Allen Allencord

[rolenta]

I was just reading an article about Ralph Baer on the G4 website and I came across this memorable paragraph:

"Bushnell stated that he wasn't very impressed by the games but was impressed by the technology, which he then used to create Pong with Allen Allencord without permission from Baer or Magnavox. "

[Ed Oscuro]

Heh, Alcorn would like to have a word with those folks...

Misspelling Allan I can understand though - my grandpa features in a book on the Persian Corridor, and his name is spelled wrong just one of those times. But the "Allencord" definitely is unusual in the world of typos...

[Mayhem]

Usually people are mis-spelling my surname Allen as Allan so it's kinda weird to see it the other way around here!

[digitalpress]

G4 is rather hit or miss when it comes to gaming history. You would think they'd check their facts carefully before printing/televising them, but this isn't the first time I've seen a really silly error.

If you really want to see crass mistakes, you should have heard some of the answers we got when we asked the simple question "Who designed Pong" at the industry's premiere event, E3, to the industry itself.

It can be embarrassing knowing a few details in an industry that has forgotten so many of them.

[Mayhem]

Mention no names if need be, but I'm dying to hear some of the answers

[digitalpress]

Mention no names if need be, but I'm dying to hear some of the answers

To give you just a general idea of how little our industry knows about itself, someone with a media badge answered the question "Who designed PONG?" this way:

"You?"

[Ed Oscuro]

Well, even the amateur media guys I know and like to rib from time to time are pretty knowledgable about many game issues, and follow a lot of goings-on that I'd need a whole extra 24 hours a day to be conversant in...well, another issue is that much of the new generation views classic, pre-Nintendo gaming with only casual interest (if that). Heck, I don't often take much interest in pre-90s games myself; it's "eyes on the future." Always seems so much more interesting I think we're doing pretty good on the score of Atari, though; a lot of folks know good things were on the way with the Lynx, and maybe the Infogrames buyout hasn't done too bad for the name.

Heh, I dunno, I just think it's much the same as our grandparents complaining we don't know history when we know quite a bit about current events. Someday we'll be after our grandkids for "Kenneth Lay WHO?"

[digitalpress]

I don't know what crowd you run with, Ed, but it's not the average mediafolk. I spent a good deal of our week at E3 asking questions to media people (we really wanted to give away all of those Pac-Man lottery tickets). It's not just EARLY history that stumps people.

"What was the first game to feature the Nintendo character Yoshi?"

"What came first, PlayStation or Saturn?"

"Name one launch title for PlayStation?"

"What system was released on 9/9/99?"

These questions got far more wrong answers than right. It was a rather disappointing exercise.

[Ed Oscuro]

I only know the answers to most of those 'cuz I've been pursuing the history of games as if it was a second job the last few years. I'm sure that various movies afficionados have been distressed about the lack of understanding new filmmakers have for the greats from Murnau to DeMille, how they don't even know the basics of the history. Films are still being made more or less quite well. That's not to say I don't share a sense that there has to be some urgency to move in protecting the past, be it source code or getting histories from retired game makers, but as long as the new generation of game makers do their jobs right, I'm willing to live with it at least a little.

It's regrettable that so many people did poorly with those questions, but it seems to me that a lot of these people got into gaming. Surely there's lots of newbies joining the scene, so I say the more the merrier. Even if they're working for the media - Donkey Konga 2 aside, I don't mind if they bring other perspectives into their job. Well, I'm trying to spin this positively a bit, but I don't think it's that horrible :P

[rolenta]

I agree with DP (of course I have a vested interested in the history of videogames). Anyway, I think if you're making a livlihood in an industry, any industry, you should have some idea the history behind it. And it's pathetic to see these young kids with Media badges who have no idea of any system before the Playstation. These are the types who will perpetuate misinformation because they don't know right from wrong in the first place.

[Gamereviewgod]

And it's pathetic to see these young kids with Media badges who have no idea of any system before the Playstation. These are the types who will perpetuate misinformation because they don't know right from wrong in the first place.

That just pisses me off. Granted some of them weren't even around for pre-SNES era, there's still no excuse for not knowing this stuff.

It seems like certain people need a certain someones book.

[puxley]

Wasn't this site started up by a guy named Joe Joetulli?

