pouët.net

dont get me wrong, we dont do pies couz we dont know how, we just think its smarter to do demos instead and that you should be doing them instead. capiche now?

i missed a too after that last instead..

Who reads the demoscene articles on Wikipedia, anyhow? I think this whole Wikipedia crusade is pointless. If you want to document the scene, start a scene history web site or something.

Now, back to democoding...

mmm pie

fuck wikipedia and radman GET A FUCKING CLUE and abadon that fucking site. mmmkay ?

let radman have his toy

Erm, yeah, so what about Tomcat's book? :-p

/me hugs uns3en.

What a grand statement! Get a job in marketing.



For the sake of your reputation, I hope this was just a tasteless joke. I never slumber while I'm drunken, it's more like hibernation. Those who slumber, didn't drink enough!

now for some in media res...

From wikipedia

Introductory section is fair enough for those of us who have background knowledge, but leaves the uninitiated with more
questions than answers. The slight dive into history doesn't explain anything but a relation to cracking and computer
graphics. And for god's sake, add a hyperlink to "demo" as soon as possible.

The claim "The main aim of a demo is to show off superior programming, artistic and musical skills over other demo-groups"
is only telling half the truth, the "project", or "aim" if you want, is ALSO to demonstrate capabilities of the computer(s)
as well as the skills of a product's creator(s).

This section is not defining anything of worth to a person who's knowledge about the scene is nill. The reader is forced to
read further on to obtain even a basic comprehension of the phenomenon ("The Demoscene"). For quick reference, this is not
satisfactory.


Concept.

The statement "Since any given computer platform before the PC age meant every computer of a given line had identical
capabilities[...]" is not correct. Many platforms "before the PC age" (which started in 1981, btw) had expansion capabilities,
just like PCs, it just wasn't affordable to most home users. A quick example can be soundcards and add-on memory for Amiga.

Affordability is a key factor, since many aesthetic/technical strategies were developed as a consequence of kids not being
able to buy all those fine extras one actually could add.

Further on, the following lines

"a fact that lots of so-called "old school demosceners" seem to disapprove of. This can be explained by the break introduced by
the PC world, where the platform varies and most of the programming work that used to be hand-programmed is now done by
the graphics-card. This gives demo-groups a lot more artistic freedom, but can frustrate some of the old-schoolers for lack
of a programming challenge"

is absolutely uninteresting for reference. The claim is even highly controversial. I totally fail to see how this give "more
artistic freedom" (whatever that is). It may lead to a change of strategies, but I'm sure you have as much artistic freedom
on any platform. It is a complete misunderstanding that so-called technical boundries give less "artistic freedom". They
may however be incentives to employ certain artistic strategies (read up on Lev Manovich in "New Media Reader").

In addition, I would say that increased complexity in hardware (different CPUs, GPUs, APIs etc etc) proves more of a
technical challenge than ever before. Many programmers SEEK easy solutions to this new complexity, maybe. That certainly
doesn't mean the challenge isn't there in the first place. When complexity, and therefore challenges of controlling it,
increases, we seek strategies to easily overcome them.

I will not indulge in further concrete criticism as this consumes my braincells. I think I've found sufficient petty
evidence for "my case" (radman's words, not mine).

Further on comes a listing of external links to some parties. This is good. Please add more :)

After this comes Wikipedia entries and external links to several demogroups. I don't mind external links. I do mind the
entries, though. First of all, this is probably very uninteresting to most people unless they feel the need to dive further
into the scene, in which case links to several enlightening pages like Ojuice, Pouet etc etc should suffice. The selection
is ultimately subject to editor's discretion (I guess. I don't know the ins and outs of wikipedia). If such an editor was
a renowned authority with consensual backing in the scene itself, maybe it could work (but still not awfully interesting). At
the moment it's just embarassing (my opinion).

Due to the general opinion that has come forth in this, and other Wikipedia threads, from the demoscene itself, the demoscene
entry simply isn't acclaimed. By Wikipedia's own logic, the editor should therefore seriously think through a couple of things.

I only have some braincells left, so I'll jump on to some general reflection concerning Wikipedia. I'm on shaky grounds here,
since I don't know much about it. However, it seems to be an attempt to establish a knowledgebase that is assembled in more or
less the same way as open software is. This 'Bazaar' model (Eric S. Raymond's term) has proved an extremely efficient
development strategy, the obvious example being Linux. Collaboration and cooperation is proven to be a deadly good solution
to most problems and challenges.

The idea of Wikipedia is in my view brilliant at first glance. However, what works for software doesn't nescessarily work for
knowledge. Where software works or not, is stable or unstable, useful or useless, knowledge is a question of perspective.
One can agree or disagree with it. In the long run, what knowledge one learn, believe in and use is a consequence of the
authority behind it. We trust various sources for various reasons. I have, for various reasons, come to the conclusion that
Wikipedia is not a trustworthy authority (again, opinion).

