Are sceners becommming obsolete to the scene?
category: general [glöplog]
Demos...
You're like...
Crosstown traffic!
You're like...
Crosstown traffic!
trixter:
yeah I sure remember those, "TheFutureOfDemos.mpg", or something.
Anyway, I thought they fucking ruled at the time, maybe I was wrong all along, what do you know!
Still, I don´t agree with the main point you make. Modern demos are still "breaking through the medium". There´s a lot of hardware-bending cleverness there, I´m sure.
It still takes a fair amount of effort to learn ogl / directx then code some sort of scripting tool and a max exporter for example, most of which you´ll need to make a good prod nowadays (unless you go for the code-only, super-design approach á la deepness in the sky I suppose).
So your arguments don´t stand up. People are still breaking through the medium, bending it to make beautyful things. People are still putting insane hours into developing the tools needed. But anyway...
yeah I sure remember those, "TheFutureOfDemos.mpg", or something.
Anyway, I thought they fucking ruled at the time, maybe I was wrong all along, what do you know!
Still, I don´t agree with the main point you make. Modern demos are still "breaking through the medium". There´s a lot of hardware-bending cleverness there, I´m sure.
It still takes a fair amount of effort to learn ogl / directx then code some sort of scripting tool and a max exporter for example, most of which you´ll need to make a good prod nowadays (unless you go for the code-only, super-design approach á la deepness in the sky I suppose).
So your arguments don´t stand up. People are still breaking through the medium, bending it to make beautyful things. People are still putting insane hours into developing the tools needed. But anyway...
Quote:
Modern demos are still "breaking through the medium". There´s a lot of hardware-bending cleverness there, I´m sure.
You're missing the point of what "breaking through the medium" means. In the beginning, demos were making early computers do things they were not designed to do. Today, modern demos are using computers to do *exactly* what they were designed to do. That is the difference.
Along those lines, the only demos that impress me today are 64K intros (which is the only form of the art still advancing) or anything that does NOT require a hardware accelerator, like realtime raytracing or realtime synth music.
I could further postulate that it is impossible to create demos on modern machines, but I don't want to blow your mind with that yet :-)
Quote:
It still takes a fair amount of effort to learn ogl / directx then code some sort of scripting tool and a max exporter for example
To that I respond with, "What are you doing using Max in the first place? I'm sorry, you're using *someone else's* (commercial) tools to make your demo? What are you doing using anything other than a compiler?"
Modern demos that are 100% scripted and "tell a story' are much closer to game engine cinematics than demos. I'm sorry, but it's the truth. If that's what you like, go play games. For those who enjoy "storytelling" demos, I've heard the defense that it is one art used to make another. I don't buy that either; if I take a classic painting and use it to make origami, what have I created? I've created something that insults both painting AND origami.
The true innovation and growth of the demoscene as an artform lies in 4K intros and 64K intros (as clever techniques like texture generation and hand-rolling data structures more applicable to compression are the art itself). If you can't work in those mediums, then at the very least I'd like to see things like:
- Demos that run differently every single time
- Objects created algorithmically through geometry manipulation, rather than pre-modeled
You get the idea. No scripting, no "stories".
I could further postulate that it is impossible to create demos on modern machines, but I don't want to blow your mind with that yet :-)
In fact the C64 was the first machine where it was impossible to create demos - with those crap hardware in it that was actually capable of displaying movable stuff, scrolling things around and playing 3-voice music and samples. Imagine that... like, OFFICIALLY! *gasp*
The demoscene - dead since 82.
In fact the C64 was the first machine where it was impossible to create demos - with those crap hardware in it that was actually capable of displaying movable stuff, scrolling things around and playing 3-voice music and samples. Imagine that... like, OFFICIALLY! *gasp*
The demoscene - dead since 82.
Quote:
No thanks, I think I'll keep on insultinging your sensibilities and making on demos I love to make. Because that's what it's all about.Modern demos that are 100% scripted and "tell a story' are much closer to game engine cinematics than demos. I'm sorry, but it's the truth. If that's what you like, go play games.
