Recommended Posts

What's your people's opinions on cinematic intros playing at the start of a multiplayer match?

 

Talking about the obvious example at hand, I'm not a fan of intro cams playing in Halo 5 Guardians. It takes away from the feeling of exploration and the overall immersion of the level, the world I'm about to hop into. To me, it feels staged and unauthentic.

 

Like, are we in an arena, in which nothing should be surprising to the contestants within? Why do the cameras show me every power weapon, does the designer think, I'm too simple-minded to remember the structure of the map with all its facettes? Is this "fore-chewing" really necessary to sell your map at first glance?

 

I think, weither the designers don't even make a conscious decision and just roll with the trend or make said decision consciously, ultimately does not matter, as both build on the time bias.

"Do I show the players almost everything right away and let them have this fast, unearned knowledge, so they feel great in the first matches?" Or, do I let them experience everything themselves along with unique first encounters inside the level's structure and so on?

 

I have a strong believe the latter holds greater replayability in the long terms. Furthermore, the picture of the level in your mind is filled with all the experiences right before spawning at the start of a match, and not a cheap teaser you've already seen too many times... You're focused on the memories you've had including layout, weapons and good/bad encounters/positions in the past, and are not distracted by a short representation of the level.

 

Surely, the same processes could take place and actually stay with an intro cinematic showing, however a claim could be made those processes not being as strongly interconnected in your brain as a simple countdown going down. All of this, of course, is hypothetical and does not have any evidence and tests behind it.

Competitively, arguments for both sides could be made, as in not giving players information (so the ones that know everything have an advantage) or giving the information at the start of a match [gives clueless players information, which automatically rises their initial awareness and heavily influences their playstyle (which I'm also not a fan of)].

 

 

Halo 5, with all its glaring arena shooter hints, has overdone itt. Call me outdated on this topic, however I'd like to see everything for myself and not get a boring, continuous digital slap to my face. That is why I consciously put a static camera behind the spawing point of both teams to decrease confusion and give the only information that is needed: Where do I initially spawn and what does it look like around my spawing point?

 

KISS.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Attempt #2. A bit flat, but some people may like the cleanness and even, symmetrical design. And the pyramid is separated by levels for the cuteness factor. 😘

 

 

928496BB-5F56-4640-9B7C-FC76E4F3DFBF.jpeg

 

@Buddy JumpsI think we should do everything in our power to have players understand the basic layout of our maps as quickly and smoothly as possible. Intro cameras are just one more tool we have to make that possible, and i think theyre great.

 

@MultiLockOnWe have a very different order for his discography it seems

Edited by Xzamplez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Xzamplez said:

Attempt #2. A bit flat, but some people may like the cleanness and even, symmetrical design. And the pyramid is separated by levels for the cuteness factor. 😘

 

 

928496BB-5F56-4640-9B7C-FC76E4F3DFBF.jpeg

 

@Buddy JumpsI think we should do everything in our power to have players understand the basic layout of our maps as quickly and smoothly as possible. Intro cameras are just one more tool we have to make that possible, and i think theyre great.

 

@MultiLockOnWe have a very different order for his discography it seems

I'd put it Yeezus, then a tie between MBDTF and maybe graduation, then another tie for pablo and JIK. What are you thinking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, MultiLockOn said:

I'd put it Yeezus, then a tie between MBDTF and maybe graduation, then another tie for pablo and JIK. What are you thinking

Graduation/MBTDF/LR/Yeezus/Ye/808s/TLoP/CD/JiK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Buddy Jumps said:

What's your people's opinions on cinematic intros playing at the start of a multiplayer match?

 

Talking about the obvious example at hand, I'm not a fan of intro cams playing in Halo 5 Guardians. It takes away from the feeling of exploration and the overall immersion of the level, the world I'm about to hop into. To me, it feels staged and unauthentic.

 

Like, are we in an arena, in which nothing should be surprising to the contestants within? Why do the cameras show me every power weapon, does the designer think, I'm too simple-minded to remember the structure of the map with all its facettes? Is this "fore-chewing" really necessary to sell your map at first glance?

 

I think, weither the designers don't even make a conscious decision and just roll with the trend or make said decision consciously, ultimately does not matter, as both build on the time bias.

