Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Steve Wiebe is the King of Kong Again

CmdrTaco posted about 4 years ago | from the cue-the-queen dept.

Classic Games (Games) 127

Anyone who watched 'The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters' knows the epic struggle for global Kong dominance waged by Steve Wiebe and Billy Mitchell. Wiebe took back the crown by scoring 1,064,500-points which was officially verified. And if you haven't seen the movie, go watch it. You won't be sorry.

cancel ×

127 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Worth watching (1, Insightful)

Abstrackt (609015) | about 4 years ago | (#33651684)

After watching King of Kong I'm extremely happy to hear Wiebe is back on top. Something about Billy Mitchell has never sat right with me.

Re:Worth watching (4, Insightful)

rotide (1015173) | about 4 years ago | (#33651714)

Billy Mitchell really came off as a douche willing to do whatever it takes to win, including cheat. Although, with any type of editing, it's easy for the author to portray a person in whatever way they choose.

Either way, congrats to Wiebe!

Re:Worth watching (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33651836)

The filmmaker did a fabulous job of creating a compelling story with interesting characters, where there was no story, and nothing but boring people. All the scripted 'reality' directors on TV these days should take note of this film, it should be their Citizen Kane.

However, I wouldn't infer too much about what people are really like based on it.

Think of the editting of Homer's TV NewsZine interview when he was accused of sexual harassment.

Re:Worth watching (5, Informative)

Schnapple (262314) | about 4 years ago | (#33652294)

Yeah it's been stated that the movie's editing makes certain things seem different than how they went down. Stuff like how Billy Mitchell's videotaped score being rejected the following day and Walter Day apologizing to Weibe. And when Weibe's videotaped score was rejected, the record reverted to the other record he set in 2003, not to Mitchell. And Weibe has stated that the scene in the restaurant where Mitchell avoids him leaves out the part that came later where Mitchell came over and apologized for being rude and introduced his wife.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_kong#Disputed_facts [wikipedia.org]

Weibe is the everyman character we all identify with and Mitchell has an abrasive personality that make for an excellent film. But both men agree that the movie doesn't portray them correctly. Still, it's a great film. What I wonder is - will there ever be a DK score that's literally impossible to beat?

Re:Worth watching (2, Informative)

cgenman (325138) | about 4 years ago | (#33653742)

Twin Galaxies [slashdot.org] also has an interesting writeup on the creative license taken by the movie. Don't forget that the apology letter Weibe received was actually immediately after the FunSpot videotape incident, and not years later as implied by editing.

It's a great movie. It takes the rather dry world of competitive video game playing, and turns it into something eminently watchable. But don't pillory Mitchell for how the filmmakers edited him to seem.

Re:Worth watching (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33655020)

King of Kong really is a brilliant film, if you haven't seen it check it out!

Re:Worth watching (1)

city (1189205) | about 4 years ago | (#33652636)

Editing out context or timelines can be done. Editing in that amount of douchery can not.

Re:Worth watching (2, Insightful)

Tanktalus (794810) | about 4 years ago | (#33652680)

You've never had an off day where you blow up at someone, but then come back to your senses and apologise for it? All that editing needs to do is drop the apology, and you look like a douchebag. With full context, i.e., the apology, you suddenly look much more like a normal human being.

Re:Worth watching (0, Troll)

Joe Tie. (567096) | about 4 years ago | (#33653590)

You've never had an off day where you blow up at someone, but then come back to your senses and apologise for it?

Nope, and never really understood people who do. As much as I have a lot of bad to say about my childhood, it had one positive. I learned very early to not say anything unless I meant it, and I was prepared to face the consequences. It gets a bit tedious hearing adults making excuses for themselves for behavior that I got past as a little kid.

Re:Worth watching (1)

mpfife (655916) | about 4 years ago | (#33653378)

...it's easy for the author to portray a person in whatever way they choose.

Amen - I hoped that just because someone makes a movie and calls it a 'documentary' that it doesn't mean the folks making it aren't biased. As much as I didn't like Billy Mitchell's banter and seeming lack of maturity/humility - it became painfully obvious what the documentary producers wanted us to take away. Namely, a mild-mannered, underdog family guy from Washington beats a cocky gamer pro. Personally, I was really interested in hearing more from the old lady that was the Q-bert master. :)

While there are some good documentaries out there that do a good job of just trying to present facts (Into Thin Air), Is it just me, or do a lot of the MOST bias groups/individuals choose to use the documentary format as their preferred medium?

Re:Worth watching (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33654746)

Steve Wiebe may have won this round of Donkey Kong, but Billy Mitchell is a winner at life!

Careful with Borrowing Character Judgments (4, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | about 4 years ago | (#33651866)

After watching King of Kong I'm extremely happy to hear Wiebe is back on top. Something about Billy Mitchell has never sat right with me.

Perhaps how the 'documentary' demonized him [slashdot.org] ? Is he egotistical and full of himself? Probably. But it seems the documentary was either not entirely truthful or misrepresented time lines. I met Walter Day at the Mall of America in college and will say that in the few minutes I chatted with him he was the kindest and most honest person I have met. If Walter Day doesn't think Billy Mitchell is pure evil than neither do I. If Billy had tried to do anything truly sinister I think Day would have short circuited it and I'm not clear on whether or not the mailed in tape that beat Wiebe in the documentary was actually accepted.

