Barnstorming - Game #1 - 32.04 - What the...?!?!!

[FirebrandX]

I hate to bring in even more controversy, but I worked with Jeff on making a birdless version of Barnstorming. I have since been playing dozens of runs and cannot break 32.70 even with birds disabled. Below is an avi video of a 32.72 birdless run:

 

www.twingalaxies.com/firebrandx/video/nobirds.zip

 

EDIT:

 

I was just barely able to nail a 32.69 with the birdless hack. I've updated the video file with it. There's some restarts in the video.

[RCorcoran]

As I stated previously, the record I have from Todd that is verified on tape is 32.77. This is the score that will be put into the database once I have an opportunity to speak to Todd about everything that has transpired. The 32.50 at CGE last year was performed, but not taped, therefore it cannot stand until reproduced on tape or .avi. Hence, the 32.77 stands (for now).

[RCorcoran]

"While I do not feel that Ron's resolve of the situation was either apologetic with regards to some of his comments nor done with a "smile on his face", it is very fair and just of TG, which is all that is required or could be asked."

 

Thank you Jeff. I merely stated the facts as I had them. I am more than willing to admit a mistake or correct an injustice. I have no ego to bruise... In all things in life, I try to be fair to the best of my ability. Very rarely do I let emotion get in the way. That's not to say I'm not passionate about things, but I try not to let that cloud the issue.

[StanJr]

The only reasons I asked if other people would be able to view the Barnstorming retry at CGE is (1.) According to posts on this site, Todd may or may not be sensitive about revealing his strategy. and (2.) This is a retry and there was a screw-up of some kind with the 32.04, therefore I think it only fair that it be taped or viewed by a large group of objective wtinesses.

 

 

TG has been EXCEPTIONALLY helpful and patient throughout this ENTIRE affair and I would like to thank all the TG guys for all the work they are doing.

 

I don't know what crawled up April's butt. But thank you, Al for re-evaluating the thread and saving me the time to refute her blather.

 

And I hope at some point we do get to hear from Todd about all of this.

[Goochman]

Remember there is no TG without gamers , so the thanks goes out to everyone who's played and submitted a score to us!

 

For those that havent, well, what are you waiting for!

 

I wouldn't start with Barnstorming though

[ren.dhark]

sorry, my english is not perfect, so I had some problems to read all this posts right. But is it so important if this score is real or not?

 

Günther

[Thomas Jentzsch]

I hate to bring in even more controversy, but I worked with Jeff on making a birdless version of Barnstorming.  I have since been playing dozens of runs and cannot break 32.70 even with birds disabled. Below is an avi video of a 32.72 birdless run:

Maybe we just should wait until CGE, where Todd probably will show his trick again.

According to this post...

One last comment from my peanut gallery  

 

When you hear of Todds 'strategy' you will kick yourself not having thought of it before (I know I did when he showed me)!

...there is some 'strategy' (or trick) we don't know yet.

 

I can only conlude that there's some sort of prototype cart with different timing that was played to get the record of 32.50. Obviously, this is not fair to the rest of us and warrents even more investigation. We need to solve what's going on here once and for all.

If Goochman's post above is true (and why should he lie?), then nothing is unfair. IMO it would be unfair, to accuse somebody of being unfair based on conclusions that might be true or not.

 

And if Todd played a 32.50 game in front of three witnesses (including Ron) last year, then IMO there is no reason to disbelieve them.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

But is it so important if this score is real or not?

If it wouldn't be important for some people, then TG wouldn't exist at all.

 

I think, it's fun to compete with players all over the world based on reliable scores. And without TG that wouldn't be possible.

[FirebrandX]

I'm not saying I don't believe them. What I am saying is that there has to be some timing issue involved here. Be it a different rom version or some other unexplained phenomenon.

 

A "trick" is not going to make the game go faster than full throttle in a straight line. If it did, TG would not allow such a trick as it would be considered a glitch.

 

Also, the people watching the live demonstration aren't going be able to remember how many fence-posts there were, how many pixels the plane traveled in one second, etc. That's the problem with tracking public performances. The run only happens once, so nobody can go back to analyze what happened. For example: What if the game placed the barn 1 fence post early? Nobody is going to even notice that unless they were counting them during the live run. With video, we can know for certain whether or not the run was complete and glitch-free.

[StanJr]

 

And if Todd played a 32.50 game in front of three witnesses (including Ron) last year, then IMO there is no reason to disbelieve them.