"Do I show the players almost everything right away and let them have this fast, unearned knowledge, so they feel great in the first matches?" Or, do I let them experience everything themselves along with unique first encounters inside the level's structure and so on?

 

I have a strong believe the latter holds greater replayability in the long terms. Furthermore, the picture of the level in your mind is filled with all the experiences right before spawning at the start of a match, and not a cheap teaser you've already seen too many times... You're focused on the memories you've had including layout, weapons and good/bad encounters/positions in the past, and are not distracted by a short representation of the level.

 

Surely, the same processes could take place and actually stay with an intro cinematic showing, however a claim could be made those processes not being as strongly interconnected in your brain as a simple countdown going down. All of this, of course, is hypothetical and does not have any evidence and tests behind it.

Competitively, arguments for both sides could be made, as in not giving players information (so the ones that know everything have an advantage) or giving the information at the start of a match [gives clueless players information, which automatically rises their initial awareness and heavily influences their playstyle (which I'm also not a fan of)].

 

 

Halo 5, with all its glaring arena shooter hints, has overdone itt. Call me outdated on this topic, however I'd like to see everything for myself and not get a boring, continuous digital slap to my face. That is why I consciously put a static camera behind the spawing point of both teams to decrease confusion and give the only information that is needed: Where do I initially spawn and what does it look like around my spawing point?

 

KISS.

 

 

 

 

I don't mind from an aesthetic standpoint, since it can set the tone quite well for some of the more well-arted maps. Exterior shots, showing off the spawn perspective, environmental shots are kind of cool, especially on atmospheric maps, and most especially in a game that has a totally black loading screen, without any concept art or a layout diagram.  But I definitely agree that it takes a lot of the 'map learning' out of the equation, especially those who are new to the maps, which might have the unintended consequence of lessening the overall grasp of the maps' intricacies.

 

Maybe if the intro cam was just the HUD booting up or something before play starts... ::::::::thinking:::::::::

 

But I do like the inclusion of the cameras in Forge, since you can set them up to take footage with in-engine depth of field - very cool for screenshots and trailers and whatnot...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Xzamplez said:

Graduation/MBTDF/LR/Yeezus/Ye/808s/TLoP/CD/JiK

Damn under all the originals and Ye? You really weren't feeling it huh. I think Ye is his weakest personally. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Xzamplez said:

@Buddy JumpsI think we should do everything in our power to have players understand the basic layout of our maps as quickly and smoothly as possible. Intro cameras are just one more tool we have to make that possible, and i think theyre great.

 

Is it not the purpose of a 'good' level to guide the players and help them with decision making entirely on its own? Does it really need the help of an extra to be grasped better and more quickly? The question could be asked, if designers are unsure about their design and therefore use exterior tools in an attempt to try and hide the inherent flaws.

 

At this point, this topic could be extended to not just include intro cinematics, but also things like maps and waypoints. More and more designers use maps with lots of things on it, with lots of waypoints and such. Does this not take away from the player's exploration experience and general gameplay experience? 

I think, it should be a common goal of a designer to design a level that's self-explaining, not confusing (at least not to a greater extent - puzzles come to mind) and engaging. To set a waypoint on a map and then get guided towards it is not engaging nor does it hold any greater depth. Basically, it does not exert the brain of the players and trains them to be in an 'away from the controller' mode instead of thinking how to get somewhere.

 

The starting question could be altered to: "Are designers unsure about their audiences' intellect and therefore don't even try to design the level in a way that it could stand alone without any exterior tools?" Supposedly, it's also a question about weither to put more effort into the product or go the easy route, financial and temporal factors remaining undecided.

 

 

I want to name two games that take complete opposite approaches respectively. The first one being The Witcher 3. Critically acclaimed, yet it uses a lot of exterior tools to 'help' the players make progress. A quest tab comes to mind with main and side quests and a huge map filled with things to go to. You could say that this title is pretty much leaned towards the general audience despite it being R-rated and containing bloody action. What do I mean by this?

Well, you always know what to do and where you have to do it. While the players are being able to choose weither to prolong the main quest with numerous side quests or directly follow the story the waypoints and constant flow of information towards you is like a continuous timer against head.

