|
On August 07 2012 11:20 gnr9292 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 10:57 StarStruck wrote:On August 07 2012 10:49 gnr9292 wrote:
Not sure how shooting competitions are composed of more physical prowess than playing a video game.
Im sure lifting a hand gun and pulling the trigger needs much endurance and physical skills.
To all those that make an argument about the physical element of the Olympics how are the shooting competitions
or archery more physical compared to playing a video game.
you don't even move your wrists to shoot a gun, you only need to pull one finger and lift a light hand gun. You actually need good steady arms in archery. Did I forget to mention strength? You aren't helping your argument. -_- Not to mention, target sports are much easier to follow and get into. Who doesn't play darts at the bar? There are many reasons why video games will be blocked out of the Olympic games. Tetris is somewhat timeless and if we're talking about the classic version. Yes not much has changed. That's the only reason it's still being discussed. Im talking to people who argued about the physical aspects of the Olympics. Which seems like the most occurring argument. Im sure buying a hand gun and going to the range is easier to get into than buying a game and turning on a computer, which almost every household. Also how does the easiness to get into a sport have any correlation of a sport being a legitimate Olympic sport? Im sure fencing or equestrian are sooo much easier to get into than video games, considering more people play wow than these sports combined.
This is just silly. Fencing, archery, and shooting require much more skill than most video games. They also require good instincts and are much more skill-based than, say, SC2. Not saying SC2 doesn't require skill, just saying it takes much more skill to only miss 2 of 150 skeet shooting targets than to reach diamond or masters. Kinda loose argument, I know, since they are two completely different types of skills. But overall, to me, games like SC2 require much less physical prowess.
|
On August 07 2012 13:37 Starburst wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 11:20 gnr9292 wrote:On August 07 2012 10:57 StarStruck wrote:On August 07 2012 10:49 gnr9292 wrote:
Not sure how shooting competitions are composed of more physical prowess than playing a video game.
Im sure lifting a hand gun and pulling the trigger needs much endurance and physical skills.
To all those that make an argument about the physical element of the Olympics how are the shooting competitions
or archery more physical compared to playing a video game.
you don't even move your wrists to shoot a gun, you only need to pull one finger and lift a light hand gun. You actually need good steady arms in archery. Did I forget to mention strength? You aren't helping your argument. -_- Not to mention, target sports are much easier to follow and get into. Who doesn't play darts at the bar? There are many reasons why video games will be blocked out of the Olympic games. Tetris is somewhat timeless and if we're talking about the classic version. Yes not much has changed. That's the only reason it's still being discussed. Im talking to people who argued about the physical aspects of the Olympics. Which seems like the most occurring argument. Im sure buying a hand gun and going to the range is easier to get into than buying a game and turning on a computer, which almost every household. Also how does the easiness to get into a sport have any correlation of a sport being a legitimate Olympic sport? Im sure fencing or equestrian are sooo much easier to get into than video games, considering more people play wow than these sports combined. This is just silly. Fencing, archery, and shooting require much more skill than most video games. They also require good instincts and are much more skill-based than, say, SC2. Not saying SC2 doesn't require skill, just saying it takes much more skill to only miss 2 of 150 skeet shooting targets than to reach diamond or masters. Kinda loose argument, I know, since they are two completely different types of skills. But overall, to me, games like SC2 require much less physical prowess.
I assume 148/150 was the winning series? Then you should compare it to winning the GSL, rather than breaking into diamond/master. And have one GSL every four years.  Breaking into diamond should be compared with breaking into top 20% of all the shooter that practice more than once every 8 weeks.
But I think it is very hard to argue how hard a sport is, as you always compete against others. As long as there is no skill ceiling, it makes little sense to say that one sport is easier than another. The sport is as hard as it is to beat the best player in the world. And if you want to talk about skill ceilings, it seems like 148/150 is a lot closer to a skill ceiling than sc2 will ever be.
There are plenty of other arguments for why computer games will not make it into the olympics though. Without having thought it through a lot, I'd say that longevity is the strongest reason. Ie, it is very probable that sc2 will not be commonly played in 20 years. Don't think they would add a sport that they likely would have to remove again after just a few olympics.
|
Wait... Why was badminton being bashed? Takes physical skill and effort doesn't it? Not as intense or popular as tennis is but still...
eSports isn't called sports for a reason. The same skill and needs isn't the same between the two. Imagine if QWOP was in olympics.