Quote:
To that I respond with, "What are you doing using Max in the first place? I'm sorry, you're using *someone else's* (commercial) tools to make your demo? What are you doing using anything other than a compiler?"
Quote:
What are you going to do today, Napoleon?
Whatever i feel like I want to do! Gosh!
I care by dont care
Hi everybody!
I think this is a good place to post this VERY IMPORTANT MAIL I get sometimes ago thanks to one you "useless sceners".
So the demo art have changed quite a lot and it seems some have found their way in filling not only the screen but also emails boxes with useless crap.
Demos comes from cracktros and nowadays demos have nothing to do with cracktros: never seen a story nor a cinematic cracktros. No cracktros were bout making a nice effect with a little scroller and a so good chip music and that's about design. See cracktros by crystal for instance.
Nowadays demos are good for some but have nothing in common with what I was used to and what attracted me to the scene in first place.
Moreover there is nowadays a cut between newskoolers and oldskoolers because we don't have the same background and some "new" guys from 1995 to today don't know anything about the real roots. Or they even refuse these roots: in fact they make their first meeting with scene with totally different type of intros.
That's sign of times but well the future of scene will be without me: I'd rather love the past demos and their design and style especially the end of the A500 and the start of the A1200 from 1992 to 1995 so. I'd rather love stuff highly optimized full of tricks to get the effect done, that was the demo-art to its summum. This was art in technics.
Bye.
EP
ps:
no more spam / nor email "to Claus" or I redirect them to pouet and annoy everybody! Thanks a LOT!
I think this is a good place to post this VERY IMPORTANT MAIL I get sometimes ago thanks to one you "useless sceners".
So the demo art have changed quite a lot and it seems some have found their way in filling not only the screen but also emails boxes with useless crap.
Demos comes from cracktros and nowadays demos have nothing to do with cracktros: never seen a story nor a cinematic cracktros. No cracktros were bout making a nice effect with a little scroller and a so good chip music and that's about design. See cracktros by crystal for instance.
Nowadays demos are good for some but have nothing in common with what I was used to and what attracted me to the scene in first place.
Moreover there is nowadays a cut between newskoolers and oldskoolers because we don't have the same background and some "new" guys from 1995 to today don't know anything about the real roots. Or they even refuse these roots: in fact they make their first meeting with scene with totally different type of intros.
That's sign of times but well the future of scene will be without me: I'd rather love the past demos and their design and style especially the end of the A500 and the start of the A1200 from 1992 to 1995 so. I'd rather love stuff highly optimized full of tricks to get the effect done, that was the demo-art to its summum. This was art in technics.
Bye.
EP
ps:
no more spam / nor email "to Claus" or I redirect them to pouet and annoy everybody! Thanks a LOT!
wow. an ep post that makes some sense.
i disagree though. there's not much difference between optimizing your vector filler and optimizing your 3d engine in a way that it runs acceptable on, say, 5200's as well. both need their own know-how and thus they still validate as "demo coding" on their own since you have to bust a nut to be able to figure out where you could win a cycle or where you could change your rendering pipeline in a way that it doesnt stall when you're trying to push out half a million vertices.
i agree that scene changed, but face it: some people adapt to changes, they make the demos today. some people like to have the old stuff, they still make cracktros.
(sidenote: if oldskoolers say "its so easy to code with APIs nowadays, how come all cracktros run <30fps nowadays?)
i disagree though. there's not much difference between optimizing your vector filler and optimizing your 3d engine in a way that it runs acceptable on, say, 5200's as well. both need their own know-how and thus they still validate as "demo coding" on their own since you have to bust a nut to be able to figure out where you could win a cycle or where you could change your rendering pipeline in a way that it doesnt stall when you're trying to push out half a million vertices.
i agree that scene changed, but face it: some people adapt to changes, they make the demos today. some people like to have the old stuff, they still make cracktros.
(sidenote: if oldskoolers say "its so easy to code with APIs nowadays, how come all cracktros run <30fps nowadays?)
