No, not really the font. I'll be frank that it's not the best font I've seen, but the font itself is okay. (Of course, if you feel like changing it, sites like
DaFont and many others provide a nice selection of free fonts.) It's more about the text placement and overall blending.
See, in your current entry, you put two lines of text overlaying two semi-transparent shapes that fade out into the image beneath (i.e. the character and flame effects) on certain spots. Doing it this way makes sure the text does
not stand out too much compared to the rest of the image. On the flip side, this makes the text look a bit 'engulfed' and as a result appear less clear, but this is something quite easily remedied by, for example, using tools such as dodge and burn or adding alternate effects such as a slight gleam on the layer having the effects on the spots the text overlays.
In your new signature, the text stands out strong and proud: solid white, 100% (or close to 100%) fill and opacity, with a slight black outer stroke, surrounded by white frames that equally don't blend into the rest of the image. This isn't by itself bad; however, you have three bodies of text, each vying for the viewer's attention as none of them are purposely more blended or standing out more than the others. Add the character render (face, especially) to the mix and you have four focal points.
In short: if with your current entry it's easy to focus your gaze to the character's face, your new signature makes for divided attention from the careful observer, as there are many different objects with their own character that makes them all stand out. That's what I mean by focal points. Thus, personally, I'd opt for
text that isn't too spread out nor strays too far from the main focal point―most commonly the face of the character depicted―so that they won't compete with each other.
after all the trouble I went through to not look at anyone's submission before I finished...