I'd be careful to accept something as truth when it could have made for gripping cinema. Mitchell is such a villain in the documentary that it's almost too good to be true when juxtaposing him to Wiebe.

I would caution your "doesn't sit right with me" assessment from a film and point out it's probably as reliable as anything meant to entertain someone can be. Yeah there's probably some truth to it. But Mitchell is no more purely evil than Wiebe is purely good. Selective footage can make it seem that way though. Before you jump all over Mitchell I would suggest you read the this [mtv.com] and meet him first. You've selected one single source that is a highly entertaining movie and it has a very high chance of being unfairly biased to represent an epic battle between good and evil. They may be foils of each other in several ways but I would imagine some of it is manufactured to put you on Wiebe's side. Mitchell's devoted a lot of his life to video games and has held other records. The documentary really doesn't seem to investigate the positives of Mitchell as much as it does Wiebe.

Just something to consider when judging others.

Re:Careful with Borrowing Character Judgments (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33652002)

Ok Billy.

Re:Careful with Borrowing Character Judgments (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33652372)

Mitchell can beat the hell out of spy hunter, which i would argue is one of the harder arcade games on which to get any kind of high score. He's alright in my book.

There's enough information in the film (2, Insightful)

s-whs (959229) | about 4 years ago | (#33653522)

After watching King of Kong I'm extremely happy to hear Wiebe is back on top. Something about Billy Mitchell has never sat right with me.

Perhaps how the 'documentary' demonized him [slashdot.org]? Is he egotistical and full of himself? Probably. But it seems the documentary was either not entirely truthful or misrepresented time lines. I met Walter Day at the Mall of America in college and will say that in the few minutes I chatted with him he was the kindest and most honest person I have met. If Walter Day doesn't think Billy Mitchell is pure evil than neither do I. If Billy had tried to do anything truly sinister I think Day would have short circuited it and I'm not clear on whether or not the mailed in tape that beat Wiebe in the documentary was actually accepted.

You chatted a few minutes? Under which circumstances? You should know that matters... That's why the film does without doubt portray Billy Mitchell as he is, an asshole. From the previous slashdot story on this as mentioned by others there's a comment by someone who nails it on the head:

[ SydShamino wrote: ]
In the film, Billy Mitchell is not portrayed as an asshole. Billy Mitchell is an asshole. The film just portrays him in his natural habitat. It also shows how Twin Galaxies has its own "Good Ol' Boy Network" to identify who it trusts regarding scoring. This comes into play because most high scores are earned at homes, where the proof is a video camera pointed at the screen. Theoretically, someone could modify their boards so that the game acts differently, thereby cheating to win.

and

[ SydShamino wrote: ]
Anyone can play nice for their grandmother or for the cameras. However, there are some things that a person simply does not do if they are a polite, non-asshole person.

It's not like the film editors put words in his mouth, or manipulated long continuously-filmed scenes where he acts like a dick. It doesn't matter how many kittens he saves during the day, if he does certain things, he's an asshole.

As to Walter Day, what I noticed most of all is that he said Steve Wiebe 'redeemed' himself. Redeemed? He didn't do anything wrong! He just confirmed his ability that day. As to that dual circuit board that may or may not act differently than a regular one: Not his fault if it did act differently, so W.Day should have said Wiebe confirmed his ability, not that he redeemed himself. And if you think this is just an error, I think not, such things show how people think... Further:

I'd be careful to accept something as truth when it could have made for gripping cinema. Mitchell is such a villain in the documentary that it's almost too good to be true when juxtaposing him to Wiebe.

I would caution your "doesn't sit right with me" assessment from a film and point out it's probably as reliable as anything meant to entertain someone can be. Yeah there's probably some truth to it. But Mitchell is no more purely evil than Wiebe is purely good. Selective footage can make it seem that way though. Before you jump all over Mitchell I would suggest you read the this [mtv.com] and meet him first. You've selected one single source that is a highly entertaining movie and it has a very high chance of being unfairly biased to represent an epic battle between good and evil. They may be foils of each other in several ways but I would imagine some of it is manufactured to put you on Wiebe's side. Mitchell's devoted a lot of his life to video games and has held other records. The documentary really doesn't seem to investigate the positives of Mitchell as much as it does Wiebe.

I read the mtv interview and very little of Mitchell's personality comes through (in fact there's fairly little of his own words in it!), except that he tries to talk his way out stuff. Also, the inaccuracies are more the normal stuff with documentaries. Leaving out that the Mitchells record was wiped is no problem, as Mitchell has grabbed the limelight. Not answering the question whether a tape is submitted for a record and then using that later as such is such manipulative crap, that should show you what sort of person he is! And yes, Day accepted this tape and entered the record immediately. Wouldn't have happened with other players!

Finally, assholes also have friends. Friends that can be nice people actually. Mitchell also probably is nicer to Day than to other players of similar ability as Day isn't competition (nor is Kuh)... With competitors that are close to as good as he is, it's more likely he will show his true colours. And he did in the film.