 

To some degree I agree, but it could not and would not hurt to have a physical record of some kind, those 3 guys won't live forever you know (I don't think).

[Pitfall Harry]

As I stated previously, the record I have from Todd that is verified on tape is 32.77.  This is the score that will be put into the database once I have an opportunity to speak to Todd about everything that has transpired.  The 32.50 at CGE last year was performed, but not taped, therefore it cannot stand until reproduced on tape or .avi.  Hence, the 32.77 stands (for now).  

 

I don't get this decision. Not at all. Why would you not permit the 32.50 time to stand in the recordbooks just because it was not taped? According to your account, the 32.50 time was performed before a live audience of 40 or more, which included three qualified TG judges. How much more proof could you possibly want!

 

A videotape of a record-breaking videogame score is compelling evidence of accomplishment, but it is not foolproof. I would take the word of live witnesses over a player's contributed videotaping any day. A video tape does not answer any of the following questions...

 

WAS THE CONSOLE MODIFIED? - A player obsessed with getting his name in the recordbooks may have modified his console to slow it down, allowing him to play a game at a slightly slower speed than the rest of the world plays it. In games where reaction time is critical to high scoring, such a modification would give the player an unfair advantage.

 

WAS THE GAME CARTRIDGE MODIFIED? - Although a normal-looking Barnstorming cartridge may be quite visible and identifiable on a videotape, who's to say that the ROM card inside it has not been replaced by an EPROM board containing an imperceptibly tweaked version of the game? It's not impossible to hack the original .BIN file and disable or reduce the duty cycle of time penalty subroutines in order to shave the hundredths of a second off your time needed to achieve a new world record.

 

WAS THE GAME SETUP LEGITIMATE? - Although a normal-looking 2600 console and cartridge may be what's seen on the videotape, who's to say that's what is actually playing the game? It could be that the joystick bypasses the pictured console and feeds into an emulator, not seen on the tape, but which has been set up with parameters that give the player an unfair advantage. Maybe the emu has a bug in it that the player realized could be used to shave a few hundredths of a second off his scores.

 

WAS THE GAME PLAYER PICTURED ACTUALLY PLAYING THE GAME? - Or was he only going through the motions when, in fact, the game was being controlled by some other input mechanism? For a game as simple as Barnstorming, where precision of joystick motion is what it's all about, a clever programmer could write a program which PLAY S Barnstorming optimally. It would be a matter of writing UP, DOWN, LEFT and RIGHT codes, executing them at programmed time intervals, synchronizing the signals to the "real" Barnstorming game and feeding them into the 2600 console's game port. THe videotape could show the player's hands thrashing madly at the joystick, but the real action is performed with machine precision by on off-camera computer program.

 

Now, I am not making accusations at anyone by any of the questions I have raised. I'm not suggesting that anyone has cheated, nor am I drawing the integrity of anyone in particular into question. I couldn't care less who owns what World Record. My point is: Video tape is NOT better than live witnesses when it comes to authenticating a world record. Live witnesses are vastly more observant, more intelligent and better equipped at confirming reality than the lens of a videogame player with an obvious self-bias. Live witnesses absorb the entire picture, not just the selected window of reality submitted on tape by a game player (and I don't mean anyone in particular) who may stop at nothing to own a World Record.

 

If 40 live witnesses say that Todd Rogers did 32.50, that's good enough for me. Especially if the 40 included three official TG judges. If it's not good enough for you, if you guys can't trust what you see with your own eyes at a live demonstaration... what good are you? "It don't count if it's not on tape" is tantamount to saying you don't trust your own observations or your abilities to get the facts straight unless they are taped. You are implying your belief that videotape IS superior to your own observations.

 

Do you videotape yourselves when you enter high scores into your database or when you write them into text editors when you create your TG pages for publication? How can we be SURE you got it right? If you had the confidence to say, "Because we are competent enough at what we do, we trust our own abilities," that would be proof enough for me. If you were to boldly state, "32.50 is the world record because WE witnessed it," I would accept that over a videotape 'proof' any day. A statement like that would tell me you do trust your own selves as credible witnesses, and that a TG Referee is someone who can think and stand on his feet at the same time... including the time it takes him to walk from a live demonstration (or from his VCR) over to his computer and enter the record straight in the database, without having a camera trained on him.

 

 

Ben

[FirebrandX]

Pitfall Harry,

 

Please read my post above for why live demonstrations are not good enough proof. Read the last paragraph for some points that cannot be denied.

[RCorcoran]

 

And if Todd played a 32.50 game in front of three witnesses (including Ron) last year, then IMO there is no reason to disbelieve them.

