Understanding direction in demos
category: general [glöplog]
Meteoriks has direction as one of their prize categories, so it's probably something important for the demoscene.
Might it be a good idea to stir some discussion about direction in demos here?
If you think so, here's some questions you may try to answer on this thread:
How do you actually judge the direction in a demo?
How large part direction plays in the quality of a demo?
How the direction in demos has changed during the years?
Are there demos which you think are particularly revolutionary regarding to the direction?
How techniques used affect the direction?
Is there something that's need to be said specifically about the direction in size limited demos and intros?
How the direction in demos compares to direction in movies, music videos and video art? (which are not-so-obvious differences?)
Are the traditional concepts of film theory (ie. montage, long take) meaningful in the demoscene?
What are typically the largest challenges one meets in the domain of direction while making a demo.
Do people actually think about direction when they make demos or is it something that just happens? If they don't, should they?
What does it mean when the direction is not good in a demo? How does it look like? What actually is wrong with a badly directed demo?
Might it be a good idea to stir some discussion about direction in demos here?
If you think so, here's some questions you may try to answer on this thread:
How do you actually judge the direction in a demo?
How large part direction plays in the quality of a demo?
How the direction in demos has changed during the years?
Are there demos which you think are particularly revolutionary regarding to the direction?
How techniques used affect the direction?
Is there something that's need to be said specifically about the direction in size limited demos and intros?
How the direction in demos compares to direction in movies, music videos and video art? (which are not-so-obvious differences?)
Are the traditional concepts of film theory (ie. montage, long take) meaningful in the demoscene?
What are typically the largest challenges one meets in the domain of direction while making a demo.
Do people actually think about direction when they make demos or is it something that just happens? If they don't, should they?
What does it mean when the direction is not good in a demo? How does it look like? What actually is wrong with a badly directed demo?
Meteoriks has a definition on their website (https://2024.meteoriks.org/categories/):
Quote:
When making a demo, one might not immediately have direction in mind - after all, thinking about guiding the eye through a purely computer-generated scene may be counter-intuitive. And yet direction is what breathes life into a production, turning it from a pure effect show into an immersive work of art that tells a story.
The nominees in this category transform values to tools: lighting is not just there to make an object visible, but into giving it a surrounding and an ambience, the camera becomes an active protagonist, and plays with the audience’s focus and perception, timing and pacing convey moods and truly immerse us in the production.
I have many thoughts, but I'll just leave a link for now: Revision 2024 - Seminar - Direction in Scene Productions - An Introduction
noby gave a seminar about this at Demobit 2019, titled "Deconstructing Demomaking, Part I: Advice for the Young and Old Scener" (and also had some other writings on the subject, including the pouët forums I think?). Unfortunately, I can't really find any of these back.
Also, not unrelated, cupe's "How To Camera" thread.
Is it possible to have "direction" (or "visuals") in an old- or "mid-" school demo?
The nominee list for the last few years suggests that it must be almost impossible.......!
The nominee list for the last few years suggests that it must be almost impossible.......!
My first thought regarding relationship to classical film theory is:
Many ideas of classical film theory deal with the way human characters are portrayed. In demos and especially intros, you rarely see any characters portrayed, especially no human characters.
About Midschool and Oldschool productions:
The camera work is getting interesting if you have rich 3D scenes, which is really limited on those platforms.
Many ideas of classical film theory deal with the way human characters are portrayed. In demos and especially intros, you rarely see any characters portrayed, especially no human characters.
About Midschool and Oldschool productions:
The camera work is getting interesting if you have rich 3D scenes, which is really limited on those platforms.
Quote:
Is it possible to have "direction" (or "visuals") in an old- or "mid-" school demo?
based on my humble experience 'direction' in this context ist simply how you communicate the narrative through the matter.
This sounds totally cocky but in a nutshell for demos: you got a message, an idea, some tech, and you want to push it towards the user, presenting it in the most interesting way. This can be great camerawork, a strong buildup, something that makes the stuff worthwile. And tbh, i think the best examples are old school demos actually. The way they presented new effects is probably the definition of great direction in the pure demoscene context. That buildup is just great.
68 million. fuckin. shadebobs!
for newschool this is a bit different, there it's more like in a traditional film context, probably.
