Al Alcorn about "Everybody thinks they're a historian"

[jhd]

There is a difference however in "hiding technology for future products" and "hiding facts from a 20 years old product".

A simple example is the Philips/nintendo partnership for the CD-i based add-on.

Both companies are so secretive about it, you have all kind of speculation and misinformation floating around (the first being that the CD-i was born as a SNES CD add-on). And we're talking big companies that still exit.

 

I wonder how much is due to coprorate secrecy, and how much is simply due to a lack of knowledge. Do companies regularly keep records about unsuccessful/unreleased products and failed business agreements? How many of the staff that would have workd on such things are still around?

 

About 25 years ago, I wanted to write an MA thesis (in history) about a particular local business. This company was then about 120 years old. I had no interest in any current records or technology; my research spanned the 1860s-1930s. The firm literally did not have _any_ old records. Indeed, I knew more about the history of the company -- based on my review of secondary sources -- than did current management. They were not being secretive (they welcomed me to tour the premesis, answered my questons, etc.) they simply did not know anything about their history.

Edited February 16, 2015 by jhd

[MrMaddog]

He's right, there needs to be a video game museum cause even now most gamers don't know any games made before the NES. And they're the ones (the game journalists) that are teaching about video game history through YouTube vidoes through 2nd hand information which is what Alcorn is trying to say here...

Edited February 17, 2015 by MrMaddog

[cimerians]

He's absolutely correct and it will only get worse.

[+Cafeman]

I know I was led to believe some stories which are now disputed as not entirely true. Frustrating.

[Lost Dragon]

Ditto to the above.Sadly it seems just because it appeared in magazine X, clear does'nt mean it was truthful.

I've invested a lot of time chasing up magazine claims alone.

What's worse now is industry figures minds seems to be failing, Jez San can, at best recal Creature Shock being companies 1st CD game, but goes along with suggestion it might have been started on Jag CD, when a good friend of mine put question to him in RG interview, yet years before he was clear to Edge, he'd never started any Jaguar games, something Atari's Darryl Still confirmed, saying Atari UK could never 'pin' Jez down to a deal.

[Lost Dragon]

Whats 'worse' is Jez goes onto decribe the Megadrive a ' 2D Only Box' as if likes of:F-15 II, F-22, LHX, Corporation, Mig-29, F1, Whirlwind Snooker etc never happened, let alone were converted from the ST/Amiga.

 

 

History is sadly being re-written by the week, be it relating to the Jaguar, NES, Mega Drive, Saturn etc.

 

For me it just makes it more important to rescue what we can, whilst we still can.....

[Bill Loguidice]

Even people who were there regularly mis-remember and conflate information, as well as evolve the story with each re-telling. It's a simple fact of human nature. The only solution is to get as many sources as possible, both from personal anecdotes/perspectives and physical artifacts (documents, files, etc.). It's an imperfect process.

 

On a personal note, when I was interviewing people for the documentary, Gameplay, even the interviewees with incredible memories of 10, 20, or 30 years ago occasionally got obvious facts wrong. There's no perfect single source. I can also tell you that a few errors crept into the film itself. Once a film is in production - like with a book - sometimes with so many hands handling the product, errors get introduced. There's simply no way to avoid it. Errors are normal.

 

There's also the issue, for example, when you have first hand accounts where one or more people insist something never existed. For instance, for the CoCo book, we had interviewees who insisted there was no CoCo 4 prototype. One or two other people insisted there was. Who do you believe in that case? In that case, you present the information provided and leave the question open (though we did in fact find a physical prototype of the case). The point is, it's impossible to know when you've well and truly determined whether something is a fact or not. Sometimes (like in this CoCo 4 example), you get lucky. Other times, you need to take the person's word for it and move on. Not every fact can be verified beyond a shadow of a doubt.

[cimerians]

That's because everyone wants to be a historian.

[Rhomaios]

Even people who were there regularly mis-remember and conflate information, as well as evolve the story with each re-telling. It's a simple fact of human nature. The only solution is to get as many sources as possible, both from personal anecdotes/perspectives and physical artifacts (documents, files, etc.). It's an imperfect process.

 

On a personal note, when I was interviewing people for the documentary, Gameplay, even the interviewees with incredible memories of 10, 20, or 30 years ago occasionally got obvious facts wrong. There's no perfect single source. I can also tell you that a few errors crept into the film itself. Once a film is in production - like with a book - sometimes with so many hands handling the product, errors get introduced. There's simply no way to avoid it. Errors are normal.