The last paragraph is a general statement, it does not mean that I think the demoscene shouldn't be an entry in it. Therefore,
I withdraw from the entire debate. I simply disregard Wikipedia as a source of useful knowledge (I HOPE the future will prove
me wrong in this). Put simply: I don't care anymore. since I write about the scene, academically, I'm regularily approached
by people who need my consult. I'd rather pass them references to articles written on the phenomenon and other useful sources.

Please disregard spelling errors, I have lost my vision-enhancing gizmos and my screen resolution is hopeless. The letters are so small!!

applauds dominei. Very good mate. If just 5% of the written stuff here had this depth, pouet.net wouldnt be a scene forum. :D

[if it sounds sarcastic, your wrong]

hahaha. yeah :D I'll keep it short from now on :P

gargaj: i agree.

wikipedia is the best online encyclopedia I have seen.

and it is based on democratic rules which is very nice. Now, if general opinion does not give a shit about the demoscene and wants stuff deleted, so be it. If you are unhappy with that, live with it. Go and start your own "demopedia" and put whatever you like in it, including your name/nick with a big fancy fontface.

I mean, geez! Don't you see that most people just don't care?

Dominei, thank you for taking a moment to write a well thought out reply. It would be even better if you could apply this same degree of energy towards the actual Demoscene article so that future readers could appreciate it. Based on your current attitude though, this is highly unlikely but perhaps your enthusiasm will encourage someone else to take the initiative.

But let us not forget your comments earlier on this week:

"american scene was and has never been more than two things: Renaissance and Hornet (Tran went solo, but is still regarded as Renaissance)." -- Dominei, 2004-11-22

"I have now taken a look at Wikipedia. I beg you to stop falsifying history by blowing up american activity in the scene. As a matter of fact, the entire american scene and its groups can be summed up in a five line post with some external links." -- Dominei, 2004-11-23

"As a matter of fact, the ONLY SIGNIFICANT THINGS TO COME FROM THE AMERICAN SCENE ARE HORNET AND RENAISSANCE." -- Dominei, 2004-11-23

Comments like these are simply baseless and inflammatory, and make you appear to be quite ignorant. BTW, please provide us all with some of your academic writeups on the scene. I'd love to read them.

what's wrong, he has a valid point. oh, and the only significant groups to come out of norway were twilight zone and rectum cauda.

dont you guys have anything else to do?

(its threads like this, which get me to understand why there are so few girls around)

you just can't let it go, can you? :D

Opinions are never baseless. I stand by my comments. If you find them inflammatory, then enlighted me with your own opinions, maybe I would change my mind and say things like "oh yeah, Leglize is TEH shit too" :P

If I had no opinion at all, it would make me appear to be quite ignorant.

Me and many others have lately attacked elements of the american scene for what we regard as a tendency to be slightly globocentric. As with most things scenish, such outbursts should be taken with a slight sense of humour. But do read the signals and think through things (I'm certain this has already taken place).

I have nothing more to say in this matter except for more inflammatory comments that you and other people should read as entertainment, at best entertainment that has a message that should be thought about. Basically, comments in pouet style.

My academic writeups on the scene reveal nothing new to sceners. They are written as introductory articles. They will soon be available for the general public in conjunction with another project. In terms of geographical issues, America is mentioned :D

P.S Most people have probably deduced by now that I regard Hornet and Renaissance as good things :)

this thread is fucking useless... and so is wikipedia

phoenix \o/ You remember Twilight Zone? :DDD My first demogroup!!! I was so happy the day Bogeyman called me, introduced himself and said "You're in!" :)))))))

*sniff*

wikipedia is actually pretty cool. (well ok, some people find microwave ovens useless because they cant operate such sophisticated devices on it properly like the door, or find cars useless because - even though it has wheels and can carry lots of weight - they are too hard to push)

and besides, the only significant american demogroup is ND.
(YES THAT WAS A FLAMEBAIT)

And why are ND significant? Because one of their musicians comes from the netherlands - like Limp Ninja does.

Btw: Micheal Jackson has a Netherlands Ranch.

dominei: Hah, you were in TZ? Were you one of the badass faces featured in Techno Freak? :D

Actually, there were ppl like Dan Wright (DemoDVD/Hornet/Fusecon) who actually believed TZ WAS the most significant group to come out of Europe. I never did enjoy "Buttman" on the same level as he did.

As for HRN and REN being the only 2 significant US groups.. well.. it hurts but you're right to an extent. I could suggest groups like KLF/Kosmic for pioneering the whole netlabel thing but I don't feel like stirring up arguments. Either you give a crap about Wikipedia or you don't. It, like everything else, isn't gonna kill the demoscene.

mademann: yes, we've heard disturbing allegations from all the Little Dutch Boys. :)

It's not gonna kill the demoscene?
Wow... or even more HOORAY! \o/