Now, to my point: I think, the replayability of a game like The Witcher 3 could have been greatly enhanced by toning down some of the exterior tools and let the level design 'speak for itself'. Then, without a map for example, there would be much more to explore by oneself instead of constantly following a waypoint and having this helping hand. It would definitely be a more natural and engaging experience. However, it would also be more challenging and therefore most likely not as successful and 'mainstream' as the title we've got. By the way, even Middle Age games like Kindgom Come Deliverance, which praises itself for its level of realism, has such a filled map with markers.

 

But speaking of successful, there's a series, which takes the complete opposite approach and still gains a lot of traction despite almost only using the level design as guidance through the world. Dark Souls.

From Software, the company behind the series, seems to be quite old-fashioned regarding this topic. The basic game and level design philosophy oozes of confidence and brilliance. Having remarkable landmarks and colour tones throughout the intertwined world is needed to comfortably navigate around. Each location is given an unique touch, so that the players have no troubles to remember it and its identity. While it may be frustrating for many people, especially considering the general difficulty niveau, From have garnered a huge fan base with their titles also including Bloodborne and the latest, Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice, all titles, in which they let the levels guide the players by the way.

 

 

Though, at the end, both methods can be successful, while there's no contest of which one is more commonly used and which one, by its core nature, is more exciting; to me at least. I just wish more designers would be confident enough to fully embrace their levels and let the players play the game more by themselves. I don't like this hand holding in a game while living in a world, where automated processes and helping hands in everyday life become more and more common...

 

15 hours ago, icyhotspartin said:

Maybe if the intro cam was just the HUD booting up or something before play starts... ::::::::thinking:::::::::

 

But I do like the inclusion of the cameras in Forge, since you can set them up to take footage with in-engine depth of field - very cool for screenshots and trailers and whatnot...

 

I agree, the depth of field gives us a lot more options with the presentation of our content. The HUD booting up could be a nice way of "getting the players' focus ready" for the upcoming battle.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Buddy JumpsI guess the question would be: How much value do you put into the idea of players learning a map faster being a competitive advantage? I put little or no value into the idea. I want the players’ decisions on a map to be impactful, but not because one understands it faster. In an ideal situation, they both immediately understand the layout, and the only variables are mechanical skill and smart situational decisions.

 

Single player is a different philosophy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone remember this game? I remember being blown away by these tech demos years ago, not that impressive by todays standards but was mind blowing back then. Now i finnaly have some closure knowing what happened to it

 

 


TiavQEl.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Xzamplez said:

@Buddy JumpsI guess the question would be: How much value do you put into the idea of players learning a map faster being a competitive advantage? I put little or no value into the idea. I want the players’ decisions on a map to be impactful, but not because one understands it faster. In an ideal situation, they both immediately understand the layout, and the only variables are mechanical skill and smart situational decisions.

 

Single player is a different philosophy.

 

9 hours ago, Buddy Jumps said:

 

Is it not the purpose of a 'good' level to guide the players and help them with decision making entirely on its own? Does it really need the help of an extra to be grasped better and more quickly? The question could be asked, if designers are unsure about their design and therefore use exterior tools in an attempt to try and hide the inherent flaws.

 

At this point, this topic could be extended to not just include intro cinematics, but also things like maps and waypoints. More and more designers use maps with lots of things on it, with lots of waypoints and such. Does this not take away from the player's exploration experience and general gameplay experience? 

I think, it should be a common goal of a designer to design a level that's self-explaining, not confusing (at least not to a greater extent - puzzles come to mind) and engaging. To set a waypoint on a map and then get guided towards it is not engaging nor does it hold any greater depth. Basically, it does not exert the brain of the players and trains them to be in an 'away from the controller' mode instead of thinking how to get somewhere.

 

The starting question could be altered to: "Are designers unsure about their audiences' intellect and therefore don't even try to design the level in a way that it could stand alone without any exterior tools?" Supposedly, it's also a question about weither to put more effort into the product or go the easy route, financial and temporal factors remaining undecided.

 

 

I want to name two games that take complete opposite approaches respectively. The first one being The Witcher 3. Critically acclaimed, yet it uses a lot of exterior tools to 'help' the players make progress. A quest tab comes to mind with main and side quests and a huge map filled with things to go to. You could say that this title is pretty much leaned towards the general audience despite it being R-rated and containing bloody action. What do I mean by this?