 

To some degree I agree, but it could not and would not hurt to have a physical record of some kind, those 3 guys won't live forever you know (I don't think).

 

Wait a minute! You mean I CAN'T live forever?! Damn! I was hoping to play Atari games well past the time the sun explodes...

[RCorcoran]

I don't get this decision. Not at all.  Why would you not permit the 32.50 time to stand in the recordbooks just because it was not taped?  According to your account, the 32.50 time was performed before a live audience of 40 or more, which included three qualified TG judges.  How much more proof could you possibly want!

 

Well, there are those who feel that, qualified or not, the word of a TG official is not sufficient evidence. Therefore, I will not allow the 32.50. Reason, simple... I'm tired of this and want to move on to the next controversy...

 

A videotape of a record-breaking videogame score is compelling evidence of accomplishment, but it is not foolproof.  I would take the word of live witnesses over a player's contributed videotaping any day.   A video tape does not answer any of the following questions...

 

 WAS THE CONSOLE MODIFIED? - A player obsessed with getting his name in the recordbooks may have modified his console to slow it down, allowing him to play a game at a slightly slower speed than the rest of the world plays it.  In games where reaction time is critical to high scoring, such a modification would give the player an unfair advantage.

 

 WAS THE GAME CARTRIDGE MODIFIED? - Although a normal-looking Barnstorming cartridge may be quite visible and identifiable on a videotape, who's to say that the ROM card inside it has not been replaced by an EPROM board containing an imperceptibly tweaked version of the game? It's not impossible to hack the original .BIN file and disable or reduce the duty cycle of time penalty subroutines in order to shave the hundredths of a second off your time needed to achieve a new world record.

 

  WAS THE GAME SETUP LEGITIMATE? - Although a normal-looking 2600 console and cartridge may be what's seen on the videotape, who's to say that's what is actually playing the game?  It could be that the joystick bypasses the pictured console and feeds into an emulator, not seen on the tape, but which has been set up with parameters that give the player an unfair advantage.  Maybe the emu has a bug in it that the player realized could be used to shave a few hundredths of a second off his scores.

 

WAS THE GAME PLAYER PICTURED ACTUALLY PLAYING THE GAME? - Or was he only going through the motions when, in fact, the game was being controlled by some other input mechanism?  For a game as simple as Barnstorming, where precision of joystick motion is what it's all about, a clever programmer could write a program which PLAY S Barnstorming optimally.  It would be a matter of writing UP, DOWN, LEFT and RIGHT codes, executing them at programmed time intervals,  synchronizing the signals to the "real" Barnstorming game and feeding them into the 2600 console's game port.  THe videotape could show the player's hands thrashing madly at the joystick, but the real action is performed with machine precision by on off-camera computer program.

 

Very interesting points... I may have to pay *special* attention if you submit scores.

 

Now,  I am not making accusations at anyone by any of the questions I have raised.  I'm not suggesting that anyone has cheated, nor am I drawing the integrity of anyone in particular into question. I couldn't care less who owns what World Record.  My point is: Video tape is NOT better than live witnesses when it comes to authenticating a world record. Live witnesses are vastly more observant, more intelligent and better equipped at confirming reality than the lens of a videogame player with an obvious self-bias.  Live witnesses absorb the entire picture, not just the selected window of reality submitted on tape by a game player (and I don't mean anyone in particular) who may stop at nothing to own a World Record.

 

If 40 live witnesses say that Todd Rogers did 32.50, that's good enough for me.  Especially if the 40 included three official TG judges.  If it's not good enough for you, if you guys can't trust what you see with your own eyes at a live demonstaration... what good are you?  "It don't count if it's not on tape" is tantamount to saying you don't trust your own observations or your abilities to get the facts straight unless they are taped. You are implying your belief that videotape IS superior to your own observations.

 

I don't think I could have stated that any more eloquently...

 

Do you videotape yourselves when you enter high scores into your database or when you write them into text editors when you create your TG pages for publication? How can we be SURE you got it right?  If you had the confidence to say, "Because we are competent enough at what we do, we trust our own abilities," that would be proof enough for me.  If you were to boldly state, "32.50 is the world record because WE witnessed it," I would accept that over a videotape 'proof' any day.  A statement like that would tell me you do trust your own selves as credible witnesses, and that a TG Referee is someone who can think and stand on his feet at the same time... including the time it takes him to walk from a live demonstration (or from his VCR) over to his computer and enter the record straight in the database, without having a camera trained on him.  

