I definitely agree that the original source shape shouldn’t be altered or tempered with.
An updated version of the BGE logo proposal.
The alignment has been updated, to let the Hair Stripes (Dark Blue) match the Blender Shape Outline (Light Blue).
The problem is with the Left Lowest “Hair Stripe”,
this is so far off metrics, that it didn’t quite fit.
This is already a version with a little cheating.
Cheating more would mean altering the Blender Shape Outline.
Or to break the rules of consistency and make the last line different (in relation to the first two).
I would say this is the best interpretation of both worlds when integrating the alignment feedback.
What say you?
BGE Icon: (proposal 2)
BGE logo: (proposal 2)
The original is supposed to look like in a slight perspective. I would like to see one version that follows that all the way - ie, the hair in different width, the inline G following the inline of the original, the with of the G following the with of the original. It might be hard to get it to fit together (get the dark hair fit the G) - but I think it might look the best even with some sheeting.
Update: With sheeting I mean let the dark hair bend soft and slightly in the ‘ring’ to hit the G correctly.
I think (though ain’t sure) that you refer to the logo variations in existence, which do have a small leaning back perspective?
This is not original or intended according to the Blender website:
In my opinion we should try to honor the original intentions as much as possible, this will help to get an increased acceptance and won’t break the functionality by sticking to the guidelines.
Bad logos
Other designers have tried to make their own versions. The following examples have severe shape deformation issues:
- The first designer forgot to add the subtle “backwards leaning” perspective in the logo, the three ‘fingers’ of the logo have to be of different width.
- The other designers thought it would be fun to make the logo in 3D. This makes it badly recognizable. The logo should remain a graphical ‘2D’ item.
So basically (and you might refer to this) adding a slight shade to get the logo distinct from the back ground is acceptable, but the 3D perspective is not as intended.
Correct me if I am mistakenly interpreting your intentions anything other then as described here.
If so maybe you can try to maybe provide some more info or use an other approach of explaining (or maybe a simple pixel mash up as preview to visualize your ideas)?
====
edit: my quote unintentionally had text of myself mixed in: fixed this.
My text: In my opinion we should try to honor the original intentions as much as possible, this will help to get an increased acceptance and won’t break the functionality by sticking to the guidelines.
The original have a slight backward leaning perspective - as clear from the text You cited. I think the dark blue ‘addition’ should try to have the same perspective.
I am sorry,
my quote was accidentally unintentionally mixed with part of my text, which bro0ke context.
The original quote is now in place again. sorry for the confusion. I confused myself with this error. OOPS 
- The first designer forgot to add the subtle “backwards leaning” perspective in the logo, the three ‘fingers’ of the logo have to be of different width.
You are right. There is a subtle backwards leaning.
And this makes your comment make more sense. I mislead myself.
The shape is the original and what you interpreted this as is that the added detail needs to follow this exact perspective, so that the G and the lines are distorted in the same manner, not breaking the original perspective. Fair point!
But before I read your last comment, I already made these, to work around the problem as alternative proposals.
So first I’ll post these. Since these new proposals already work around the “problematic metric” traits. So I might work on the perspective changes later if still required. But first these:
Proposal 3:
BGE icon: (proposal 3)
BGE logo: (proposal 3)
This is the same as proposal 3, but has rounded edges, following the original base shape in essence.
Proposal 4:
BGE icon: (proposal 4)
BGE logo: (proposal 4)
I’m still curious on a perspective fixed #2 - I like it the most so far sans the perspective error.
What program do You use? Do it have a perspective tool?
Yes I still need to dive into that perspective, to see what it brings.
But haven’t found the time yet.
I use Inkscape, there is some, though limited, perspective functionality.
Which is why I haven’t done it yet. 
There is a positive reaction for the “spikes” version on GameBlender.
I also like the spikes, though there IS an issue with the perspective.
@Crumpet
maybe you could do something like this:
(its not well detailed as its just a example)
Making their blades going gradient symbolizing its moving by the physics of BGE =P
and also you could add the ‘G’ for the final detail.
This is the same as proposal 4, but the G has the correct perspective.
Proposal 5:
BGE icon: (proposal 5)
BGE logo: (proposal 5)
comment:
I think this is the best so far. And has my vote.
(Proposal 5, rounded spikes, with perspective)
@Iskas, your logo proposal does break the original logo guidelines too much in my humble opinion.
@All:
If this logo could be accepted and has your vote as well, I will provide the SVG for you all to play around with and adopt it where you see fit. (Mind the official Blender logo guidelines / rules).
I hope this can be the final version.
I kind of liked #2, but I’m OK with #5.
As for the guidelines - They strict for official blender foundation use - but allow close to anything for community use - But I still strongly prefer to keep the original shape.
Thanks for a great contribution!
Thanks!
I’m busy with school, but i’ll update the site soon!
Without reading through all the posts, am I right to assume that BlenderGame.org is the proposed site? If so, I’ve registered for it and now I’m just waiting on approval.
Making games is something I’ve always wanted to do and I know nothing of it. Nor can I find anything of it. This is a fantastic idea and will definitely help many Blender users like myself, who know virtually nothing but want to learn.
If I were to suggest a genre of game, it would be point and click. I think that might be worth teaching as it will cover basic mechanics. Finding items, which trigger certain things, using them with each other to combine them, and many more. It can be quite simple too, a static background and a character walking along in that scene. A few people to maybe talk to, which would introduce dialogue boxes for characters too. Let me know what you think. =3
I’m afraid I don’t know what you’re talking about!?
Our website is currently hosted at http://hostilestudios.com/bge/ and I hope to buy a domain once it’s a little more complete. Time constraints push its priority a little lower the moment, although I did just add another python tutorial
My apologies. I was scrolling through, to see if the site had been made and I click on www.gameblender.org and assumed that it was the one.
I’ll be sure to check out the website. =]
Thank you Zer0Naught! Please feel free to leave feedback 
Just a little tweak that I think might help. It’s the layout of the information, underneath the videos, that I think could look better.
How about moving the description up, having the ‘jump to’ part on the right, and adding some extra info underneath, or some sort of comments section.
Great website so far though and I’m sure you already know what needs fixing/chaning/adding.