Bregalad wrote:
Quote:
I can't believe most of you guys don't know about these kind of glitch/abstract style demos. Some look cool, some (most, IMO) look like shit. Middle ground is pretty rare. Either way, I thought people on these forums would be familiar with these kinds of demo 'art'. Lol @ the people that thought the glitches were unintentional.
Sorry but I can't let you get away with this.
This is a glitchy and crappy program and you call it art. Are you serious ? And you mean this is intentional ? You are the retarded one.
There is nothing cool or impressive about this. Action 52 is impressive because they dared to sell it, but here it's not even this.
Hello. Your reading compression level is apparently not currently at an adequate enough level to generate a proper reply
As Shiru pointed out, see the quotes around the word art. I'm not using it as my word, but in general/broad context. And I knew exactly what the demo was about and
I'm the retarded one? Go figure. Also, I never said it was impressive or cool. If
that part didn't apply to me, you should've put that in a separate paragraph or added some lines of space to differentiate it to the reply of my post. Thanks for trying, though
As for demos, I think
most demos (not in the context of a "game" demo) do fall under what most consider 'art'. They're more than just a boring representation of some effects (not that some aren't). The music/sounds, the theme, colors, style, etc. The whole presentation. Whether it appeals to someone's tastes or not, is irrelevant. You can draw a personal line as to what you think is art, but that is just personal preference of skill in presentation (being it painting or drawing or whatever). Or rather, the artists skills. Poor or lacking skills doesn't mean a work of expression
isn't art. It just means that it's probably below your standards of enjoyment/reception/Ican'tthinkoftherightfuckingword,meh.
What's the whole point in finding out what the code does? Or whether it's up to snuff or not? I mean, unless you're still hooked on the whole "I'm not so sure the glitches are really intentional". The probability that the code did glitch due to bad coding *and* the programmer played it off on the spot like it was support to be that way, is pretty damn low IMO. Especially since this is a known genre/area of demo making (I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't originally inspired by the "bending" scene. The style, I mean. Then again, I remember making such demos as a kid in BASIC, in the 80's. I wasn't the only one either). There's a much higher probability that he/she/they either accidentally glitched it at some point and decided to stick with that, or they purposely glitched it in specific ways until they were happy with the end result. Both come to the same result; the persons or group entered it into the compo knowing full well what the output and presentation should look like.
_(nes_demo).png)
