PHASE ONE (G-2) - Score Count Summary

  1. 10-30-2006, 06:54 PM
    I'm confused. Are the unverified Corcoran scores going to be listed under the Emulator or Original Hardware category?
  2. CSly

    10-30-2006, 07:53 PM
    Hello CSly:

    I think that Walter's previous post explains what you need to know.

    Out of personal curiosity on my part, do you have any 2600 submissions ? I don't see you as a user in the admin gamer/people section.

    Just wondering.

  3. Re: CSly

    10-30-2006, 09:23 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by RMRUCZEK
    Hello CSly:

    I think that Walter's previous post explains what you need to know.
    Unfortunately, it doesn't. I understand that the Corcoran scores will be accepted even though the documentation was lost, but what I don't understand is how those scores will be classified if it can't be determined whether they were EMU or NTSC?

    Out of personal curiosity on my part, do you have any 2600 submissions ? I don't see you as a user in the admin gamer/people section.

    Just wondering.
    No. I've haven't submitted any scores to TG because, frankly, I don't agree with many of TG's policies and practices. Listing emulator and original hardware scores together, as equivalent, has been one of my principal concerns and that is why I have taken a keen interest in this project.

    I am an avid VCS gamer. Like everyone here, I want TG to be the best it can be and, some day, I would like to submit my scores to this organization with a belief that it is a legitimate steward of videogame records. If the fact that I have no current scores in the database means my comments and questions in this matter are unwelcome, simply inform me of such and I will take my leave.
  4. Thanks !!

    10-30-2006, 09:48 PM
    Hi CSly:

    No need to leave the forums...I was just curious as to your position in this.

    As for Ron's scores, the fact remains that we cannot obtain with certainity proof of his scores as far as the sub-platform.

    While I do have from available sources Ron's list of original cartridges owned, including multi-carts, I know for a fact that some scores were performed via emulation. For example, his 2600 score on \"Turmoil\". That one I know for a fact is emulation. As for ColecoVision, I am aware that his 1.5M on \"Zaxxon\" (game 1) was last done as emulation unless he had since surpassed. But the full extent of which are versus are not, that I am unsure of.

    Todd and I, with previous input from other sources familiar with Ron during his tenure, identified those titles and performances most likely to have been done with emulator, as well as those that we were certain of. As Walter said, Ron left documentation in disarray, and in some cases it is missing and impossible to re-obtain. That is why Walter mentioned the \"grandfather\" clause which applied to both Ron and other gamers with a load date of 6/11/04 and prior that we could not positively identify.

    You are asking for certainity. Walter was saying we cannot provide that. This is an unenviable position to be in, I admit.

    I could probably give a 100% certainity to maybe 80-90% of his scores...roughly 280-315 of the 350...but a few I could not. Again that is best on his cart list which I was previously forwarded. The problem is, \"256-in-1 multi-cart\" does not tell you what the 256 are. A possibility does in fact exist that he owned, one way or another, but at this point we can never know.

    I am hoping that you do not formulate an overall decision based on what we can offer thus far, however you are free to do so. As it stands, 40-45% of all score submissions by the majority of gamers in terms of headcount have yet to reply to my inquiry asking for personal validations. Some I do not expect will respond as they have been incommunicado for years with TG. Gamers can and do move on for a variety of reasons, some of which may be content to have set their previous marks and that was that. Others lost the drive to game, and then there are those who unfortunately can game no more for one reason or another.

    Either way, I am pleased that thus far most of the gamers with the heaviest submission count have responded. And with both Stephen Knox, Brien King and Rodrigo Lopes still present, they account for 320 more scores (approx 7%) which will mean that I will be able to account for approx 1650 scores for sure, 350 pending (Ron) and 1450 awaiting potential replies from gamers other than Ron, Rodrigo and Stephen. That's the 40-45% that I was referring to.

    Taking a brief look at the list, I also see another 60 rfom Jeff Lowe, 40 from Rudy Ferretti, 40 from Ryan Gavigan, 20 from Shane Monroe and 20 from Steve Krogman that I can most likely obtain confirmation on, leaving 1250 of 3450 as potentially unverifiable assuming that we can go with our allocations for Ron. That's closer to a third of the lot. Not bad for recreating the wheel on 10 years of manually maintained grassroots score keeping from the origin days of TG, in my opinion.

    We will ultimately reach a point in approx a week when the next phase of the project will continue.

    Further commentary is always welcome.

  5. Re: Todd to Respond

    10-31-2006, 03:15 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by RMRUCZEK
    Hi Scott:

    Todd Rogers, in his capacity as worldwide Atari editor/referee for TG, will reply to your concern.

    Walter's previous reply should also be consulted in this matter.

