18 replies to this topic

[mwknowles92]

Both mwknowles92 and Mik are usernames I use. It's just sometimes either are taken so I have to use the other one.

Edited by mwknowles92, 09 August 2007 - 12:27 AM.

[Archangel]

I like it. A Lot.

[Bug]

That has to be one of the best designed signatures that I have experienced in a LONG time!

Kudos to you, sir

[Jurge]

Thats nice :]
I Like the flecks of burning ash effect

[Lastcrime]

yah thats a great sig i love the flow and how nicely the bullets were put in, great job.

[TheShepherd]

Yes. This is one of the best signatures I have ever seen.

[pancho]

its nice.

[Mehhht]

I was a little surprised by the comments. It's not horrible or anything but it's not "OMGTHEBESTSIGEVAR" I don't really see any depth...at all... the bullets are cool, but thats about it. The text is okay. I dislike the scanlines because they go against the flow. There is also no blending on the render. No light source for how much light is on the render...It's monotone...

Sorry to be a killjoy, but don't take it the wrong way. It's better than some of mine but I just dont like it as much as a lot of sigs I've seen.

[bakedbread]

Awsome! I am just testing this one, it isn't good, but says what I need

[pancho]

Mehhht, on Aug 16 2007, 04:05 PM, said:

I was a little surprised by the comments. It's not horrible or anything but it's not "OMGTHEBESTSIGEVAR" I don't really see any depth...at all... the bullets are cool, but thats about it. The text is okay. I dislike the scanlines because they go against the flow. There is also no blending on the render. No light source for how much light is on the render...It's monotone...

Sorry to be a killjoy, but don't take it the wrong way. It's better than some of mine but I just dont like it as much as a lot of sigs I've seen.

Well, some tags here looks really bad, but this is not the greatest ever but dont looks too bad, so dont be jealous.

[Mehhht]

Haha I'm not jealous but I think it is not even close to the best of a lot of sigs I've seen on here.
I don't get why some people think this is an AMAZING tag and other sigs that I've seen that look better IMO, the same people say it looks bad...is my opinion really that much different than yours?

[Inigo]

I agree with Mehht about the lack of depth, but other than that its a really good sig

[dcpweb]

well done - nice design







regards


p shah - www.dcpweb.co.uk

Edited by dcpweb, 18 August 2007 - 10:32 AM.

[pancho]

Mehhht, on Aug 16 2007, 11:40 PM, said:

Haha I'm not jealous but I think it is not even close to the best of a lot of sigs I've seen on here.
I don't get why some people think this is an AMAZING tag and other sigs that I've seen that look better IMO, the same people say it looks bad...is my opinion really that much different than yours?

Well, is not the greastest ever, and is maybe good, but if you see this website is full of noobs so they dont really know which one is good. But its kinda true.

[excel]

Inigo, on Aug 18 2007, 09:00 PM, said:

I agree with Mehht about the lack of depth, but other than that its a really good sig

looks really differnrt and appealing..

[Mehhht]

Yeah I geuss but I'm a noob too....but this tag looks like what I use to make like...when I first started. Looks like a background, then a render is added, put outer glow over render, add scanlines and text and kapow your done. Maybe thats why I don't like it.

Edited by Mehhht, 20 August 2007 - 11:26 PM.

[pancho]

Well, im like inter, and yeah, i used the scanlines when i first started but this guy is a noob too so 4 a noob is ok but for a inter, mod or pro is like crap.

[Mehhht]

Okay that's what I agree with you on. Not saying I'm any better, just saying it's not the best sig I've ever seen.

[VogaL]

I don't know about the text but that is one hell of a design man.