Donkey Kong scoreboard strips high score claim(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Donkey Kong scoreboard strips high score claim
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2018/02/donkey-kong-scoreboard-strips-billy-mitchells-high-score-claims/
105 comments
Here's a no-nonsense video chronicling the progress of the Donkey Kong world record: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAQ2vEHq2N4
This guy has also made videos chronicling similar speedrun records for other games, and they're fascinating to watch.
This guy has also made videos chronicling similar speedrun records for other games, and they're fascinating to watch.
Summoning Salt is one of the best gaming youtubers I've run across. He describes what he's talking about in both a technical and end-result sense, and really makes a viewer understand the passion for games that these players have.
I do wish he had a little more passion in his voice about the subject. It's obvious he is thoroughly involved and cares from the material, but it sometimes sounds like a recording of the absolute worst teacher you've ever had
I just discovered this guy, Summoning Salt, this week and I cannot stop watching his videos! Super fascinating stuff :)
I made an account purely to express how strange it is that I just found this guy no more than a week ago, and now I'm seeing people talk about him somewhere that I never would have expected. It's weird.
The Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon?
reddit probably?
Great video, except it ends too early. Robbie Lakeman has twice now beaten Wes Copeland's high score, presented at the end of this video.
But still, great watching.
But still, great watching.
> The video gets fuzzy and looks suspicious but Mitchell's toadies in the group immediately accept the score, despite refusing to previously accept a VHS tape from the contender Steve Wiebe.
TwinGalaxies seems fairly shady in general. At least they recently revoked Todd Rogers's completely fake high scores.
TwinGalaxies seems fairly shady in general. At least they recently revoked Todd Rogers's completely fake high scores.
The founder, Walter Day, ran it from 1982-2010 (post King of Kong) when he sold it to focus on his music.
It's changed hands a couple of times since the but since 2014 it's been owned by Jace Hall, a video game producer in San Fernando Valley, CA.
If you believe Reddit gremlins he's the Worst Person In The World, but I have some sympathy for him, it's tough to adjudicate all of these disputes that can get super technical.
Who has the time for it? Even now that Jace is charging for refereeing, it's not a lucrative endeavor. But he had to know what he was getting when he bought it.
It's changed hands a couple of times since the but since 2014 it's been owned by Jace Hall, a video game producer in San Fernando Valley, CA.
If you believe Reddit gremlins he's the Worst Person In The World, but I have some sympathy for him, it's tough to adjudicate all of these disputes that can get super technical.
Who has the time for it? Even now that Jace is charging for refereeing, it's not a lucrative endeavor. But he had to know what he was getting when he bought it.
Huh, why is it the new owner that people are complaining about? Total outsider, but it seems to me that if anything the place is finally cleaning up a bit.
One example is the Todd Rogers case (he's briefly featured in The King of Kong).
Todd claimed to take a polaroid of a score of 5.51 seconds on Dragster that Activision later "verified" (i.e. acknowledged).
Recently several independent gamers running simulation software demonstrated the score was impossible, that 5.57 is the lowest limit achievable.
But despite the mounting technical evidence Jace initially refused to take action, saying he'd wait a few months before deciding. Then 5 days later, after Rogers' friend and former TG referee Robert Mruczek (featured in KoK) wrote a long blog post basically saying Rogers was a cheater, Jace stripped Rogers of his scores and banned him from competition.
The criticism is that he wasn't fast enough to act on technical evidence but then arbitrarily relies on testimony from one person.
But again, I sympathize with the guy. To overturn a 37-year-old record based on what an algorithm says and what Activision itself said in 1981 is tough. If he acted right away that would have p* off others. It's a thankless job, IMHO.
But he had to know that when bought it.
Todd claimed to take a polaroid of a score of 5.51 seconds on Dragster that Activision later "verified" (i.e. acknowledged).
Recently several independent gamers running simulation software demonstrated the score was impossible, that 5.57 is the lowest limit achievable.
But despite the mounting technical evidence Jace initially refused to take action, saying he'd wait a few months before deciding. Then 5 days later, after Rogers' friend and former TG referee Robert Mruczek (featured in KoK) wrote a long blog post basically saying Rogers was a cheater, Jace stripped Rogers of his scores and banned him from competition.
The criticism is that he wasn't fast enough to act on technical evidence but then arbitrarily relies on testimony from one person.
But again, I sympathize with the guy. To overturn a 37-year-old record based on what an algorithm says and what Activision itself said in 1981 is tough. If he acted right away that would have p* off others. It's a thankless job, IMHO.
But he had to know that when bought it.
Really interesting video about that: https://youtu.be/8e-H4sEHB54
I came here to post that. It's fascinating. Why would anyone care so much about cheating in an extremely obscure arena?
I've met Billy Mitchell. Everyone has.
You pretty much can't go to these events and not meet him. You walk into Twin Galaxies or Arcade Expo and he's standing there in a suit greeting people, selling autographs. That's his JOB. He's a brand. The only advertising for this brand is these stupid records. For Christ's sake, Adam Sandler riffs on him in "Pixels."
You pretty much can't go to these events and not meet him. You walk into Twin Galaxies or Arcade Expo and he's standing there in a suit greeting people, selling autographs. That's his JOB. He's a brand. The only advertising for this brand is these stupid records. For Christ's sake, Adam Sandler riffs on him in "Pixels."
