Go to bottom

Announcing The Meteoriks - A new demoscene award

category: general [glöplog]
And ... someone told me that the explanations why someone win the category would be online too ... sometime.
added on the 2015-04-11 13:37:17 by gaspode gaspode
Working on it.
added on the 2015-04-11 14:21:32 by D.Fox D.Fox
"bribed dfox with a bottle of chardonnay"
added on the 2015-04-11 14:32:37 by Maali Maali
That's why you didn't win a Meteorik Maali, because the winners were more clever and bribed Urs instead!
added on the 2015-04-11 15:28:05 by Kylearan Kylearan
cool, thank you :)

i´ll create an entertaining making-of.

not next week but in a little while.

cu soon & stay tuned

You've got mail.
added on the 2015-04-11 17:40:34 by las las
(You == cosmic)
added on the 2015-04-11 17:42:37 by las las
A week in now, the TODO list :

mandatory :

- send certificates for all nominees *and* the honourable mentions (short term) ;
- update http://meteoriks.org/winners page with "honourable mentions" (short term) ;
- publish http://meteoriks.org/ jury list in each category (shor term) ;

optional :

- maybe redo icons for pouet (midterm) - read someone wanted to do that ;
- maybe publish a textfile with results (and maybe points ?) ;
- maybe make it clearer only jurors voted (not public) : they voted on selections (maybe public submitted some too) , they voted on winners.

@cosmicollie : "the budget for the awards this year unfortunately only allowed us to
create statues for the winners" : just how much did one of your creation cost ?
Thanks Baudsurfer for the Management-Help.. what would we do without you?! Wanna define some KPIs and Controlling-Loops?
added on the 2015-04-12 15:57:34 by v3nom v3nom
a week in already and still open mandatory TODOs? that is UNACCEPTABLUUUUU! wtf did you guys do in the meantime? go to a demoparty or smth? geez!!!
added on the 2015-04-12 16:03:55 by Maali Maali
I smell a volunteer for next year!
added on the 2015-04-12 16:40:09 by D.Fox D.Fox
Baudsurfer: we're working on all of those tasks :)
added on the 2015-04-12 16:40:47 by D.Fox D.Fox
Did you know...?
Prods from 2012 & 2013 didn't get awards!
firstly, congrats for doing the awards, thanks for putting the effort in and getting it done. it's no mean feat pulling something like this off.
however not everything that can be said about them is positive, and if it is to happen next year there's some things that could use improvement. so here, guys - my feedback.

firstly as a note - i was involved in the scene.org awards for a few years from the first year in the jury, and eventually ended up winning a few of my own, and i've always been a fan of them. I'm very much aware of how they developed and the problems they faced. the meteoriks have been presented or seen as a successor to the scene.org awards so direct comparisons are invited. and i will therefore make them. :)

the key point is that an awards show lives and dies on its credibility. credibility makes an award worth winning, a show worth watching. it makes it interesting. i remember the days of watching the show thinking "man, i have to work harder to make something that gets nominated next year" - and that is the definition of a great awards imo. the scene.org awards were a big motivator to many sceners out there and there must be some hope the meteoriks would also be.

the scene.org awards went to great lengths to achieve credibility:
- the process took great care and months of work - they started in december with the jury process. it was hard work. lots of it.
- the jury selection was (originally, at least the first few years) designed to be evenly spread across the countries of the scene world - one representative from each country, to avoid national bias. the jury was made up of respected members of the scene community, people who had a release pedigree: a jury of demomaking peers that an award winner could respect.
- the nomination and voting process was long and complicated. all the productions were selected by the jury. that means everything is open to selection.
- the show took a lot of preparation too. they made sure the nominees were contacted and either sent a representative or a video acceptance for those who cant make it. they then ran around and made sure the nominees were all sat at the front. they rehearsed the show, tried to make it as "pro" as possible. (successfully or not :) )
- the show was shown on the saturday night with a big audience - most people in the hall seemed to watch the show. it was one of the party highlights.
- they got some great people to present the awards. they tried where possible to get people who were either current respected people in that category, or scene legends. there were some great presenters over the years and this was obviously thought out way in advance, trying to get people to the party etc. i remember years they got e.g. statix to come and present.
- they had fucking fireworks and live acts and stuff! it was a big show. it was glitzy.
- there was a cool afterparty for the nominees with champagne (sparkling wine. whatever) :)
- they hunt you down and give you certificates, whether you are sober enough to handle them or not :)

the scene.org awards was great. the reason it failed, imo, was that the quality of productions generally dipped and it got to the point where it was struggle to find enough variety in the categories : you ended up with the same few demos from the same usual set of people nominated across the board, and it made it feel fake. it made it look like a big conspiracy. the same people nominated year after year. that's not the fault of the scene.org awards, that's the fault of the scene's releases in general. when the scene.org awards started the release quality and number was sky high and it was easy to find a variety of productions for the categories, but that dropped off heavily in the late 2000s. it got weird, quite frankly, and it probably had to die.