Don't like how Fox bashed videogames again. Seemed a lot like one of those media "blame everything on games". Video games don't belong in the Olympics, but how they represented it was pretty typical and rude of them, although most people in media are usually like that with any subject.
|
^
Badminton is actually more intense than tennis.
|
goddamn what did OP think people were gonna vote for in the poll LOL
|
On August 07 2012 17:46 Boblion wrote:
^
Badminton is actually more intense than tennis.
Omfg I go so hardcore in badminton, that shit is crazy. Like half an hour of badminton is more exercise for me than a whole hour of tennis.
|
The reason badminton probably gets such a reputation for being "easy" is probably because anyone can derp around on the badminton court and just hit the bird randomly and feel like they're "playing". But when you're actually competent, you realize how hard it is to constantly maneuver around the court, especially when your opponent has better footwork than you and returns everything you hit.
|
I play SC2 and shoot competitively.
To say that shooting takes little to no physical prowess and is comparable to a video game is the height of ignorance. Only a fool would say otherwise. In the end, every single shot comes down to an extremely precise physical reaction. Many times coming down to inches or millimeters (if rifle/pistol). SC2 is more about build orders.
Shooting is significantly harder insofar as it requires a lot more practice time to get the same result out. Many of these shooters have been shooting since they were children. Vast majority of these SC players, even the best ones, haven't been playing that long relatively.
Having said that SC2, and games like it, take significant time and skill to become the best at; nobody is denying this. However to put it in the Olympics, with SPORTS like shooting, would be a travesty. I agree with what somebody said in this thread about SC2 having a short lifespan relative to these olympic sports. If a "game" was to be put in the olympics, it would be Chess, not a video game.
The better route is to create an Electronic olympics seperate from the summer/winter games.
|
i do hope that none of the above become an official event for the olympics. until video games become so advanced they become full body interactive, they do not belong in the olympics. video games as they are now go against the spirit of the olympics.
|
No computer game should be in the olympics, that's just silly...
Hell i don't even like a lot of the current ''modern'' sports being in the olympics.
|
As much as I'd like it, I don't think so. Will starcraft or LoL still be going strong in 4, 8, 16 years? Olympics are for timeless sports where technology should be minimum.
|
The olympics is a mashup of every single sport imaginable, why not bring in professional videogames? Having the olympics organize "eSports Olympics" in conjunction with MLG, GSL, Dreamhack and the other big dogs sounds really cool to me.
|
If millions of people around the world are still playing SC2 in 20 years, then I think we can start talking about having it in the Olympics. I don't have any problem at all with the idea of a video game being recognized as an Olympic discipline, but a sport needs to meet a high standard of longevity and international popularity for it to make sense to include it. If the competetive BW scene had reached the level of popularity it enjoyed in Korea in many other countries around the world, and maintained a large, international population of players into the 2020s, then I would say it had reached that standard. SC2 is my favorite game and my favorite spectator sport, but it's far, far away from being a plausible addition to the Olympics.
Edit: Also, if we're going to start including strategic games in the definition of sports, Chess and Go/Weiqi have massively better claims, as both have been played for centuries and enjoy significant international popularity. There's no reason that being real-time or computer-mediated should elevate SC above other strategy games.
|
I don't think Esports should have a place in the Olympics personally. It just doesn't fit, and we can do just fine on our own.
|
I would like to see e-sports in the olympics, but only if they had their own session, like how the summer and winter sessions are broken up. That way it won't compete with the other olympics and if it doesn't work out well, they can just cancel the next one and there is no real stain on the "actual" olympics.
|
On August 03 2012 07:36 llamasrule1214 wrote:
Eh, while this is a interesting idea, i feel like its kinda disregarding the tradition of the Olympics, physical competition among the best in the world, and E-Sports doesn't really have that feeling. Being a high level swimmer myself, I know from a first-hand POV that the work ethic needed to be even remotely OK at any sport is ridicioulous, both mentally and physcially, one must push themselves, but E-Sports like sc2 doesn't have the physical component. The Olympics, imo, should be a place of the world's physical best only. just my 2 very biased cents.
