pouët.net

Recently I did DOGMA. Maybe. I started writing a new 3D engine in QuickBasic on my Pentium 1. Just sitting there directly. Quickbasic on the editor feels good for Dogma programming. It just rotates dots now :)

4gentE: I'd suggest no formal categories, and it's all up to the makers. Logo, text, just talk about it, or not even a hint - that's all fine. Ultimately I agree with ham: Only code is real, everything else is just in our heads. And for practical reasons of course: Parties have problems enough getting entries for their compos.

PC/DOS as development platform back in the days was meh. I actually remember in the late 90s using remote Watcom debugger on one PC to step over code running on another PC with 3dfx/Glide (DOS 32). For file sharing I would use IPX protocol with some custom-made tools. In early 90s, I remember there was a short trend to use NeXT platform, like NeXTcube Turbo for more serious 3d game development, level editing, compiling maps and such. So cross platform development was definitely a thing if you could afford it.

@Bifat you think to much.. =) We are one! United we stand! Demo or die!

YES! 6128 times YES! Lams Von Atarier.

I believe all my prods honor Dogma 2.7

I found my first computer fascinating, as the main limit was the imagination. If you have to regularly buy new computers to go further, it ruins that particular magic in my book, while enabling sweatshops (blissful ignorance can help!).
Plus, a huge part of demomaking boils down to showcase what you can do with the computer. When you need another one to create, it makes much less sense. It stills makes a tiny 64 bit of sense and offer some advantages, yet it doesn't tick all the boxes and in my particular degenerate case, tarnish the experience and appreciation.

Anyway, great initiative, I'm looking forward the logo to stamp my future prods!

Interesting, I had only heard about the fairly well-known use by Id Software (and their licensees). Were there others?

absence: definitely Doom, Quake by iD software, but also derivatives, like Heretic and Hexen. It is speculated that also Looking Glass Studio games (System Shock and Thief), but I cannot find appropriate citation.

Since Nextstep was the development platform for the Doom engine, I wouldn't say its licensees were part of a trend; they didn't have a choice. I'm curious about Looking Glass Studios though, if you come across some information about it.

absence: it might be just Doom/Quake franchise indeed. Some studios might have explored it, based on Doom popularity and Carmack influence, but didn't go for it at the end. I was trying to find something about it, but I couldn't.

I was going through "Game Engine Black Book DOOM" and interestingly even rendering engine itself was also able to run on NeXT (see performance optimization chapter).

i've tried doom on my nextstation turbo and it's not exactly the most enjoyable gaming experience :) then again it's hardly the exception on that platform

ricky: I've never used NeXT... I guess it was at least better than windows 2.0 (or what was available back then), so for making tools was ok?

A fully fledged Unix workstation running the precursor to Mac OS X wasn't only "ok" in 1991, but so much better than a regular PC that John Carmack was happy to spend $25,000 (adjusted for inflation) on one machine.

Maybe one can state dogma level on the bigscreen before a demo runs? Mash it up with c64 logos and boing balls in the prod for maximum oldschool cred boost!

A NeXTstation for cross development has some charm, but remember that you can also cross develop from e.g. Amiga to Amiga, no problem within the rulez! :-)

There you go.

What about ligma demomaking?

ligma boing balls

And what about smegma demomaking?

Holländischer Nillenkäse.
Contribute to the topic or gaat buiten spelen :-)
Bump

Nah

idd, we hadden jou niks gevraagd seyss-inquart

I'm currently writing some tools, and it's helluva fun! For spicing things up a bit, I propose levels 2.5 and 3.5 for tool creation. It's not a big deal and you cannot reasonably prohibit cross-development of your own tools, but they would be required to provably assemble/compile on the target machine.


DOGMA DEMOMAKING
------------------------------------------------
drafted by Bifat, 29-05-2024
revised by Bifat, 08-06-2024


DOGMA LEVEL 1

- No emulator use allowed
- Code/test/debug only against real machine
- Other tools on other computers are allowed
Examples: editor, compiler, assembler, cruncher, paint and music programs

DOGMA LEVEL 2

- No other computers allowed
- Only tools running on real machine allowed
Examples: editor, compiler, assembler, cruncher, paint and music programs
- Additional hardware (CPU, memory, ...) on target machine allowed

DOGMA LEVEL 2.5

- As level 2, and your tools must demonstrably build/compile on the target platform.

DOGMA LEVEL 3

- Only hardware and tools allowed that existed at the time

Example: Trash'm-One, DPaint3, Noisetracker for OCS Amiga 500
(when DPaint4 came out, Kick2.x and ECS already existed)

You can create additional hardware and tools yourself, but only on and for the target machine and with the means, parts, and code that were available at the time or that you create.

DOGMA LEVEL 3.5

- As level 3, and your tools must demonstrably build/compile on the target platform.

The imposition of dogmas in the realm of art is a stifling force, one that undermines the very essence of artistic expression. Art, in its purest form, is a manifestation of human creativity, an exploration of the infinite landscapes of the mind and soul. Dogmas, with their rigid and prescriptive nature, seek to confine this boundless creativity within predetermined parameters, thereby negating the fundamental freedom that art necessitates. When art is subjected to dogmatic constraints, it is stripped of its spontaneity and originality, becoming a mere tool for propagating specific ideologies rather than a medium for genuine self-expression and exploration.

Furthermore, the application of dogmas in art overlooks the inherently subjective experience of artistic engagement. Art resonates differently with each individual, speaking to the unique perspectives and emotions of the viewer. By enforcing dogmas, we risk imposing a uniform interpretation and meaning upon works of art, thereby erasing the diversity of responses that art naturally elicits. This homogenization not only diminishes the richness of the artistic experience but also undermines the dialogical relationship between the artwork and its audience. In a world marked by plurality and diversity, art should serve as a space for open-ended exploration and dialogue, not a platform for doctrinal enforcement.

In essence, to apply dogmas to art is to misunderstand the nature of both art and human experience. Art thrives on its ability to challenge, to provoke, and to inspire, operating beyond the confines of rigid doctrines. It is a space where ambiguity and multiplicity are not only tolerated but celebrated. The imposition of dogmas, therefore, not only hinders the creative process of the artist but also impoverishes the interpretative freedom of the audience. In advocating for the liberation of art from dogmatic constraints, we honor the true spirit of artistic endeavor and preserve its role as a dynamic and transformative force in human culture.

On the other hand, there are many examples in which restrictions lead to artistic growth.

v3nom, if we entertain this idea in this axiomatic form - wouldn't that imply that demos cannot be art to begin with? Why would you limit yourself to anything at all? If you lack a functional principle in which some inherent logic is allowed to emerge and manifest itself, the only "non-stifling" degree of freedom would equal to white noise, on which nothing can be portrayed, and nothing is ever getting conveyed.