So I know most of you have seen the 2016 game hint for "Stronghold." This has nothing to do with the game, and it seems like it may be an exciting one!
This is about the little changes in the logo that I noticed, which is actually the thing that stood out most to me. To those with less attention to graphic design details, they look alike at a glance. Upon further inspection there are quite a few differences from the balance in composition, the difference in the triangle and square layering, the thickness of the shapes, and the font of the text.
I am a mixed media illustrator and a graphic design amateur (I've worked a lot on 701's branding), this is my personal opinion as a visual artist:
The second logo (2) is my choice right now for the best looking one. Now, I'm not holding an "older is better" bias, because I think logo (2) was a great improvement from the very first logo (1) from a graphic design perspective. Maybe it will grow on me, but logo (3) seems a bit too "cartoony" for my taste, if that makes any sense. I absolutely love the sleek design of logo (2) and it fits the whole high tech image that comes with a program like FIRST. Logo (3), while not much different, has a bit too much balance in the shapes to have an interesting and pleasing composition. Note how the triangle in (2) is placed higher than the one in (3), giving logo (2) a bit more character than the flatter arrangement in logo (3).
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying logo (3) is a bad design, It's actually alright, but I just think logo (2) has a more pleasing composition and should stay.
With all this analysis that some may think is overboard, we need to realize that all these changes are made for a reason, and this is what graphic designers have to consider when creating images for branding. If this new logo is what FIRST is going to stick with, then I will have to get used to it, because I think that logo (2) was absolutely perfect, and fit FIRST's image and vision better than logo (3). Although FIRST is about fun, I think the new logo looks a little too "playful," while logo (2) looks sleek and timeless.
These are my views only, not of anyone on my team, and I would like others to share what they think. Do you like it or not? Was it a necessary change, or was the then current logo just fine?
I know the logo holds no ground on the ultimate goal of FIRST as a program for inspiring young minds, but I just wanted to know if anyone else has put any thought into this like I have. Branding and graphic design are very important to me.