| |
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....
|
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 285 |
It appears that the demoscene flew into our lives on a blast of wind from Howard Stern's ass. |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5094 |
Quote: The demo scene emanates from the cracking scene, and the crack intros, which is well known, with early examples on the Apple II. The C64 scene were prominent early on, though.
no.
you can make interesting visual stuff with computers, and you dont need to remove copy protection to do it. |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5094 |
Quote: "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?
what is there to disprove?
prove it first. |
| |
mankeli
Registered: Oct 2010
Posts: 146 |
Lol @ hedning. Pretty plausible sounding theory!
And of course there were programs like music collections, piccolo mouso, utilities, letters etc. circulating before Amiga was released. Also programs for Apple2, and for whatever other computers.
But I was thinking if the common visual "style" (with raster effects like rasterbars, scrollers, big moving logos) was invented on the Amiga, since the Copper made such effects part of the "native featureset" of the machine. And by defining an unique look like this, that kind of marked the start of "demoscene". Cracks started to have similar intro screens as well. (I quite frankly feel the Krill/4agentE's debate is mostly arguing about semantics)
It's maybe just my personal bias though. For many others demoscene productions probably don't mean the c64 onescreeners with rasterbars and rotating cube, but the late 1990's 3D engine flybys, or maybe 201x single-shader 4k intros. It's all part of a long continuum anyway. |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 285 |
No.
You can make interesting visual stuff with computers, and still not be a part of the demoscene.
You can code cracktros/intros, and you don't need to remove copy protection to do it.
You do realize there are computer demos outside of demoscene. |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5094 |
Quote: No.
You can make interesting visual stuff with computers, and still not be a part of the demoscene.
You can code cracktros/intros, and you don't need to remove copy protection to do it.
You do realize there are computer demos outside of demoscene.
in c64 context this is not true.
proof: Synth Sample |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 285 |
Quote:prove it first.
Wrong.
Nobody pulled the statement "The demo scene emanates from the cracking scene" out of his/her nose.
1) It says so on Wikipedia. That doesn't mean it's right. But it's on you to disprove it. You can also edit the Wikipedia page like anyone else.
2) It also says so in a few research papers / books. That also doesn't mean it's right, but it's on you to disprove it.
3) It says so in a dozen interviews / personal recounts. That also doesn't mean it's right, but it's on you to disprove it.
(1), (2) and (3) make it "common knowledge" or "informed best guess". You need to disprove that to plant a different "informed best guess" in its place. That's how it works.
Until then it's your opinion against "common knowledge". |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5094 |
Quote: Quote:prove it first.
Wrong.
Nobody pulled the statement "The demo scene emanates from the cracking scene" out of his/her nose.
1) It says so on Wikipedia. That doesn't mean it's right. But it's on you to disprove it. You can also edit the Wikipedia page like anyone else.
2) It also says so in a few research papers / books. That also doesn't mean it's right, but it's on you to disprove it.
3) It says so in a dozen interviews / personal recounts. That also doesn't mean it's right, but it's on you to disprove it.
(1), (2) and (3) make it "common knowledge" or "informed best guess". You need to disprove that to plant a different "informed best guess" in its place. That's how it works.
Until then it's your opinion against "common knowledge".
Same way I can say demoscene doesnt comes from crack scene because Oswald and Krill says so in csdb (it doesnt mean its right but you have to disprove it), and thus it is common knowledge. (1) and (2)
:D
you came empty handed man. |
| |
4gentE
Registered: Mar 2021
Posts: 285 |
Here's the link man:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demoscene
until you edit it, all you're doing is trolling. |
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5094 |
Quote: Here's the link man:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demoscene
until you edit it, all you're doing is trolling.
here is the link to csdb where Oswald says it otherwise, https://csdb.dk/forums/?roomid=7&topicid=166812&showallposts=1
and you need to disprove it. until you dont you're trolling. |
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 - Next |
