"Demos are like movies or animations, but the effects are calculated in real time!"
category: general [glöplog]
@Photon: i'm quite sure many of us agree on your proposal:
I can't blame organisers if they don't show it, though: they often are doing a lot to make us have fun! :D I don't think they try to hide something from us (conspiracy?).
Quote:
What *could* be nice would be to show the size with the prodname in all compos as a rule.
I can't blame organisers if they don't show it, though: they often are doing a lot to make us have fun! :D I don't think they try to hide something from us (conspiracy?).
baah: I think you're reading things into what I wrote. It's a fact the size and precalc time was not shown, so it was hidden from me (and all the other sceners too, of course). That's all. Orgas to me seem full of energy and commitment, kind and caring a lot about compo quality. But optimally they would also accept nothing but binaries and run only on compo hardware, no exception. And be known for having tough standards, the compos might actually be all the more attractive if this were true. I think the Up Rough orgas (Datastorm) follow this best. Assembly is also pretty good (guessing from rumors).
And doing these two things would take a few seconds per demo, so this part is really not a lot more. You won't have me believe this would be a problem to add. :)
I think it could be a thing to, you know, celebrate. Like 64K compo starts and some unknown group has made a simple but great new effect in 16K and everyone laughs and boos expecting a crap demo. After, they know they did all that in 16K that the others didn't manage in 64K and are 'converted'. Shit, we were all wrong, these guys are great, who are they? Never heard of them before. I have to talk to those guys.
Maybe I'm fantasizing and romanticizing, well, stupid me then. But those moments right there are the stuff of dreams for me and what I think democompos are all about.
Size is good for tracked music, too, as experts in making tight intro songs could have their fine-tuning :) appreciated more than just "Max 1MB, who cares if you made a cracking song in 32K".
And doing these two things would take a few seconds per demo, so this part is really not a lot more. You won't have me believe this would be a problem to add. :)
I think it could be a thing to, you know, celebrate. Like 64K compo starts and some unknown group has made a simple but great new effect in 16K and everyone laughs and boos expecting a crap demo. After, they know they did all that in 16K that the others didn't manage in 64K and are 'converted'. Shit, we were all wrong, these guys are great, who are they? Never heard of them before. I have to talk to those guys.
Maybe I'm fantasizing and romanticizing, well, stupid me then. But those moments right there are the stuff of dreams for me and what I think democompos are all about.
Size is good for tracked music, too, as experts in making tight intro songs could have their fine-tuning :) appreciated more than just "Max 1MB, who cares if you made a cracking song in 32K".
Ie. by showing size, on a big party a musician can submit hoping that people will appreciate his work a little bit more than before, and on a small party demo and intro compos can be merged with less harsh consequences. Size displays can level the field at least a little bit and the prizes could be added to the combined compo instead of next year's compo. Surely that would be more attractive?
But I giess for it to be most effective the size display must be a "thing", not just mentioned in the right margin. And of course for votes to go to tight demos and music, the appreciation must be there. But I'm 100% sure the tight ones would get MORE votes than today; it's inevitable. Someone will see it if it's there, and think twice about his low score or tweak up the score a little.
But I giess for it to be most effective the size display must be a "thing", not just mentioned in the right margin. And of course for votes to go to tight demos and music, the appreciation must be there. But I'm 100% sure the tight ones would get MORE votes than today; it's inevitable. Someone will see it if it's there, and think twice about his low score or tweak up the score a little.
Showing the (often rather irrelevant) size just makes the audience be prejudiced to a demo that hasn't been even shown yet. Sure, in extreme cases like Debris, it's a good idea, but in most cases you'll just earn disdain for a demo that otherwise would be enjoyable.
Quote:
Is it me or some sceners don't want people outside of the scene to come and show their skills? That's weird as a lot of influences are coming from outside the scene.
I think there are two extremes - one goes to hell and back to explain demos, the other side is already jaded by people not getting it. Frankly, I can understand both sides.