    I spoke with Todd at least a month ago about this issue. He called me (out of courtesy) to let me know you had a question about some of my scores, b/c for some reason you felt some of them were done on an emulator (why I still don't know...). I told him the same thing I just told you - all of them were done on a real system. So needless to say, I was bit surprised to see some of them labeled as emulator scores in your initial post. If all my scores were previously verified (which they were), then there shouldn't have been any question as to what platform they were done on. Had I not been aware of your post, they would have gone into the database as emulator scores. And since you initially labeled them that way, only you can answer why they were (not Todd, and not Walter).
  6. STONIC Scores

    10-31-2006, 04:37 PM

    Todd and I reviewed all of your scores over the phone, and with Todd, the two of us identified and classified the scores as you saw in the initial posting.

    I cannot be responsible if while we went over them I was told one thing while the actual verifications differed. I don't verify your tapes...Todd does. I have to rely on not just the accuracy of his classification online, but also his personal recollection. And I am not going to engage in an accusatory match over who remembers what or who can answer what.

    You already pointed out the mistake on your scores, to which I quickly replied and corrected in the database of scores to be what's your beef now ?

    As for \"some reason why I felt\" that these scores were emulation...all of these considerations were already reviewed, one by one, with Todd. Scores on so-called \"rarity\" titles were singled out and these were in fact double-checked whether they were original or emu. Again, I do not have your scores thus must rely heavily on data input from the assigned referee. And I have to trust that the resultant data I am given is correct.

    I'm not going to beat a dead horse on this. The issue of your scores is resolved. I am now awaiting further confirmation from other players interested in not just the reclass but in affirming that their own scores are correct as is. I cannot just go to their homes and ring a doorbell and do a quality control check...especially players no longer in communication with TG for one reason or another, or those either unwilling or unable to respond.

    Walter already said, and you just quoted me on this, enough regarding this aspect of the re-class project. There are issues with pre-6/11/04 load scores that cannot ever be 100% confirmed. I will not double back or countermand these words. Walter is the CEO of TG and what he says is final and the truth. You have to either accept or reject those words, the choice is entirely up to you and every interested gamer.

    As for classifying scores as \"Unverifiable\" as a potential fifth variation in addition to Orig NTSC, Orig PAL, Orig SECAM and EMU, I do not believe that TG will be engaging in this action. We CAN, however, amend the verification type to \"Unverified\"...that much I can easily do within the scope of the project. Gamers will be able to see then whether the score was one of those problem ones that cannot positively be ID'd. That is the best I can do, but I do not believe we will invest the resources to further fragment the database on account of what Walter says are \"grandfathered\" records.

    You can take this matter up with Walter directly if you wish. He knows the scope of the project well. I am also informing our CTO, Brien King, as Walter's co-Board of Directors member in addition to Walter, who will respond if his schedule permits.

    As for Todd, he said he will not be online again until tomorrow (11/01).

  7. Re: STONIC Scores

    10-31-2006, 05:39 PM
    Well Robert, I see at least one thing hasn't changed since I last hung out on these forums- you still can't give a straightforward answer to a simple question. Here I am, asking for the third time...

    You're right, Todd verified all my scores b/c he has all my tapes. Are you going to tell me he couldn't tell whether or not they were done on a real system? He sure as hell wasn't going to re-label any of them as emulator ones, and he's not the one redoing the database. This is *your* project. Here's what happened- you went down the list of my scores (and everyone else's) and specifically picked out several that you *assumed* were emulator ones, based on... what? You then called Todd to verify those scores you singled out. He called me to confirm your question about them (on Sept 12th to be exact), which I did. 6 weeks later you post them here, still marked as emulator. What was your reasoning for labeling them emulator scores in the first place? What is it about these particular titles?

    Alligator People
    Astro War
    Entity 2003 (btw, the correct name is 'The Entity'. It was released in cart form at CGE 2003...)
    Escape from Supercade (esp this one, since only 1 cart exists and the rom was never released)
    I Want My Mommy

    As I said, I'm not the only person who's scores you did this to. For example, several of David Yancey's scores were re-labeled as emulator ones, even though he's stated on the forums several times (as I did) that he doesn't use emulators for any TG submissions.

    I don't know why you always have to steer my queries into an argument when all I want is a question answered :roll:
  8. Re: STONIC Scores

    10-31-2006, 05:52 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by stonic
    ...specifically picked out several that you *assumed* were emulator ones, based on... what?
    Quote Originally Posted by RMRUCZEK
    Scores on so-called "rarity" titles were singled out...
    Martin Bedard

    Arcade Finder - Find the coin-op games you want to play!
  9. 10-31-2006, 06:15 PM
    Rarity ratings from the Digital Press Guide (1=lowest; 10=highest). All prototypes are rated '10'.

