Silkroad Online Forums

tell me what you think.

i like it, except that its a bit too blurry

didnt we critique this one already?

don't remember, it has been a really long time.

The lighting is kinda wierd, don't use lens flare lol

CrimsonNuker wrote:The lighting is kinda wierd, don't use lens flare lol

I dont see a lens flare o.0

-african or european

Rizla wrote:

CrimsonNuker wrote:The lighting is kinda wierd, don't use lens flare lol

I dont see a lens flare o.0

Doesnt that look like a lens flare? at like the top of his gun?

CrimsonNuker wrote:

Rizla wrote:

CrimsonNuker wrote:The lighting is kinda wierd, don't use lens flare lol

I dont see a lens flare o.0

Doesnt that look like a lens flare? at like the top of his gun?

lens flares look ghetto, amateur, cheap, and fake. Really fake.

Anyone who uses them shall be doomed to an eternity of servitude to lucifier himself, in his domain of firey breath!

top right guys, i needed a light source. and this was made for simplicity, not hours of detailed work.

AvAlAnChE1 wrote:top right guys, i needed a light source. and this was made for simplicity, not hours of detailed work.

Then you failed at simplicity. This doesn't respect the rules of simplistic design.

What add a render, background, blure it, light source, then add text? That isn't simple?

I didn't go makeing 50 layers of colours, gradients, or any other special effects.

First rule of simplicity:

Half assed does not equal simplicity.

So you are basically saying I put no work into this and it looks like shit?

AvAlAnChE1 wrote:So you are basically saying I put no work into this and it looks like shit?

No. You're saying that. As a sig it's fine. But, after people got critical and you used the typical "it's supposed to be simplistic" defense, you are saying it looks like shit.

It goes against all simplistic logic and conventions.

I'm open to any criticism, regardless it being negative or positive. The simplicity statement was not a defense, but rather what I thought simplicity is. Different people have different opinions on styles, and to me this is simplicity. It may not seem like it to others, but that is fine.

AvAlAnChE1 wrote:I'm open to any criticism, regardless it being negative or positive. The simplicity statement was not a defense, but rather what I thought simplicity is. Different people have different opinions on styles, and to me this is simplicity. It may not seem like it to others, but that is fine.

Then your perception of simplicity is wrong. Simplicity isn't a "style" it's a philosophy.

Proof that your opinion is wrong:

top right guys, i needed a light source. and this was made for simplicity, not hours of detailed work.

Making something simple doesn't mean making something quick. Often times making something functional takes much more time than making something pretty. When you're designing something aimed at simplicity, every graphic element has an added impact, and extra facets of design to consider.
Creating something pretty is purely aesthetic and does not required intense reflexion, making something simplistic requires a longer and more developped train of thought.

For that reason, your "opinion" that simplicity's only requirement is: something that does not require much time is totally flawed.

Simplicity, also know as simple. An adjective describing something. Like cool, stupid, etc. If I said I was going to make a hot sig and it was a picture of a speaker, not all would agree that is a "hot" sig. Now to me that sig is simple. It may not seem simple to you, you get my point here?

AvAlAnChE1 wrote:Simplicity, also know as simple. An adjective describing something. Like cool, stupid, etc. If I said I was going to make a hot sig and it was a picture of a speaker, not all would agree that is a "hot" sig. Now to me that sig is simple. It may not seem simple to you, you get my point here?

Simplicity is not also known as simple. Simple is an adjective, simplicity is, among other things, a philosophy of design.

And I agree. That is simple, simple is the process of thought that went into it to make it more functional and simplistic. As a result, it's not a sig representative of the school of simplicity.

Knuckles wrote:Looks pretty simple to me... Need to lighten up a bit dom, to him it's simple.

May not be the pinnacle of the simplicity philosophy of doing things, but who cares. It's just a sig, and all he wanted was comments, and constructive criticism, not deconstructive.

Give him a score out of 10, and then point him in a direction that will help him make a nicer sig in the near future.

I am lightened up. Disagreeing = dislightened? Shall I simply just praise everything and attach a smiley face to all my posts?

It was constructive. Hopefully he learned what simplicity is, and doesn't use it as an excuse after being criticized for using the lens flare filter (which by the way was also constructive )

dom wrote:

Knuckles wrote:Looks pretty simple to me... Need to lighten up a bit dom, to him it's simple.

May not be the pinnacle of the simplicity philosophy of doing things, but who cares. It's just a sig, and all he wanted was comments, and constructive criticism, not deconstructive.

Give him a score out of 10, and then point him in a direction that will help him make a nicer sig in the near future.

I am lightened up. Disagreeing = dislightened? Shall I simply just praise everything and attach a smiley face to all my posts?

It was constructive. Hopefully he learned what simplicity is, and doesn't use it as an excuse after being criticized for using the lens flare filter (which by the way was the constructive part )

Ehh.. I still think it's okay for a sig done a while ago, albeit with Photoshop 6, 7, or CS1. And in my opinion, I don't see a lens flare filter, and it doesn't look half bad anyways, so meh... I think he did a pretty good job.

7.5/10

Knuckles wrote:

dom wrote:

Knuckles wrote:Looks pretty simple to me... Need to lighten up a bit dom, to him it's simple.

May not be the pinnacle of the simplicity philosophy of doing things, but who cares. It's just a sig, and all he wanted was comments, and constructive criticism, not deconstructive.

Give him a score out of 10, and then point him in a direction that will help him make a nicer sig in the near future.

I am lightened up. Disagreeing = dislightened? Shall I simply just praise everything and attach a smiley face to all my posts?

It was constructive. Hopefully he learned what simplicity is, and doesn't use it as an excuse after being criticized for using the lens flare filter (which by the way was the constructive part )

Ehh.. I still think it's okay for a sig done a while ago, albeit with Photoshop 6, 7, or CS1. And in my opinion, I don't see a lens flare filter, and it doesn't look half bad anyways, so meh... I think he did a pretty good job.

7.5/10

I never said he didn't. Actually if you reread:

dom wrote:As a sig it's fine.