Thanks Billy! (1)

dunsel (559042) | about 4 years ago | (#33653530)

I agree that Billy Mitchell seemed like a villain in the movie. Without a villain there aren't heroes though, and without Billy Mitchell there wouldn't be a "King of Kong" and hardly anyone would care who holds the high score in a game from 1981. Where would professional wrestling be without guys like Billy Mitchell? I don't know, but no one would care.

Snap Judgments? (1)

meehawl (73285) | about 4 years ago | (#33655232)

I met Walter Day at the Mall of America in college and will say that in the few minutes I chatted with him he was the kindest and most honest person I have met.

Seriously? You chat with someone for a "few minutes" and decide they are the "kindest and most honest" person you've ever met? Do you only hang with sociopaths?

Re:Worth watching (2, Interesting)

Hatta (162192) | about 4 years ago | (#33651876)

Even as much as I love classic arcade games, I haven't seen the movie. Everything I've read about the movie casts it as over-edited to the point of being fictionalized. Here's just one such review [textfiles.com] .

Re:Worth watching (3, Interesting)

rotide (1015173) | about 4 years ago | (#33652042)

That review was written by "Jason Scott". Scroll down that review to post 41 to see what kind of person he is. I'm not saying he's factually incorrect (since I can't verify his claims), but he certainly does _not_ have an unbiased and objective view of the subject.

-------

Jason Scott wrote:

Salutations, Ignorant Fuck.

A number of weblogs recently linked to this page from out of the blue, leading me to believe you jostled among them and found yourself reading this entry. This might explain your commentary on a page written in February, with multiple clarifying followups, that has otherwise been superceded elsewhere in the five months hence.

As I sincerely doubt that your filmmaking and film watching career harkens back to the exact moment your choking, bloodied infant form issued forth from your screaming mother, I will assume that you are one of those folks who takes a number of liberties when he constructs his scribbled opinions in the heat of emotion and ignorance. Therefore let me say the following, in an easy to understand list:

1. This movie and my movie are not the same movie; they did not steal my idea and I did not steal theirs and they do not overlap in subject matter.

2. I am making several movies.

3. While movies are, by their nature, edited products, out and out lies and misrepresentation opposite to reality are generally not what people should find “at the finish line” when they assemble their footage.

Enjoy your filmmaking career and die, slowly and alone, forgotten but for your distant-faced caretakers.

Posted on 23-Jul-08 at 11:34 pm

Re:Worth watching (1)

Malfeis333 (415288) | about 4 years ago | (#33653182)

That review was written by "Jason Scott". Scroll down that review to post 41 to see what kind of person he is. I'm not saying he's factually incorrect (since I can't verify his claims), but he certainly does _not_ have an unbiased and objective view of the subject.

I don't see him as taking sides in the debate between Wiebe/Mitchell so much as refuting the way in which the events were portrayed, which, as pointed out elsewhere here, is a very valid statement.

Scott's opinions were clearly (and more intelligently) posted in his actual blog posts - what you quoted above is just him falling for trollbait, really. The previous comment (#40) basically calls him petty for pointing out that the film was heavily edited to show a story, not to provide a literal documentation of what happened. This just had the side effect of causing much of that particular community to shun other filmmakers interested in the subject, which effectively shut out unrelated works such as one Jason had planned, hence the professional vitriol.

I will say that the man prides himself on his documentaries (which are quite well made, with very careful documentation and respect for the subjects), and I can see how a work such as KoK might bristle him, especially with some (apparent) confusion on the part of some of his readers.

This wasn't so much a review as a commentary on what's wrong (in one man's eyes) with the work; I can't see where the bias is unjustified in that regard. If he said something like "Billy is my man, there's no way blah blah..." I could see the validity here.

All that being said, I enjoyed KoK for its story. Maybe it should have just waited for the movie script to be picked up, and run with the whole "inspired by true events" line that most movies use, but then some people take competitions like these way more seriously than I.

Re:Worth watching (1)

Adolf Hipster (1486687) | about 4 years ago | (#33654348)

Jason Scott is awesome.

Re:Worth watching (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33652030)

I feel that he was edited/represented to be a villian, perhaps more so than he really is. But his loser sycophant buddies (two of them) are total douchebags that deserve a severe beating.

Re:Worth watching (1)

scuzzlebutt (517123) | about 4 years ago | (#33652140)

You didn't need fancy editing to know Billy's a douche bag. Just look at his haircut.

Is he still married? (2, Interesting)

digitalderbs (718388) | about 4 years ago | (#33651788)

I'm very happy that he won, but is he still married? From the documentary, it looked like his playing was tough on his family life. I couldn't imagine how much more dedication would be needed to beat Mitchell's top score--probably a lot more than what we saw in the movie.

For anyone interested... (2, Funny)

dzfoo (772245) | about 4 years ago | (#33651812)

there's a Donkey Kong kill-screen coming up.

      -dZ.

Re:For anyone interested... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33652098)

what does that even mean?

