Dungeon 114 Cover

[~Johnny~]

What do folks think of the new look of Dungeon magazine?

​

One of the stated goals of redesigning the logos was to make them easier to read. Do you think this will help them stand out on the newsstand?

While I'm at it, what do people think of the new "Dungeon is for DMs, Dragon is for Players" concept? Will it make you more likely to buy one or both of the magazines?

(I haven't seen this discussed yet, but please delete this if we've already had this conversation. )

 

[reanjr]

What do folks think of the new look of Dungeon magazine?

​

One of the stated goals of redesigning the logos was to make them easier to read. Do you think this will help them stand out on the newsstand?

While I'm at it, what do people think of the new "Dungeon is for DMs, Dragon is for Players" concept? Will it make you more likely to buy one or both of the magazines?

(I haven't seen this discussed yet, but please delete this if we've already had this conversation. )

My thoughts on the logo? BLEEEEECCCCCCHHHH!!! Looks like it's out of the 50s.

I hate it, cause I never used to get Dungeon since I don't use published adventures. And now I have to get both to get all the old articles I used to read. (I guess I could drop Dragon, but I don't think so).

 

[wizardneedsfood]

I actually like the logo, it is different than the hyped up over the top flashy logos of most magazines today. And most importantly, it is easy to read.

 

[DragonLancer]

My thoughts on the logo? BLEEEEECCCCCCHHHH!!! Looks like it's out of the 50s.

Agreed. It looks awful. I don't think it will help it stand out any better either.

 

[derelictjay]

Yeah I kinda does look like it came out of the 50s, definatly (spelling) not 21st century. But it kinda also harkens back to the early days of D&D.

By the By the art on the cover's great

 

[~Johnny~]

For some additional information on the "new Dungeon," check out this interview with Erik Mona at Silven Crossroads:

http://www.silven.com/adnd.asp?case=show&id=364

 

[MarkAHart]

From what I've read, the new format for DUNGEON and DRAGON looks to be a good change. I especially look forward to the changes in DUNGEON, and with those changes I plan on subscribing to the magazine now, whereas before I tended to pick up an issue now and then at the bookstore.

 

[Cthulhu's Librarian]

Actually, I like the new look. Yes, the font is kind of retro, but it's easy to read. And dropping the spash text to the bottom of the page means that we get to see the art without having it cluttered up, which is a great change.

 

[nikolai]

I prefer the old logo. Though I love the uncluttered cover look they're going for. That is a really good idea.

While I'm at it, what do people think of the new "Dungeon is for DMs, Dragon is for Players" concept? Will it make you more likely to buy one or both of the magazines?

Frankly, it all depends upon how exactly they interpret what goes where. I'm cautiously optimistic about it though.

 

[Knight Otu]

What do folks think of the new look of Dungeon magazine?

​

One of the stated goals of redesigning the logos was to make them easier to read. Do you think this will help them stand out on the newsstand?

I don't know... the font of the logo and the art don't really... fit together.

While I'm at it, what do people think of the new "Dungeon is for DMs, Dragon is for Players" concept? Will it make you more likely to buy one or both of the magazines?

Personally, I don't like it. One of the reasons Polyhedron and Dungeon were combined was supposedly that neither of them was successful enough on its own. Dungeon had quite a limited audience, and the changes make it sound like they are widening the gap that was part of the problem in the first place.