pouët.net

geez grumpy old sceners :p

if there is a freeware version (even limited one) of that promising tool, i would gladly thanx Phonica for such a tool.

Not everyone plans to "dominate" the scene with master prods, some just wants to participate and have fun with their own (limited)abilities and public tools...

I'd say one of the problems of demoscene - at least at some aspects - is that a lot of boilerplate code has to be written just to lift over the ground. And that all over and over, being roughly the same and stopping the progress.

I believe every available tool can push the scene forward, since people can start off realizing their ideas (consern those effects or design) instead of writing boilerplate. I believe that minifmod, fmod, bass, tinyptc, apocalypse and squoquo source, and various demo editors have pushed the scene forward, not backward. I recall tallking to an oldskool demoscener, whether he wants to become active again. He said "oh, no! the major groups are so high that we cannot reasonably catch up!" Really very daunting.

BTW, as soon as i come up with something useful, i'll release it as open source.

... but then again, if you want something REALLY cool, you write it yourself.

Gargaj: yes, must be the reason one writes anything at all - but one would only have to write parts he thinks he knows how to improve on.

fact is that if you want to have something that fits your needs perfectly, you either have to be
1) lucky and find some existing stuff that doesn't need modifications
2) lucky and find some existing stuff that needs some altering but you can do that
3) do your own from scratch
some may fit into 1 and 2 (exepackers, module/stream replayers, modelling+imageedit tools for demos), but most of the stuff doesn't (introtools, synctools, composition tools) and that's the point where you have to invest effort.
think about all the demopaja prods. sure, there's some nice stuff among those (hi zone :), but some of it just makes you go "eeh... i would tolerate it if at least there was own code involved".
if you want to make a scene production, you have to make efforts, and not only by artistic material, but code as well, and i don't mean "go write your own xm-player NOW", i'm trying to say that legoing together your prod by freely available stuff is, as legitimate as it may be, kinda sucks.

That indeed is, absolutely ridiculous. I'd like to emphasize my opinion on this stuff through a short but enjoyable sound sample..

There you go!

To blala: there are technical limits in every form of art. Furthermore, in every artform subcultures have always emerged. If one tries to define demoscene by these standards, they are not sufficient enough - as such short remarks, at least - to single it out when trying to place it among other artforms.

of course there are technical limits in every form of art - but these are all very different from the demoscene's technical limits. while usually technical limits are not an important part of art, they are the very essence of the demoscene. since you are sceners not just artists, i hoped it's enough to say 'technical limits' and not going into details.

btw it is quite interesting that there're some artists who force themselves to some limits, usually because they can't find their way in the given state of their art form or something like that, and often they start some radical art movement.
this seems quite similar to the fact that we are making 4k and even 1k, 256b intros...

ohh the subculture - i meant the concrete scene subculture, not in general

Beta or not, I havent managed to do the most basic things in revenitor without crashing it. 75 $ ? A joke..

The technical limits in different artforms are, of course, different - hence the difference in the first place :). But seriously, you said that demos are "different from other forms of art" based on these limits. Or, more precisely, you gave an impression that this is one of the few qualities that defines demoscene as something... separate. If there are certain limitations in every form of art and all of those limits differ from each other, how can this still be a valid qualitative rule for defining demoscene as something _more_ different - effectively dividing the field of art based on that principle? Don't get me wrong :), I believe I really know exactly what you mean by your statement. I'd just like us to ponder on this. I think the point about the "forced limits" is good. However, I do think that technical boundaries are indeed an unavoidable part of any art - and they are something that, in many cases, keep art going. In trying to find a unique expression one has to pursue the not-before-seen in a given artform, stretching the limits of the media at hand. Be it lyrics, drama or prose, motion pictures, photography, painting or other visual arts, music or soundscapes, sculpting, installations - or a combination of any of these :)... Often times, the most profound "technical limitations" surface from the inner logic of the used language and other fundamental conventions related to the subject matter an artist is dealing with. A competent artist is very much aware of these limitations and tries to overcome them. As a concrete example, in the field of (semi-popular?) literature, one of the recent limit-breakers has been Mark Danielewski's somewhat postmodern work "House of Leaves." This work once again demonstrated that even a book, as a technical artefact of paper-and-stuff with text printed on it, can be constructed in a very unique manner, breaking limits and showing us something that was before truly unseen.