[Ed Oscuro]

These are the types who will perpetuate misinformation because they don't know right from wrong in the first place.

Ah, I definitely agree with that, but how often do they have the chance to spread false information? If the reviewer knows a good game from bad and calls it right, we can work out the rest. I think I need to say once again that I got into gaming - PC gaming, FPSes first - around 1997 after playing around a little with some older PC shareware stuff (back when I had the patience for it) the year or two before that; I wasn't "around" for the SNES era. Heck, we live in a country where popular wisdom is halfway engineered around a host of falsehoods (thank goodness it's a democracy at the core). I guess what I'm saying is to not get mad, get even - and I think the universe centering around CGE/DP is making huge strides in that direction.

[lendelin]

The lack of a solid overview about game history doesn't bother me so much when it comes to game designers; at least, as long as they KNOW Pong and don't know the name of the designer, not a lot is lost.

However, when it comes to videogame journalists, big knowledge gaps are very troubling; those are the professional observers of the industry, and a lot of lessons can be learned from the history of games and applied to modern games and the state of the industry.

"Icons" on G4 does usually a decent job; but TV isn't enough to get great information.

Videogame journalists are way too YOUNG. When I watched G4 about the wrap-up of the recent E3, one girl (one of those two young ones on G4, with very high voices who talk faster than they can think) said: "Well, Nintendo isn't just into this whole hardware thing." HOLY SCHMOLY!! Can you imagine an independent professional journalist would talk like that about politics? (except for the professional spinsters) He would be laughed at, and sent home with best wishes.

The age bias for game journalists is terrible. You need intelligent experienced journalists in their 30s, 40s, and 50s with a good knowledge of game history and insights of the industry. Little boys and girls who just like to play games are cannon fudder for professionals who run game companies. They can be manipulated, taken in very easily, and aren't able to ask straight and uncomfortable Qs in interviews about the industry which is big business and grew up. The overall level of game journalism on TV and in mags is sub-par compared to other areas (movies, literature, politics); at times laughable, at times naive, and the terrible mistakes made about facts are just the tip of the iceberg.

[Ed Oscuro]

I think I disagree with most all of the points you just made, Lendelin. Surely I've been on the wrong side of many an argument (sometimes arguments foolishly prosecuted against you), but I think that passion and committment to finding things out makes up for youth. Do you seriously think that people raised on the Atari systems will be the game journalists for all time? Education is the answer, make no mistake. We've had no trouble in discovering a problem, and it's one that I think simple education - or protests, such as emails and call-ins - will help get the message across.

You're right - anybody who says "Nintendo isn't into this hardware thing" needs to be laughed at, and all but the most casual of gamers should see the ridiculousness of such a statement. Bad money isn't driving out good.

[Sothy]

I designed pong btw

[RetroYoungen]

I don't know what crowd you run with, Ed, but it's not the average mediafolk. I spent a good deal of our week at E3 asking questions to media people (we really wanted to give away all of those Pac-Man lottery tickets). It's not just EARLY history that stumps people.

"What was the first game to feature the Nintendo character Yoshi?"

"What came first, PlayStation or Saturn?"

"Name one launch title for PlayStation?"

"What system was released on 9/9/99?"

These questions got far more wrong answers than right. It was a rather disappointing exercise.

You did give them the answers, right? I would hate to think that after the CGE@E3 booth they would leave with wrong answers...

Though honestly that would be funny as hell from my perspective.

Really though, it's a real shame that a lot of these gaming "journalists" don't know much about the history. How can you appreciate where a hobby or really anything is going without knowing where it came from? Why aren't more people looking into the history to try to appreciate how far we've come? That is one thing I appreciate about Nintendo and their recent rehashing of old titles and the "backwards compatability" of the Revolution; even though they're a company and just trying to capitalize on their older licenses to make more of a profit it does make people (at least it makes me) look back from where they started and acknowledge how far they've come.

Sorry to make it a bit long-winded (for my posts anyway) but maybe it's just the young gamer in me who has some idea of where my hobby began getting all worked up.

[lendelin]

... but I think that passion and committment to finding things out makes up for youth.

Experience, age on the one hand, and passion and committment on the other hand are not mutually exclusive. Of course you need passion and committment always, but they don't balance out inexperience; intelligence does, however, and more importantly socialization as a journalist.