Re:For anyone interested... (1)

zero_out (1705074) | about 4 years ago | (#33652246)

Watch the movie. In short, when you get to the 256th board (or 255th, I forget), you are able to play for about 5 seconds. Then Mario simply dies for no good reason, and the game goes all buggy with random sprites and such. What he wrote was a quote from the movie.

Re:For anyone interested... (1, Informative)

dzfoo (772245) | about 4 years ago | (#33652266)

It's a quote from a silly scene in the movie. Some geeky guy runs around the arcade telling everybody that someone is about to reach the "kill-screen" of the game, as if it were a momentous occasion.

A "kill-screen" in a game is when the high score overflows its boundaries and corrupts the rest of memory, typically video memory, which causes the game to display in a way that is unplayable. The result is either the game crashing or the player losing a game life.

        -dZ.

Re:For anyone interested... (1)

Zero_Independent (664974) | about 4 years ago | (#33653102)

A kill screen IS a momentous occasion. Kill-screens happen when the best players in the world are playing. It's like the time I was at my local skatepark and everybody started saying "OMG that's Rune Glifberg." He did some rad shit that day lemme tell you.

Re:For anyone interested... (4, Informative)

ArcadeNut (85398) | about 4 years ago | (#33653122)

A "kill-screen" in a game is when the high score overflows its boundaries and corrupts the rest of memory, typically video memory, which causes the game to display in a way that is unplayable. The result is either the game crashing or the player losing a game life.

        -dZ.

You're a little off. Scores overflowing don't usually cause this type of issue. They could, but it's less likely.

Kill screens are typically because of either the number of lives or the level of the game goes beyond 127 (or 255).

PacMan for example has the issue when you go beyond Level 255, the level goes back to 0. The level is used as an offset. Well, for the normal game (when the game starts), the offset is 1. Think of it as accessing an Array outside its bounds. So what you wind up with is the famous split screen that you can't get past.

Gravitar (and a whole host of other games) has an issue with the number of lives if you go beyond 127 because it uses a signed integer to track the number of lives. So once you hit your 129th extra life, the game actually thinks you have -2 lives. Then you die, it subtracts 1, you now have less then 1 life left and you die, game over.

In the case of Donkey Kong, it's based on the number of levels as the game dies in the same exact spot every time.

Re:For anyone interested... (1)

Hatta (162192) | about 4 years ago | (#33652492)

It means you should keep your eye out for double rainbows.

Re:For anyone interested... (1)

Myopic (18616) | about 4 years ago | (#33653194)

Instead of typing that query into Slashdot, next time try typing it into Google. I bet Google will give you less smart-ass answers.

So depressing (4, Insightful)

tenzig_112 (213387) | about 4 years ago | (#33651848)

Now maybe he can spend some time with his kids. The scene in the documentary with him playing DK while his kids were asking for his help really depressed me. I'm not saying he's a bad guy, I just hope he uses this as an impetus to start being a dad.

Re:So depressing (1)

rotide (1015173) | about 4 years ago | (#33651914)

Entirely agree.

Hopefully his family is still by his side and I hope even more that he can now hang up his Donkey Kong hat and spend a lot more quality time with them.

With any luck, this contest to the top cost him a lot (as any meaningful win should), but not his family...

Re:So depressing (2, Insightful)

zero_out (1705074) | about 4 years ago | (#33652118)

Marriage is hard. In fact, it's harder than many contents. Just look at Lance Armstrong. It was easier for him to win 7 consecutive Tour de France titles than for him to be married. His cycling career was very successful, while his marriage was a failure.

Re:So depressing (4, Funny)

larry bagina (561269) | about 4 years ago | (#33652568)

In all fairness, he didn't use any marriage drugs.

Re:So depressing (1)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | about 4 years ago | (#33652898)

Maybe he should have.

Re:So depressing (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33653108)

I found marriage to be very easy, because I loved my wife more than anything. She found it easy because she loved using my money in her quest to ride the dick of every other guy in town.

Re:So depressing (2, Funny)

Surt (22457) | about 4 years ago | (#33653682)

She found it easy because she loved using my money in her quest to ride the dick of every other guy in town.

Prostitution: you're doing it wrong.

Re:So depressing (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | about 4 years ago | (#33651956)

The scene in the documentary with him playing DK while his kids were asking for his help really depressed me.

I bolded the key word, there. ;)

Re:So depressing (4, Insightful)

zero_out (1705074) | about 4 years ago | (#33652040)

Indeed. If anything I think the kid needed that lesson. If he cut himself with scissors, I'm sure his father would have come running. He was four years of age, and wanted his father to come wipe is butt. At some point, a kid needs to understand that he's not the center of the universe, and he can do some things on his own. At some point, you have to let a baby cry itself to sleep, and at some point, a kid needs to wipe his own butt.

Re:So depressing (2, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | about 4 years ago | (#33652470)

And? I don't think the best time to determine when your child is ready is when it happen to be inconvenient to video game playing.
And you certainly don't just stop helping with talking to the child about it. The reeks of apathy toward the child, and Apathy is the opposite of love.

I didn't see them movie, so the kid could be 20 for all I know, but your attitude is wrong and exemplifies bad parenting.