If size were irrelevant, we wouldn't have 64k and 4k compos.
If a party only had a single compo for everything, I think size should be part of the display. If there are also going to be 64/4/256b/etc. compos at the same part, then it shouldn't. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
If a party only had a single compo for everything, I think size should be part of the display. If there are also going to be 64/4/256b/etc. compos at the same part, then it shouldn't. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
Ibliss (or vaginal secretion 1.0) is a good image generator. it could synthetise a dozen of photography precalculated in 4k. there is an extension to demos. such like generating data to reality. the importance of real in demo is clear to me.
if someone needs I've ported .xm and .mod player to android, still an app can be done.
if someone needs I've ported .xm and .mod player to android, still an app can be done.
Photon:
Please, tell us which demos had you fooled! :)
Especially when watching demos on 8/16bit-platforms, if something looks too good it's probably fake. But like we say in Finnish "jos et feikkaa, et voi voittaa"
Quote:
The thing is though, I've praised the wrong demo, coder, and group (again, according to me) by mistake twice now, because information was hidden from me
Please, tell us which demos had you fooled! :)
Especially when watching demos on 8/16bit-platforms, if something looks too good it's probably fake. But like we say in Finnish "jos et feikkaa, et voi voittaa"
Photon:
As far as I can remember, people who submit like a 8k intro in the 64k competition make a note of that fact in the description text. And if the organizers are nice and attentive, they sometimes announce that, too.
It is, of course, no problem to include that information on the beamslides. The question is if the party organizers want to include that information or not.
Gargaj:
I don't think it really matters to most people how big a demo (not intro) is. If they want to impress with size, they usually choose the smaller compos.
As far as I can remember, people who submit like a 8k intro in the 64k competition make a note of that fact in the description text. And if the organizers are nice and attentive, they sometimes announce that, too.
It is, of course, no problem to include that information on the beamslides. The question is if the party organizers want to include that information or not.
Gargaj:
I don't think it really matters to most people how big a demo (not intro) is. If they want to impress with size, they usually choose the smaller compos.
gargaj: perhaps im alone in this, but i actually dont think debris should have shown the size on the bigscreen at bp.
it was entered in the democompo, which had a 64mb size limit; it's not a size coding category - the size limit was self-inflicted. it should live and die in that category regardless of size as long as it's under the limit; this felt like a cop out.
debris isn't good because it's 180k, it's good because it's good (and largely because of the direction..) - id have liked to have seen that proven by it winning bp without showing the filesize and *then* surprising everyone after. now that would have been something. :)
(yes yes, uncovering static was also guilty of this - showing the size in a democompo - but we have the excuse that it was meant for the 64k compo that got cancelled, and we didn't really want to put it in the democompo. :) )
as you can tell, im really not a fan of the whole "demos are only impressive cos of size" argument. if people aren't smart enough to recognise other qualities in clever code/fx than the size of the exe it produces, that's not our problem..
it was entered in the democompo, which had a 64mb size limit; it's not a size coding category - the size limit was self-inflicted. it should live and die in that category regardless of size as long as it's under the limit; this felt like a cop out.
debris isn't good because it's 180k, it's good because it's good (and largely because of the direction..) - id have liked to have seen that proven by it winning bp without showing the filesize and *then* surprising everyone after. now that would have been something. :)
(yes yes, uncovering static was also guilty of this - showing the size in a democompo - but we have the excuse that it was meant for the 64k compo that got cancelled, and we didn't really want to put it in the democompo. :) )
as you can tell, im really not a fan of the whole "demos are only impressive cos of size" argument. if people aren't smart enough to recognise other qualities in clever code/fx than the size of the exe it produces, that's not our problem..
Quote:
I strongly disagree. If a demo is 9 MB or 38 MB shouldn't make a difference, but if they are of equal quality, people are most likely going to (unfairly) judge the 9 MB one better, even though there is absolutely no reason to.What *could* be nice would be to show the size with the prodname in all compos as a rule.
