My personal opinion....one is a 3D plastic thingie....the other is a 3D 'metallic or glassy' thingie.....either can be the other with 5 minutes of button-clicking in PSP.

Now...

If it's about personal perception of what looks good then maybe it's neither cos I prefer grey.

What IS important about the quality of image creatable via one software vs another is the skill of the artist, not whether the proggy is primarily 2D or 3D in methodology.

You people DO REALIZE that anything made in Terragen or Bryce can be replicated perfectly well in MSPaint [given time, skill and vision].

People get all 'thingie' about pixel-art, layers, and/or 3D render/generation yet all any method does is fool your eye into 'pretending' something has a third dimension.

Study the 'mechanics' [mathematics] of Perspective, Skiagraphy, and Architectural Rendering [without AutoCAD], put aside personal preferences relating to 'shine', be consistent with light-source and realise humility is your friend...

Styl, your design is all right, but you really need to take a modesty pill.

The way you started this thread was basically saying that all the existing skins are boring and looked Photoshopish, while you could do much better in 3D.  The truth is that, while you design is pretty nice, it really is not better than a lot of nice 3ish skins available it doesn't look any less Photoshopish. It may be frustrating that what you probably put a lot of work into, was recreated just as well in 5 minutes by an established and experienced skinner.  Just remember that some people here have been creating skins for many years and their work shows for it.  You come around like a student who argues with the teacher thinking he knows more than him.

If I can give you an advice, be a bit more modest and people will like your work better.  If you present something as a revolution in skinning and end up showing something similar to what is done, people will be harder on you than if you would have presented it with a lot more modesty.