@prost:
I completely agree with what you're saying here. Tbh my initial question wasn't entirely sincere ;)
I don't really know if the term "direction" gets used much in old/mid school circles - obviously, if it is taken really literally to mean "camera movement", then it won't get used much at all. But extending the film-making analogy slightly, I think that there are great examples of creatively interesting composition ("editing"?) within old/mid school stuff. For instance, I really love the harsh "editing style" and use of repetition in https://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=97584, which is really fresh, and also the clever variation/composition and pacing of single-effect intros such as https://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=97685 and https://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=96539, and the minimalist aesthetic of https://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=95916.
To me this is all consistent with what's could be sitting behind the above definition of "direction", but that definition has reference to "lighting" and "objects" etc so seems to be tying itself pretty explicitly to certain kinds of prods made by certain kinds of groups.
I completely agree with what you're saying here. Tbh my initial question wasn't entirely sincere ;)
I don't really know if the term "direction" gets used much in old/mid school circles - obviously, if it is taken really literally to mean "camera movement", then it won't get used much at all. But extending the film-making analogy slightly, I think that there are great examples of creatively interesting composition ("editing"?) within old/mid school stuff. For instance, I really love the harsh "editing style" and use of repetition in https://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=97584, which is really fresh, and also the clever variation/composition and pacing of single-effect intros such as https://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=97685 and https://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=96539, and the minimalist aesthetic of https://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=95916.
To me this is all consistent with what's could be sitting behind the above definition of "direction", but that definition has reference to "lighting" and "objects" etc so seems to be tying itself pretty explicitly to certain kinds of prods made by certain kinds of groups.
I think direction has to be more than just presenting demo effects well - they have to be used to communicate something, whether that's telling a story or exploring an idea. As you move down towards more and more constrained platforms, I think it gets harder and harder to pull that off, and the demos that attempt any kind of story telling will tend to rely on graphic slideshows or text rather than demo visuals to deliver it, or risk being overly abstract. (From conversations during the making of Megademica, I gather that Serzh had an apocalyptic theme in mind and was very particular about the placement of scenes, which to me makes it way more impressive than if it was just randomly-seeded variations on a core effect. Not sure how much of that came across in the result, though.)
It's not impossible, though - I'd point to Mojo as an example. To give my spicy take, I personally don't think it succeeds at being good direction - the first three disk sides hammer you with "you are old and your life sucks" so relentlessly that the finale of "but you have demos, so yay I guess?" is too weak to be a satisfying payoff. But the fact that I can critique it on that level shows that the direction is very much part of the overall package.
It's not impossible, though - I'd point to Mojo as an example. To give my spicy take, I personally don't think it succeeds at being good direction - the first three disk sides hammer you with "you are old and your life sucks" so relentlessly that the finale of "but you have demos, so yay I guess?" is too weak to be a satisfying payoff. But the fact that I can critique it on that level shows that the direction is very much part of the overall package.
Folow your heart or fail. Or both. Or do OK, or win (not me).
Lemme try answering the questions:
By how it interacts with the frame setup by group and title. How does what's being shown, the pacing, the selection of perspective, color navigate me through the experience? How does what I hear fit into what I see? Am I able to understand an overarching intention? How much does what I experience feel intentional? Or, on the other hand: does it distract me from connecting to anything intentional?
Make or break.
I perceive an increasing amount of productions where attention to detail has been invested in this regard.
Darkness Lay your Eyes upon me, Fermi Paradox, There, Waillee, Works for me
In my own experience: if the tool does not support paying attention to detail, direction usually falls short first.
Given the already absurd constraints, I salute everyone who goes the extra mile. And don't perceive it as a given.
Since both are created to evoke an experience in humans, I do not differentiate between both.
Given my previous answer, maybe you understand that the question does not make sense to me? :)
Quote:
How do you actually judge the direction in a demo?
By how it interacts with the frame setup by group and title. How does what's being shown, the pacing, the selection of perspective, color navigate me through the experience? How does what I hear fit into what I see? Am I able to understand an overarching intention? How much does what I experience feel intentional? Or, on the other hand: does it distract me from connecting to anything intentional?
Quote:
How large part direction plays in the quality of a demo?
Make or break.
Quote:
How the direction in demos has changed during the years?
I perceive an increasing amount of productions where attention to detail has been invested in this regard.
Quote:
Are there demos which you think are particularly revolutionary regarding to the direction?
Darkness Lay your Eyes upon me, Fermi Paradox, There, Waillee, Works for me
Quote:
How techniques used affect the direction?
In my own experience: if the tool does not support paying attention to detail, direction usually falls short first.
Quote:
Is there something that's need to be said specifically about the direction in size limited demos and intros?
Given the already absurd constraints, I salute everyone who goes the extra mile. And don't perceive it as a given.
