DKC Atlas Forum

Well, it's not really new anymore, but I think you all know what I mean...

Anyway, this is something that I never see people talk about. I like the old Rareware logo better. It was on a nice, shiny plate, and had a blue background. The shine represented the 3D effects in their games (like DKC). And I also like the grid outline of their logo in a few of their games. The logo now has the blue background stripped, along with the border, and the golden "R" is now just a dinky gradient as opposed to being shiny. I know I'm nitpicking about something minor, but why did they need to make it WORSE?

When did they first use this logo, anyway? DKC2 for GBA?

I thought there was also a couple of dots beside the new one?

But yes, I'm a big fan of the old Rareware logo. Just for the way it looks...That could just be nostalgia talking though. >.>

I hate it, A LOT. I loved the old one! It was done with ACM (I think...), it had that dark blue background that goes perfectly with that shiny gold R, and the wireframe intro was AMAZING. The new one is just boring, simple, and dull.

I think DKC2GBA marks the first time it was used, since DKCGBA and SFA use the old one.

I think you're talking about the Rare icon that appears on Scribes, with two little dots beside it, Sun.

Yeah, I liked the old one better too, but I think that's purely because of nostalgia and because that logo represented a golden age for Rare in terms of their game development. Since they've been using the new logo their games haven't been quite the same as before, so sometimes you sort of look at the logo in a negative light. If I was looking purely at cosmetics and tried to forget about the background history, then I wouldn't really mind either, but I think because each are able to represent two different periods for Rare people sometimes take a liking to one over the other.

Yeah, personally, I just think the new logo assumes to much of itself, as much as it pains me to say about Rare.

I'm a fan of the old one, too. Maybe they changed it to reflect the change from Nintendo to Microsoft? I guess they were going for a simplified design, but I personally think the classic design was much nicer.

Did they officially change their company name from 'Rareware' to 'Rare' at the same time?

As early as 2000, Microsoft began making overtures to have the Stampers come make games for their still-under-wraps console. In September 2002, the same month Star Fox Adventures hit stores, they made it official. The Stampers and Nintendo both sold their stakes for a combined $377 million, all the various franchise rights were untangled amicably, and Rare - once again the official company name - became a first party developer for the Xbox.

From IGN's The History of Rare article.
So yeah, they changed the name back to Rare(like it was before Rareware) after they moved to Microsoft.

Rare shouldn't of changed their logo. The old one was much better.
For those who don't know, I used the old logo design (With the transitions from DKC) to create my DKCplayer logo I use on YouTube.
And also, the new logo has a slight resemblance to the Windows logo...

Can anyone provide pictures (or links)?

SLY JO wrote:Can anyone provide pictures (or links)?

Here, by the way I hate it too:

And here's the old one:



Oh god that was awesome. I miss that logo.

I dunno, the old one kinda screams "Hey guys, we can do COMPUTER graphics! Look at our big shiny effeckts!"
The new one has a simple elegance to it.

I don't necessarily hate Rare's new logo, but I definitely prefer the old one. I always said: if I ever get a tattoo, it's gonna be the retro Rare logo!

What's this "golden" R everybody keeps talking about?

It's the original Rareware logo, as pictured in Blaziken's post five posts up ^

I know, but the only "R" I see is in the actual name, "Rareware". Or is that what we're talking about?

Oh wow. So that big shiny golden shape in the middle of the logo... You've never seen that as a stylised 'R'

THAT'S an R? I always just thought it was just a random shape!!! Geez, first I get Simion's name wrong, and now this? What else in my life is a lie? Aw, crap...

So, let's go for the trifecta; what does the 'Eddie' part in your name come from?

Just teasing. Still, I find it pretty funny that you never realised the Rare logo was an R. Haha

I think it looks alright. Like someone said before, it just looks more graceful and elegant.

I want the blue backround back .

Also, don't feel embarassed CaptainEddie. I never noticed it was an "R" either . Infact, it only looks like half of an "R", don't you think?

I hated that logo, but they've gotten even worse! Check this out!




Not only that, but have you guys seen their new web page?! It's gawd awful!

I don't like their new webpage, either =[ It seems too Microsoft-y to me.

There's still that little Rareware sparkle at the Scribes in the blog.

I noticed that Rare changed its logo earlier this year, but I never got around to mentioning it (I was too lazy then I forgot). I have to say that it's even worse than the one that originated sometime around 2004! The font that is used for the word "Rare" doesn't have a nice vibe to it, it looks way too... formal... for some reason. It's hard to describe, really. Plus I don't like how the stylized "R" is much smaller and inside a shape! Again, it looks really formal.

And yeah, I agree that the site doesn't look that good, for the reasons that I mentioned above.

Also, where is this aforementioned Rareware sparkle? I looked at the Blog page but couldn't find it.

(PS: Those images wouldn't show up when I was making this post, but I have to say that they're very large... you should put them in a spoiler tag so that nobody has to scroll down a lot to see people's posts after those images.)

It's depressing, really..

I just hope Retro can continue to act like the new Rare.

Yeah, but let's hope that Retro doesn't think they're too good for Nintendo like Rare... I really hope they can make Rare look like idiots for leaving Nintendo. Maybe Rare will realize their mistake and come back... And change back to the old logo! Probably not...

