[CSDb] - User Forums - Release id #20965 : Mortalis Arisen 90%

You are not logged in - nap

CSDb User Forums

Forums > CSDb Entries > Release id #20965 : Mortalis Arisen 90%

2005-09-27 14:13

CyberBrain
Administrator

Posts: 392

Release id #20965 : Mortalis Arisen 90%

Continuing the discussion from http://noname.c64.org/csdb/release/?id=20965&show=review

@The Dark Judge: i see your point, a release should be a prod that has been released. :) But party-entries that has not been released (at least not in the form they were in when competing) is a special-case i think. I know that the word "release" might be a bit off in this case...
But even though it's unfurtunate, it's something that has happened a lotta times through history, but that shouldn't mean that CSDb shouldn't have the complete party-results for these parties imo. I don't think it's been a problem till now?

Maybe some people would argue that we should just set the 100% version to be the winner of the party. But that would be wrong imo, as it wasn't the prod that won.

A good solution would be to go back in time and force a rule on each party: "ALL COMPETING ENTRIES WILL BE SPREAD NO MATTER IF THEY'RE FINISHED OR NOT!!!!"

... 52 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....

2005-10-02 15:12

TDJ

Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1879

Pfff .. calm down will you. All I'm saying is that it would be a shame if the demo would be known for this 'controversy' instead of its qualities. And believe me, that can happen, I've seen it before. Hell, I experienced it a few times, and it's no fun if people try to diminish your victory based on a situation you're not really responsible for.

Now personally I'm not going to give your demo a bad review once it's released because of this. I liked what I saw last week and I'm pretty sure I'll like it again. But I think it would have been better if you didn't compete with it.

By the way, it's still not clear to me if it was the organisation fucking up (they did proclaim it was non-votable, *after* the result was already made public) or if you guys yourself were always planning to compete with something that you were not going to release. If the latter is the case, well, you should go to hell ;)

As for my 'how good it was/is' line, that's just me trying to make sense of a situation where I saw a demo once and may not see it again. So until the demo is released, yes, it 'was' good ;)

And if you chose not to release it at all, well, you're just stupid aren't you? ;)

2005-10-02 16:16

_V_
Account closed

Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 124

Quote: Pfff .. calm down will you. All I'm saying is that it would be a shame if the demo would be known for this 'controversy' instead of its qualities. And believe me, that can happen, I've seen it before. Hell, I experienced it a few times, and it's no fun if people try to diminish your victory based on a situation you're not really responsible for.

Now personally I'm not going to give your demo a bad review once it's released because of this. I liked what I saw last week and I'm pretty sure I'll like it again. But I think it would have been better if you didn't compete with it.

By the way, it's still not clear to me if it was the organisation fucking up (they did proclaim it was non-votable, *after* the result was already made public) or if you guys yourself were always planning to compete with something that you were not going to release. If the latter is the case, well, you should go to hell ;)

As for my 'how good it was/is' line, that's just me trying to make sense of a situation where I saw a demo once and may not see it again. So until the demo is released, yes, it 'was' good ;)

And if you chose not to release it at all, well, you're just stupid aren't you? ;)

Trust me, that was a calm, collected response, as far as you can be collected when reading that the demo you worked so hard for supposedly is identified with what is really being discussed here. But it definitely was calm.

How you review the demo is up to you (and your neutral stance is appreciated), but you were alluding to a scenario where the majority of the scene will be doing things quite differently. And *if* this is true, then the response I stated holds.

But, I wasn't the only one involved in this project. I can't share my personal viewpoint on the matter yet (although this viewpoint is already known), not without mentioning the other team members. There has to be an internal discussion about it first.

I did not know about the non-votable stuff. Bud mailed me other information yesterday which made me frown a bit. Still - the issue at hand was not an issue at the time of release, therefore, noone can really be blamed. This sort of thing has to be prevented in the future, though.

Finally, it's not quite stupid... what *would* be stupid is releasing a rulings discussion, since according to the statement, that's what this demo is.

2005-10-02 17:18

Shake

Posts: 133

to clarify some since you're interested in this; In the weeks before the party I asked the organisation if it will be a problem when we compete with the demo that needs a little fix afterwards before we release it because we were not sure we're going to make it.

So in other words: show a party version
we should go to hell now according to your words. rethink (we've always been good sceners ;p), the question was mainly based on one of the works yet to be done that was a noter for the demo.

