After:
What do you guys think and what could I improve/change?
Edit: I’ve made a few changes and I’m going to be working on making it stand out more.
After:
8 Likes
The word itself has a good asthetic, but the background is really bland. Also the image could use more color. I only see shades of grey. More color can make it pop out better.
1 Like
Wow. It looks pretty good for your first logo. The only thing I don’t like and would change is the mini rocks and maybe make them larger. I would also add maybe a glowing light or highlight around the text,
1 Like
I like it a lot but if I could change anything make the white darker it looks off. But that’s it, good job!..
1 Like
Wow, it looks really good for your first logo!
Nice considering it’s your first logo.
I like the font type and style, really nice job.
Grey background is fine for me, can be said “trendy”
The thing that doesn’t fit to the picture are the small rocks
Their placing, texture and colour are so different.
Probably a nail’s or a screw’s head would fit better?
2 Likes
I really like it, though i recommend that you increase the contrast (3d pop, sharper outlines), and maybe add some “steel” lines in the background. like in world of tanks mercenaries.
with or without though, its a really great logo.
1 Like
I like your choice of wording, XD nice keep at it.
1 Like
Maybe add some dust around the letters as if it’s being smacked down? Also move your name a corner. Apart from that, the rocks around the “BURP” aren’t the same style and they stick out like a sore thumb. The actual logo look good though!
2 Likes
Looks really really good!!
I would probably give the letters a bit of differentiation on the sides (cracks mainly, especially on the P) but apart from that I don’t see anything else to warrant criticism! I definitely prefer the 2nd one however, the outlines on the rocks on the first picture don’t really work in my opinion.
The background isn’t part of a logo. 
I see this a lot in design where the background itself is criticised. It should never be, as a background wouldn’t be part of a logo in the first place.
7 Likes
If the background isn’t part of the logo. Or shouldn’t be judged, it should just be completely black, white, or transparent. The fact that the creator of the logo desided to make the background have a gradiant of grey leads me to believe he is using it to accent the logo. To me this mean it can and should be judged alongside the logo.
2 Likes
the logo refers to the entire image, does it not ?
The background is just there so the logo itself is more clear and isn’t on a blank white background. I’m referring to the text since that’s the actual logo. The logo+background is the icon.
as LostPast already stated, if the backround adds to the logo, then we are rating that entire system.
because once it leaves from that background, it changes.
i dont know, but isint there a way to present a logo as a “frame” image without unwanted backround.
anyway, still looks cool 
1 Like
That would be an image. The logo is the logo, the background is not the logo.
Again, not part of the logo. If they wanted the background to be rated that would have been specified. A logo does not include a background, a background is meant to literally be a background unless specified otherwise.
2 Likes
Looks great, I really like the font and texture on the letters. The second picture looks a lot better, than the first due to the first image having a white outline which made it a little cartoonish like, which didn’t fit the theme at all. The background is in need of work right now though, it seems kind of bland.
1 Like
i know they diddent want it specified, just but pointing out that it really isint possible to rate the logo without considering the image.