pouët.net

Let's continue this outside of the prod comments:



Please inform me as to why I should be retarded for asking myself that.

It's an interesting point gloom, a prerequisite of retardation is redundant.

Where is the problem? People have always been using some kind of demomakers and this is exactly the same. Not even worth to discuss IMHO.

Gloom;

Isn't the Plastic NVscene 2nd place demo made in the engine from Linger in Shadows PS3 game ? :)

Honestly I don't see a problem. As long as the engine license doesn't cause trouble and can be freely distributed, I feel it would fall into the category of an other factor to rate.

I mean, when I see a demo and rate it, I take into consideration how much effort has gone into making it, so for example, a demos that uses ripped music will get a lower mark from me that one that uses original music. But even then, if the demo is a masterpiece (or good enough) to offset the fact it uses ripped music, I'll still mark it high.

And exmaple of this could be the oh so famous 4k Texas using the windows vista music (is it actually available on windows 7?). That counts as negative for me, but the demo is so remarkably well executed, that is still deserved to win.

The same thing could be said with engines, if you made a demo with, lets say, the UDK, and made a demo that kick ass so hard that everyone will have to walk out butthurt, even if you used a comercial engine, I still would rate it up.
Considering it has very powerfull matinee tool and overall excelent engine quality, this is quite possible, even if is somewhat lacking, because it had to compete with a professional solution.

And to finish the example, if two demos had the same overall quality, the one with the original content and engine would get to win, since the people here worked harder.

So perhaps my issue is how to rate the use of an already built engine, not if it should be allowed or not. I believe they should be allowed, afterall, if the licence is liberal enough, what is the difference between using the UDK and the werkkzeug?

The only thing I would ask is proper readme saying what did you use. No sleazyness trying to take us for fools saying you made the engine and shit like that.

i don't see a technical problem with it as such, as long as it doesn't break any compo rules (the copyright ones - no idea about what the license allows, etc.)

the reason you're being called rude adjectives is probably because you'd do the very same in situations where you find something blindingly obvious :)

magic: one is pc, the other is ps3. but even so, it's hardly "commercial" if they wrote it themselves, is it?

Is there a need for "what gargaj and stingray said"? but isnt the game engines _huge_? and then make it a problem sizewise? if not; I don´t see why it should be a problem.

Gargaj: exactly why I gave it as example...

I also second Blue Ion

Didn't see you complaining about, let's say.. this, for example.

Gargaj: granted, but I didn't go "Wat? Game engine? Shit! *thumb down*", but I actually asked the question in my own setting. As a compo organizer: would I allow it? I didn't even conclude on anything. But by all means, if that's such a fucking crime, boo hoo.

Anyway: I find it an interesting dilemma as a compo organizer, because it is as Blue Ion says: "As long as you're honest about it, people will vote accordingly". Sure, that'll most likely happen, but what about the 3rd party werkzeug-prods which almost exclusively get a "Bah, werkzeug *thumb down*". Is the difference that this particular prod looks _good_? I find that very arbitrary.

In essence, the demoscene have made their own engines or written their own code, or used tools by their team-mates or other demosceners. For me, that's part of what makes it a demo. If it is a script and models, but the core technology that drives it comes from somewhere outside of the scene - is it still a demo in that old-fashioned sense? I wonder about this, because as we are moving more and more into the realm of "outside" visualization (with Processing, motion graphics, what have you) where how it looks becomes more important than how it was made - what do we do? I foresee segmentation (but does not necessarily conclude as that being bad).

It's complex, which is why I wonder about what people think.

Break: please, share your hooded insider information, important one. Also, I haven't complained about anything - I simply wondered out loud.

let me wonder out loud, too...
"i keep asking myself: as a scene.org awards organizer, would i allow *two* of my own tracks to be nominated for the best soundtrack, while being a member of the jury?"

hmmm you kind of make a valid point I havent thought about. engine made for scene stuff vs engine not made for scene stuff. but on the other hand. why should it be wors to make the music with a commersial program vs your own synth compared to making your visuals in the demo with a commersial engine vs your own engine?

magic: but it's a bad example :)

gloom: Well, many demos using werkkzeug are quite weak considering they already had a quite good toolset, and sucked at using it. But I'll give you that, that many people down vote just because it used the werkkzeug.

Afterall, same thing happened with texas when it was released along with a quite epic shitstorm about whether it should be voted down out of the existence just because it used a windows song.

blala: let me think out loud too... gloom didnt add his own soundtracks to the pool of demos to vote for plus wasnt allowed to vote for those prods either, so it's more a handicap than a feat when you're in the jury with your own stuff selected. if i think out loud again, i guess you dont know the rules that the scene.org awards jury applies and you just like to talk with your head up your arse.

Blala: That's interesting - would you? Now, I can only speak for myself, but I guess the answer would be "I'd probably 'allow it' to be nominated, in the same way that all the coders who had many of their same demos nominated for 'best effects' or 'best demo' in the same year". Also, since you seem to know absolutely nothing about how the Scene.org Awards judging works, allow me to point out that one is not allowed to vote for yourself, so it is actually a disadvange to being in the jury if something you made is nominated.

But hey, I will of course make sure that the Scene.org Awards crew change their policies now, having been so thorougly put in my place by someone I have no idea who is but obviously feels some personal grudge towards me. ;)

Proteque: that analogy is sort of weak, seeing as with music or graphics, the end result always counted more than what tools were used to make it. Also, "we" _did_ make our own tools (Scream Tracker, FT2 etc.) to make music for demos. The code was always what was missing there, hence it became the de facto standard to code your own demos.

Blue Ion: "Texas" is an example as well, though not entirely equal in this since. Also it should be pointed out that it didn't "use a Windows song", but it required the sound file to be there so that the music software in the intro itself could pull pieces from it and modify it. But yes, it was discussed quite heavily before allowing it to be entered, but Gargaj probably have more details on that. If we are at all to discuss it, since I feel it falls somewhat outside of the actual topic.

ha, i managed to say it shorter. you owe me a beer, gloom!!!111 :PPP

Maali: bring your ass to Kindergarden and you'll get two :)

no time :(

i'm jumping on the think-out-loud bandwagon... was it a smart move to draft maali as a jury member despite his more than questionable track record in finishing demoscene prods so he would henceforth feel obliged to vehemently defend what he would no doubt have ridiculized before he was "gleichgeschaltet"? :-)

is that why you wanted me in the outline orga team as well? :P

i plead the fifth! :)))

gloom: I'd say that disallowing commercial engines makes no sense at all. The relationship between the renderer technology provider (or any other technology provider, for that matter) and the demo maker should be irrelevant to the compo organizers. They could be members of the same demo-group, members of the same online community, employees of the same company, employees of partner companies or whatever. Where do you draw the line, and how do you enforce it?