1) I like the Burger King logo the best because of the variety, yet simplicity in colors. The shape of the red in the middle of the yellow bread slices is appetizing as well as cleverly placed. The blue around the burger attempts to close in on the logo, making it easy to remember. 

2a) I like this theme because of the combination between the neat font and the script-like font. The contrast is interesting though it is monochromed. It makes me want to have a second look. 

2b) This logo was very interesting because of the combination between the pen tip and the book pages, which I thought was clever. The rest of the logo is simple, yet not bland, which I like. 

2c) The differences in text size caught my attention, along with the contrast of yellow against the background. I also found it nice that they replaced the T's with cactuses. 

2d) The style of this logo was nice, as the whole thing is slanted towards the right. The rhino is also black, so that it contrasts against the yellow background nicely. 

2e) This logo is very effective because of how simple it is. The red background has a subtle bike in the fade, which nicely adds to it. 

This poster clearly demonstrates a stance against smoking, as "smoking lowers chances of dying of old age". This is a satirical phrase in which the basis resides in the notion that on average, smoking will lower the expected lifespan of humans, thereby killing a person before he or she reaches what is colloquially considered as geriatric status. The red, which contrasts with the gray and black, serves to show the likelihood of fatality as a result of perpetual abuse of fumes that come from cigarettes. The diagonal composition is done so, so that the audience is led to the top, and reads to the bottom. Because the pictures are in the middle, the audience glances at it as he reads the text, and is intrigued to go back to the pictures after he or she is done reading.

My poster is nothing like my thumbnail sketches or draft, because I decided to get a new idea. I just didn't feel enough passion in telling people about the fast food industry, and I felt that I wanted to do a topic which I felt serious about, which was cigarette smoking in America.

Obviously, this overhaul meant that I made changes all over the place.

I think I deserve a perfect score in every category, besides maybe skill and techniques, and let me explain why. The concept is strong, I believe. The images warrant a high score because I 1) drew them myself and 2) is easy on the eyes and promotes my message. The writing/text provokes the reader via satire/jokes. The design of the overall poster allows the audience to navigate my artwork easily and beautifully. The message is easy to get, and it's mostly due to the layout, font types, and color schemes. It's not extremely flashy and convoluted, but I think the layout plays a huge role in the purpose of this poster: to get the message across. The design is neat, finished, clear, and shows that I utilized the functions that make up illustrator.

The most challenging part of the project conceptually was obviously coming up with my idea. I felt like I kept revising my idea because I wasn't fully satisfied with one of them.

On a technical level, I struggled with Illustrator mostly because I was absent for 6 days, but I got myself back on track and proved myself very able to adapt to the program with relative ease.

What's your stance homework:

One topic I want to mention first of all is gaming. I see many people on social media rant about how bad gaming is for the people because of the violence and blahblahblahblah. What I think is that these people are ignorant and do not hold an ounce of intelligence in basic psychology. Games do not make sane people "murderers". It's so DUMB when I have to research my statistics and facts from viable sources, present them to the person I'm debating, and I get returned with juicy anecdotal evidence with a side of ad hominem. Strongly agree with those who see some sense and rather look at relevant, real-world applicable numbers. Get annoyed at people who rather run a pathos-based argument that does not apply to anything on a macro level.

The second issue is gaming accessibility. This is a big issue in game-related social media sites. People argue that games were more fundamentals-based back then and were more enjoyable because they were 1) harder and 2) made from the heart. These are the people that complain that modern gaming companies make their games more accessible to the average, casual gamer (mainstream). The other argument supports the "average AAA", or modern, popular games. These popular games are deemed as superficial cash grabs that do not have any depth or substance in difference components of games such as storytelling or gameplay mechanics. I personally agree with the former group of people. It isn't right for the bigger companies like EA or Activision to create games that are blatantly ripoffs when you realize that only half the game was made, and the rest is in the DLC (downloadable content that is paid for). Secondly, people like to argue that the older games sucked because the newer ones have more content anyway. Well, the newer games have a much larger budget, so it's obvious that there is much more total content. However, the content tends to be mashed together with dollars in mind. The stories behind these games suck, and there's no thought put behind the soundtracks or atmosphere or tone that games are supposed to excel at. I would go in depth on why certain AAA games bought by the casual consumer are worth being complained about, but I would have to write a whole novel. That doesn't mean modern games completely suck, though. In 2015, we had Witcher 3 and Bloodborne.

http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Watch-Dogs-Dev-Admits-Games-Dumbed-Down-Make-More-Money-63299.html