Well, you always know what to do and where you have to do it. While the players are being able to choose weither to prolong the main quest with numerous side quests or directly follow the story the waypoints and constant flow of information towards you is like a continuous timer against head.

Now, to my point: I think, the replayability of a game like The Witcher 3 could have been greatly enhanced by toning down some of the exterior tools and let the level design 'speak for itself'. Then, without a map for example, there would be much more to explore by oneself instead of constantly following a waypoint and having this helping hand. It would definitely be a more natural and engaging experience. However, it would also be more challenging and therefore most likely not as successful and 'mainstream' as the title we've got. By the way, even Middle Age games like Kindgom Come Deliverance, which praises itself for its level of realism, has such a filled map with markers.

 

But speaking of successful, there's a series, which takes the complete opposite approach and still gains a lot of traction despite almost only using the level design as guidance through the world. Dark Souls.

From Software, the company behind the series, seems to be quite old-fashioned regarding this topic. The basic game and level design philosophy oozes of confidence and brilliance. Having remarkable landmarks and colour tones throughout the intertwined world is needed to comfortably navigate around. Each location is given an unique touch, so that the players have no troubles to remember it and its identity. While it may be frustrating for many people, especially considering the general difficulty niveau, From have garnered a huge fan base with their titles also including Bloodborne and the latest, Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice, all titles, in which they let the levels guide the players by the way.

 

 

Though, at the end, both methods can be successful, while there's no contest of which one is more commonly used and which one, by its core nature, is more exciting; to me at least. I just wish more designers would be confident enough to fully embrace their levels and let the players play the game more by themselves. I don't like this hand holding in a game while living in a world, where automated processes and helping hands in everyday life become more and more common...

 

 

I agree, the depth of field gives us a lot more options with the presentation of our content. The HUD booting up could be a nice way of "getting the players' focus ready" for the upcoming battle.

 

 

 

A philosophy is a method that encompasses an entire system of thought, inquiry, logical parsing, and standards of measurement; it is a method of knowledge-gathering, testing, and implementation. In my view, the underlying philosophy should not be case-dependent, only the variables and ends you seek to achieve with its use should be modifiable. I think both of you need to rework your understanding of the concept "philosophy". It isn't a term that's properly used in place of "specific method to attain a goal for one specific context".

 

When you say "a level design philosophy" or "different philosophy" for single player, you miss the point of what philosophy actually is. If you change your fundamental operating procedure for one mode, you'll end up with a product that is inconsistent. But, if you keep the philosophy consistent, you'll have a solid foundation for whatever variables you throw into the mix for single or multiplayer gameplay/level design.

 

A game like DS or Sekiro excels because the designers utilized philosophy successfully in their implementation of mechanics, level dynamics, aesthetics, etc. whether they knew that or not. Not because they used a "specific design philosophy", but because they used principles of logic and design in conjunction - principles which can be used in order to design whatever the hell you want. 

 

>>>>> EDIT >>>>>     Actually, using a 'design philosophy' is probably more along the lines of copying something without understanding the moving parts, or viewing the whole as the parts. Like, let's say I wanted to make a DS level, and all I did was make an endless loop of tight staircases, or a slog through bosses that kill in one hit and which take years to beat even when you understand their movement and tactics. They'd both be one-dimensional derivatives of something far more successful and thought-out, all in the name of implementing the 'design philosophy' evident in the inspiration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, icyhotspartin said:

 

 

A philosophy is a method that encompasses an entire system of thought, inquiry, logical parsing, and standards of measurement; it is a method of knowledge-gathering, testing, and implementation. In my view, the underlying philosophy should not be case-dependent, only the variables and ends you seek to achieve with its use should be modifiable. I think both of you need to rework your understanding of the concept "philosophy". It isn't a term that's properly used in place of "specific method to attain a goal for one specific context".

 

When you say "a level design philosophy" or "different philosophy" for single player, you miss the point of what philosophy actually is. If you change your fundamental operating procedure for one mode, you'll end up with a product that is inconsistent. But, if you keep the philosophy consistent, you'll have a solid foundation for whatever variables you throw into the mix for single or multiplayer gameplay/level design.