No problem is the answer. I must admit i was a it confused as well hearing it was non-votable

Next thing the drive used. with the knowledge of today. The crashing at home of the 1541-II drive is mainly due to a faulty powersupply used, with a replaced supply the test results are much better.

with this uncertainty of the previous 'transfering-test -hell-fridaynight' the suggestion came to run it on a stable 1571. On the compomachine there was hooked a 1541 and a 1571. I even think more contributions ran on that drive. But who really cares that much. There was shown a demo that did not crash, that would spoil much more fun than this in some eyes 'this differs from the website rules, boooh, how come there is used a different drive?' -> the organisation decided, and it's not like there is used an amiga in a c64 compo to run effects on...

Basicly there is no problem, there was a party, there was this demo, and now there is in a fair amount of time a demo in the csdb database for everyone that was not on that party

one could support this as well, we should disqualify all music entries of primary star:
the site states:
- Screen output will not be shown.
well i was there, and everything was shown, it's a shame, why is no-one complaining about that. Who was the winner of that compo and let's discuss this release (irony)

2005-10-02 18:01

Oswald

Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5017

Shake, Vip, just try to think a bit on the frustration factor of the whole story:

I've checked the party results, and said: "wow 64ever has a new demo, cant wait to see it, it must be as awesome as insomnia, hey cool, lets download it.. click the link.. WHAT ?! NO download link ?! :(( how many months do I have to wait now for the final ?!"

This frustrating feeling will spoil the impact of the demo when first checking it IMHO.

I remember deus ex machina. I couldnt be 100% happy when finally getting to see it.

If you have the balls to enter the compo with an unfinished piece you must have the balls to also release it, or you must have the balls to show it outside the compo.

Waiting for weeks / months to see an already released demo is frustrating.

2005-10-02 18:06

TDJ

Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1879

@Shake: sure you're going to hell. But hey, I'll be sitting next to you, frantically typing scrolltexts that never will be read until the end of days ;)

I still think the decent thing would have been to not compete, esp. since you already knew it wasn't going to be released. Now let me be clear: I can understand why you did what you did, but don't act surprised if people start making a ruckus about it, that's all.

I put the blame equally with you and with the organisation, who made it even worse by claiming the demo was non-votable. Then again, like I already stated in the comments to PS, the compo organisation sucked, this is just one thing they did wrong ;Z

Comparing this to the music compo is ofcourse bullshit - it was hardly the musicians fault that the organisation didn't turn off the screen while playing the song, was it? And even if you would disqualify the Focus song (oh, how ironic!), it would mean you'd have to disqualify ALL songs ..

2005-10-02 18:07

TDJ

Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1879

Quoting Oswald

Shake, Vip, just try to think a bit on the frustration factor of the whole story:

I've checked the party results, and said: "wow 64ever has a new demo, cant wait to see it, it must be as awesome as insomnia, hey cool, lets download it.. click the link.. WHAT ?! NO download link ?! :(( how many months do I have to wait now for the final ?!"

This frustrating feeling will spoil the impact of the demo when first checking it IMHO.

I remember deus ex machina. I couldnt be 100% happy when finally getting to see it.

If you have the balls to enter the compo with an unfinished piece you must have the balls to also release it, or you must have the balls to show it outside the compo.

Waiting for weeks / months to see an already released demo is frustrating.

Please excuse me while I go sit in a corner and cry about the fact that Oswald and I completely agree on something ;)

2005-10-02 22:39

raven
Account closed

Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 137

Well I agree with Oswald since I experienced that frustration several times myself.

Too bad though, this time I cant do anything about that
since its not my demo but it wont take long I guess.

Just be patient! (says someone with zero patience ;)

2005-10-03 06:38

Nightlord

Registered: Jan 2003
Posts: 131

I personally think the authors have the right to choose when to release what and when to add a dl link. This has happened before with tsunami this year. I do not see a problem with a demo being shown at a party but not released on the net. consider it a special advantage of the party goers. And thus I have not stated any comments on that side of the discussion on this thread before.

I am more surprised by the compo side of things. I do not have any doubt about the good intentions of the demomakers or even the orgranisers. I agree that it would be unfair to judge this demo based on this event rather than its qualities as a demo when we finally see it. And I certainly will not do so.

But I still think the compo machines should be announced and the demos should work on that configuration. and the organisers should make sure the compo machine works (no faulty supplies etc.). i am not trying to point fingers to anyone but i think a demo that does not work on compo machine should not be allowed to compete. I think it is unfair to the other compo entries.

i hope i could make it clearer that i am not writing these to blame the 64ever demo's quality (how can i? i haven't seen it) or the sceners' efforts behind it.

But the efforts of the red brand and the silicon ltd guys are no less valuable and should be fairly protected by the organisation too.

2005-10-03 08:09

Shake

Posts: 133

For the record; the power supply at home was crappy. Not the one on the compo machine, we haven't test it on the 1541/compo machine at all.