Gargaj: i totally disagree with you here. vector fillers are not really the core of amiga 500 demos (althogh they can be in some parts). you simply don't have the same concept of "one filler for all needs". and you don't allways have the concept of a filler in the traditional sense. you need to customize each part for the exact use in order to get acceptable speed and still high visual quality. and you need to do a lot of hardware-banging.
Quote:
(sidenote: if oldskoolers say "its so easy to code with APIs nowadays, how come all cracktros run <30fps nowadays?)
incompetent coders perhaps?
(sidenote: what the fuck do "oldskoolers" and "modern cracktros" have to do with eachother anyway?!)
havoc: I think garagj is referring to oldskoolers making cracktros for windows with a chiptune as a mp3.
which is not that seldom actually.
and although it's totally senseless I'll reply to ep's stuff as well: the demoscene is not about piling up "the good ol' days", sceners sitting around it, holding hands and praise the old spirit while doing nothing else.
it's about making demos.
it's about participating in the community.
and thank god, there are alot of progressive people keeping that fucking community we all love so much alive.
and that doesn't mean, that they despise the so called "good ol' times".
but what the heck.
which is not that seldom actually.
and although it's totally senseless I'll reply to ep's stuff as well: the demoscene is not about piling up "the good ol' days", sceners sitting around it, holding hands and praise the old spirit while doing nothing else.
it's about making demos.
it's about participating in the community.
and thank god, there are alot of progressive people keeping that fucking community we all love so much alive.
and that doesn't mean, that they despise the so called "good ol' times".
but what the heck.
kusma: the two effects werent purpose named, my point was that both types of coding require knowledge on the given field.
havoc: see styx's post and e.g. this
havoc: see styx's post and e.g. this
Trixter wrote: "if I take a classic painting and use it to make origami, what have I created? I've created something that insults both painting AND origami."
That's over-simplifying it, and not a logical conclusion either. What painting did you use? Which object did you create from it? It all means something. Can you rule out the possibility that it may be possible to create a great piece of art from a classical painting shaped into an origami object? Do you realize that it matters who makes a piece of art too?
I do think that the scene could use some new ideas, some new direction, but I also think it's just a matter of time. And while those stuck in the past will probably see this as a further departure from their dogmatic ideals, the rest of us will continue to do what we enjoy doing.
Personally I would like to see demos become more "artsy" - not (just :) in the meaning of "strange", rather like getting more focused on interesting content to decode the meaning of, while still being demos though. I haven't thought this over well enough, but I'm sure there's potential and that it's relevant to use demos as actual art, without departuring much from their basic form. After all I think we all agree that demos are an interesting media, and that computers are a big enough part of most people's lives to be relevant in art.
</rambling>
That's over-simplifying it, and not a logical conclusion either. What painting did you use? Which object did you create from it? It all means something. Can you rule out the possibility that it may be possible to create a great piece of art from a classical painting shaped into an origami object? Do you realize that it matters who makes a piece of art too?
I do think that the scene could use some new ideas, some new direction, but I also think it's just a matter of time. And while those stuck in the past will probably see this as a further departure from their dogmatic ideals, the rest of us will continue to do what we enjoy doing.
Personally I would like to see demos become more "artsy" - not (just :) in the meaning of "strange", rather like getting more focused on interesting content to decode the meaning of, while still being demos though. I haven't thought this over well enough, but I'm sure there's potential and that it's relevant to use demos as actual art, without departuring much from their basic form. After all I think we all agree that demos are an interesting media, and that computers are a big enough part of most people's lives to be relevant in art.
</rambling>
Me, I'd like to see my demos get finished.
i think trixter is confusing what demos are to himself with what it is to everyone else, and i find it a bit sad that he tries to force everybody into his way of thinking here. what is art and what is not is a very personal definition, and it should be up to the viewer to value the artistic value of a piece. demos are not imo art by themselves, but a medum that can be used for artistic expressions. unfortuanly, very few demos have any significant artistic value in my eyes. still, there is a lot of cool demos out there.
should the lack of artistic content stop us from stuffing envmapped spikeballs in peoples faces, drinking excessive amounts of beer, and acting like total morons in general? I THINK NOT!
should the lack of artistic content stop us from stuffing envmapped spikeballs in peoples faces, drinking excessive amounts of beer, and acting like total morons in general? I THINK NOT!