Re:So depressing (0, Troll)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | about 4 years ago | (#33652604)

I'm not a parent, nor do I plan to be in the immediate future, but my philosophy is this:

You show them how to do it once, you help them do it twice, then you watch it thrice, and you're done.

Re:So depressing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33652710)

I'm not a parent, nor do I plan to be in the immediate future, but my philosophy is this:

You show them how to do it once, you help them do it twice, then you watch it thrice, and you're done.

Hah.... Potty training is going to be real messy in your home.

Re:So depressing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33652712)

I'm not a parent, nor do I plan to be in the immediate future, but my philosophy is this:

You show them how to do it once, you help them do it twice, then you watch it thrice, and you're done.

Yeah, well, parenting isn't something you can do by the book, or use one general theory to cover all situations.

Re:So depressing (4, Insightful)

Tetsujin (103070) | about 4 years ago | (#33652816)

I'm not a parent

Then I think that should be the beginning and end of your advice about parenting.

Re:So depressing (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33654576)

I'm not a parent

Then I think that should be the beginning and end of your advice about parenting.

Hmmm, Are you saying we can no longer learn by observing?
Are you saying that we should not pass on info on things we have learned by observing?
Are you saying that the poster was raised by wolves and has had no chance to observe successes and failures when it comes to human parenting?
would you say the eldest of 12 children in a nice Irish Catholic family will not have parenting experience until they have kids of their own?

Are you suggesting that you would raise your children through a strict program of trial and error?
Would you only accept info from other certified parents, say like Jenny McCarthy's followers do?

Just because you have bred, doesn't make you the exclusive holder of all knowledge about parenting.

We all get a chance to see people succeed and fail at parenting (and many other things), every day. If we are smart we file these into "good idea" "bad idea" tables so we have this info accessible should we ever leave Slashdot and breed.

Re:So depressing (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33654606)

Bow ties are cool.

Then I think that should be the beginning and end of your advice about cool.

Re:So depressing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33652972)

lol, that is not how it works. but thanks for not playing.

Re:So depressing (1)

Surt (22457) | about 4 years ago | (#33653732)

Good luck with that. You're going to be a great dad some day.
Well, maybe, if you give up the idea that a one size fits all formula is going to be the best way to raise a child.

Re:So depressing (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33654066)

Yeah, my parents tried this method for sex ed and it was just creepy.

Re:So depressing (1)

Joe Tie. (567096) | about 4 years ago | (#33653202)

Dude, how sheltered was your life anyway? I was one year older than that kid when my dad died, and I had NO parents for a while. Let alone someone to wipe my ass for me.

Re:So depressing (1)

Myopic (18616) | about 4 years ago | (#33653240)

Of course not. The time to determine that is weeks or months earlier. The time to put that into practice is when you are doing something more important, such as pursuing a personally fulfilling hobby.

I take this lesson from being a child and getting out of the bath, when my mom had some friends over. I waited for her to come dry me off, then called out to her that I was ready to get out, and her reply was "okay" and she kept on her conversation with her friend. That day I learned to dry off my own body, and I didn't go back to needing help. Thanks mom!

Re:So depressing (4, Insightful)

WankersRevenge (452399) | about 4 years ago | (#33652054)

Dude ... believe it or not ... sometimes doing the things that you love helps you be a better dad. His kids are probably much happier than if he kept that tension locked inside of him just so he can spend more time with them and yes, be happy to be with them. Some call it "cave time" - ie, get out of my face so I can process. Otherwise, internal tension would be released in other ways to the detriment of the entire family which is far worse.

And really, kids will crawl all over you no matter what you do. I work from home and the days when my daughter isn't at daycare when my wife is home, she's basically jumping on my computer for my attention. Put a camera crew in my room and I'd look like a workaholic neglectful dad.

Re:So depressing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33653726)

On the contrary, being selfish with your time doesn't make you a better father.

To me, a lot of this sounds like a desperate attempt to justify child-like behavior. Daddy likes to play videogames and we should all learn to understand that out-scoring some other man-child is a genuine accomplishment. If the mantra works for you, go with it. I just don't buy it.

Re:So depressing (2, Insightful)

syousef (465911) | about 4 years ago | (#33653896)

Dude ... believe it or not ... sometimes doing the things that you love helps you be a better dad. His kids are probably much happier than if he kept that tension locked inside of him just so he can spend more time with them and yes, be happy to be with them. Some call it "cave time" - ie, get out of my face so I can process. Otherwise, internal tension would be released in other ways to the detriment of the entire family which is far worse.

And really, kids will crawl all over you no matter what you do. I work from home and the days when my daughter isn't at daycare when my wife is home, she's basically jumping on my computer for my attention. Put a camera crew in my room and I'd look like a workaholic neglectful dad.

What a bunch of self indulgent horse shit. Kids can crawl all over you while you smoke, get drunk and slap them around. But that wouldn't make you a good dad. It would make you an abusive drunk asshole. Just because you're around your kids doesn't mean you're giving them what they need. You have to limit the "me" time to something reasonable and even during that me time set a good example. Can't believe shit like yours gets modded up. Goes to show most slashdotters might know a lot about tech but are selfish idiots who know nothing about child rearing.