now on to the first year of the meteoriks. I believe it could have gone one of two ways: either a) done something small and fun off the cuff, a DUB-awards style thing, not made a big song and dance about it, done it all quietly and then announced it just before the party, then grow it next year; or b) worked 2x as hard as the scene.org awards to achieve credibility in the first year and done everything meticulously. unfortunately it went for c) - somewhere in the middle. it was a bit "scene.org-awards-lite" as a result; a bit of a parody.

i believe the following things cause problems..

the jury/nominations lacked credibility:
- it appears the jury and nomination process was crowdsourced: submit your own productions, apply to be a juror. there is a danger when making a followup to something that you perceive the original's weaknesses and knee jerk react to them, do something far in the other direction and finally realise why they did it that way in the first place. this seems to me how the meteoriks responded to the scene.org awards and the accusations of a closed, hidden, elitist jury and selection process, and i personally think it failed. tried to be open and inclusive but lost some gravitas as a result.

- i hate the idea of submitting your own productions. i'm not the kind of conceited ass who's going to say "me me me, im good enough to win this award" so personally (and i know others who did the same) i flat out declined to submit anything (although we did end up with a couple of nominations anyway, bah :) ). it's been brought up as a comparison, but submitting to a democompo is totally different to an award - a democompo is the first showing to an audience, an award is about saying you're the best thing around that year - which is very different. maybe that's just me.
however in general it makes you wonder whether the results are the pick of the best of the year, or the best that was submitted - very different things, and reduces credibility.

- it's produced a mixed bag of a jury : some categories credible, some not so much. look, i dont give a shit about winning an award decided by "some guy off pouet" - i'm much more interested in winning an award decided by "the guys who made some of the best demos of all time".

- crowdsourcing the categories too - it's not a bad idea, but i'd rather just see a the jury work it out for themselves.

- we know you started late because it was announced so late and the jury process was started late :) the scene.org awards took 2x as long, this seems like it was rushed.

- the website was nice, though.

the show itself lacked credibility:

- frank was the best thing about it, but he seemed to be having a laugh.. :) it did not take itself all that seriously. it's ok to not be serious - see the DUB awards - but if you are trying to achieve credibility it's a bit more necessary. the show was pretty messy, although so was the scene.org awards at first, so hey - im sure it'll improve next time if the will is there.

- the presenters of individual categories seemed like random people (although were actually jury members) - it didn't feel particularly "special" that those people were giving out the awards. again my comment about "an award presented by someone off pouet" vs "one of the greatest democoders of all time" re-applies.

- it was on friday night, and felt pretty empty. it felt like a filler for the first night when there was no compos, not a focal point of the scene calendar.

- too many jokes at my expense ;)

- was there an afterparty? what happened to the certificates? what happened to getting nominee representatives down the front etc? no, it's not the free booze - its the attention to detail that is needed to do this right, and that the scene.org awards definitely tried to put in.

- in summary, if the scene.org awards were like the scene oscars, this was more like an end of term school assembly where they give out the trophies.

ultimately, it faced the same issue the scene.org awards did but perhaps more so: lack of quality productions to actually nominate and give awards to. some of the nominees were a bit "wtf", some of the winners were too.
when you combine that with a jury and category presenters that aren't entirely credible either in some cases, and you end up with this big combined "wtf": "why is this person handing out an award for x, where they probably don't have a clue about x, to a demo which isn't that amazing in x from a selection of demos that arent all that amazing in x either (although they are probably better in x than the winner, when looked at with a trained eye), and when there were perhaps better demos in x than the nominees that aren't even in the process".

if there's to be an awards next year, i think you have to pick the direction up front: is it a bit of fun or is it serious? as i said already, there's nothing wrong with a bit of fun awards show to fill an hour in the schedule. but if you're going to try and do it seriously again then please.. do it right. doing something fun seriously is great; doing something serious but not seriously enough, it doesn't work.

id really like to see this work out and become a great awards show that inspires the next generation of sceners to work harder to make something cool enough to win, in the way that perhaps the scene.org awards inspired me and others.

