On using tools like Notch for making demos...
category: general [glöplog]
Many recent and past comments on various prods made with non self developed tools (like Notch) have spawned up a wide range of opinions within the comments of those prods here. I think this is both a good and bad thing. Firstly, when you do a demo - how you technically make it is just one part of the challenge (others being the idea, concept, visual arrangements aka design, music, gfx, 3D and fkn so on 8)....) As a coder I can say yes, it is really really nice to code everything yourself from the scratch and I still love it. But the fact is, that doing a solid modern top Notch (pun intended !!) demo requires a vast amount of development. How can you get there if you want to make demos but dont have a single active coder in your group?! So, without using engines from others you have two options: learn to make it all from ground up by coding your own engine, or skip doing the demo. Both of these are sub-optimal options for many.
I myself, have developed at least 10 different demo engines and a lot of demo making related tools along my about 30 years path of trying to do demos. With my path in adapt demo engine & tools, I developed 5 different engines until finally got to the sweet spot with the latest (Qt/QML based) solution.. and then came my career (still going on) at Notch in 2022. And me, like we all, have our lives outside of the scene too (eg kids, me having 2 so far) - but still want to continue doing demos. So, for me the obvious option is to use Notch for gettings my deemos done.
I think choose your tools as you will and MAKE GOOD DEMOS. That's all that matters <3
SHARE your opinions here but keep the discussion solid and smart please, pretty please
I myself, have developed at least 10 different demo engines and a lot of demo making related tools along my about 30 years path of trying to do demos. With my path in adapt demo engine & tools, I developed 5 different engines until finally got to the sweet spot with the latest (Qt/QML based) solution.. and then came my career (still going on) at Notch in 2022. And me, like we all, have our lives outside of the scene too (eg kids, me having 2 so far) - but still want to continue doing demos. So, for me the obvious option is to use Notch for gettings my deemos done.
I think choose your tools as you will and MAKE GOOD DEMOS. That's all that matters <3
SHARE your opinions here but keep the discussion solid and smart please, pretty please
+1 and you can add Cables.gl and a bunch of other ones to the list.
To me a big part of the demoscene is about doing something new, about pushing the/your enveloppe.... with or without big demotools like Notch & co. So if a prod feels lazy in that sense, and it's not a Compo filler to support a party/compo, then I can't but wonder what was the point.
If a Notch demo, looks like a/every Notch demo 🫤
So yes, DO YOU. PUSH. MAKE GOOD DEMOS!
To me a big part of the demoscene is about doing something new, about pushing the/your enveloppe.... with or without big demotools like Notch & co. So if a prod feels lazy in that sense, and it's not a Compo filler to support a party/compo, then I can't but wonder what was the point.
If a Notch demo, looks like a/every Notch demo 🫤
So yes, DO YOU. PUSH. MAKE GOOD DEMOS!
I think such engines (Notch, Cables, Tixl) are fine as they have strong demoscene roots and can be considered as ”by the community, for the community” in that regard. Naturally I’m a bit biased as I’ve used Cables since 2020 and have done one demo with Tixl as well, and would like to try my hand at Notch too one of these days.
(Now lets see how quickly this thread devolves into ”using engines made by others is exactly identical to using LLMs so ackshualli LLMs must be allowed everywhere or otherwise you’re a hypocritical racist” tech-boy shit)
(Now lets see how quickly this thread devolves into ”using engines made by others is exactly identical to using LLMs so ackshualli LLMs must be allowed everywhere or otherwise you’re a hypocritical racist” tech-boy shit)
I don't mind use of cables, notch, werkkzeug, but I will scale my expectations for the production accordingly so the playing field stays relatively level. Like a golf handicap.
Why is nobody talking about Kauhanen? It's from another plane of existence. The effects are so absurdly advanced that nobody even understands the art behind them.
isn't one of the greatest things about the demoscene its somewhat anarchic nature ? just do what you want* and have fun. in order to create something artistically interesting, there is not even much needed in terms of tools and engines.
some are going to use AAA (game) engines, some will use LLMs and maybe even pay-to-demo, some will manually code every mnenomic themselves.
the important thing is how you use your tools of choice, whatever they may be.