Oh, here's a nice interview with Danielewski regarding his work. He wrote the "House of Leaves" for ten years, and it really is quite a massive novel :).

http://www.randomhouse.com/boldtype/0400/danielewski/interview.html

Guenon, i don't really understand you.
there are (at least) two cases:
- you agree with the statement "demoscene is more-or-less unique among art forms"
- you don't

in the first case, i can't do but repeat: i don't see any other real differences than technical limits and the way we handle them (oldschool sceners don't want a faster/better/morefunctional machine, they want to do better things within the framework of the given hardware) and the subculture (parties, compos - a literature award is not a compo :)

in the second case the discussion shifts to on what we call demoscene? of course no art form has sharp boundaries, but we have to define them somehow to be able to speak about them. so in this case the same holds: in my opinion, what we call demoscene - or at least what we called demoscene 10 years ago - is defined by these things.

i forgot to mention that the book comparison is nice.
but i can't get an opinion about a book by reading an interview with the author :)

once again :)

Often times, the most profound "technical limitations" surface from the inner logic of the used language and other fundamental conventions related to the subject matter an artist is dealing with

by "technical limitations" i meant strictly the hardware limitations - a book is printed on paper. if it's an e-book, or hypertext, etc, that's already a different genre...

I would really like to add the following:

BLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLABLA... who cares?

By "technical limitations" I meant primarily the hardware limitations, too. I just wanted to expand the view, showing that the same principles that apply to hardware (in this respect) often have corresponding methodical limits also elsewhere.

Yes, a book is printed on paper. It is language printed on semi-2D (of course in reality 3D) surfaces. Dealing with that is indeed a profound hardware limitation :). It restricts one's reading - and the writing process of an author, I might add - in a certain and most definite way. It challenges the author: what is possible with the tools at hand? Hence, in the past few hundred years, the literary field has seen many forms of writing - routines, if you may - emerge that have not been thought of before, shattering the limits once again.

To your first reply: I merely question the way in which demoscene is unique. Agreeing on the subject is not, in my opinion, a binary opposition restricted in the way you proposed. I agree with the statement "demoscene is more-or-less unique among art forms", but I think its uniqueness is nothing that would separate it more profoundly from other forms of art than the separating characteristics found, in turn, in any other artform, defining the form as its own entity in the field of art.

I appreciate your comments and really do think this is an interesting discussion. So, kusma: apparently, some people DO care. Bite that :).

I'd like to add one more thought. This is just thinking a bit further, not so much a straight commentary of our discussion.

In demoscene, many prods these days (and for a very long time, if I remember) have been ones that show the group's concentration on the aesthetic qualities of the presentation, creating stunning visuals and audio experiences - eye and ear candy, if I might say that :) - or other artistically ambitious content that doesn't really derive from trying to break the current limitations.

I even think that these days only a small minority of all the prods try to push the envelope, crossing boundaries. Many others contain an aesthetic piece of work that has been designed using well-known methods of producing demos.

In the same sense, many other artforms have works that concentrate solely on the aesthetics, using well tried out methods and forms of production. Every once in a while someone sets to go for a ride that goes beyond, and that is the portion that keeps art shifting, mutating, ever inventing itself.

I love the website. Looks like a challenge to un-suckify it

It's time for a Scali-post!

Visual Basic is not a language, it is a crime... and the GUI looks like my crappy tools i use for my crappy demo-making. how do you expect someone to make good demos with such a crappy user interface ?

Btw the splashscreen reminds me of "3D Fahrschule" ;)

Angels crying, when you're far away from me
Always trying, I will make you see
Angels crying, when you're far away from me
No denying, we were meant to be

Angels Are Crying
Angels Are Crying
Angels Are Crying

I've Got All Systems Going
Nothings Standing in My Way
I Should Far Down The Road But I'm Not
Somethings Holding Me Back Like A Wild Boar Attack
And I've Got You By My Side But You're Not

"I love the website. Looks like a challenge to un-suckify it"
Bwaaahaahaha that excactly what i thought.

Im sorry, creator of this 3d tool. But the tool isnt really that good. A lot of sceners have created their own dev tools, and those i have seen have been a lot better. Not only functionality but altso looks and ease of work. So why would sceners pay to get a tool that is obviously inferior to what they create themself.?. yet alone why would game ddevelopers??
I do not understand the logic. Ok..its an early version, so ill wait with final comments. But as of now. all you could get fom me for that tool was a beer for the efford :)

Its not like it takes "alot" of time producing such tools, and its not like flyby primitiveobjects-3d-worlds is anything new or respected anymore anyways. It kindof was until Discloned tho, and got a little kick with The Product, but The Products chartbus was morely the work of graphicians sweating as hell with the textureeditor and a kickass synth+soundtrack.

Oh, and why wouldnt games use generated textures? Heard about consoles with shortage on memory etc? Ofcourse they wouldnt go 100% generated, but what can be generated is a relief. Still, gamedevelopers suck so :-)

Stefan, this is for you..

Next time, take a few seconds before you make beginners mistakes like these :)