Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Classic Games (Games) Movies Games

Steve Wiebe is the King of Kong Again 127

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the cue-the-queen dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Steve Wiebe is the King of Kong Again

Comments Filter:
  • Worth watching (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Abstrackt (609015) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @12:16PM (#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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rotide (1015173) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @12:19PM (#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 (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @12:26PM (#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 (Score:5, Informative)

        by Schnapple (262314) <tomkidd@nosPAM.viatexas.com> on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @01:01PM (#33652294) Homepage

        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?

      • by city (1189205) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @01:24PM (#33652636)
        Editing out context or timelines can be done. Editing in that amount of douchery can not.
        • Re:Worth watching (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Tanktalus (794810) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @01:26PM (#33652680) Journal

          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.

          • by Joe Tie. (567096) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @02:31PM (#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.
      • by mpfife (655916) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @02:13PM (#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?

    • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @12:28PM (#33651866) Journal

      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.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @12:36PM (#33652002)

        Ok Billy.

      • by s-whs (959229) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @02:25PM (#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

      • by dunsel (559042) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @02:26PM (#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.
      • by meehawl (73285) <meehawl DOT spam AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @04:27PM (#33655232) Homepage Journal

        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?

      • by fatphil (181876) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @09:33PM (#33657936) Homepage
        Did you miss the "Jedi mind tricks" line?

        Day _admitted_ that he made a mistake, both b reversng it, and later apologetically in writing. No matter how nice and honest he is, perhaps because of that, he's clearly manipulable. And Mitchell is clearly assertive, so could exploit that with things less high tech than real Jedi mind tricks. Day probably trusted Mruczek (or whatever his name was, I'm not familiar with the characters, and simply downloaded the movie for a quick view this evening) too much too. I'd like to hear more about the resignation.
    • Re:Worth watching (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Hatta (162192) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @12:29PM (#33651876) Journal

      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 (Score:4, Interesting)

        by rotide (1015173) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @12:39PM (#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

        • by Malfeis333 (415288) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @02:00PM (#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 (Score:5, Informative)

        by Chad Birch (1222564) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @12:48PM (#33652138)
        Suggested reading: Twin Galaxies' Official Statements about "The King of Kong" [twingalaxies.com]. They probably shouldn't even be allowed to call that movie a "documentary".
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @12:38PM (#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.
  • Is he still married? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by digitalderbs (718388) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @12:24PM (#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.
  • by dzfoo (772245) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @12:25PM (#33651812)

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

          -dZ.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @12:45PM (#33652098)

      what does that even mean?

      • by zero_out (1705074) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @12:58PM (#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.
      • by dzfoo (772245) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @12:59PM (#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.

        • by ArcadeNut (85398) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @01:57PM (#33653122) Homepage

          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.

      • by Hatta (162192) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @01:14PM (#33652492) Journal

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

      • by Myopic (18616) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @02:01PM (#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 (Score:4, Insightful)

    by tenzig_112 (213387) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @12:27PM (#33651848) Homepage

    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.

    • by rotide (1015173) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @12:31PM (#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...

    • by MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @12:34PM (#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 (Score:5, Insightful)

        by zero_out (1705074) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @12:39PM (#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 (Score:3, Insightful)

          by geekoid (135745) <dadinportland AT yahoo DOT com> on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @01:12PM (#33652470) Homepage Journal

          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.

          • by Joe Tie. (567096) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @02:02PM (#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.
          • by Myopic (18616) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @02:05PM (#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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by WankersRevenge (452399) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @12:41PM (#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 (Score:3, Insightful)

        by syousef (465911) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @02:53PM (#33653896) Journal

        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.

        • by WankersRevenge (452399) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @03:35PM (#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'.
           

          • by syousef (465911) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @04:41PM (#33655416) Journal

            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.

        • by pablodiazgutierrez (756813) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @04:01PM (#33654860) Homepage

          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 (Score:3, Insightful)

            by syousef (465911) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @04:45PM (#33655476) Journal

            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.

            • by WankersRevenge (452399) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @06:09PM (#33656238)

              Doing the things you love energizes you to contribute back to the people you love. Just as doing things you hate will ultimately suck energy from the people around you. Have you ever met someone who has joyfully hated their job? If so, those people are probably sacrificing their current happiness for long term gain which is also an important thing to learn.

              Yes, we all have to do things we don't like. That's part of life, but that doesn't mean we have to embody the negativity those activities might create. If you have a chance, I highly suggest you read Men are Mars, and Women are from Venus. You'll get a better sense of this "indulgence" and how it actually improves relationships.

              • by syousef (465911) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @06:21PM (#33656370) Journal

                Doing the things you love energizes you to contribute back to the people you love. Just as doing things you hate will ultimately suck energy from the people around you. Have you ever met someone who has joyfully hated their job?

                For pity sake! Get a clue!! You've got no concept.

                MOST people on this planet who have a job HATE their job. People rarely pay to just have fun and do things they like. Many people without a job envy anyone with even the suckiest job. For most people not having a job sucks way worse.

                I highly suggest you read Men are Mars, and Women are from Venus. You'll get a better sense of this "indulgence" and how it actually improves relationships.

                Do you enjoy being a sheep? Feel good to be part of the herd? Baaaaa!

                I "highly" suggest that anyone who takes such self help drivel to heart is so far detached from reality that it's astounding. All you are doing is making the charismatic idiot that wrote that book richer while induldging in a false sense of euphoria that if it wears off will leave you in a bigger mess than you were in when you thought you needed such a book, and if you don't wake up you're just another brainwashed self help cult member.

