Was watching a news discussion about stupid past Olympic sports and possible new Olympic sports and it turns out that Starcraft II among other eSports are being considered for future Olympic games. League of Legends and yes even Tetris are among the considerations.
It is still highly unlikely as many sports are evaluated for Olympic events simply because they are nominated by enough people. For example I searched the forums and found this quickly closed nomination thread about getting Starcraft II in 2018 Olympics
Perhaps this was responsible for the official consideration.
Either way this is a pretty interesting little video to learn about some funny past Olympic sports and it got me thinking about what I'd like to see in future games so first here's a poll about the three games listed in this report
Poll: Which officially considered game would you wan't in the Olympics?
Starcraft II (1997)
84%
Tetris (221)
9%
League Of Legends (158)
7%
2376 total votes
Your vote: Which officially considered game would you wan't in the Olympics?
(Vote): Tetris (Vote): League Of Legends (Vote): Starcraft II
What other future sports would you like to see in the Olympics?
On August 03 2012 07:27 Cokefreak wrote: Tetris is the only hard game out of those 3 options.
You can't say either LoL or Sc2 has a difficulty, since you play an opponent and not a series of set challenges. I guess the same goes for Tetris though, since you try to beat other peoples high scores.
Dudes...If sculpting and town planning was an olympic sport, then starcraft 2 has an amazing chance!
EDIT: just finished watching the interview and that host sounds so @#$ biased and unwilling to even learn what the game is about, which is unfortunately just like 90% of the general public right now...I hope this changes when our generation starts to take over
anyone else not want esports in the olympics? all it's going to do is make people fight over whether or not video games should be in the olympics and i'm kinda tired of it
edit: haha just finished the video, if people dig on badminton (a legit sport), what do you think people will do on a video game
So Fox news tried to fill space and you think we need to have this discussion all over again?
IOC needs physical effort to take something as a sport (except of chess, it has a historic role). Olympia Bejing tried to put in esports, but they werent allowed This was discussed 10000 times on TL
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.
On August 03 2012 07:34 N.geNuity wrote: I don't support video games in the olympics
Pretty much how I feel about it. I love video-games, and I throughly enjoy watching highly competitive games played for large prizes. Hell, I'd even like to see it on ESPN or something.
I just can't get the feeling out of my head that it would be "wrong" somehow in the 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.
The shear dexterity of playing these games at the highest level is a major physical component.
Again, I am good at tetris, but I can tell you have many times I have lost because I accidently rotate one more time. The highest levels give you like half a second.
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.
The shear dexterity of playing these games at the highest level is a major physical component.
Again, I am good at tetris, but I can tell you have many times I have lost because I accidently rotate one more time. The highest levels give you like half a second.
On August 03 2012 07:38 Praetorial wrote: This shouldn't even be considered.
The Olympics since time forgotten have been about the peak of human physical prowess, teamwork, and pushing oneself farther than ever before.
Video games do not belong there. They require training, exercise, but not physically so.
To include them would be a disservice to this one bastion of human cooperation.
Duh, yes they do? Eye-to hand coordination is physical. Finger movement and dexterity is physical. Being alert and attentive to everything on the screen is physical. And so what if it's not using your biceps or whatever? Instead of drooling over people jogging with bulging calves and solid sixpacks on their tummies; watching a strategy game being taken seriously for once would be really nice and entertaining.
I don't think the Olympics should consider E-sports as part of the main Olympic event. Rather, they should actually have a separate Olympics dedicated to Esports...now I think that would be appropriate.
On August 03 2012 07:38 Praetorial wrote: This shouldn't even be considered.
The Olympics since time forgotten have been about the peak of human physical prowess, teamwork, and pushing oneself farther than ever before.
Video games do not belong there. They require training, exercise, but not physically so.
To include them would be a disservice to this one bastion of human cooperation.
Duh, yes they do? Eye-to hand coordination is physical. Finger movement and dexterity is physical. Being alert and attentive to everything on the screen is physical. And so what if it's not using your biceps or whatever? Instead of drooling over people jogging with bulging calves and solid sixpacks on their tummies; watching a strategy game being taken seriously for once would be really nice and entertaining.
As I said before, gotta train them thumbs hard.
Everyone understands the rules of swimming, gymnastics, and others after a few SECONDS of commentary.
How long did it take you to learn Starcraft or Broodwar? For me, it was a year.
The Olympics are a physical event. Attempting to say that hand-eye coordination and finger movement is worthy to sit beside the current sports within the realm of highly physical competition is absurd.
On August 03 2012 07:38 Praetorial wrote: This shouldn't even be considered.
The Olympics since time forgotten have been about the peak of human physical prowess, teamwork, and pushing oneself farther than ever before.
Video games do not belong there. They require training, exercise, but not physically so.
To include them would be a disservice to this one bastion of human cooperation.
Duh, yes they do? Eye-to hand coordination is physical. Finger movement and dexterity is physical. Being alert and attentive to everything on the screen is physical. And so what if it's not using your biceps or whatever? Instead of drooling over people jogging with bulging calves and solid sixpacks on their tummies; watching a strategy game being taken seriously for once would be really nice and entertaining.
On August 03 2012 07:30 aeroblaster wrote: You put LoL up on that list but not Dota 2? mega hard fail dude
I agree, but as of now, LoL is vastly more popular. Atleast from my experience.
...It's the olympics. I'm not sure popularity or entertainment value are a factor in determining whether or not something could be an olympic sport. Technical difficulty seems to be something more of a determining factor.
I think what people are not taking into consideration is how long away it is to see video games at an olympic game. In the video, posted in the OP. he said like 2020 olympics they would actually put that in. In that time esports can grow and develop. And who knows maybe all the leagues will come together with some sort of agreement. I think Blizzard will have to play a big part if they want to see Idra going for the gold for the USA :D. + Show Spoiler +
But could you imagine, stephano playing and all the fans chanting USA USA USA USA USA?? (and its a joke guys i know he is french <3)
Easy, Tetris is the only one of those games that is unchanging, like any sport it has to remain the same as it has always been, unlike sc2 and LoL wich will be replaced and gone long before Tetris dies.
I know since the olympics started I had thought of how awesome it would be if Blizzard partnered with the olympics and, provided Blizzard kept the WCS, had the WCS global championship at the olympics every time they could.
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.
While i agree with the notion that Olympics are for more physical sports than SC, its kind of hard to argue that being able to move your hands as fast as the best Starcraft players on the planet do, averaging 200+ epm, isn't physically demanding. While it isn't as hard as running, swimming, jumping etc. it's not like anyone can just have 200+ epm while doing all the thinking required to play sc, let alone move their hands that fast for that long.
If chess were an Olympic sport this might be a serious consideration, but despite FIDE (the international chess federation) being recognized by the IOC, there's almost no chance of that happening (also chessplayers now have to take drug tests just as SC2 players would if they wanted IOC recognition). Also Korea already got a sport into the Olympics with Taekwondo so they've already used up whatever influence they might have.
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.
While i agree with the notion that Olympics are for more physical sports than SC, its kind of hard to argue that being able to move your hands as fast as the best Starcraft players on the planet do, averaging 200+ epm, isn't physically demanding. While it isn't as hard as running, swimming, jumping etc. it's not like anyone can just have 200+ epm while doing all the thinking required to play sc, let alone move their hands that fast for that long.
Working one's thumbs and hands over a keyboard, with excellent hand-eye coordination, is a skill that I'd love to have.
It doesn't deserve a spot at the pinnacle of human physical prowess.
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.
As an aside, I was kind of irked by at the end of the video where the guy said "who would throw a Badminton match?" like the people competing in that event care as little about it as he does. "Well gee I'm not sprinting I guess the gold doesn't matter to me".
And no, I don't really want Starcraft to be an Olympic sport, the things put on by "our" community are/can be enough, at least to me.
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.
While i agree with the notion that Olympics are for more physical sports than SC, its kind of hard to argue that being able to move your hands as fast as the best Starcraft players on the planet do, averaging 200+ epm, isn't physically demanding. While it isn't as hard as running, swimming, jumping etc. it's not like anyone can just have 200+ epm while doing all the thinking required to play sc, let alone move their hands that fast for that long.
Working one's thumbs and hands over a keyboard, with excellent hand-eye coordination, is a skill that I'd love to have.
It doesn't deserve a spot at the pinnacle of human physical prowess.
I don't understand your logic. Working one's thumb and hands over a bow with excellent hand eye coordination is called archery. It's in the Olympics. Does that deserve a spot at the pinnacle of human physical prowess?
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.
While i agree with the notion that Olympics are for more physical sports than SC, its kind of hard to argue that being able to move your hands as fast as the best Starcraft players on the planet do, averaging 200+ epm, isn't physically demanding. While it isn't as hard as running, swimming, jumping etc. it's not like anyone can just have 200+ epm while doing all the thinking required to play sc, let alone move their hands that fast for that long.
Working one's thumbs and hands over a keyboard, with excellent hand-eye coordination, is a skill that I'd love to have.
It doesn't deserve a spot at the pinnacle of human physical prowess.
I don't understand your logic. Working one's thumb and hands over a bow with excellent hand eye coordination is called archery. It's in the Olympics. Does that deserve a spot at the pinnacle of human physical prowess?
Do you have any concept of how much strength it takes to draw a bow? Archers need incredibly strong arm muscles to do what they do.
I lift regularly, and it would be insanely difficult for me to draw one of the bows being used at the Olympics.
On August 03 2012 08:09 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I'd rather see Bowling as an Olympic Sport and I hate Bowling.
I have to add: once a game is in, where do we draw the line? If we do put in LoL and SC2, then I would most respectfully request that Dota2 and Brood War be also added. And then what about fighting games? Do we put them in? Turn based strategy games? Should not Counter Strike 1.6 also be granted a spot? And then there's the deal with the actual physical requirements of many of these games, and the fact that many spectators and other athletes are not going to take them seriously.
Perhaps you could make an "e-sports Olympics" of some kind, but looking at how WCG turned out I don't hold out much hope on that front either. Just keep watching the leagues they already have in whatever game you like to watch people.
edit: And I'd rather see bowling than Brood War too
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.
While i agree with the notion that Olympics are for more physical sports than SC, its kind of hard to argue that being able to move your hands as fast as the best Starcraft players on the planet do, averaging 200+ epm, isn't physically demanding. While it isn't as hard as running, swimming, jumping etc. it's not like anyone can just have 200+ epm while doing all the thinking required to play sc, let alone move their hands that fast for that long.
Working one's thumbs and hands over a keyboard, with excellent hand-eye coordination, is a skill that I'd love to have.
It doesn't deserve a spot at the pinnacle of human physical prowess.
I don't understand your logic. Working one's thumb and hands over a bow with excellent hand eye coordination is called archery. It's in the Olympics. Does that deserve a spot at the pinnacle of human physical prowess?
Archery isn't the most physically athletic sport, but it is more directly dexterous than gaming. The finesse required to place an arrow at long range, taking wind into account, requires devotion and practice. There are more subtleties there than pushing the right keyboard/mouse buttons at the right time. Besides that, it's also one of the most universal and historical sports.
Equastrian events are kind of borderline, imo. The horse should get the medal. I wouldn't be sad if they left the Olympics.
But video games will never be in the Olympics. It just feels insulting to the whole tradition.
I'd rather see a eletronic Olympics being held kinda like Winter olympics or something. a 4 year tournament with MANY esports, like EVOgames+Dota2+LoL+SC2+(idk other games LOL)
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.
While i agree with the notion that Olympics are for more physical sports than SC, its kind of hard to argue that being able to move your hands as fast as the best Starcraft players on the planet do, averaging 200+ epm, isn't physically demanding. While it isn't as hard as running, swimming, jumping etc. it's not like anyone can just have 200+ epm while doing all the thinking required to play sc, let alone move their hands that fast for that long.
Working one's thumbs and hands over a keyboard, with excellent hand-eye coordination, is a skill that I'd love to have.
It doesn't deserve a spot at the pinnacle of human physical prowess.
I don't understand your logic. Working one's thumb and hands over a bow with excellent hand eye coordination is called archery. It's in the Olympics. Does that deserve a spot at the pinnacle of human physical prowess?
Do you have any concept of how much strength it takes to draw a bow? Archers need incredibly strong arm muscles to do what they do.
I lift regularly, and it would be insanely difficult for me to draw one of the bows being used at the 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.
While i agree with the notion that Olympics are for more physical sports than SC, its kind of hard to argue that being able to move your hands as fast as the best Starcraft players on the planet do, averaging 200+ epm, isn't physically demanding. While it isn't as hard as running, swimming, jumping etc. it's not like anyone can just have 200+ epm while doing all the thinking required to play sc, let alone move their hands that fast for that long.
Working one's thumbs and hands over a keyboard, with excellent hand-eye coordination, is a skill that I'd love to have.
It doesn't deserve a spot at the pinnacle of human physical prowess.
I don't understand your logic. Working one's thumb and hands over a bow with excellent hand eye coordination is called archery. It's in the Olympics. Does that deserve a spot at the pinnacle of human physical prowess?
Do you have any concept of how much strength it takes to draw a bow? Archers need incredibly strong arm muscles to do what they do.
I lift regularly, and it would be insanely difficult for me to draw one of the bows being used at the Olympics.
On August 03 2012 08:09 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I'd rather see Bowling as an Olympic Sport and I hate Bowling.
Yes, I agree.
So if SC2 players had to play with weights on their hands, it would count.
Gotcha.
...and they don't, so I'm not sure where you're going.
Starcraft 2 is not, and was never meant to be a physically demanding sport.
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.
I too am a swimmer, and I too agree... to a certain extent. SC2 absolutely has a physical component, ESPECIALLY at the best of the best level. I think training to having incredible hand-eye coordination, hand speed, physical multitasking required to be mechanically on par with someone like Flash may not seem like it would take as much work as it would take to make the Olympics in a sport as brutally, physically rigorous as swimming, but I think that they both would be rigorous, in different ways, but still tough either way. And that doesn't even get into the realm where Starcraft is truly rigorous, THE MIND. No Olympic sport has the mental requirements to "even be OK" at it like Starcraft does. As a swimmer, I believe that it is swimming that is the hardest sport physically to be at a world class level at, or even just competitive at a region/national level, but there are NO tactics. The mental aspect of gearing yourself up to perform, of maintaining focus through training and through your actual race are nothing to scoff at, it is certainly a feat to have the mental strength to pull that off, but I would argue that it has nothing on the mental aspects of Starcraft. I believe that it is the MENTAL aspect of Starcraft that should be evaluated when looking at it in comparison to other sports (even though, as I said above, the physical aspect is only missing when looking at the game expecting to see strength, and power, not finesse, speed, and endurance). So if the IOC ever opens up to mental competition, Starcraft belongs just as much as swimming or running belong as feats of physical prowess.
Or maybe it shouldn't get put into the Olympics because no one but South Korea would ever win
I don't understand you guys. How could you not want Starcraft ( bw or 2 ) being categorized as a Olympic sport ? If you want the scene to grow and E-sport going more mainstream, I can't think of any better way to do this.
On August 03 2012 08:14 Zephirdd wrote: I'd rather see a eletronic Olympics being held kinda like Winter olympics or something. a 4 year tournament with MANY esports, like EVOgames+Dota2+LoL+SC2+(idk other games LOL)
I don't see esports making it into the Olympics.
Exactly! Sports take place in the world around us, eSports take place in a computer and on a monitor. They aren't the same thing. It would be awesome if eSports had it's own olympic like even't. Now that would be a true milestone.
On August 03 2012 08:19 renkin wrote: I don't understand you guys. How could you not want Starcraft ( bw or 2 ) being categorized as a Olympic sport ? If you want the scene to grow and E-sport going more mainstream, I can't think of any better way to do this.
I want Esports to stay where it should be-at electronic competitions.
I do not want the Olympics, the pinnacle of human physical strength, endurance, and skill, to include video games that are confusing to some people, uninteresting, and not unique to the competitor.
On August 03 2012 08:19 renkin wrote: I don't understand you guys. How could you not want Starcraft ( bw or 2 ) being categorized as a Olympic sport ? If you want the scene to grow and E-sport going more mainstream, I can't think of any better way to do this.
eSports has more in common with darts, poker and snooker than it would with traditional Olympic sports.
There is a physical component but it's dexterity, not strength. That's the main difference between Olympic sports really; a physical component that has to be refined and tuned and practiced constantly, whether it be out and out strength in weightlifting, the precise execution and flexibility of diving or gymnastics or perhaps the stamina and endurance required in soccer, basketball, marathons, etc.
It's not really an appropriate Olympic sport - but then as more generations of people accept gaming, as we've seen over the last two decades, opinions of this will change.
So I just learned that sc2 apparently doesn't have a physical component. Am I the only one finding myself amazed at the fact that despite this being the case, lots of pros are suffering from carpal tunnel and other injuries caused by physical strain on their bodies? Astounding.
On August 03 2012 08:12 Loanshark wrote: I have to add: once a game is in, where do we draw the line? If we do put in LoL and SC2, then I would most respectfully request that Dota2 and Brood War be also added. And then what about fighting games? Do we put them in? Turn based strategy games? Should not Counter Strike 1.6 also be granted a spot? And then there's the deal with the actual physical requirements of many of these games, and the fact that many spectators and other athletes are not going to take them seriously.
Perhaps you could make an "e-sports Olympics" of some kind, but looking at how WCG turned out I don't hold out much hope on that front either. Just keep watching the leagues they already have in whatever game you like to watch people.
edit: And I'd rather see bowling than Brood War too
Ah excellent point. As we all know, every sport that's ever been concieved has automatically been introduced as part of the olympics, so naturally it follows that this would be the case for games as well.
On August 03 2012 07:36 Vestrel wrote: That reporter is so quick to be dismissive.
"That's sad." is her first reaction
Really? She has no idea.
..Actually she's one of those people who bash badminton and she works for Fox News so I guess I'm not really surprised
Sending angry tweets brb
Megan Kelly and Fox News for ya right there!
I do recall there being studies that have shown people who solely get their news from Fox have lower IQs than say CNN or other major news networks. Although that may have been a joke.
On August 03 2012 08:25 hifriend wrote: So I just learned that sc2 apparently doesn't have a physical component. Am I the only one finding myself amazed at the fact that despite this being the case, lots of pros are suffering from carpal tunnel and other injuries caused by physical strain on their bodies? Astounding.
And then the vast majority of players who don't suffer from them.
On August 03 2012 08:25 hifriend wrote: So I just learned that sc2 apparently doesn't have a physical component. Am I the only one finding myself amazed at the fact that despite this being the case, lots of pros are suffering from carpal tunnel and other injuries caused by physical strain on their bodies? Astounding.
My friend, who's an artist, got carpal tunnel by doing sketches on a tablet.
...the rate of carpal tunnel among athletes is a lot lower among athletes, you know why?
Because carpal tunnel is caused by bad posture when using one's hands(keyboards make that worse).
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.
While i agree with the notion that Olympics are for more physical sports than SC, its kind of hard to argue that being able to move your hands as fast as the best Starcraft players on the planet do, averaging 200+ epm, isn't physically demanding. While it isn't as hard as running, swimming, jumping etc. it's not like anyone can just have 200+ epm while doing all the thinking required to play sc, let alone move their hands that fast for that long.
Working one's thumbs and hands over a keyboard, with excellent hand-eye coordination, is a skill that I'd love to have.
It doesn't deserve a spot at the pinnacle of human physical prowess.
I don't understand your logic. Working one's thumb and hands over a bow with excellent hand eye coordination is called archery. It's in the Olympics. Does that deserve a spot at the pinnacle of human physical prowess?
Archery isn't the most physically athletic sport, but it is more directly dexterous than gaming. The finesse required to place an arrow at long range, taking wind into account, requires devotion and practice. There are more subtleties there than pushing the right keyboard/mouse buttons at the right time. Besides that, it's also one of the most universal and historical sports.
Equastrian events are kind of borderline, imo. The horse should get the medal. I wouldn't be sad if they left the Olympics.
But video games will never be in the Olympics. It just feels insulting to the whole tradition.
Putting aside arguments of historical significance, I think you don't understand enough about esports if you think that "pushing the right keyboard/mouse buttons at the right time" is less subtle than the unnamed subtleties in archery. Granted I don't understand enough about archery and I certainly don't know how much physical prowess required to draw a bow, so there might be a point in that. However I think it's arguable if you require more dexterity, devotion and practice to be an archer than to be a progamer.
I would like to know how people feel about other olympic events like golf (in 2016), table tennis or shooting. As an uninformed viewer it doesn't seem like those sports require more athleticism than progaming. By that, I mean that all those sports require dexterity, hand-eye coordination, reflex and a high degree of knowledge to adjust to different situations. Just like in esports.
I think what really holds back video games in the olympics, and mass media in general, is that it is almost impossible to relate to the viewer how hard the players have to work to do what they're doing. All you're seeing are avatars and possibly really quick hand/eye movements, but you don't really know how hard it is. I think it is akin to something like golf or chess. It is really hard to see why what those athletes are doing is actually difficult.
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.
While i agree with the notion that Olympics are for more physical sports than SC, its kind of hard to argue that being able to move your hands as fast as the best Starcraft players on the planet do, averaging 200+ epm, isn't physically demanding. While it isn't as hard as running, swimming, jumping etc. it's not like anyone can just have 200+ epm while doing all the thinking required to play sc, let alone move their hands that fast for that long.
Working one's thumbs and hands over a keyboard, with excellent hand-eye coordination, is a skill that I'd love to have.
It doesn't deserve a spot at the pinnacle of human physical prowess.
I don't understand your logic. Working one's thumb and hands over a bow with excellent hand eye coordination is called archery. It's in the Olympics. Does that deserve a spot at the pinnacle of human physical prowess?
Archery isn't the most physically athletic sport, but it is more directly dexterous than gaming. The finesse required to place an arrow at long range, taking wind into account, requires devotion and practice. There are more subtleties there than pushing the right keyboard/mouse buttons at the right time. Besides that, it's also one of the most universal and historical sports.
Equastrian events are kind of borderline, imo. The horse should get the medal. I wouldn't be sad if they left the Olympics.
But video games will never be in the Olympics. It just feels insulting to the whole tradition.
Putting aside arguments of historical significance, I think you don't understand enough about esports if you think that "pushing the right keyboard/mouse buttons at the right time" is less subtle than the unnamed subtleties in archery. Granted I don't understand enough about archery and I certainly don't know how much physical prowess there is required to draw a bow, so there might be a point in that. However I think it's arguable if you require more dexterity, devotion and practice to be archer than to be a progamer.
I would like to know how people feel about other olympic events like golf (in 2016), table tennis or shooting. As an uninformed viewer it doesn't seem like those sports require more athleticism than progaming. In that all those sports require dexterity, hand-eye coordination, reflex and a high degree of knowledge to adjust to different situations. Just like in esports.
I think what really holds back video games in the olympics in general is that it is almost impossible to relate to the viewer how hard the players have to work to do what their doing. All your seeing are avatars and possibly really quick hand/eye movements, but you don't really know how hard it is. I think it is akin to something like golf or chess. It is really hard to see why what those athletes are doing is actually difficult.
And all of them require high physical prowess and endurance, even shooting and ping pong, to be played at a competitive level.
Does Starcraft have that?
I thought so.
But yeah, I agree, a sport needs to be relatable, with the human element being emphasized.
Just get a new commitee for WCG and that will be even better, get them to hire better people. Kick out the cellphone games and get to it be huge, thats what I want.
Olympic sports to me are a challenge in the physical aspect of the human body. Though SC2 can be really difficult, most of it is mental. The focus is not on the physical portion when it comes to starcraft, although APM gets really important at the pro levels. Even then, you don't need as much apm as you would in Brood War.
I would say Tetris might be pushing it, but SC is a no-go for me.
On August 03 2012 08:25 hifriend wrote: So I just learned that sc2 apparently doesn't have a physical component. Am I the only one finding myself amazed at the fact that despite this being the case, lots of pros are suffering from carpal tunnel and other injuries caused by physical strain on their bodies? Astounding.
My friend, who's an artist, got carpal tunnel by doing sketches on a tablet.
...the rate of carpal tunnel among athletes is a lot lower among athletes, you know why?
Because carpal tunnel is caused by bad posture when using one's hands(keyboards make that worse).
So I'm not sure where you're coming from.
Are you saying sketching on a tablet doesn't have a physical component to it? I never said the physical aspect alone makes something a sport.
HD_Blink (and Japan/Korea) OP at tetris battle. Too bad TOJ died (not that I used it, but apparently that's where all the good players play...)
man I'm so bad at Tetris now too hard
On August 03 2012 08:36 Praetorial wrote: And all of them require high physical prowess and endurance, even shooting and ping pong, to be played at a competitive level.
Does Starcraft have that?
BW does. Ever played a 45-minute match where you were shaking afterward from the sheer concentration?
On August 03 2012 08:40 ]343[ wrote: HD_Blink (and Japan/Korea) OP at tetris battle. Too bad TOJ died (not that I used it, but apparently that's where all the good players play...)
On August 03 2012 08:36 Praetorial wrote: And all of them require high physical prowess and endurance, even shooting and ping pong, to be played at a competitive level.
Does Starcraft have that?
BW does. Ever played a 45-minute match where you were shaking afterward from the sheer concentration?
Hell yeah.
Were my muscles tired for a few minutes afterward? Heck yes.
For several hours, like after running for an hour or playing badminton for several?
Bad representation of video games as a whole, but it's Fox News, what were you expecting. Video games shouldn't be in the olympics, at least not right now. It'll just be ridiculed by the vast majority of people who watch traditional sports. E-sports would have to be widely, and I mean widely accepted in the mainstream before we can ever consider something like this.
Since the Olympics doesn't allow sports with any element of motorisation, I highly doubt they'd get a sport that you have to use a computer to compete with.
Those news reporters make me feel sick. No wonder the term 'ignorant Americans' exists when news reporters act like complete douches. Ok, they might think video games are nerdy and silly, but shitting on badminton? Why? Other countries don't shit on baseball and american football, which are far more niche than badminton, so why should these reporters mock the fastest and one of the most difficult racquet sports.
There's way too much volatility/land slide advantages and luck involved in SC2, (at least at the moment) for me to really consider it a legitimate sport Edit: by this I mean a 'sport' in the same fashion one considers tennis or football a sport. Where are our Anderson Silva/Fedor/JSP, our Roger Federer/Djokovic/Nadal, our Spain/Brazil/Italy football teams and so on. I find it a bit disconcerting to see, for example, ROG spoilers+ Show Spoiler +
Demuslim losing one best of five 0-3 only to replay the same guy and win 3-1
. Where's the consistency in results?
There may be ways to reduce this, such as extending all series to bo7, or all the familiar explanations for the game's volaility like the game is young and not figured out, players having bad days, (which, whilst true, doesn't explain away SC2s extreme volatility) and so on. This isn't even considering the actual balancing of a game with three distinct races which require different skills to utilise to their full potential.
Finally, the fact SC is a science fiction based RTS probably doesn't do it many favours in terms of mainstream appeal.
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.
While i agree with the notion that Olympics are for more physical sports than SC, its kind of hard to argue that being able to move your hands as fast as the best Starcraft players on the planet do, averaging 200+ epm, isn't physically demanding. While it isn't as hard as running, swimming, jumping etc. it's not like anyone can just have 200+ epm while doing all the thinking required to play sc, let alone move their hands that fast for that long.