Re:So depressing (1)

WankersRevenge (452399) | about 4 years ago | (#33654450)

Self indulgent? For taking care of myself so I can take care of my family? How is that irresponsible? How can you teach your children about the world when you're too exhausted to live in it?

Can't believe shit like yours gets modded up. Goes to show most slashdotters might know a lot about tech but are selfish idiots who know nothing about child rearing.

You infer that I'm irresponsible although you don't me, then call everyone an idiot who disagrees with you ... tell me ... what kind of example are you setting for your kids? Sounds to me that you need some time off. Just sayin'.
 

Re:So depressing (1)

syousef (465911) | about 4 years ago | (#33655416)

Self indulgent? For taking care of myself so I can take care of my family? How is that irresponsible? How can you teach your children about the world when you're too exhausted to live in it?

Can't believe shit like yours gets modded up. Goes to show most slashdotters might know a lot about tech but are selfish idiots who know nothing about child rearing.

You infer that I'm irresponsible although you don't me, then call everyone an idiot who disagrees with you ... tell me ... what kind of example are you setting for your kids? Sounds to me that you need some time off. Just sayin'.

Guess what: Raising kids properly IS exhausting. Especially when they're young. Sure you should take some time off for yourself, but there's a difference between that and doing nothing but taking car of yourself and letting the kids work around that the way you imply.

As for not knowing you, sure, I don't know you. But on the one hand you bemoan the fact that I don't know you and can't possibly criticise you, then you start speculating that I need to take some time off??? Do you know what hypocrisy means!?

Are you aware that there are some people on this planet that have to walk several kilometers a day to fetch water for their family? Perhaps you think that when that gets too exhausting they should just "take some time for themselves"? Every thing you've said speaks volumes about a narrow and self indulgent world view.

Re:So depressing (1)

pablodiazgutierrez (756813) | about 4 years ago | (#33654860)

What a troll. He's talking about working hours and having kids at home at that time for whatever circumstance. Would you call him indulgent if he was clocking in an office without even being near his kids for 8-10 hours a day?

Re:So depressing (2, Insightful)

syousef (465911) | about 4 years ago | (#33655476)

What a troll. He's talking about working hours and having kids at home at that time for whatever circumstance. Would you call him indulgent if he was clocking in an office without even being near his kids for 8-10 hours a day?

First, he was talking about "doing the things you love" not spending time with his family.

Second, you don't know the difference between a troll and a different opinion or a difference in circumstance.

If the only way you can make ends meet is to work 100hr weeks or walk 6 kilometers to fetch water for your family then that is quite simply what you have to do to support them. Then, when you've done that you can talk about time with the family and time for yourself. All this self obsessed I just need me time crap requires not just survival and subsistence but prosperity. Not everyone has that.

Re:So depressing (1, Troll)

natehoy (1608657) | about 4 years ago | (#33652072)

Sorry, he took back the crown. For now. I'm assuming Mitchell isn't dead, or that at least Donkey Kong still exists and there are a few players left out there.

Someone will eventually come by and score 1,064,501 points or more. If this was important enough to Weibe to make the sacrifices he did to reclaim the crown in the first place, it'll almost certainly be just as important to him to win back the crown the next time his score gets beaten.

Hopefully he'll chalk this one up as a victory and move on to other things. Alternatively, maybe his kids will get lucky and Dad will sustain a very, very slight and preferably painless injury, just enough to cost him any possible chance of beating his own score without affecting his dexterity in any other meaningful way. Then if he's lucky enough to still have his children interested in him, he'll develop more of an interest in them.

Re:So depressing (1)

Kenja (541830) | about 4 years ago | (#33652202)

Perhaps if parenthood has some sort of scoring system.

Re:So depressing (5, Funny)

DanCentury (110562) | about 4 years ago | (#33652244)

The damage is done. 10 years from now his daughter will get her revenge for years of fatherly neglect by dating a geriatric yet suave Billy Mitchell.

Is this with or without the patch?? (3, Informative)

dmgxmichael (1219692) | about 4 years ago | (#33651888)

Is this with or without the ROM hack [jeffsromhack.com] that removes the kill screen and restores the programmer's original intent for the game?

Re:Is this with or without the patch?? (1)

zero_out (1705074) | about 4 years ago | (#33651992)

I'm certain that it's with without the patch, and with the kill screen intact. I saw the movie, and the fact that the game had to play 100% original was a major sticking point that caused Wiebe's first record to be rejected. The board he got was from someone who has a beef with the organization that maintains game records. The record keeping body even went so far as to break into Wiebe's garage to look at the board. There was nothing wrong with his record, whatsoever, yet they rejected his record by virtue of his associating with the wrong person. Based on this knowledge, I am certain that it was without the patch.

Re:Is this with or without the patch?? (1)

LocalH (28506) | about 4 years ago | (#33652132)

They didn't break into his garage, they were invited in by his grandmother.

Re:Is this with or without the patch?? (0)

zero_out (1705074) | about 4 years ago | (#33652308)

They didn't break into his garage, they were invited in by his grandmother.