The comment you're replying to is about Todd Rogers, not Billy Mitchell.
Welp then I'm an idiot :)
No, it was equally interesting. HN is much too strict about tangential comments.
Equally relevant too, given the parent comment.
Thank you!
Tangentially related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wi... is great reading.
For the attention.
He for sure took advantage of the situation and knew nobody could verify his claims. It wasn't until recently people have finally shown most of his scores are totally unattainable to begin with, something nobody could really refute until now.
It also makes Twin Galaxies look incredibly shady and their refusal to really adjust the high scores just makes it seem like they have some weird stake in it was well.
He for sure took advantage of the situation and knew nobody could verify his claims. It wasn't until recently people have finally shown most of his scores are totally unattainable to begin with, something nobody could really refute until now.
It also makes Twin Galaxies look incredibly shady and their refusal to really adjust the high scores just makes it seem like they have some weird stake in it was well.
Yep. You even see some of that in King of Kong when Walter Day says that Billy Mitchell is good for Twin Galaxies.
I'd say it's part naivete (taking friends at their word), part incompetence (not fully vetting scores, especially early on), part complicity (gaming heroes make them seem like a stable of giants). Hard to know what % of each.
It's an incredibly narrow band of fame, of attention, by a weird subculture that 99% of humanity pays no attention to, but for some people I guess it's important.
I'd say it's part naivete (taking friends at their word), part incompetence (not fully vetting scores, especially early on), part complicity (gaming heroes make them seem like a stable of giants). Hard to know what % of each.
It's an incredibly narrow band of fame, of attention, by a weird subculture that 99% of humanity pays no attention to, but for some people I guess it's important.
That is also a favorite documentary of mine.
My shortlist of inspiring documentaries for people with startup/gaming mindsets:
- Indie Game
- Startup.com
- American Movie (Mark Borchardt has a thing or two to teach all of us about working hard to make dreams become reality)
- Ecstasy of Order: The Tetris Masters
My shortlist of inspiring documentaries for people with startup/gaming mindsets:
- Indie Game
- Startup.com
- American Movie (Mark Borchardt has a thing or two to teach all of us about working hard to make dreams become reality)
- Ecstasy of Order: The Tetris Masters
Heh... startup.com is the exact opposite of an inspiring movie. It's basically the "How not to do it" manual.
At least inspired by their enthusiasm :) I've been on their side of the table raising money before, of course not to their level, but it brings those feelings to the forefront again for me.
I watched it yesterday and the part about the video tape is unbelievable. How can a record like that be approved so quickly when it contains obvious flaws? Also not letting Steve watch it was a disgusting move. Anyway the movie was really interesting.
Am I the only one who watches this movie and can't root for Weibe but instead am just crushed by the appalling sadness of it all? The guy's kids napping on the floor of the arcade, "kill screen coming up" and nobody cares....
The cringey nature of the entire documentary is why it’s wonderful. “Kill screen coming up!” was a punchline in my house for years after we watched that. :D
> For those who haven't seen the film, the contender Steve Wiebe sets a new record live at an arcade tournament in Funspot (NH) but reigning champ Billy Mitchell sends in a VHS tape with an even higher score.
In the Reddit thread about Todd Rogers, someone pointed out how pissed they were when they would submit a score to TG for verification and then one of the guys there would say someone else just submitted an even higher score. As if every time a new high score was submitted by a newer player, the TG toadies would immediately put "their" guy's score up in an effort to keep newer players out.
Just all around shady stuff.
In the Reddit thread about Todd Rogers, someone pointed out how pissed they were when they would submit a score to TG for verification and then one of the guys there would say someone else just submitted an even higher score. As if every time a new high score was submitted by a newer player, the TG toadies would immediately put "their" guy's score up in an effort to keep newer players out.
Just all around shady stuff.
and the Donkey Kong levels render the way MAME does them, not the actual arcade hardware
Then I guess that's another bug for MAME to fix...
Then I guess that's another bug for MAME to fix...
According to the original call-out post, MAME 0.127 and onwards are already much closer to real hardware: http://www.twingalaxies.com/showthread.php/176004-Dispute-Je...
Billy Mitchell just happened to use older MAME versions without those improvements, even during his 1.062M run that was performed several years after MAME 0.127 shipped.
Billy Mitchell just happened to use older MAME versions without those improvements, even during his 1.062M run that was performed several years after MAME 0.127 shipped.
It's not a bug per se, it's just different from the real thing.
An actual arcade board renders the levels with a "sliding door" effect, while MAME builds entire chunks of a level at once and then displays them as a complete screen buffer (depending on the version).
It's just evidence Mitchell's score is not what he says it is.
An actual arcade board renders the levels with a "sliding door" effect, while MAME builds entire chunks of a level at once and then displays them as a complete screen buffer (depending on the version).
It's just evidence Mitchell's score is not what he says it is.
It's not a bug per se, it's just different from the real thing
If you agree with the premise that an emulator should strive to... emulate the real thing as closely as possible, then it is most certainly a bug.