Working one's thumbs and hands over a keyboard, with excellent hand-eye coordination, is a skill that I'd love to have.
It doesn't deserve a spot at the pinnacle of human physical prowess.
I don't understand your logic. Working one's thumb and hands over a bow with excellent hand eye coordination is called archery. It's in the Olympics. Does that deserve a spot at the pinnacle of human physical prowess?
Do you have any concept of how much strength it takes to draw a bow? Archers need incredibly strong arm muscles to do what they do.
I lift regularly, and it would be insanely difficult for me to draw one of the bows being used at the Olympics.
On August 03 2012 08:09 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I'd rather see Bowling as an Olympic Sport and I hate Bowling.
Yes, I agree.
that's simply not true. the olympic bows only have around 50 pounds of draw weight, which is the average for hunting. I used to shoot with my dads 55 pound draw and it was tough, but I was only 16, and not even that swoll. Could your average gamer do it? I'd say yeah, they probably could, just maybe 5 shots, most likely less.
Tetris is easily mastered, if people played and practiced Tetris as hard as they practiced Starcraft it would be conquered and we'd have pro-gamers playing near perfect games for hours.
I think video games lack an essential quality that most - if not all - Olympic sports have: longevity. Video game as an industry isn't going anywhere, but individual titles won't last for long. Starcraft 1 had a great run at 15 years, but I doubt any video game will last for over two decades as a "sport."
The WCG already has a good infrastructure that reflects the ephemeral nature of video games. They consistently add new titles while taking out outdated ones. It seems better to keep WCG and Olympics separate for both practical and ideal reasons.
On August 03 2012 08:58 Xyik wrote: Tetris is easily mastered, if people played and practiced Tetris as hard as they practiced Starcraft it would be conquered and we'd have pro-gamers playing near perfect games for hours.
competitive tetris is about playing against other people
so even if you "master" it, you still have to beat someone else...
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.
While i agree with the notion that Olympics are for more physical sports than SC, its kind of hard to argue that being able to move your hands as fast as the best Starcraft players on the planet do, averaging 200+ epm, isn't physically demanding. While it isn't as hard as running, swimming, jumping etc. it's not like anyone can just have 200+ epm while doing all the thinking required to play sc, let alone move their hands that fast for that long.
Working one's thumbs and hands over a keyboard, with excellent hand-eye coordination, is a skill that I'd love to have.
It doesn't deserve a spot at the pinnacle of human physical prowess.
I don't understand your logic. Working one's thumb and hands over a bow with excellent hand eye coordination is called archery. It's in the Olympics. Does that deserve a spot at the pinnacle of human physical prowess?
Do you have any concept of how much strength it takes to draw a bow? Archers need incredibly strong arm muscles to do what they do.
I lift regularly, and it would be insanely difficult for me to draw one of the bows being used at the Olympics.
On August 03 2012 08:09 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I'd rather see Bowling as an Olympic Sport and I hate Bowling.
Yes, I agree.
that's simply not true. the olympic bows only have around 50 pounds of draw weight, which is the average for hunting. I used to shoot with my dads 55 pound draw and it was tough, but I was only 16, and not even that swoll. Could your average gamer do it? I'd say yeah, they probably could, just maybe 5 shots, most likely less.
Exactly what I was about to say. Glad I read the rest of the thread so I didn't repeat. 48 lb draw weight is Olympic men's standard. That's not much. I used a 75lb draw weight bow when I was 15 during summer camp just to prove to the other kiddies that I could. If that's your definition of "incredibly strong arm muscles" any guy who spends a decent amount of time at the gym must seem like a real-life Juggernaut.
Ofcourse i would like to see starcraft at Olympics. I dont understand why the fuck No. Its discipline, where if you are better than your opponents (by hard training/beign smart and hard training/beign creative and hard training/all of those aspects) you deserve a win. So what makes it different or worse from other sports? Its completely same. I dont know how someone who is better than everyone in the world in decent sized competitors scene, doesnt deserve a medal. So yes, i want Starcraft at Olympics.
That will be hard though, Olympics are highly conservative.
This is never going to happen for StarCraft II and not for years and years for e-sports in general. Here is why: To get into the Olympics, the first step is to have an International Federation with affiliated national federations in many countries across most (if not all) continents. The International Federation must be of significant importance - essentially for StarCraft we would need a KeSPA-like organization but that has worldwide jurisdiction. Not something I foresee happening anytime soon. The closest thing to an international body eSports has is the International eSports federation (IeSF) but they couldn't even get South Koreans to take part in a tournament they organized in South Korea. For the records, the IeSF is currently recognized by the Olympic Council of Asia but not by any other branches of the Olympic moment. Second step is to get said International Federation to be recognized by the IOC (International Olympic Committee) as the proper governing body for the sport. For this to realisticly happen you need about 50 national federations across 5 continents. Third step, you need at /least/ 100 national federation across 5 continents to even be eligible to apply to become part of the games. The restriction is much lower for the Winter Olympics, but as the Winter Olympics require the event to take place on ice or snow eSports is not eligible. Fourth step, petition the IOC's executive board to be shortlisted as a potential sport. This process is actually a huge hurdle. For 2020, the shortlisted sports are Baseball/Softball, Squash, Roller Sports (Roller blade speed skating), Sports Climbing, Wakeboarding and Wushu (modern Kungfu). Some sports like Bowling and Chess have been trying to get over this hurdle for years with no success. Fifth step, hope and pray one of the current 28 sports gets dropped. Sixth step, hope and pray your sport replaces on of the sport(s) to get dropped. Seventh step: wait seven years until your sport is held at the Olympics for the first time.
Oh, and there is the issue of gender equality. No new event can be added if it isn't gender inclusive. Beyond all other issues, including the lack of a credible IF and the fact that eSports is arguably way too volatile to be included into a quadrennial event, the lack of female competitors in eSports really would hurt any bid. Essentially unless we get to a situation where 30-50% of credible programmers are female any bid would need to include female-only events in equal number to male-only events, and the extremely shallow tallent pool of such events would probably tank any bid anyway.
Point is, if we see eSports at the Olympics it won't be for at least another 20 years, if everything goes absolutely perfectly. Going perfectly includes: 1. a credible eSports federation that has real power over MLGs, IPLs, KeSPA, Gom, et cetera sometime two years ago. 2. a sudden and dramatic rise in the number of quality female progamer and either a. female progamers becoming regular challengers and winners in big eSports events or b. a near-equal number of female-only events to coincide with the number of current de-facto male-only events. 3. A regular world championship organized by the credible eSports federation. 4. Inclusion into the regular Asian Games (indoor Asian Games is nice but pretty much meaningless) and Pan-Am games. 5. eSports programmers being subject to regular and random out of competition and in competition drug testing (yes, requirement to even be considered for the Olympics, no matter the sport).
Also, an eSports bid would probably need to be for eSports in general, with events being "categories" of games that would be filled by the most popular game of the quadrennial that fits into the category. That's the only way to get arround how volatile eSports is. So essentially at every Olympics there could be a specific number of events for RTSs, FPSs, racing games, MOBAs, fighets, et cetera but those slots might be filled by different games every time.
Did I mention it's not happening anytime soon, if ever?
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.
While i agree with the notion that Olympics are for more physical sports than SC, its kind of hard to argue that being able to move your hands as fast as the best Starcraft players on the planet do, averaging 200+ epm, isn't physically demanding. While it isn't as hard as running, swimming, jumping etc. it's not like anyone can just have 200+ epm while doing all the thinking required to play sc, let alone move their hands that fast for that long.
Working one's thumbs and hands over a keyboard, with excellent hand-eye coordination, is a skill that I'd love to have.
It doesn't deserve a spot at the pinnacle of human physical prowess.
I don't understand your logic. Working one's thumb and hands over a bow with excellent hand eye coordination is called archery. It's in the Olympics. Does that deserve a spot at the pinnacle of human physical prowess?
Equastrian events are kind of borderline, imo. The horse should get the medal. I wouldn't be sad if they left the Olympics.
On August 03 2012 09:08 Tosster wrote: Ofcourse i would like to see starcraft at Olympics. I dont understand why the fuck No. Its discipline, where if you are better than your opponents (by hard training/beign smart and hard training/beign creative and hard training/all of those aspects) you deserve a win. So what makes it different or worse from other sports? Its completely same. I dont know how someone who is better than everyone in the world in decent sized competitors scene, doesnt deserve a medal. So yes, i want Starcraft at Olympics.
That will be hard though, Olympics are highly conservative.
Starcraft has little to nothing in common with any of the current olympic events.
This is never going to happen for StarCraft II and not for years and years for e-sports in general. Here is why: To get into the Olympics, the first step is to have an International Federation with affiliated national federations in many countries across most (if not all) continents. The International Federation must be of significant importance - essentially for StarCraft we would need a KeSPA-like organization but that has worldwide jurisdiction. Not something I foresee happening anytime soon. The closest thing to an international body eSports has is the International eSports federation (IeSF) but they couldn't even get South Koreans to take part in a tournament they organized in South Korea. For the records, the IeSF is currently recognized by the Olympic Council of Asia but not by any other branches of the Olympic moment. Second step is to get said International Federation to be recognized by the IOC (International Olympic Committee) as the proper governing body for the sport. For this to realisticly happen you need about 50 national federations across 5 continents. Third step, you need at /least/ 100 national federation across 5 continents to even be eligible to apply to become part of the games. The restriction is much lower for the Winter Olympics, but as the Winter Olympics require the event to take place on ice or snow eSports is not eligible. Fourth step, petition the IOC's executive board to be shortlisted as a potential sport. This process is actually a huge hurdle. For 2020, the shortlisted sports are Baseball/Softball, Squash, Roller Sports (Roller blade speed skating), Sports Climbing, Wakeboarding and Wushu (modern Kungfu). Some sports like Bowling and Chess have been trying to get over this hurdle for years with no success. Fifth step, hope and pray one of the current 28 sports gets dropped. Sixth step, hope and pray your sport replaces on of the sport(s) to get dropped. Seventh step: wait seven years until your sport is held at the Olympics for the first time.
Oh, and there is the issue of gender equality. No new event can be added if it isn't gender inclusive. Beyond all other issues, including the lack of a credible IF and the fact that eSports is arguably way too volatile to be included into a quadrennial event, the lack of female competitors in eSports really would hurt any bid. Essentially unless we get to a situation where 30-50% of credible programmers are female any bid would need to include female-only events in equal number to male-only events, and the extremely shallow tallent pool of such events would probably tank any bid anyway.
Point is, if we see eSports at the Olympics it won't be for at least another 20 years, if everything goes absolutely perfectly.
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.
While i agree with the notion that Olympics are for more physical sports than SC, its kind of hard to argue that being able to move your hands as fast as the best Starcraft players on the planet do, averaging 200+ epm, isn't physically demanding. While it isn't as hard as running, swimming, jumping etc. it's not like anyone can just have 200+ epm while doing all the thinking required to play sc, let alone move their hands that fast for that long.
Working one's thumbs and hands over a keyboard, with excellent hand-eye coordination, is a skill that I'd love to have.
It doesn't deserve a spot at the pinnacle of human physical prowess.
I don't understand your logic. Working one's thumb and hands over a bow with excellent hand eye coordination is called archery. It's in the Olympics. Does that deserve a spot at the pinnacle of human physical prowess?
Equastrian events are kind of borderline, imo. The horse should get the medal. I wouldn't be sad if they left the Olympics.
The horses do get medals at the Olympics :-P
Now we know, Starcraft 2 won't get into the Olympics ever. Starcraft 4, on the other hand...
On August 03 2012 09:09 Fischbacher wrote: This is never going to happen for StarCraft II and not for years and years for e-sports in general. Here is why: To get into the Olympics, the first step is to have an International Federation with affiliated national federations in many countries across most (if not all) continents. The International Federation must be of significant importance - essentially for StarCraft we would need a KeSPA-like organization but that has worldwide jurisdiction. Not something I foresee happening anytime soon. The closest thing to an international body eSports has is the International eSports federation (IeSF) but they couldn't even get South Koreans to take part in a tournament they organized in South Korea. For the records, the IeSF is currently recognized by the Olympic Council of Asia but not by any other branches of the Olympic moment. Second step is to get said International Federation to be recognized by the IOC (International Olympic Committee) as the proper governing body for the sport. For this to realisticly happen you need about 50 national federations across 5 continents. Third step, you need at /least/ 100 national federation across 5 continents to even be eligible to apply to become part of the games. The restriction is much lower for the Winter Olympics, but as the Winter Olympics require the event to take place on ice or snow eSports is not eligible. Fourth step, petition the IOC's executive board to be shortlisted as a potential sport. This process is actually a huge hurdle. For 2020, the shortlisted sports are Baseball/Softball, Squash, Roller Sports (Roller blade speed skating), Sports Climbing, Wakeboarding and Wushu (modern Kungfu). Some sports like Bowling and Chess have been trying to get over this hurdle for years with no success. Fifth step, hope and pray one of the current 28 sports gets dropped. Sixth step, hope and pray your sport replaces on of the sport(s) to get dropped. Seventh step: wait seven years until your sport is held at the Olympics for the first time.
Oh, and there is the issue of gender equality. No new event can be added if it isn't gender inclusive. Beyond all other issues, including the lack of a credible IF and the fact that eSports is arguably way too volatile to be included into a quadrennial event, the lack of female competitors in eSports really would hurt any bid. Essentially unless we get to a situation where 30-50% of credible programmers are female any bid would need to include female-only events in equal number to male-only events, and the extremely shallow tallent pool of such events would probably tank any bid anyway.
Point is, if we see eSports at the Olympics it won't be for at least another 20 years, if everything goes absolutely perfectly.
^lmao. I guess the idea that SC2 ends up in the olympics is basically just a total fantasy. Just because you think SC2 is a big deal doesn't mean that other people think even remotely close to it. Olympics should be left to sports that require physical skill and training.
On August 03 2012 09:09 Fischbacher wrote: This is never going to happen for StarCraft II and not for years and years for e-sports in general. Here is why: To get into the Olympics, the first step is to have an International Federation with affiliated national federations in many countries across most (if not all) continents. The International Federation must be of significant importance - essentially for StarCraft we would need a KeSPA-like organization but that has worldwide jurisdiction. Not something I foresee happening anytime soon. The closest thing to an international body eSports has is the International eSports federation (IeSF) but they couldn't even get South Koreans to take part in a tournament they organized in South Korea. For the records, the IeSF is currently recognized by the Olympic Council of Asia but not by any other branches of the Olympic moment. Second step is to get said International Federation to be recognized by the IOC (International Olympic Committee) as the proper governing body for the sport. For this to realisticly happen you need about 50 national federations across 5 continents. Third step, you need at /least/ 100 national federation across 5 continents to even be eligible to apply to become part of the games. The restriction is much lower for the Winter Olympics, but as the Winter Olympics require the event to take place on ice or snow eSports is not eligible. Fourth step, petition the IOC's executive board to be shortlisted as a potential sport. This process is actually a huge hurdle. For 2020, the shortlisted sports are Baseball/Softball, Squash, Roller Sports (Roller blade speed skating), Sports Climbing, Wakeboarding and Wushu (modern Kungfu). Some sports like Bowling and Chess have been trying to get over this hurdle for years with no success. Fifth step, hope and pray one of the current 28 sports gets dropped. Sixth step, hope and pray your sport replaces on of the sport(s) to get dropped. Seventh step: wait seven years until your sport is held at the Olympics for the first time.
Oh, and there is the issue of gender equality. No new event can be added if it isn't gender inclusive. Beyond all other issues, including the lack of a credible IF and the fact that eSports is arguably way too volatile to be included into a quadrennial event, the lack of female competitors in eSports really would hurt any bid. Essentially unless we get to a situation where 30-50% of credible programmers are female any bid would need to include female-only events in equal number to male-only events, and the extremely shallow tallent pool of such events would probably tank any bid anyway.
Point is, if we see eSports at the Olympics it won't be for at least another 20 years, if everything goes absolutely perfectly.
^lmao. I guess the idea that SC2 ends up in the olympics is basically just a total fantasy. Just because you think SC2 is a big deal doesn't mean that other people think even remotely close to it. Olympics should be left to sports that require physical skill and training.
Most people have no clue how sports get into the Olympics. I've followed Squash's quest to get into the Olympics really closely over the past decade so I have a pretty good idea on how hard it is for a sport to get into the Olympics nowadays. It's not something most people are aware of.
Around Olympic time the media keeps making really dumb "X is considered for the Olympics" that have so little basis in truth it physically hurts.
If there is any video games that could be inducted to the Olympic, it will have to be DDR. Ever tried playing that game for more than 3 hours? Oh man, the sweat down my ballz.
On August 03 2012 07:35 EpiK wrote: what's the point of having this poll in a starcraft2 forum lol
exactly my thought. Also why cant you have LoL and SC2 both? There could also be individual and team for SC2.Both are good games, although I would prefer SC2 obviously.
On August 03 2012 09:23 Xiphos wrote: If there is any video games that could be inducted to the Olympic, it will have to be DDR. Ever tried playing that game for more than 3 hours? Oh man, the sweat down my ballz.
I agree with this, if any video game should be there it should be DDR.
On August 03 2012 08:58 Xyik wrote: Tetris is easily mastered, if people played and practiced Tetris as hard as they practiced Starcraft it would be conquered and we'd have pro-gamers playing near perfect games for hours.
Competitive tetris isn't about playing the game until you lose. There are vs. modes.
FOX News: Delivering factual, non-sensational news since 1996.
There are so many reasons why video games won't, and shouldn't be in the Olympics but the main reason it will never be in is because events like Baseball and Golf aren't even Olympic sports at the moment and no video game is never going to be higher on the priority list than those.
An eSports Olympics would be cool if we ever get that big, but for now its just WCG, although that's only better funding and some questionable refereeing decisions away from being the eSports equivalent.
edit: The only argument for eSports is that it only belongs at the Olympics slightly less than dressage.
It's going to be awesome to see waiting for server messages at the olympics :p For a game to get in, it would have to be decided 7 years in advance, so if we could get it started now, it would get in at 2020,bit I doubt if people will be playing at that time.
But I'd rather have brood war there instead...but sadly it means korea gets all three medals lol.
Most people have no clue how sports get into the Olympics. I've followed Squash's quest to get into the Olympics really closely over the past decade so I have a pretty good idea on how hard it is for a sport to get into the Olympics nowadays. It's not something most people are aware of.
Yeah I was surprised that squash is not a part of the olympics..quite sad. I'm guessing ultimately it comes down to lots of money more than anything else. What the olympics really is ,is big time publicity for a sport.
If there had to be one of those games, I would love to see Tetris in the Olympics, if not only for the Gold and Silver going to Flamewheel and ]343[ ;D.
On August 03 2012 07:38 Praetorial wrote: This shouldn't even be considered.
The Olympics since time forgotten have been about the peak of human physical prowess, teamwork, and pushing oneself farther than ever before.
Video games do not belong there. They require training, exercise, but not physically so.
To include them would be a disservice to this one bastion of human cooperation.
Duh, yes they do? Eye-to hand coordination is physical. Finger movement and dexterity is physical. Being alert and attentive to everything on the screen is physical. And so what if it's not using your biceps or whatever? Instead of drooling over people jogging with bulging calves and solid sixpacks on their tummies; watching a strategy game being taken seriously for once would be really nice and entertaining.
As I said before, gotta train them thumbs hard.
Everyone understands the rules of swimming, gymnastics, and others after a few SECONDS of commentary.
How long did it take you to learn Starcraft or Broodwar? For me, it was a year.
The Olympics are a physical event. Attempting to say that hand-eye coordination and finger movement is worthy to sit beside the current sports within the realm of highly physical competition is absurd.
To learn the basics well enough to enjoy SC2? Took me around 4 matches. SC2 is quite the simple game to understand well enough to enjoy it. that's all that matters. BW, IMO, is a bit more complicated to understand, mostly because of the lack of spectator tools.
On August 03 2012 08:59 kochanfe wrote: SC2 takes vastly more skill at the top level than many Olympic sports? Why should it not be aloud to be among them?
Because it doesn't? Saying that SC2 "takes vastly more skill" is just an insult to Olympian athletes.
I'd prefer Broodwar, but Korea would sweep the top infinite spots. SC2 is more competitive on a global level, and maybe by 2018 a foreigner could get a bronze.
As much as starcraft requires talent and hard practice, it just doesnt seem to fit in with the traditional feel of the Olympics. Even if it was officially recognized as an Olympic sport, I doubt that the masses of the world would be accepting of it at this time. Olympics has always been a showcase of athletic prowess and the human body at its peak performance~
BAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! Tetris is beating LoL!!! m-D
It's true, this question could hardly be put in a more biased corner of the Internet. ...Besides the League of Legends forums, haha! Granted, if games are nominated based on popular vote,... well, shoot, we'll beat curling for sure. X-D (sorry, offended Canucks ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ )
Honestly, I'm not going to vote, as I don't think any of them should be considered for the Olympics. As cool as it would be to see Flash pass the Olympic torch to, say, Michael Phelps at an opening ceremony, I just don't feel like this is what eSports needs. I want to see eSports grow of course, but I kinda like the little niche SC2 and even LoL has carved for itself in the world community. There's something truly special and "action-y" about the classic Olympic sports that eSports simply cannot duplicate, and there are special qualities about eSports that the Olympics cannot produce either. They are unique and different entertainments, and enjoyable for their own worth. So I say leave it be.
On August 03 2012 09:27 Eufouria wrote: FOX News: Delivering factual, non-sensational news since 1996.
There are so many reasons why video games won't, and shouldn't be in the Olympics but the main reason it will never be in is because events like Baseball and Golf aren't even Olympic sports at the moment and no video game is never going to be higher on the priority list than those.
An eSports Olympics would be cool if we ever get that big, but for now its just WCG, although that's only better funding and some questionable refereeing decisions away from being the eSports equivalent.
edit: The only argument for eSports is that it only belongs at the Olympics slightly less than dressage.
Baseball was for awhile. It was dropped because of the doping issues and the subpar athletes that were often sent since it runs concurrent with MLB. Softball was also removed because of its loose relationship to baseball, albeit unfairly.
I'd say bw comes close to the physical demands, at least in the dexterity/speed department since not all olympic sports involve running or extreme physical exertion. Take shooting for example.
However, I still don't think it should be in the games cause obviously now it's not as popular anymore but therein is the underlying problem and the reason we won't see video games at the olympics. Even bw, with it's very long pro gaming history is a short lived game compared to these olympic sports. By the time a video game is even recognized as a sport by the IOC, let alone made an official olympic event, it'll already be dead.
On August 03 2012 07:33 firehand101 wrote: Dudes...If sculpting and town planning was an olympic sport, then starcraft 2 has an amazing chance!
EDIT: just finished watching the interview and that host sounds so @#$ biased and unwilling to even learn what the game is about, which is unfortunately just like 90% of the general public right now...I hope this changes when our generation starts to take over
'twill take a long time my friend. But it will happen.
but it seems people are commenting with little to no seriousness, with that said, i'd welcome another event that can help increase korea's medal tallies
On August 03 2012 09:32 a9arnn wrote: If there had to be one of those games, I would love to see Tetris in the Olympics, if not only for the Gold and Silver going to Flamewheel and ]343[ ;D.
Though I'm touched by the sentiment, I doubt flamewheel could crack the top 50, and I'd be floating somewhere around #1000 (if there were world 1v1 Tetris rankings.)
thought this thread was serious until i saw the link was to fox news
TBH i dont want to see SC2 in the Olympics, we can make our own Olympics, let the Olympics stay traditional with traditional sports and let those who want to enjoy SC2 watch SC2
ive heard alot of people bash Fox news over the years, never actually watched it so always jsut bashed it as a joke never really meaning it
after watching that link i can now bash it for real that was terrible
To be honest, I would love to see eSports grow as much as the next guy BUT the thing is League of Legends is the bigger name by far compared to Starcraft 2 so you would need the bigger game to SET the standard for ESPORTS. Even though people make a poll here on a SC2 Community website, what did most of you think the results would be? Put the poll on IGN or GAMESPOT and you will see league of legends would sweep SC2.
The thing is i want ESPORTS to grow just not STARCRAFT 2, thats what people have to learn about. League of Legends is the biggest game in the world right now, and it would open the gates for other games such as SC2 to enter. People have to stop fighting and arguing what game is better, and all get together and help each community grow as a whole because i feel like this time GAMING is at its peak.
On August 03 2012 10:03 naux wrote: To be honest, I would love to see eSports grow as much as the next guy BUT the thing is League of Legends is the bigger name by far compared to Starcraft 2 so you would need the bigger game to SET the standard for ESPORTS. Even though people make a poll here on a SC2 Community website, what did most of you think the results would be? Put the poll on IGN or GAMESPOT and you will see league of legends would sweep SC2.
The thing is i want ESPORTS to grow just not STARCRAFT 2, thats what people have to learn about. League of Legends is the biggest game in the world right now, and it would open the gates for other games such as SC2 to enter. People have to stop fighting and arguing what game is better, and all get together and help each community grow as a whole because i feel like this time GAMING is at its peak.
Sorry ahead of time for bad grammar.
biased post is biased
everyones going to ahve there favourite game and fight tooth and nail for it, theres no way to really tell which game is bigger
Well I don't see how starcraft is any less physically demanding than shooting an air rifle on a tripod... Maybe in 20-30 years this could be more serious, maybe never.
I think it is funny that most people call this "e-sports" (competitive play of video games) but laugh when it is offered up to be included in the Olympic Games (the premier tournament of games). We call ourselves cyber-athletes and have sport in the name (along with games), but we don't belong in the Olympics....I think we have a dilemma, change our names or show why we call ourselves athletes and call this a sport.
PS. I honestly doubt that this could be included in the Olympic Games, but i don't see why not.
On August 03 2012 10:06 Prplppleatr wrote: I think it is funny that most people call this "e-sports" (competitive play of video games) but laugh when it is offered up to be included in the Olympic Games (the premier tournament of games). We call ourselves cyber-athletes and have sport in the name (along with games), but we don't belong in the Olympics....I think we have a dilemma, change our names or show why we call ourselves athletes and call this a sport.
PS. I honestly doubt that this could be included in the Olympic Games, but i don't see why not.
That's why I think there should be a separated Olympic event for e-sports, a Cyber Olympics or something like that.
On August 03 2012 08:59 kochanfe wrote: SC2 takes vastly more skill at the top level than many Olympic sports? Why should it not be aloud to be among them?
Because it doesn't? Saying that SC2 "takes vastly more skill" is just an insult to Olympian athletes.
I don't even know how you manage to compair the two... they are so different.
I think people are looking too much at what the players do and not at how the game is played. Olympic sports (and sports in general) is about watching the players perform. With eSports you aren't watching the players, you're watching the game. Now I know tournaments show the players sitting in their booth, I guess you can watch the players, but that is not a valid argument because you aren't hardly ever watching the players physically play, you are watching the results of their actions on a screen in the form of a game, aka eSport.
Sports and the Olympics has a heavy emphasis on the physical actions of the player, both watching the results of those actions and the sheer beauty of their form. In eSports we aren't focussed on the gamer as much as we are on what he does in the game. The rift between the performer and the game is what separates eSports from sports. It's why eSports deserves it's own Olympic style games every 2-4 years, completely separate from the olympics.