(feel free to hate me now)
(by the way, the first person to say "well join the jury and fix it then" clearly doesn't get the point :) - start by fixing the concept and process, not the personnel)
added on the 2015-04-13 13:32:15 by smash smash
Well, as a juror of one of the "smaller" categories, I can say that the self-nomination might have been a problem - don't know if it was the same for the other categories.
We had a rather slim starting field to pick our nominees from. Even when we used the option of adding nominees, one candidate that I for sure wanted to have at least a nomination didn't want to have his work included, which we of course must respect.
So, given those circumstances, I can see that perhaps the outsider can think that some demos are missing that should have gotten a "nod".
Still all in all, I think looking through the results that I don't think they are generally pretty good.
added on the 2015-04-13 16:51:38 by Sdw Sdw
Eh, damnit, that last sentence should read
"Still all in all, looking through the results I think that they are generally pretty good."
added on the 2015-04-13 16:52:51 by Sdw Sdw
great feedback smash, it's very interesting to read your point of view about that will probably help to make a better Meteoriks show :)

the presenters of individual categories seemed like random people (although were actually jury members) - it didn't feel particularly "special" that those people were giving out the awards. again my comment about "an award presented by someone off pouet" vs "one of the greatest democoders of all time" re-applies.

yes totally, but we were called just a couple of hours before the show and got the "final" briefing about what we have to do/say just 5 minutes before going on stage :(
added on the 2015-04-13 16:53:37 by rez rez
fully agree with smash!
added on the 2015-04-13 17:03:45 by Maali Maali
I agree on most counts with Smash but let me add one more serious gripe: You name an award after a fallen friend and you can't put ONE PICTURE up on screen as remembrance?
added on the 2015-04-13 17:06:01 by Gargaj Gargaj
fallen friend

Fallen, meteor... I see what you did there!
added on the 2015-04-13 17:20:27 by Scali Scali

I agree with some of your points, like having not enough time and the show itself maybe being a bit bland - but these are things that could easily be improved upon with time and experience, especially now that some of the infrastructure is there and ready to be re-used.


it's produced a mixed bag of a jury : some categories credible, some not so much. look, i dont give a shit about winning an award decided by "some guy off pouet" - i'm much more interested in winning an award decided by "the guys who made some of the best demos of all time".

the first person to say "well join the jury and fix it then" clearly doesn't get the point

Really? Then please, explain it a bit more, I'm too dense to get it. :)

Together with visy and Shadow, I was part of the "Low End Intro" jury. From your point of view, I probably was one of the random guys off Pouet you mentioned. Now the only reason I applied as juror was because I (correctly) suspected that the Old Farts of the Demoscene (those "respected members" with the "trained eye") couldn't be bothered to apply, and I wanted to support the general idea of the awards. I actually HOPED I wouldn't be picked because some sceners longer in the scene would apply (it wasn't first-come-first-served!), but that obviously didn't happen.

That's not directed at you in particular, but yes, if people like you don't apply, you have to accept the jurys as they are. (I won't start a discussion about which kind of jury does the better work, by the way.)


now on to the first year of the meteoriks. I believe it could have [...] worked 2x as hard as the scene.org awards to achieve credibility in the first year

You may be right when it would be all about credibility. And yes, of course credibility is a big factor, but not the only one. From an organizational point of view, given the current state of the scene, I doubt it would have been doable from the ground up with all the glitzy bells and whistles you described. It's like telling a demoscene newbie, "don't bother with releasing your first demo if it's not as good as that Smash guy's demos with his years of experience". I'd rather have a yearly award that gets better and better each year, than no award at all. (Your mileage might vary, of couse).

I don't know what the intentions of the main organizers were when they started the Meteoriks; however, to me it has successfully reached two goals:

First, people *are* motivated: Look for example what axis/Oxyron posted above; and I've spoken with several people who were proud to have been nominated or didn't know about the awards and plan to submit something next year.

Second, it gives some lesser known productions some deserved attention, at least in the low end categories (not sure about the high end ones). I saw an increased rate of new comments for nominated prods after they've been announced; and I've seen comments along the lines of "learned about this prod at the awards show and fell in love instantly".

So I for one hope the Meteoriks will come back next year. That doesn't mean the process shouldn't be improved, but even for this first year, I think they didn't fail.
added on the 2015-04-13 19:39:21 by Kylearan Kylearan
Oh, and I forgot: The requirement to submit your own prod. I didn't like that as well (and said so before), but I can somehwat see the reasoning behind it (reducing the workload for the jurors). But to be honest, I don't think it mattered in the end.