 

There's also the issue, for example, when you have first hand accounts where one or more people insist something never existed. For instance, for the CoCo book, we had interviewees who insisted there was no CoCo 4 prototype. One or two other people insisted there was. Who do you believe in that case? In that case, you present the information provided and leave the question open (though we did in fact find a physical prototype of the case). The point is, it's impossible to know when you've well and truly determined whether something is a fact or not. Sometimes (like in this CoCo 4 example), you get lucky. Other times, you need to take the person's word for it and move on. Not every fact can be verified beyond a shadow of a doubt.

 

The point isn't that everyone who was there is 100% accurate, but rather those who are not trained historians really ought not to weigh in so heavily. There are methods out there, and as all things in history, not everything is 100% secure. Amateur historians almost never make that point known.

[+remowilliams]

What's the worst is when current publications like Retro Gamer solicit and publish 'contributions' from individuals who are documented and well known for lying and just plain making things up and presenting as fact.

[Nebulon]

By his logic, Teachers shouldn't be allowed to teach history such as the founding of America and Canada or World War I because they weren't "around to experience it".

It's great that young people are talking about what happened throughout video game's history, even if it happened years before they were born, its keeping the stories around and alive.

 

I do agree "revisionist history" and people only knowing less than half of what they talk about can be detrimental, but again, many school teachers are unfortunately as guilty of this, but those who WANT to learn will continue to pursue information and eventually come across the facts that correct the incorrect information they've already discovered... happens to me all the time when doing research.

What I take from it is that he's saying that people that were there and people that weren't there are being presented in 'parallel' with both receiving the same weight.

 

The key difference from your example and this one is that the people involved are still alive, available, and willing to be interviewed. The people who were around at the time of the founding of USA or Canada aren't around (unless The Highlander is wandering around somewhere). Sure, if no one's alive from the time of the original events, then we're left with little choice but to do the best research possible from second-hand sources.

 

Now I haven't seen the documentary that he mentions, but if it's anything like the tone that they take with the "I Love the 80s" TV spots that Random Terrain mentions, then I can definitely see Alcorn's point. A lot of it has to do with the delivery. It's odd having someone who wasn't there talk as if they're recalling events first-hand.

[Lost Dragon]

Thats very true Bill, it's an, but familar reference, but when RG had an article on The Making Of Myth ( I loved that game on the C64), it was missing details on the C64 Cart.version as writer had only owned the ZX Spectrum version (which is fair enough), but he was in direct contact with System 3, so his info for rest of the article came from the horses mouth as it were, and said source told him Myth came out on the ST.

 

Now, being an ST owner after moving on from the C64, Myth was one of the enhanced 8 Bit conversions i badly wanted, the preview in Zero looked superb etc so i was waiting eagerly for it, yet sadly it was never finished and released.

 

In this case, because i was so gutted it never made it, it stuck clearly in my mind (i've not touched an ST in over 20 years!), yet the info has clearly got muddled with System 3.

 

My guess is 'they' remember it being in development (playable demo was out i believe), Amiga version was released, so assumed ST version was as well.

[Lost Dragon]

(cont) I guess because i have fond memories of my ST owning days, close knit group of mates, all of us being 'wowed' by 16 Bit gaming at the time, things like that stand out clearer for myself.

 

I've been mocked for poor grammar etc, raw nature of my interviews, my findings have been discredited etc etc, but it's doing nothing to phase me, i'm proud of what (little in grand scheme of things) i have been able to uncover on ALL formats.Sometimes it seems i just happened to buy the right magazine at the right time (only seen those PS1 AVP screens in that 1 PS mag, ever) and i'm glad i got chance to share them, i'm also proud to have cleared up origin of screens used by Edge etc and thanks to my attempts at interviewing, a lot of previousily unknown to GTW/Unseen64 games have been uncovered and i hope future interviews bring similar results.

 

I do try and use multiple sources, lucky enough to have contacted more than 1 EX-Atari, Core Design, Domark etc person, you get broader range of views, people working

[Lost Dragon]

In different teams/departments etc.Basically you try and build the big picture as you go along.

 

I'd love to say here and now who i've made contact with, but despite having 2 'I've not forgotten about you' emails in response to questions sent, i've no answers back of yet (plus it's for a Ssssh project).Chances are, even if i do get answers, he'll say, sorry, i cannot recal....but i'm keeping fingers crossed.