Additionally, even if you disagree with what I just posted above, you must also consider that eSports isn't just one game, but a large collection of games. They rise and fall in popularity. Do you really think it will promote eSports well to put a game in the Olympics only to have it be played in 1 or 2 Olympic games before it falls out of popularity like all those other sports, such as Tug of war. I don't find that very beneficial.
With an actual eSports games, the money spent on eSports, stays in eSports; The money gained from viewers, benefits eSports.
On August 03 2012 10:06 Prplppleatr wrote: I think it is funny that most people call this "e-sports" (competitive play of video games) but laugh when it is offered up to be included in the Olympic Games (the premier tournament of games). We call ourselves cyber-athletes and have sport in the name (along with games), but we don't belong in the Olympics....I think we have a dilemma, change our names or show why we call ourselves athletes and call this a sport.
PS. I honestly doubt that this could be included in the Olympic Games, but i don't see why not.
That's why I think there should be a separated Olympic event for e-sports, a Cyber Olympics or something like that.
This is incredibly premature, but not that impossible in our lifetime as some are suggesting... I mean some of these sports would've been scoffed at only 30-40 years ago.
On August 03 2012 10:03 naux wrote: To be honest, I would love to see eSports grow as much as the next guy BUT the thing is League of Legends is the bigger name by far compared to Starcraft 2 so you would need the bigger game to SET the standard for ESPORTS. Even though people make a poll here on a SC2 Community website, what did most of you think the results would be? Put the poll on IGN or GAMESPOT and you will see league of legends would sweep SC2.
The thing is i want ESPORTS to grow just not STARCRAFT 2, thats what people have to learn about. League of Legends is the biggest game in the world right now, and it would open the gates for other games such as SC2 to enter. People have to stop fighting and arguing what game is better, and all get together and help each community grow as a whole because i feel like this time GAMING is at its peak.
Sorry ahead of time for bad grammar.
biased post is biased
everyones going to ahve there favourite game and fight tooth and nail for it, theres no way to really tell which game is bigger
People like you are really truly blind. How is it a biased post when i like STARCRAFT 2 more than i like League of Legends, you tell me? You can like Starcraft 2 but 5 other people would prefer League of Legends theres a big ratio comparison. Yes you can EASILY tell which game is better, which gets more VIEWERS? which one has more players actively playing it? which generates more income? Did you even read my post or just read the first 2 sentences?
On August 03 2012 10:06 Prplppleatr wrote: I think it is funny that most people call this "e-sports" (competitive play of video games) but laugh when it is offered up to be included in the Olympic Games (the premier tournament of games). We call ourselves cyber-athletes and have sport in the name (along with games), but we don't belong in the Olympics....I think we have a dilemma, change our names or show why we call ourselves athletes and call this a sport.
PS. I honestly doubt that this could be included in the Olympic Games, but i don't see why not.
There's something rather unique about traditional Olympic sports that games simply cannot replicate. There's a genuine, irreplaceable thrill in watching an underdog speed skater overtake his opponents at the last second, or holding one's breath as a pole jumper just barely scrapes over the bar. We're not questioning whether or not video games are "physical" enough to be sports; but... I dunno, they're simply not in the same "style," and I (and many other posters here) believe it should be left that way.
i think Starcraft takes more skill then some olympic sports like weight lifting but starcraft pros certainly dont put in any more (or for some pros less) dedication and hard work to get to the top then olympic gold medalists
Not sure about this. I still that SC2 is a legimate competitive activity, but I would rather not see Olympics filled with eSports. I also think bullshit events like dressage should be cut from the Olympics.
I know that there is a physical aspect to SC2, but I want to see Olympics as the competition where athletes push the boundaries of the human body, in speed, or strength, or agility or accuracy. For example, watching swimmers or runners give it their all to finish a race, or seeing a diver contort their body as they dive from the hi-dive, as compared to a guy sitting at a computer.
I love watching pro SC2, but I don't think it belongs in the Olympics.
On August 03 2012 10:03 naux wrote: To be honest, I would love to see eSports grow as much as the next guy BUT the thing is League of Legends is the bigger name by far compared to Starcraft 2 so you would need the bigger game to SET the standard for ESPORTS. Even though people make a poll here on a SC2 Community website, what did most of you think the results would be? Put the poll on IGN or GAMESPOT and you will see league of legends would sweep SC2.
The thing is i want ESPORTS to grow just not STARCRAFT 2, thats what people have to learn about. League of Legends is the biggest game in the world right now, and it would open the gates for other games such as SC2 to enter. People have to stop fighting and arguing what game is better, and all get together and help each community grow as a whole because i feel like this time GAMING is at its peak.
Sorry ahead of time for bad grammar.
biased post is biased
everyones going to ahve there favourite game and fight tooth and nail for it, theres no way to really tell which game is bigger
People like you are really truly blind. How is it a biased post when i like STARCRAFT 2 more than i like League of Legends, you tell me? You can like Starcraft 2 but 5 other people would prefer League of Legends theres a big ratio comparison. Yes you can EASILY tell which game is better, which gets more VIEWERS? which one has more players actively playing it? which generates more income? Did you even read my post or just read the first 2 sentences?
Just because something is more popular does not always mean it is better.......
On Topic: I think most young adults don't even tune into the Olympics. I would be very interested in seeing some data showing the viewership of young people across the globe and in the U.S. The reason i point out the U.S. in particular is because we all know our best athletes do not go to the Olympics. People like Michael Jordan and Barry Sanders knew that they could make a fortune more by playing in the NBA and NFL.
On August 03 2012 10:03 naux wrote: To be honest, I would love to see eSports grow as much as the next guy BUT the thing is League of Legends is the bigger name by far compared to Starcraft 2 so you would need the bigger game to SET the standard for ESPORTS. Even though people make a poll here on a SC2 Community website, what did most of you think the results would be? Put the poll on IGN or GAMESPOT and you will see league of legends would sweep SC2.
The thing is i want ESPORTS to grow just not STARCRAFT 2, thats what people have to learn about. League of Legends is the biggest game in the world right now, and it would open the gates for other games such as SC2 to enter. People have to stop fighting and arguing what game is better, and all get together and help each community grow as a whole because i feel like this time GAMING is at its peak.
Sorry ahead of time for bad grammar.
biased post is biased
everyones going to ahve there favourite game and fight tooth and nail for it, theres no way to really tell which game is bigger
People like you are really truly blind. How is it a biased post when i like STARCRAFT 2 more than i like League of Legends, you tell me? You can like Starcraft 2 but 5 other people would prefer League of Legends theres a big ratio comparison. Yes you can EASILY tell which game is better, which gets more VIEWERS? which one has more players actively playing it? which generates more income? Did you even read my post or just read the first 2 sentences?
how can you say with a straight face that LoL is 5 times more popular then SC2? how can you possibly say that?
like it or not LoL is a free game so obviously its going to have more players but that doesnt mean more people prefer it over SC2
On August 03 2012 10:03 naux wrote: To be honest, I would love to see eSports grow as much as the next guy BUT the thing is League of Legends is the bigger name by far compared to Starcraft 2 so you would need the bigger game to SET the standard for ESPORTS. Even though people make a poll here on a SC2 Community website, what did most of you think the results would be? Put the poll on IGN or GAMESPOT and you will see league of legends would sweep SC2.
The thing is i want ESPORTS to grow just not STARCRAFT 2, thats what people have to learn about. League of Legends is the biggest game in the world right now, and it would open the gates for other games such as SC2 to enter. People have to stop fighting and arguing what game is better, and all get together and help each community grow as a whole because i feel like this time GAMING is at its peak.
Sorry ahead of time for bad grammar.
biased post is biased
everyones going to ahve there favourite game and fight tooth and nail for it, theres no way to really tell which game is bigger
People like you are really truly blind. How is it a biased post when i like STARCRAFT 2 more than i like League of Legends, you tell me? You can like Starcraft 2 but 5 other people would prefer League of Legends theres a big ratio comparison. Yes you can EASILY tell which game is better, which gets more VIEWERS? which one has more players actively playing it? which generates more income? Did you even read my post or just read the first 2 sentences?
Just because something is more popular does not always mean it is better.......
On Topic: I think most young adults don't even tune into the Olympics. I would be very interested in seeing some data showing the viewership of young people across the globe and in the U.S. The reason i point out the U.S. in particular is because we all know our best athletes do not go to the Olympics. People like Michael Jordan and Barry Sanders knew that they could make a fortune more by playing in the NBA and NFL.
Literally everyone watches the olympics, all of my friends have been glued to the screen watching Phelps and Lochte and everyone. Also all our best athletes participate, I mean, Michael Jordan lead the 1992 Olympic Dream Team, and now Kevin Durant, Lebron, Melo and so many more are participating, in addition to phelps, todd rodgers/phil daulhauser, and pretty much the best athletes from each respective sport. The NBA isnt going on in the summer, and American football isnt in the olympics, so they cant even participate... Do some research before you make random claims.
On August 03 2012 10:03 naux wrote: To be honest, I would love to see eSports grow as much as the next guy BUT the thing is League of Legends is the bigger name by far compared to Starcraft 2 so you would need the bigger game to SET the standard for ESPORTS. Even though people make a poll here on a SC2 Community website, what did most of you think the results would be? Put the poll on IGN or GAMESPOT and you will see league of legends would sweep SC2.
The thing is i want ESPORTS to grow just not STARCRAFT 2, thats what people have to learn about. League of Legends is the biggest game in the world right now, and it would open the gates for other games such as SC2 to enter. People have to stop fighting and arguing what game is better, and all get together and help each community grow as a whole because i feel like this time GAMING is at its peak.
Sorry ahead of time for bad grammar.
biased post is biased
everyones going to ahve there favourite game and fight tooth and nail for it, theres no way to really tell which game is bigger
People like you are really truly blind. How is it a biased post when i like STARCRAFT 2 more than i like League of Legends, you tell me? You can like Starcraft 2 but 5 other people would prefer League of Legends theres a big ratio comparison. Yes you can EASILY tell which game is better, which gets more VIEWERS? which one has more players actively playing it? which generates more income? Did you even read my post or just read the first 2 sentences?
how can you say with a straight face that LoL is 5 times more popular then SC2? how can you possibly say that?
like it or not LoL is a free game so obviously its going to have more players but that doesnt mean more people prefer it over SC2
You know why i can say that with a straight face? because it is? jesus christ you are really stubborn ITS FACTS that league of legends is more popular and is coming more sucessful by the day. Did you see the viewer count for MLG for league of legends? 110k people and starcraft 2 had 50-70 peak.. numbers dont lie
On August 03 2012 10:03 naux wrote: To be honest, I would love to see eSports grow as much as the next guy BUT the thing is League of Legends is the bigger name by far compared to Starcraft 2 so you would need the bigger game to SET the standard for ESPORTS. Even though people make a poll here on a SC2 Community website, what did most of you think the results would be? Put the poll on IGN or GAMESPOT and you will see league of legends would sweep SC2.
The thing is i want ESPORTS to grow just not STARCRAFT 2, thats what people have to learn about. League of Legends is the biggest game in the world right now, and it would open the gates for other games such as SC2 to enter. People have to stop fighting and arguing what game is better, and all get together and help each community grow as a whole because i feel like this time GAMING is at its peak.
Sorry ahead of time for bad grammar.
biased post is biased
everyones going to ahve there favourite game and fight tooth and nail for it, theres no way to really tell which game is bigger
People like you are really truly blind. How is it a biased post when i like STARCRAFT 2 more than i like League of Legends, you tell me? You can like Starcraft 2 but 5 other people would prefer League of Legends theres a big ratio comparison. Yes you can EASILY tell which game is better, which gets more VIEWERS? which one has more players actively playing it? which generates more income? Did you even read my post or just read the first 2 sentences?
how can you say with a straight face that LoL is 5 times more popular then SC2? how can you possibly say that?
like it or not LoL is a free game so obviously its going to have more players but that doesnt mean more people prefer it over SC2
You know why i can say that with a straight face? because it is? jesus christ you are really stubborn ITS FACTS that league of legends is more popular and is coming more sucessful by the day. Did you see the viewer count for MLG for league of legends? 110k people and starcraft 2 had 50-70 peak.. numbers dont lie
Both sports are popular, who gives a fuck which is better. Get over yourselves and stay on topic.
On August 03 2012 10:03 naux wrote: To be honest, I would love to see eSports grow as much as the next guy BUT the thing is League of Legends is the bigger name by far compared to Starcraft 2 so you would need the bigger game to SET the standard for ESPORTS. Even though people make a poll here on a SC2 Community website, what did most of you think the results would be? Put the poll on IGN or GAMESPOT and you will see league of legends would sweep SC2.
The thing is i want ESPORTS to grow just not STARCRAFT 2, thats what people have to learn about. League of Legends is the biggest game in the world right now, and it would open the gates for other games such as SC2 to enter. People have to stop fighting and arguing what game is better, and all get together and help each community grow as a whole because i feel like this time GAMING is at its peak.
Sorry ahead of time for bad grammar.
biased post is biased
everyones going to ahve there favourite game and fight tooth and nail for it, theres no way to really tell which game is bigger
People like you are really truly blind. How is it a biased post when i like STARCRAFT 2 more than i like League of Legends, you tell me? You can like Starcraft 2 but 5 other people would prefer League of Legends theres a big ratio comparison. Yes you can EASILY tell which game is better, which gets more VIEWERS? which one has more players actively playing it? which generates more income? Did you even read my post or just read the first 2 sentences?
how can you say with a straight face that LoL is 5 times more popular then SC2? how can you possibly say that?
like it or not LoL is a free game so obviously its going to have more players but that doesnt mean more people prefer it over SC2
You know why i can say that with a straight face? because it is? jesus christ you are really stubborn ITS FACTS that league of legends is more popular and is coming more sucessful by the day. Did you see the viewer count for MLG for league of legends? 110k people and starcraft 2 had 50-70 peak.. numbers dont lie
Both sports are popular, who gives a fuck which is better. Get over yourselves and stay on topic.
This is one of the reasons why i try to stay out of the Community side of Starcraft 2. I wrote a 2 paragraph talking about growing Esports and i get answers of. "how can you SAY THAT PROVE IT PROVE IT" "WHO CARES ABOUT WHICH IS MORE POPULAR" if you read what i wrote in the beginning it would all make sense
I'd like to see sc2 in the olypics. its much more of a competition than that retarded horse "sport" where they make it trot around in circles for 5 minutes and judge it
On August 03 2012 08:59 kochanfe wrote: SC2 takes vastly more skill at the top level than many Olympic sports? Why should it not be aloud to be among them?
Because it doesn't? Saying that SC2 "takes vastly more skill" is just an insult to Olympian athletes.
I dont support this. This is undermining the physical human at their best which is the olympics. All the olympic sports is mental + physical. The mental part is staying true and dedicated and the true part is the physical heights of humans. Putting esports in would undermine the work and full body mind dedication of the other olympic sports.
Not to mention olympic sports risk physical injury and tax your entire body and mind.
On August 03 2012 10:41 Champi wrote: I'd like to see sc2 in the olypics. its much more of a competition than that retarded horse "sport" where they make it trot around in circles for 5 minutes and judge it
Except when riding a horse you risk seriouse physical injury.
On August 03 2012 08:59 kochanfe wrote: SC2 takes vastly more skill at the top level than many Olympic sports? Why should it not be aloud to be among them?
Because it doesn't? Saying that SC2 "takes vastly more skill" is just an insult to Olympian athletes.
Your post is an insult to Top SC2 progamers.
-_-
This has to be a joke. Name one single (edit: Olympic) sport that takes less skill than Starcraft 2.
I love playing SC2 but let's be serious, this would be a terrible idea and would never happen anyway.
They shouldn't be in the olympics. the esports players would stick out like a sore thumb compared to the physical elite who train their bodys and minds 5+ hours a day.... just imagine them at the olympic village...
On August 03 2012 10:41 Champi wrote: I'd like to see sc2 in the olypics. its much more of a competition than that retarded horse "sport" where they make it trot around in circles for 5 minutes and judge it
Except when riding a horse you risk seriouse physical injury.
On August 03 2012 09:08 Tosster wrote: Ofcourse i would like to see starcraft at Olympics. I dont understand why the fuck No. Its discipline, where if you are better than your opponents (by hard training/beign smart and hard training/beign creative and hard training/all of those aspects) you deserve a win. So what makes it different or worse from other sports? Its completely same. I dont know how someone who is better than everyone in the world in decent sized competitors scene, doesnt deserve a medal. So yes, i want Starcraft at Olympics.
That will be hard though, Olympics are highly conservative.
Starcraft has little to nothing in common with any of the current olympic events.
The fuck is wrong with you people?
e-sports do NOT belong at the olympic games.
fuuuuuuuuuuuuu
Common..... what the fuck common things has Curling and Synchronized swimming.
And what is wrong with you, common thing is, you have to be better to win, sport is sport. e-sport is sport, just electronic.
While i can understand ppl who doesnt want esport at Olympics (they are reasons, i see the point) i cant stand someone who doesnt want it because......... "e-sports do NOT belong at the olympic games." reason.
I remember that list from a long time ago and let's just say there are a lot of people who don't agree with it. I could give two shits where Starcraft would end-up.
I'm talking about everything else and I'm sorry to say but their criteria and how they came up with those numbers is outrageous.
SC2 or LOL or any other game as an Olympic sport is a joke. I have to say that it will never be an Olympic sport. Baseball is a worldwide sport and its not even included in this and next Olympic event. No country supports eSports (except Korea), so I dont even know how this will make it to the Olympics. When the white dude said,"They believe tetris...etc...can probably be Olympic sport in 8 more years." was a joke. Who the hell is "They?"
I would absolutely love to see esports in more mainstream competitions like the Olympics; even if it meant that LoL would get the nod and SC2 wouldn't (although I see no reason why that would EVER happen.)
But yea that was painful to watch. Fox News is trash.
On August 03 2012 08:59 kochanfe wrote: SC2 takes vastly more skill at the top level than many Olympic sports? Why should it not be aloud to be among them?
Because it doesn't? Saying that SC2 "takes vastly more skill" is just an insult to Olympian athletes.
Your post is an insult to Top SC2 progamers.
-_-
This has to be a joke. Name one single (edit: Olympic) sport that takes less skill than Starcraft 2.
I love playing SC2 but let's be serious, this would be a terrible idea and would never happen anyway.
there are many different levels of skill, the joke is that everyone is comparing them. You'd be more along the lines of comparing music to Starcraft 2 or chess, but it is apparent everyone compares apples and oranges here anyway so it is redundant to bother, and furthermore you're all obviously arguing opinion about a hypothetical situation that may or may not happen, so why bother?
On August 03 2012 11:09 endy wrote: Where is the "none of them" option ? e-sports are not sports. Hence the different name.
Neither is motorboating, town planning or pistol dueling.
the point is that the olympics have set a precedent for unusual sports in the olympic games. Esports is no more unusual than any of the other floaters the difference is that there is a huge following behind it and it has legitimate competition involved with it as well.
I believe SC could definitely and deservedly become an Olympic sport given enough international support and induction of a unified governing body. To all those saying that it requires some extreme type of physical exertion need only look as far as archery and curling to quickly quiet themselves. Yes those sports require an enormous amount of finess and coordination, however, it does not match the same description of demands that I am reading in this forum. Granted SCII is less mechanically demanding than BW, it still necessitates ridiculous hand speed and accuracy. Now with all that said do I believe SC will be an olympic sport anytime in the near future? Sadly no, esports has a long long way to grow and Blizzard a long long way to improve its game and user interface before it can even be dreamt.
However, still playing devil's advocate.... do you think if SC did become an Olympic sport that we would finally get LAN support? I mean I would have to imagine all the Blizzard execs could become fearful for their wellbeing if a lag spike or drop cost some small country a medal...
As cool as it would be, I doubt it will ever happen, and I don't even know if I would want it to happen either. The olympics are for atheltics competing in physical activites, and people playing video games doesn't make the cut. You don't see chess as an olympic sport.
On August 03 2012 10:48 zimz wrote: I dont support this. This is undermining the physical human at their best which is the olympics. All the olympic sports is mental + physical. The mental part is staying true and dedicated and the true part is the physical heights of humans. Putting esports in would undermine the work and full body mind dedication of the other olympic sports.
Not to mention olympic sports risk physical injury and tax your entire body and mind.
What about shooting and archery? hardly physically taxing sports.
you guys really think the esports elite is equiviolent to gymnast elite??? you really think they are on that level? gymnast risk their entire body..... train Mind and Body. if you don't judge a move or fall right you can get injured bad. to avoid injury you require seriouse accuracy. their mental and physical has to be humans best...
On August 03 2012 10:48 zimz wrote: I dont support this. This is undermining the physical human at their best which is the olympics. All the olympic sports is mental + physical. The mental part is staying true and dedicated and the true part is the physical heights of humans. Putting esports in would undermine the work and full body mind dedication of the other olympic sports.
Not to mention olympic sports risk physical injury and tax your entire body and mind.
What about shooting and archery? hardly physically taxing sports.
It's in because human evolved for that and depended on that for 500k+ years as hunter gatherers.
On August 03 2012 11:22 zimz wrote: you guys really think the esports elite is equiviolent to gymnast elite??? you really think they are on that level? gymnast risk their entire body..... train Mind and Body. if you don't judge a move or fall right you can get injured bad. to avoid injury you require seriouse accuracy. their mental and physical has to be humans best...
You do realize gymnastics isn't the only Olympic sport right? I do not really care about Starcraft being in the Olympics or not, but come on dude, not every event is that taxing or dangerous. You could make the same argument against golf being added.
On August 03 2012 11:22 zimz wrote: you guys really think the esports elite is equiviolent to gymnast elite??? you really think they are on that level? gymnast risk their entire body..... train Mind and Body. if you don't judge a move or fall right you can get injured bad. to avoid injury you require seriouse accuracy. their mental and physical has to be humans best...
You do realize gymnastics isn't the only Olympic sport right? I do not really care about Starcraft being in the Olympics or not, but come on dude, not every event is that taxing or dangerous. You could make the same argument against golf being added.
even to be the best syncronized swimmers in your country, you have to be very perfect in fitness and mind.
On August 03 2012 11:09 endy wrote: Where is the "none of them" option ? e-sports are not sports. Hence the different name.
Neither is motorboating, town planning or pistol dueling.
the point is that the olympics have set a precedent for unusual sports in the olympic games. Esports is no more unusual than any of the other floaters the difference is that there is a huge following behind it and it has legitimate competition involved with it as well.
I repeat, traditional sport transcend generations, electronic sports are just fads that comes and go.
Oh for the sake of fudge, could you remove the stupidly placed apostrophe in the flipping poll, I just read it as " wouldn't you want" because of your wan't as if this is a poll for most undeserving and voted LoL as a result. >_< What exactly do people think want is short for, putting apostrophes in there? *Mumble mumble state of the world, people born in 90s and later grumble mumble*
On August 03 2012 11:22 zimz wrote: you guys really think the esports elite is equiviolent to gymnast elite??? you really think they are on that level? gymnast risk their entire body..... train Mind and Body. if you don't judge a move or fall right you can get injured bad. to avoid injury you require seriouse accuracy. their mental and physical has to be humans best...
You do realize gymnastics isn't the only Olympic sport right? I do not really care about Starcraft being in the Olympics or not, but come on dude, not every event is that taxing or dangerous. You could make the same argument against golf being added.
even to be the best syncronized swimmers in your country, you have to be very perfect in fitness and mind.
I didn't say anything against synchronized swimming. Why would you think I don't know that's difficult physically? And as an aside every competition requires mental strength, even *gasp* Starcraft, so no need to even bring that up.
On August 03 2012 11:09 endy wrote: Where is the "none of them" option ? e-sports are not sports. Hence the different name.
Neither is motorboating, town planning or pistol dueling.
the point is that the olympics have set a precedent for unusual sports in the olympic games. Esports is no more unusual than any of the other floaters the difference is that there is a huge following behind it and it has legitimate competition involved with it as well.
I repeat, traditional sport transcend generations, electronic sports are just fads that comes and go.
I didn't realize you were an oracle that could see into the future with absolute clarity.
Sports survive because of popularity and support from their fanbase. The truly great sports have international appeal and support.
E-sports is the future imo. As technology gets better and better and people find more and more ways to utilize that technology as a competitive environment more and more esports will develop.
The reason it's truly the future is because e-sports provides a competitive atmosphere where genetics and biology play a minimal role which only increases the role of skill over everything else.
In 2020 which is where the Fox people were saying Starcraft might be considered, I can definitely see the e-sports scene thriving to a point where the addition of key games like Starcraft will be a non-controversial topic.
No, all forms of competitive activity in the Olympics should be highly physical (27)
71%
Yes, physical activity shouldn't be the sole focus (11)
29%
I don't know (0)
0%
38 total votes
Your vote: Should video games even be in the Olympics?
(Vote): Yes, physical activity shouldn't be the sole focus (Vote): No, all forms of competitive activity in the Olympics should be highly physical (Vote): I don't know
No, all forms of competitive activity in the Olympics should be highly physical (27)
71%
Yes, physical activity shouldn't be the sole focus (11)
29%
I don't know (0)
0%
38 total votes
Your vote: Should video games even be in the Olympics?
(Vote): Yes, physical activity shouldn't be the sole focus (Vote): No, all forms of competitive activity in the Olympics should be highly physical (Vote): I don't know
This is a poorly worded question.
In what way is shooting or equestrian sports physical activity?
Sure it requires training and practice to become a truly skilled contestant but so do e-sports.
By your wording of said question a huge number of events could be invalidated because they arent physical enough.
On August 03 2012 11:14 Zach426 wrote: As cool as it would be, I doubt it will ever happen, and I don't even know if I would want it to happen either. The olympics are for atheltics competing in physical activites, and people playing video games doesn't make the cut. You don't see chess as an olympic sport.
Except chess is recognized as a sport by the IOC. There's a lot of sports that don't make the olympics games like baseball, but doesn't mean they aren't sports or recognized as sports by the IOC. Usually it comes down to popularity and universality.
On August 03 2012 11:09 endy wrote: Where is the "none of them" option ? e-sports are not sports. Hence the different name.
Neither is motorboating, town planning or pistol dueling.
the point is that the olympics have set a precedent for unusual sports in the olympic games. Esports is no more unusual than any of the other floaters the difference is that there is a huge following behind it and it has legitimate competition involved with it as well.
I repeat, traditional sport transcend generations, electronic sports are just fads that comes and go.
I didn't realize you were an oracle that could see into the future with absolute clarity.
Sports survive because of popularity and support from their fanbase. The truly great sports have international appeal and support.
E-sports is the future imo. As technology gets better and better and people find more and more ways to utilize that technology as a competitive environment more and more esports will develop.
The reason it's truly the future is because e-sports provides a competitive atmosphere where genetics and biology play a minimal role which only increases the role of skill over everything else.
In 2020 which is where the Fox people were saying Starcraft might be considered, I can definitely see the e-sports scene thriving to a point where the addition of key games like Starcraft will be a non-controversial topic.
Look buddy, when StarCraft 3 comes out, Blizzard will simply say "Put down your SC2, its time to move on."
And that's fact, don't run away from it.
I hope that I don't have to repeat my aforementioned statement.