.my2c
*this should not include stealing or borrowed plumes. credit where credit is due
some are going to use AAA (game) engines, some will use LLMs and maybe even pay-to-demo, some will manually code every mnenomic themselves.
the important thing is how you use your tools of choice, whatever they may be.
.my2c
*this should not include stealing or borrowed plumes. credit where credit is due
lets say that given the wide variance in quality of demos made in notch, or indeed cables or werkzeug etc, it just goes to prove how much of making demos is not about the engine at all :)
we need more dos/gus demomaker tools!
Back in the days dudes had to code on their own to produce a release.
There were no tools (officially) available. Some interlan, yes, but still, to make group's life easier.
Even if later some groups released theirs intro-makers (or it got leaked), it still was a big shame to use it (making a group to be classified as a lame one with out any respect).
Today it is different I think.
PC have so much horse-power it is literally impossible for a dude to code a hi-end demo with stunning effects in a relatively short time.
A part of some groups with decades of experience and their own tools...
Knowing that, personally, I think I still would not use any (commercial) tool to produce a demo... Or if I had to, I would release it as wild or out of the compo. And still...
++
There were no tools (officially) available. Some interlan, yes, but still, to make group's life easier.
Even if later some groups released theirs intro-makers (or it got leaked), it still was a big shame to use it (making a group to be classified as a lame one with out any respect).
Today it is different I think.
PC have so much horse-power it is literally impossible for a dude to code a hi-end demo with stunning effects in a relatively short time.
A part of some groups with decades of experience and their own tools...
Knowing that, personally, I think I still would not use any (commercial) tool to produce a demo... Or if I had to, I would release it as wild or out of the compo. And still...
++
Quote:
we need more dos/gus demomaker tools!
I am atm working on my own demotool/framework for a release (tossing between going just Windows only or even Rasberry Pi5+/Linux). Been pondering of a MicroW8 demotool also with MicroW8 emulation (via libtcc for execution of code snippets in C, or even Ken Silverman's expression compiler)
Main reason behind such a demo IDE, is I found a lot of my demos reused the exact same parts, so it makes sense to combine all the tech into one cohesive bundle. I at least want to work on remaking all my old prods with the newer tech, including the newer EXE packer (just to replace Squishy, not that there is a problem with it, just because I know how to make a packer, even if it compresses *much* worse).
I am pretty sure some groups already have DOS tools.
What bsp said.
A little caveat:
I have been developing games on various platforms for the last 25 years and always had to find new solutions for
platform-specific problems (GBC, GBA, PC, Wii, PlayStation, Xbox, etc.), using either custom engines or readily
available 3D engines like Unity or Unreal.
Using a demotool is not lazy in itself. If you are only using the examples that ship with the demotool, it could
probably be considered “lazy” ... but maybe even that is valid in some cases when you are just starting out and do
not yet know the ropes of that particular tool.
Considering the history of the demoscene, I find parts of this discussion quite funny, since the scene was always
about taking things apart, learning how they worked and using that knowledge to make something better.
People deconstructed routines, studied the work of others and sometimes reused or ripped code, graphics and music.
Of course, that does not mean that everything was considered acceptable. The scene had (and still has) its own ideas
about credit, plagiarism and originality.
But still ... the demoscene grew out of the cracking scene, which itself was closely connected to pirated games.
So a completely "holier than thou" attitude does not really work here, in my opinion.
The demoscene was always about evolving existing ideas and building on the achievements of others. It was always about
learning from what was already there and trying to improve upon it. Genuinely new ideas are rare, but they often occur
because of exactly this line of thinking.
Demotools are particularly valuable for newcomers, imo. First of all, you are not immediately forced to rely on somebody
else to provide you with an engine or help you get your production running. You can get something going on your own
with a little bit of effort and determination.
