Signature And Avatar Rating

[D&P3]

1/10 because Identity or not, it's not very appealing to look at

[Mark20]

My sig and avatar now match.  lol, although rating may not go up, its probably not an eye sore any more.

[pacdiggity]

its probably not an eye sore any more.

Wrong. I'm not even gonna give it a mark because you didn't give D&P3 one. But be sure that if I did it would be a crushing blow to whatever esteem you hold yourself in on the internet.

[Mark20]

well, D&P3 6/10 its nice.

couldn't be that bad Pac, I like hearing open opinions.

[pacdiggity]

Well, you asked for it.
Firstly, your avatar and signature are the same image. Exactly the same. Not in the sense that both represent the same thing, but in the sense that they are from the same image, the avatar's just cropped, which segues nicely into my second point: the avatar is poorly cropped. Avatars are optimally 105x150 here at RMRK. The bars above and below your avatar are ugly against the white background of your avatar and could've been avoided simply by extending the background.
Speaking of ugly things taking up space, the spoiler in your signature is completely unnecessary. The spoiler takes up more space than what it contains - an utterly pointless thing to have in the signature. And, finally, the image in the signature: I believe this is the fault of your rather lengthy name, but there is a slider underneath your avatar box thing, and not the good kind of slider that you find at Whitecastle. This slider bleeds into your signature and it touches your image, which is just... what? This is the first reason your image shouldn't be left-aligned. The second is that right- and center-aligned signature images are, as a general rule, more pleasing to the eye, and, from what I've seen, a bit of a tradition on RMRK. However, fixing the alignment of that image would not salvage it from this: it is simply a boring, annoying, irrelevant image macro that I'm sure nobody has the care to even look at, let alone enjoy. Most of the image is empty background, and even worse, it's unbalanced. The left of the image has less empty space than the right of the image. And, finally, worst of all, the image links to an ImageShack URL "trollsign.jpg". This just further implies that you think that you are, in some way, trolling (an act that, at this point in time, has lost all meaning to so many people of the internet), and finding this funny. To be completely honest, I hate the over-usage and lack of understanding of so many image macros.
All these reasons, in some way or another, contribute to the (10^-18)/10 you get for your avatar and signature.

[Mark20]

Nicely put, i'll hide my eye sore if it keeps from insipring such bull shit . =]

[crow5derlock]

[spoiler= Pacman Quote]

Well, you asked for it.
Firstly, your avatar and signature are the same image. Exactly the same. Not in the sense that both represent the same thing, but in the sense that they are from the same image, the avatar's just cropped, which segues nicely into my second point: the avatar is poorly cropped. Avatars are optimally 105x150 here at RMRK. The bars above and below your avatar are ugly against the white background of your avatar and could've been avoided simply by extending the background.
Speaking of ugly things taking up space, the spoiler in your signature is completely unnecessary. The spoiler takes up more space than what it contains - an utterly pointless thing to have in the signature. And, finally, the image in the signature: I believe this is the fault of your rather lengthy name, but there is a slider underneath your avatar box thing, and not the good kind of slider that you find at Whitecastle. This slider bleeds into your signature and it touches your image, which is just... what? This is the first reason your image shouldn't be left-aligned. The second is that right- and center-aligned signature images are, as a general rule, more pleasing to the eye, and, from what I've seen, a bit of a tradition on RMRK. However, fixing the alignment of that image would not salvage it from this: it is simply a boring, annoying, irrelevant image macro that I'm sure nobody has the care to even look at, let alone enjoy. Most of the image is empty background, and even worse, it's unbalanced. The left of the image has less empty space than the right of the image. And, finally, worst of all, the image links to an ImageShack URL "trollsign.jpg". This just further implies that you think that you are, in some way, trolling (an act that, at this point in time, has lost all meaning to so many people of the internet), and finding this funny. To be completely honest, I hate the over-usage and lack of understanding of so many image macros.
All these reasons, in some way or another, contribute to the (10^-18)/10 you get for your avatar and signature.

[/spoiler]

Nicely put Pacman!

Chapman -40/10

now if somebody would do the honors of slamming me full out?

[Moss.]