Well I always thought that it should be a highly physical competition and was only really meant for that, but gymnastics, while highly physical seems to be regularly misjudged (read: rigged) and is perhaps not so much a physical competition any more, at least not in the Olympics (not to mentioned that the bloody Australian coverage mostly focusses on events we can win, so we barely see any of the interesting events -___-), diving is physical but the judging is based as much on the appearance of the performance as than the difficulty of the movements and synchronised swimming probably also has more subjective judging, where the winner is not so clear as it is when someone beats another in a sprint and you have precise snap-shots to show who beat who. "E-Sports" when truly competitive, might require extremely well trained muscle memory, hand dexterity and lightning fast reflexes, so while it may not require huge amounts of energy or the muscles of Hercules, one could still argue that it requires a lot of physical training. They probably should be qualified options for the Olympics because realistically, they probably still wouldn't get into most Olympics anyway due to the lack of universality.
On August 03 2012 11:09 endy wrote: Where is the "none of them" option ? e-sports are not sports. Hence the different name.
Neither is motorboating, town planning or pistol dueling.
the point is that the olympics have set a precedent for unusual sports in the olympic games. Esports is no more unusual than any of the other floaters the difference is that there is a huge following behind it and it has legitimate competition involved with it as well.
I repeat, traditional sport transcend generations, electronic sports are just fads that comes and go.
I didn't realize you were an oracle that could see into the future with absolute clarity.
Sports survive because of popularity and support from their fanbase. The truly great sports have international appeal and support.
E-sports is the future imo. As technology gets better and better and people find more and more ways to utilize that technology as a competitive environment more and more esports will develop.
The reason it's truly the future is because e-sports provides a competitive atmosphere where genetics and biology play a minimal role which only increases the role of skill over everything else.
In 2020 which is where the Fox people were saying Starcraft might be considered, I can definitely see the e-sports scene thriving to a point where the addition of key games like Starcraft will be a non-controversial topic.
Look buddy, when StarCraft 3 comes out, Blizzard will simply say "Put down your SC2, its time to move on."
And that's fact, don't run away from it.
I hope that I don't have to repeat my aforementioned statement.
In 2020 Legacy of the Void will have only been out for a few years if that.
Starcraft 3 is another 10 years MINIMUM from even being developed. That's plenty of time for SC2 to make it into the Olympics, if it gets cycled out because no one wanted to watch it well that's one thing, but I don't think that's going to happen.
On August 03 2012 08:59 kochanfe wrote: SC2 takes vastly more skill at the top level than many Olympic sports? Why should it not be aloud to be among them?
Because it doesn't? Saying that SC2 "takes vastly more skill" is just an insult to Olympian athletes.
Your post is an insult to Top SC2 progamers.
-_-
This has to be a joke. Name one single (edit: Olympic) sport that takes less skill than Starcraft 2.
I love playing SC2 but let's be serious, this would be a terrible idea and would never happen anyway.
I say bring back town planning instead! Having a discussion about this in an SC2 forum makes it invalid so no point in arguing about something that 95% will agree on from the get go. If SC2 or LoL even got on there it would be a demonstrational sport and would probably be gone in time for the next one, there's just no need to trying to make gaming so legit all the time when it's growing fine on its own :/
On August 03 2012 11:09 endy wrote: Where is the "none of them" option ? e-sports are not sports. Hence the different name.
Neither is motorboating, town planning or pistol dueling.
the point is that the olympics have set a precedent for unusual sports in the olympic games. Esports is no more unusual than any of the other floaters the difference is that there is a huge following behind it and it has legitimate competition involved with it as well.
I repeat, traditional sport transcend generations, electronic sports are just fads that comes and go.
I didn't realize you were an oracle that could see into the future with absolute clarity.
Sports survive because of popularity and support from their fanbase. The truly great sports have international appeal and support.
E-sports is the future imo. As technology gets better and better and people find more and more ways to utilize that technology as a competitive environment more and more esports will develop.
The reason it's truly the future is because e-sports provides a competitive atmosphere where genetics and biology play a minimal role which only increases the role of skill over everything else.
In 2020 which is where the Fox people were saying Starcraft might be considered, I can definitely see the e-sports scene thriving to a point where the addition of key games like Starcraft will be a non-controversial topic.
Look buddy, when StarCraft 3 comes out, Blizzard will simply say "Put down your SC2, its time to move on."
And that's fact, don't run away from it.
I hope that I don't have to repeat my aforementioned statement.
In 2020 Legacy of the Void will have only been out for a few years if that.
Starcraft 3 is another 10 years MINIMUM from even being developed. That's plenty of time for SC2 to make it into the Olympics, if it gets cycled out because no one wanted to watch it well that's one thing, but I don't think that's going to happen.
Yeah it takes at least 7 to 8 years to approve a sport to be made on the olympic list and then after that you might want to wait couple of years until it will be played. And once competitions happen, and then BAM latest sequels with the audience left wondering wtf happened to the other game.
Video games shouldn't be in the Olympics. I'm pretty sure even many BW fans will say that BW shouldn't be part of the olympics.
The Olympics is one thing and video game tournaments are another. There's no real ways of describing it other than video games being in the Olympics is just a retarded idea.
Well shit. In the future the United States won't stand a chance. South Korea, China, and Sweden will be the top 3 in medals 100 years from now when everything is esports.
It's not even the physical side that bothers me. My problem is with the idea of an Olympic "sport" that would last all of one Olympics. Maybe two or three at most? Horrible idea.
Maybe decades down the line when we have a game that manages to last a lifetime, but right now it's a total joke to even consider.
Who's to say that SC3 ought to be considered a different sport from SC2? Since the SC2 expansions will clearly be out before 2020, the people in this thread appear to be fine with calling them same sport as SC2 itself, so is it completely obviously the case that the differences in SC3 will make it a different sport?
Consider some athletic sport analogies. I'd say the introduction of the DH in American League baseball is comparable in magnitude to introducing new units and it completely altered the required skill sets for a number of players. Adjustments over time to the strike zone, height of the pitcher's mound, and ball composition are similarly comparable to stat alterations. You could of course make similar comparisons in other sports such as with the constant rule-changing in the NBA and NFL and their respective introductions of such game-changers the 3-point line and the 2-point conversion.
The strongest counter-claim, it seems to me, is that SC2 players more or less have to completely relearn the new game, and as the current BW pro transition is showing, it can take them quite some time to adapt. This is certainly a compelling difference, but there are a few challenges to it. First, this is nearly as true of the expansions as it is of the sequels, but everyone here seems fine labeling them the same sport. Second, there are limited comparisons even to this type of change in athletic sports. For instance, baseball's outlawing of the spitball ended the careers of many who thrived off of it (though most of these were grandfathered) and the DH rule can make certain inept fielders more or less completely incapable of succeeding in the National League.
In short, there might not be anything completely revolutionary in thinking of the chain of SCs as a single, continuous sport undergoing gradual changes but surviving through them, and perhaps we should adjust to thinking this way.
No, all forms of competitive activity in the Olympics should be highly physical (27)
71%
Yes, physical activity shouldn't be the sole focus (11)
29%
I don't know (0)
0%
38 total votes
Your vote: Should video games even be in the Olympics?
(Vote): Yes, physical activity shouldn't be the sole focus (Vote): No, all forms of competitive activity in the Olympics should be highly physical (Vote): I don't know
This is a poorly worded question.
In what way is shooting or equestrian sports physical activity?
Sure it requires training and practice to become a truly skilled contestant but so do e-sports.
By your wording of said question a huge number of events could be invalidated because they arent physical enough.
This has been argued in previous threads.
Things like equestrian and shooting are 90% physical skill, whereas an esport is 90% mental skill.
Who's to say that SC3 ought to be considered a different sport from SC2? Since the SC2 expansions will clearly be out before 2020, the people in this thread appear to be fine with calling them same sport as SC2 itself, so is it completely obviously the case that the differences in SC3 will make it a different sport?
Consider some athletic sport analogies. I'd say the introduction of the DH in American League baseball is comparable in magnitude to introducing new units and it completely altered the required skill sets for a number of players. Adjustments over time to the strike zone, height of the pitcher's mound, and ball composition are similarly comparable to stat alterations. You could of course make similar comparisons in other sports such as with the constant rule-changing in the NBA and NFL and their respective introductions of such game-changers the 3-point line and the 2-point conversion.
The strongest counter-claim, it seems to me, is that SC2 players more or less have to completely relearn the new game, and as the current BW pro transition is showing, it can take them quite some time to adapt. This is certainly a compelling difference, but there are a few challenges to it. First, this is nearly as true of the expansions as it is of the sequels, but everyone here seems fine labeling them the same sport. Second, there are limited comparisons even to this type of change in athletic sports. For instance, baseball's outlawing of the spitball ended the careers of many who thrived off of it (though most of these were grandfathered) and the DH rule can make certain inept fielders more or less completely incapable of succeeding in the National League.
In short, there might not be anything completely revolutionary in thinking of the chain of SCs as a single, continuous sport undergoing gradual changes but surviving through them, and perhaps we should adjust to thinking this way.
This would be like arguing that BW and WoL are the same game. We'll skip the arguments and just get to the conclusion; they aren't.
If you can have Equestrian (a sport for horses) and shooting (certainly less physical than top-level starcraft), then there's no reason to not have Starcraft. Tetris, definitely not, and LoL is kinda hard to watch for spectators, but Starcraft is not only more popular than many Olympic sports (and so is LoL), it is also more competitive and more accessible.
It's great to watch (does anybody watch LoL that doesn't play it?) and has proven longevity (Broodwar was played for 14 years).
I don't understand why people have this itch on eSports being recognized as a legitimate sport. You're only admitting that eSports is a joke until it's recognized as a sport. It doesn't need to be a sport. Why? BECAUSE IT'S A FREAKING E-SPORT!!!!! There is a reason we don't call games we play on computers sports. You should be proud of that. Proud to be a gamer. If you are not, if you want more gratification, if you feel under entitled because what goes on here isn't considered a sport, you may leave and never come back. Go play some water polo or something.
If StarCraft 2 gets a single governing body, it should be an Olympic event (notice I don't say sport). Currently there are a few things here and there that set the rules but they aren't consistent enough. If the StarCraft community gets one, it would be easy to determine what rules to follow. Now, it would still be possible to pick what rules or map pool by just picking from say WCS or GSL. It would be nice for eSports to show up in the Olympics because then we wouldn't be as ridiculed by the general public.
Even if SC3 comes out shortly after SC2 being in the Olympics, it wouldn't matter because people would have been intrigued enough by watching SC2 to do some sort of research or atleast acknowledge it as a real event that requires training and practise just as any other sport does.
All in all, StarCraft probably should get in. It is going to happen sometime or another, why not now?
Sorry to sound like an ass, but when I saw the link began with www.foxnews... I instantly figured this to be BS. I will come back and apologize if any of these games actually becomes olympic, which luckily for me won´t happen.
Olympics for me is about competition, training and mental strenght. The world is probably not ready for watching a video game as a true 'sport' but I am. And I'm willing to bet he will be real one day. Perhaps after 2020, who know.
But limiting Olympics and sport to " physical effort" is very close minded in my opinion.
I don't really like the idea of an e-sport becoming an olympic event but if it did I think counter-strike would be a more fitting game with the team dynamic.
SC2 doesn't have the proven longevity or physicality to be in the Olympics. Plus I'd say it's a stretch to realistically happen unless SC2 gains much more world wide popularity.
I agree, but having such an insanely huge platform for esports would be incredible. Absolutely insane. I would go fucking nuts seeing MVP vs DRG in a bo7 finals at the goddamn Olympics. How insane would that be. I would lose my shit so hard
If we're talking about games that should be in the Olympics (in a perfect world where every one recognizes video games as requiring a certain amount of skill), I'd honestly recommend GunZ. Granted, it's died out for the most part, but I think it's harder than Brood War and much more technical. To me, it certainly requires a large amount of dexterity and "mental" prowess. Wikipedia GunZ entry
Here's some VODs so you can see what I'm talking about. None of these are actions are macros, they're all key presses. + Show Spoiler +
Make a poll that asks which video games should be in the Olympics...on a Starcraft 2 forum. Hmm... wonder which one will win the poll? I'm getting the strange feeling that the poll was completely necessary.
On August 03 2012 14:14 Starburst wrote: If we're talking about games that should be in the Olympics (in a perfect world where every one recognizes video games as requiring a certain amount of skill), I'd honestly recommend GunZ. Granted, it's died out for the most part, but I think it's harder than Brood War and much more technical. To me, it certainly requires a large amount of dexterity and "mental" prowess. Wikipedia GunZ entry
Here's some VODs so you can see what I'm talking about. None of these are actions are macros, they're all key presses. + Show Spoiler +
sc2 is heavily dependent on balance and it will never be balanced because of how dynamic the meta can be... its really hard seeing those kind of games in the olympics.
Could only see starcraft2 being legit, any shooter that qualified would be pointless since its hard to determine which is the best, and they wouldn't want 5 shooters. Plus most revolve around who ever can point and shoot the best - which they already have archery...
Considering LoL over SC2 is hilarious, and I've played LoL a lot. Starcraft 2 but only in like 10 years, when it will be at a stage of balance and explored, for now no, but it will come, and yes, definetly, competitive RTS are the only games that would deserve this spot imo.
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.
You clearly have no freaking idea what you're talking about. If you go that way, I'd say that Starcraft 2 excellence is even harder to reach than most Olympics sports on a mental and physical level (you really believe it is easy to play 8 hours a day (on average) for 3 years, both mentally and physically?), lots of sports doesnt require such training, a lot of athletes have a job and still win at the olympics, find me one pro gamer capable of being top 10 SC2 in the world that doesnt play full time? Point made. If you would have said that you didnt consider a video game, a "brain" sport (yes, hands and eyes are involved but still), to be part of the Olympics I wouldnt have anything to say against it. I really couldnt care less about the Olympics to be honest, so I'm neutral on the subject, but when I see people shooting revolvers winning a gold medal, I wonder why MVP winning one would be so shocking.
On August 03 2012 09:32 a9arnn wrote: If there had to be one of those games, I would love to see Tetris in the Olympics, if not only for the Gold and Silver going to Flamewheel and ]343[ ;D.
Though I'm touched by the sentiment, I doubt flamewheel could crack the top 50, and I'd be floating somewhere around #1000 (if there were world 1v1 Tetris rankings.)
how many countries can even throw together a legitimate sc2 team? USA, Canada (lol), Korea, Sweden and other Euro countries? Sounds liek it would be mainly european countries imo
This will never happen. Ever. There's a reason they have actual sports instead of each of their video game counterparts. The closest Video games will ever get is to have their own global competition (WCS?).
I personally wouldn't really want esports in the Olympics. There's also the fact that esports doesn't have as much of the history that most of the sports in the Olympics do, and is subject to a lot of change. One important thing in the Olympic games is consistency, and 4 years is a very long time in terms of computer games. After maybe two Olympics, there could be a completely new game. SC and BW haven't made it past 15 years.
On August 03 2012 15:13 mahO wrote: You clearly have no freaking idea what you're talking about. If you go that way, I'd say that Starcraft 2 excellence is even harder to reach than most Olympics sports on a mental and physical level (you really believe it is easy to play 8 hours a day (on average) for 3 years, both mentally and physically?), lots of sports doesnt require such training, a lot of athletes have a job and still win at the olympics, find me one pro gamer capable of being top 10 SC2 in the world that doesnt play full time? Point made.
You clearly have no freaking idea what you're talking about. And I'm serious.
Do you honestly think that Olympic athletes train less than SC2 players? Do you think gold medal divers, swimmers, runners, rowers, throwers, fencers, gymnasts etc. have other jobs? 8 hours a day for 3 years sounds like a lot, then you realize that these athletes have been working at their craft since elementary school for many of them. Do you think any SC2 or any esports player, ever, will match up to athletes like Michael Phelps in terms of dedication and training?
Either you haven't seen the Olympic games for a few decades or you should consider applying for the Special 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.
You clearly have no freaking idea what you're talking about. If you go that way, I'd say that Starcraft 2 excellence is even harder to reach than most Olympics sports on a mental and physical level (you really believe it is easy to play 8 hours a day (on average) for 3 years, both mentally and physically?), lots of sports doesnt require such training, a lot of athletes have a job and still win at the olympics, find me one pro gamer capable of being top 10 SC2 in the world that doesnt play full time? Point made.
I like Idra's comment about if you're exhausted from playing a video game then theres something wrong with you. I think you can become mentally tired of a game, but not physically unless there actually is something wrong with you. There is no physical component to SC2 or any other video game and only deluded people that have points as dull as hay think there are /roll eyes. IMO if you think SC2 is physical, I'd venture to say you've never done a day of work in your life
There are approximately 3,500 medal competitions, I believe. I don't know how many sports that is from (swimming certainly has more than 1 medal). There are enough that I've never heard about that make the news each Olympics, that I'm inclined to think Starcraft in the Olympics isn't quite as big a deal as it sounds. And in that sense, I don't see why people with anti-gaming sentiments should really care. Sure, it'll make a few people get up in arms, but maybe they'll be tired of flailing in 4 or 6 years, and they don't matter much anyway.
I'm concerned about how they would run the tournament, but a few more years of SC2 and presumably, there will be tournaments that "get it," even to the point of no extended series, and they can just borrow ideas or help. If it's something that will be streamed on NBC, I imagine certain levels of censorship will be required from players and possibly sportsmanship as well.
Blizzard will also be in a rather strange position, in addition to the one they already occupy, as the game relies on their servers to run, and it relies on their balance as well. I'm not too worried about whether or not they'll do it right, as perfection is impossible, but they'll be in the spotlight in a very uncomfortable way whenever things go wrong. Like the anti-gamers, hopefully those issues are much better in the future.
P.S. It should be in the Winter Olympics, furthering the Swedish progamer stereotype of nerds getting good at games while staying out of the cold.
Edit: by the way, when I say it's not as big a deal as it sounds, it's still a big deal, but hopefully not some massive culture war that ends up in witchhunts. We're pretty averse to those.
I think esports definitely has the possiblity of being within the Olympics. I was watching the Olympics and there was an event where a dude with a mustache just rode a horse around in a square. I found it extremely boring because I didnt understand it but it does show that there are alot of sports in the olympic that arent really shown.
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.
You clearly have no freaking idea what you're talking about. If you go that way, I'd say that Starcraft 2 excellence is even harder to reach than most Olympics sports on a mental and physical level (you really believe it is easy to play 8 hours a day (on average) for 3 years, both mentally and physically?), lots of sports doesnt require such training, a lot of athletes have a job and still win at the olympics, find me one pro gamer capable of being top 10 SC2 in the world that doesnt play full time? Point made.
I like Idra's comment about if you're exhausted from playing a video game then theres something wrong with you. I think you can become mentally tired of a game, but not physically unless there actually is something wrong with you. There is no physical component to SC2 or any other video game and only deluded people that have points as dull as hay think there are /roll eyes. IMO if you think SC2 is physical, I'd venture to say you've never done a day of work in your life
My hands and back feel sooooo tired after a long session of SC2.
On August 03 2012 16:05 Picklebread wrote: No video games should ever be a part of the olympics. That would be a disgrace.
Sorry but as much as I like SC2 this is what I feel. Imagine watching the camera go from Phelps/Bolt to some random kid playing tetris.. We have WCG/ESWC and people don't put that much effort into them.
IMO there are just too many visual/fundamental problems with the format of an 'eSport' Olympic game.
A person sitting in a chair, in front of a PC, playing with their keyboard and mouse, while the spectator watches a different screen to see the action. Even the other sports where 'tools'(as broad a term as I could think of) are used, the action is still centered upon the athletes use of their tools, and there is no disconnect between the athlete, their tool, and the end action performed(example: rifle is held in athletes hand, bullet is shot at skeet on screen, and pink spray is seen, all without camera change, it is a fluid event).
Because of the monitor 'problem' mentioned above, spectator perspective is locked in an awkward spot where you can't view each competitor at the same time in non-fighting games. In BW/SC2 the cameraman will obviously do his best to 'inform' but there is incomplete information and missed action. In an FPS, you can only follow one perspective at once unless you split screen/PiP/etc to solve the problem. In other sports where there is direct competition, almost 100% of the action is caught on camera, with the only exceptions being things such as a run/break away in football/basketball, where still the only action not left in view is unimportant(athletes trailing the play).
On top of all of this, video games are volatile. SC2 wasn't the same 2 weeks ago, and it wasn't the same a couple months before that, and a few months before that, etc back to release. HotS won't visually change the game TOO much, but it will drastically change it in a 'rules' sense. Also, visually, video games age, a problem no other game in the Olympics has to deal with. Technology may bring about newer bows or rifles, higher tech uniforms, suits, bikes, you name it, but the overall visual will barely change because humans are humans, and they are the foundation of every single event competed in. eSports would be the very first exception to that rule. A video game can actually be played without a human, the game itself is the foundation; there seems to be a very base disconnect between that and the 'value' of competition in all other Olypmic sport.
Wouldn't it be the greatest thing ever if they added Sc2 to the olympics in a totally unexpected decision just to drop it rather quickly when they learn about the non existent lan mode?
On August 03 2012 16:05 Picklebread wrote: No video games should ever be a part of the olympics. That would be a disgrace.
Sorry but as much as I like SC2 this is what I feel. Imagine watching the camera go from Phelps/Bolt to some random kid playing tetris.. We have WCG/ESWC and people don't put that much effort into them.
Maybe you shouldn't compare "some random kid" with the two biggest stars of the olympics. There are "sports" like gun shooting and horse riding at the olympics for christ sake. As long as some fat 50 year old housewife (hi @ shooting competition) is able to take part in the olympics I don't think Flash would be totally out of place.
On that list, Tetris would probably be the most appropriate game.
It has a much longer history and tradition, definitely a worthy representative of gaming as a whole It's already withstood the test of time whereas other games may (and probably will) easily die out in the next 4 years It has simple rules and is easy to watch, yet is extremely difficult and challenging to play on a high level It has abstract visuals instead of space bugs and elves.
But if it were my call, no way any game would ever make it to the Olympics.
On August 03 2012 07:30 aeroblaster wrote: You put LoL up on that list but not Dota 2? mega hard fail dude
LoL has a way larger fanbase due to it being free to play and dota2 isnt open to everyone yet and alot of people I know dont wanna go through the hurdle of getting themselves a beta key when theycan just play LoL
On August 03 2012 14:14 Starburst wrote: If we're talking about games that should be in the Olympics (in a perfect world where every one recognizes video games as requiring a certain amount of skill), I'd honestly recommend GunZ. Granted, it's died out for the most part, but I think it's harder than Brood War and much more technical. To me, it certainly requires a large amount of dexterity and "mental" prowess. Wikipedia GunZ entry
Here's some VODs so you can see what I'm talking about. None of these are actions are macros, they're all key presses. + Show Spoiler +
can you explain what we're watching? does waving the sword block the gun bullets or something?
It can. Basically, the game is a Third Person Shooter that when released was probably supposed to be akin to CoD, except TPS of course. However, due to some errors in the code, the were a lot of cancels that people discovered that have lead to the game that you see in that video. If you're more interested in the mechanics, I can try answering that to the best of my ability, but it's rather hard to describe and would take quite a while to explain. I'm willing to tell people if they're interested, though. It'd be nice to contribute to that community somehow since it's quite dead atm.
I'd love to see SC2 in the Olympics purely for my own fanboy reasons, but I don't think it or any other E-Sport will make it into traditional Olympics. In addition to many other arguments against it, the "vehicle of e-sports" doesn't seem suitable for a sport the caliber of the Olympics. Taken from the wikipedia page (lol facts from wiki) "Those sports marked with an asterisk are not eligible to be included at the Olympic Games because the Olympic Charter specifically bans sports with an element of motorization from eligibility."
The computer itself could be considered as a motor. The reasoning for this rule seems to be that any sort of "motor" acts as a barrier between the athletes skill and their performance. If you think of it in this sense then factors such as lag, computer difficulties, etc. prevent players from performing at their maximum skill.
WCS already exists and I'm sure if there is enough demand going into the future an E-Sports Olympics that takes places every 4 years (or however often) will be concieved. Let's work on getting E-Sports more mainstream and accpeted before trying to call them all Olympics sports. Being able recognised on a wider scale and audience first would be a much better goal than just jumping for being an Olympic sport.
tl;dr E-sports don't seem suitable for Olympics. Insted aim to be accepted as serious competition, gain a wider audience and the rest will follow.
On August 03 2012 07:36 Vestrel wrote: That reporter is so quick to be dismissive.
"That's sad." is her first reaction
Really? She has no idea.
..Actually she's one of those people who bash badminton and she works for Fox News so I guess I'm not really surprised
Sending angry tweets brb
Ya, it's Megyn Kelly. She's a highly paid Fox News cunt. What can you expect? She probably got a pat on the back for saying that. You know, Fox News has to pretend like they're being neutral in their news, while at the same time they secretly bash, distort, and censor everything and everyone that they don't like.
E-sports already has its own community, and trying to bring it to a universal audience like the Olympics is intended for will not do anything for the general public, as your average 53 year old Mom would never understand the meaning of a 2 rax for the life of her.
On August 03 2012 15:52 boyle wrote: take baseball and softball out and make room for sc2, sure.
Baseball was pretty boring when it was in the Olympics though, all of the best players didn't care enough about it because MLB, unlike the NHL, won't pause the season so their athletes can compete and represent their countries. Also a World Series trophy/rings is miles ahead of the priority list for them than a little national pride and a gold medal. And Softball kinda got shafted, it was only removed because of its loose affiliation to Baseball.
I do not want SC2 in the Olympics though because 1. Pro gaming is just not accepted enough for it to not be ridiculed and 2. the Olympics are just plain boring to be honest. Does anyone ever watch swimming matches, volleyball, badminton, track and field, gymnastics, weight lifting, or all the other "small" time sports they premier? Even just an average annual regular season for MLB, NBA, NHL, NFL or even the MLS obtains much more spectators and is really just a bigger deal than a few gold medals everyone forgets about 2 weeks afterwards. After winning a World Series or the Super Bowl, the teams hometown will be celebrating it until the next season starts, but for the Olympics, it is just not as great or entertaining as it used to be.
And to think there is another thread on TL with people upset that McDonalds is a sponsor of the IOC since it's unhealthy. Now others think having nerds sitting in front of PCs should be an event...
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.
You clearly have no freaking idea what you're talking about. If you go that way, I'd say that Starcraft 2 excellence is even harder to reach than most Olympics sports on a mental and physical level (you really believe it is easy to play 8 hours a day (on average) for 3 years, both mentally and physically?), lots of sports doesnt require such training, a lot of athletes have a job and still win at the olympics, find me one pro gamer capable of being top 10 SC2 in the world that doesnt play full time? Point made.
I like Idra's comment about if you're exhausted from playing a video game then theres something wrong with you. I think you can become mentally tired of a game, but not physically unless there actually is something wrong with you. There is no physical component to SC2 or any other video game and only deluded people that have points as dull as hay think there are /roll eyes. IMO if you think SC2 is physical, I'd venture to say you've never done a day of work in your life
My hands and back feel sooooo tired after a long session of SC2.
Poor back and wrist posture, possibly carpal tunnel.
In 4 years, there is enough time for a new game to be released and a player to become the clear best in it, and for the game to be completely balanced. A specific esports game into the olympics would never really work.
Maybe having a RTS category for the flavour of the year?
On August 03 2012 16:15 Malaz wrote: Wouldn't it be the greatest thing ever if they added Sc2 to the olympics in a totally unexpected decision just to drop it rather quickly when they learn about the non existent lan mode?
