| |
mankeli
Registered: Oct 2010
Posts: 146 |
About the origins of c64 demoscene
It almost feels to me that C64 demoscene is somewhat younger than the Amiga demoscene. Would that be (historically) correct thing to say? Not by much, but kinda couple of years.
Many of the screens and effects often seen on C64 seem to have done earlier on the Amiga. (like 1986 vs. 1988) - This doesn't surprise me, since Copper makes raster programming so much more pleasant. But C64 setup was still a pretty usable in late 1980s, and much cheaper too, so I wonder if the C64 demoscene did start by trying to imitate stuff seen on Amiga? I mean just a random example of a 1986 Amiga intro: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mg96m76o7JA |
|
... 36 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
Krill
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2980 |
Quoting RaistlinI can remember a time when it seemed that everyone deep into the demoscene was declaring “no games please!” and such with their contacts. That’s about as disjoint as the two became at the time. Wonder whether the "other side" also started to feel so strongly at some point.
Unfortunately, many artefacts of the olden days seem lost.
I'd like to have more hard proof that people at copy parties copied ALL the cool stuff they could get their hands on, and that this included stand-alone demos not linked with a cracked game (but possibly still on the same disk, together with a number of cracks). |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 285 |
"The demo scene emanates from the cracking scene."
@Krill:
Why do you seem to have such a burning desire to disprove this? What's the point? And even if there was a point, how would you do that? Disprove it? This has been retold by quite a number of personal experiences (mine included) and a few research papers.
BTW teenagers shouting profanities on conference calls made possible by US supplied cards was also quite a standard part of the scene. Does that bother you also? |
| |
HCL
Registered: Feb 2003
Posts: 728 |
Wow, that was a strong reaction :) |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 285 |
What drives me to conclusion that conventional wisdom repeated so many times represented by the sentence "The demo scene emanates from the cracking scene" is fully true, or anyway true enough from today's perspective that it doesn't really warrant further investigation efforts is this:
1) Outside of copyparties (decide for yourself why they were called COPYparties), the only channel of propagation for C64 demos was the SWAPPER NETWORK. In other words, a network of swappers had to be pre-established in order for demos to be spread. This network was established for swapping of cracks. In this regard, the description "The demo scene emanates from cracking scene" works perfectly.
2) Why do you think these copyparties were prominent in Denmark and especially in Netherlands and not so much in Germany (where the scene had the strongest numbers)? My guess is because of government crackdown on piracy. Which was prominent in Germany, but not in Netherlands. So what's closest to Germany but not under German government's jurisdiction? Aha. Is it so hard to imagine that even people who were never into cracking and only into demo making, still enjoyed the allure, the fame, the notoriety of being in cracker groups, being part of the subculture. That's the scene, and that's why when talking about the scene roots "The demo scene emanates from cracking scene" seems unquestionable to me.
Therefore, I can't think of a better explanation than "The demo scene emanates from cracking scene", and for the life of me cannot understand the urge, the need to disprove this. |
| |
AüMTRöN
Registered: Sep 2003
Posts: 44 |
Demo scene may well have come from cracking scene, but anyway...
Demo scene > cracking scene.
I'll get me coat. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11386 |
That escalated quickly |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4732 |
Quote: Demo scene may well have come from cracking scene, but anyway...
Demo scene > cracking scene.
I'll get me coat.
They are hopelessly intertwined. :) I think this paper is pretty interesting and brings light on why we can't agree here: http://widerscreen.fi/numerot/2014-1-2/crackers-became-us-demos..
"The pirate–demoscene split illustrates the complex mechanisms of how a community is born out of another, establishes its own practices and repurposes the existing ones. Having said that, it is also evident as to how such a separation is not a binary one: there have been links between the two communities as long as they have existed, and by time divergence can even turn back into convergence. Moreover, the fluidity of sceners’ identities lets willing members cross the border between different cliques and generations, and thus identify with more than just one group." |
| |
Krill
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2980 |
Quoting HCLWow, that was a strong reaction :) Quoting chatGPZThat escalated quickly Oh, Fourgy? He does that all the time. =) |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11386 |
Just to stir the pot a bit: i'd like to see proof that the demoscene did NOT originate on compunet. |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 285 |
Quote: Quoting HCLWow, that was a strong reaction :) Quoting chatGPZThat escalated quickly Oh, Fourgy? He does that all the time. =)
Guilty as charged. I know. I admit. Sorry, I guess it’s some kinda autism.
About the subject. (Well not the real subject, Krill already hijacked that with his fishooks some time ago…) History is full of “informed best guesses”. Krill, i just happen to strongly think that you simply cannot provide enough evidence to eliminate the current “informed best guess” i.e. current standing theory and justify a major rethink + emergence of a new, different “informed best guess”. One can go and question every single “informed best guess” in whole of human history. That’s pretty useless. And counterproductive. We can try to re-re-revision history for a millionth time. For what?
And if you yourself are not willing to perform an extensive research into the matter, I don’t understand what exactly are you trying to accomplish with your “in my book” statements. Are you fishing, are you luring someone else to perform the research to back or dismiss your opinion? Or you’re perhaps just doing it to make that autist Fourgy blabber? Remember, we have a valid theory about the begginings of the demoscene. If you want do disprove this theory, do the research, publish results. You shouldn’t tempt the other side to prove what needs no further proof for now, you’re the one with a “new insight” who should search for proof, do a whole new research thru some new approach, not just pull stuff out of your nose. |
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 - Next |