 

Ben

 

What all this boils down to is really quite simple. Billy Mitchell made the statement that ALL games must be videotaped to be considered real. While that statement does have some merit in certain circumstances, I do not subscribe to it 100%. For the past 3 years I have run live events at CGE, with hundreds of players on many different platforms (and coin-ops). Neither I or TG can afford to videotape each and every performance. There simply isn't enough time or money to do this at these types of events. Walter has run live events across North America for over 20 years, and has rarely videotaped those events. He captures the scores manually that are witnessed by himself and TG refs. Should we now invalidate all scores in the dBase or book that have no videotape evidence? If so, that would remove roughly 99% of what Walter and many others have worked for over the past 20 years.

 

Just my $0.02

[liveinabin]

Wow. I haven't really been keeping up with this thread but Man! Todds scores are great, though that's to be expected with the amount of time he spends gaming. But 5:51 on Dragster!! Holy crap! That's 0.2 seconds faster than mine and I was on top of my game!!

But then I have only played it for a total of..oooh..about 6 hours ever so I don't feel threatened by the big scorers:)

[Pitfall Harry]

Pitfall Harry,

 

Please read my post above for why live demonstrations are not good enough proof. Read the last paragraph for some points that cannot be denied.

 

Right. Okay, I read it. I see that glitch detection is an issue, and that it is something that may only show up only on slow motion review of a videotape. I don't disagree with any of the points you raised. Nevertheless, a videotape recording of a 'world record' by itself can be faked in all the ways which I stated in my previous post. If a referee is not there to witness the videotape as it is made, there are more ways to cheat than I've listed, and the ways to cheat will continue to grow right along with technology.

 

So, now what... Does TG polyannishly accept the fact that all submitted videotapes are honest... and that technical "glitches" in all videogames always occur only and exactly in lockstep with a video recorder's frame rate?

 

Or have you raised the bar? Does establishing a new World Record require a videotaping AND a TG referee present to witness the setup and live gameplay? Wouldn't such a stipulation alienate a monsterously huge sector of videogame players who do not have the means to fly around the country to attend live events for a shot at a World Record? Are TG sanctioned world records only for adults with travel money, or do you guys make housecalls? What about players who can lay down blistering scores at home (and honestly videotape them) but cannot do so under the glaring spotlight of a publicly attended videogame exhibition? Maybe TG has established an authentication environment so hostile to the typical videogame player that a TG World Record reflects the achievements of only the 1/2 % of players who are either willing or able to subject themselves to the authentication requirements?

 

 

Ben

[Pitfall Harry]

Very interesting points...  I may have to pay *special* attention if you submit scores.  

 

Gee, thanks!

 

What all this boils down to is really quite simple.  Billy Mitchell made the statement that ALL games must be videotaped to be considered real.  While that statement does have some merit in certain circumstances, I do not subscribe to it 100%.  For the past 3 years I have run live events at CGE, with hundreds of players on many different platforms (and coin-ops).  Neither I or TG can afford to videotape each and every performance.  There simply isn't enough time or money to do this at these types of events.  Walter has run live events across North America for over 20 years, and has rarely videotaped those events.  He captures the scores manually that are witnessed by himself and TG refs.  Should we now invalidate all scores in the dBase or book that have no videotape evidence?  If so, that would remove roughly 99% of what Walter and many others have worked for over the past 20 years.

 

Just my $0.02

 

 

So then... sometimes you go by just the refs witnessed accounts and sometimes you require more. It's your database, your call. I just think the lack of consistency is somewhat unsettling. If you're currently accepting World records at CGE events for which you have the resources to witness but not the resources to tape, why then would you toss out Todd Rogers 32.50 on the basis that it was witnessed but not taped? How is this circumstance any different from what you do today?

 

I am not suggesting you throw out 99% of the old records which were not taped. Like I said, I would like to believe you guys are credible witnesses. I say, keep 'em! Again, it's your call.

 

 

Ben

[FirebrandX]

I'll have to be the one that counter-points this:

 

 

According to your account' date=' the 32.50 time was performed before a live audience of 40 or more, which included three qualified TG judges. How much more proof could you possibly want! [/quote']

 

The fact that this run can only be seen once. Once it happens, that's it. We all have to rely on what people remember. Like I said before, can ANY of those witnesses tell me how many fence posts were seen in the game, or how many pixels the plane traveled in one second? Nope (at least not honestly).

