http://kotaku.com/5553226/one-of-the-oldest-logos-in-gaming-is-no-more
What is this new age logo shit? Bring back the old logo! For that matter, they should try making another Conker, or Perfect Dark or something.

To be honest, I have no idea what the old logo looked like. And on that note, I find it to be somewhat questionable journalism to devote a whole article to the lamentation of an old logo, and then never even show what it looked like, but show the four new logos prominently.
Ah, there was a link to Rare's wikipedia page in the article. So I know what the old logo looks like now. I still don't care, I must admit. But then I've never played any of their games.

While I do love Conker, I've never been a massive fan of RARE. I think their games are slightly overated, Banjo Kazooie is still fun but Mario 64 does beat it for me and GoldenEye is unplayable today. The logo is kinda strange, why make a new logo if you are just going to put your old logo on it?

Fugly.

Speaking as someone with graphic design qualifications, that looks like the result of someone completely oblivious to the whole concept of design pissing around in CorelDraw for half an hour then being unable to decide which of their 'creations' was the best (because they're all equally shit).

Oh yeah, Goldeneye is absolutely overrated. Perfect Dark, though? Perfect Dark is one of the best classic shooters out there, and they did an amazing job porting it to the 360. They make the game playable in today's world of Call of Dutys and Halos.

I really do need to get round to playing it, I need to buy an expansion pak for my N64 first though.

I'm utterly amazed Microsoft have not developed Killer Instinct 3 given their other major fighting game Dead or Alive has devolved into bikini beachball.

I cried a little.

I dunno, I like the new logo(s).
Then again, I have no nostalgic attachment to RARE because I never played a game by them. :/

I liked the old logo better. <shrug>

It looks a bit like the sort of logo you'd see on the back of a package of dried fruit.
The old logo was better, but to be honest, I kinda forgot that Rare was still around.

[off topic] Just a quick note, the whole "graphic design qualifications" is starting to be a little pissy (just coming back from the Monkey Island remake debacle). Not to mention naming CorelDraw. Just show from your comments that you know what you're talking about without mentioning it every 3 posts and some people might actually take you seriously. I for one dismiss a post that starts like that no matter who wrote it and it takes much more convincing that your points made there are actually valid.[/ot]
I actually like the new logo as a logo as it respects a few things that are inherent to good logo design:
1) you can scale it easily
2) you can print it black & white or easily alter the colour
3) it's easy to spot from far a distance and still get what it is
4) has a strong visual identity
Now, let's compare the old one with the new one taking that list into consideration:
1) Both the old logo (94-03) and the newer one would of looked like hell scaled up or down.
2) You could maybe print the newer one black&white but it would still look like hell. I'm not even going to talk about the first one.
3) This is one of the few points they actually got right with the old logo.
4) I much like the new font and the weight it gives the logo compared to what they used for the old one.
Now, I also think the morons at Kotaku used the logos in the wrong order; if you put the last one in the second position you can easily see an evolution of the shape going from circle (a thing that in nature is fairly present) to an octagram which is more rare. Or even going back, you can take it as an evolution towards perfection (circle) which is rare.
Yes, it's a subtle effort but most good logos have that ingrained in them one way or another without making the whole logo feel loaded.
The whole transition can also be used on spread banners at a convention for example as a sign of "getting closer to us" which is also something awesome from a design and advertising perspective.
So, while I may feel sad for the old one, the new logo is definitely a welcome change.

Goldeneye absolutely overrated...but perfect dark 100x better? I believe that Goldeneye is a re skinned perfect dark, while I agree it's not as good, your blowing things way out of proportion.

I've used CorelDraw for about 12 years now. Presently have X3. That's how I know how easy it is to throw together a something like that. I'm not being software elitist here. In fact as far as vector software is concerned I'd rate the free Inkscape over Illustrator for basic drawing tools.
To address the problems I see with it in more detail, there's the fact that the font doesn't fit. No effort has been made to design it with the old 'R' in mind. Which might not be so bad had they not retained it. The font doesn't say 'Rare' to me in any way other than literally. Ignoring the history wouldn't be so bad without the old R symbol.
There's no interaction between the three elements. The R is dead centre in the primitive and is well clear of the 'Rare' with no real balance or relation between the two. Apart from the diamond one. In terms of balancing, that actually works, save for the R. The other versions seem to be suffering from the fact that they have to be in exactly the same place and the same size as the diamond.
All of which isn't helped by the poor colour choice offset by the drab font colour. Although that might be somewhat to do with inaccurate reproduction.
Although the idea of diamond shape to circle could be seen as interesting, I don't know how many people are going to see it that way. Particularly how it relates to becoming a perfect circle. Which is still seen as a mark of creative perfection.
Ultimately the whole point of sacrificing grand notions along the way and settling on a final design is that while the intentions and purpose of the logo have substantially improved the design, you're ultimately choosing the one that best represents the company and looks damn good doing it.