Principles of Demo Spirit
(originally published in CFXweb)
1. Introduction
Never in scene history, as all of us know, there have been more demo releases than today. And never in scene history, as some of us complain, there has been less demo spirit. What's the reason for this surprising discrepancy? And what can be done to bridge the gap between "what is" and "what ought to be"? Until now, these questions haven't been answered satisfactorily yet. Thousands of demos have been written during the past 15 years, but we still don't really know what demos really are. In a way, the demo scene isn't interested in its identity. Isn't this an unbearable lack of awareness? It's time to think about a more accurate definition of "demos" - or rather: "demo spirit". This is what this text is about.
2. Background
First of all, let's take a look at the past. In the beginning (1985-90), demos were more or less technical show-offs. Demo coders simply exceeded the limits of their machines (which were C64s in most cases). They coded effects which - on the first sight - seemed to be impossible. Later on (1990-1995), with the Amiga being the dominating demo platform, most teams embolished their demos with neat graphics and fully synchronized sound tracks. This period is often regarded as the golden age of demo programming, as it combined great design with tricky programming. The third era came up with Complex' "Dope" demo in 1995. Designers have been focusing on 3D programming and all kinds of shading and texturing since then.
Everybody agrees that the demo scene has managed to bring forth an astonishing variety of demo styles during the past 15 years. Many even believe the demo scene is more professional and more competitive than several other avantgarde branches (such as multimedia agencies, computer games producers, music labels). There are certainly few other non-profit milieus with comparable levels of competition: For relatively small investment (and a bit of effort), clever guys can easily reach the top of the world. What do you think: Is it more admirable to become no. 1 in conventional music charts or to become no. 1 in world demo charts?
As far as I can see, there are four distinct demo categories which are in use today:
a) Code centered demos ("formal demos")
I Classic demos
Fade in effect - show it for a few seconds - fade it out again: This is the basic storyboard of classic demos and this is whatmade them a huge success story. Demo coders have been developing a surprisingly broad range of graphic effects; many of which have been introduced really by the scene, not by computer scientists or professional software writers. But does every effect automatically qualify for being part of a classic demo? No, Sir. In general, an effect is only considered a classic demo effect if it shows something nice and runs with full frame rate, eg. at 50/75 frames a second. This is why early 3D effects often were accompanied by reduced resolution and/or time lags caused by precalculation.
Summing up: Classic demo authors concentrate on speed, speed, and speed of their routines.
II Graphic demos
The vast majority of today's demos falls into this group. The main difference to classic demos is that graphic demos try to achieve a more realistic visual appearance. It's not important that your 3D objects move with full frame rate - but they should look as real as possible. This means that you have to calculate a huge bunch of things: textures, light shadings, reflections, physically correct interaction with other objects, and yes: even artefacts only known from the analog world (e.g. lens flares).
Summing up: Graphic demo authors concentrate on complexity and realism.
b) Style/story centered demos
("content demos")
III Movie demos
With the rise of new displaying techniques (originally developed for graphic demos), movie demos have become more and more popular. The first major movie demo was "Odyssey" by Alcatraz on the Amiga; today, movie demos are still getting longer and more complex. One of the most sophisticated productions is "The Fulcrum" by Matrix. It's obvious that movie demo authors aren't interested in the very latest coding techniques. Their aim is to present a convincing story, breathtaking camera movements and, of course, supporting background music. Comic demos (such as Melon's "Ninja" demos) form a subdivision of movie demos.
Summing up: Movie demo authors concentrate on story, characters, and atmosphere.
IV Video demos
"State of the Art" by The Spaceballs was the very first serious production which resembled more a video than a demo (it was released in 1990/91). In our days, a growing number of demo authors believes that demos should be MTV compatible. Just take a look at "State of Mind" by Bomb, one of the most ambitious releases.
Summing up: Video demo authors concentrate on synchronization and speed of on-screen action.
It's obvious that virtually no demo fits perfectly just one of these categories. In real life, most productions are half-breeds, e.g. graphic demos with video section. That's allright. But we finally have to work out what kind of demo "real" demos should be. Responsible demo authors and watchers should know what the essence, the innermost entity of demos is. Call it the enlightenment of demo scene!
