This is a really interesting glimpse into the ethereal world of marketing and art direction, but I'm not sure if I agree with the conclusions. If anything, it points to the fact that every branding decision comes with a set of tradeoffs; for example, while the new logo might be more symbolically representative of the game and more cohesive in terms of the angles, the 2nd logo's unboundedness makes the game seem less corporate and more playful. Logo #3 just screams "Hearthstone wannabe" to me, while logo #2 is much more like something I'd want to play. (Thumbs up for the European Aero mockup, though, that made me chuckle!)
(Incidentally, branding aside, this article piqued my interest in the game. Is it worth a play?)
(Incidentally, branding aside, this article piqued my interest in the game. Is it worth a play?)
EDIT: For more excellent graphic-design-related content like this, check out Valve's DotA2 art guide: http://media.steampowered.com/apps/dota2/workshop/Dota2Chara...