Good, but there was something about the less-processed look of your earlier attempts that seemed (to me at least) to be more in line with what you're going for in this campaign.
I prefer #2 because it's brighter and just has more 'sharpness' to it. #1 is too dark, and #3 is still a little greyed-out, in my opinion. #4 has too busy of a background, but I do like how the white title pops out at you.
#2 is best IMHO, it has a little higher contrast which gives it a little more pop and readability. If I'm being nit picky I would suggest that some of the stray marks about the "O" be cleaned up, especially the one that makes it look like a "Q".
Though it's well done, I'm not digging #4 as it relates to your project, it has a more 3e era/White Wolf aesthetic to it, it's very 2000's.
I'm gonna be awkward again and say the previous RQIII/GW style logo was preferred here: roughness + glyphs kept it in line with one particular late-OS style (mid/late 80s). Without that tweeness it's hit-and-miss whether those first three still hit the mark for OS - number three is better perhaps as it's more subdued; four shalt thou not count (sorry! ;)
There's no extra syllable between the d and w. That consonantal blend is pronounced identically to the way it's pronounced in "dwarf," thus dwim-mer-mount.
I'm gonna be awkward again and say the previous RQIII/GW style logo was preferred here: roughness + glyphs kept it in line with one particular late-OS style (mid/late 80s).
I actually rather like the glyphs too, since they're reminiscent of alchemical symbols and alchemy plays a big role in my campaign.
Ouch, Blogger ate my extended and reasoned reflection so I will respond in brief points.
Thanks for feedback.
Will exercise restrained pursuit of classically minimalist aesthetic.
4 was an attempt to incorporate Thulian Planetary/planar cosmography incised into wall with magic/dwimmer glow bits.
I understand association of particular aesthetic with particular design ethos and direction of hobby is alienating. OSR is more elegant in its simplicity.
Honestly I like them all. I think #4 is much more 1990s than you are aiming for, it feels very reminiscent of Birthright or Planescape. Maybe if you ever decide to publish a late 2nd edition source book?
Great work, Thomas! I can see what you were going for with 4, but I don't think the colors quite fit for Dwimmermount.
On first glance I liked 1 best, but on longer reflection I prefer 2. I love the overall design, but agree with a couple of the previous commenters that the incresed contrast and brightness makes it more readable, while retaining the charm and mystery of the concept.
I have to say that I'm keen on #3. Sometimes less is more
ReplyDeleteLast one seems a bit busy. I'd say the third is the best but maybe darken it a tad bit more.
ReplyDeleteMy favourite is the first, and my least favourite is the last, which could have slid off a White Wolf hardcover.
ReplyDeleteI concur. #3.
ReplyDeleteGood, but there was something about the less-processed look of your earlier attempts that seemed (to me at least) to be more in line with what you're going for in this campaign.
ReplyDeleteI prefer 2 but 3 is good too. Not 4, its just too much.
ReplyDeletejust say no to 4 :)
ReplyDelete3 is the best. It's clearest and still retains the character I think you're looking for.
ReplyDeleteI respect that the 4th one is a "different direction" but IMHO it's just too much.
I also like 1 and 3; dislike 4 because it screams WW/Delta Green to me
ReplyDeleteI prefer #2 because it's brighter and just has more 'sharpness' to it. #1 is too dark, and #3 is still a little greyed-out, in my opinion. #4 has too busy of a background, but I do like how the white title pops out at you.
ReplyDelete#2 is best IMHO, it has a little higher contrast which gives it a little more pop and readability. If I'm being nit picky I would suggest that some of the stray marks about the "O" be cleaned up, especially the one that makes it look like a "Q".
ReplyDeleteThough it's well done, I'm not digging #4 as it relates to your project, it has a more 3e era/White Wolf aesthetic to it, it's very 2000's.
#2 best
ReplyDelete#4 worst
I'm gonna be awkward again and say the previous RQIII/GW style logo was preferred here: roughness + glyphs kept it in line with one particular late-OS style (mid/late 80s). Without that tweeness it's hit-and-miss whether those first three still hit the mark for OS - number three is better perhaps as it's more subdued; four shalt thou not count (sorry! ;)
ReplyDeleteFavorite: 2
ReplyDeleteLeast Favorite: 4
So is it pronounced "da-wim-mer-mount?"
ReplyDeleteThere's no extra syllable between the d and w. That consonantal blend is pronounced identically to the way it's pronounced in "dwarf," thus dwim-mer-mount.
I'm gonna be awkward again and say the previous RQIII/GW style logo was preferred here: roughness + glyphs kept it in line with one particular late-OS style (mid/late 80s).
ReplyDeleteI actually rather like the glyphs too, since they're reminiscent of alchemical symbols and alchemy plays a big role in my campaign.
in #1, the first "m" and "i" look kinda weird, #4 is horrible, reminds me of cheap console games.
ReplyDeleteI think the #3 is best.
Ouch, Blogger ate my extended and reasoned reflection so I will respond in brief points.
ReplyDeleteThanks for feedback.
Will exercise restrained pursuit of classically minimalist aesthetic.
4 was an attempt to incorporate Thulian Planetary/planar cosmography incised into wall with magic/dwimmer glow bits.
I understand association of particular aesthetic with particular design ethos and direction of hobby is alienating. OSR is more elegant in its simplicity.
I do not want to make anything dungeonpunk- Yuk!
Will de-Q-ify the O (thanks Joshua)
Again thanks for feedback.
I still prefer the first one he did.
ReplyDeleteThe first one or number 1 here.
ReplyDeleteFavorite: #1 (right amount of darkness)
ReplyDeleteLeast Favorite: #4 (too busy)
Honestly I like them all. I think #4 is much more 1990s than you are aiming for, it feels very reminiscent of Birthright or Planescape. Maybe if you ever decide to publish a late 2nd edition source book?
ReplyDeleteThe dark shadows at the top of #2 pull the eye into the art, contrast always good if only one color.
ReplyDeleteGreat work, Thomas! I can see what you were going for with 4, but I don't think the colors quite fit for Dwimmermount.
ReplyDeleteOn first glance I liked 1 best, but on longer reflection I prefer 2. I love the overall design, but agree with a couple of the previous commenters that the incresed contrast and brightness makes it more readable, while retaining the charm and mystery of the concept.
Some free fonts here you might like:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.feorag.com/freestuff/dearmach.html