Maybe there should be a mental olympics with games like Starcraft 2, chess, backgammon, etc.
|
United States10328 Posts
On August 08 2012 00:14 Dionyseus wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 07:36 llamasrule1214 wrote:
Eh, while this is a interesting idea, i feel like its kinda disregarding the tradition of the Olympics, physical competition among the best in the world, and E-Sports doesn't really have that feeling. Being a high level swimmer myself, I know from a first-hand POV that the work ethic needed to be even remotely OK at any sport is ridicioulous, both mentally and physcially, one must push themselves, but E-Sports like sc2 doesn't have the physical component. The Olympics, imo, should be a place of the world's physical best only. just my 2 very biased cents. Maybe there should be a mental olympics with games like Starcraft 2, chess, backgammon, etc.
SC2 and chess are not on the same level at all. People (and more recently, computers) have been studying chess seriously since the late 1800s. SC2 will be just a memory in a hundred years.
Instead, SC2 can probably be in the electronic Olympics... oh wait, there's the WCG. SC2 is already in the WCG. Woo?
The other problem with putting a video game in the Olympics is longevity. WCG, for example, keeps very few of its games between years. SC2 is not even three years old. Even BW... hell, even Tetris is pretty young by sports standards.
What (competitive) video games do you think will honestly last more than 30 years at the highest level? Competitive (1v1) Tetris isn't much older than BW either, and the number of good players is honestly pretty small.
SC2 might last 10 years if it's lucky, and if Blizzard keeps pushing it and supporting it so much. But when Blizzard comes out with SC3, they no longer have any reason to care about SC2 anymore... in fact, if they follow historical precedent, they're probably just going to kill it off.
(Finally, SC2 isn't even as popular as LoL... why would they choose SC2 over LoL?)
|
Really feels like most people are missing things.
1. The "spirit of the olympics" is not about anything physical despite what some have an illusion of, it is about what the individual or team can do when putting everything into it.
Only valid arguement here has been the fact that games focus not on the player, but simply the game, olympic sports don't, they focus on the athlete.
No matter how much some people want olympics to be all physical, it isn't, archery and shooting proves this.
2. I'd say the implementation of a game is wrong, it should rather be genre, and then adapt through the years which game within that genre is played, like RTS, FPS and MOBA being different genres, atm that could be sc2, cs and LoL.
Changes in sports happen, just look at swimming with butterfly, that was a HUGE change and swimmers had to immediatly adapt to a completely new way to do things, but it still was within their skill set as it was swimming.
Just like the big BW players went to SC2, and SC2 players at some point will go to whatever beats it.
If you follow an RTS game, you can at some basic lvl understand all RTS games, same goes for MOBA or FPS.
3. As for skill, people favoring either way are being really disrespectful, every sport and game is as hard to be on the top in as others if it doesn't have a skill ceiling. At one point a certain sport can have an athlete that ups the bar (e.g. what michael phelps was for swimming), but in the end, whoever works their ass off like a maniac and have immense talent in swimming or SC2 or some other sport, it will require the peak of a human being to beat that person regardless of how "hard" the sport is.
How difficult a sport is will only matter as to how obvious skill differences are, it won't make it any easier to be the best that the sport is "easy" as you can always be competing against someone like michael phelps giving everyday for 5 years to become great at his skill.
edit: you are being disrespectful to SC2 pros if you call SC2 easy, you are being disrespectful to all other athletes if you say it requires more skill.
|
On August 08 2012 02:53 NTTemplar wrote:
edit: you are being disrespectful to SC2 pros if you call SC2 easy, you are being disrespectful to all other athletes if you say it requires more skill.
Why? Sc2 is indeed not that hard and at times luck based. I can take games of pro sc2 players while i play like 5 games a week.
You think someone who swims some laps twice a week or so is ever gonna be able to beat an Olympic swimmer?
And that example can pretty much be made for any Olympic sport.
People take ''esports'' way too serious, enjoy what you got (many regular high prize tournaments and sponsored teams).
The ever longing to be ''mainstream'' is tiring.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