 

A game like DS or Sekiro excels because the designers utilized philosophy successfully in their implementation of mechanics, level dynamics, aesthetics, etc. whether they knew that or not. Not because they used a "specific design philosophy", but because they used principles of logic and design in conjunction - principles which can be used in order to design whatever the hell you want. 

 

>>>>> EDIT >>>>>     Actually, using a 'design philosophy' is probably more along the lines of copying something without understanding the moving parts, or viewing the whole as the parts. Like, let's say I wanted to make a DS level, and all I did was make an endless loop of tight staircases, or a slog through bosses that kill in one hit and which take years to beat even when you understand their movement and tactics. They'd both be one-dimensional derivatives of something far more successful and thought-out, all in the name of implementing the 'design philosophy' evident in the inspiration.

 

Thank you for your clarification, I will probably not use the word philosophy again in the future. In German we use this word in a saying, which simply means 'idea behind something', not more and not less. I didn't put as much thought into it as you did, honestly.

 

However, it's always nice to hear such profound explanations/definitions from you. It's sometimes difficult for me to fully understand what you're writing, but I'm trying my best. Every day is a learning day, even if it's just words that I have to look up.

Edited by Buddy Jumps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Philosophy refers to ‘a way of thinking’. The way I think about single player and multiplayer level design is different, because each category has a different set of values and goals.

 

No need to complicate things or deviate from the topic of discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My main issue with the definition that you present @icyhotspartin is that philosophy is a way of interpreting information gathered, not a method of gathering information. Yes, one's philosophy for sure greatly effects their interpretation of new information, and it may very well influence the method of which they gain that new information, but it is not how that information is gathered. Philosophy is an influence of action, maybe a determiner of method, not that action or method. I definitely agree that when designing a game one needs to not just copy trends or aspects of other games but to determine if those are necessary for the core idea of the game. How does a certain action or item effect a player's actions? Is it because of the connotations carried from other games, media, or real life, or is it because of how the game directly teaches the player to use them? Maybe it's the surrounding systems that are effecting the value of said action or item? There is a core thought process necessary to building all genres of games because they're all games played by humans. Of course both of those rhetorical questions are answered with, "yes, yes, and yes," so those aren't necessarily philosophies but truths of game design. Fuck it, they're truths of life. Games are simulations, no matter how crude, and will most certainly be viewed through a real life's logical lens. The reason that philosophy is ingrained into these truths is because it is holistic. If you want a player to do something, you need to use the truths in psychology and sociology to encourage that something to happen. This is why I agree with @Xzamplez when it comes to philosophy within this argument. There is a shared set of truths that are present in each design philosophy, so that means using a different design philosophy isn't changing a set of core principles. It's just that those principles are aspects of the method, not the interpretation.

 

p.s. I didn't read anything before the last four posts ._.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Kantalope said:

My main issue with the definition that you present @icyhotspartin is that philosophy is a way of interpreting information gathered, not a method of gathering information. Yes, one's philosophy for sure greatly effects their interpretation of new information, and it may very well influence the method of which they gain that new information, but it is not how that information is gathered. Philosophy is an influence of action, maybe a determiner of method, not that action or method. I definitely agree that when designing a game one needs to not just copy trends or aspects of other games but to determine if those are necessary for the core idea of the game. How does a certain action or item effect a player's actions? Is it because of the connotations carried from other games, media, or real life, or is it because of how the game directly teaches the player to use them? Maybe it's the surrounding systems that are effecting the value of said action or item? There is a core thought process necessary to building all genres of games because they're all games played by humans. Of course both of those rhetorical questions are answered with, "yes, yes, and yes," so those aren't necessarily philosophies but truths of game design. Fuck it, they're truths of life. Games are simulations, no matter how crude, and will most certainly be viewed through a real life's logical lens. The reason that philosophy is ingrained into these truths is because it is holistic. If you want a player to do something, you need to use the truths in psychology and sociology to encourage that something to happen. This is why I agree with @Xzamplez when it comes to philosophy within this argument. There is a shared set of truths that are present in each design philosophy, so that means using a different design philosophy isn't changing a set of core principles. It's just that those principles are aspects of the method, not the interpretation.

 

p.s. I didn't read anything before the last four posts ._.