So the leading question has to be: Under which circumstances can demos form an independent and distinct aesthetical category?
3. Problems - recognized and solved
First of all: None of the above categories can be attributed to be the one and only true demo category. Unfortunately, each definition implies certain difficulties. Let's check them one by one:
I Classic demos
We said that authors of classic demos are only interested in speedy routines. They want to push their machines to the utmost extent. But is it really possible to reach the edge of optimization if computers are becoming more and more powerful? How can one compare a routine written for a 486DX2 with a routine written for a Pentium III 550? Impossible! So, given evergrowing power of computer hardware, classic demos won't have no future. You can't reach the edge if the edge is running away!
II Graphic demos
Unfortunately, not even graphic demos can substitute the decline of classic demos. We found that graphic demo authors aspire to complex and realistic screen display. This is good ambition, but this obviously doesn't touch the soul of demo coding: Otherwise, creators of ray-traced movies a.s.o. would have to be called demo writers as well. "Ray-traced movies aren't calculated in real-time!" some of you might object. Agreed - but that's not the point. Most advanced computer games are calculated in real-time, too, but no one would consider them true demos. We have to admit that complexity, realism and flexibility aren't essential and typical demo characteristics.
III Movie demos
Computer movies are pretty cool, but they're just imititations of existing art forms. You can have the same stuff on TV if you want. It's clear that movie demos don't open up a promising perspective for demo coding.
IV Video demos
Same explanation for this category. If we want to introduce a new art form, we really shouldn't try to imitate the existing ones.
It seems that the future of demo coding doesn't look very bright. No category in its current stage provides a solid basis for true demo creation. But if we agree about some further conditions, there is an earnest chance to re-establish demos as a distinct aesthetical category. The magic word is limitation. If we consequently restrain hardware requirements, classic demos become possible again. And they are the only kind of demos which really distinguish from other art forms. Our choice should be clear.
Admittedly, the scene's current structure doesn't offer an appropriate breeding ground for serious demo authors. PCs are the dominating platform, and as long as their power grows, PC demo development doesn't make much sense (just take a look at those unbearable "3D accelerated" competitions at demo parties). On the other hand, it's highly improbable that PC demo authors feel attracted by developing demos for outdated hardware such as 486 machines. If you regularly play first-person shooters on your Riva TNT2 card, you possibly aren't interested in optimizing your voxelspace code for 66 MHz processors.
But PCs are not the only computer platform in this world. There are several other systems whose development was stopped years (sometimes decades) ago. These systems are our only chance to establish demos as an independent art form, I think. Hardware requirements should be fixed for eternity on a somewhat low level, e.g.:
Standard C64 (possibly still the most exciting demo platform today)
Standard Amiga 1200
Acorn Risc PC (e.g. ARM710, 8 MB RAM, 1 MB VRAM)
various video consoles
various handhelds
...
I believe that further (software) limitation would result in even more serious demo development. Graphics shouldn't use more than 256 colours. Don't compose soundtracks with more than 4 channels. Don't write demos larger than 1 MB. Concentrate on 4 KB and 40/64 KB intros. These guidelines aren't really obligatory (just recommendations), but they may help to sharpen the profile of demo productions: squeezing the maximum out of limited resources.
Please don't misunderstand me: Creating graphic, video and movie demos is great fun and great challenge. But all these categories simply can't offer any unique demo spirit. It would be a great pity to do without true demos in future. Those of you who are interested in art philosophy know: There are extremely few art forms which can be defined in a sufficient and exact way. We've seen that true demos belong to them. We should benefit by this amazing fact!
4. The future of demo science
I'm looking forward to vivid discussion. Let us back demos with a more theoretical framework. Let's become really professional - which in this case means: Let us develop standards to make demos truelly verifiable. Let us work out something like a comprehensive demo theory!
Comments are welcome:
Skandor / Xperience
skandor@xm-arts.de
www.xm-arts.de