Politics, economics, movies, and literature give young intelligent journalists opportunities and are not age restricted; but every journalist will tell you how important experience is dealing with issues, people, writing, and even more important, finding the delicate balance between getting information and remaining independent. Young journalists, no matter how intelligent, have to LEARN that, and this isn't done within a couple of years.

Do you seriously think that people raised on the Atari systems will be the game journalists for all time? Education is the answer, make no mistake.

I understand your argument. Of course restricting journalism to the old farts is not an answer; and having EXPERIENCED the Atari age as a condition to be a journalis would be ridiculous. You need a good mix between young and old. You need young journalists for lots of reasons; one is a very different view about games, and in general another attitude about life and cultural youth phenomena.

I completely agree with you that education is an answer. Experience about Atari isn't necessary, KNOWING about it is. However, it isn't enough. Socialization as a journalist beyond writing reviews and previews is important, and that is where experience comes in.

A 26 year old journalist who just started out isn't (as a rule) given the task to interview Rumsfeld in an important matter; Rumsfeld would eat him up and spit him out in 30 secs.

Game companies are run by businessmen with lots of experience. They are slick, they know marketing startegies, they have experience handling the public opinionmakers; you don't let naive intelligent boys and girls play with the big boys who experienced a lot of similar situations, know discussion strategies, having learned how to avoid Qs and give their answers positive spins. The game industry professionalized and became big business, the quality level of game journalists didn't keep up with it.

Why not let Bill Kunkel and other experienced journalists wrap-up the recent E3 with younger journalists? The younger ones could certainly learn a thing or two. Guys who experienced launch dates of different systems over the years as ADULTS and professional observers have a very different attitude than guys who experience hyped marketing startegies for the first time as adults.

Can you imagine ony 25 year olds sitting around talking about politics, movies and music and try to analyze it as well as newer developments?

The game industry became big, very big, and the professional observers have to grow up with it in terms of quality AND age; and like with all reviewers, you need a strong GENERAL educational background in lots of areas -- games, of course, their history, game design, pop-culture, but also economics, history in general and lots of other areas.

Enthusiasm and passion is good, age and professionalization is better. ...and one small aspect of experience and professionalization is to check facts before you publish. A wrong date, a wrong name about something fundamental and important is embarrassing, and even questions (deserved or undeserved) the entire publication.

[Ed Oscuro]

Of course it takes time to become a competent journalist. You fingered youth as a limiting factor, and I pointed out that many years living in the ass-gr...trenches can be made up by passion and conviction to search out information, in terms of knowledge. Nowhere did we bring up qualifications of a good journalist, and that's not what people are focusing on here. But if you must...

I do sympatize with those unimpressed by the lackluster media coverage garnered by the history of games, but it's also important to realize that the only things keeping it from becoming an academic subject is that games (like movies) are always an interesting topic, and that the first generations appeared not too long ago.

Who still watches Murnau's works? Who still plays Pong? Movies are important to our culture, so are early games. But you don't have to know much about either to contribute to their respective industries. That's not a good thing, but it also isn't horrible. Let's take a somewhat backwards example - games for "nongamer" audiences; gamers who never had contemplated getting a game console, but now have some time to fiddle around with FreeCell and Spider Solitare, and then have moved onto other things. AOL and the MSN Games thing. It's precisely because some groups of people aren't held down by common conceptions of video games - and that they see things according to their own peculiar set of filters - that makes their observations valuable. The same is true of the blunderers at G4 - for all their mishaps, they have been picked for reasons other than mass market appeal.

This isn't the answer we want to hear, but it's not going to hurt anybody to get in line with reality, and it's not as grim as people seem to be saying.

The gaps that currently exist between generations that have grown up with games and those that haven't will disappear with time. Games will have become as integral to our society as movies have, and indeed there will be an increasing amount of overlap between the two.

I can currently look up any number of sources on movies and entertainment; I can do the same for sports. Both are entrenched Western interests and have their dedicated press corps. The same is happening slowly for gaming. We started back in the early 90s with BBSes, moved into the mid-90s with the Surfas System, and now we've got companies merging. Companies that report games.

Now, I can look at the front of any regional newspaper and find some sports columnist writing about the latest happenings, and commenting on the history of the event. Surprisingly often these comments are shallow and don't water like they should. Then I could flip open a copy of Sports Illustrated and find competent reporting and historical analysis.

