"Score" losers

The amount of online criticism of new six-part Netflix documentary “High Score” is shocking to me.

Commenters have complained that the games/personalities/anecdotes featured are predictable or very familiar. If you’re a fan of “Retro Gamer” magazine, podcasts like “The Retro Hour” and “Retronauts”, and the umpteen YouTube channels devoted to celebrating classic gaming – yeah, they likely will be. That said, it didn’t stop me from enjoying the series. I consume those things constantly AND I’ve lived through pretty much the whole history of the industry.

Why didn’t it bother me to go over old ground? Because “High Score” is so beautifully, creatively presented – mixing fresh interviews, interesting location shots, re-enactments and animation with file footage/photos – and told in such a playful spirit.

Another gripe I’ve heard is the way the episodes jump around in time. I see this as a strength not a weakness. It helps counteract the alleged problem of predictability or familiarity. And from a practical perspective, it allows the makers to give a decent overview of a concept. I mean, you’re not gonna cover sports titles without briefly flashing back to “Pong” variants. A further benefit of the non-linear structure of “High Score” is it permits parallels to be drawn between, say, 3D innovations on the PC and similar breakthroughs on the Game Boy and SNES.

Other criticism I’ve read boils down to peeps either whinging because their favourite whatever was ignored (boo-hoo-hoo) or questioning the program’s commendable inclusivity ‘cos they seemingly want to restrict the hobby to straight white males.

In summary, this docoseries is so lovingly crafted, I don’t understand how any videogamer worth their salty snacks (or sugary beverage) could fail to dig it. Roll on, Season 2!

Metagaming "U/C"

I've been playing along with Pommy TV show "University Challenge" for years. At some point, I got into the habit of jotting down each contestant's degree area(s) as a way of attempting to predict the breadth of knowledge of the two teams. When in doubt - as with a very specific PhD - I just put the general discipline, e.g. English.

So Team A's four players might be categorised by me as Biology/Biology/Film/History, while the members of Team B roughly represent Politics & History/Maths & Physics/Economics/Philosophy.

Looking at those teams as written, B appear to have more subjects covered and, based on no other info and assuming a random mix of Qs, it would be logical to expect them to do better. Indeed, they won by a large margin.

However, I can honestly say the above method isn't any more accurate at predicting a winner than tossing a coin. It doesn't take into account age (good for knowledge, bad for speed); practice in pub trivia quizzes, etc.; freakish memories; well-organised team prep; or simply watching hundreds of hours of "U/C" and having an instinct for which answers crop up regularly.

On top of all that, anyone can have an off night. Well, almost anyone.