In our category, we didn't limit ourselves to the submissions only. Instead, we reached out to several people and asked them if we could include their demo as well. In fact, I made the point of looking at every 2014 prod on Pouet to see what we could include (with more time I would have included other sites as well).

I can't speak for the other juries, but from what I could see, lots of non-submitted prods were considered there as well.
added on the 2015-04-13 20:13:59 by Kylearan Kylearan

look, i dont give a shit about winning an award decided by "some guy off pouet"

Well that's some elitist crap.. i guess none of the jurors we're random guys from pouet.
And only coding demos makes you able to judge art or what?

Thanks for the constructive parts of your critisism though.
added on the 2015-04-13 20:27:41 by v3nom v3nom
smash> thanks for your comprehensive feedback.

As a juror of high-end music and new talent categories, I would like to answer on some points.

About the intention behind the Meteoriks
My perception of the initiative wbhen it was announced 3 months ago was clearly a "start

small and improve iteration by iteration" thing, with nothing too cocky behind it.
The small-scale was one of the reason I applied as a juror despite not being an

"elitescener" (I think the scene.org awards was one of the great things in the demoscene

and I wanted to give some energy so that this initiative can grow up and become hopefuly

one day a successor of the scene.org awards).

About the jury credibility
I strongly agree the credibility of the selection is key in this.

And the credibility of the selection depends on the credibility of the jurors.

- finding the perfect jurors for the first edition of an awards is just impossible, if

you want to get things done.
- credibility is hard to define, subjective, and doesn't make it all. It's not because

you are NOT an elite/famous scener that you can't judge demoscene prods at all, even on a

technical point of view (that said I'm the first to recognize it's mandatory to have a

minimum level of technical knowledge, it's especially true in some categories). It's not

because you ARE an elite/famous scener that you will be commited and objective. And so

- There will always be bias and controversy, even with the most drastic process and the

most l33t jury.

In the end, I have the impression that all the jurors of the Meteoriks took they role

very seriously and I find it a bit sad that you lay emphasis on "the jurors of the

meteoriks are not on my approved-sceners-list", not on the actual results (and what you

think is wrong with them).

About the inclusion process
- It's annoying that it's not clear whether only the submitted prods were considered or

Maybe it would be great to have an official statement on this.
As for the new talent & highend music categories, we tried to consider all the prods we

could think of. Actually, the "additional prods" list was bigger than the "submitted

prods" one. If one given prod was not nominated, it's either because the jurors didn't

think it deserved it, or because we couldn't reach the author in time (or the author

explicitely did not want to have the prod nominated).
- I totally understand why the orgas of the Metoriks chose this system for the first

edition. I don't think it's a good idea to give an award to someone who doesn't consider

himself part of the community. And anyway, it's just too timeconsuming to review each

prod released and to get the agreement of the author. This hybrid system kind of worked I

think, and should work better and better over the years if the Meteoriks gains fame &

- It's a shame that you and others did not submit your prods, maybe it's just a matter of

a slightly different communication on the Meteoriks side.
"Fill this form if you explictely authorize the jurors to consider your productions for

nomination and give them your contact infos"
"Fill this form if you think you're the elite and everyone else sucks"

About the afterparty & hunting down people to give them certificates/trophy
Not sure if you were joking.

There was not scene.org awards afterparty in 2010, I don't know about the years after. I

don't really like the idea anyway, but it's very subjective.

I fail to see how hunting down people helps to achieve credibility.
I'd said it's the opposite, "try to hard"-style.
You are nominated/awarded: it's a big deal, your loss if you are not cooperative.

That said, I agree with all of your other points.
added on the 2015-04-13 20:28:38 by wullon wullon
to respond to the cries of elitism: anyone can make a subjective judgement on a production's merits. not a problem. but in the case of being on the jury for an awards designed to acknowledge the highest achievements in various highly specialised areas of the scene, to find the tiniest separating factor between a number of top level productions - then it demands a deep understanding about the topic upon which you are judging. that's the difference between the jury and the public's choice , where "i liked it" is enough. it also demands that those making that judgement can back up their decisions with their own credentials and justify their opinions. and that is not limited to experience of making demos - paul debevec is a fine inclusion for judging on e.g. high end graphics for obvious reasons.
if you want to call expecting a jury knows what they are talking about and are able to stand up and say why they are capable of passing judgement elitist, then yep - i'm that. :)
added on the 2015-04-13 21:23:42 by smash smash


Go to top