DEMO POPE, I completely agree :)
What you can discuss about all art is if it is relevant, significant and thus, good - and if enough people enjoy watching, it is. At least to them ;)
What you can discuss about all art is if it is relevant, significant and thus, good - and if enough people enjoy watching, it is. At least to them ;)
gargaj, styx, please allow me to quote dipswitch from that thread:
so in reality, this kind of tripe has nothing whatsoever to do with "oldskool"... it's just a bunch of wannabe's and incompetent coders.
Quote:
not an original ESI release, so i removed the group.
so in reality, this kind of tripe has nothing whatsoever to do with "oldskool"... it's just a bunch of wannabe's and incompetent coders.
Ah, discussions about art! how wonderful! one can say that something is 'art' if a lot of people enjoy watching and/or experiencing it. On the other hand, if a lot of people hate something you still played with their emotions and made them think, so 'art' too! Oh, and if it's slow moving and black and red it's DEFINATELY art!
I think the majority of newskoolers come in the demomaking around 95 and have created a new style of demos then.
This is totally different from oldschool demos in several matters:
1/ style : bigger objects, no more effects but more cinema oriented, now it's the whole screen which is changed per frame, before it was more pixel based, finer and more oriented on the handmade gfxs.
2/ There was transition before and a good oldskool demo is about getting all these "not at all going together" effects making a whole with music working well and synchronised with the visuals. It was more cracktros like.
3/ System calls were banished except for memory allocations and files reading routines.
4/ 100% vbl synced effects: no I wait 1/60 sec and then I draw the next frame stuff. Didn't understood why those videocard makers never implemented an interrupt for that, it's so gret this way. In fact it's so great to have interrupts for everything (keyboard, sound, video, ...) and make your demo with really well separated code for each computer parts: you've to focus on one part only at a time and everything is well organised. You put the code in fast (on amiga), the data in chip (also), the memory allocated variables (tables, screens, ...) in the relevant bss section and go...
5/ really better use of the hardware: nowadays nobody is able to use all the specs of each individual parts. Nobody use the P4 to the max, nor the Athlon 64, ... Too much different config, too much different memories timing and so on. Gargaj said he codes optimizing for the Geforce 5200 so if I understood well those who have a faster video card don't get too much improvments? Ha yeah hardware antialiasing 4x runs smooth on the faster card, what an improvment! I don't shout on sceners, I shout on the new technology which is a waste of power generally. Who use dual channel? Who use PAT?
So new demos rules but are IMHO too triangular and too snazzy due to the technologies used: this include also nowadays games. It doesn't add any pleasure to watching that though, at least for me.
Yes all the oldkool versus newskool debate is there: it's subjective and nowadays standards can't be understood by oldskoolers while newskoolers can't understand the oldskool standards. I'm an old grany now and I'm 30 years old... What will happen when I'll be 80? I don't care: nowadays 20 years old will be 70!!!
Whatever, there is too much stuff on the screen nowadays and this is no more demo, this is something else: demo 2005 styled !
This is totally different from oldschool demos in several matters:
1/ style : bigger objects, no more effects but more cinema oriented, now it's the whole screen which is changed per frame, before it was more pixel based, finer and more oriented on the handmade gfxs.
2/ There was transition before and a good oldskool demo is about getting all these "not at all going together" effects making a whole with music working well and synchronised with the visuals. It was more cracktros like.
3/ System calls were banished except for memory allocations and files reading routines.