 

A videotape of a record-breaking videogame score is compelling evidence of accomplishment' date=' but it is not foolproof. I would take the word of live witnesses over a player's contributed videotaping any day. [/quote']

 

First, a video tape is much more foolproof than witnesses that only see the run once. For the vary same conditions that you put on faking a video, many of them also apply to live demonstrations. For example, what if the cartidge was altered to run imperceptively slower? The witnesses might not notice this right off, but if they had a video to compare and analyze... You get the point.

 

 

 

 

WAS THE CONSOLE MODIFIED? - A player obsessed with getting his name in the recordbooks may have modified his console to slow it down' date=' allowing him to play a game at a slightly slower speed than the rest of the world plays it. In games where reaction time is critical to high scoring, such a modification would give the player an unfair advantage.

[/quote']

 

This is EXACTLY why video is BETTER than witnesses! As I said above, what if the witnesses didn't notice the slowdown? With a video, you get to scrutinize the speed of gameplay over and over to be absolutely sure. With witnesses, you have to hope they have a mind like "Data" on Star Trek.

 

 

WAS THE GAME CARTRIDGE MODIFIED? - Although a normal-looking Barnstorming cartridge may be quite visible and identifiable on a videotape' date=' who's to say that the ROM card inside it has not been replaced by an EPROM board containing an imperceptibly tweaked version of the game? It's not impossible to hack the original .BIN file and disable or reduce the duty cycle of time penalty subroutines in order to shave the hundredths of a second off your time needed to achieve a new world record.

[/quote']

 

 

Again this can also be done on live demonstration with even better results. All you have to do is get away with it once on live play. With video, you have to constantly hope it passes inspection on every viewing.

 

 

 

WAS THE GAME SETUP LEGITIMATE? - Although a normal-looking 2600 console and cartridge may be what's seen on the videotape' date=' who's to say that's what is actually playing the game? It could be that the joystick bypasses the pictured console and feeds into an emulator, not seen on the tape, but which has been set up with parameters that give the player an unfair advantage. Maybe the emu has a bug in it that the player realized could be used to shave a few hundredths of a second off his scores.

[/quote']

 

I'd agree with you only on the subject using emus for gaining an unfair advantage. However, Ron himself already accepts emu submissions on avi or video. This means he would be able to (again) compare time results for himself over and over again if he wanted. That's the beauty of video, you get more than just one chance to watch it for sneaky stuff. As for getting an advantage by hacking the rom, I don't know of anyone who has gotten away with this on our records. With video, we can always go and check, unlike a one-time event.

 

 

 

 

WAS THE GAME PLAYER PICTURED ACTUALLY PLAYING THE GAME? - Or was he only going through the motions when' date=' in fact, the game was being controlled by some other input mechanism? For a game as simple as Barnstorming, where precision of joystick motion is what it's all about, a clever programmer could write a program which PLAY S Barnstorming optimally. It would be a matter of writing UP, DOWN, LEFT and RIGHT codes, executing them at programmed time intervals, synchronizing the signals to the "real" Barnstorming game and feeding them into the 2600 console's game port. THe videotape could show the player's hands thrashing madly at the joystick, but the real action is performed with machine precision by on off-camera computer program.

[/quote']

 

While it's quite possible to make such a device to "control" the game, this obviously hasn't happened yet, otherwise someone would have beaten most of Todd's Atari records using said device. Such a person would be closely scrutinized and would eventually be asked for a live performance. THIS is where live perfomances become useful, but not as a means for original verification.

 

 

Now' date=' I am not making accusations at anyone by any of the questions I have raised. I'm not suggesting that anyone has cheated, nor am I drawing the integrity of anyone in particular into question. I couldn't care less who owns what World Record. My point is: Video tape is NOT better than live witnesses when it comes to authenticating a world record. Live witnesses are vastly more observant, more intelligent and better equipped at confirming reality than the lens of a videogame player with an obvious self-bias. [/quote']

 

That is absolutely ridiculous. Witnesses are far more biased than a video camera, which has been show time and again on the news. Do you think top news would have been gained from a witness who claimed to see cops beating a suspect? With video, it cannot be denied that they did. There's your "biased" view of the lense... Witnesses being "vastly more observant" only get one shot at it. With video you get unlimited shots at it. That to me is "vastly more observant" than a one-time witness. My point is: Video tape IS better than live witnesses.