I also think some people overestimate the power of a demotool or engine, since you still need to do quite a bit of
engineering and creative work to make a demo , or even a particular effect, actually work. The tool does not automatically
give you good design, timing, direction or a coherent production.
Requiring somebody to write an entire engine before they are considered a legitimate scener makes entering the
scene unnecessarily intimidating.
Using a tool like Notch, Cables, TiXL or something similar can help you finish your first production and go through
the whole process of making and releasing a demo. The feedback you receive can then guide you and help you improve over time.
Heck, it might empower somebody who never thought about doing code, graphics or music to pick up one of those trades
and improve in that field. Maybe it will also encourage them to dive deeper into the engine, understand how things
work and eventually do something entirely on their own. :-)
All in all, I would argue that simply asking whether a demotool was used is not particularly meaningful. I would rather ask:
Was it used in a meaningful way?
I have been developing games on various platforms for the last 25 years and always had to find new solutions for
platform-specific problems (GBC, GBA, PC, Wii, PlayStation, Xbox, etc.), using either custom engines or readily
available 3D engines like Unity or Unreal.
Using a demotool is not lazy in itself. If you are only using the examples that ship with the demotool, it could
probably be considered “lazy” ... but maybe even that is valid in some cases when you are just starting out and do
not yet know the ropes of that particular tool.
Considering the history of the demoscene, I find parts of this discussion quite funny, since the scene was always
about taking things apart, learning how they worked and using that knowledge to make something better.
People deconstructed routines, studied the work of others and sometimes reused or ripped code, graphics and music.
Of course, that does not mean that everything was considered acceptable. The scene had (and still has) its own ideas
about credit, plagiarism and originality.
But still ... the demoscene grew out of the cracking scene, which itself was closely connected to pirated games.
So a completely "holier than thou" attitude does not really work here, in my opinion.
The demoscene was always about evolving existing ideas and building on the achievements of others. It was always about
learning from what was already there and trying to improve upon it. Genuinely new ideas are rare, but they often occur
because of exactly this line of thinking.
Demotools are particularly valuable for newcomers, imo. First of all, you are not immediately forced to rely on somebody
else to provide you with an engine or help you get your production running. You can get something going on your own
with a little bit of effort and determination.
I also think some people overestimate the power of a demotool or engine, since you still need to do quite a bit of
engineering and creative work to make a demo , or even a particular effect, actually work. The tool does not automatically
give you good design, timing, direction or a coherent production.
Requiring somebody to write an entire engine before they are considered a legitimate scener makes entering the
scene unnecessarily intimidating.
Using a tool like Notch, Cables, TiXL or something similar can help you finish your first production and go through
the whole process of making and releasing a demo. The feedback you receive can then guide you and help you improve over time.
Heck, it might empower somebody who never thought about doing code, graphics or music to pick up one of those trades
and improve in that field. Maybe it will also encourage them to dive deeper into the engine, understand how things
work and eventually do something entirely on their own. :-)
All in all, I would argue that simply asking whether a demotool was used is not particularly meaningful. I would rather ask:
Was it used in a meaningful way?
Quote:
Was it used in a meaningful way?
Absolutely, I seen some jaw-dropping intros and demos done with even veneral werkkzeug, like Bon^2's prods.
I seen early prod's of Smash's in fullform as well (like the super early particle era stuff before it became Notch), same with Navis' GL-based base.
A wholehearted +1 for "choosing the challenge". We are all doing this for fun, usually with a scarcity of time and/or energy, so by all means focus on the aspects of demomaking that you find fun and meaningful.
Sometimes you may be fortunate enough to find yourself in a "dream team" whose total skill, time, motivation, dedication etc. allows you to make all parts of the demo "from scratch". It's amazing when it happens, but it should not be a prerequisite for making anything, nor is such a constellation always desirable. And as others have pointed out, exploring a tool is a creative endeavor in its own right.
Even so, it is important to acknowledge that to many viewers (and hence, voters) it matters how a demo is made. Some may dislike the use of certain tools or processes and will not vote for you if you use them. They may even thumb down your prod on Pouet and scold you.