We have to apply the BS filter to the general news, too, whenever somebody tries to piece together some facts about a decades-old story that's gained a new lease on life. So this isn't anything new.

E3 is put together to get tongues wagging. You're right to point out that lots of clueless types were let in the door. Newbies, fanboys, and 'tards of every description get into e3 every year. People who write for sites of very limited relevance have gotten into e3; it's their free ticket to site updates for the next few months, and - gasp - a chance to talk with the game designers and learn about current events. They can bother their friends to check out their pictures on the site and claim to have an inside track for months because they've been to E3. These may or may not grow to be the people who we'll turn to for news and commentary in the future. For every Chris Morris and IGN out there, you're going to find...lots of loons. This isn't anything new.

[lendelin]

Nowhere did we bring up qualifications of a good journalist, and that's not what people are focusing on here. But if you must...

Knowledge is a qualification of a good journalist; and I think we focused on that because posters talked about knowledge gaps of people with media badges, and the original post dealt with a terrible mistake on G4's site written by a journalist.

Who still watches Murnau's works? Who still plays Pong? Movies are important to our culture, so are early games. But you don't have to know much about either to contribute to their respective industries.

A director doesn't have to know Murnau. But if a movie reviewer doesn't know the man, then he isn't worth a cent!

A game designer doesn't have to know Pong; but if a professional game reviewer doesn't know it, then he isn't worth the quarter he spent in an arcade.

To create something and to interpret/analyzing it are two very different things. For creators sometimes history can be a burden, more often it is an advantage; the professional observers have to know history because the present is the result of the past, and to solve current problems or analyzing them is impossible without knowing recent history.

Let's take a somewhat backwards example - games for "nongamer" audiences; gamers who never had contemplated getting a game console, but now have some time to fiddle around with FreeCell and Spider Solitare, and then have moved onto other things. AOL and the MSN Games thing. It's precisely because some groups of people aren't held down by common conceptions of video games - and that they see things according to their own peculiar set of filters - that makes their observations valuable. The same is true of the blunderers at G4 - for all their mishaps, they have been picked for reasons other than mass market appeal.

Honestly, I don't get this argument. (This is not rhetorical criticism or cheap discussion strategy)

The gaps that currently exist between generations that have grown up with games and those that haven't will disappear with time.

You seem to assume that I favor one generation of game critics over another, or like to have age bias. Nope, I critisize the age bias. I want a good mix of young and old.

There are things an experienced game journalist cannot bring to the table; and there are things experienced game journalist are lightyears ahead of their younger colleagues.

What bothers me is the incredible and dumb youth bias for game journalists which treats experience as a burden and not what it actually is -- being way smarter than you were twenty years ago.

I don't see what this has to do with different generations of gamers. They always existed, and they always will; and I'm not demanding that the actual experience of a game era is necessary to be a good journalist; when someone writes today about WW I or the Glorious Revolution, they certainly didn't experience it and still can write very intelligent things about it.

Now, I can look at the front of any regional newspaper and find some sports columnist writing about the latest happenings, and commenting on the history of the event. Surprisingly often these comments are shallow and don't water like they should. Then I could flip open a copy of Sports Illustrated and find competent reporting and historical analysis.

There are times for mere reporting, and there are times for in-depth analysis. I'm not saying that game mags should consist of in-depth, intellectual, or even academic analysis.

But you would be certainly disturbed if you read on ESPN a preview about a segment of the history of Baseball, and they would talk about the Tennessee Red Sox.

For every Chris Morris and IGN out there, you're going to find...lots of loons. This isn't anything new.

Certainly true, but we still can evaluate the overall quality of game journalism which doesn't come even close to other areas. It has to develop, I think we agree on that. Some reviewers committ basic sins of reviews that my head starts to spin.

A good example are reviews about compilation discs of older games, or the unique new Mega Man games which are actually old. So much nonsense is produced there which shows a severe lack of knowledge about game history.

Allen Allencord is only the tip of the iceberg. Every good reviewer needs a lot of general knowledge about very different areas, plus expertise in its own area, and history is one of them. As a rule, todays younger game jourrnalist show a lack thereof, and the older game journalist who have this knowledge and analytical abilities are not given enough opportunities to increase the quality of game journalism.