 

Unlike yourself Bill or others, i'm NO jurno, just keen gamer wanting to find out as much 'truth' as i can and when i get stuff in, i forward it, as it is.No house keeping, no changing figures etc to suit any personal bias, no passing off screens as real.That's more than i can sadly say for a lot of UK Press over the years....

[Rhomaios]

What I take from it is that he's saying that people that were there and people that weren't there are being presented in 'parallel' with both receiving the same weight.

 

The key difference from your example and this one is that the people involved are still alive, available, and willing to be interviewed. The people who were around at the time of the founding of USA or Canada aren't around (unless The Highlander is wandering around somewhere). Sure, if no one's alive from the time of the original events, then we're left with little choice but to do the best research possible from second-hand sources.

 

Even then, we have quite a bit of documents for their own hand. We can't interview them, but we can read what they and their contemporaries wrote.

 

I also think Torr's example is quite indicative of the mode many people (I'm not assuming Torr is one of those, though) have when coming across this stuff: it's like a history report for school. There's a lack of gravity to the enterprise, which is why those "I love the 80s" shows are all about entertainment and nostalgia, not actual preservation or research.

[Greg2600]

Firstly I think that article kind of sucked, seemed very incomplete. Anyway, I agree with Al on the World 1-1 documentary, I felt having younger gamers "retell" history was cheap and inappropriate. The producers should have used still shots with narration instead.

 

As for secrecy, every industry does that, it's just that the game industry doesn't take proper care of development work. Far too often hardware flies out the door into private hoarding hands, software too. Software gets totally lost as well by the creators who don't think it's worth keeping.

 

Alcorn mentioned the STRONG museum, which receives a massive amount of historical donations but gives video gaming barely any floorspace, and it's in the middle of nowhere.

[CatPix]

 

I wonder how much is due to coprorate secrecy, and how much is simply due to a lack of knowledge. Do companies regularly keep records about unsuccessful/unreleased products and failed business agreements? How many of the staff that would have workd on such things are still around?

 

About 25 years ago, I wanted to write an MA thesis (in history) about a particular local business. This company was then about 120 years old. I had no interest in any current records or technology; my research spanned the 1860s-1930s. The firm literally did not have _any_ old records. Indeed, I knew more about the history of the company -- based on my review of secondary sources -- than did current management. They were not being secretive (they welcomed me to tour the premesis, answered my questons, etc.) they simply did not know anything about their history.

 

There is this issue too. Archives have long been considered useless, or being a waste of space and therefore, money.

When André Citroën was forced to sell his company to Michelin in 1934, one of the first move Michelin did was to scrap all the prototype that André Citroën kept preciously, to make room.

We all know also the terrible fate of the First man on the Moon records (the real ones, in now totally lost colors), re-used to record more data.

I think Philips is just being secretive, however. And maybe their archives are just undocumented.

It's also a common thing; crates and piles of papers, mixed up and not properly sorted, which make them almost impossible to use.

 

On a personal note, when I was interviewing people for the documentary, Gameplay, even the interviewees with incredible memories of 10, 20, or 30 years ago occasionally got obvious facts wrong. There's no perfect single source. I can also tell you that a few errors crept into the film itself. Once a film is in production - like with a book - sometimes with so many hands handling the product, errors get introduced. There's simply no way to avoid it. Errors are normal.

This reminds me of an interview of Jerry Lawson, where he mention the Channel F having 4Ko of RAM (or something).

Even people that worked first-hand and came up with the very product get wrong indeed.

[Retro Rogue]

 

He's akin to saying history teachers shouldn't teach history as written by some author who doesn't know how to do history. He's not saying only those who were there can write history, but don't interview Joe Schmo for his thoughts on something when he wasn't there, when he's just making stuff up to complement the half-assed detective work he had done. It's clear as crystal this is what he meant.

 

 

No, that's not what he was saying at all. In fact he was asked to clarify his statements recently and specifically stated he didn't mean anything about the person he was talking about, but felt the filmmakers should have only included first hand accounts. And the person he was referring to is not a "Joe schmo half assed researcher."

 

 

 

 

The point isn't that everyone who was there is 100% accurate, but rather those who are not trained historians really ought not to weigh in so heavily. There are methods out there, and as all things in history, not everything is 100% secure. Amateur historians almost never make that point known.