This does not mean that it is wrong to use such tools. It merely means that it is impossible to satisfy everyone's tastes.
Sometimes you may be fortunate enough to find yourself in a "dream team" whose total skill, time, motivation, dedication etc. allows you to make all parts of the demo "from scratch". It's amazing when it happens, but it should not be a prerequisite for making anything, nor is such a constellation always desirable. And as others have pointed out, exploring a tool is a creative endeavor in its own right.
Even so, it is important to acknowledge that to many viewers (and hence, voters) it matters how a demo is made. Some may dislike the use of certain tools or processes and will not vote for you if you use them. They may even thumb down your prod on Pouet and scold you.
This does not mean that it is wrong to use such tools. It merely means that it is impossible to satisfy everyone's tastes.
Quote:
Considering the history of the demoscene, I find parts of this discussion quite funny, since the scene was always about taking things apart, learning how they worked and using that knowledge to make something better. People deconstructed routines, studied the work of others and sometimes reused or ripped code, graphics and music. Of course, that does not mean that everything was considered acceptable. The scene had (and still has) its own ideas
about credit, plagiarism and originality.
Doing things (or being able to things) by yourself and programming as a means have been also fundamental values of the demoscene and the very concept of "demo" used to be defined by referring to the programming. This is why ready-made 3d engines (and previously animations, graphics libraries) have been controversial.
Whether we accept 3d engines or not, some adjusting to the concept of demo and core values of the scene is implied. Some arguments for doing this have already been stated on this thread.
Quote:
But still ... the demoscene grew out of the cracking scene, which itself was closely connected to pirated games. So a completely "holier than thou" attitude does not really work here, in my opinion.
Because some community doesn't adhere to the values of societal mainstream it follows they cannot have values of their own? I don't buy this.
Quote:
But still ... the demoscene grew out of the cracking scene, which itself was closely connected to pirated games.
So a completely "holier than thou" attitude does not really work here, in my opinion.
It's not "holier than thou", it's "code of conduct". It's a normal repeating pattern in ragtag subculture groups, fringe groups, even criminal groups, in fact especially criminal groups.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_code
One concept which I find really weird seems to get repeated. A concept of a person who knows nothing or almost nothing about making gfx, making music or coding, but wants to release a demo. Who exactly is this imagined person and why would they want to release something in the demoscene? Do such persons actually exist, or are they invented for our mind experiments? I mean, there are bigger, better, shinier, richer, easier to get into and more rewarding environments to pour one's ideas into.
Maybe the scene is dead or diffused because we have more and more technology.
I keep thinking sometimes, even outside the demoscene, people look at early game engines or apps on 80s-90s-2000s computer, with their distorted vision of course of how awfully slow those were (because if modern beast PC takes time to open app, they would extrapolate from this a 386 would running only DOS and a key stroke you'd have to wait 5 seconds for font to appear), so they see those old coding heroes and jut from a distance tell the tales of that man who wrote a whole game in assembly language (like that wasn't more common and only one man did it :P). Anyway my point, coders in the past HAD to do it whether they liked it or not. Same coder today will be "why should I not just make my desktop app into chromium web app with react" or "if AI can generate this code for me why shouldn't I?"
It's the path of least resistance and I guess that's why by the introduction of game engines and AI some people moved there. I am also thinking of retro demos where they will create effects that are really animation and the path of least resistance leads to that. Especially with modern techniques to store more or HD storage. Any new technology opens the road to make things easier but at the same time remove the limitations unless people want to artificially force them (that's why only 256, 4k intros persist and the only way to explain what the demoscene is to someone outside (also shadertoy))
I keep thinking sometimes, even outside the demoscene, people look at early game engines or apps on 80s-90s-2000s computer, with their distorted vision of course of how awfully slow those were (because if modern beast PC takes time to open app, they would extrapolate from this a 386 would running only DOS and a key stroke you'd have to wait 5 seconds for font to appear), so they see those old coding heroes and jut from a distance tell the tales of that man who wrote a whole game in assembly language (like that wasn't more common and only one man did it :P). Anyway my point, coders in the past HAD to do it whether they liked it or not. Same coder today will be "why should I not just make my desktop app into chromium web app with react" or "if AI can generate this code for me why shouldn't I?"