5/10

Spoiler tags are annoying, and the spoiler within a spoiler gag is old news. Avatar should be sized better, so it fills the whole avatar window, but bonus points because I assume it's from your game. The studio logo could use some work, but at least it's something I haven't seen a million times before. But I'll let some of the criticism for the studio logo slide, because I have a suspicion that you're using RMRK's light theme. If you're not, then you really need to tweak that alpha layer some more.

[SirJackRex]

I'd give you a 10/10 if you give me those headphones - I really need a new pair for music

8/10 sexy man, and, is that chrono cross? Holding the 2 points hostage until further notice.

[firerain]

7/10, text on the sig clashes horrendously with the blue hues of the background

[Moss.]

I'd give you a 10/10 if you give me those headphones - I really need a new pair for music

8/10 sexy man, and, is that chrono cross? Holding the 2 points hostage until further notice.

The sig is from some Street Fighter game, I think. There was a thread on Reddit about how ridiculous some of the sprite backgrounds were.

Also, the headphones are Denon AH-D2000's. They're out of production, now, but that site has a great listing if you're looking for a really nice, accurate pair of headphones. You know, if accuracy is all that important to you (to most people, it isn't, and that's fine).

[SirJackRex]

Yeah it is and it isn't. I usually don't use my headphones that need replacing for anything other than recording but occasionally I will use them for games and music if it's late at night or noisy out. So accuracy is very important for hearing my tone but it'd be nice if they sound good with music too.

The price is way out of my league but I'll check out that website, seems informative. Thanks.

[Mark20]

That price for headphones?

[pacdiggity]

1. These are not headphones for people who like to listen to music. These are headphones for people who need awesome headphones for their job. I've been able to use some professional headphones in recording studios, they are bloody well worth it if you do a lot of that stuff.
2. Your score has increased to (10^-17)/10 because you changed the spoilery thing (though it isn't really spoiling anything for anyone >_>).

[Moss.]

Think of it this way: if you're making some music, and you're using poorly produced headphones, or maybe well-produced headphones that aren't accurate but make music sound great (by boosting certain frequencies and cutting others), they'll make your music sound different than it actually sounds, you know?

If your headphones boost the low end, and cut some of the high end, and that makes the music sound great ... if you create music with those headphones, the headphones distort your perception of how it ACTUALLY sounds. You'll create music that doesn't have enough bass, and too much high end, and you won't notice because your headphones will compensate for the unevenness. People with other headphones or other listening devices might notice, or in the very least think "man, I wish there was more bass and less high end in this track."

So yeah, $300 for headphones because they have a flat response, so I know what I hear is actually how it sounds. I've had my Denons for about a year, and they were definitely worth it. They make listening to music sound great in their own way (everything is SOOOO clear), but they're so useful when I'm mixing/mastering.

[SirJackRex]

That's what I want to avoid. I already notice a huge disparity between my amp and my headphones.

And that pair sounds ideal. I was looking at under $100 for now, specifically the Sony MDR-V6 but that site says the Shure SRH440 are better "studio" headphones while the MDR-V6 are "dj" headphones so maybe I'll read more into both. I too like clear, crisp music. Listening to well-produced music lets me love the music and the artist more; it lets me get deeper into it. There's that depth, a space, in the sounds like a good conversation has, and it's magical. So I guess being able to hear myself accurately is a huge part of that.

[Strak]

Uh... Not to get back on topic or anything, but...

9/10

Metroid is awesome. But I agree that the color of the text in your sig clashes with the background. I get that they're complimentary colors, but to me it's just not as visually appealing as say a green, or purple. Something closer to the blue background.

[Zylos]

Avatar: 7/10, it's okay but not really catching.
Signature: 10/10, because THAT is catching.

[firerain]

6.5/10, sig is full of linx and shit

[Acolyte]

5/10 -that pikachu scares me
Also I hated that hiker asshole 

[crow5derlock]

8/10
Chibi!!! 

[Strak]

7/10
It's alright, but kinda hard to make out any detail on the avatar. I like the sig though. The logo is cool, if a bit sharp. And the text in the spoiler is interesting, although spoilers in a sig is not the best idea.

[Mark20]

10/10 I love your avatar and sig.

[Acolyte]

4/10
It's improperly sized, and kind of an eyesore tbh.

[Mark20]

Da fuq!? Again i'm sure Pacman already stated this obvious fact!? and wow you changed your sig and avatar..... The other was alot better -10/10