I hope (and have high confidence) that Retro will do well, just like they've been doing in the past. I think that DKCR is going to be good. I also like their logo, it's better than Rare's logos (except for the 1994-2003 one).

Although Retro may be the new Rare (for the most part), I very much doubt that it's going to cause Rare to come back. Those days are long gone, and most of Rare's important employees had left Rare (the Stamper brothers, Grant Kirkhope, Dave Wise, and possibly others) a long time ago, so it really doesn't have anything going for it anymore.

Blaziken257 wrote:Also, where is this aforementioned Rareware sparkle? I looked at the Blog page but couldn't find it.

I said that figuratively xD Leigh Loveday still answers the Scribes and I think he also writes their blog.

Maybe we should petition Rare to change the logo and their name back to Rareware. Rareware is soooooo much cooler than 'Rare'... not only that, but you only get ONE thin when you google Rareware! When you google rare, a shitton of stuff comes up, it would be much smarter for the company to go back to Rareware.

Rare is terrible these days. It's completely separate from its former self and is pretty much a corporate sellout. Petitioning them to change their logo, or not suck, is like asking the sun to turn purple.

And I disagree that Retro is "the new Rare"- There can only be one of what Rare used to be (all good and everything) and for a Texan company to try emulating the former greatness of a British one... bleh.

Oh, and do we refer to Rare in singular or plural form? I'm all confuzzled. :/

Ok, if it takes us making the sun purple to change rare, then so be it!

I kid, I kid... if that wasn't obvious...

But, I do agree, Tiptup. I don't think that Retro can be called the new Rare. Just because they're doing DK again, doesn't make them Rare.
Also, (along those same lines) because Retro took over the Metroid games, it doesn't make them Nintendo R&D1 or Intelligent Systems.

Rare is both singular and plural? Yes! Both! But, no. It's singular. For reals, it is singular.

Hate to break it to you kiddies, but Retro is not the new Rare. Just because they are making a new Donkey Kong game that's actually good doesn't make them anything like Rare was under Nintendo. The only similarities are that they both start with an R and they are both "western" developers.

Nobody is the "new Rare", because no one company on the planet can ever aspire to be as good as Rare was in the nineties. Not ever before nor ever again will one company be able to produce so many quality titles in quick succession like Rare did. Rare made over a dozen titles for the N64, while Retro makes one game every 3-4 years. Hardly comparable.

Yes, those were essentially my feelings as well. Retro and Rare are similar in some respects (reinventing franchises with critically-acclaimed trilogies that define the series) but that's where things end. It's funny because, for years, I actually had compared Retro to Rare's former self, and fantasized of what would happen if they took on Donkey Kong. Hahaha.

And is every place in the world "western" except for Asia?

No, Tiptup... When's the last time you looked at the middle-east :P

But, since Retro has taken over, maybe they'll do some justice. Man, I really want them to show Rare up for making stupid decisions.

@Kiddy14: Oh, now I see what you mean. I kinda feel stupid for not realizing that before XD

@Everybody else: Well, Metroid was dead for about 8 years but Retro revived it -- and revived it well. Some people, for whatever reason, were skeptical about Metroid Prime, but I never was, and although I found the game confusing at first, I eventually loved it, as well as its sequels. The first two games are among the best on the GameCube, and the third was the first Wii game that I truly liked. I can see them doing the same with DK -- it's been dead for more than 10 years (face it, there hasn't been a good DK game since DK64), even longer than Metroid had been. The trailers looked impressive. I don't care if they only make a game every 3-4 years, as long as they make games that stand out, I'm good with it. It's quality that matters.

And if anybody takes my opinion defensively, that's not my intention, so I'm sorry if my thoughts bother anybody. I just needed to share them, that's all...

Oh, and this thread seems to have drifted from Rare's controversial logos to a comparison between Rare and Retro in general. O_o

Retro can't be exactly like Rare was, no. No company can, but has any Nintendo-affiliated company gotten closer to Rare-quality than Retro?

There are quite a few similarities between them as well. Rare technically revived Donkey Kong, and transformed him. Retro seems to thrive on series revivals.

And other stuff, but I'll think of it when this is the first thing on my mind.

Well, of course Retro isn't exactly going to be like Rare, and like you said, no company can completely imitate another; it has different people so it will have a slightly different vibe to it. But just because it's not exactly the same doesn't mean that it won't be just as good. To me, Retro is a good replacement for Rare.

And yes, Rare revived DK, but it died out after DK64, so Retro is going to re-revive it (if that word even makes sense). So, yeah, that's one similarity. XD

All I'm saying is that Retro and Rare don't really have anything in common. They both revived series and they both make good games, that's not that much of a similarity to draw. I'm not saying Retro is inferior to the old Rare (though they are), I'm saying they aren't that similar at all.

Phyreburnz wrote:I hated that logo, but they've gotten even worse! Check this out!

*horrible Rare logos*

Not only that, but have you guys seen their new web page?! It's gawd awful!

Oh, god. They look like the logos for granola bars. *facepalms* Rare, what have you done this time?