It's the path of least resistance and I guess that's why by the introduction of game engines and AI some people moved there. I am also thinking of retro demos where they will create effects that are really animation and the path of least resistance leads to that. Especially with modern techniques to store more or HD storage. Any new technology opens the road to make things easier but at the same time remove the limitations unless people want to artificially force them (that's why only 256, 4k intros persist and the only way to explain what the demoscene is to someone outside (also shadertoy))
Quote:
Doing things (or being able to things) by yourself and programming as a means have been also fundamental values of the demoscene and the very concept of "demo" used to be defined by referring to the programming. This is why ready-made 3d engines (and previously animations, graphics libraries) have been controversial.
From the beginning, demos have been multidisciplinary works. Great demos are remembered not just because of clever code, but because of the combination of programming, graphics, music, direction, pacing, visual design, and artistic taste. Nobody should judge a demo solely by the sophistication of its rendering algorithm while ignoring everything else that makes it memorable.
Notch/Unreal/Unity may require little or no traditional programming, but that doesn't mean they are "easy" or devoid of technical skill. Building a sophisticated Notch production often involves designing hundreds of interconnected nodes, understanding node algorthms, rendering, timing, synchronization, data flow, optimization, and solving complex creative problems within the tool. Those are real technical skills, even if they aren't expressed as lines of C or assembly.
If we define demos exclusively by whether they involve conventional programming, we end up reducing a fundamentally collaborative art form to a single discipline. The demoscene has always celebrated the synergy between technology and art.
Personally, I have enormous respect for the traditional coding categories—especially the size-limited competitions. They represent a unique form of technical artistry, and they're what I value the most. Perhaps someday you'll see something from me on that front as well.
Quote:
Great demos are remembered not just because of clever code, but because of the combination of programming, graphics, music, direction, pacing, visual design, and artistic taste. Nobody should judge a demo solely by the sophistication of its rendering algorithm while ignoring everything else that makes it memorable. Notch/Unreal/Unity may require little or no traditional programming, but that doesn't mean they are "easy" or devoid of technical skill. Building a sophisticated Notch production often involves designing hundreds of interconnected nodes, understanding node algorthms, rendering, timing, synchronization, data flow, optimization, and solving complex creative problems within the tool. Those are real technical skills, even if they aren't expressed as lines of C or assembly.
This is true. Thing is, this whole scene schtick started around coding/coders. It used to be the cleverness of your own code that made something render realtime on a given piece of hardware. I do enjoy occasional Notch/Tooll/Enreal/Unity/etc demo, but for all I care they could have been done with Blender/Houdini/whatever and rendered to video. (I suspect that's how (rendered to video) most of the audience will see them anyhow). Oh, but then (if it's not a realtime demo but a video) that "graphics, music, direction, pacing, visual design, and artistic taste" has entered into a vastly larger arena containing order of magnitude more competition and talent. So, having that in mind, the readymade engine demos have to take some internal penalization whenever someone rates them intimately. They really have to stand out bigtime in order to go to the top. There has to be no compromise justified by realtimeness.
The PC demoscene is dead.
(because if it is not about coding anymore it lost its unique point compared to any other creative real-time art community out there)
also, the ugly demos made with tools kinda suggest it isn't all that 'press this button for a fairlight wannabe demo'-easy as some demoscene puritans make it sound
And also: Why would anyone doing an impressive top-notch Unreal/Unity demo bother to release this in context of the demoscene instead of uploading to YouTube and potentially getting much more attention?
smth smth in it for the fun of making things not the bitches and bling? it's the same reason i paint :)
you guys are not doing this for bitches n bling?