 

You're definitely on to something about interpreting information, but philosophy encompasses both the obtaining and interpreting of information, not just one. Your method of thought affects not only how you interpret what you take in, but also which things you pay attention to. Your philosophy, essentially, effects not only the way you process input, but also the way that you seek out and filter the input - and it's through the processing of that input that you can obtain knowledge and develop principles. And standards!

 

 

7 hours ago, Xzamplez said:

Philosophy refers to ‘a way of thinking’. The way I think about single player and multiplayer level design is different, because each category has a different set of values and goals.

 

No need to complicate things or deviate from the topic of discussion.

 

That doesn't mean that the core of your thinking is different. If it is, then you will run into trouble. It's a sloppy and limited way of using the word. 

 

I'm still on topic, because you asked how much value is placed on map learning, as it relates to the use of cinematic intro cameras. You need philosophy in order to determine where, what, and how to value anything, and most especially in a particular context. If that context is a singleplayer campaign and how to give a player with a particular arsenal and abilities a progressively building challenge, as well as an interesting story, then you have to determine what things are most valuable for meeting that  standard. 

 

Anyway, if showing off the map ahead of time in a cinematic flythrough  has any demonstrably negative effects on gameplay, then it should totally be nixed. If not, then there's really no point in axing it. If it adds something that doesn't break the experience, then why not? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Buddy Jumps said:

 

Thank you for your clarification, I will probably not use the word philosophy again in the future. In German we use this word in a saying, which simply means 'idea behind something', not more and not less. I didn't put as much thought into it as you did, honestly.

 

However, it's always nice to hear such profound explanations/definitions from you. It's sometimes difficult for me to fully understand what you're writing, but I'm trying my best. Every day is a learning day, even if it's just words that I have to look up.

That’s really interesting, I didn’t know that that was the use in German - but it definitely could explain why that’s the way it’s used in English too, and why so many people view philosophy as either an ever-changing entity and/or as something useless.

 

I wouldn’t stop using the word altogether, though, it just isn’t 100% appropriate terminology. It can be used as a tenuous placeholder for something like “system of evaluation”, which is similar to the ‘design philosophy’ buzzphrase, so I get why it has stuck.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@a Chunk Heres some scattered thoughts: I really cant think of a clever way to incorporate an anvil and hammer that plays well with the name. Maybe i could replace the "I" with a hammer or something? You could possibly just go with a hammer and anvil logo separate from the site name if you really want to but theres already so many hammer and anvil type logos. I tried an abbreviation style logo and i liked it so i made a couple simple mock-ups with it. I thought since level in NLD has a double meaning going on that i could mirror "level." Theres different styled stuff going on between these two but i could adjust things as desired. Since it would probably be more desirable to have the site name extend further i made two because the stacked logo uses up a lot of the height.(both of these have the same height) Im sure i could go further making things look nice but didnt want to use the time on uncertainty. (Stuff like the orange blueprint in the second logo or actual dimensional effects.)  I like the second much more because of the checkmark in the logo, more room for detail all around and it would also play really nicely with the orange "//////" thing youre using in some places.


6TiisS3.png

Edited by no god anywhere

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, no god anywhere said:

@a Chunk Heres some scattered thoughts: I really cant think of a clever way to incorporate an anvil and hammer that plays well with the name. Maybe i could replace the "I" with a hammer or something? You could possibly just go with a hammer and anvil logo separate from the site name if you really want to but theres already so many hammer and anvil type logos. I tried an abbreviation style logo and i liked it so i made a couple simple mock-ups with it. I thought since level in NLD has a double meaning going on that i could mirror "level." Theres different styled stuff going on between these two but i could adjust things as desired. Since it would probably be more desirable to have the site name extend further i made two because the stacked logo uses up a lot of the height.(both of these have the same height) Im sure i could go further making things look nice but didnt want to use the time on uncertainty. (Stuff like the orange blueprint in the second logo or actual dimensional effects.)  I like the second much more because of the checkmark in the logo, more room for detail all around and it would also play really nicely with the orange "//////" thing youre using in some places.


6TiisS3.png

 

Not sure if you've seen these already, but there are some definite similarities:

 

Header from the previous site:

image.png.a14a5ca5d20016af2abd9f859362b1b0.png

 

Recent mockup of a logo:

image.png.467366ead55521fad2f5b6e782008729.png

 

I like yours a lot.