4/ 100% vbl synced effects: no I wait 1/60 sec and then I draw the next frame stuff. Didn't understood why those videocard makers never implemented an interrupt for that, it's so gret this way. In fact it's so great to have interrupts for everything (keyboard, sound, video, ...) and make your demo with really well separated code for each computer parts: you've to focus on one part only at a time and everything is well organised. You put the code in fast (on amiga), the data in chip (also), the memory allocated variables (tables, screens, ...) in the relevant bss section and go...
5/ really better use of the hardware: nowadays nobody is able to use all the specs of each individual parts. Nobody use the P4 to the max, nor the Athlon 64, ... Too much different config, too much different memories timing and so on. Gargaj said he codes optimizing for the Geforce 5200 so if I understood well those who have a faster video card don't get too much improvments? Ha yeah hardware antialiasing 4x runs smooth on the faster card, what an improvment! I don't shout on sceners, I shout on the new technology which is a waste of power generally. Who use dual channel? Who use PAT?
So new demos rules but are IMHO too triangular and too snazzy due to the technologies used: this include also nowadays games. It doesn't add any pleasure to watching that though, at least for me.
Yes all the oldkool versus newskool debate is there: it's subjective and nowadays standards can't be understood by oldskoolers while newskoolers can't understand the oldskool standards. I'm an old grany now and I'm 30 years old... What will happen when I'll be 80? I don't care: nowadays 20 years old will be 70!!!
Whatever, there is too much stuff on the screen nowadays and this is no more demo, this is something else: demo 2005 styled !
amen. now stfu
I wrote a huge reply to Trixter then stupid timeout logged me out, so I lost it. Screw you, sceneid login ;)
Anyway the essence of my reply was to this:
15, 20 years ago things were very different. When the amiga was designed there is no way they had the vision of it doing 3d engines. But they did have the vision of it being a platform for excellent graphics etc. Amiga demos did show the machine doing exactly what it was designed to do, it was just that as time and experience progressed coders found extra tricks they could use. This doesn't mean the machine was never designed for those tricks, it just means the designers never sat down and said "ok, our aim for the blitter is specifically XYZ"...
Todays hardware is built for the games industry. Nobody needs more than a GF4ti if they're not gaming. And it's a multi billion dollar games industry. EA grossed $5billion in the last fiscal year. Take Two/Rockstar grossed $1,000million+. Ubisoft grossed $500million+. These companys have huge teams of people pushing the hardware further and further - exactly your requirement for a good demo. I bet Haujobb, Fr and Kewlers grossed $0 in the same fiscal period.
Todays hardware is built to be pushed to the max. Tomorrow's hardware is for this: http://www.shacknews.com/screens.x/ut2007/Unreal+Tournament+2007/1/082205 . When you've got hardware designed to do that for the actual gameplay, not the cutscenes, how do you honestly expect any amateur production to compete?
Fact remains, demos are amateur productions. They have no budget and no staff. 15 years ago, demos and games were utterly separate. Fairly or unfairly, they're now being judged against games. Whether it's because new "sceners" don't understand the difference and just say "wow, that demo doesn't look half as good as UT2007" or it's because people have the same point of view as you (Trixter) in that demos should be pushing hardware beyond it's designed abilities, demos are operating in the same vertical as games.
That's not the fault of demos, coders or the scene. That's the "fault" of incredibly powerful hardware. IMO you're punishing todays demos simply because they have to operate on hardware designed for games.
*shock*, but ep has a point when he says "nowadays standards can't be understood by oldskoolers while newskoolers can't understand the oldskool standards".
What if you take Van Gogh's Sunflowers, and use it to make an origami sunflower. You've added a dimension and depth to the production. Personally I hate modern art, but I had a long discussion with some guy who studies it about why a pile of used car tyres is art. I don't agree with it, but there's a valid point of view there.
It's not about the hardware, it's not about the platform, it's about ideas. People are so used to seeing the same formulae in games and demos, they can't think of anything new. For me, a demo is great if I watch it and think "wow" afterwards. That's all.
Yeah, this wasn't so short after all, huh. The first version made more sense tho.