 

 

Live witnesses absorb the entire picture' date=' not just the selected window of reality submitted on tape by a game player (and I don't mean anyone in particular) who may stop at nothing to own a World Record.[/quote']

 

Again that is absolutely ridiculous. People have been in scientific studies that they actually absorb much less than you think. They will be focused on one thing in their mind and that's it. With video, you can freely change your focus as much as you want. Specifically in dealing with number of pixels, timing issues, speed versus distance, etc. Only "Data" from Star Trek could do that as a witness.

 

 

If 40 live witnesses say that Todd Rogers did 32.50' date=' that's good enough for me. [i']Especially[/i] if the 40 included three official TG judges. If it's not good enough for you, if you guys can't trust what you see with your own eyes at a live demonstaration... what good are you?

 

We're PEOPLE who can make mistakes. Why risk so much on a one-time shot? What if they missed something for God's sake??

 

 

"It don't count if it's not on tape" is tantamount to saying you don't trust your own observations or your abilities to get the facts straight unless they are taped. You are implying your belief that videotape IS superior to your own observations.

 

WAY off base. Video is to STRENGTHEN your own ability to observe things. Haven't you ever seen detective movies where they watch a video over and over until they catch something? Can't do that with a witness. It's been proven that witnesses' memories of the events actually get worse over time.

 

 

Do you videotape yourselves when you enter high scores into your database or when you write them into text editors when you create your TG pages for publication? How can we be SURE you got it right?

 

This very thread is one example how we can make sure. Nuff said on that.

 

 

 

If you had the confidence to say' date=' "Because we are competent enough at what we do, we trust our own abilities," that would be proof enough for me. If you were to boldly state, "32.50 is the world record because WE witnessed it," I would accept that over a videotape 'proof' any day. [/quote']

 

In that case, I've got this lovely bridge I'd like to sell you because I'm going to "boldy state" my ownership of it. You're just begging to get ripped off if you take people's words over video proof.

 

 

A statement like that would tell me you do trust your own selves as credible witnesses' date=' and that a TG Referee is someone who can think and stand on his feet at the same time... including the time it takes him to walk from a live demonstration (or from his VCR) over to his computer and enter the record straight in the database, without having a camera trained on him.

 

Ben[/quote']

 

 

That tries to skate past the real issue as to whether or not something might have been missed. They would not have an opportunity to double-check the run. It already happened and is gone for good without video to back it up.

 

I think what you're missing here is that video should be used to help CONFIRM a record. To decide not to use it based on your views is only going to make things worse instead of better. They didn't have video proof of the 32.04 and look what happened as a result. That's why I'll take video over someone's memory ANY day...

[RCorcoran]

Hi,

 

I am the web designer for Todd's Beat The Champ Site, after reading these 5 pages of posts, I felt it was time to step in and say a few words. Please feel free to visit his site @ http://www.beatthechamp.com  click on the AtariAge link on the first page.  

 

Thanks and I hope you check out my comments on the site.

 

April  

 

April:

 

Can you put the link back on Todd's front page? Or am I just blind? I would like to see what was written as we had a 5.5 hr. power outtage last night...

[Lemmi]

http://www.beatthechamp.com/

 

the link is just under the View and Sign my Guestbook

[Goochman]

To deny the conspircy theorists any fuel I can personally vouch that last year Todd played most of his games on my 2600jr I brought and the Barnstorming cart was someon elses (not Rons, Todds or mine) We had people coming up all the time dropping off carts to play

 

In fact it was Todd Rogers Dragster cart that I beat him on - Ok, it was like 150 races Todd won and 1 I won, but I dont remember the previous races

 

Todd has a strategy to the game and not a 'trick' mentioned above. It is funny though once you see it - Then again, he also had a track through the birds I've never seen before which provided for less movement - something Ive never seen other players do.

[Pitfall Harry]

I'll have to be the one that counter-points this:

 

The fact that this run can only be seen once. Once it happens, that's it. We all have to rely on what people remember. Like I said before, can ANY of those witnesses tell me how many fence posts were seen in the game, or how many pixels the plane traveled in one second? Nope (at least not honestly).

 

 

For the record, I made my previous post before I read your post about fence post counting and the importance you place on scrutinizing videotape for glitches.

 

First, a video tape is much more foolproof than witnesses that only see the run once. For the vary same conditions that you put on faking a video, many of them also apply to live demonstrations. For example, what if the cartidge was altered to run imperceptively slower? The witnesses might not notice this right off, but if they had a video to compare and analyze... You get the point.