Straight on the 1571 since that was hooked on as well. I'll bet for 100% it worked on the 1541. So you see no bad intentions/cheating or what so ever, just a matter of 'uhm let's pick that drive'...

the problem was a 1541-II at home and that was not on the compomachine at all. The picking of 1571 was purely because it was the best there to choose of. You're probably right about the rules etcetera but nobody was thinking like that at all at that moment...hope that clears it

2005-10-03 09:43

Cybernator

Registered: Jun 2002
Posts: 154

TDJ wrote:
> Comparing this to the music compo is ofcourse bullshit

Perhaps you misunderstood. Allow me to clarify. It was about the rules on the PS site which state that the demo must work on a C64+1541. And according to some of the previous posts, we broke this rule and this was unfair. How come? It would've been unfair if we had used a highend PC with GeForce 7800 to rape the bigscreen up to the bone, while the rest of the competitors used a "prehistoric" C64. (or you can make it a SuperCPU-equiped-C64 instead of the highend PC ;)) The 1571 won't show its full potential unless conected to a C128, so I see nothing unfair about this.

Ok, this rule was broken, but so was the rule that "screen will not be shown during the music compo". So Shake's comparison stands, whether you like it or not... Someone could've upvoted/downvoted because he liked/disliked what was shown on the screen. ;P But then, of course, we all have different opinions.

Next thing: the statement that the demo doesn't work or __ANY__ 1541, but has no problem on 1571. This is sheer bullshit. The loader was coded with a C64 and 1541-II and it never-ever (as in, not-one-single-time) failed on my drives. Seems that it was Shake's faulty PSU, coz he kept getting trouble running the demo on his 1541-II's (plural!). So no more bullshit about the 1571. Fuckoff and leave my loader alone... ;)

And the main issue. What I'd like to point is the fact that you can't blame one single person for this situation. It was clearly stated in the directory: "this is preview version, do not spread!!!". (maybe I should have drawn it with petscii chars, so that it's larger ;P) Yes, we'll go the hell and so will you TDJ. ;) When I told some people about the demo (before the party), I stated that we were gonna "show" the demo, not "release" it. Though, _for me_ that had nothing to do with whether it competes or not, and I was not considering a CSDb entry. Shake spoke to the organizers to see if it's possible to compete without releasing the 90% version, coz we wanted to fix the demo but there was no time. So who are you about to blame?

- me for not willing to release it
- _V_ for the idea to show a preview at PS
- Shake for accepting the idea and being the one who brought the demo to the party
- Exile for adding the entry to CSDb
- Drake for not knowing about the demo until the last minute
- the rest for not being patient ;)

There's nothing to say about the frustration, I understand all that. Rules should be more strict in the future, but taking the delay into account when one will be reviewing the demo is a bullshit. Actually I don't give a damn about it, though I'd dearly appreciate creative criticism which deals with the demo's contents.

> But that was a long time ago and I'm a better person now
> so that gives me the right to throw rocks at all those
> dirty mothafunkers that compete with unfinished products.

'k dude, I'll turn the plasma-shield on. ;P

Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 - Next

Refresh

Subscribe to this thread:

You need to be logged in to post in the forum.

Search the forum:
Search for in
All times are CET.

Search CSDb

Advanced

Users Online

St0rmfr0nt/Quantum
cba
theK/ATL
Steffan/BOOM!
Jammer
Low Spirit
Linus/MSL
sln.pixelrat
Guests online: 111

Top Demos

1 Next Level  (9.8)
2 Mojo  (9.7)
3 Coma Light 13  (9.7)
4 Edge of Disgrace  (9.6)
5 Comaland 100%  (9.6)
6 No Bounds  (9.6)
7 Uncensored  (9.6)
8 Wonderland XIV  (9.6)
9 Memento Mori  (9.6)
10 Bromance  (9.5)

Top onefile Demos

1 It's More Fun to Com..  (9.7)
2 Party Elk 2  (9.7)
3 Cubic Dream  (9.6)
4 Copper Booze  (9.5)
5 TRSAC, Gabber & Pebe..  (9.5)
6 Rainbow Connection  (9.5)
7 Wafer Demo  (9.5)
8 Dawnfall V1.1  (9.5)
9 Quadrants  (9.5)
10 Daah, Those Acid Pil..  (9.5)

Top Groups

1 Oxyron  (9.3)
2 Nostalgia  (9.3)
3 Booze Design  (9.3)
4 Censor Design  (9.3)
5 Crest  (9.3)

Top Webmasters

1 Slaygon  (9.7)
2 Perff  (9.6)
3 Morpheus  (9.5)
4 Sabbi  (9.5)
5 CreaMD  (9.1)

Page generated in: 0.046 sec.