I'm always in favor of simplicity, since trends change over time, and I would want something that would stand the test of time. With that in mind, I personally prefer not to have the dimensional effects, and I like the basic, solid colors of the first example.  Not sold on the font choice of either example, so I would probably play around with that a bit. I do really like the overall direction though.

 

Thank you so much for the time you've taken on these. It's really, really awesome of you to do that.  I'm sure you understand that this is a pretty important decision, so I'm not trying to rush into committing to anything at this point.  I have the luxury of not needing to commit right now, and I'm going to take advantage of that.

 

One of the things I'm considering, which I haven't even mentioned to the staff yet (apologies to you fine gentlemen for saying it here first) is having one of our upcoming Monthly Challenges be to design a Next Level Design Logo.  I would possibly then do a follow up poll to get a sense of what people like.  At this point though, I'm just considering it, and am not 100% set on taking this approach. I'm uneasy with going with poll results, since I ultimately trust the feedback of specific people over a conglomeration of people. And with that in mind, I'm hesitant to even take a poll, because I know it looks shitty to take a poll and then not go with the majority vote.  I need to give it a little more thought still.

 

But again, thanks a ton for the thought and the time you've put into this, and I really like what you've put together.  :Fire:

 

Edited by a Chunk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow that overwatch 2 tailer was  epic! Not sure what they are going to add/ change to justify another 60 bucks, if its just a story/ horde mode then ill pass. If its just a reboot like the fortnite 2 reboot than awesome... i wonder if they will come out with a level editor


TiavQEl.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as the shirt, we really should have something simple on the left pec with Next Level Design on the sleeve. And we can always have more than one design.

 

Not to beat a dead horse, but I think one of the impressive things about JIK is the color combination, and I don't think we should hold back like every other website in the history of man. Black with a white logo right in the middle... yuck. We can do waaaaaaay better and we have the opportunity to

 

Image result for jesus is king

 

This sort of royal blue and creamy yellow look incredible together, and I would insert that subtle grid pattern that no god used in his logo into the text itself. Off the top of my head, we could also go with a red with a neon blue text, a really light beige color with white text. Brown with gold, and so on. We could even create different logos for each design, as we should if we want to be intentional about this. And if money is an issue I'll pay for it all.

 

Essentially, I really don't want to look like I'm wearing a level design websites T-shirt, and honestly that's where it looks like we're headed with some of these suggestions so far

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I think I'm personally looking at some very different things, so perhaps that's causing some confusion here.

 

On the one hand, we still don't have an official site logo, so I'm still looking for ideas/suggestions related to that.

 

On the other hand we're talking about shirt designs, which should definitely consist of several different looks. For the shirts in particular, I definitely agree with pushing the envelope.  There will be some that prefer something generic, and that should be one of the options, but we'd also want some more progressive designs also.

Edited by a Chunk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, a Chunk said:

Yeah, I think I'm personally looking at some very different things, so perhaps that's causing some confusion here.

 

On the one hand, we still don't have an official site header or logo, so I'm still looking for ideas/suggestions related to that.

 

On the other hand we're talking about shirt designs, which should definitely consist of several different looks. For the shirts in particular, I definitely agree with pushing the envelope.  There will be some that prefer something generic, and that should be one of the options, but we'd also want some more progressive designs also.

The text of the sleeve can just be any modern bold font, while I personally really like Christians hammer/anvil design. I remember that Christian said he looked up a bunch of anvil designs and said they all looked the same, like one person made one 15 years ago and everyone copied that one ever since. And so, the shape of the hammer and the way it floats perfectly horizontal above the anvil is intentional and just different enough to make ours recognizably unique. 

 

I'm biased here but I also think it would be amazing to have a version of one of the shirts with 'staff' or 'admin' written directly under the anvil logo on the front. In the future we could also have special order shirts with specific text, like for contest winners, or someone getting 100 upvotes on a post, whatever. We should do alllllll that stuff, because this site already sees more action than Forgehub (not including map posts), and we're going to see a lot of traffic come infinite. Stuff like this goes such a long way to make our site stand out and look passionate, and again, I'll pay all I can

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.