Quote:
In a compo-setting, I think that spoonfeeding it to the audience is more about scoring cheap points than anything else.as you can tell, im really not a fan of the whole "demos are only impressive cos of size" argument. if people aren't smart enough to recognise other qualities in clever code/fx than the size of the exe it produces, that's not our problem..
Quote:
Showing the (often rather irrelevant) size just makes the audience be prejudiced to a demo that hasn't been even shown yet.
Maybe showing it afterward? Let people enjoy it, then give the info?
Quote:
as you can tell, im really not a fan of the whole "demos are only impressive cos of size" argument. if people aren't smart enough to recognise other qualities in clever code/fx than the size of the exe it produces, that's not our problem..
@smash: [http://pouet.net/prod.php?which=57100]Cube is my Pron[/url] can not be considered as brainblasting by itself. But knowing it's only 256b on a 6502 gives another view. No hint was given in the mixed compo (not enough 256b you know). How can i rate this without infos?
You want me to understand everything of others' production just by viewing the output? Maybe you can... I can't! I sometimes need explanations (as in fr-08 or zoom 3 or mixed compos...).
Anyway, i don't take compos and voting seriously enough to be upset if the size is not shown. I would personnaly like that, but many people seem against it.
Quote:
Very easily. I believe Smash is saying that the impressiveness of the prod shouldn't be solely judged on size alone, and I agree.How can i rate this without infos?
Agree, but it can't be judged on the fx quality only...
Anyway, i think the problem in that case is the mixed category compo in itself, not how we manage it. Voting can't be taken seriously there. So it seems my argument doesn't stand...
Anyway, i think the problem in that case is the mixed category compo in itself, not how we manage it. Voting can't be taken seriously there. So it seems my argument doesn't stand...
Quote:
Agree, but it can't be judged on the fx quality only...
Sure it can. Why couldn't it? You can spend a lot of time on optimizing size, but what good does it actually do? You could just as well spend that time writing a nice long infofile or spending a bit more time with your loved ones. Or improving your effects.
I mean, I could write a softsynth that replicates the sound and the plugins that my musician uses, I could write a font renderer that could be used to create similar texts to what my graphic artist does in Photoshop and so on, and by doing that I could probably shave off a few megabytes of the file size bringing it down to three megabytes from seven, but would that affect the demo at all?
No.
In the case of Debris, I always liked the fact that its size isn't restricted to an arbitrarily power of two. I like to think that they made it as small as possible without compromising too much. At least it's an idea I find very appealing. Too often, visual quality and speed is sacrificed over the size limit. Removing the size limit would make an efficient solution to the problems Gloom and Smash are dealing with here. Size would be just another feature of the demo.
i don't understand why the file size should be shown at all on the screen, or how that matters. if you are watching the 4k compo, you are watching 4k intros and you know the size. if you are in the 64k compo, you are watching 64k intros, and you know the size. if you are in the demo compo, anything goes, and you know it. if the coders wanted to impress you about their size coding skills, they should have had two balls and go make a 64 k intro. size they didn't, size doesn't matter - look at the effects, that's what it is about. no?
it's not perfect, but what the heck. or should we normalize the "woooo" effect by the kilobytes it took to produce it?
it's not perfect, but what the heck. or should we normalize the "woooo" effect by the kilobytes it took to produce it?
What I think baah was trying to say is that in the cases that compos get combined (let's say, 4k and 64k gets combined into one compo due to too few entries), I'd say it's nice to know which compo the entry was supposed to compete in.
But entering a 256b intro into a 4k-compo is a different matter, then you will just have to deal with the fact that the prod will be judged against 4k's.
But entering a 256b intro into a 4k-compo is a different matter, then you will just have to deal with the fact that the prod will be judged against 4k's.
Quote:
I strongly disagree. If a demo is 9 MB or 38 MB shouldn't make a difference, but if they are of equal quality, people are most likely going to (unfairly) judge the 9 MB one better, even though there is absolutely no reason to.