That still sounds like breaking in to me. Maybe not from a literal point of view, but if they approached his grandmother rather than approaching him directly, and stating what their intent was, then in spirit it is breaking in. If I remember correctly, they came to his house as his wife was leaving, and she turned them away, saying that she wasn't comfortable with them messing with his game, without him being present. They then returned and asked the grandmother for entry, rather than waiting for him to return? That's breaking in, IMO.

Re:Is this with or without the patch?? (1)

LocalH (28506) | about 4 years ago | (#33652990)

Right. Copyright infringement is "in spirit" theft as well, correct?

Just ensuring you're not a hypocrite, that's all.

Re:Is this with or without the patch?? (1)

Surt (22457) | about 4 years ago | (#33653798)

I'm not the parent, but i'd love to see you justify the connection between those two actions a little better, because they seem completely dissimilar to me, and I wouldn't expect any rational person to make that leap of logic.

Re:Is this with or without the patch?? (1)

cgenman (325138) | about 4 years ago | (#33654016)

http://forums.twingalaxies.com/viewforum.php?f=86 [twingalaxies.com]

Supposedly:

1. "They" apparently weren't twin galaxies, but a competitive DK player that happened to be vacationing in the area, and had heard of the controversy.
2. The mother suggested they wait in the car. After a while, the grandmother came out and had them wait in the garage, and gave them a quarter to play.
3. Supposedly it was all pretty friendly when Steve came home.
4. You may not agree what your parents do, but they are still adults and they have the right to invite people into their home.

The lengths these people go to keep clean boards is rather impressive. On one of Mitchell's passes (Florida, I believe), he paid Nintendo Japan to verify the authenticity and originality of an original DK board. He then kept it in the original sealed container until his attempt. On his attempt, he unwrapped it with a scorekeeper present, inserted it into a clean jamma machine, and played through right there. These people take their authenticity incredibly seriously.

Re:Is this with or without the patch?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33652354)

They didn't break into his garage, they were invited in by his grandmother.

And that allows them to look inside his personally owned arcade machine... how, precisely? Personally, if some random person were to just walk into my house and snoop through any of my game collection (invited by my wife/grandmother/god himself), I'd be cracking a 55 gallon drum of whoopass something fierce.

Re:Is this with or without the patch?? (1)

poly_pusher (1004145) | about 4 years ago | (#33653298)

They first showed up when Steve wasn't around and his wife said no, they couldn't enter the house, that they had to wait for Steve. She left then they returned to the hose and persuaded the grandmother to let them in while they were fully aware that they were not welcome in the home then went to work dismantling his property...

Not quite a break-in no, but if someone did that in my house and I came back home to find they had dismantled something of value to me... Nerd rage would be an understatement.

Re:Is this with or without the patch?? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33653230)

Is this with or without the ROM hack [jeffsromhack.com] that removes the kill screen and restores the programmer's original intent for the game?

No patches permitted. The idea isn't to see who can play best against what the programmer intended - it's to play against the same code that's shipped since 1981, because that was the code against which the first records were set.

If you wanted to see who;s currently the better player (that is, who has the best stamina/endurance/reflexes), you'd play the patched version, even if it meant that the game lasted for several days.

But the patched version never shipped to any arcade. The patch itself wasn't discovered until decades after most of the arcades had closed. If you want to see who will get the highest score in an arcade, you play the unpatched version and try to maximize your score before the kill screen or other gamebreaking bug hits.

Playing unpatched code neatly solves all questions of what constituted the "programmer's intent". The programmer of Space Invaders probably intended the distribution of scores for the saucer to be absolutely random, but because he didn't have a hardware random number generator, and because the hardware was too slow to implement a proper pseudorandom number generator, they used the number of shots fired by the player as a PRNG [strategywiki.org] . "Fix" that bug and the high score for Space Invaders drops drastically.

On Hulu.com (4, Informative)

zero_out (1705074) | about 4 years ago | (#33651918)

I watched that movie on Hulu a couple months back. It is probably still on there, if it hasn't expired. Check it out.

Re:On Hulu.com (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33652158)

It's also available to watch instantly on netflix. I watched it last night.

Re:On Hulu.com (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33652238)

We don't live in US you you insensitive clods

Re:On Hulu.com (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33652304)

We don't live in US you you insensitive clods

then move. :)

Re:On Hulu.com (0, Troll)

Zorque (894011) | about 4 years ago | (#33652626)

That kind of sounds like your problem.

Heads-up on king of kong: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33652068)

http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/1303

Our local Dave & Busters (1)

Pojut (1027544) | about 4 years ago | (#33652070)

They have a few arcade cabinets from back in the day that are in great condition...one of them is a Donkey Kong machine, with the high score on it being in the 600,000 range.

Certainly no where near the world record, but still amazing nonetheless.

Re:Our local Dave & Busters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33652564)

Donkey Kong doesn't save high scores, so unless they didn't unplug it for a really long time, that might have been a very recent score.

Remember the Frogger episode of Seinfeld? George couldn't unplug it or it'd erase his high score that he wanted to preserve. Donkey Kong is like that.

Even if you win... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33652420)

...you still lose.