Quote:
How the direction in demos compares to direction in movies, music videos and video art? (which are not-so-obvious differences?)
Since both are created to evoke an experience in humans, I do not differentiate between both.
Quote:
Are the traditional concepts of film theory (ie. montage, long take) meaningful in the demoscene?
Given my previous answer, maybe you understand that the question does not make sense to me? :)
As for C64 stuff, i'd translate "direction" into "flow and consistency" - not necessarily "getting the message across"
And unless you are one of the few guys who can do without this nonsense due to superior coding - this is how you make a C64 demo great these days :)
And unless you are one of the few guys who can do without this nonsense due to superior coding - this is how you make a C64 demo great these days :)
Imho direction is completely agnostic to the medium, you can have good direction in a single abstract drawing. Art is about communicating something, direction is the way in which the information is presented, good direction makes the recipient connect the dots(information) to a beautiful picture(meaning), bad direction results in nothing more than a bunch of tangled lines, no direction = no meaning. Direction and storytelling are often used interchangeably, however I'd say direction is a superset of storytelling as storytelling usually focuses on presenting a narrative("a spoken or written account of connected events; a story"), whereas direction entails a whole experience that doesn't necessarily have to focus on something that can be described with words.
back in scene.org awards days... even mentioning "consistency" or "coherency" often made other jurors jump out of their chairs (probably to feather their own nest :P) but yeah... it's not really that.
i tend to simplify it as 'the sum of artistic decisions'
i tend to simplify it as 'the sum of artistic decisions'
The only way is up!
I was thinking about writing something along the same lines as LJ.
"communicating something" is a little vague. But it sounds more diffuse than it really is. Examples of what can be communicated: ideas, feelings, discovery ... what can you have in your mind? That is something that can be communicated.
And good direction is more than the quality of the presentation. If the "something" is bad or incoherent or vague, the presentation of it will also be observed to be bad.
Staying in LJs terminology, I believe direction is the multiplication of the something with the communication of it. In order for direction to be good, both aspects must be good.
I have a suspicion that different media lead to different levels of intertwinedness between the two.
Look at writing for example. In most writing - fiction and non-fiction - there is usually a pretty strong decoupling between the something and the communication of it. Words are generally very different from what they communicate. But there are exceptions to this, and successful poetry is exactly the point where the two intertwine.
Another example is computer games. In many games it is impossible to separate the medium from what it communicates. If you think of games as repeated interactions with a system, the something and the communication of it are exactly the same thing, and they interact and build on each other.
I am not sure about demos. Somehow it is more complex. The long tradition of demos, of the style, of the conventions and developed "language" means that it can be difficult to separate the two aspects. But I also think there is a lot of variance here, and actually a lot of opportunity to explore on both ends of the spectrum. I think it is possibly for demos to communicate very non-demo like somethings.
Apologies for writing so abstractly. Probably I should look for concrete examples to support my ideas, but I am too lazy.
"communicating something" is a little vague. But it sounds more diffuse than it really is. Examples of what can be communicated: ideas, feelings, discovery ... what can you have in your mind? That is something that can be communicated.
And good direction is more than the quality of the presentation. If the "something" is bad or incoherent or vague, the presentation of it will also be observed to be bad.
Staying in LJs terminology, I believe direction is the multiplication of the something with the communication of it. In order for direction to be good, both aspects must be good.
I have a suspicion that different media lead to different levels of intertwinedness between the two.
Look at writing for example. In most writing - fiction and non-fiction - there is usually a pretty strong decoupling between the something and the communication of it. Words are generally very different from what they communicate. But there are exceptions to this, and successful poetry is exactly the point where the two intertwine.
Another example is computer games. In many games it is impossible to separate the medium from what it communicates. If you think of games as repeated interactions with a system, the something and the communication of it are exactly the same thing, and they interact and build on each other.
I am not sure about demos. Somehow it is more complex. The long tradition of demos, of the style, of the conventions and developed "language" means that it can be difficult to separate the two aspects. But I also think there is a lot of variance here, and actually a lot of opportunity to explore on both ends of the spectrum. I think it is possibly for demos to communicate very non-demo like somethings.
Apologies for writing so abstractly. Probably I should look for concrete examples to support my ideas, but I am too lazy.
Also, this 2013 Revision seminar by Pixtur https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgCmCJWUGAc
Understanding flyby in demos
Quote:
In my own experience: if the tool does not support paying attention to detail, direction usually falls short first.
I seen very recent intros done with the complete absence of tools, yet have extremely good camera work, visual storytelling, etc. Tools don't make everything.