If you agree with the premise that an emulator should strive to... emulate the real thing as closely as possible, then it is most certainly a bug.
I don't think that is a fair statement. Often writers of emulators have to take low level shortcuts because the alternative is emulating the physical hardware in software - which is extremely slow. A "bug" implies that a behavior is unintended or undesired where as sometimes these kinds of emulator facets are deliberately implemented for the sake of simplifying the emulator design or just being about to use modern hardware to offload some of the processing (like a hypervisor would) rather than having to emulate every single transistor in a now defunct chipset.
You're right that emulators in general may do that, but MAME in particular is designed to be a faithful reference of the inner workings of the machines. Being able to play games is merely a "nice side effect".
http://mamedev.org/about.html
http://mamedev.org/about.html
[deleted]
There's a pretty clear difference of opinion regarding the purpose of emulators.
The creators of MAME are mainly interested in rigorously simulating certain kinds of hardware which happen to play games, just as a classic car restorer may rarely or never actually drive his meticulous reconstructions.
For many other emulator devs, and almost all emulator users, the point of emulators is to play games. That may not be your area of interest, but it's rather silly to say that they're just wrong.
The creators of MAME are mainly interested in rigorously simulating certain kinds of hardware which happen to play games, just as a classic car restorer may rarely or never actually drive his meticulous reconstructions.
For many other emulator devs, and almost all emulator users, the point of emulators is to play games. That may not be your area of interest, but it's rather silly to say that they're just wrong.
Then yes. Although graphic loading sequences that can only be detected in slow motion seem a low-order bug -- in my book, anyway.
There are limits to this, as with everything. No one is going to make their emulator 3x slower to properly emulate one glitchy line in Super Mario Bros. that shows up on 1/3 of powerons based on a random clock alignment issue.
Besides that, the real console hardware could vary more between revisions than the difference between a console and an accurate emulator, so you also have to ask whose real thing is being emulated? Even with Nintendo's attention to detail on lot check, some real Game Boys won't play Prehistorik Man. There are some NES accuracy tests out there that require making your emulator behave like one specific console owned by blargg.
Besides that, the real console hardware could vary more between revisions than the difference between a console and an accurate emulator, so you also have to ask whose real thing is being emulated? Even with Nintendo's attention to detail on lot check, some real Game Boys won't play Prehistorik Man. There are some NES accuracy tests out there that require making your emulator behave like one specific console owned by blargg.
> No one is going to make their emulator 3x slower to properly emulate one glitchy line in Super Mario Bros. that shows up on 1/3 of powerons based on a random clock alignment issue.
This is exactly what BSNES set out to do. I think it's called Higan now > https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2011/08/accuracy-takes-power-...
This is exactly what BSNES set out to do. I think it's called Higan now > https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2011/08/accuracy-takes-power-...
Even byuu doesn't emulate this particular quirk, in general he doesn't seem to be pushing the bounds of accuracy for any system but the SNES.
Something that invisibly protects from the software being used to generate false records is more a feature than a bug. "Fixing" would damage classic gaming.
I'm sorry, but are you really advocating against emulation accuracy on the grounds of classic gaming competition? I disagree entirely.
Imperceptable differences that have no impact on gameplay? Sure. Leave them in. Unless you are playing on a vintage crt screen, these tiny slips are nothing compared to how diffetent modern lcds butcher classic games.
I run MAME in a converted cabinet with an ArcadeVGA card and vintage CRT. I appreciate their efforts towards accuracy, at least. Although I don't have the original cabs to compare so I also don't know any better. ;)
The King of Kong is a seriously flawed work:
http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/1303
> Too bad it’s loaded with falsehoods. And by loaded, I mean packed, and by packed I mean like the last Japanese subway car before they have to shut down the line. I have seen both the screener and the final work of this film, and then I spent a lot of time listening to a lot of people, people who should know about the events portrayed in the flick.
[snip]
> What I’m saying here is that a good percentage of what makes the documentary “good” are made up conflicts, inaccurate reporting, smoothed-over narratives that are meant to make you root for one side or hate the other, when in fact reality doesn’t hold up to these allegations.
The post goes into detail on specific things the movie got entirely wrong.
http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/1303
> Too bad it’s loaded with falsehoods. And by loaded, I mean packed, and by packed I mean like the last Japanese subway car before they have to shut down the line. I have seen both the screener and the final work of this film, and then I spent a lot of time listening to a lot of people, people who should know about the events portrayed in the flick.
[snip]
> What I’m saying here is that a good percentage of what makes the documentary “good” are made up conflicts, inaccurate reporting, smoothed-over narratives that are meant to make you root for one side or hate the other, when in fact reality doesn’t hold up to these allegations.
The post goes into detail on specific things the movie got entirely wrong.
I have to disagree. Maybe this is too much detail, but I want to wade into each one of the points of the post you reference:
> A core theme is that Billy Mitchell is an asshole, one who doesn’t even deign to spend time in the same location as Steve Wiebe and won’t even come in to eat lunch at the same table as him. In fact, Billy came in and paid for lunch.
One, the entire plotline about Doris setting a Q-Bert record was included to show some of the selfless things Billy does.