 

 

The problem is, you're the one reading meaning into what he was saying that wasn't intended. And you're painting a very wide brush stroke there. There's plenty of "trained historians" who botch research and information simply because they're not familiar with the subject matter and lack the knowledge for critiquing certain information, and instead blindly apply certain methods as you're alluding to. That's also precisely why museums, archives, etc. (including the mentioned Strong) do tend to also rely on experts of specific subject matter as well to assist them, regardless if they were a history major or not. Expertise is expertise. I certainly agree, most website and low level articles are done by amateurs and it's made even worse with the ease of documentation via the Internet combined with no real understanding of how to critique and vet said information (i.e. they take it at face value).

Edited February 21, 2015 by Retro Rogue

[Mr SQL]

 

This reminds me of an interview of Jerry Lawson, where he mention the Channel F having 4Ko of RAM (or something).

Even people that worked first-hand and came up with the very product get wrong indeed.

 

Lawson got it right; the channel F indeed has a 2K screen buffer. Since there's only 64 bytes of RAM beyond that it really hurts that you can't utilise it as general purpose RAM - the VCS has a similar setup with it's 2.5 bytes of screen (1/2 a scanline) buffer RAM and we miss using that as general purpose RAM too. Fortunately it's got 128 bytes of RAM beyond that and even a bit more still if we don't paddle up

 

Lawson's interview observation seems to support Alcorns point; plenty of folk incorrectly gauge the RAM on the Fairchild (and the VCS for that matter) who are viewing it from a modern perspective. I've had discussions with advanced programmers working on the retro hardware who don't see the extra RAM simply because they are viewing it through a [more] modern technology perspective.

 

Modern perspectives on retro technology are extremely interesting, but if you weren't on the scene bitd you likely won't Grok like Alcorn; doesn't matter he's the target audience minority in the extreme.

[Jess Ragan]

Not everybody's a historian, but many think Al Alcorn is a conceited ass!

[CatPix]

 

Lawson got it right; the channel F indeed has a 2K screen buffer. Since there's only 64 bytes of RAM beyond that it really hurts that you can't utilise it as general purpose RAM - the VCS has a similar setup with it's 2.5 bytes of screen (1/2 a scanline) buffer RAM and we miss using that as general purpose RAM too. Fortunately it's got 128 bytes of RAM beyond that and even a bit more still if we don't paddle up

 

Lawson's interview observation seems to support Alcorns point; plenty of folk incorrectly gauge the RAM on the Fairchild (and the VCS for that matter) who are viewing it from a modern perspective. I've had discussions with advanced programmers working on the retro hardware who don't see the extra RAM simply because they are viewing it through a [more] modern technology perspective.

 

Modern perspectives on retro technology are extremely interesting, but if you weren't on the scene bitd you likely won't Grok like Alcorn; doesn't matter he's the target audience minority in the extreme.

Thanks! This is interesting to know Tho... I'm not skilled enough to know how that could be useful for programers but heh, I'll check this out.

[Mr SQL]

Thanks! This is interesting to know Tho... I'm not skilled enough to know how that could be useful for programers but heh, I'll check this out.

You're welcome CatPix The extra video RAM on these systems is tantalizing to developers because we cannot access it in our games to store variables and yet there it is!

 

On the Fairchild more RAM sits there mocking us from beyond the viewable area of the screen than the 64 bytes we have available for variables - part of the 2K is completely wasted since we can neither display it nor reference it.

[Mr SQL]

Not everybody's a historian, but many think Al Alcorn is a conceited ass!

It's clear his comment rubbed some people who write thought provoking and interesting pieces the wrong way - I can see how this comes off as pedantic and elitist, I think Alcorn realises that now. I've done this too and didn't realise it at the time - agree it's better to have more constructive communication.

[Greg2600]

I think Al expected a true documentary, not "I love the 80's." That was his point. I'm somewhat annoyed they have marketed their film (which I really liked) using Ralph Baer's image when he was mentioned for all of 3 minutes.

[mckafka99]

"He pointed to the recently Kickstarted documentary World 1-1, saying it did an excellent job of interviewing pioneers like himself and Atari founder Nolan Bushnell, but questioned the filmmakers' decision to include their recollections alongside those who were passing along stories second- or third-hand."

 

I just finished watching this and really enjoyed it for the most part but admittedly found/felt a certain awkwardness in hearing origin stories being told 2nd/3rd hand ;it didn't seem/feel quite right hearing them along side other stories told by those who were actually part of them. IMHO, in a different documentary on this material, hearing those stories in such a fashion I think would work fine but in this movie, stylistically speaking, they felt a little out of place. I also wish the movie had included commentary from other individuals in the Atari community who are well known to have an extensive history with Atari (some of whose names I did see in the credits). However, overall, I really enjoyed the movie and look forward to the next installment.