Brutally honest feedback for creating visual identity
Hi fellas!
I’m developing the visual language for a YouTube channel focused mainly on history, geopolitics, and political storytelling, covering everything from ancient history to modern/current events.
I have four main visual components:
1. MAP — Strategic Map
This is the core of the channel.
I use a 3D earth/map style with geographic terrain, historical colors, and simple 3D tabletop-style objects placed directly on the map: armies, cavalry, ships, weapons, flags, strategic objects, etc.
The 3D objects and the earthy themes are the main visual signatures of the channel.
2. ATLAS ANIMATION RECONSTRUCTION
For historical moments that cannot be explained well with a map and where archival footage does not exist, I’m experimenting with a clean historical atlas illustration style.
The idea is to generate a still illustration for each story beat and then animate it very subtly. Mostly camera movement, parallax and very small movements such as a flag waving, a hand moving, smoke, etc.
3. REAL FOOTAGE / ARCHIVAL
Real photographs and film footage related to the event being discussed.
This is intentionally much more realistic because it serves a different purpose. Showing actual historical evidence.
4. MINIMAL EXPLAINER GRAPHICS
Simple black/white/red graphics for things that are easier to explain visually than through a map or footage (for example political organizations, councils, groups of people, relationships, rankings, etc.)
The problem
If I put all four on one page I’m not completely convinced they look like they belong to the same channel.
That is the problem I’m trying to solve.
I want someone to watch a video without seeing the channel name and immediately feel:
>These different visual modes were designed by the same creator.
I DO NOT necessarily want every mode to look identical. They have different jobs.
What I want is a common visual dna / signature connecting them.
What I’m trying to achieve
The ideal result would be something like:
MAP → “Where is this happening?”
ATLAS RECONSTRUCTION → “What happened?”
REAL FOOTAGE → “What did it actually look like?”
MINIMAL GRAPHICS → “What does this relationship/concept mean?”
Different visual tools, but one recognizable editorial identity.
The second attached image shows several additional examples of the 3D map system, because that part is much more developed and is currently the strongest signature.
I’m looking for brutally honest opinions on the branding/visual system as a whole, including suggestions for what you would change, remove, combine, or standardize.
Thanks.