Avatars

2»

Posts

  • FalloutFallout GIRL'S DAY WAS PRETTY GOOD WHILE THEY LASTEDRegistered User regular
    edited January 2006
    I like 100x100 better, and don't mind them at all when I'm using 56k, but 64x64 is fine with me.

    (o m f g 1 5 0 c c)

    Fallout on
    xcomsig.png
  • Lucky CynicLucky Cynic Registered User regular
    edited January 2006
    64x64 is kinda small, I would like to see 80x80, but anything bigger is just retarded.

    I dont mind 64x64, its very petite and professional, but if it were up to me, I would make it 70x70 or 80x80...

    Lucky Cynic on
  • Carl with a KCarl with a K Registered User regular
    edited January 2006
    Why is this conversation still going on

    Carl with a K on
  • KnobKnob TURN THE BEAT BACK InternetModerator mod
    edited January 2006
    We could go back to 50x50

    I like it that way

    Knob on
  • WoodtopianWoodtopian Registered User
    edited January 2006
    I've used this avatar for four years. I've scaled it to fit sizes radically larger and smaller than 64x64.

    It actually looks rather nice at full size. Very well shaded and such. But, on the other hand, I think that though Avatars are a more important distinction than usernames (I don't remember your names, just avatars. Your names are like "kakamouku" but I just see "clown").

    I guess what I'm trying to say is: Unless you've created some incredible work of art, you have no legitimate reason to need a bigger avatar size to express it. Just pick something random and distinctive looking and stick with it. And if you have created a beuatiful and meaninful work of artistry, go to Artist's Corner and post it there.

    Woodtopian on
    sig8ee.jpg
  • Mr. Yos MannMr. Yos Mann Registered User regular
    edited January 2006
    Woodtopian wrote:
    I've used this avatar for four years. I've scaled it to fit sizes radically larger and smaller than 64x64.

    It actually looks rather nice at full size. Very well shaded and such. But, on the other hand, I think that though Avatars are a more important distinction than usernames (I don't remember your names, just avatars. Your names are like "kakamouku" but I just see "clown").

    I guess what I'm trying to say is: Unless you've created some incredible work of art, you have no legitimate reason to need a bigger avatar size to express it. Just pick something random and distinctive looking and stick with it. And if you have created a beuatiful and meaninful work of artistry, go to Artist's Corner and post it there.
    That's reall hard to believe.
    *eyes join date*

    Mr. Yos Mann on
    shinichiropot2.gif
  • Bionic MonkeyBionic Monkey Registered User, ClubPA
    edited January 2006
    Woodtopian wrote:
    I've used this avatar for four years. I've scaled it to fit sizes radically larger and smaller than 64x64.

    It actually looks rather nice at full size. Very well shaded and such. But, on the other hand, I think that though Avatars are a more important distinction than usernames (I don't remember your names, just avatars. Your names are like "kakamouku" but I just see "clown").

    I guess what I'm trying to say is: Unless you've created some incredible work of art, you have no legitimate reason to need a bigger avatar size to express it. Just pick something random and distinctive looking and stick with it. And if you have created a beuatiful and meaninful work of artistry, go to Artist's Corner and post it there.
    That's reall hard to believe.
    *eyes join date*

    He means he's used it everywhere. Not just this forum.

    Bionic Monkey on
    sig_megas_armed.jpg
  • UncleSamUncleSam Registered User
    edited January 2006
    I've got it. 5x12 pixels. If it's good enough for ASCII, it's good enough for me. And thing of the bandwith savings... Pennies, I tell you, pennies!

    UncleSam on
    SteamID : sammer105
This discussion has been closed.