On August 03 2012 16:05 Picklebread wrote: No video games should ever be a part of the olympics. That would be a disgrace.
Sorry but as much as I like SC2 this is what I feel. Imagine watching the camera go from Phelps/Bolt to some random kid playing tetris.. We have WCG/ESWC and people don't put that much effort into them.
Maybe you shouldn't compare "some random kid" with the two biggest stars of the olympics. There are "sports" like gun shooting and horse riding at the olympics for christ sake. As long as some fat 50 year old housewife (hi @ shooting competition) is able to take part in the olympics I don't think Flash would be totally out of place.
I hope you're not talking about Kim Rhode, who is 33, a five-time Olympic medalist (first competing when she was 13) and probably the best skeet shooter in the world.
On August 03 2012 17:10 hypercube wrote: Esports is probably already much bigger than the smallest sports in the Olympics. How many people follow fencing or water polo on a regular basis?
college?
i see much more logical arguments against esports in olympics than in favor of. take out your bias supported by personal opinion, there is no logical viewpoint to introduce video games in olympics. WCG already does this well with all sorts of video games. introducing one video game among many physical sports do not help, it only hurts the integrity of olympic.
if wcg doesn't grow, i see no reason for any video game to be part of olympic since wcg itself is designed for esports. i honestly think it'll be a laughing stock if it actually happens, just like how this thread kind of is.
On August 03 2012 16:15 Malaz wrote: Wouldn't it be the greatest thing ever if they added Sc2 to the olympics in a totally unexpected decision just to drop it rather quickly when they learn about the non existent lan mode?
On August 03 2012 16:05 Picklebread wrote: No video games should ever be a part of the olympics. That would be a disgrace.
Sorry but as much as I like SC2 this is what I feel. Imagine watching the camera go from Phelps/Bolt to some random kid playing tetris.. We have WCG/ESWC and people don't put that much effort into them.
Maybe you shouldn't compare "some random kid" with the two biggest stars of the olympics. There are "sports" like gun shooting and horse riding at the olympics for christ sake. As long as some fat 50 year old housewife (hi @ shooting competition) is able to take part in the olympics I don't think Flash would be totally out of place.
The 50 year old housewife has probably put more training hours in shooting than most of the sc2 players because she has been training since she is 16.
regardless, this thread is just as silly as its predecessor, especially including sc2 as an option in the most biased place you could possibly find
Tetris metagame is the shit
edit: omg at 3:00, it's so fast but the guy do it so ez (not used to watch pro tetris) Rofl he beat tetris and doing it invisible mode, you made my week sir
is op joking or what? You think sc2 could work for 100+ years? Sc1 was more widespread and yet it was there for what, 13-14 years? Thats like 3-4 olympics. You can't put sports in and out of olympics. No one will be playin sc2 after 100 years. there will be sc3 or sc4 or something else.
On August 03 2012 18:56 M4nkind wrote: is op joking or what? You think sc2 could work for 100+ years? Sc1 was more widespread and yet it was there for what, 13-14 years? Thats like 3-4 olympics. You can't put sports in and out of olympics. No one will be playin sc2 after 100 years. there will be sc3 or sc4 or something else.
something tells me you didnt quite make your way through the op. and starcraft 3 or 4 after 100 years? lolz.
Well, all I can say is that if they had LoL and SC2, I would actually turn my TV on. Haven't watched a single minute of the Olympics and it'll probably stay that way...
On August 03 2012 14:14 Starburst wrote: If we're talking about games that should be in the Olympics (in a perfect world where every one recognizes video games as requiring a certain amount of skill), I'd honestly recommend GunZ. Granted, it's died out for the most part, but I think it's harder than Brood War and much more technical. To me, it certainly requires a large amount of dexterity and "mental" prowess. Wikipedia GunZ entry
Here's some VODs so you can see what I'm talking about. None of these are actions are macros, they're all key presses. + Show Spoiler +
can you explain what we're watching? does waving the sword block the gun bullets or something?
It can. Basically, the game is a Third Person Shooter that when released was probably supposed to be akin to CoD, except TPS of course. However, due to some errors in the code, the were a lot of cancels that people discovered that have lead to the game that you see in that video. If you're more interested in the mechanics, I can try answering that to the best of my ability, but it's rather hard to describe and would take quite a while to explain. I'm willing to tell people if they're interested, though. It'd be nice to contribute to that community somehow since it's quite dead atm.
Those gunz videos are making me incredibly nauseous, I'm not sure if its the editing, the gameplay itself or a mixture of both. But I certainly can't watch those videos for longer than a minute.
Would be pretty massive for e-sports but I really can't see this happening during SC2's lifetime. Some day in the distant future it just might be reality though. I really don't like the way they introduced the idea though, as if it was the biggest joke they have heard with the "thats sad" etc.
And there is/has been some borderline ridiculous sports in Olympics so e-sports like they as well pointed out wouldn't be that far off from the mark once our generation is older and deciding these things. To me e-sports in Olympics wouldn't make less sense than old fat men shooting guns or princessess riding horses at least.
Unless if it's LoL that they decide to play then this is just silly.
On August 03 2012 19:25 Vaelone wrote: Would be pretty massive for e-sports but I really can't see this happening during SC2's lifetime. Some day in the distant future it just might be reality though. I really don't like the way they introduced the idea though, as if it was the biggest joke they have heard with the "thats sad" etc.
And there is/has been some borderline ridiculous sports in Olympics so e-sports like they as well pointed out wouldn't be that far off from the mark once our generation is older and deciding these things. To me e-sports in Olympics wouldn't make less sense than old fat men shooting guns or princessess riding horses at least.
Unless if it's LoL that they decide to play then this is just silly.
Its fox news they are basically the internet explorer of news stations...
Considered for olympics BY WHOM? Unless it's the IOC, it doesn't mean anything, it's just some "journalist" making up random stuff to get some cheap clicks without having the trouble of doing proper research for facts.
Doubt video games will ever make it there, but if they do, LoL only has a place in the special olympics. It blows my mind why people still think that is a competitive game or that it requires any more skill than what a primate posses...
I love video games to death and the whole idea of E-sports becoming big is amazing. That said, if chess was never considered for Olympics, there's no way something as niche as SC2 would nor should be.
On August 03 2012 20:24 Mafe wrote: Considered for olympics BY WHOM? Unless it's the IOC, it doesn't mean anything, it's just some "journalist" making up random stuff to get some cheap clicks without having the trouble of doing proper research for facts.
Yes, as i cant access the source i would like to know as well.
Is this just a journalist buzz or some official are considering it ?
Damn, Fox News is horrible. The reporters seem to think their opinion is important and are quick to dismiss things... Get lost tbh.
Dunno about any computer games as Olympics myself, but hey why not? Would certainly be interesting to watch while waiting from the end of the the women's beach volleyball to the start of the women's gymnastics
Moving your fingers on a keyboard shouldn't be considerd a sport. It's gaming.
Enough of that "e-Sport" crap.
If you can't tell the difference between a sport and Starcraft 2, I suggest you run 10 km, then try 3 series of 50 push-ups, 50 abdominal exercices, 10 pull-ups, then go swimming for a hour... After all that, compare your degree of fatigue with the one you usually have after staying at home eating pizza and proxy 2 raxing on Ladder.
On August 03 2012 22:48 SiroKO wrote: Moving your fingers on a keyboard shouldn't be considerd a sport. It's gaming.
Enough of that "e-Sport" crap.
If you can't tell the difference between a sport and Starcraft 2, I suggest you run 10 km, then try 3 series of 50 push-ups, 50 abdominal exercices, 10 pull-ups, then go swimming for a hour... After all that, compare your degree of fatigue with the one you usually have after staying at home eating pizza and proxy 2 raxing on Ladder.
Neither olympics' athletes do that there. So your argument is veeery bad.
none of them, imo OS should always be about physical competition, it should not be "defiled" (yes that is my own very biased opinion) by money-hungry companies, it should be something that people pay for through taxes.
esports should create their own culture, traditions, events etc instead of trying to get in on what's already well-established.
I don't think eSports belong to Olympics, but oh my god, those guys in the video are just horrible: terribad puns/ecc... It's the first time I prefer my TV programs over foreigner ones. And I live in Italy
On August 03 2012 15:13 mahO wrote: You clearly have no freaking idea what you're talking about. If you go that way, I'd say that Starcraft 2 excellence is even harder to reach than most Olympics sports on a mental and physical level (you really believe it is easy to play 8 hours a day (on average) for 3 years, both mentally and physically?), lots of sports doesnt require such training, a lot of athletes have a job and still win at the olympics, find me one pro gamer capable of being top 10 SC2 in the world that doesnt play full time? Point made.
You clearly have no freaking idea what you're talking about. And I'm serious.
Do you honestly think that Olympic athletes train less than SC2 players? Do you think gold medal divers, swimmers, runners, rowers, throwers, fencers, gymnasts etc. have other jobs? 8 hours a day for 3 years sounds like a lot, then you realize that these athletes have been working at their craft since elementary school for many of them. Do you think any SC2 or any esports player, ever, will match up to athletes like Michael Phelps in terms of dedication and training?
Either you haven't seen the Olympic games for a few decades or you should consider applying for the Special Olympics.
huhuhuhu smart on the last one huhuhuhu. Noticed that I said "lots of sports"? Yeah, there is a shitload of Olympic sports that doesnt require as much comitment as SC2, you do actually realize that korean pro gamers train 10 hours a day? Like really 10 hours? You cant run for 10 hours a day, you cant swim constantly for 10 hours a day, so yes, and lets not even talk about Bow, Revolvers etc. I'm not taking away anything from athletes, they invest themselves in what they do 100% for the ones who win, but the guy I answered to was talking like being an athlete requires much more time and effort than being a SC2 pro, which is 100% false, the 2 cant even compare tbh, except on the time sacrifice, and on that yeah most pros would envy the free time (most) athletes have. You could run the Special Olympics too, obviously you're blind
On August 03 2012 23:17 IGotPlayguuu wrote: I don't think eSports belong to Olympics, but oh my god, those guys in the video are just horrible: terribad puns/ecc... It's the first time I prefer my TV programs over foreigner ones. And I live in Italy
hahaha Oh man this is completely offtopic but I've seen a couple of tv-shows from Italy, do they sing that song about Berlusconi every day?
Italian Television is basically brainwashing funded by Berlusconi
To those trying to say pro-athletes and pro-gamers are worlds apart... they aren't. I haven't been a pro-gamer, but I know lots of poeple who are pro-gamers and I personally have been a World-class athlete. The dedication and the sheer hours of training and thinking that go into being "the best" is a whole other world. I really hate to sound conceited or anything, but when you reach that level, its really not something anyone who hasn't been a world-class athlete or a true front-and-center-stage pro-gamer has the capability to understand.
No matter if you're arguing which one is "harder" or "more taxing", the dedication, hard work and the desire to be #1 is there. If that's not in the proper competitive spirit for being an Olympic-contender, I don't know what is. Also if you don't think pro-gamers spend hours and hours thinking/playing/testing things just like pro-athletes, perhaps some of the pro-gamers who read these forums would kindly come lay some knowledge on you.
I know that dance dance revolution is officially considered a sport. But I really dislike the idea of making a game that is owned by a profit making company a olympic game.
If an esport would ever become annn official olympic sport, I would demand it to be non profit, as in free to download to everyone with no advertisement anywhere.
Im not an expert on copyright laws on tetris, but I know that multiple companies have made their own version, and you can play it free online. This is why I voted for tetris.
actually there are quite a few limits for olympic sports, for example engines must not be involved, that's why I am very sceptic about videogames being allowed - the video is just ridicilous, I have a hard time believing anything these two journalists(lol) say
On August 03 2012 23:42 Sea_Food wrote: I know that dance dance revolution is officially considered a sport. But I really dislike the idea of making a game that is owned by a profit making company a olympic game.
If an esport would ever become annn official olympic sport, I would demand it to be non profit, as in free to download to everyone with no advertisement anywhere.
Im not an expert on copyright laws on tetris, but I know that multiple companies have made their own version, and you can play it free online. This is why I voted for tetris.
Well buying a comp + sc2 isint so different than buying a bow + arrows
On August 03 2012 23:42 Sea_Food wrote: I know that dance dance revolution is officially considered a sport. But I really dislike the idea of making a game that is owned by a profit making company a olympic game.
If an esport would ever become annn official olympic sport, I would demand it to be non profit, as in free to download to everyone with no advertisement anywhere.
Im not an expert on copyright laws on tetris, but I know that multiple companies have made their own version, and you can play it free online. This is why I voted for tetris.
i had not thought about this, but i think you made a good point.
I guess I wouldn't mind seeing Starcraft as an olympic sport; but obviously feeling reluctant, since it doesn't really fit more traditional sports already included in the olympics. It still feels too niche - most people will not understand what is going on. If anything more traditional games will make it into the olympics before starcraft. Chess for example, is officially considered a sport, and I believe almost made it into an olympic event a long time ago? If we're including games that don't really require much physical force/athleticism, we'd have to expand the definition of what it means to be an olympian - how about poker? or settlers of catan? monopoly? Imo, better just to keep these events separate.
On August 03 2012 07:30 aeroblaster wrote: You put LoL up on that list but not Dota 2? mega hard fail dude
I agree, but as of now, LoL is vastly more popular. Atleast from my experience.
Just wait until the International 2.....
Dota international 2? The recent ESL for LoL got over 155k live viewers. Hannover for LoL got 250k live viewers from the finals, also. I don't think DoTA international 2 will come close to even half that at the finals of hannover. The only reason international 1 had a strong amount of viewers was because it was the first time Valve showed their new game and people wanted to see it. I don't think international 2 will be as popular, we'll see.
as much as it would be cool to see sc2 in the olympics i don't think it belongs there. The olympics is a celebration of physical sport (yes even shooting requires quite a bit of physical activity) whereas all e-sports is much more a mental challenge. When we play sc2 we don't get physically challenged (unless you are smashing ure mouse too hard!) but it requires alot of effort on a mental effort.
esport games don't last forever. who's going to be playing starcraft 2 in 2024? nobody. are the olympics going to keep choosing new esport games? plus, i don't trust blizzard to balance jack shit.
On August 04 2012 01:12 JimSocks wrote: esport games don't last forever. who's going to be playing starcraft 2 in 2024? nobody. are the olympics going to keep choosing new esport games? plus, i don't trust blizzard to balance jack shit.
Yes. Just like they pick new sports for Olympics all the time.
If ESPORTS would have a time slot on Olympics, games wound't be a problem. Cuz Companies would create games that are hard/complicated just like SC2, for exposure.
It would be cool to see, but I can't decide if I think it is an olympic sport. To me, if Starcraft II is in there, then we can start including things like music because professional musicians practice 5+ hours a day and then rehearse for 3+ hours and it is very difficult and requires physical and mental health. So I'm not sure what I think.
On August 04 2012 01:12 JimSocks wrote: esport games don't last forever. who's going to be playing starcraft 2 in 2024? nobody. are the olympics going to keep choosing new esport games? plus, i don't trust blizzard to balance jack shit.
Yes. Just like they pick new sports for Olympics all the time.
If ESPORTS would have a time slot on Olympics, games wound't be a problem. Cuz Companies would create games that are hard/complicated just like SC2, for exposure.
On August 04 2012 01:09 Thorakh wrote: In my opinion the Olympic games are all about physical sports. I wouldn't want to see SC2 there, as much as that would be awesome.
You're right but honestly the more exposure professional Starcraft gets the better. With that in mind I would love to see it in the Olympics.
On August 03 2012 08:59 kochanfe wrote: SC2 takes vastly more skill at the top level than many Olympic sports? Why should it not be aloud to be among them?
Because it doesn't? Saying that SC2 "takes vastly more skill" is just an insult to Olympian athletes.
Your post is an insult to Top SC2 progamers.
-_-
This has to be a joke. Name one single (edit: Olympic) sport that takes less skill than Starcraft 2.
I love playing SC2 but let's be serious, this would be a terrible idea and would never happen anyway.
equestrian, shooting
lol? you would make grandmasters before you become an olympic shooter. guarantee you miss 99 if not 100% of your shots.
just end this thread. bunch of hopeful nerds trying to put something where it doesn't belong.
On August 04 2012 01:12 JimSocks wrote: esport games don't last forever. who's going to be playing starcraft 2 in 2024? nobody. are the olympics going to keep choosing new esport games? plus, i don't trust blizzard to balance jack shit.
Yes. Just like they pick new sports for Olympics all the time.
If ESPORTS would have a time slot on Olympics, games wound't be a problem. Cuz Companies would create games that are hard/complicated just like SC2, for exposure.
They pick games that have potential to last. When i watch olympics, i want to see timeless stuff
I feel we need to first introduce a game like Dance Dance Revolution first if we're going to introduce any videogame as an olympic event. DDR's requirement of fancy footwork and coordination blends physical and mental aspects in a way that will better ease the general public into watching videogames as olympic-level competition.
It even has potential for singles, doubles and direct one versus one competition. With Asia's ever-growing populace and inevitable total control of the world it will happen.
I think that would be a cool step for the Olympics. The Olympics used to have much more than sports, Sculpting, poetry and other artistic events were featured, and I think it'd be awesome for not only artists but the whole Olympic spirit to incorporate those kinds of things again. It would make it more of a cultural exchange.
Because of those reasons, I could see videogames being represented in the Olympics, particularly eSports. But, I just don't think we're there yet. Maybe by 2018. I think it'd be cool, but we have WCS and WCG for now. If it happens awesome, if not, also awesome.
On August 04 2012 02:00 MysteryTerran wrote: I just dont like how the reporter sounded so disgusted by the idea
It's a website for people who love the status quo. What do you expect?
Have you read this thread? There are plenty of people who are "disgusted" by the idea.
The Olympics is the pinnacle of human physical achievement, teamwork, and dedication and is the most prestigious sporting event in the world. Asking if a 2 year old video game should be a part of it is rather insulting tbh.
As much as I'd like to see this, I don't think it would qualify. Sure it would be fun and brighten up the Olympics (at what point other than the Olympics do we watch people swim on TV?) but it doesn't belong there. I'd rather have something in there that at least takes more physical skill like paintball (spice it up with CS style classing?) or fencing with greatswords instead of those flimsy little poles.
That said, seems like every female news reporter on Fox is an opinionated cunt. I mean at least the ones like Bill O'Reilly have the decency to invite the opposition over to his table and at least pretend to be impartial, Megyn Kelly just says "Nope. This makes badminton look intense. End of story."
The funny thing about this is IF SC2 were an Olympic sport, you can damn well believe that the IOC (International Olympic Committee for those not in the know) would demand that the game have LAN support.
I don't think there is near enough international competition to make it worthwhile to even be considered an Olympic event. It would be year after year of the same ol same WCG results.
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.
While i agree with the notion that Olympics are for more physical sports than SC, its kind of hard to argue that being able to move your hands as fast as the best Starcraft players on the planet do, averaging 200+ epm, isn't physically demanding. While it isn't as hard as running, swimming, jumping etc. it's not like anyone can just have 200+ epm while doing all the thinking required to play sc, let alone move their hands that fast for that long.
Working one's thumbs and hands over a keyboard, with excellent hand-eye coordination, is a skill that I'd love to have.
It doesn't deserve a spot at the pinnacle of human physical prowess.
I don't understand your logic. Working one's thumb and hands over a bow with excellent hand eye coordination is called archery. It's in the Olympics. Does that deserve a spot at the pinnacle of human physical prowess?
Archery isn't the most physically athletic sport, but it is more directly dexterous than gaming. The finesse required to place an arrow at long range, taking wind into account, requires devotion and practice. There are more subtleties there than pushing the right keyboard/mouse buttons at the right time. Besides that, it's also one of the most universal and historical sports.
Equastrian events are kind of borderline, imo. The horse should get the medal. I wouldn't be sad if they left the Olympics.
But video games will never be in the Olympics. It just feels insulting to the whole tradition.
Putting aside arguments of historical significance, I think you don't understand enough about esports if you think that "pushing the right keyboard/mouse buttons at the right time" is less subtle than the unnamed subtleties in archery. Granted I don't understand enough about archery and I certainly don't know how much physical prowess there is required to draw a bow, so there might be a point in that. However I think it's arguable if you require more dexterity, devotion and practice to be archer than to be a progamer.
I would like to know how people feel about other olympic events like golf (in 2016), table tennis or shooting. As an uninformed viewer it doesn't seem like those sports require more athleticism than progaming. In that all those sports require dexterity, hand-eye coordination, reflex and a high degree of knowledge to adjust to different situations. Just like in esports.
I think what really holds back video games in the olympics in general is that it is almost impossible to relate to the viewer how hard the players have to work to do what their doing. All your seeing are avatars and possibly really quick hand/eye movements, but you don't really know how hard it is. I think it is akin to something like golf or chess. It is really hard to see why what those athletes are doing is actually difficult.
And all of them require high physical prowess and endurance, even shooting and ping pong, to be played at a competitive level.
Does Starcraft have that?
I thought so.
But yeah, I agree, a sport needs to be relatable, with the human element being emphasized.
ok ping pong and shooting require massively different amounts of endurance and physical prowess and shooting, if it is an olympic sport, requires pulling a trigger and good hand eye coordination thats it, unless they are nunning around and shooting while doing cartwheels i dont see the physical strain there.
if, theorically, SC2 becomes an Olympic Sport, will the IOC own part of the game alogside with Blizzard? Would Blizzard have to consult the IOC everytime they decided to apply a balance patch? Would IOC become the main mapmaker, since they are the ones who "make the rules"? Would kids have SC2 in their Phys. Ed. Classes?
I know SC2 and any other electronic game is nowhere near a sport, but it's funny thinking about those stuff.
Can't say I'm surprised. In today's society 30 minutes walking on a treadmill is considered "daily excercise", 20 lbs overweight is considered "normal body type," and I guess sitting on your ass playing a video game is considered a "sport."
On August 04 2012 10:54 xrapture wrote: Can't say I'm surprised. In today's society 30 minutes walking on a treadmill is considered "daily excercise", 20 lbs overweight is considered "normal body type," and I guess sitting on your ass playing a video game is considered a "sport."
Why not? Chess has been considered a sport for a long time, and if anything Starcraft requires more physical effort than chess does.
Would really hope DotA 2 would be included. Of course, seeing as it is in closed beta with lower player base, it would not be the first choice. But it would be amazing :-)
You know, even if Starcraft II were to be legitimately considered as an olympic sport, I dont think it would pass considering that races are inherently unequal in advantages/disadvantages.
On August 04 2012 10:54 xrapture wrote: Can't say I'm surprised. In today's society 30 minutes walking on a treadmill is considered "daily excercise", 20 lbs overweight is considered "normal body type," and I guess sitting on your ass playing a video game is considered a "sport."
Why not? Chess has been considered a sport for a long time, and if anything Starcraft requires more physical effort than chess does.
You never played chess did you? In my youth I was doing it for ten years. In Starcraft you dont have to sit infront of board for 6-8 hours and be mentally focused. You can even drop some weight if you do those tourneys so often, amount of stress your brains get influences your body a bit. The intensity of thinking you do in chess is incomparable to starcraft. Starcraft is based on instincts mechanics and "some" improvisation you dont have to anticipate what your opponent is going to do after 15-20 moves. Trust me chess requires much more physical effort then Starcraft and more thinking. Where Starcraft needs more "acting on the spot" and reflexes.
Putting computer games in olympics is a joke, they can have their own e-sports olympics if they want to. Most of sports have a side effect - make you think better, be more physical fit etc. I did chess 10 years, judo 2 years, other types of wrestling 4+ years and trust me as a human I improved much more doing those sports 6-8 hours a week, than playing starcraft. Tell me what traits of human does playing sc2 improve? I can think of none.
We have WCG and WCS for SC2 I don't think Starcraft 2 or any video game should ever be in the olympics... I would like to see it on TV but really? The OLYMPICS?
On August 04 2012 10:54 xrapture wrote: Can't say I'm surprised. In today's society 30 minutes walking on a treadmill is considered "daily excercise", 20 lbs overweight is considered "normal body type," and I guess sitting on your ass playing a video game is considered a "sport."
You're from the US, so I can't say I'm surprised by this post.
30 mins on a treadmill is considered "daily exercise" because it's the amount proven to reduce cardiovascular morbimortality, actually, 30 mins 3 times a week is enough if it raises your heart rate. In most countries 20 lbs overweight is considered fat as fuck, actually, I'm like half that much overweight, and I consider myself fat. And chess is by many considered a sport, when you consider sport being about the competition level, rather than specifically asking for it to have a major physical component.
On August 04 2012 10:54 xrapture wrote: Can't say I'm surprised. In today's society 30 minutes walking on a treadmill is considered "daily excercise", 20 lbs overweight is considered "normal body type," and I guess sitting on your ass playing a video game is considered a "sport."
Why not? Chess has been considered a sport for a long time, and if anything Starcraft requires more physical effort than chess does.
You never played chess did you? In my youth I was doing it for ten years. In Starcraft you dont have to sit infront of board for 6-8 hours and be mentally focused. You can even drop some weight if you do those tourneys so often, amount of stress your brains get influences your body a bit. The intensity of thinking you do in chess is incomparable to starcraft. Starcraft is based on instincts mechanics and "some" improvisation you dont have to anticipate what your opponent is going to do after 15-20 moves. Trust me chess requires much more physical effort then Starcraft and more thinking. Where Starcraft needs more "acting on the spot" and reflexes.
Putting computer games in olympics is a joke, they can have their own e-sports olympics if they want to. Most of sports have a side effect - make you think better, be more physical fit etc. I did chess 10 years, judo 2 years, other types of wrestling 4+ years and trust me as a human I improved much more doing those sports 6-8 hours a week, than playing starcraft. Tell me what traits of human does playing sc2 improve? I can think of none.
Video games have been statistically related to better multitasking and decision making abilities, I'd say that's pretty good. And btw, while playing chess you're still "sitting on your ass" like the quoted poster said.
I'm not saying SC should be an olympic sport, it's just the discussion is pretty bad.
On August 04 2012 10:54 xrapture wrote: Can't say I'm surprised. In today's society 30 minutes walking on a treadmill is considered "daily excercise", 20 lbs overweight is considered "normal body type," and I guess sitting on your ass playing a video game is considered a "sport."
30 minutes of light exercise, such as walking, done several times a week is generally sufficient to bring a person living a sedentary lifestyle to a higher level of physical health.
Sitting 'on your ass' playing chess is certainly considered a sport and Starcraft 2 or Tetris require much greater physical skill.
Good tetris players can exceed 500apm average in a game, and they can usually only maintain their peak level of play for a few years. It is much more physical than SC:BW and requires greater dexterity and hand-eye co-ordination than any olympic sport I can think of.
On August 04 2012 12:28 Grampz wrote: We have WCG and WCS for SC2 I don't think Starcraft 2 or any video game should ever be in the olympics... I would like to see it on TV but really? The OLYMPICS?
Soccer/Football has a world cup and is played in the Olympics. Why should the Olympics not contain video games that are played competitively on the same level as some current Olympic sports?
Seeing as chess grandmasters have been fighting for decades to have the ultimate sport of the mind included in the Olympics and laughed at and denied time and again, despite the fact that the art of chess has much more mainstream appeal and respect than an Esport like Starcraft, I highly doubt the Olympic Committee would ever take a bid to hold an Olympic video game competition seriously. Like, ever.
They even removed highly recognized sports like baseball to 'trim down' on the number of games.