Anyway the essence of my reply was to this:
Quote:
You're missing the point of what "breaking through the medium" means. In the beginning, demos were making early computers do things they were not designed to do. Today, modern demos are using computers to do *exactly* what they were designed to do. That is the difference.
15, 20 years ago things were very different. When the amiga was designed there is no way they had the vision of it doing 3d engines. But they did have the vision of it being a platform for excellent graphics etc. Amiga demos did show the machine doing exactly what it was designed to do, it was just that as time and experience progressed coders found extra tricks they could use. This doesn't mean the machine was never designed for those tricks, it just means the designers never sat down and said "ok, our aim for the blitter is specifically XYZ"...
Todays hardware is built for the games industry. Nobody needs more than a GF4ti if they're not gaming. And it's a multi billion dollar games industry. EA grossed $5billion in the last fiscal year. Take Two/Rockstar grossed $1,000million+. Ubisoft grossed $500million+. These companys have huge teams of people pushing the hardware further and further - exactly your requirement for a good demo. I bet Haujobb, Fr and Kewlers grossed $0 in the same fiscal period.
Todays hardware is built to be pushed to the max. Tomorrow's hardware is for this: http://www.shacknews.com/screens.x/ut2007/Unreal+Tournament+2007/1/082205 . When you've got hardware designed to do that for the actual gameplay, not the cutscenes, how do you honestly expect any amateur production to compete?
Fact remains, demos are amateur productions. They have no budget and no staff. 15 years ago, demos and games were utterly separate. Fairly or unfairly, they're now being judged against games. Whether it's because new "sceners" don't understand the difference and just say "wow, that demo doesn't look half as good as UT2007" or it's because people have the same point of view as you (Trixter) in that demos should be pushing hardware beyond it's designed abilities, demos are operating in the same vertical as games.
Quote:
Along those lines, the only demos that impress me today are 64K intros (which is the only form of the art still advancing) or anything that does NOT require a hardware accelerator
That's not the fault of demos, coders or the scene. That's the "fault" of incredibly powerful hardware. IMO you're punishing todays demos simply because they have to operate on hardware designed for games.
*shock*, but ep has a point when he says "nowadays standards can't be understood by oldskoolers while newskoolers can't understand the oldskool standards".
Quote:
if I take a classic painting and use it to make origami, what have I created? I've created something that insults both painting AND origami
What if you take Van Gogh's Sunflowers, and use it to make an origami sunflower. You've added a dimension and depth to the production. Personally I hate modern art, but I had a long discussion with some guy who studies it about why a pile of used car tyres is art. I don't agree with it, but there's a valid point of view there.
It's not about the hardware, it's not about the platform, it's about ideas. People are so used to seeing the same formulae in games and demos, they can't think of anything new. For me, a demo is great if I watch it and think "wow" afterwards. That's all.
Yeah, this wasn't so short after all, huh. The first version made more sense tho.
Quote:
When the amiga was designed there is no way they had the vision of it doing 3d engines. But they did have the vision of it being a platform for excellent graphics etc. Amiga demos did show the machine doing exactly what it was designed to do, it was just that as time and experience progressed coders found extra tricks they could use. This doesn't mean the machine was never designed for those tricks, it just means the designers never sat down and said "ok, our aim for the blitter is specifically XYZ"...
I guess this is the right time to quote mr. Jay Miner (may he RIP):
Quote:
Hold and Modify came from a trip to see flight simulators in action and I had a kind of idea about a primitive type of virtual reality. NTSC on the chip meant you could hold the Hue and change the luminance by only altering four bits. When we changed to RGB I said that wasn't needed any more at it wasn't useful and I asked the chip layout guy to take it off. He came back and said that this would either leave a big hole in the middle of the chip or take a three month redesign and we couldn't do that. I didn't think anyone would use it. I was wrong again as that has really given the Amiga it's edge in terms of the colour palette.
Seems times are not a-changing that much after all... ;-)
QUIT IT. I WAS TROLLING WHEN I MADE THIS ARTICLE. STOP BEING JUST VAGUELY SERIOUS.
do what you wanna do and dont care what others think.
