[game_preservation] International Video Game Hall of Fame

[Rowan Kaiser]

Yeah, I'm aware that there's controversy over King of Kong. It's still a
great documentary, if not the whole truth and nothing but the truth. But
that's getting off the subject a ways.


Rowan


On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 6:54 AM, Devin Monnens <dmonnens at gmail.com> wrote:


>

>

> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 5:54 AM, Andrew Armstrong <andrew at aarmstrong.org>wrote:

>

>>  We've discussed King of Kong a bit more here.

>

>

> Agreed :)

>

>

>> We still need to get some analysis on what is the good and bad

>> documentaries - perhaps even "biopics", since they wander from the truth

>> sometimes to make a good story/good entertainment, which is something we are

>> hopefully distinct from on this list if we're investigating history!

>>

>

> Well, the same is going to be true of any book. The book has to be

> interesting to read, otherwise, nobody will buy it. Of course, you can do

> this without changing the truth - given Woz's frankness, I have a feeling

> there aren't many errors in iWoz (if there are any at all).

>

> As a historical piece... Well, it informs people about competitive arcade

> gaming. As a pyschological study, it's definitely something that sets this

> above being just a geeky film.

>

>   (i.e.

>>> when the one interviewer is lambasting Billy as never really coming

>>> out in public to compete anymore when Billy set the (then) world

>>> public record of DK at our show in 2004 in front of our attendees),

>>> etc.

>>>

>>

> Well, in a short defense of filmmaking, sometimes new things happen during

> the documentary process, but you just have to print it. (Of course, the film

> came out in 2007, so that doesn't work here...). I think in terms of the

> documentary, the big question was why didn't he compete at the match? Did he

> think he would have been set up? (i.e. the presence of the camera and the

> documentary means it's a lose/lose - even if he won, he would still be seen

> as a loser for beating this poor guy who never won anything in his life)

> Does he just not do any live competitive gaming anymore? Did he feel sorry

> for the guy? Or maybe not think he was worth playing? I don't think the film

> took a stance on this, but it's something I'd like to hear. But I'm thinking

> the camera has a lot to do with it.

>

> Then you have Steve who doesn't seem to have known anything about

> competitive gaming at the time. He beats the high score in a grueling

> marathon (which in some respects could be considered an accusation of child

> neglect :P), sends it out to Twin Galaxies, and the ref comes back and says

> 'hey! we need to check your hardware to make sure this is a legit machine!'

> Which seems completely bogus for Steve - who again, we assume knows nothing

> about competitive gaming or arcade machine hardware, and CERTAINLY nothing

> about the feuds - but this makes perfect sense for the Twin Galaxies guys

> because a) it's a pretty amazing score and how is that even possible? and b)

> maybe somebody rigged the machine.

>

> Something that's logical when presented to someone who knows nothing about

> the business suddenly becomes very shocking and stressful, especially

> considering all the work this guy put into it.

> --

> Devin Monnens

> www.deserthat.com

>

> The sleep of Reason produces monsters.

>

> _______________________________________________

> game_preservation mailing list

> game_preservation at igda.org

> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/game_preservation

>

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://six.pairlist.net/pipermail/game_preservation/attachments/20100723/095c2147/attachment.htm>