King of Kong portrayals (1)

Robotron23 (832528) | about 4 years ago | (#33652464)

I'd enjoy hearing how accurate the portrayals of the rivals were in The King of Kong. I bought that film after seeing it mentioned here on Slashdot; fantastic entertainment for those who recall the 1980s and younger people who aren't as acquianted with the arcade culture since the decline that happened after that decade elapsed.

In the documentary, Steve Wiebe was portrayed as a geeky underrachieving family man; all around a likable, modest chap who'd arrived at competing for Donkey Kong's high score much later than the era in which it was 'mainstream' to play.

Billy Mitchell was portrayed as a proud, competitive, somewhat disgruntled insider who'd been affiliated with the judging body Twin Galaxies and the videogame high score scene since the beginning. To my mind he didn't seem near as affable or appealing a person as Wiebe.

This is the age of manipulative editing, and in a 'reality' type production such as The King of Kong I'm a bit wary of a disturbed chronology enacted to favour the rivalry and contrast elements. Does anyone here have anything to verify or debunk the film's portrayals?

Re:King of Kong portrayals (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33652722)

From Wikipedia, describing the last time Mitchell took the crown:

Mitchell set the new record playing at the Boomers-Grand Prix Arcade in Dania, Fla. where he played for two hours and forty two minutes before quitting once he topped Chien's score. When asked why he quit early, Mitchell said "Some say I'm being cocky. Some say I'm being lazy. I say, I'm being Billy Mitchell."

So he's either a douche for real or he works really hard to maintain that impression for publicity purposes. It makes sense to do that...who the hell even knew there were still people seriously playing that game other than a few insiders until that movie came out? All publicity is good publicity...

Music (2, Funny)

necro81 (917438) | about 4 years ago | (#33652542)

Great, now I'll have "In the Hall of the Mountain King" stuck in my head all day.

Re:Music (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33654818)

Madness Reigns!

I find it both hilarious and scary (1)

Flipao (903929) | about 4 years ago | (#33652544)

just how easily people's minds are swayed by giving them the right bits of information, get people to see through an 80 minute movie and they'll come out thinking they know a person they've never actually met.

Bang the Machine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33653008)

Related, but off topic.

At SXSW a while back ('01? '02?) there was a movie shown called Bang the Machine, and it was about a Street Fighter tournament. If you manage to find it anywhere, watch it. I remember enjoying it.

After a quick search, there was a Slashdot post about it: http://news.slashdot.org/story/02/03/11/1520256/Bang-The-Machine

slow news day? (-1, Troll)

spidercoz (947220) | about 4 years ago | (#33653504)

seriously, who gives a shit about this fucking dweeb? ooooh, he's king shit of turd mountain, I'm fucking blown away by the size of his genitalia

go get a job, dickhead

Re:slow news day? (1)

darien.train (1752510) | about 4 years ago | (#33653608)

While your post is childish and poorly punctuated, I think the troll rating is undeserved as you make a good point. I've even seem the movie twice and while i found it entertaining I was thinking in the back of my head "Who gives a shit about high scores is DK Jr.?"

Billy Lee Roth (1)

jewishbaconzombies (1861376) | about 4 years ago | (#33653808)

I'll take David Lee Roth over Mr. Rogers any day. Douche? Probably. Entertaining? Hell yes!

Fistfull of Quarters is the better documentary. (1)

Picass0 (147474) | about 4 years ago | (#33654086)

Billy Mitchell is probably no saint, but another film put the lie to the creative license practiced for the "King of Kong" filmmakers. "A Fistfull of Quarters" features several of the same Twin Galaxies regulars and is a more balanced film.

Billy Mitchell, mullet and all, is there helping Walter research and document world records. Mitchell comes off as someone who's seen cheating and attempts to steal fifteen minutes of glory (in fact FFoQ tells one such story) Made before King of Kong it does not feature Steve Wiebe.

Re:Fistfull of Quarters is the better documentary. (1)

greenskyx (609089) | about 4 years ago | (#33654190)

Isn't "A Fistfull of Quarters" just the sub-title of "King of Kong"? Aren't they the same movie?

Correct title - Chasing Ghosts: Beyond the Arcade (1)

Picass0 (147474) | about 4 years ago | (#33654354)

Serves me right for going from memory. Fistful of Quarters is the subtitle for King of Kong. "Chasing Ghosts: Beyond the Arcade" is another film that came out around the same time.

Chasing Ghosts is every bit as entertaining without trying to turn Billy Mitchell into a villain. He's perhaps a bit cynical, but as I pointed out he had seen some players attempt to steal records. He helps Walter in this film to document and verify several records. He speaks of some of his own former records, which he held several besides Donkey Kong. He's not spiteful about those records falling as he looks like this is all part of the sport. He probably intents to reclaim those records at some point in the future.

I would expect Steve Wiebe tenure as record holder will be short.

Re:Correct title - Chasing Ghosts: Beyond the Arca (1)

greenskyx (609089) | about 4 years ago | (#33654522)

Thanks. I'd love to watch that. Now if Netflix will just get it.

awesome... (1)

Schnoogs (1087081) | about 4 years ago | (#33654100)

Billy Mitchell came off as a giant douchebag...glad to hear he's no longer on top

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>