Esports doesn't belong in the olympics. I feel like a criteria for being an olympic sport is that said activity has to last 100s of years. broodwar lasted 14 and was considered one of the top, and its already pushed aside. If anything chess should get a shot at it first because the game never changes and doesnt run on technology.
The Olympics are for traditional sports, the X Games are for more action-oriented "extreme" sports, and video games have WCG. I don't think there's any reason to mix this up.
Modern Tetris is pathetic. For those who aren't familiar with modern variants, they have been simplified so much to the point where you can basically repeat the same pattern or strategy all game long.
Starcraft is not a sport -> It takes multitasking skills and handeye coordination -> No physical skill such as in basketball or soccer -> But chess is a sport -> Chess is more difficult -> Starcraft is not a sport.
This discussion has been done over and over and over.
In my opinion, putting Starcraft in Olympics is an absurd idea. For one, the truth is that it simply does not take as much mental or physical training/strength at Olympics sports no matter how you get around it. Archery? Have you tried shooting an arrow? It's a very difficult sport, just because they are not sprinting at full speed does mean otherwise. Secondly, where the hell do we draw the line? Tetris? Call of Duty? Halo? NBA 2K12? Not just video games, what about rubix cube? Jenga? These all take skills and training. Just because it takes certain skills does mean it qualifies as a legitimate sport, let alone for the Olympics. Aren't the Olympics supposed to display the peak of human physical capability, bred through countless hours of training and raw talent? I mean, as much as I love Starcraft, come on now - I feel like we are arguing just to argue about it because you can pretty much make a point for how anything can qualify as a "sport." It's just dumb.
Just from reading a little wikipedia. Chess is considered as bona fide sport, meaning out of good will.
Internationally, closest definition of a sport that is agreed apon by most competitions is from SportAccord. It basically says: 1) The game has to have an element of competition. (Check for SC2) 2) It should be in no have harmful to any living creature. (This is kind of iffy. Some sports can be harmful to players, but I think they mean that it shouldn't be about harming another creature. So, kind of a check goes here.) 3) Not rely on an equipment from a single supplier. (Fail - Blizzard) 4) Not rely on any 'luck' element specifically designed into it. (Fail - Maybe try to play without a fog of war? =) )
I think it's better that e-sports are separated from real sports, as they can be pretty harmful for some (most) people who play nonstop and pretty much suck anyway . In physical sports you can't do that. You'll get tired and it's demanding on your body.
What do you think, though?
Edit: That definition is not Olympic's definition. It's, again, SportAccord's. And I agree with OneOther.
lol so much hate on that..... I would defenetly want to see starcraft on the olympics! I will spread the word and forece everyone to join for the cause of Auir!!! Seriously? i thought everyone here wanted starcrafft to get bigger?, if it´s bigger then more prises and events, and more money for the pros ofc
I dont really like the idea of video games at the Olympics. I don't know exactly how i worded this when i was talking to one of my friends, but its like, with traditional sports, you see it all. take soccer (the foot kind, to be clear): you see the input (the player moving his leg, kicking the ball) and the output (the ball being kicked and moving across the field). you see everything that happens and can truly appreciate it. With video games, you are given the casters camera, and you only see the output of the player (the units receiving commands) with little other context.
...and i've lost my train of thought... fantastic.. it was something about alienating audiences more than drawing interest.. ill update it the post if i remember soon =\ lol
On August 04 2012 17:11 xSilverx wrote: lol so much hate on that..... I would defenetly want to see starcraft on the olympics! I will spread the word and forece everyone to join for the cause of Auir!!! Seriously? i thought everyone here wanted starcrafft to get bigger?, if it´s bigger then more prises and events, and more money for the pros ofc
Everyone here wants Starcraft to get bigger, but there are still places where you can and places where you cannot do it. Olympics aren't the place for it. Olympics are there since forever, and even though they have evolved trough the time to add/remove sports, the main focus has always been to challenge the athletes' physical limits.
Also, Starcraft is a game of limited information and luck that can never be perfectly balanced, unlike all the other Olympic sports. The champions are real champions and if they win a gold medal one year, you expect him to do very well 4 years after. In Starcraft, it's not the case. No matter how good you are compared to your opponent, there is always the off chance that he beats you by using a risky strategy and using luck to try and win. It's a really bad thing for something with a scale as big as the Olympics'.
Of course, as the game mature it's gonna be better (like BW), but that chance factor is still gonna be there, and even in BW you can see players like Flash be beaten by a bad player.It's not something that disturbing when you have tournies every month, but when you have to play one tournament every 4 year, it's gonna be a shame if a top tier progamer does bad because he got unlucky or it just wasn't his day. Also, there is the fact that a lot of progamers may not even last 4 years in this business, so progamers attending the Olympics only once may be very anti-climatic.
On August 03 2012 09:09 Fischbacher wrote: This is never going to happen for StarCraft II and not for years and years for e-sports in general. Here is why: To get into the Olympics, the first step is to have an International Federation with affiliated national federations in many countries across most (if not all) continents. The International Federation must be of significant importance - essentially for StarCraft we would need a KeSPA-like organization but that has worldwide jurisdiction. Not something I foresee happening anytime soon. The closest thing to an international body eSports has is the International eSports federation (IeSF) but they couldn't even get South Koreans to take part in a tournament they organized in South Korea. For the records, the IeSF is currently recognized by the Olympic Council of Asia but not by any other branches of the Olympic moment. Second step is to get said International Federation to be recognized by the IOC (International Olympic Committee) as the proper governing body for the sport. For this to realisticly happen you need about 50 national federations across 5 continents. Third step, you need at /least/ 100 national federation across 5 continents to even be eligible to apply to become part of the games. The restriction is much lower for the Winter Olympics, but as the Winter Olympics require the event to take place on ice or snow eSports is not eligible. Fourth step, petition the IOC's executive board to be shortlisted as a potential sport. This process is actually a huge hurdle. For 2020, the shortlisted sports are Baseball/Softball, Squash, Roller Sports (Roller blade speed skating), Sports Climbing, Wakeboarding and Wushu (modern Kungfu). Some sports like Bowling and Chess have been trying to get over this hurdle for years with no success. Fifth step, hope and pray one of the current 28 sports gets dropped. Sixth step, hope and pray your sport replaces on of the sport(s) to get dropped. Seventh step: wait seven years until your sport is held at the Olympics for the first time.
Oh, and there is the issue of gender equality. No new event can be added if it isn't gender inclusive. Beyond all other issues, including the lack of a credible IF and the fact that eSports is arguably way too volatile to be included into a quadrennial event, the lack of female competitors in eSports really would hurt any bid. Essentially unless we get to a situation where 30-50% of credible programmers are female any bid would need to include female-only events in equal number to male-only events, and the extremely shallow tallent pool of such events would probably tank any bid anyway.
Point is, if we see eSports at the Olympics it won't be for at least another 20 years, if everything goes absolutely perfectly. Going perfectly includes: 1. a credible eSports federation that has real power over MLGs, IPLs, KeSPA, Gom, et cetera sometime two years ago. 2. a sudden and dramatic rise in the number of quality female progamer and either a. female progamers becoming regular challengers and winners in big eSports events or b. a near-equal number of female-only events to coincide with the number of current de-facto male-only events. 3. A regular world championship organized by the credible eSports federation. 4. Inclusion into the regular Asian Games (indoor Asian Games is nice but pretty much meaningless) and Pan-Am games. 5. eSports programmers being subject to regular and random out of competition and in competition drug testing (yes, requirement to even be considered for the Olympics, no matter the sport).
Also, an eSports bid would probably need to be for eSports in general, with events being "categories" of games that would be filled by the most popular game of the quadrennial that fits into the category. That's the only way to get arround how volatile eSports is. So essentially at every Olympics there could be a specific number of events for RTSs, FPSs, racing games, MOBAs, fighets, et cetera but those slots might be filled by different games every time.
Did I mention it's not happening anytime soon, if ever?
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.
While i agree with the notion that Olympics are for more physical sports than SC, its kind of hard to argue that being able to move your hands as fast as the best Starcraft players on the planet do, averaging 200+ epm, isn't physically demanding. While it isn't as hard as running, swimming, jumping etc. it's not like anyone can just have 200+ epm while doing all the thinking required to play sc, let alone move their hands that fast for that long.
Working one's thumbs and hands over a keyboard, with excellent hand-eye coordination, is a skill that I'd love to have.
It doesn't deserve a spot at the pinnacle of human physical prowess.
I don't understand your logic. Working one's thumb and hands over a bow with excellent hand eye coordination is called archery. It's in the Olympics. Does that deserve a spot at the pinnacle of human physical prowess?
Equastrian events are kind of borderline, imo. The horse should get the medal. I wouldn't be sad if they left the Olympics.
On August 04 2012 16:53 OneOther wrote: Starcraft is not a sport -> It takes multitasking skills and handeye coordination -> No physical skill such as in basketball or soccer -> But chess is a sport -> Chess is more difficult -> Starcraft is not a sport.
This discussion has been done over and over and over.
In my opinion, putting Starcraft in Olympics is an absurd idea. For one, the truth is that it simply does not take as much mental or physical training/strength at Olympics sports no matter how you get around it. Archery? Have you tried shooting an arrow? It's a very difficult sport, just because they are not sprinting at full speed does mean otherwise. Secondly, where the hell do we draw the line? Tetris? Call of Duty? Halo? NBA 2K12? Not just video games, what about rubix cube? Jenga? These all take skills and training. Just because it takes certain skills does mean it qualifies as a legitimate sport, let alone for the Olympics. Aren't the Olympics supposed to display the peak of human physical capability, bred through countless hours of training and raw talent? I mean, as much as I love Starcraft, come on now - I feel like we are arguing just to argue about it because you can pretty much make a point for how anything can qualify as a "sport." It's just dumb.
Shooting probably takes less physical prowess than Starcraft 2 as evidenced by 80 year olds having medals and it's an olympic sport. I think the biggest reason why it shouldn't be an olympic sport is because there is no e-sport that has survived longer than 14 years which is 3 olympics, which means no stability.
Video games aren't stable enough to be in the Olympics. BW, the hallmark of long-lasting pro-scene games, only managed to last 14 years. Put that in comparison with archery, track and field, etc., and they pale in comparison in terms of longevity.
When the Olympics happens only once every 4 years, coupled with the fact that pro video games lack the ability to endure for longer periods of time because of numerous factors (hard to keep consistent interest, developers pushing new sequels to supersede old ones), you're going to get a game that's just not stable enough to even include in the Olympics.
It's not going to happen and nor do I want it to happen.
I'm not one to argue whether or not SC2 is a sport or not, infact, I believe it is. However, Olympics is based off of an old sporting event that took back in Ancient Greek times which took place thousands of years ago. I know they have added lots of different sports to it which weren't pertaken during the Greek times but all of those Sports aren't commercialized products. Video Games also don't fit under the Olympic Spirit, adding games such as Starcraft 2 to the Olympics will only dent the Olympics upon elders and people who aren't familiar with E-Sports. You could argue that the concept of that is wrong in terms of ethics, but realistically people aren't ready to see Starcraft 2 as a sport within the Olympics.
It's just not realistic, and in my opinion it never will be because the game is owned by a private company.
On August 04 2012 21:10 Mykill wrote: no video games please. doesn't quite promote "harder faster stronger" unless you're talking about hand speed and mouse clicks.
You need a brain for physical sports aswell you know. It's not just about the body. Without the brain there would be no "harder faster stronger".
Infact it's the brain that provides the willpower that is needed to train like for example Usain Bolt to be able to be "harder faster stronger" and win. Same as people who play eSport games professionally need the willpower to be a BoxeR, Flash, Jaedong, Bisu, DRG, NesTea, MVP, MMA, MC, NaNiwa, Stephano............... the list goes on.
You can be both harder, faster and stronger mentally. Not just physically.
On August 04 2012 21:10 Mykill wrote: no video games please. doesn't quite promote "harder faster stronger" unless you're talking about hand speed and mouse clicks.
You need a brain for physical sports aswell you know. It's not just about the body. Without the brain there would be no "harder faster stronger".
Infact it's the brain that provides the willpower that is needed to train like for example Usain Bolt to be able to be "harder faster stronger" and win. Same as people who play eSport games professionally need the willpower to be a BoxeR, Flash, Jaedong, Bisu, DRG, NesTea, MVP, MMA, MC, NaNiwa, Stephano............... the list goes on.
You can be both harder, faster and stronger mentally. Not just physically.
Remember when Hero was playing, I think versus Puma and they had those heartrate devices on? Hero had like ~120bpm if I remember correctly, that's a hell of a strain for moving the mouse "a bit"...
SC2 is mainly of course brain power, but there's still some physical strain!
On August 04 2012 21:10 Mykill wrote: no video games please. doesn't quite promote "harder faster stronger" unless you're talking about hand speed and mouse clicks.
You need a brain for physical sports aswell you know. It's not just about the body. Without the brain there would be no "harder faster stronger".
Infact it's the brain that provides the willpower that is needed to train like for example Usain Bolt to be able to be "harder faster stronger" and win. Same as people who play eSport games professionally need the willpower to be a BoxeR, Flash, Jaedong, Bisu, DRG, NesTea, MVP, MMA, MC, NaNiwa, Stephano............... the list goes on.
You can be both harder, faster and stronger mentally. Not just physically.
You're not really promoting video games as a sport if you say both video games and physical sports require players to be "harder, faster, stronger" mentally, but that the former doesn't have the physical counterpart.
In which case, then it's just relegated down to what Chess is in the overall olympic scene: Not included. I agree that since this game or esports in general do not have the physical "harder faster stronger" aspect, it just doesn't deserve nor has a place in the Olympics.
On August 04 2012 21:49 Lylat wrote: Zzzz, why would you bring video games in Olympics ? That's just stupid.. Better make E-Sport Olympics, that would be badass.
On August 03 2012 07:43 Sadist wrote: holding onto the handles in that ddr video is pretty bullshit! Find a better example :D
You clearly know absolutely nothing about competitive DDR.
People who don't use the bar in ITG simply don't exist because it simply isn't possible to do the most difficult of the difficult without it. Also it's funny because the video he posted was nowhere close to "difficult" in terms of high end ITG/Pump it Up.
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.
While i agree with the notion that Olympics are for more physical sports than SC, its kind of hard to argue that being able to move your hands as fast as the best Starcraft players on the planet do, averaging 200+ epm, isn't physically demanding. While it isn't as hard as running, swimming, jumping etc. it's not like anyone can just have 200+ epm while doing all the thinking required to play sc, let alone move their hands that fast for that long.
Working one's thumbs and hands over a keyboard, with excellent hand-eye coordination, is a skill that I'd love to have.
It doesn't deserve a spot at the pinnacle of human physical prowess.
I don't understand your logic. Working one's thumb and hands over a bow with excellent hand eye coordination is called archery. It's in the Olympics. Does that deserve a spot at the pinnacle of human physical prowess?
Do you have any concept of how much strength it takes to draw a bow? Archers need incredibly strong arm muscles to do what they do.
I lift regularly, and it would be insanely difficult for me to draw one of the bows being used at the Olympics.
On August 03 2012 08:09 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I'd rather see Bowling as an Olympic Sport and I hate Bowling.
Yes, I agree.
You clearly haven't drawn a real or a competitive bow before. Neither are actually challenging physically in any way shape or form. It's holding your aim steady that's difficult.
On August 04 2012 21:49 Lylat wrote: Zzzz, why would you bring video games in Olympics ? That's just stupid.. Better make E-Sport Olympics, that would be badass.
wcg too stronk
WCG is nothing like Olympics, it's an individual competition, and there are way less games than sports in Olympics..
On August 04 2012 21:49 Lylat wrote: Zzzz, why would you bring video games in Olympics ? That's just stupid.. Better make E-Sport Olympics, that would be badass.
wcg too stronk
WCG is nothing like Olympics, it's an individual competition, and there are way less games than sports in Olympics..
they steal the olympic symbol, have country base qualifiers, wear contry based uniforms and korea always wins.
I dont want any game to be in the olympics, thats just stupid.
First off the games here are nothing compared to real sports so its stupid. If it was a game like brood war then it would be fine, cuz its much much harder then any normal game. But a game thats hard enough for me to for it to be in the olympics, pretty much has to be an rts, cuz fighting games and fps dont take as much skill.
On August 04 2012 21:49 Lylat wrote: Zzzz, why would you bring video games in Olympics ? That's just stupid.. Better make E-Sport Olympics, that would be badass.
Computer games vs real life sports and my vote will go to real life sports because it takes more dedication and physical ability to do than sitting on the chair and hammering at the keyboard . That said I enjoyed badminton a lot and the amount athletic ability and strategy that is required to play it is really demanding . Haven't seen a computer game that is able to match the same level of competitiveness exhibits in real life sports.
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.
While i agree with the notion that Olympics are for more physical sports than SC, its kind of hard to argue that being able to move your hands as fast as the best Starcraft players on the planet do, averaging 200+ epm, isn't physically demanding. While it isn't as hard as running, swimming, jumping etc. it's not like anyone can just have 200+ epm while doing all the thinking required to play sc, let alone move their hands that fast for that long.
Working one's thumbs and hands over a keyboard, with excellent hand-eye coordination, is a skill that I'd love to have.
It doesn't deserve a spot at the pinnacle of human physical prowess.
I don't understand your logic. Working one's thumb and hands over a bow with excellent hand eye coordination is called archery. It's in the Olympics. Does that deserve a spot at the pinnacle of human physical prowess?
Do you have any concept of how much strength it takes to draw a bow? Archers need incredibly strong arm muscles to do what they do.
I lift regularly, and it would be insanely difficult for me to draw one of the bows being used at the Olympics.
On August 03 2012 08:09 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I'd rather see Bowling as an Olympic Sport and I hate Bowling.
Yes, I agree.
You clearly haven't drawn a real or a competitive bow before. Neither are actually challenging physically in any way shape or form. It's holding your aim steady that's difficult.
I actually do archery and it doesn't require a strength atthe beginning, but at the end you get tired and if you're not strong enough you start doing bullshit. I do really want to see sc2 atthe olympics. Some might say that it isn't physical, but is rifle physical?
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.
While i agree with the notion that Olympics are for more physical sports than SC, its kind of hard to argue that being able to move your hands as fast as the best Starcraft players on the planet do, averaging 200+ epm, isn't physically demanding. While it isn't as hard as running, swimming, jumping etc. it's not like anyone can just have 200+ epm while doing all the thinking required to play sc, let alone move their hands that fast for that long.
Working one's thumbs and hands over a keyboard, with excellent hand-eye coordination, is a skill that I'd love to have.
It doesn't deserve a spot at the pinnacle of human physical prowess.
I don't understand your logic. Working one's thumb and hands over a bow with excellent hand eye coordination is called archery. It's in the Olympics. Does that deserve a spot at the pinnacle of human physical prowess?
Do you have any concept of how much strength it takes to draw a bow? Archers need incredibly strong arm muscles to do what they do.
I lift regularly, and it would be insanely difficult for me to draw one of the bows being used at the Olympics.
On August 03 2012 08:09 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I'd rather see Bowling as an Olympic Sport and I hate Bowling.
Yes, I agree.
You clearly haven't drawn a real or a competitive bow before. Neither are actually challenging physically in any way shape or form. It's holding your aim steady that's difficult.
I actually do archery and it doesn't require a strength atthe beginning, but at the end you get tired and if you're not strong enough you start doing bullshit. I do really want to see sc2 atthe olympics. Some might say that it isn't physical, but is rifle physical?
Actually the biggest thing to Archery is compensating for wind. Assuming Olympic Athletes were in a vacuum they would score a 10 most of the time.
Will never be Olympic as Blizzard has control over it, its basically like giant advertising for blizzard.
Doesn't deserve to be as its not physical enough, imo Olympic should be physical. I don't think shooting should be an Olympic sport, unless shooting is physical in some way that I don't know about.
Additionally, there is a shit ton of other sports which deserve to be in Olympic sport way before SC or any video game.
I think the fundamental problem with an e-sport in the olimpics is that no one will ever know how balance effects the outcome of the game, the thing with physical sports is that they are allwasy even, you will never have someone that is able to place better in the high jump because he has say a certain color jacket on. But in an e-sport balance plays a part.
On August 04 2012 23:09 Vulture174 wrote: I think the fundamental problem with an e-sport in the olimpics is that no one will ever know how balance effects the outcome of the game, the thing with physical sports is that they are allwasy even, you will never have someone that is able to place better in the high jump because he has say a certain color jacket on. But in an e-sport balance plays a part.
There's a certain thing called doping that affects the balance in physical sports. Guess you forgot about that.
On August 04 2012 22:29 zalz wrote: Some people really take SC2 too seriously...
Some people take the Olympics too seriously, but that's not the point.
I don't want Esports to drop to the level of physical strength. Esports are about sheer strategic insight, timings and reaction at a competitive level. They belong more to chess and checkers than to rowing and archery.
However, I wouldn't mind a globally oriented Esports event every 4 years with the same prestige as the Olympics, but they should be separate from the physical Olympics because the audience and the athletes are just at a completely different cultural level (with the exception that the athletes all practice like hell and the audience enjoy watching their respective (E)sports).
On August 04 2012 22:29 zalz wrote: Some people really take SC2 too seriously...
Some people take the Olympics too seriously, but that's not the point.
I don't want Esports to drop to the level of physical strength. Esports are about sheer strategic insight, timings and reaction at a competitive level. They belong more to chess and checkers than to rowing and archery.
However, I wouldn't mind a globally oriented Esports event every 4 years with the same prestige as the Olympics, but they should be separate from the physical Olympics because the audience and the athletes are just at a completely different cultural level (with the exception that the athletes all practice like hell and the audience enjoy watching their respective (E)sports).
On August 04 2012 22:29 zalz wrote: Some people really take SC2 too seriously...
Some people take the Olympics too seriously, but that's not the point.
I don't want Esports to drop to the level of physical strength. Esports are about sheer strategic insight, timings and reaction at a competitive level. They belong more to chess and checkers than to rowing and archery.
However, I wouldn't mind a globally oriented Esports event every 4 years with the same prestige as the Olympics, but they should be separate from the physical Olympics because the audience and the athletes are just at a completely different cultural level (with the exception that the athletes all practice like hell and the audience enjoy watching their respective (E)sports).
Has no one ever heard of WCG?
It's not near the level of global respect as the Olympics are. Imagine medals for Esports, would be awesome ^^.
On August 05 2012 00:00 hooberschmit wrote: She said "Badmitten." I will never respect this person now.
That's how it's uniformly pronounced in America. Do you have no respect for any Americans? You might have just not known that, since I didn't know there was a difference either until witnessing a surprised Canadian.
On August 04 2012 22:29 zalz wrote: Some people really take SC2 too seriously...
Some people take the Olympics too seriously, but that's not the point.
I don't want Esports to drop to the level of physical strength. Esports are about sheer strategic insight, timings and reaction at a competitive level. They belong more to chess and checkers than to rowing and archery.
However, I wouldn't mind a globally oriented Esports event every 4 years with the same prestige as the Olympics, but they should be separate from the physical Olympics because the audience and the athletes are just at a completely different cultural level (with the exception that the athletes all practice like hell and the audience enjoy watching their respective (E)sports).
Has no one ever heard of WCG?
It's not near the level of global respect as the Olympics are. Imagine medals for Esports, would be awesome ^^.
Of course it's not at the level of global respect as the olympics are. VIDEO GAMES in general are a niche culture. And they do give medals at wcg so I'm not sure what you're talking about. If you want the same amount of global respect for video gaming as physical sports which have been around for thousands of years...keep dreaming
On August 05 2012 10:50 SworDgiRL239 wrote: The day LoL becomes an olympic sport is the day being alive becomes an olympic sport.
As crappy as I think LoL is to watch, if you have the opinion that LoL is so easy, why are you here instead of making a ton of money playing it? It's got a great competitive scene and while it's not my sort of game (to play) and I can't understand how anybody would want to watch it, you can't deny that there must be skill involved, or people like you would be earning the big bucks playing LoL .
Wow does it piss me off that the people in that video are all skeptical and dumb-founded and shit. Acting like they're better people.
"Tetris? That's sad."
Fuck you lady. Starcraft takes as much mental strength as any Olympic event takes physical, probably more. I wish I was born later, in a time when video games were accepted, instead of this bullshit with older generations of people acting like hot shit, treating video-games like children's toys.
Edit: I'm not saying that video games should necessarily be treated like other sports, I just wish people would be more open-minded.
I don't really think the Olympics is the place for eSports. I feel like it'd lead to a weird, watered down tournament like how WCG is now viewed for SC2.
On August 05 2012 10:50 SworDgiRL239 wrote: The day LoL becomes an olympic sport is the day being alive becomes an olympic sport.
As crappy as I think LoL is to watch, if you have the opinion that LoL is so easy, why are you here instead of making a ton of money playing it? It's got a great competitive scene and while it's not my sort of game (to play) and I can't understand how anybody would want to watch it, you can't deny that there must be skill involved, or people like you would be earning the big bucks playing LoL .
i feel like its way more just pure knowledge than skill. I have no doubt that any current pro sc2 gamers would have an easier time playing LoL, especially foreign terrans because you dont need to multitask
On August 05 2012 10:50 SworDgiRL239 wrote: The day LoL becomes an olympic sport is the day being alive becomes an olympic sport.
As crappy as I think LoL is to watch, if you have the opinion that LoL is so easy, why are you here instead of making a ton of money playing it? It's got a great competitive scene and while it's not my sort of game (to play) and I can't understand how anybody would want to watch it, you can't deny that there must be skill involved, or people like you would be earning the big bucks playing LoL .
i feel like its way more just pure knowledge than skill. I have no doubt that any current pro sc2 gamers would have an easier time playing LoL, especially foreign terrans because you dont need to multitask
I agree with that, every time I switch to LOL I suck because I have no idea what my hero does and have no idea what everyone else does while my friend dominates.
It's funny because I have something like 200 APM in LoL while all my friends have something like 20-40 and they are high rated xD
On August 05 2012 00:00 hooberschmit wrote: She said "Badmitten." I will never respect this person now.
That's how it's uniformly pronounced in America. Do you have no respect for any Americans? You might have just not known that, since I didn't know there was a difference either until witnessing a surprised Canadian.
No it's not uniformly pronounced "Badmitten". That's how uneducated people on the east coast pronounce it.
On August 05 2012 00:00 hooberschmit wrote: She said "Badmitten." I will never respect this person now.
That's how it's uniformly pronounced in America. Do you have no respect for any Americans? You might have just not known that, since I didn't know there was a difference either until witnessing a surprised Canadian.
No it's not uniformly pronounced "Badmitten". That's how uneducated people on the east coast pronounce it.
Funny, I vaguely recall being educated at some point. And on the west coast no less. And with people from vastly different parts of the country pronouncing it 'badmitten'. Though I wouldn't be surprised if there was somewhat more variation than I claimed despite having only ever met Canadians who pronounce it that way.
edit: And as a general rule, if what got from your education was a love for prescriptivist grammar and pronunciation, you might want to ask for you money back.
On August 05 2012 14:03 OODavey wrote: Wow does it piss me off that the people in that video are all skeptical and dumb-founded and shit. Acting like they're better people.
"Tetris? That's sad."
Fuck you lady. Starcraft takes as much mental strength as any Olympic event takes physical, probably more. I wish I was born later, in a time when video games were accepted, instead of this bullshit with older generations of people acting like hot shit, treating video-games like children's toys.
