| |
Sander
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 496 |
An update on ‘Pixel art in the C64 demoscene’
Dear fellow sceners,
In response to the comments we received, we’ve made some changes to the document.
Our goal was always to find common ground to maintain the fun and integrity of our hobby.
What this is not:
- It’s not written to limit anyone (only to encourage openness)
- It’s not aimed at specific individuals (it’s a scene wide practice)
Read the document here
We’d really love to hear your thoughts on this update.
Please post them in this thread, be kind and keep it constructive and on-topic please. |
|
... 127 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11386 |
Quote:From a graphician's point of view, process is interesting to see and sharing that process helps us learn.
Sure, that's the same with code - obviously. That's purely about curiosity though. And you can't demand anyone to share anything because you are curious. |
| |
Deev
Registered: Feb 2002
Posts: 206 |
Quote: Quote:From a graphician's point of view, process is interesting to see and sharing that process helps us learn.
Sure, that's the same with code - obviously. That's purely about curiosity though. And you can't demand anyone to share anything because you are curious.
No-one is demanding anything, it's a proposal. Sander asked for people's thoughts. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11386 |
Quote:No-one is demanding anything
really? Are we looking at the same document? Have we seen the same walls of outcry recently? I really wonder.
But that's exactly why i was mentioning demos vs gfx compos. In a compo you can demand this and that. Elsewhere... not so much. You could kindly ask, and might get an answer. Or not. |
| |
CreaMD
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 3057 |
Quote: Quote:Maybe to a lot of people it doesn't. If people are transparent, the audience can decide.
To me this whole debate seems to be much more about curiosity than fairness by now. And as for that, when i am curious about how someone made this and that - i'll ask. I might get an answer (and often do), or not - and both is just fine. No one is obliged to tell anyone. Or even do it in advance.
Quote:Unless I've missed something, C64 demos are not usually written in c++. There's a reason for that?
Not directly, sure. But all kinds of high level languages (including c++, i am sure) are used to produce the code in one way or another.
When we strictly talk about compo and the way it is presented. There is no way to know how it was made. You just see one picture after another. No time to ask anything.
That's why I think it's quite important (and it's not just about curiosity) to see how the picture was made. Is it original, derivative work (the author should be credited), is ai generated? Was it pixelled on native c64 tool from reference? Was it pixelled/drawn on crossplattform tool? Was it converted and then retouched? Such things. Most of the time, the process shouldn't affect the score, but in case of derivative work (if they are accepted as compo entries) people would least have chance to see the context. For online compo thus should be a requirement I think.
or party compos, it should be doable too, and in uniform way. You just need to wrap every image in presentation screen which shows all the info and after space, shows the compo entry. It shouldn't be hard to do C64 tool, and online tool capable of doing such packaging. I would call it "birthlist". |
| |
ws
Registered: Apr 2012
Posts: 251 |
how about "optional/voluntary birthlist". hey magician, what's in that hat? |
| |
CreaMD
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 3057 |
Quote: how about "optional/voluntary birthlist". hey magician, what's in that hat?
I think birthlist should be requirement. Stages can be, but doesn't necessarily have to be, part of that. If note about sources, process and tools is handed in (and then presented on big screen before each the entry in some uniform way), stages probably won't be that necessary.
Imagine someone submits entry with this birthlist: original sketch, converted, pixel retouched. Stages won't be necessary. Just one picture of original sketch. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11386 |
Those things are however totally up to whoever organizes the compo :) I don't see this happening myself, not in such strict sense anyway - as that is quite some extra burden for the organizers (and takes extra time to prepare and show - and verify). |
| |
ws
Registered: Apr 2012
Posts: 251 |
Ok so, let's say we have all the things that should be done, the moral and ethical and philosophical parameters in line as a good, reusable ruleset for works that should be submitted to a compo. Let's say someone is not truthful and in a deceptive or creative way finds solutions to circumnavigate QC.
Then what? Within the time of the compo all the facts have to be proven wrong? It is okay to disrespect participants who have been "found out"?
Does a ruleset really help to educate "cheaters"? Or does it just justify retrospective criticism? What if i am just a troll who enters a very sophisticated trolly entry and i am only found out weeks later? Does that does that subsequently improve the value of my seemingly underestimated contribution?
- Again, i love philosophical questions, and since the scene is full of (very lovely) magic, trickery, eyewash and boom effects - how would it help to have a refined ruleset?
I suppose it is only being applied at one or two parties/compos at all, but: how do you fact check before the results are out? Because: who carez if anyone complains if the results are published? People are namevoting, people are voting anynomously.
Would it really make you feel better? Is it really only about fairness? |
| |
Krill
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 2980 |
Quoting DeevThis is why there's a request for transparency. Because clearly some top-ranked artists are regularly taking shortcuts and yet everything is being judged the same. It doesn't feel like a level playing field. Pretty sure that graphicians on this platform (at least) have never quite agreed on what's good practice and what's "cheating" or "taking shortcuts", long before AI or even wiring were serious business.
Transparency is a good thing, but it should remain optional.
And even when it isn't, you can lie about your process.
Quoting DeevI expect if a tool came out that could do this better than a human can code asm (or even as good as), we might start to see some coders who wanted competitions that celebrated the traditional ways of doing things. They'd be a minority, and they exist already. :) |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11386 |
Reminds me how Graham explained to me at Mekka96 how using a crossassembler is lame, because libraries <3 |
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 - Next |