Who are you to say that's an *unfair* criterion to judge by, though? Is "does it have naked chicks in it" an unfair criterion? What about "use of stupid phrases that pissed Germans find funny"? I used to say "yes" to those last two, but over time I've come to accept that demo compos have always been about judging humour against art against code porn against actual porn against shit-blowing-up against sizecoding against namevoting. And if your end goal is to win compos - rather than, say, make a demo that you actually like - then you need to decide which of those attributes you want to focus on to deliver the votes.
And, in a roundabout way, that's why I agree with you. :-) If someone wants to push size as a selling point of their demo, they can do that on the info slide or brag about it in the end scroller. If they don't, we shouldn't be forcing them to.
gasman: my point is that given two demos of equal visual quality, content and interest, the remaining qualifying factor seems to be "Well, which one was smaller then?" which I think is stupid. :)
Quote:
Exactly. If one of the 64k intros was 59k and another was 64k, the "edge" shouldn't go to the one that was 5k smaller, just because of the size. It makes little sense.if you are watching the 4k compo, you are watching 4k intros and you know the size. if you are in the 64k compo, you are watching 64k intros, and you know the size.
Quote:
In that case I'll repeat what I said in the oneliner: just show what compo it was originally entered in, if the party in question just happen to combine all compos into one because of few entries. There is no need to show the actual size, just what compo it was originally meant to compete in. That gives enough of a context for people to use that information when judging.What I think baah was trying to say is that in the cases that compos get combined (let's say, 4k and 64k gets combined into one compo due to too few entries), I'd say it's nice to know which compo the entry was supposed to compete in.
Quote:
@rez: "demos: computer art not made for people outside of the (demo)scene" is a circular definition... knl's one is better in that kind.
it was obviously a joke, since my crew got 99% of his "audience" outside of the scene, I think we are doing prod for everybody who want to enjoy it :)
I actually dont think stating the size of the prod is a major "selling point", at least not if its not extremely big or small. For 80% of the prods I think the size is not important at all, but there are exceptions.
Also Im not saying that the size should be plattered across the whole bigscreen or anything, Im just a believer in stating as much information about the prod as possible up front so the viewer can actually judge it better the first time.
I think the sceners of today are mature enough to be able to judge the informations stated without being biased, they are not going "oh wow, a 60K prod in the 64k intro compo! i dont care for content! instant win!" or similiar but its still a "nice to know" fact. The same goes for the platform or used extensions (which is actually only important for oldschool hardware thats otherwise considered "fixed").
And yes im aware that all those information can be put into the info-text by the submitters themselfes, but thats a pretty chaotic way of doing things (especially with the slides being shown for a couple of seconds, only).
To cut it short: I think party visitors can enjoy a good demo even if it reads 90MB up front and wont vote a 1KB prod with sound in the 4KB compo to heaven just for its size, but more information up front helps to understand whats going on at runtime (and dont expect anybody to catch up on all the binaries/submissions/nfos themselfes before voting is on).
Also Im not saying that the size should be plattered across the whole bigscreen or anything, Im just a believer in stating as much information about the prod as possible up front so the viewer can actually judge it better the first time.
I think the sceners of today are mature enough to be able to judge the informations stated without being biased, they are not going "oh wow, a 60K prod in the 64k intro compo! i dont care for content! instant win!" or similiar but its still a "nice to know" fact. The same goes for the platform or used extensions (which is actually only important for oldschool hardware thats otherwise considered "fixed").
And yes im aware that all those information can be put into the info-text by the submitters themselfes, but thats a pretty chaotic way of doing things (especially with the slides being shown for a couple of seconds, only).
To cut it short: I think party visitors can enjoy a good demo even if it reads 90MB up front and wont vote a 1KB prod with sound in the 4KB compo to heaven just for its size, but more information up front helps to understand whats going on at runtime (and dont expect anybody to catch up on all the binaries/submissions/nfos themselfes before voting is on).