Two, Steve Sanders makes it clear in the restaurant scene that Billy "didn't want anything to do with Steve" and that he came "unexpectedly and uninvitedly." This is Billy's best friend saying this. The fact that Billy comped everyone's meal does not contradict these facts -- besides, it was his own restaurant.
Is Billy an a-hole? That's hard to say. But if the reporting in this ArsTechnica article is correct, Billy is at least a cheater and liar.
> Billy denies Steve the satisfaction of playing one-on-one on Donkey Kong. They’d played Donkey Kong one-on-one a year before the documentary was filmed at a previous championship.
The reason Steve wanted to play Billy publicly wasn't to play once and be done with it, it was to repeatedly show Twin Galaxy doubters that Steve was a consistently better player than Billy. If they wouldn't give Steve his score at least he wanted to show as many people as possible that he could play at or above Billy's level. I think Steve would have loved to play Billy 20 times because no one believed he was a million-point Donkey Player. Could the film have added, "We played once but I'd still like to play him again in front of everyone so the world can believe me?" Sure. But it's not some falsehood that compromises the film.
> It seems like Steve Wiebe finally gets a chance to top Billy and that same day, a videotape arrives and Billy tops Wiebe. Steve Wiebe already had the top spot in Donkey Kong, having achieved the record before the documentary started. The videotape that Billy sends in has a suspicious glitch. The videotape was a copy and the original was sent in with no glitch.
The point of this article is that Billy's videotape was indeed a fraud, so this "no glitch" defense doesn't hold up so well. Plus the bigger issue is that they denied the validity of Steve's tapes but blindly accepted Billy's tapes, an unfair double standard.
> Two representatives of Twin Galaxies arcade forced their way into Steve’s garage and looted the machine. Two members of the same social scene as Twin Galaxies and Steve were let into his garage by his grandmother, and asked Steve for permission to photograph the circuit board.
The movie makes it pretty clear what happened was disputed and tried to present both sides of the story. But at no point does the movie claim they "forced" their way in or somehow broke into Steve's garage.
> A number of insiders constantly appraised Billy on what was going on at the competition and took suggestions from him. Multiple times, the conversations being shown from both sides are not the same conversation.
What's the proof? Billy has made claims of selective editing but the producers deny them: https://film.avclub.com/the-king-of-kong-continued-donkey-ko...
Instead, this author says he is bitter that the King of Kong coopted his own efforts, now he can't make a documentary on a similar subject because people are afraid of being made out to be the bad guy. I quote, "And by doing this, he f* me, too. Doors that were open to me and my production are slammed shut."
If you have other arguments why KoK is a "seriously flawed work" then let's hear them, but the above points are not compelling, IMHO.
(I have no affiliation with the filmmakers, just a fan)
> A core theme is that Billy Mitchell is an asshole, one who doesn’t even deign to spend time in the same location as Steve Wiebe and won’t even come in to eat lunch at the same table as him. In fact, Billy came in and paid for lunch.
One, the entire plotline about Doris setting a Q-Bert record was included to show some of the selfless things Billy does.
Two, Steve Sanders makes it clear in the restaurant scene that Billy "didn't want anything to do with Steve" and that he came "unexpectedly and uninvitedly." This is Billy's best friend saying this. The fact that Billy comped everyone's meal does not contradict these facts -- besides, it was his own restaurant.
Is Billy an a-hole? That's hard to say. But if the reporting in this ArsTechnica article is correct, Billy is at least a cheater and liar.
> Billy denies Steve the satisfaction of playing one-on-one on Donkey Kong. They’d played Donkey Kong one-on-one a year before the documentary was filmed at a previous championship.
The reason Steve wanted to play Billy publicly wasn't to play once and be done with it, it was to repeatedly show Twin Galaxy doubters that Steve was a consistently better player than Billy. If they wouldn't give Steve his score at least he wanted to show as many people as possible that he could play at or above Billy's level. I think Steve would have loved to play Billy 20 times because no one believed he was a million-point Donkey Player. Could the film have added, "We played once but I'd still like to play him again in front of everyone so the world can believe me?" Sure. But it's not some falsehood that compromises the film.
> It seems like Steve Wiebe finally gets a chance to top Billy and that same day, a videotape arrives and Billy tops Wiebe. Steve Wiebe already had the top spot in Donkey Kong, having achieved the record before the documentary started. The videotape that Billy sends in has a suspicious glitch. The videotape was a copy and the original was sent in with no glitch.
The point of this article is that Billy's videotape was indeed a fraud, so this "no glitch" defense doesn't hold up so well. Plus the bigger issue is that they denied the validity of Steve's tapes but blindly accepted Billy's tapes, an unfair double standard.
> Two representatives of Twin Galaxies arcade forced their way into Steve’s garage and looted the machine. Two members of the same social scene as Twin Galaxies and Steve were let into his garage by his grandmother, and asked Steve for permission to photograph the circuit board.
The movie makes it pretty clear what happened was disputed and tried to present both sides of the story. But at no point does the movie claim they "forced" their way in or somehow broke into Steve's garage.
> A number of insiders constantly appraised Billy on what was going on at the competition and took suggestions from him. Multiple times, the conversations being shown from both sides are not the same conversation.
What's the proof? Billy has made claims of selective editing but the producers deny them: https://film.avclub.com/the-king-of-kong-continued-donkey-ko...
