bob
It's better to have two hands than one glove.
Give me a break. The design was obviously meant to look cartoony. That doesn't mean its a bad design. The pig cow and chicken look phenomenal! Whoever designed that is very talented. Were they purchased stock vectors? The three guys don't have the same amount of detail/shading/depth as the animals, but still look great. I imagine this was a different designer than the one who did the animals.
Don't listen to this dude. Just because it says phd under his name doesn't mean he knows **** about design. I just means he wastes a lot of time posting nonsense on this website.
Try to follow along, as strenuous for you as that might be. It's not a bad design because it's composed of cartoons, it's a bad design because it's a bad design. If this notion proves difficult for you to comprehend, consider engaging the services of a slow-normal elementary school child to explain to you the more demanding passages.
To further explain: The back, one would assume, is stock art from somewhere. One would assume this because of the primitive style of the sides. If whatever creature did this was capable of the commercial level of work on the back, it would be just natural to assume that it would also impart the same level of artwork on the sides. Unfortunately the sides look as if they were copied from decorations on one of the aforementioned school child's binders. Those hideous flames that are supposed to be coming from the back of what appears to be a vehicle from flatland alone are sufficient reason to condemn it. Ghastly.
Moreover, from what can be seen of the typography it too is dubious.
Bad design I said and bad design I meant. Actually the overall layout isn't all that bad, other than being totally discordant, but the execution more that makes up for that in its delicious miserableness. Amateur night at the old barbeque pit.