company logo MUST look good in print, too many colors means the logo does not translate well to greyscale, or in some company cases, black/white binary. Color = money, and most companies aren't going to print your logo in color, While the new one is abysmal in design and has effectively killed the brand and idea that Traveller's tales had going for it, it does print easier, and is more then likely the primary reason they switched.

That 4th logo is fake, right? It looks like dogshit, the lines don't even match up.

You can pinpoint the exact moment Ubisoft went to shit

Attached: tales-of-series_logo.jpg (1024x397, 65.69K)

Very few people on this board understand the point of logos and hate anything that doesn’t look like a full illustration or art piece in and of itself. That’s not to say that most of the new logos that show up in these minder design hate threads aren’t bad, but there’s so little knowledge on the subject here that most of these threads are absolute nonsense.

>Tales of Dawngate

who cares
a logo should attract consumers and the first one did a good job if so many people are missing it or remembering it fondly

>Who cares
The people paying them for their business. this isnt up for negotiation. Whether or not a logo "attracts customers" is not a guaranteed sale. A person can think a logo looks nice, but that doesn't mean they'll buy the product they make.

Where my 1973 CHADs at?

Attached: pepsi-logo-history.png (1024x551, 463.02K)

The font they used makes me think of axe blades, accompanied with a cartoon racoon on a cliff and moon background.

The logo itself could work for a game, but the image doesn't really mesh with it. On top of that, this is a COMPANY logo, not a game logo/cover.

Not an excuse to go for the latter though.

With all the money they make off rehashing the exact same LEGO platformer year after year, they can afford it easily.

>the lines don't even match up
You can bet your ass that was intentional, and that someone got paid a lot of money to make it that way.

Damn, that 1986 logo is so 80's that it looks like the fake 80's stuff people make today that tries way too hard to be 80's.

I always liked this logo more than their original one and I don’t like that they changed it back.

Attached: 25ACC70A-6B14-43B2-BD38-C9FC96075122.png (340x350, 52.55K)

My own job did this recently and I fucking hate them for it.

Attached: StaterBros_Primary_Box.png (722x264, 13.39K)

I don't see the problem

Attached: Untitled.png (253x331, 54.09K)

86 - Quirky
95 - Soul
03 - Soulful
17 - Soulless

Now do binary.

Good look transferring that into a company sign.

Attached: heroes[1].jpg (640x400, 46.57K)

ok, still isn't that bad. Minor changes and it'd have no problems

Attached: Untitled.png (253x331, 3.15K)

>Isnt that bad
>racoon thing is barely identifiable

a shitty five minute attempt with a mouse, but you could just trim off the weird font, the stone sign and cliff.

Attached: a real shitty reattempt.png (1029x455, 235.27K)

You were good until the extended tail.

>barely identifiable
You either aren't being honest or you're fucking blind

I believe he was never good. If you want to continue this conversation you may email me.

like that user said, minor changes you retard

91-92 was peak aesthetic.