Instead, this author says he is bitter that the King of Kong coopted his own efforts, now he can't make a documentary on a similar subject because people are afraid of being made out to be the bad guy. I quote, "And by doing this, he f* me, too. Doors that were open to me and my production are slammed shut."
If you have other arguments why KoK is a "seriously flawed work" then let's hear them, but the above points are not compelling, IMHO.
(I have no affiliation with the filmmakers, just a fan)
Love that documentary. Have you seen Chasing Ghosts? It's along the same lines and worth checking out -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJz8KIlEq7I
That link didn't work for me. I bet it's because I'm not in the US. Anyway the net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it[0], here's a link that should work anywhere:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-RgSvWJOos
[0] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Gilmore
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-RgSvWJOos
[0] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Gilmore
Chasing Ghosts >>> King of Kong imo
The hardest I have laughed in my entire life was at the line "This is Christopher Lambert". That moment is absolute bonkers.
The hardest I have laughed in my entire life was at the line "This is Christopher Lambert". That moment is absolute bonkers.
That was an early cut that leaked. Apparently the official cut removed that scene. Understandably considering it overwhelms the whole documentary.
It IS one of the best scenes in film history. But the whole film is great... did they really cut it? I know there are multiple versions, I never got to see the one that supposedly has a way better soundtrack, and I've seen it available on modern streaming services but never checked to see what version they had.
[deleted]
You'd do well to look up SummoningSalt's video on the World Record Progression of King Kong. He actually discusses the issues with KoK, and several other concerns - and all of it with a genuine passion for gaming.
Wasn't that doc heavily criticized for very selective editing?
When the movie came out, Billy Mitchell claimed the tournament in Florida was edited to make him look bad.
Specifically, Billy had been conspicuously avoiding playing Steve in a head-to-head matchup in Donkey Kong, afraid he'd lose. When Billy does appear, he walks by, ignores Billy's greeting, then whispers to his wife, "There are some people I don't want to spend too much time with."
Here's the accusation from Billy and the rebuttal from one of the producers, Ed Cunningham:
https://film.avclub.com/the-king-of-kong-continued-donkey-ko...
"Ed Cunningham: Yeah, no, that didn't happen there. It didn't. At that moment, what we show is exactly what happened."
Specifically, Billy had been conspicuously avoiding playing Steve in a head-to-head matchup in Donkey Kong, afraid he'd lose. When Billy does appear, he walks by, ignores Billy's greeting, then whispers to his wife, "There are some people I don't want to spend too much time with."
Here's the accusation from Billy and the rebuttal from one of the producers, Ed Cunningham:
https://film.avclub.com/the-king-of-kong-continued-donkey-ko...
"Ed Cunningham: Yeah, no, that didn't happen there. It didn't. At that moment, what we show is exactly what happened."
Yes, criticized by the person who has been exposed as a fraud and lost all credibility in the gaming community.
A.k.a. the subject of the article.
A.k.a. the subject of the article.
There are many things that can be disputed without having to believe a word he says.
For instance they played head to head at an arcade a year before the documentary started filming.
For instance they played head to head at an arcade a year before the documentary started filming.
I don't like King of Kong at all. It's one of those documentaries that tries to ramrod reality into a feature film arc.
Chasing Ghosts: Beyond the Arcade, from the exact same year, which also features Silly Bitchell but a lot of other interesting characters who play other games from the same era, is my favorite documentary of all time, though.
Highly recommend that one, especially if you like King of Kong, but also if you are interested in MAME / arcade history.
Chasing Ghosts: Beyond the Arcade, from the exact same year, which also features Silly Bitchell but a lot of other interesting characters who play other games from the same era, is my favorite documentary of all time, though.
Highly recommend that one, especially if you like King of Kong, but also if you are interested in MAME / arcade history.
The claim that it's statistically unlikely to get those random numbers isn't entirely clear. When asked how unlikely it is, the response is "extremely unlikely", but it's important to quantify that. It's possible he's playing 20x more games than them, for example, and then we'd expect his best scores to contain more unlikely results. But it's hard to say if they would be as unlikely as what we see.
> It's possible he's playing 20x more games than them
Possible but unlikely b/c the person making this claim is the current No. 2 Donkey Kong player in the world Wes Copeland, not Joe Schmo off the street.
Even if Mitchell's disputed scores were accepted they would still be far off Copeland's scores. So when the No. 2 player speaks it carries more weight than just some random dude in his basement.
Possible but unlikely b/c the person making this claim is the current No. 2 Donkey Kong player in the world Wes Copeland, not Joe Schmo off the street.
Even if Mitchell's disputed scores were accepted they would still be far off Copeland's scores. So when the No. 2 player speaks it carries more weight than just some random dude in his basement.
Wouldn’t a pro player be playing less games? They’re playing longer, higher scoring games not lots of average scoring games.
Sort of. However, at that level, if you're in the middle of a game and aren't on track to getting a high score, you're probably going to abandon the game and try again from the beginning. Therefore there'll be a fairly high number of games, a sizeable proportion of which are abandoned.
It's like when speedrunners attempt to complete games in the fastest time. If they make a mistake at any point in the game that will cost them a lot of time, they will most likely abandon the game and keep trying until they are able to complete the game without making any costly mistakes.