 

If a cartridge were altered to run slower, the perpetrator would undobtedly be savvy enough to slow down his recording equipment to make detection of the slowdown impossible, no matter how many times or how carefully you reviewed the tape. Why only slow down a fast-action game 'imperciptibly' when you can slow it down by a factor of 16, so long as no one is there live to watch you play it? As long as you slow your recording equipment down by the same factor, a game you play in 16 minutes can appear to play in a normal 1 minute timeframe on tape.

 

But if a qualified observer SAW someone play a significantly slowed down game... You get the point.

 

 

 WAS THE CONSOLE MODIFIED? - A player obsessed with getting his name in the recordbooks may have modified his console to slow it down, allowing him to play a game at a slightly slower speed than the rest of the world plays it.  In games where reaction time is critical to high scoring, such a modification would give the player an unfair advantage.

 

This is EXACTLY why video is BETTER than witnesses! As I said above, what if the witnesses didn't notice the slowdown? With a video, you get to scrutinize the speed of gameplay over and over to be absolutely sure. With witnesses, you have to hope they have a mind like "Data" on Star Trek.

 

You may have a point here. Then again, a carefully edited videotape can mask a slowed console in much the same way it can mask a slowed down game ROM. If a qualified observer is not there to SEE the deception in real time, he can be duped by videotape in an absolutely foolproof manner.

 

 

 WAS THE GAME CARTRIDGE MODIFIED? - Although a normal-looking Barnstorming cartridge may be quite visible and identifiable on a videotape, who's to say that the ROM card inside it has not been replaced by an EPROM board containing an imperceptibly tweaked version of the game? It's not impossible to hack the original .BIN file and disable or reduce the duty cycle of time penalty subroutines in order to shave the hundredths of a second off your time needed to achieve a new world record.

 

 

Again this can also be done on live demonstration with even better results. All you have to do is get away with it once on live play. With video, you have to constantly hope it passes inspection on every viewing.

 

I agree with you totally on this point. But I think this issue may best be resolved by having TG supply the game console, cartridge and all necessary game accessories when players attempt to establish world records at live demonstration. Or maybe by dumping the game ROM (if that's possible) to compare it to known legitimate code.

 

 

I'd agree with you only on the subject using emus for gaining an unfair advantage. However, Ron himself already accepts emu submissions on avi or video. This means he would be able to (again) compare time results for himself over and over again if he wanted. That's the beauty of video, you get more than just one chance to watch it for sneaky stuff. As for getting an advantage by hacking the rom, I don't know of anyone who has gotten away with this on our records. With video, we can always go and check, unlike a one-time event.

 

With video, you can only see what's been recorded. You can't see the cables running under the carpet from the console to blackbox equipment that speeds or slows the game if the director does not grant you that view.

Tapes can be edited. AVI's can be edited. You CAN be duped, no matter how many times you watch only that which the illusionist permits you to see.

 

 

While it's quite possible to make such a device to "control" the game, this obviously hasn't happened yet, otherwise someone would have beaten most of Todd's Atari records using said device. Such a person would be closely scrutinized and would eventually be asked for a live performance. THIS is where live perfomances become useful, but not as a means for original verification.

 

...Unless he were only interested in getting his name on the books once. Setting multiple records would obviously make someone suspect and open him to scrutiny. History is littered with evil masterminds who are driven to commit the Perfect Crime, sometimes soley for the sheer thrill of seeing whether they can beat the system.

 

Now,  I am not making accusations at anyone by any of the questions I have raised.  I'm not suggesting that anyone has cheated, nor am I drawing the integrity of anyone in particular into question. I couldn't care less who owns what World Record.  My point is: Video tape is NOT better than live witnesses when it comes to authenticating a world record. Live witnesses are vastly more observant, more intelligent and better equipped at confirming reality than the lens of a videogame player with an obvious self-bias.

 

That is absolutely ridiculous. Witnesses are far more biased than a video camera, which has been show time and again on the news. Do you think top news would have been gained from a witness who claimed to see cops beating a suspect? With video, it cannot be denied that they did. There's your "biased" view of the lense... Witnesses being "vastly more observant" only get one shot at it. With video you get unlimited shots at it. That to me is "vastly more observant" than a one-time witness. My point is: Video tape IS better than live witnesses.

 

I wouldn't go so far as to say my assertion was 'ridiculous.' However, I will admit that it was flawed for the circumstance you've stated. I was considering only scenarios in which the entire picture was not being shown on tape. A live witness at least has a chance of seeing blackbox equipment if he is present for the game play. He has no chance at all of seeing it if all he has to examine is a carefully framed videotape. A live witness has a better chance of noticing equipment which has been tampered with, or whether a gamer is playing Barnstorming 16 times slower than he's used to seeing it played. It's what I meant when I said...