                Now go back to watching Oprah you cretin.

            • by honkycat (249849) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @07:43PM (#33657080) Homepage Journal

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

              If you don't want to be accused of trolling, learn how to express yourself without unjustifiable personal attacks and disrespect to the person you're disagreeing with.

              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.

              So because some people don't have access to luxuries, those who do must spend all their leisure time attending to their children and families or they're self-obsessed? You really don't sound like you have enough experience to be excoriating others for their parenting skills.

              • by syousef (465911) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @02:58AM (#33659502) Journal

                If you don't want to be accused of trolling, learn how to express yourself without unjustifiable personal attacks and disrespect to the person you're disagreeing with.

                Do you even realise the irony of calling someone a troll then spouting the above sanctimonious crap. Go look up hypocrisy on dictionary.com

                If the only way you can make ends meet is to work 100hr weeks or walk 6 kilometers to

                So because some people don't have access to luxuries, those who do must spend all their leisure time attending to their children and families or they're self-obsessed?

                Yes, properly raising kids takes up a SIGNIFICANT proportion of your time. Is this a revelation to you? If so I sincerely hope you're not a parent. Guess what though, it's not either or! You can have fun WITH your kids. You might get some pleasure out of spending time WITH them. Otherwise don't fucking become a parent. If you don't enjoy spending time with kids - if it takes away from your "me" time - then don't fucking have them.

                You really don't sound like you have enough experience to be excoriating others for their parenting skills.

                Funny, that's exactly my assessment of you. You're just talking outright crap. As if you're going to burn out and turn into miserable person spending some fun time teaching your kid something or taking care of them.

                If you're a parent, sure have some adult alone "me" fun time occassionally, but a family man's fun IS spending time with the kids.

                I took my son to an airshow on the weekend. He's 2. My daughter's much younger and it wasn't appropriate to take her or she'd have come along as well. Guess what? I had fun. I even took a few THOUSAND photos and still managed to play with my son and point out the planes at a level he can understand. I'm not burning out.

      • by HawaiianToast (618430) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @05:57PM (#33656146)
        Right on. For the GPP to make such a condemnation of the guy so completely out of context is total bullshit. For all we can know those kids will be better off having such a good first-hand demonstration of that kind of dedication and aspiration. Even if it's just a video. They could apply the lessons to whatever ends up peeking their interest.
    • by natehoy (1608657) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @12:42PM (#33652072) Journal

      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.

      • by StingRay02 (640085) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @02:16AM (#33659350)
        I find it hilarious how the post about Billy Mitchell being a douche bag prompted dozens of posts about the editing methods of the film, about how one shouldn't judge a person because of those edits, and how the movie is more fiction than reality. Someone posts that Steve Wiebe is a bad father based on the exact same film, and everyone takes it as rote truth. Love it.
    • by Kenja (541830) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @12:54PM (#33652202)
      Perhaps if parenthood has some sort of scoring system.
    • by DanCentury (110562) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @12:57PM (#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.

  • by dmgxmichael (1219692) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @12:29PM (#33651888) Homepage
    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?
    • by zero_out (1705074) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @12:35PM (#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.
      • by LocalH (28506) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @12:48PM (#33652132) Homepage

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

        • by zero_out (1705074) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @01:02PM (#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.

          • by LocalH (28506) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @01:49PM (#33652990) Homepage

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

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

          • by cgenman (325138) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @03:02PM (#33654016) Homepage

            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.

        • by poly_pusher (1004145) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @02:08PM (#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.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @02:04PM (#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 (Score:5, Informative)

    by zero_out (1705074) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @12:31PM (#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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @12:42PM (#33652068)

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

  • by Pojut (1027544) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @12:42PM (#33652070) Homepage

    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.

  • by CrAlt (3208) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @01:02PM (#33652306) Homepage Journal

    Why not just link to the original story?

    http://www.twingalaxies.com/index.aspx?c=19&id=2264 [twingalaxies.com]

  • by Robotron23 (832528) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @01:12PM (#33652464) Homepage

    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?

    • by klui (457783) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @04:48PM (#33655504)

      I don't know either player.

      When I originally viewed it, I thought it was a documentary. After reading both sides of the issue of it's pretty clear that the film is a docu-drama and not a true documentary. The director edits the film so the story is engaging and if it paints certain individuals in a good or bad light it was for story, pace, and continuity. You have to admit that any good story requires an antagonist as well as protagonist.

      Also realize that the film's producer is friends with Wiebe's friend so it's not like there's an incentive for him to make Steve W. into a villain. It's easy to make Billy to be the bad guy because his enigmatic personality, game skills and recognition at those games causes him to come off as arrogant for those who don't personally know him. If Billy is indeed a nice guy and not a scheming a-hole, the film would have unfairly portrayed him as something he is not under the guise a "documentary."

  • Music (Score:3, Funny)

    by necro81 (917438) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @01:17PM (#33652542) Journal
    Great, now I'll have "In the Hall of the Mountain King" stuck in my head all day.
  • by Flipao (903929) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @01:17PM (#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.
  • by jewishbaconzombies (1861376) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @02:46PM (#33653808)
    I'll take David Lee Roth over Mr. Rogers any day. Douche? Probably. Entertaining? Hell yes!
  • by Picass0 (147474) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @03:08PM (#33654086) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • by hypermode (1900288) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @07:34PM (#33656986)
    The movie may have been biased, sure. But they did not make up what the people said. The sycophants surrounding Billy are the really disturbing ones, especially his little lackey who is constantly talking behind Steve when he is trying to get high score.

Forty two.

Working...