Edit: I'm not saying that video games should necessarily be treated like other sports, I just wish people would be more open-minded.
Would be fun to.see a.3x3/4x4/5x5 rubics cube olympic where the cubics cube is scambled the same way for all the contestent (not the same twice ofcouse).
Bah! I'm of the opinion that Olympics sport way too many competitions already and including e-sports into it would be a bad move. WCG has always been considered the e-sports Olympics and I'd like it to stay this way.
anybody voting for LoL is a fucking idiot (ban me if ud like to mods). That is actually a joke LoL should not be considered an esport ever. Other mobas take much more skill they should be picked over LoL. LoL is like 7 a side soccer compared to HoN which is 11 a side.
Anyone having an actual reliable source on what specifically has changed for video games? As far as I know there will "never" (under the current or former IOC's from 1910 and later) be made room for sports without physical activity. That is why motor boating got kicked and that is why I do not believe that Bridge and Chess will make it in and that is why I do not believe for a second that E-sport in any form will be considered for inclusion in the olympics in any kind of near future... Also, look at the "recognised bodies of sports" by IOC. As is mentioned for the asterixed sports they are not eligible as olympic sports because of the specific ban on "motorisation"... + Show Spoiler +
The governing bodies of following sports, though not contested in the Olympic Games, are recognized by the IOC:[16]
Air sports * Auto racing * (provisional from December 2011) Bandy Baseball Billiard sports Boules Bowling Bridge Chess Cricket Dance sport Floorball
Golf (will be part of the 2016 program) Karate Korfball Lifesaving Motorcycle racing * Mountaineering and Climbing Netball Orienteering Pelota Vasca Polo Powerboating * Racquetball
Roller sports Rugby (sevens will be part of the 2016 program) Softball Sport climbing Squash Sumo Surfing Tug of war Underwater sports Water ski * Wushu
Those sports marked with an asterisk are not eligible to be included at the Olympic Games because the Olympic Charter specifically bans sports with an element of motorization from eligibility.
I think sc2 is too big for the Olympics... as there are already so many tournaments. The price money is the Olympics is only a medallion whereas the winner of a big tournament wins a equal to a small car. The current sponsors of teams and tournaments won't send their players to the Olympics as small sponsorship's is forbidden.
LOL at lifesaving in the above list. Having worked as a lifeguard myself, I know lifesaving competitions are legit (although I would never/cannot ever do them) it just seems ridiculous to have an Olympic sport that consists of someone simulating a rescue ("oh he was faster than everyone else, but he didn't immobilize the victim properly - minus 2 points").
I don't get it. Tetris is played against the computer and has randomness to it, I feel like competitve team games are the best ones to consider for the olympics. I also feel like those games should be focused on the physical, not the mental game. I feel like LoL doesn't really require the same kind of APM as SC2 and is more about having an understanding of the game, not about being the fastest or strongest.
Therefore, the best games to consider for the olympics are games like Starcraft or old school FPS games which required accuracy and skill as well as teamwork - CS 1.6 comes to mind.
On August 06 2012 02:10 archonOOid wrote: I think sc2 is too big for the Olympics... as there are already so many tournaments. The price money is the Olympics is only a medallion whereas the winner of a big tournament wins a equal to a small car. The current sponsors of teams and tournaments won't send their players to the Olympics as small sponsorship's is forbidden.
you actually win $25,000 for gold, $15k for silver and $10k for bronze, and the medals themselves are worth about $10,000
Because this is an SC2 site, of course SC2 will win in the polls. But to be frank about it, tetris is more likely to win in the vast majority of the population since it is more fundamental and popular to ALL.
By the way, are they considering computer games in the Olympics? Like seriously?
On August 06 2012 01:31 TaeTae wrote: anybody voting for LoL is a fucking idiot (ban me if ud like to mods). That is actually a joke LoL should not be considered an esport ever. Other mobas take much more skill they should be picked over LoL. LoL is like 7 a side soccer compared to HoN which is 11 a side.
If you don't edit out the martyr, you will get banned so long as any mod reads your post. If you do, there's a good chance you wouldn't get more than a warning, though I can't speak for the mods.
If purely non-physical sports were to start getting added to the olympics, I would imagine something like chess or go would happen long before video games.
Wow does it piss me off that the people in that video are all skeptical and dumb-founded and shit. Acting like they're better people.
"Tetris? That's sad."
Fuck you lady. Starcraft takes as much mental strength as any Olympic event takes physical, probably more. I wish I was born later, in a time when video games were accepted, instead of this bullshit with older generations of people acting like hot shit, treating video-games like children's toys.
Edit: I'm not saying that video games should necessarily be treated like other sports, I just wish people would be more open-minded.
Regardless of the ridiculousness of even thinking it is possible to include in the olympics:
Tetris as a single player game is not well suited for a competitive format. Sure, you can modify the speeds and modify the shapes to make it easier to differentiate between the best, but it still seems like a pretty bad spectator sport.
Starcraft 2 is a 2 player game and there is enough to differentiate the players in terms of "abilities". A 1v1 sport is an advantage in many cases since it makes it easier to set up correctly (Oh the horrors of badly run lan's!). On the downside you have a huge problem in terms of IPR since the game is owned and controlled by Blizzard (The KESPA case - even though it did not give any precedence on copyright concerning replays and the rights of the copyrightholder in terms of compensation and attribution - does point towards a potential risk of getting sued concerning rights to the broadcasts/replays etc.). Having no lan is very bad for the ability to run the game competitively in a controlled way (you are screwed if Blizzards servers go down or if the internet is cut off, which are non-existing concerns for lan-ready games!). The fact that the game has a salevalue is another brick in the wall since it makes it almost a necessity to include Blizzard in the sponsor-lounge even if they did not give money/resources to the tournament!
League of Legends is a multiplayer game and therefore has an even higher propensity for errors and drops. It is FTP and could therefore potentially demand a lesser interaction with the developer, but the copyright/trademark-issues still remain, as does the problems of no lan.
In terms of legal issues I would go for freeware multiplayer games with a highly competitive scene and no issues in terms of third part engine and patented code. I am not sure they exist at the moment. ESWC developed a game of their own in the past to avoid these issues but it did not fly completely.
In all honesty I think there is a need for looking at international agreements on how the IPR should work in the digital environment for esports to even be a viable contender. ACTA in all its unbalanced, badly worded and dishonest terminology could be a small step in the right direction in terms of enforcement. However, it might have been slightly better to actually agree on the substance (both in terms of laws and exceptions) and make it clear in something that is not being pushed as a "Trade Agreement", before agreeing on how to enforce it (Which is the actual "trade agreement" part)...
Every Olympic I hear about people talking how chess might make it into the games - it has yet to happen.
One of the articles on the badminton incident claim that badminton as a sport has a wobbly status in the Olympic committee and if harsh punishments are not given out then the sport has a chance to be removed from the games. I will vote to keep something such as badminton over starcraft any day.
While "esports" such as starcraft takes a lot of skill and godly high apm: its player base is no where close to meeting that of the "traditional sport". Video games also changes way too frequent to be part of something that will most likely continue to happen a century later.
DDR have a much higher chance of making it into the Olympics before SC2.
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.
this is narrow thinking right there. If there is no physical element it cant be sport. What physical element is in bobsleigh? The running part? Or in all kinds of shooting competitions? And do you really think one can be best in the world in sc2 without pushing oneself? Well you clearly know nothing of the scene.
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.
this is narrow thinking right there. If there is no physical element it cant be sport. What physical element is in bobsleigh? The running part? Or in all kinds of shooting competitions? And do you really think one can be best in the world in sc2 without pushing oneself? Well you clearly know nothing of the scene.
both bobsleigh and shooting requires a ton of physical training. i find it funny that people complaining about mainstream media for refusing to recognize gaming as a legitimate sports do so by making the same ignorant generalizations about other sports.
What a ridiculous suggestion , they won't even allow motorised sport at the olympics and you think they will allow this? Motorised sport is more physical than video games.Olympics is about physical activity not mental.Also they should bring back tug-o-war.
Both SportAccord and The IOC recognize Chess and Bridge as sports, even if they aren't held as events at the Olympics. Their definition of a sport does not include physical activity. Why it is that cars, boats, horses, Chess, playing cards, guns, and bows are all ok to use in sports but a computer isn't is beyond me. I'm not sure where people get this idea that sports have to have a physical component from? We live in an era of computers, and our understanding of sports needs to change to accomodate that.
On August 07 2012 01:43 sfdrew wrote: Both SportAccord and The IOC recognize Chess and Bridge as sports, even if they aren't held as events at the Olympics. Their definition of a sport does not include physical activity. Why it is that cars, boats, horses, Chess, playing cards, guns, and bows are all ok to use in sports but a computer isn't is beyond me. I'm not sure where people get this idea that sports have to have a physical component from? We live in an era of computers, and our understanding of sports needs to change to accomodate that.
Because Computer games require electricity. And I believe that as long as the activity doesn't involve motors/engines, it is okay.
Sc would be nice though i have small hopes for this. Things like chess and bridge or snooker never made it to the olympics either. I guess its only for physical sports.
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.
this is narrow thinking right there. If there is no physical element it cant be sport. What physical element is in bobsleigh? The running part? Or in all kinds of shooting competitions? And do you really think one can be best in the world in sc2 without pushing oneself? Well you clearly know nothing of the scene.
i know right, nascar and F1 is just turning the wheel left and right while sitting in a chair
On August 03 2012 07:30 aeroblaster wrote: You put LoL up on that list but not Dota 2? mega hard fail dude
Why? LoL has a much bigger competitive scene right now.
It is about the skill though. In that regard neither Dota 2 nor LoL should be on that list. If BW would still be played it would be an even better option than SCII.
I do not understand, why it is that professional athletes are glorified and considered productive members to society, but professional gamers considered parasites and pathetic?
If you really think about it, the determination is the exact same. You can spend your entire life training for what ever sport you want, be it Baseball, Soccer, Football, whatever, and you will become a very skilled player in the respective sport. Some people may be naturally gifted and thus better than you, but most will be left in awe at what you have achieved.
The EXACT same can be said about professional gamers. Most people out there just assume professional gaming is as easy as slicing a cake, when in reality these professionals train almost everyday for countless hours to perfect their skill and get to where they are. And it's this determination that baffles me, in the eye of the public they are just shut ins who have no life when the same can be said about professional athletes. Sure athletes have hot and sexy bodies which are lusted over by anyone, but if a professional gamer had as much determination to play a physical sport as he did for an e-sport he too would be a great athlete in it.
On August 07 2012 03:08 Schlootle wrote: I do not understand, why it is that professional athletes are glorified and considered productive members to society, but professional gamers considered parasites and pathetic?
If you really think about it, the determination is the exact same. You can spend your entire life training for what ever sport you want, be it Baseball, Soccer, Football, whatever, and you will become a very skilled player in the respective sport. Some people may be naturally gifted and thus better than you, but most will be left in awe at what you have achieved.
The EXACT same can be said about professional gamers. Most people out there just assume professional gaming is as easy as slicing a cake, when in reality these professionals train almost everyday for countless hours to perfect their skill and get to where they are. And it's this determination that baffles me, in the eye of the public they are just shut ins who have no life when the same can be said about professional athletes. Sure athletes have hot and sexy bodies which are lusted over by anyone, but if a professional gamer had as much determination to play a physical sport as he did for an e-sport he too would be a great athlete in it.
On August 07 2012 03:08 Schlootle wrote: I do not understand, why it is that professional athletes are glorified and considered productive members to society, but professional gamers considered parasites and pathetic?
If you really think about it, the determination is the exact same. You can spend your entire life training for what ever sport you want, be it Baseball, Soccer, Football, whatever, and you will become a very skilled player in the respective sport. Some people may be naturally gifted and thus better than you, but most will be left in awe at what you have achieved.
The EXACT same can be said about professional gamers. Most people out there just assume professional gaming is as easy as slicing a cake, when in reality these professionals train almost everyday for countless hours to perfect their skill and get to where they are. And it's this determination that baffles me, in the eye of the public they are just shut ins who have no life when the same can be said about professional athletes. Sure athletes have hot and sexy bodies which are lusted over by anyone, but if a professional gamer had as much determination to play a physical sport as he did for an e-sport he too would be a great athlete in it.
Because professional gaming has been around a decade. Professional athletics have been around for centuries.
On August 07 2012 03:08 Schlootle wrote: I do not understand, why it is that professional athletes are glorified and considered productive members to society, but professional gamers considered parasites and pathetic?
If you really think about it, the determination is the exact same. You can spend your entire life training for what ever sport you want, be it Baseball, Soccer, Football, whatever, and you will become a very skilled player in the respective sport. Some people may be naturally gifted and thus better than you, but most will be left in awe at what you have achieved.
The EXACT same can be said about professional gamers. Most people out there just assume professional gaming is as easy as slicing a cake, when in reality these professionals train almost everyday for countless hours to perfect their skill and get to where they are. And it's this determination that baffles me, in the eye of the public they are just shut ins who have no life when the same can be said about professional athletes. Sure athletes have hot and sexy bodies which are lusted over by anyone, but if a professional gamer had as much determination to play a physical sport as he did for an e-sport he too would be a great athlete in it.
Because professional gaming has been around a decade. Professional athletics have been around for centuries.
On August 07 2012 03:08 Schlootle wrote: I do not understand, why it is that professional athletes are glorified and considered productive members to society, but professional gamers considered parasites and pathetic?
If you really think about it, the determination is the exact same. You can spend your entire life training for what ever sport you want, be it Baseball, Soccer, Football, whatever, and you will become a very skilled player in the respective sport. Some people may be naturally gifted and thus better than you, but most will be left in awe at what you have achieved.
The EXACT same can be said about professional gamers. Most people out there just assume professional gaming is as easy as slicing a cake, when in reality these professionals train almost everyday for countless hours to perfect their skill and get to where they are. And it's this determination that baffles me, in the eye of the public they are just shut ins who have no life when the same can be said about professional athletes. Sure athletes have hot and sexy bodies which are lusted over by anyone, but if a professional gamer had as much determination to play a physical sport as he did for an e-sport he too would be a great athlete in it.
Because professional gaming has been around a decade. Professional athletics have been around for centuries.
edit: beat to it
That, and nerd stuff is still frowned upon.
not much imo. i didnt consider that for a second on this topic and i still find it insulting for the induction of sc2 or any video game for that matter to be part of olympics.
videos gamers should compete amongst video gamers, like WCG. it has no place at all at for a place like olympics. and if there's any consideration, video games should be the last thing. a more traditional, rich in heritage, such as chess or go or poker should be considered first but i'd still say no to those.
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.
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.
On August 07 2012 11:09 Tomba wrote: To all the people writing stuff like: "It's the end of my life if this happens" or "God help me if it happens" etc, and "This can't happen ever".
Who are you trying to convince? yourself or others?
I'm not trying to convince anyone, I'm stating an opinion.
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.
soo is their any link to actual news or only the fox news report? fox news has terrible fact checking. how do we know its officially being considered and where can we support it?
Why is LoL on there? This isn't the paralympics is it? BA BAM. Jkjk but if we could get even one of these into the olympics it would be a major step for eSports long term viability.!!
There's a few olympic sports that don't take much physical ability. I'm not for or against SC2 in the future, I'm just stating that that isn't a good argument even though the majority of the sports have high/extreme physical exertion.
On August 03 2012 07:30 aeroblaster wrote: You put LoL up on that list but not Dota 2? mega hard fail dude
Dota is never gonna get bigger than LoL as it is today and anytime in the future.
now i got dota beta and that game is okay,but its just another Hon remake,imho.
you realize that HoN and LoL are both remakes of DotA? the original DoTa was made as a custom game for war3 and spawned the moba scene, hence why people believe it will take over...because its the original.
I couldn't see them ever approving of it. The big problem I see, is that video games are short-lived when compared to the life-span of olympic sports. A big part of the olympics is tradition. SC2 has very little in the way of tradition when compared to sports that have been around for hundreds of years, or at at the very least decades. SC2 could very well be dead in 7 or 8 years... which would mean it might make one or two appearances tops
Yeah, the more I think about it the more silly it seems haha
On August 07 2012 12:00 itkovian wrote: I couldn't see them ever approving of it. The big problem I see, is that video games are short-lived when compared to the life-span of olympic sports. A big part of the olympics is tradition. SC2 has very little in the way of tradition when compared to sports that have been around for hundreds of years, or at at the very least decades. SC2 could very well be dead in 7 or 8 years... which would mean it might make one or two appearances tops
Yeah, the more I think about it the more silly it seems haha
Then what better event is there than chess? It has more tradition than at least half of all the other sports, plus it takes an insane amount of skill. Since it's not included, I don't think that the issue is solely lack of tradition; it is also a lack of physical greatness.
On August 07 2012 11:56 Glockateer wrote: There's a few olympic sports that don't take much physical ability. I'm not for or against SC2 in the future, I'm just stating that that isn't a good argument even though the majority of the sports have high/extreme physical exertion.
Its questionable how much of an element physical ability (i.e. dexterity) has in SC2 though. With shooting or archery that's basically the whole thing, which logically makes it that much more demanding as it determines a gold from fifth place finish.
With SC2 it could simply be a really well-planned build order with generic micro that wins you the game; which isn't exactly what the Olympics are designed for. Its uncertain to what degree intelligent actions have on game play but I would assume its quite high. Basically everyone seems to macro at about the same speed (apm).
And if the olympics ever did allow games that were primarily mentally focused, chess would almost certainly be admitted first. Only after would they consider these types of video games. Although there could certainly be some games admitted on the basis of being mostly dexterity, like Quake death-match games.
The precise definition of what separates a sport from other leisure activities varies between sources, with no universally agreed definition. The closest to an international agreement on a definition is provided by SportAccord, which is the association for all the largest international sports federations (including association football, american football, cycling, equestrian sports, baseball and more), and is therefore the de facto representative of international sport. SportAccord uses the following criteria, determining that a sport should:[1] have an element of competition be in no way harmful to any living creature not rely on equipment provided by a single supplier (excluding proprietary games such as arena football) not rely on any 'luck' element specifically designed in to the sport
this is the definition that the olympics use for sports. sports would be something like aquatics which includes the discipline of water polo.
so most likely esports will never be in the olympics due to the "not rely on equipment provided by a single supplier" part
but it is possible that esports could be an exception and each game would then be a discipline. considering the amount of growing interest in esports i would say its a definite possibility. although it wont be possible until there is a recognized international governing body for esports.
i would like to know where fox news got their information. is there anywhere to see things being considered by the IOC?
On August 07 2012 12:00 itkovian wrote: I couldn't see them ever approving of it. The big problem I see, is that video games are short-lived when compared to the life-span of olympic sports. A big part of the olympics is tradition. SC2 has very little in the way of tradition when compared to sports that have been around for hundreds of years, or at at the very least decades. SC2 could very well be dead in 7 or 8 years... which would mean it might make one or two appearances tops
Yeah, the more I think about it the more silly it seems haha
Then what better event is there than chess? It has more tradition than at least half of all the other sports, plus it takes an insane amount of skill. Since it's not included, I don't think that the issue is solely lack of tradition; it is also a lack of physical greatness.
Yeah, there are certainly more reasons than I mentioned. I just think tradition is an easy way to disqualify starcraft. Just as physical capability would be an easy way to disqualify chess
People need to understand that history and tradition play a very big role in the Olympics. Sc2 isn't going to be around long enough to compare players from different eras and such. The game also changes too much unlike all of the other Olympic events. Sure basketball, soccer, and such may play at a different pace and such than before, but the game is virtually the same. 20 years later people are comparing the 2012 USA basketball team to the dream team. 20 years from now I'm hoping sc3 is out by then. You can't incorporate something into the Olympics that doesn't have the historic element that all the sports that are currently in it do. It's part of what the Olympics stand for. A video game would need to remain the same and not ever get outdated (Tetris could work but ehh).
Olympic sports are also geared towards the general audience. For example, I know nothing about swimming but I can clearly see Michael Phelps is a beast. I know nothing about track and field, but I can watch Usain Bolt and be mesmerized. Now if somebody that knows absolutely nothing about sc2 were to watch over the shoulder of let's say a Mvp vs SeleCT game, the general viewer couldn't tell the difference between either until they see the win and loss column.
I love sc2, but let's be real. It doesn't belong in the Olympics. There are more factors to the Olympics than just current competition. I'd really like to see a huge e-sports Olympic style event though that would have every competitive game out there. CoD, Halo, Sc2, MvC, Street Fighter, Tetris, LoL, etc. A much bigger version of MLG basically.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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?)
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.
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.
I love Badminton, it's the sport with like the lowest entry level. Not to say high-level play is easy, but regardless of who you're with you can always get plenty of good volleys. Definitely keeps you moving more than low-level tennis.
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.
Running isn't that hard either. But running 100m for 9.7s is. If SC2 is so easy for you, how come we haven't seen you winning any event?
You realize you completely missed the point and actually just backed up what i said?
A regular runner is never gonna touch the times of a Olympic runner.
While regular players can take games of pro players in sc2, especially in all the bad matchups like z mirror and p mirror. Hell even in t mirror with some build luck. If the scouting was better the gap would probably widen tho.
You would need a better rts game where a pro player can never be touched by a regular player, good/easy scouting, no build order luck, no silly closed of ramps etc.
But even then it's still not a sport, it's an esport, which is something completely different that has no place at the Olympics.
That poll is hilarious. Asking Teamliquid.net posters if they want sc2, LoL or tetris is like asking a crack addict if he wants crack, alochol or weed.
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.
Running isn't that hard either. But running 100m for 9.7s is. If SC2 is so easy for you, how come we haven't seen you winning any event?
You realize you completely missed the point and actually just backed up what i said?
A regular runner is never gonna touch the times of a Olympic runner.
While regular players can take games of pro players in sc2, especially in all the bad matchups like z mirror and p mirror. Hell even in t mirror with some build luck. If the scouting was better the gap would probably widen tho.
You would need a better rts game where a pro player can never be touched by a regular player, good/easy scouting, no build order luck, no silly closed of ramps etc.
But even then it's still not a sport, it's an esport, which is something completely different that has no place at the Olympics.
You completely dodged his question also.
But to put it in perspective, you will NEVER take a game off anyone in code S, just like I won't be able to beat any olympic swimmer.
However like you can beat some of the lower tier pros I can also compete in amataur leagues in swimming despite swimming only twice a week during summer. and mostly just 3 times a week outside summer, with very little strength training outside swimming (30m a day apart from sunday only, not even focus on muscle groups best for swimming).
Lower tier pros don't practice all that much is what you have to realize, so the level they are at is easier to get to than an olympic swimmer, since it is less effort put into it, not because what they do is easier.
However to be stable in code S takes the same dedication as being an olympic athlete is what you need to realize.
The difference is that gaming got a lot smaller pool, so where we have only 50 people maybe with the dedication of many olympic athletes, and non with the top top tier dedication like michael phelps, sports in the olympic have several thousands, which is why there are no lower tier pros not dedicated enough, due to the size of participants in the sports.
And swimming is at times luck based just like SC2, maybe your suit tears (competitive swim suits are super thin), maybe your googles go off or leak, maybe your cap goes off. Pro swimmers face these things all the time and specificly prepare backup plans for how to complete a race if it happens.
So in the end you can play 5 times a week and beat lower tier pros, I can swim two laps a week and compete in amataur leagues, it is the same, one or the other isn't harder or easier. It is as hard to compete in something as the effort whoever you compete against put into it if it hasn't reached a skill ceiling.
If someone with michael phelps dedication decided to play SC2 and had just the slightest of talent, he without doubt would become the best SC2 player, and to beat that player would be as tough as winning a race in swimming against michael phelps.
EDIT: what people that argue against SC2 consistently does wrong in this thread is argue too different tiers of skill, they talk about the top elite in a sport when they talk about the olympics, then they go on to talk about lower tier pros, someone even mentioned diamond and master.
If you want your arguement to be valid, you need to use GSL code S as an example pretty much.
On August 08 2012 23:39 sharky246 wrote: Is this a joke? Sc2 game results are too much affected by luck. If it's gonna be a game, maybe tetris.
There's no such thing as luck.
Losing by a build order loss is not bad luck. It's bad decision making. Barely missing a scout of something is not bad luck. It's good decision making (by the enemy). Choosing to send your scouting probe in the wrong direction is not bad luck. It's bad decision making. Missing the wall off isn't bad luck. It's bad decision making. Matching up against MC isn't bad luck. It's good seeding.
There is no RNG in SC2. Something either is or isn't, there's no in-between, there's no coefficient on its level of 'is'. Everything is calculated and calculable.
On August 03 2012 07:30 aeroblaster wrote: You put LoL up on that list but not Dota 2? mega hard fail dude
I agree, but as of now, LoL is vastly more popular. Atleast from my experience.
Do you think Javelin throwing is a popular sport? It's not. But it's an activity that can be appreciated for it's difficulty and physical/mental prowess. LoL is kindergarten of MOBA games, if you're going to go that route, pick a MOBA that has some actual difficulty (denying creeps, not dying, keeping gpm/xppm up, etc.). LoL is popular because it's more accessible to newer players of the genre, which is cool, but that doesn't mean it should be considered before better games suited for competitive gaming.
On August 03 2012 07:30 aeroblaster wrote: You put LoL up on that list but not Dota 2? mega hard fail dude
I agree, but as of now, LoL is vastly more popular. Atleast from my experience.
Do you think Javelin throwing is a popular sport? It's not. But it's an activity that can be appreciated for it's difficulty and physical/mental prowess. LoL is kindergarten of MOBA games, if you're going to go that route, pick a MOBA that has some actual difficulty (denying creeps, not dying, keeping gpm/xppm up, etc.). LoL is popular because it's more accessible to newer players of the genre, which is cool, but that doesn't mean it should be considered before better games suited for competitive gaming.
Essentially, you have one chance to fill this niche in the Olympics, you need the most difficult and most appreciable game possible. When referring to the MOBA niche, LoL doesn't really fit that description. I can definitely agree with you.
On August 09 2012 00:31 peidongyang wrote: any game would have to be some public domain game seeing as blizzard can just trollnerf/sue to IOC whenever they dont slightly get their way
The Olympics would purchase the rights to use the game, as GOMtv, KeSPA, MLG, IPL, and many others have. As for trollnerfing, you don't fuck over the Olympics and expect to have an operational business the next day.
On August 08 2012 23:39 sharky246 wrote: Is this a joke? Sc2 game results are too much affected by luck. If it's gonna be a game, maybe tetris.
There's no such thing as luck.
Losing by a build order loss is not bad luck. It's bad decision making. Barely missing a scout of something is not bad luck. It's good decision making (by the enemy). Choosing to send your scouting probe in the wrong direction is not bad luck. It's bad decision making. Missing the wall off isn't bad luck. It's bad decision making. Matching up against MC isn't bad luck. It's good seeding.
There is no RNG in SC2. Something either is or isn't, there's no in-between, there's no coefficient on its level of 'is'. Everything is calculated and calculable.
There is an RNG in SC2. That doesn't mean the game isn't skill-based, but you can win or lose (very close) games (in very specific circumstances) based on luck.
On August 08 2012 23:39 sharky246 wrote: Is this a joke? Sc2 game results are too much affected by luck. If it's gonna be a game, maybe tetris.
There's no such thing as luck.
