| |
wacek
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 513 |
Release id #218343 : E2IRA
The highest level of admiration is imitation ;)
Joker guys made our day at Xenium with this one!
https://youtu.be/kl8dH7ooRyU |
|
... 107 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
wacek
Registered: Nov 2007
Posts: 513 |
Quoting hedningIn the end: isn't it about what you can see and experience on a C64?
I always thought so, just see my effect-less demos from the 90s ;) |
| |
Stone
Registered: Oct 2006
Posts: 172 |
Quote: In the end: isn't it about what you can see and experience on a C64?
Indeed. Also, this idea that codepr0n only includes what happens on the C64-side of an effect only shows a lack of imagination, if you ask me. |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5086 |
Quote: Indeed. Also, this idea that codepr0n only includes what happens on the C64-side of an effect only shows a lack of imagination, if you ask me.
I always found it laughable when guys wrote they needed to use a pentium for precalcs or whatever, yeah sure I lack imagination I guess. Must have been really hard to precalculate, they made things on that PC that is unheard of, only to produce those precious animation frames. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11357 |
thats how how feel when "coders" cant type "make" |
| |
Wile Coyote
Account closed
Registered: Mar 2004
Posts: 646 |
'how how' eh? |
| |
Krill
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2969 |
I dunno. If there's anything that makes at least current demos on this platform what they are, it's the vastly superior computing power on the build side, animation or not.
In other words, i'm pretty sure that demos built (and developed) on C-64 exclusively would be a lot less impressive than what we're used to.
By the same token, the same codec asymmetry most likely was a thing back in the 1990's and earlier, too. |
| |
JackAsser
Registered: Jun 2002
Posts: 2014 |
Quote: I dunno. If there's anything that makes at least current demos on this platform what they are, it's the vastly superior computing power on the build side, animation or not.
In other words, i'm pretty sure that demos built (and developed) on C-64 exclusively would be a lot less impressive than what we're used to.
By the same token, the same codec asymmetry most likely was a thing back in the 1990's and earlier, too.
Word! My "code pr0n FPP routines" are "real time" but the optimized and automagical char cruncher and memory layouter would have been almost impossible on low end machines, reusing char gfx as char pointers and what not... |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5086 |
I found ready made libraries for python that can be used for lossy charpacking, but to call that codepron? no mate. thats not it. |
| |
Burglar
Registered: Dec 2004
Posts: 1088 |
Quoting OswaldI found ready made libraries for python that can be used for lossy charpacking, but to call that codepron? no mate. thats not it. If code doesn't give Oswald a stiffy, it's not codepron! |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 219 |
I’ve read somwhere that C64 demoscene nowadays is roughly the size of PC demoscene. I don’t know if that’s correct, but I’ll pretend it is for the sake of the argument and try to express my thoughts on why I think that came to be.
I will try to express my views carefully because I wouldn’t want to insult or enrage anyone. After all these are just my views.
I have a (somewhat informed) feeling that what makes a good, succesful contemporary C64 demo (and I could be wrong here, feel free to correct me), what determines its “look and feel” is predominantly good audio-visual design. Overall visual “neatness” plus timing. So, graphic and motion design propelled by pixelling exellence in gfx department and crazy exellence in sound design/tunes. Plus neat transitions. That became the norm. All this is powered by SID and VIC-II. If, on the other hand, one looks at ZX or Atari 8bit demos, they are mostly essentially different. For one, of course they look and sound very differently having very different audio and video hardware. But the deciding factor for me saying they are “essentially different” comes from the observation that they mostly rely on code, not on audio-visual-motion design. This is not to say that there is no excellent code on C64 or no excellent audio-visual-motion design on ZX or Atari 8bit. This is just a general observation.
The situation reminds me of the late 80s/early 90s situation in Amiga/Atari ST scenes. Amiga demos pretty quickly deviated from reliance on code pr0n to reliance on audio-visual-motion design. While Atari ST demos almost never deviated to this point, they always stayed firmly relied on code pr0n.
I think this was caused by the hardware. It seems like Commodore was consistently producing home multimedia machines, while the rest were producing generic (general use) home computers.
What does this long rant have to do with the topic you ask? Well, I can feel this misunderstanding is at the core of the whole argument. The goalposts for C64 demos have moved, just like it was with the Amiga back then. Some people feel that the goalposts should never have moved. They feel this is unfair. So they have their own intimate goalposts which are now increasingly getting out of sync with general C64 public.
And demos in essence ARE audio-visual artifacts. Audio-visual stimuli are the language of the output. Code, while being absolutely essential, is the input. Only Cypher from that movie (you know which one) can really “see” code. But that’s only a movie. So I think it’s natural that demos get evaluated mainly on merit of their output..
Please excuse me for writing this boring ass “essay” that could sound like ChatGPT-produced garbage, comrades. The C64 scene does not need a “culture war”. Nor a “hardscience” vs “softscience” dispute. |
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 - Next |