It's like when speedrunners attempt to complete games in the fastest time. If they make a mistake at any point in the game that will cost them a lot of time, they will most likely abandon the game and keep trying until they are able to complete the game without making any costly mistakes.
It depends how much time they put into it. No one checks how many games they play, so one player could play only on weekends while another might also play a few hours every evening.
This is easy to resolve. Just dump the ROM and look at the RNG.
The full details are here: http://www.classicarcadegaming.com/forums/index.php?topic=41...
But what Wes showed was that all the top gamers (with higher scores than Billy) average 13-15% of their total points from barrel smashes while Billy averaged almost 18%.
Details: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DVDyEHrX4AEnxP0.jpg:large
But what Wes showed was that all the top gamers (with higher scores than Billy) average 13-15% of their total points from barrel smashes while Billy averaged almost 18%.
Details: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DVDyEHrX4AEnxP0.jpg:large
I don't get it. "Percentage of points coming from smashes" seems like a worthless metric for detecting cheating via favorable RNG seeds. The relevant metric would instead be average points per smash. And for that Mitchell's results are not particularly out of line with the other entries (the distribution is 464-511, with an average of 480; 491 doesn't look at all suspicious in that context).
Wouldn't this rather be a sign of people making different strategic tradeoffs? Mitchell spent more time breaking barrels but at the cost of getting fewer bonus points for finishing the level in time.
Wouldn't this rather be a sign of people making different strategic tradeoffs? Mitchell spent more time breaking barrels but at the cost of getting fewer bonus points for finishing the level in time.
While that thread breaks down the idealized probabilities, it doesn't say anything about the RNG behavior itself. Some generators have bad seeds. It's conceivable that Billy got lucky and hit one of these. I sincerely doubt that's the case. With the source it'd we could definitively confirm or rule this out.
Another possibility is that Billy figured out a hitherto unknown RNG manipulation trick. This is how a lot of TAS runs work. Again, I doubt this is the case but with the source it'd be easy to rule out.
Another possibility is that Billy figured out a hitherto unknown RNG manipulation trick. This is how a lot of TAS runs work. Again, I doubt this is the case but with the source it'd be easy to rule out.
[deleted]
Unless the rng is really broken and unstable, there's no reason to get a different result in any top run of the game. The longer you play, the closer you should be to the average.
What? Of course there's a reason! It's because you only post top runs! That's like saying "there's no reason lottery winners will have hit more winning numbers than anyone else", but they're lottery winners exactly because they did!
The longer each game session goes, the closer the RNG will be to average. This will happen even if you're only posting one-in-a-million runs. One-in-a-million when you pick 10 numbers is extremely biased. One-in-a-million when you pick a thousand numbers is only subtly biased.
Yes, the longer the game is the closer the average will be to the true average. But given a fixed or bounded game length, you can play enough games to get as much deviation from the average as you want.
Again, the numbers need to be run. There's no way to tell without them, the truth could be either way.
Again, the numbers need to be run. There's no way to tell without them, the truth could be either way.
> But given a fixed or bounded game length, you can play enough games to get as much deviation from the average as you want.
If "you" is some abstract entity with infinite time, perhaps. Even if you do ten three-hour runs a day, you can't actually get a very high deviation from average in any given century. Getting a certain deviation requires exponential time in proportion to the number of RNG calls.
If "you" is some abstract entity with infinite time, perhaps. Even if you do ten three-hour runs a day, you can't actually get a very high deviation from average in any given century. Getting a certain deviation requires exponential time in proportion to the number of RNG calls.
You're assuming those are random numbers. As the article says, they are only semi-random (that's one of the big surprises they found).
And you can see from the numbers that it's not just Mitchell's values that deviate from the expected mean, it's the others as well (he's just more extreme), which also shows we can't expect them all to converge to the mean, there's some more complex statistical process going on.
His deviations being more extreme might be explained by him playing more games, or it might be cheating. So far we can't tell.
And you can see from the numbers that it's not just Mitchell's values that deviate from the expected mean, it's the others as well (he's just more extreme), which also shows we can't expect them all to converge to the mean, there's some more complex statistical process going on.
His deviations being more extreme might be explained by him playing more games, or it might be cheating. So far we can't tell.
Exactly. If a game has an element of chance, then a player's top scores will tend to be top scores in part because of luck helping there (same reason as why regression toward the mean [1] exists).
In such a game if each player can choose how many times they play then they can gain an advantage simply by playing more. And their top games will look more and more statistically unlikely. That can be especially surprising if they only report those top games, which is the case here.
What would be interesting to compute is how many more games does a player need to be playing in order to reasonably get the results in the article. If it's 2x, it's not proof of cheating. But if it's 1,000x then maybe it is, because who has that much free time?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean
In such a game if each player can choose how many times they play then they can gain an advantage simply by playing more. And their top games will look more and more statistically unlikely. That can be especially surprising if they only report those top games, which is the case here.
What would be interesting to compute is how many more games does a player need to be playing in order to reasonably get the results in the article. If it's 2x, it's not proof of cheating. But if it's 1,000x then maybe it is, because who has that much free time?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean
[deleted]
Yet every run still has many thousands of RNG invocations for that particular metric. To be off by a few percent, safe to say that RNG would fail any randomness test.