Losing by a build order loss is not bad luck. It's bad decision making. Barely missing a scout of something is not bad luck. It's good decision making (by the enemy). Choosing to send your scouting probe in the wrong direction is not bad luck. It's bad decision making. Missing the wall off isn't bad luck. It's bad decision making. Matching up against MC isn't bad luck. It's good seeding.
There is no RNG in SC2. Something either is or isn't, there's no in-between, there's no coefficient on its level of 'is'. Everything is calculated and calculable.
There is an RNG in SC2. That doesn't mean the game isn't skill-based, but you can win or lose (very close) games (in very specific circumstances) based on luck.
The automaton 2000 that happens to be blocking a hatch counts as RNG?
On August 08 2012 23:39 sharky246 wrote: Is this a joke? Sc2 game results are too much affected by luck. If it's gonna be a game, maybe tetris.
There's no such thing as luck.
Losing by a build order loss is not bad luck. It's bad decision making. Barely missing a scout of something is not bad luck. It's good decision making (by the enemy). Choosing to send your scouting probe in the wrong direction is not bad luck. It's bad decision making. Missing the wall off isn't bad luck. It's bad decision making. Matching up against MC isn't bad luck. It's good seeding.
There is no RNG in SC2. Something either is or isn't, there's no in-between, there's no coefficient on its level of 'is'. Everything is calculated and calculable.
There is an RNG in SC2. That doesn't mean the game isn't skill-based, but you can win or lose (very close) games (in very specific circumstances) based on luck.
Care to provide an example? Or a VOD even, a specific time where the outcome of the game is decided purely by luck, and nothing the players could do to change it. Please?
On August 08 2012 23:39 sharky246 wrote: Is this a joke? Sc2 game results are too much affected by luck. If it's gonna be a game, maybe tetris.
There's no such thing as luck.
Losing by a build order loss is not bad luck. It's bad decision making. Barely missing a scout of something is not bad luck. It's good decision making (by the enemy). Choosing to send your scouting probe in the wrong direction is not bad luck. It's bad decision making. Missing the wall off isn't bad luck. It's bad decision making. Matching up against MC isn't bad luck. It's good seeding.
There is no RNG in SC2. Something either is or isn't, there's no in-between, there's no coefficient on its level of 'is'. Everything is calculated and calculable.
There is an RNG in SC2. That doesn't mean the game isn't skill-based, but you can win or lose (very close) games (in very specific circumstances) based on luck.
Just want to drop by and say that kotaku just posted an article about whether "Computer" games should be in the olympics and so far after skimming through the article the answer is still no .
On August 09 2012 01:08 Sawamura wrote: Just want to drop by and say that kotaku just posted an article about whether "Computer" games should be in the olympics and so far after skimming through the article the answer is still no .
On August 08 2012 23:39 sharky246 wrote: Is this a joke? Sc2 game results are too much affected by luck. If it's gonna be a game, maybe tetris.
There's no such thing as luck.
Losing by a build order loss is not bad luck. It's bad decision making. Barely missing a scout of something is not bad luck. It's good decision making (by the enemy). Choosing to send your scouting probe in the wrong direction is not bad luck. It's bad decision making. Missing the wall off isn't bad luck. It's bad decision making. Matching up against MC isn't bad luck. It's good seeding.
There is no RNG in SC2. Something either is or isn't, there's no in-between, there's no coefficient on its level of 'is'. Everything is calculated and calculable.
There is an RNG in SC2. That doesn't mean the game isn't skill-based, but you can win or lose (very close) games (in very specific circumstances) based on luck.
What number specifically is randomly generated?
The firerate of marines or battlecruisers for example. The ingamedata just shows the average firerate of the selected unit.
On August 08 2012 23:39 sharky246 wrote: Is this a joke? Sc2 game results are too much affected by luck. If it's gonna be a game, maybe tetris.
There's no such thing as luck.
Losing by a build order loss is not bad luck. It's bad decision making. Barely missing a scout of something is not bad luck. It's good decision making (by the enemy). Choosing to send your scouting probe in the wrong direction is not bad luck. It's bad decision making. Missing the wall off isn't bad luck. It's bad decision making. Matching up against MC isn't bad luck. It's good seeding.
There is no RNG in SC2. Something either is or isn't, there's no in-between, there's no coefficient on its level of 'is'. Everything is calculated and calculable.
There is an RNG in SC2. That doesn't mean the game isn't skill-based, but you can win or lose (very close) games (in very specific circumstances) based on luck.
Care to provide an example? Or a VOD even, a specific time where the outcome of the game is decided purely by luck, and nothing the players could do to change it. Please?
On August 03 2012 07:30 aeroblaster wrote: You put LoL up on that list but not Dota 2? mega hard fail dude
I agree, but as of now, LoL is vastly more popular. Atleast from my experience.
Do you think Javelin throwing is a popular sport? It's not. But it's an activity that can be appreciated for it's difficulty and physical/mental prowess.
Well, perhaps more pertinently, javelin throwing is a physical test of skill which has been around (in some form) for thousands of years. Horseback riding has been around for thousands of years. Even pistol shooting is at least a hundred years old.
Again, the problem with putting electronic "sports" in the Olympics is that electronic "sports" haven't existed for very long.
On August 08 2012 23:39 sharky246 wrote: Is this a joke? Sc2 game results are too much affected by luck. If it's gonna be a game, maybe tetris.
There's no such thing as luck.
Losing by a build order loss is not bad luck. It's bad decision making. Barely missing a scout of something is not bad luck. It's good decision making (by the enemy). Choosing to send your scouting probe in the wrong direction is not bad luck. It's bad decision making. Missing the wall off isn't bad luck. It's bad decision making. Matching up against MC isn't bad luck. It's good seeding.
There is no RNG in SC2. Something either is or isn't, there's no in-between, there's no coefficient on its level of 'is'. Everything is calculated and calculable.
There is an RNG in SC2. That doesn't mean the game isn't skill-based, but you can win or lose (very close) games (in very specific circumstances) based on luck.
What number specifically is randomly generated?
The firerate of marines or battlecruisers for example. The ingamedata just shows the average firerate of the selected unit.
The firerate and damage of every unit in the game, marines and battlecruisers as well, is constant. There is no RNG about them at all.
edit: Thats said, there is a small amount of luck involved in big battles, mainly what units chooses to attack what targets. The biggest units, like collosus, can always overcome this with target fire and such, but you can not target fire with every marine when you have 50+ of them, and thus it can become somewhat of a luck game depending on what targets they choose to kill first (meaning: if theres 2 zealots, they can choose to either damage 50% on each, or 100% on one. The latter obviously being better). But its still such a small part of the game that it can always be overcome by simply playing better than your opponent
edit2: As poster below mentioned, spawn positions is RNG. But those are usually overcome by having your opponent always spawning cross map in tournaments anyways.
On August 08 2012 23:39 sharky246 wrote: Is this a joke? Sc2 game results are too much affected by luck. If it's gonna be a game, maybe tetris.
There's no such thing as luck.
Losing by a build order loss is not bad luck. It's bad decision making. Barely missing a scout of something is not bad luck. It's good decision making (by the enemy). Choosing to send your scouting probe in the wrong direction is not bad luck. It's bad decision making. Missing the wall off isn't bad luck. It's bad decision making. Matching up against MC isn't bad luck. It's good seeding.
There is no RNG in SC2. Something either is or isn't, there's no in-between, there's no coefficient on its level of 'is'. Everything is calculated and calculable.
There is an RNG in SC2. That doesn't mean the game isn't skill-based, but you can win or lose (very close) games (in very specific circumstances) based on luck.
What number specifically is randomly generated?
The firerate of marines or battlecruisers for example. The ingamedata just shows the average firerate of the selected unit.
This. I'm not aware of a game that was decided because of the random attack animation delay, but there are games in which two identical units fire at each other until one dies, in which case the winning unit is decided solely by luck. It seems that there is a similar random component in worker mining times that can occasionally desync a worker pair on close minerals. As I said, it's only in very specific circumstances, but the blanket claim that there is no RNG in SC2 is false, as anyone familiar with the basics of the map editor would have been able to tell you.
Edit to add: And obviously the RNG is involved in determining spawn positions, which obviously introduce a factor of luck into the game, given that spawn positions are not identically balanced.
Considering that the criteria for an Olympic sport seem to include " Only kids that did it since they were 3-5 years old due to being pushed by there parents or the state", " Physical decay 2-10 years after you stop due to fucked up metabolism and muscles/bones" and of course the " Will be homeless or working as a janitor unless you get on that damn podium once or twice... you have around 1 to 4 tries depending on the sport"... id say no, video games aren't exactly Olympic material.
Football and basketball managed to pass due to a high performance in terms of doping and arranged matches and tennis somehow sneaked in there as well so who knows ? SC2 for 2018 winter Olympics !!!!
Even chess is not olympic, or sometimes a sport at all, as it is only sitting infront of a table...and chess could be considered as the closest thing compared to esport. So no esport at Olympia in the future...
On August 09 2012 05:32 greenelve wrote: Even chess is not olympic, or sometimes a sport at all, as it is only sitting infront of a table...and chess could be considered as the closest thing compared to esport. So no esport at Olympia in the future...
It isn't part of the olympic games, but it is reckognized as a sport, so it is not just sometimes, but at all times, a sport.
On August 08 2012 23:39 sharky246 wrote: Is this a joke? Sc2 game results are too much affected by luck. If it's gonna be a game, maybe tetris.
There's no such thing as luck.
Losing by a build order loss is not bad luck. It's bad decision making. Barely missing a scout of something is not bad luck. It's good decision making (by the enemy). Choosing to send your scouting probe in the wrong direction is not bad luck. It's bad decision making. Missing the wall off isn't bad luck. It's bad decision making. Matching up against MC isn't bad luck. It's good seeding.
There is no RNG in SC2. Something either is or isn't, there's no in-between, there's no coefficient on its level of 'is'. Everything is calculated and calculable.
There is an RNG in SC2. That doesn't mean the game isn't skill-based, but you can win or lose (very close) games (in very specific circumstances) based on luck.
What number specifically is randomly generated?
The firerate of marines or battlecruisers for example. The ingamedata just shows the average firerate of the selected unit.
A unit with a fire rate, or officially, an attack delay, of 2.491846037583658365843 will shoot every 2.491846037583658365843 units of time. It's an average because the average of {2,2,2} is 2. In the beta there was some type of additional delay, I believe.
On August 08 2012 23:39 sharky246 wrote: Is this a joke? Sc2 game results are too much affected by luck. If it's gonna be a game, maybe tetris.
There's no such thing as luck.
Losing by a build order loss is not bad luck. It's bad decision making. Barely missing a scout of something is not bad luck. It's good decision making (by the enemy). Choosing to send your scouting probe in the wrong direction is not bad luck. It's bad decision making. Missing the wall off isn't bad luck. It's bad decision making. Matching up against MC isn't bad luck. It's good seeding.
There is no RNG in SC2. Something either is or isn't, there's no in-between, there's no coefficient on its level of 'is'. Everything is calculated and calculable.
There is an RNG in SC2. That doesn't mean the game isn't skill-based, but you can win or lose (very close) games (in very specific circumstances) based on luck.
What number specifically is randomly generated?
The firerate of marines or battlecruisers for example. The ingamedata just shows the average firerate of the selected unit.
A unit with a fire rate, or officially, an attack delay, of 2.491846037583658365843 will shoot every 2.491846037583658365843 units of time. It's an average because the average of {2,2,2} is 2. In the beta there was some type of additional delay, I believe.
No, this has been discussed quite often; there is an actual random delay that is added to or subtraced from the attack cooldown, and it differs from attack to attack. It was discussed here most recently: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=353546.
On August 08 2012 23:39 sharky246 wrote: Is this a joke? Sc2 game results are too much affected by luck. If it's gonna be a game, maybe tetris.
There's no such thing as luck.
Losing by a build order loss is not bad luck. It's bad decision making. Barely missing a scout of something is not bad luck. It's good decision making (by the enemy). Choosing to send your scouting probe in the wrong direction is not bad luck. It's bad decision making. Missing the wall off isn't bad luck. It's bad decision making. Matching up against MC isn't bad luck. It's good seeding.
There is no RNG in SC2. Something either is or isn't, there's no in-between, there's no coefficient on its level of 'is'. Everything is calculated and calculable.
There is an RNG in SC2. That doesn't mean the game isn't skill-based, but you can win or lose (very close) games (in very specific circumstances) based on luck.
What number specifically is randomly generated?
The firerate of marines or battlecruisers for example. The ingamedata just shows the average firerate of the selected unit.
A unit with a fire rate, or officially, an attack delay, of 2.491846037583658365843 will shoot every 2.491846037583658365843 units of time. It's an average because the average of {2,2,2} is 2. In the beta there was some type of additional delay, I believe.
No, this has been discussed quite often; there is an actual random delay that is added to or subtraced from the attack cooldown, and it differs from attack to attack. It was discussed here most recently: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=353546.
Interesting. That must be why microing units so that every attack comes from A-Click feels so much faster.
Credit to Day9's tweet for the petition. Personally I see this as a valuable opportunity to expand the mainstreamness of eSports, even if I don't fully agree that they're on the same level as Olympic sports. Signed it anyway though, FOR ESPORTS!
On August 06 2012 03:05 Cofo wrote: If purely non-physical sports were to start getting added to the olympics, I would imagine something like chess or go would happen long before video games.
The difference lies in the fact that you DO need physical prowess and accuracy for e-sports, you don't for Chess or go.
The fact that Starcraft 2 is proprietary intellectual property of Blizzard should make it abundantly clear that it cannot be an Olympic event. Anyone can 'nominate' anything to be considered for the Olympics. Why is this thread still here ?
Although Starcraft 2 may not be counted as a sport due to lack of physical exertion, how bout other video games? I'm thinking Wii boxing and Dance Dance Revolution...
I think I could be actually bothered to watch the olympics if it had starcraft2 in it Although, I don't think we would have to think very hard to figure out which country would take home the gold :x
If Starcraft II becomes an Olympic game, do you think this include 2v2/3v3/4v4 games? or just 1v1? What about the olympic village, which sport jockeys are the most likely to sleep with the starcraft nerds? jock+nerd genes = ??? new age of video games?
On August 16 2012 15:22 Garhf wrote: If Starcraft II becomes an Olympic game, do you think this include 2v2/3v3/4v4 games? or just 1v1? What about the olympic village, which sport jockeys are the most likely to sleep with the starcraft nerds? jock+nerd genes = ??? new age of video games?
IF this happens, I sure hope Blizzard's gonna do more to Starcraft II than what they're currently doing right now (more than just 'listening' to the community) and remember that by 2018/2020 HotS and LotV will be out so Starcraft II might be more interesting than it is now (if Blizzard just doesn't do their own thing)
honestly, most participants for sc2 in the olympics would not participat more than once or twice.
starcraft is less timeless than a lot of traditional sports and it's difficult for the cyberathlete to stay relevant in his e-sport without playing full-time competitive.. and when they have less incentive to play at a certain level (below the tip-top) for as long as many of the olympic athletes do.
i would be all for this. but they should probably add chess, go, poker, stuff like that before starcraft.... which aren't in the olympics, right? i've never seen them on it before but then i skipped this last one entirely so i can't be sure. anyway, reason being that i think the tradition of the olympics being only physical is biased and outdated - strategic thinking is just as important to raw survival as physical ability, and non-physical games like chess can be far more complex strategically than physical sports can afford to be. pretty much if the rules of your 'sport' is as complex as starcraft AND it's physical, you're in the military, buddy. the olympics is supposed to be a civilized form of competition using might (currently only physical) that comes without the murder of actual war. but strategy, the thinking side of it, is just as important to winning in actual war. strategy games that have stood the test of time should be included.
the reason that i think chess and go and poker should be allowed into the olympics before starcraft is that they're well established over centuries to be great classic games (maybe not poker? i don't follow it so i don't know anything about its history). electronic is a new medium for games to be built with, but after centuries the essence of a real time strategy game will be distilled down to a very fine-tuned balance, which starcraft and warcraft will have been large influences on. i think in a few centuries computer games will have been around long enough to have standardized accepted 'rules' for some particular types of game and it's possible a version of the real time strategy game, played on a computer, will be chosen as the obvious balanced standard version to be included in the olympics.
provided 'games' make it into the olympics ever at all.
I beg to differ Garhf, I love watching the Olympics in a sport that i enjoy, and even tuned into a little bit of those that I don't. I watched Archery (fuck yea Korea!), Soccer, pingpong, and handball (holy shit is this game amazing!!)
Go to a bar and watch the olympics. You'll be cheering and screaming like everyone else in no time!
The fact that non-Professional "E-lympic Games" hasn't been created yet makes me sad. Broadcast it on G4. Would much rather watch that than Ninja Warrior reruns.
On August 16 2012 07:24 SpikeStarcraft wrote: As long as chess doesnt make it to the olympics i see no chance at all for any esport at the olympics.
Exactly, and it shouldn't. If any "game" were allowed into the Olympics, chess would be the first. It may be called the Olympic Games, but it's really the Olympic Athletic Events.
On August 03 2012 07:32 StateofReverie wrote: #1 starcraft 2 #2 tetris #3 pokemon
handicap olympics (olympics ez mode) #1 lol #2 tic tac toe #3 wow
Pokemon has way too much variance to be a decent competitive game, at least on a scale that matters.
I don't think Tetris deserves to be an Olympic title either, due to the fact it's a completely fixed set of challenges you can actually beat with muscle memory.
Starcraft 2 doesn't even deserve to be up there, for several reasons, the most important of which being that it has constant international competition already, so the Olympics wouldn't even be anything special. With every other sport, you generally only see an international competition of that magnitude once very few years at World Championships and the Olympics itself. With SC2, there are international tournaments daily.
LoL for the same reason isn't that high on my list of Olympic titles.
I honestly don't see them adding any games any time soon and I'm fine with that. The Olympics is rapidly becoming the preserving body of archaic traditions (really, who the hell else gives a fuck about badminton, gymnastics, etc.), the new tradition is available to the masses on demand with constant updates rather than every 4 years, and I much prefer that model.
You ask this question on TL, of course most people will say SC2. I personally don't think any video game should ever be part of the Olympics unless they create a whole new set of games (ie Summer, Winter and Cyber). I watch SC2 more than I watch any other sport and I love it, but I still think the Olympics should be reserved for athletes in the classic sense on the word (I also disagree with "sports" such as shooting being in the Olympics as there is no physical exertion involved (unless I'm really missing something about it)).
I think the olympics is probably the lamest event cost/benefit
The sports where the highest levels of competition are found in the olympics usually are extremelly boring and no one cares about it other than a select few, and the country who dominates that sport at the time of their domination.
Adding ANYTHING that is remotely cool, can only benefit the olympics, because atm, its one of the most boring and useless shits of mankind
Why should league of legends be considered to be a esports seriously... that game is not even comparable to the skills needed to play in dota 2 or Hon... who gives a shit if league of legends has more fan base just becuase its more noob friendly and kids like to play easy games these days instead of games that are challenging. yes i have played LoL myself and i regret doing so
On August 17 2012 00:18 kmdkt wrote: Why should league of legends be considered to be a esports seriously... that game is not even comparable to the skills needed to play in dota 2 or Hon... who gives a shit if league of legends has more fan base just becuase its more noob friendly and kids like to play easy games these days instead of games that are challenging. yes i have played LoL myself and i regret doing so
Because it actually requires teamwork compared to SC2, and it actually appeals to many people out there.
No need to consider similar games that isn't as popular. Period.
foosball has a hard time getting into olympics and it's way more popular than e-sports... and way closer in concept to some sports already part of the olympics ( like table tenis ); unortunately e-sports do not seem to have a good shot at it.
On August 16 2012 23:43 Arlenius wrote: You ask this question on TL, of course most people will say SC2. I personally don't think any video game should ever be part of the Olympics unless they create a whole new set of games (ie Summer, Winter and Cyber). I watch SC2 more than I watch any other sport and I love it, but I still think the Olympics should be reserved for athletes in the classic sense on the word (I also disagree with "sports" such as shooting being in the Olympics as there is no physical exertion involved (unless I'm really missing something about it)).
You go get a gold in shooting, then come back and tell us how easy it is
On August 17 2012 00:18 kmdkt wrote: Why should league of legends be considered to be a esports seriously... that game is not even comparable to the skills needed to play in dota 2 or Hon... who gives a shit if league of legends has more fan base just becuase its more noob friendly and kids like to play easy games these days instead of games that are challenging. yes i have played LoL myself and i regret doing so
Because it actually requires teamwork compared to SC2, and it actually appeals to many people out there.
No need to consider similar games that isn't as popular. Period.
Still, DotA2 / HoN would be more of a showcase of skill.
You go get a gold in shooting, then come back and tell us how easy it is
Did he ever say it was easy? All he said was that there are minimal physical needs.
LoL makes the most sense because it's extremely populair, everywhere. Starcraft 2 is by far the superior game in terms of skill and such but it's just not populair enough to be on the olympics imo
This thread is still alive holy crap. That is really really sad.
Computer games in the Olympics, what are you guys smoking? Computer games should never be in any athletic sporting competition/events. It has next to no athletic ability needed. You just sit down and play a video game.
On August 17 2012 00:32 NoS-Craig wrote: This thread is still alive holy crap. That is really really sad.
Computer games in the Olympics, what are you guys smoking? Computer games should never be in any athletic sporting competition/events. It has next to no athletic ability needed. You just sit down and play a video game.
Blasphemy! Hang this heathen! .. I agree with you.
Why do people in this community feel the need to justify Starcraft as a sport? I thought we already called it an eSport. Are sports just better than eSports to you guys, and so you attempt to find every possible reason to label this game as a sport because you believe it is unworthy otherwise?
No eSports in Olympics. Olympics for sports.
On August 17 2012 00:14 D10 wrote: I think the olympics is probably the lamest event cost/benefit
The sports where the highest levels of competition are found in the olympics usually are extremelly boring and no one cares about it other than a select few, and the country who dominates that sport at the time of their domination.
Adding ANYTHING that is remotely cool, can only benefit the olympics, because atm, its one of the most boring and useless shits of mankind
Unfortunately for you, most of the world doesn't agree with you. People already enjoy it plenty. Although you're from Brazil, so I imagine you're still bitter about that loss to Mexico
On August 17 2012 00:38 FeUerFlieGe wrote: Why do people in this community feel the need to justify Starcraft as a sport? I thought we already called it an eSport. Are sports just better than eSports to you guys, and so you attempt to find every possible reason to label this game as a sport because you believe it is unworthy otherwise?
On August 17 2012 00:14 D10 wrote: I think the olympics is probably the lamest event cost/benefit
The sports where the highest levels of competition are found in the olympics usually are extremelly boring and no one cares about it other than a select few, and the country who dominates that sport at the time of their domination.
Adding ANYTHING that is remotely cool, can only benefit the olympics, because atm, its one of the most boring and useless shits of mankind
Unfortunately for you, most of the world doesn't agree with you. People already enjoy it plenty. Although you're from Brazil, so I imagine you're still bitter about that loss to Mexico
Dont realy give a crap, theres a reason Brazil has never won a gold medal at soccer, its because we dont give a fuck
Only thing that matters in this world is UFC Belts and World Cups
I'm against any video game in the olympics, though it's for practical reasons.
Olympics is once 4 years, what's the lifespan of most video games? I mean.... though SC2 probably make it to 2020, it's far from given, and how many Olympics do we realistically expect it to be in? Also I don't see how something that is dependent on a private company can work for IOC. I'd imagine every patch / update would need to be approved by IOC? It's literally a political hellhole. What if the said company went bankrupt?
If something like WCG - non lamed edition Or a hybrid yearly global competition with both real sports and esports, I can support that.
Does Starcraft really need to be in the Olympics? MLG, WCG and GSL alongside countless other international tournaments seem to be good enough. It would be nice to see it in the Olympics, but how many people would really take it seriously? take the news reporter for instance. her first reaction was 'Thats sad'. anyway that's just my opinion on the matter.
On August 17 2012 00:18 kmdkt wrote: Why should league of legends be considered to be a esports seriously... that game is not even comparable to the skills needed to play in dota 2 or Hon... who gives a shit if league of legends has more fan base just becuase its more noob friendly and kids like to play easy games these days instead of games that are challenging. yes i have played LoL myself and i regret doing so
Because it actually requires teamwork compared to SC2, and it actually appeals to many people out there.
No need to consider similar games that isn't as popular. Period.
Still, DotA2 / HoN would be more of a showcase of skill.
So SC2 shouldn't be in this poll either, because there exists a similar game which takes more skill.
I think the olympics is probably the lamest event cost/benefit
The sports where the highest levels of competition are found in the olympics usually are extremelly boring and no one cares about it other than a select few, and the country who dominates that sport at the time of their domination.
Adding ANYTHING that is remotely cool, can only benefit the olympics, because atm, its one of the most boring and useless shits of mankind
On August 16 2012 23:43 Arlenius wrote: You ask this question on TL, of course most people will say SC2. I personally don't think any video game should ever be part of the Olympics unless they create a whole new set of games (ie Summer, Winter and Cyber). I watch SC2 more than I watch any other sport and I love it, but I still think the Olympics should be reserved for athletes in the classic sense on the word (I also disagree with "sports" such as shooting being in the Olympics as there is no physical exertion involved (unless I'm really missing something about it)).
You go get a gold in shooting, then come back and tell us how easy it is
I don't think it's easy, just like I don't think I could go and win the GSL. At no point did I say "it's easy, I could do that", I just said that I don't think it's appropriate for the Olympics. Thanks for being so dense about what I wrote
Unit firing rates are randomized. The rate shown isn't even the exact average in most cases. This is well known in the mapping community (we see the variables right in front of us).
These are default values.
Oh and if you still don't believe me (you should), just test it yourself: take 10-15 stalkers, put them all in range of some D-rocks (or high HP building), start firing... after a few volleys you will see that they all become out of synch.
They probably did it for realism.
I'm going to go ahead and save this post. I've seen some pretty heated arguments over high ground advantage and how the chance of missing adds randomness and ruins the entire game (Although spawning close positions on Antiga is apparently not related in their mind). Unrelated, I hate this thread. The title is grossly misleading as Starcraft is not being seriously considered. It was submitted so it falls under the same category as lawn darts and beard contests. Even if it were considered to be an Olympic sport it would be ridiculous on one very important ground:
Electronic competitions with video games are almost exclusively a past time of first world nations and even then, mostly by the middle class or wealthier. You could say that kayaking or a few other notable Olympic competitions fall under the same category but they all rely on basic human strength and abilities that measure ourselves. Starcraft, as much as I love it and as fun as it is, has no more of a place in the Olympics than any other video game- none whatsoever.
On August 28 2012 01:30 WGT-Baal wrote: Imagine Olympics Tetris in a stadium, with the music echoing all around the place!! I d definitely want to watch that!
On August 17 2012 00:14 D10 wrote: I think the olympics is probably the lamest event cost/benefit
The sports where the highest levels of competition are found in the olympics usually are extremelly boring and no one cares about it other than a select few, and the country who dominates that sport at the time of their domination.
Adding ANYTHING that is remotely cool, can only benefit the olympics, because atm, its one of the most boring and useless shits of mankind
My whole family and friends love the Olympics.
Sorry man, but there are a lot and I do mean a lot of people who disagree with you.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/eNXPC.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dv39U.jpg)