 

Live witnesses absorb the entire picture, not just the selected window of reality submitted on tape by a game player (and I don't mean anyone in particular) who may stop at nothing to own a World Record.

 

Again that is absolutely ridiculous. People have been in scientific studies that they actually absorb much less than you think. They will be focused on one thing in their mind and that's it. With video, you can freely change your focus as much as you want. Specifically in dealing with number of pixels, timing issues, speed versus distance, etc. Only "Data" from Star Trek could do that as a witness.

 

I don't dispute your statements one iota... except, maybe your conviction that my statements are ridiculous. There are classes of deception which witnesses are much better equipped to expose if they are present to see the "whole picture." That's my whole point. I wasn't aware that "program glitch detection" in otherwise honestly played games was such a high priority to TG's authentication when I made my previous post.

 

 

If 40 live witnesses say that Todd Rogers did 32.50, that's good enough for me.  Especially if the 40 included three official TG judges.  If it's not good enough for you, if you guys can't trust what you see with your own eyes at a live demonstaration... what good are you?  

 

We're PEOPLE who can make mistakes. Why risk so much on a one-time shot? What if they missed something for God's sake??

 

I thought Todd Rogers' reputation spoke for itself. Why would you have cause to suspect him of cheating? What could you possibly MISS if all 40 of you saw him play the game live? If you guys said you saw him play it, that's good enough for me. Ooops. I forgot that "glitch detection" was so high a priority. If the game glitches periodically... why not accept the fact that it does and honor the record anyway? After all, the game will glitch with the same frequency and in the same manner for him as it will for everybody else.

 

 

"It don't count if it's not on tape" is tantamount to saying you don't trust your own observations or your abilities to get the facts straight unless they are taped. You are implying your belief that videotape IS superior to your own observations.

 

WAY off base. Video is to STRENGTHEN your own ability to observe things. Haven't you ever seen detective movies where they watch a video over and over until they catch something? Can't do that with a witness. It's been proven that witnesses' memories of the events actually get worse over time.

 

It's not as off base as you say it is. It all depends on what you're looking for... your personal lens on the reality of the event, if you will.

 

What is NOT on the tape is where the deception may lie. And if all you have is a craftily mastered tape, you will never get the chance to slap your fist on the desk like your favorite TV detective and say, "Gotcha!"

 

I think what you're missing here is that video should be used to help CONFIRM a record.

 

That is what I am missing. I really didn't know how TG operated, which is why I posed my questions. After reading Ron's response, I'm even less clear on it. By saying that video tape is used to "help CONFIRM a record," is that to say that you require both a tape AND a live witness? If that is the case, then a videotape is unquestionably a valuable tool. But tape alone is not always the best tool at exposing willful techno-deception. That was my whole point.

 

 

To decide not to use it based on your views is only going to make things worse instead of better.  They didn't have video proof of the 32.04 and look what happened as a result. That's why I'll take video over someone's memory ANY day...

 

Yeah. That would be RIDICULOUS. Good thing I never said it.

 

Ben

[RCorcoran]

http://www.beatthechamp.com/

 

the link is just under the View and Sign my Guestbook

 

Yep, a clear case of momentary blindness...

 

Thanks Lemmi

[StanJr]

Both have obvious and overstated advantages and disadvantages. It would be ideal if BOTH could be provided, video tape of the live event WITH witnesses. I wouldn't think this would be too much to ask for really incredible records like some of Todd's. The combination gives you a DEFINITE body of evidence for the record. The video will stand the test of time, and the witnesses will cement the validity of the tape.

 

If somebody scores 1 million on Ms. Pac-man, I say "yeah I can imagine that." If somebody scores 500 million on Ms. Pac-man, I wanna see the tape (all 80 hours of it).

[Thomas Jentzsch]

I think, we shouldn't make it to complicated to send in records. Like it was stated above, if you really want, you can fake everything. Nothing is 100% bulled proof. Not the videotape idea, not the witnesses and not even both together.

 

Who should take the time to analyze every videotape send in down to every frame?

In the end, somebody could stand up and say the referees where paid by the player (or hypnotized ).

 

IMO, there is something much more important than evidence: Faith!

 

Nobody has accused Todd for cheating, because everybody believes him. Why? Because we have no reason to do not so and he has prooved his abilities over and over.

 

If anybody tries to cheat, he will sooner or later be discovered. I'm 100% sure of this, even if it takes 100 years.