Are there thousands of smashes per game? (I'm not a Donkey Kong player.)
Yes, the RNG is not perfect, as the article says,
> the points derived from those enemy smashes are assigned semi-randomly
(which apparently solves an old mystery there).
In any case, the numbers for total smashes is 380 for Mitchell and 242-371 for the other players. Percent of score from smashes is 17.7 versus 10.6-14.8. In both cases the large variance among the other players shows that while he's an outlier, we can't expect the numbers to be close to a specific average, this isn't a simple statistical process where we average out thousands of independent variables.
Yes, the RNG is not perfect, as the article says,
> the points derived from those enemy smashes are assigned semi-randomly
(which apparently solves an old mystery there).
In any case, the numbers for total smashes is 380 for Mitchell and 242-371 for the other players. Percent of score from smashes is 17.7 versus 10.6-14.8. In both cases the large variance among the other players shows that while he's an outlier, we can't expect the numbers to be close to a specific average, this isn't a simple statistical process where we average out thousands of independent variables.
That's assuming that the random number generator is truly random, and not a deterministic pseudo-random-number-generator, which will _necessarily_ produce a sequence of numbers that satisfy certain statistical properties, over a long enough run.
It's unlikely, but possible, to roll a 6-sided die 100 times in a row and get 100 6's.
In basically every PRNG algorithm, there is _no_ reachable state which will result in 100 6's in a row.
It's unlikely, but possible, to roll a 6-sided die 100 times in a row and get 100 6's.
In basically every PRNG algorithm, there is _no_ reachable state which will result in 100 6's in a row.
> It's unlikely, but possible, to roll a 6-sided die 100 times in a row and get 100 6's.
It's exactly as unlikely, but possible, to do the same and get the exact sequence: 6 2 2 4 5 4 4 1 4 4 4 3 5 4 2 4 6 2 4 4 1 1 2 4 4 4 6 6 4 6 6 1 1 2 4 4 1 5 1 2 3 6 3 3 3 1 6 4 1 4 1 5 4 2 2 5 6 2 1 6 3 5 3 3 2 6 6 6 3 6 5 5 1 5 4 6 2 6 4 3 2 2 5 1 5 3 3 5 4 5 6 4 1 5 5 6 6 6 6 3
(generated via https://www.random.org/integers/?num=100&min=1&max=6&col=5&b...)
It's exactly as unlikely, but possible, to do the same and get the exact sequence: 6 2 2 4 5 4 4 1 4 4 4 3 5 4 2 4 6 2 4 4 1 1 2 4 4 4 6 6 4 6 6 1 1 2 4 4 1 5 1 2 3 6 3 3 3 1 6 4 1 4 1 5 4 2 2 5 6 2 1 6 3 5 3 3 2 6 6 6 3 6 5 5 1 5 4 6 2 6 4 3 2 2 5 1 5 3 3 5 4 5 6 4 1 5 5 6 6 6 6 3
(generated via https://www.random.org/integers/?num=100&min=1&max=6&col=5&b...)
Are you sure about this? The period of a Mersenne twister is 2^19937 - 1. I'm pretty sure somewhere along that inconceivably large number of states we can find 100 6s in a row.
That's only about 6000 decimal digits long - from a quick visual check the longest run was four sixes in sequence:
http://lcn2.github.io/mersenne-english-name/m19937/prime-c.h...
Expect to get length 1 in a number 10 digits long, 2 in a number 100 digits long (10²), 3 in a number 1000 digits long (10^1000)... So expect to find a run of 100 6s in a random number 10^googol digits long I think.
http://lcn2.github.io/mersenne-english-name/m19937/prime-c.h...
Expect to get length 1 in a number 10 digits long, 2 in a number 100 digits long (10²), 3 in a number 1000 digits long (10^1000)... So expect to find a run of 100 6s in a random number 10^googol digits long I think.
No, the RNG doesn't output successive digits of the prime. That would be period 19937. It's period 2^19937. The random number is 10^6000 digits long.
> 10 digits long[...]100 digits long[...]1000 digits long[...]10^googol digits long I think.
Not 10^googol digits. Googol digits long. Except you don't even need that much, because die rolling is base 6.
> 10 digits long[...]100 digits long[...]1000 digits long[...]10^googol digits long I think.
Not 10^googol digits. Googol digits long. Except you don't even need that much, because die rolling is base 6.
The Dragster Saga is quite an interesting read: https://www.reddit.com/r/speedrun/comments/7tsd89/todd_roger...
I can't tell you how relieved I am that this is finally resolved.
It's not resolved until Walter Day removes Billy's score and admits that he propped him up with some shady officiating.
I saw The King of Kong documentary when it first came out and remember Billy Mitchell was so hateable. There is nothing humble about a man who answers his phone: "World-Record headquarters, how can I help you?":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wef2qDT5j3I
He was caught cheating back then too, if I remember correctly, by sending a video that messed with the score. I am surprised they accept sent-in submissions from anybody in an age where videos are so easily edited, let alone from a notorious cheater.
People like Mitchell will go as far as they can to win regardless of whether or not they deserve it, and I'm interested in hearing what the thoughts are in the industry around dealing with cheaters. I've seen some gamers beat records while on Twitch, which I don't really know anything about first hand but it seems somewhat more legit than a sent-in video, as there are people watching both the player and the game he's playing in real time.
Are there any Twitch features that can tell if a game is really being played live?
Otherwise, are there any obvious moves that should/could be taken to ensure legitimacy in gaming world records?
He was caught cheating back then too, if I remember correctly, by sending a video that messed with the score. I am surprised they accept sent-in submissions from anybody in an age where videos are so easily edited, let alone from a notorious cheater.
People like Mitchell will go as far as they can to win regardless of whether or not they deserve it, and I'm interested in hearing what the thoughts are in the industry around dealing with cheaters. I've seen some gamers beat records while on Twitch, which I don't really know anything about first hand but it seems somewhat more legit than a sent-in video, as there are people watching both the player and the game he's playing in real time.
Are there any Twitch features that can tell if a game is really being played live?
Otherwise, are there any obvious moves that should/could be taken to ensure legitimacy in gaming world records?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o1BBiPeDXM0 here's a player getting caught cheating during a twitch run. He only gets caught because a very experienced runner was also watching at the time, at the end of the day faking is very easy, not sure what can be done about it other than using special locked down computers or something.
Wow, very interesting.
I recognize that name Chibi and I think I've seen him getting picked on in some other videos. He clearly just wants attention, and part of me feels bad for him. Hopefully he's realized by now that cheating is no way to make friends.
I recognize that name Chibi and I think I've seen him getting picked on in some other videos. He clearly just wants attention, and part of me feels bad for him. Hopefully he's realized by now that cheating is no way to make friends.
I was recently playing through Super Metroid on the SNES mini, and I ended up watching a "World Record Progression" video on YouTube. Turns out there's a series of these videos[0] done for a number of games - they're pretty well done, and it's fascinating to hear the level of effort people put in to shaving time off a World Record.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCtUbO6rBht0daVIOGML3c8w/vid...
[0] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCtUbO6rBht0daVIOGML3c8w/vid...
Oh, Super Metroid is such an amazing speedrun. Over the last week's time, Zoast has been setting new WRs at least 3 times and there's still at least 10 seconds to be saved with the current route + optimal RNG.
This is a different doc for a different game, but it is an interesting story about the rise of MLG. It is called Smash and it follows some of the early luminaries of competitive Super Smash Brothers Melee. Highly enjoyable and fairly long.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSf2mgkRm7Q&list=PLoUHkRwnRH...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSf2mgkRm7Q&list=PLoUHkRwnRH...
I knew it! Not really. I suppose it could be said that maybe him placing that (now apparently) artificial line in the sand made others go legitimately further!
This reminds of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borislav_Ivanov
Technically never proven a cheater but the evidence is extremely convincing.
Technically never proven a cheater but the evidence is extremely convincing.
[deleted]
He made good money for several years before the cheating was exposed. A good investment.
In fairness he had lots of runs of DK and Pac-Man that were very good and indisputable cheating-wise.
It's important to remember that most cheaters are actually good at the game they're cheating at. They're just not as good as they want to be, so they cheat. It's too obvious if they're clearly just not good at all -- a new chess player playing like a Grandmaster because he is using some secret radio tech in his shoes is obvious cheating, but a Master or Expert who needs advice from his scheming coach for exactly one game to win a tournament? That's the more common scenario.
Todd Rogers is a genuinely excellent video game player. He's also a blatant cheater.
Todd Rogers is a genuinely excellent video game player. He's also a blatant cheater.
It's quite common for professional video game players to get so consistently good at the games they are playing that getting the top score becomes more about luck than skill.
Sometimes this causes them to think that a game owes them a certain score/time (maybe they they pass all the hard 1 in 20 RNG events and then a stupid 99 in 100 RNG fails them) and occasionally decide to cheat just to get that score/time.
Sometimes this causes them to think that a game owes them a certain score/time (maybe they they pass all the hard 1 in 20 RNG events and then a stupid 99 in 100 RNG fails them) and occasionally decide to cheat just to get that score/time.
The 2007 documentary "The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters" is my favorite movie of all-time, I must have watched it at least 40 times. Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hBs2oFjSWk
For those who haven't seen the film, the contender Steve Wiebe sets a new record live at an arcade tournament in Funspot (NH) but reigning champ Billy Mitchell sends in a VHS tape with an even higher score.
The video gets fuzzy and looks suspicious but Mitchell's toadies in the group immediately accept the score, despite refusing to previously accept a VHS tape from the contender Steve Wiebe.
Since the movie came out both men were left in the dust by new players, but recently the score-keepers slow-mo'ed Billy's tapes and the Donkey Kong levels render the way MAME does them, not the actual arcade hardware. The current No. 2 ranked player (Wes Copeland) is basically corroborating this by running his performance through an app and determining the point ratios are off (e.g., too much from hammers).
Personally I don't think Billy's a bad guy, and the film actually shows him performing selfless acts for others, but if this allegation is true -- and it's hard to argue with the data -- I do think this seriously compromises his integrity and position in classic gaming history.