    Alligator People - 10 (Recent cart releases are rated \"1\")
    Astro War - 2
    Entity - 10 (Recent cart releases are rated \"1\")
    Escape from Supercade - 0 (homebrew game, never released)
    I Want My Mommy - 6

    Rarity ratings from Atari Age (1=lowest; 10=highest)

    Alligator People - (no listing - prototype)
    Astro War - (no listing - undetermined)
    Entity - (no listing - prototype)
    Escape from Supercade - (no listing)
    I Want My Mommy - 5

    I guess I should have asked what collector's guide or method he is using to determine a cart's rarity :?
  10. STop the Nonsense..ALL Right ?

    10-31-2006, 08:35 PM

    -> You wanted to get your personal scores correct...done
    -> You asked why certain scores might have been singled out...explained
    -> You NOW want to know what defines \"rarity\"

    I'll explain this and then have a statement that you can quote me on.

    By \"rarity\" in THIS case, the answer is as follows. It's not merely a so-called \"rarity guide\" on a scale of 1-10. It is also \"rarity\" in terms of submissions to TG. We have not had many submissions on \"Aquaventure\" and \"Allia Quest\", titles I am personally unfamiliar with.

    That said, titles that I personally had never heard of, or knew to be rare (i.e. \"Quadrun\") I ran by Todd on a case by case basis and asked for his yes/no as to whether they were original or emu. I would have no way to know one way or another...wouldn't know if they were part of a 256-in-1 multi cart, would not even know if the titles were even real in the first place...such as if a referee accidentally set the name up incorrect. For example, if the true title was \"Aqua Adventure\", I still would not be familiar with it.

    Next...Todd. Based on his familiarity with the 2600 arena, and relying on existing verification information in conjunction with his experience, recollection and opinions, we came to what was the first draft of the proposed reclassifications.

    I have already detailed painstakingly in the referee-only section the 10-part steps that we took to get even this far. I will not reprint this here to give you further info to rip apart and pick nits with, but my fellow referees can and I hope will attest that I just posted the entire procedure on the referee forum where we as referees discuss this.

    Now then, you have your complete answer. I do not understand why you cannot see that I have already answered your question. What exactly are you after anyway...something you can post on the video game equivalent of ?

    The details were set forth in full public disclosure as to the project plan. Decisions were made by TG officials before that point, and during the reclass itself. I kept my fellow referees in the loop as they can attest, as I did Walter and as needed Brien, and of course Todd. This is not a \"solo operation\" if this is what you are driving at. This is a collective effort.

    I am getting a little tired of the commentary, frankly, considering how much time this has already taken on behalf of the gaming community. I have already been on record that the initial reason for the co-mingling and the support of same was due to decisions made many, many years ago. I never said I personally agreed with them, but I supported them as there was never any cry for a reclass until recently.

    Now that there was such a cry, it did take time...several months I believe...but TG is following suit as promised. Your voices were heard and we are acting on it.

    In a step-by-step method the reclasses are being made...initial information released first as a \"draft\" pending gamer approval. I never said that once it reaches a final phase we are irrevocably locked. Future confirmations can always lead to more reclasses until it is as pure as it is going to get under the circumstances.

    Those circumstances...

    As stated by Walter Day, the project can never ascertain a 100% veracity. That is a fact.

    In my last reply I stated that I can definitely append an \"Unverified\" status to each and every such score. I like how you accuse me of not answering your question, yet you pointedly avoid discussing that aspect of my reply...which I had HOPED would answer one of your major concerns, but either it did and you have nothing further to say on it, or you are busy crafting a reply. Please do. The feedback, positive or negative, is welcome.

    As for \"not answering\" your question, a fellow gamer on their own initiative pieced together the response I gave. I take it that this is not what you asked for, but it should suffice at this stage of the project as all other facets have been explained.

    Sorry for being nasty, but this is now one attack after another. You have a golden opportunity to offer constructive commentary on the project. For example, you said that the fact that \"Unverifiable\" scores are present will be an issue. So I responded...I can classify the verification type as such and this way you can easily see.

    Gamers can search on such information and see which is which as they please. Keep in mind that while Brien is going to eventually develop the \"co-mingling\" view tool for impacted variations, we can always enhance the capacity to include or strip out \"Unverified\" scores. You have to think ahead of what is possible or can be put on the table. I have been for some time. Just open your thoughts to what is possible, ask, and it will be read and discussed. I never closed my mind and refused to read any commentary put forth thus far. And if you think about it, compared to my stated stance on the issue of a split many months ago, I've obviously changed pace based on where we have reached now. So why are you harrassing me with all of these questions after questions, and accusations of avoiding the answers ? They have been given if you read them as black and white, and not grey.

Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 81
Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Join us