Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Why not change the logo of this powerful forum?


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
39 replies to this topic

#1 superwave   Members   -  Reputation: 200

Posted 26 January 2013 - 09:42 PM

Hi,

 

I think we many great people have common interest and joined here. 

 

Everything about this forum is great to me except one thing: the logo. Why not change the log, I think it greatly declined the feeling of gamedev to a lower status

 

How do you guys think about this?



Sponsor:

#2 slicer4ever   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3886

Posted 26 January 2013 - 11:00 PM

uh....why?, i think the logo is pretty much brand awarness for GD.Net, it's fairly unique, and stands out well.  what is it about the logo that you feel is "declined"?


Check out https://www.facebook.com/LiquidGames for some great games made by me on the Playstation Mobile market.

#3 jbadams   Senior Staff   -  Reputation: 18575

Posted 27 January 2013 - 01:17 AM

What do you dislike about the current logo, and what would you suggest as an alternative?

 

 

The current logo is pretty well known, and the site has had variations on the same logo for over a decade.



#4 Bacterius   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 8861

Posted 27 January 2013 - 06:36 AM

I don't see anything wrong with the logo.


The slowsort algorithm is a perfect illustration of the multiply and surrender paradigm, which is perhaps the single most important paradigm in the development of reluctant algorithms. The basic multiply and surrender strategy consists in replacing the problem at hand by two or more subproblems, each slightly simpler than the original, and continue multiplying subproblems and subsubproblems recursively in this fashion as long as possible. At some point the subproblems will all become so simple that their solution can no longer be postponed, and we will have to surrender. Experience shows that, in most cases, by the time this point is reached the total work will be substantially higher than what could have been wasted by a more direct approach.

 

- Pessimal Algorithms and Simplexity Analysis


#5 JTippetts   Moderators   -  Reputation: 8491

Posted 27 January 2013 - 08:15 AM

Oh, man, you can't mess with the blue G. That thing is iconic. I think I even have it on a T-shirt somewhere.



#6 Milcho   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1177

Posted 27 January 2013 - 09:18 AM

Considering the G been the site's logo since it started - http://public.gamedev.net/images/about/gdnetv1big.jpg - changing is kind of like asking McDonalds to change their iconic golden arches.

 

Also, I don't see how a logo can "declined[sic] the feeling of gamedev to a lower status" at all.



#7 Michael Tanczos   Senior Staff   -  Reputation: 5208

Posted 27 January 2013 - 09:54 AM

Considering the G been the site's logo since it started - http://public.gamedev.net/images/about/gdnetv1big.jpg - changing is kind of like asking McDonalds to change their iconic golden arches.

 

Also, I don't see how a logo can "declined[sic] the feeling of gamedev to a lower status" at all.

 

Oh man.. 1999.  =)    So many tables in that design..



#8 superwave   Members   -  Reputation: 200

Posted 27 January 2013 - 11:05 AM

Hi, if you like this logo, I cannot disagree with.. while, I think the big "G" of google logo seems better in esthetic glViewport.

 

OK, after your explanation, I think I am gradually feeling better about the current big blue.



#9 Waterlimon   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2562

Posted 27 January 2013 - 11:15 AM

The logo should be made a really complex interactive thing that you can spend 5 minutes on exploring its features.


o3o


#10 Stormynature   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3339

Posted 27 January 2013 - 11:41 AM

The logo should be made a really complex interactive thing that you can spend 5 minutes on exploring its features.

 

It already is. Just no-one figure out how to turn the logo on.



#11 Michael Tanczos   Senior Staff   -  Reputation: 5208

Posted 27 January 2013 - 09:39 PM

The logo should be made a really complex interactive thing that you can spend 5 minutes on exploring its features.

 

It already is. Just no-one figure out how to turn the logo on.

 

We literally spent 4 years and over $50,000 developing the interactivity behind that logo.   Sure, we could have spent it on like.. hiring a programmer to fix our crappy post editor but.. ya know.. the logo!

 

Also, to turn it on just <!--#met



#12 Michael Tanczos   Senior Staff   -  Reputation: 5208

Posted 27 January 2013 - 09:39 PM

Fuck.. editor ate the rest of my post



#13 Alpha_ProgDes   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4688

Posted 27 January 2013 - 10:09 PM

Fuck.. editor ate the rest of my post

 

Someone needs to frame this post.


Beginner in Game Development? Read here.
 
Super Mario Bros clone tutorial written in XNA 4.0 [MonoGame, ANX, and MonoXNA] by Scott Haley
 
If you have found any of the posts helpful, please show your appreciation by clicking the up arrow on those posts Posted Image
 
Spoiler

#14 Alpha_ProgDes   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4688

Posted 27 January 2013 - 10:10 PM

Not to hijack the thread, but it would be cool to have a contest on redesigning the "G" and displaying the winners every month or so.


Beginner in Game Development? Read here.
 
Super Mario Bros clone tutorial written in XNA 4.0 [MonoGame, ANX, and MonoXNA] by Scott Haley
 
If you have found any of the posts helpful, please show your appreciation by clicking the up arrow on those posts Posted Image
 
Spoiler

#15 JTippetts   Moderators   -  Reputation: 8491

Posted 27 January 2013 - 11:16 PM

Fuck.. editor ate the rest of my post

 

Someone needs to frame this post.

I lol'ed IRL



#16 Ravyne   GDNet+   -  Reputation: 7369

Posted 28 January 2013 - 03:07 AM

Oh man... Now I'm trying to recall exactly what GD.Net looked like when I joined in the fall of 2001* -- It would be interesting to us old-timers to have a GD.Net through-the-years kind of thing, a timeline of site changes.

 

*Due to fallout from the great GD.Net hack-attack of '07, my account has a creation date much later than I've been around.



#17 Milcho   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1177

Posted 28 January 2013 - 03:29 AM

Fuck.. editor ate the rest of my post

 

Someone needs to frame this post.

Seconded.

 

 

 

Oh man... Now I'm trying to recall exactly what GD.Net looked like when I joined in the fall of 2001* -- It would be interesting to us old-timers to have a GD.Net through-the-years kind of thing, a timeline of site changes.

 

*Due to fallout from the great GD.Net hack-attack of '07, my account has a creation date much later than I've been around.

http://www.gamedev.net/page/info/about/index.html - scroll down, and let nostalgia set in. (well, for those who've been here that long :P)



#18 Ravyne   GDNet+   -  Reputation: 7369

Posted 28 January 2013 - 03:49 AM

Ah, a hidden gem! It was good ol' version 3.0 when I joined but I might have caught the tail-end of 2.0 back when I was just a lurker. It looks familiar.

Thanks!

Edited by Ravyne, 28 January 2013 - 03:52 AM.


#19 Milcho   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1177

Posted 28 January 2013 - 03:57 AM

Actually, looking closer at those dates, there seems to be something interesting going on:

 

GameDev.net v3     7/01-10/05    
GameDev.net v3.1  1/02-5/03

GameDev.net v3.2  6/03-4/04    
GameDev.net v3.3  5/04-10/05

 

I'm assuming v3 was from 7/01 - 12/01 ? Or did v3 run side-by-side along with v3.1, v3.2 and v3.3?



#20 jbadams   Senior Staff   -  Reputation: 18575

Posted 28 January 2013 - 04:52 AM

I'm assuming v3 was from 7/01 - 12/01 ? Or did v3 run side-by-side along with v3.1, v3.2 and v3.3?

Those are minor revision numbers -- 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 were all variations of v3, probably with only small changes to the same code base. smile.png






Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS