|
The Armchair Athleticism critical series is an opinion-base article series regarding the issues and sociocultural deficiencies of the E-Sports and StarCraft scene. All articles are perceptive-base and revolving around my own experiences and understanding of the subculture.
+ Show Spoiler [summary introduction] +The Solo Trail – Unbeaten - Posted on October 20th, 2012Short version of credentials: - Manager of 5 progaming teams (50+ professional players)
- Writer for 11 E-sports websites (5 team sites + 4 organizations: 150+ docs/articles)
- Organizer or Contributor of 11 community events (74,000 viewers/attendants)
- Some video-editing for one or two organizations, nothing big, just twitch.tv highlight-editing, presentational writing, etc.
Why are you starting your own space? I was listening to the suggestions of several friends and I finally started this space after I hit a dead-end in my endeavours in E-Sports. I’m at a point where I am not really affiliated with anyone and now’s a better time than ever to do some opinion topics. Doing my own content meant I would be alone and would work around my own initiative, drive and interest. However, it also meant that I may do something that requires more work than I thought and I would be on my own. It meant that the community reception can be more direct and harsh towards me personally and my views as I would not be backed by some credible organization as when I was writer for some. In the end, this series that took me about a month of writing, editing, verification and re-writing will really be everything I’ve learned, observed and felt throughout my time. I started out with three pieces and ended up going to ten. All of them delve into inspecting the five perspectives of the scene: teams, tournaments, players, spectators and contributors. Ultimately, it aims to really take a strong look into the many issues that inhibit the StarCraft community and E-Sports culture.
E-Sports is not a Sport - Posted on January 8th, 2013
Whenever I read other editorials from other writers, I always check to see one thing: Are they going to compare their idea and issues with E-Sports to the success of professional national mainstream athletic sports? In some cases, they do, in others; they’ve come to approach E-Sports more as a spectacle or something similar as WWF or UFC. It’s more of an event than an actual sport. Overall, I feel that comparing E-Sports to professional mainstream sports can be a poor perspective that ultimately narrows potential and shapes it to be something it cannot feasibly become (but may be something even more).
In some parts, E-Sports is just like Sports. Forbes and Dustin Browder took the words right out of my mouth:
“These guys are athletes. There’s physical and mental conditioning to it. These guys are, in many cases, playing 12 hours a day to prepare for these matches, or even just constantly. These guys are training as hard as a regular athlete would to train for these things. They have to have the dedication and enthusiasm for it, and there’s a lot of coaching that goes on as well. A lot of these guys have coaches and are parts of teams. They create a culture of support around them so they can learn to master the game. What good are you if you can’t practice against somebody who’s great? So these guys create teams of people where they’re all really good, they practice against each other constantly, and they compete against other teams.
This allows them to create this sport atmosphere where they work as hard as any regular athlete, and try as hard. They have to have the psychology and mental endurance. You see these guys when they lose a match; they are crushed, just like an Olympic hopeful would be crushed if he didn’t make it. They’ve got to have the endurance to overcome that and say, “Yeah, I lost the biggest match of my career, but I’m not done. I’m going to come back and overcome this,” and sometimes they do. It’s just absolutely amazing the trials, tribulations, and challenges these guys face every day.”
(Dustin Browder interviewed by John Gaudiosi, Forbes, 2013)
In truth, the game(s) and the competitors who dedicate their lives to entertain us, the spectators, are athletes. Perhaps not physically from head-to-toe but their dedication, work and practice ethics, and approach to the game is comparable to that of sports. They are participants of a very competitive game and play for their careers, to remain an emphasized competitor ahead of the strategic curve. These acknowledgements lead me to understand the subculture of E-Sports on a three-level system (granted, this is a simplified model where we ignore a lot of involved parties, especially on the business end):
Click to enlarge
The three levels are nearly all dependent on the community and drive. Both the games and progamers are on the core circle of Competitive Gaming: competitive gaming being without the spectators or much of a news media following. Essentially, it’s just the game, the players and the small community who were active or involved in the organizing of competitions. As we step further out into the second-level, we start introducing the large following of communities such as Team Liquid, the sub-reddits as well as large-scale events to connect further these online communities into a gaming expo-like setting.
This is E-Sports. E-Sports is a spectacle to dress and curtain the core game and competition. The atmosphere is what is the most appealing for events such as IGN’s Pro League, North-American Star League finals and Major League Gaming which helps add flair and life to something that occurs within computer systems. The roaring fans and the enthusiastic and excited commentators are areas that help emphasize and improve the excitement of what goes in the game. These elements are found within mainstream sports and are why we title competitive gaming as E-Sports.
E-sports Population Activity is an overview of how popular, active and worthwhile is E-Sports for these companies. It takes into account of the core of the game, its active teams and progamers, leagues and events as well as growth of community websites. I titled EPA as a global measurement to help identify just how popular and strong this subcultures growth is. For some games such as Tribes: Ascend and Street Fighter x Tekken, their EPA has been greatly reduced despite numerous attempts at trying to improve it (this could be for a variety of issues). Team Fortress 2, also a popular competitive game, is not as popularly viewed as Counter-Strike for other reasons. Their EPA is low and thus perhaps why companies aim to not acknowledge, improve or work towards changing that (because it isn’t realistically feasible for the company’s resources to devote towards or maybe because the company sees other more profitable ways to take advantage of their video-game product).
We call competitive gaming “E-Sports” because it summarizes and eases outsiders into the idea of e-athletes. Even if someone had no idea what playing video-games at a competitive level was or what it entailed, these tournament events are gaming expositions that help show the appeal of watching someone do something better than you (better technique, strategy, approach, etc). The importance of the atmosphere mimicking that of Football stadiums or Hockey rinks is the ultimate goal and titling E-Sports as a sport helps push the idea further (sports is a subject nearly everyone can identify, understand and easily associate the interest of it).
So why isn’t E-Sports a sport? You have the athletes and you have the mimicked atmosphere (just on a smaller scale). What prevents it from being that of sports? Because the game changes. The core game mechanics improve, change, and are biased towards one side or another. In StarCraft, you have three asymmetrical races that have their pros and cons, in ARTS games such as Dota, you have a multitude of heros that interact with one another differently. For FPS games, a variety of guns also means countless approaches towards taking down your opponent. These varied factors help keep the game fresh, new and entertaining. It displays unlimited possibilities that surpass that of sports on a basic ruled level.
Because video-game(s) can change so much, be improved and become visually stunning, the possibilities to innovate it makes it better than mainstream sports. The way these games are accessed and the tools used to better spectate each match and provide insightful information for viewers and commentators alike surpass that of mainstream sports.
However, the level of understanding for E-Sport games requires a little bit more. When I wrote my article “What Makes an E-Sport”, I noted the importance of being able to demonstrate skill and add thrill for the spectator within a game:
“It must be thrilling to watch. Despite the limitations of development in the past, games such as StarCraft: Brood War, Counter-Strike: 1.6, Quake 3 and DotA were still exciting to watch. Excitement is key to an E-Sport and that excitement must be both innate as well as injected from the viewer’s perspective. Some games are less challenged by this first point than others. Fighting games for example are much easier to showcase and spectacular to watch than first-person shooters.”
The reality is that E-Sports will always be a “you’re either in or you’re out” sort of pond and because most current adults have grown being out of video-games or not as competitively involved with it, most are definitely out. However, as the digital age encompasses more generations and old values start to shrink, the accessibility and acceptance of video-games and potentially E-Sports is bound to expand.
One area we did ignore in this piece is the relationship of sports with the NFL in comparison to that of Blizzard, RIOT and Valve who need to prioritize both the growth of this subculture as well as maintain their dedication to what really sells and adds value to these products. Because E-Sports relies on the products of gaming development companies, not all changes could be interpreted as needed or beneficial for the scene. It’s a difficult thing for gaming companies who aim to really maintain their devotion to E-Sports, but also towards their varying fans. This was discussed a bit in my article "The Overabundance of Tournaments & Branching Problems" but could definitely be further looked into.
To summarize, E-Sports is not necessarily sports, but is an accurate term to help the general public understand what E-Sports composes of. I designated it to be more like the WWF and UFC because of how new these competitions are as well as the fact that it aims to both entertain and compete. Video-games are entertainment and E-Sports also needs to be entertaining to maintain its niche audience interest. How this interest be reinvented can only be told as more investments flow into the idea and as more game development companies become involved or determined to sell their game as an E-Sport.
|
This informed series of written pieces could not have been achieved without the help and opinions of my peers and friends. Below are the people I wish to thank for their insight, accuracy/consistency check or expert opinion on the numerous topics: thank you
- Alex Shieferdecker (Team Liquid Progaming Team Content Manager - tree.hugger)
- Brad Carney (Lefty)
- Chris Chan (Founder of ChanManV Production)
- Eric Grady (Cyber-Sports Network's Director of Events - Usurp)
- Flo Yao (Quantic Gaming’s Progamer - Flo)
- Jacqueline Geller (eSports Network Coordinator of Blizzard)
- John Clark (Cyber-Sports Network Executive Director of Operations)
- Josh Dentrinos (FXOpen’s Director - Boss)
- Marc McEntegart (Team Liquid Writer - SirJolt)
- Matt Weber (Team Liquid Director of Operations - Heyoka)
- Payam Toghyan (ROOT Gaming Progamer - TT1)
- Shawn Simon (Team Liquid Progamer - Sheth)
- Steven Bonnell II (Progamer/Entertainer - Destiny)
- Thomas Shifrer (ESFI World Senior Journalist)
If you'd like more information about the series (more pieces about different aspects of the scene will be released periodically), to contact me privately or to generously give me some siteviews on my website, you can follow the following link:
You can also follow me on Twitter where I tweet public news and information about the scene including roster changes, controversy and/or overall E-Sports news: @TorteDeLini
Thank you very much and I appreciate all feedback or corrections (editing many grammar errors: Ryuhou)aS)
|
I like the point about the nature of the game being inherently more fluid than traditional sports, that is something I definitely had not considered before. I cannot count the times I have been explaining games to an outside observer in a (soon to be failed) bid to get them into SC2 or some one has tried to explain LoL or DOTA to me, I have seen them tune out as I am explaining the different strategies and approach.
Even for an avid consumer of SC2 like myself I find LoL and DOTA difficult to watch at a competitive level simply because of the number of heroes and permutations available in skills, runes, and spells.
|
Great post as always Torte, even though the title is actually provocative it's again really well constructed and argumented, love your articles
10/10 would read again 
|
On January 09 2013 05:35 GregMandel wrote:Great post as always Torte, even though the title is actually provocative it's again really well constructed and argumented, love your articles 10/10 would read again
hehehe
Yes, I intentionally made it provocative to attract new readers and invoke good discussions :B
I also wanted to push DustinBrowder's button :B
|
Great writeup. Love your points in here!
|
|
|
GRAND OLD AMERICA16375 Posts
I find it interesting that You placed in the picture quake, Dota 2 and SC2. Hinting at author's view of LoL not being esports  ?
|
On January 09 2013 05:41 amazingxkcd wrote:I find it interesting that You placed in the picture quake, Dota 2 and SC2. Hinting at author's view of LoL not being esports ?
FPS
ARTS
RTS
I put Riot in companies of E-Sports in the EPA
|
So why isn’t E-Sports a sport? You have the athletes, you have the mimicked atmosphere (just on a smaller scale), what prevents it from being that of sports? Because the game changes. The core game mechanics improve, change, and are bias towards one side or another. In StarCraft, you have three asymmetrical races that have their pros and cons, in ARTS games such as Dota, you have a multitude of heros that interact with one another differently. For FPS games, a variety of guns also means countless approaches towards taking down your opponent. These varied factors help keep the game fresh, new and entertaining. It displays unlimited possibilities that surpass that of sports on a basic ruled level.
Can you elaborate on this? Are you saying that the variety of the game and the flexible nature of the software (updates) leads to variations that are not present in traditional sports?
TBH I think the argument is not even worth having, since we can have the exact same discussion about traditional sports. The discussion is interesting though since it makes people think more about the game and competitive scene.
|
"Because video-game(s) can change so much, be improved and become visually stunning, the possibilities to innovate it makes it better than mainstream sports."
is more of an opinion than fact. maybe you think it makes it better than mainstream sports. But that's not by definition so. Besides, there are arguments to be made that the mainstream sports are made better because you see the athlete performing certain task or showcasing certain skill himself, without any kind of peripheral (keyboard/mouse). When you see someone do a 100m sprint, you can appreciate the winner's effort. Where's starcraft is still somewhat of a faceless sport. Yeah you see guys in booths playing the game, but you aren't watching them play (as in looking at their fingers on the mouse/keyboard), you're watching the in-game screen which is not as appealing as watching the actual physical performance of an athlete.
Either way, I still like starcraft and all other competitive games. But I don't think one form of "sport" is better than the other.
|
I'm going to bypass all the really obvious reasons why e-sports aren't sports and hit on the one that nobody seems to want to admit.
Sports are not subject to cheese. In a sport there are only strategies. If a strategy could be thought of as unsportsmanlike, it is simply forbidden by the rules. All you have left at that point is a competition based on skill. But in a game like SC2, there are many scenarios where one player can be thought of as immediately at a disadvantage for reasons ultimately unrelated to their skill or preparation. "Juking your opponent with slick meta-mindgames" might be an impressive sounding euphemism for claiming a cheap win at any cost, but it doesn't change the essential nature of the act.
Not that the offending player is to blame for that act. He's just playing the game. But it precludes the game from being a sport. No longer a raw contest of skill, the exercise becomes a guessing game, regardless of how educated those guesses might be.
Think of it this way. In American Football, there is an emphasis on strategy, of trying to predict the moves of the opposite team and acting accordingly. That's fine. But have you seen the video of the team that suddenly stopped playing right after kickoff, walked around slowly acting confused, and then suddenly ran past their opponents into the end zone for some cheap and undeserved points? That's a cheese. And it simply doesn't have a place in any sport where something is on the line.
|
Nothing much to add to this discussion, but I would just like to say that this is awesome stuff you're doing, and I enjoy reading each one. Keep it up !
|
Traditional sports don't generally get "phased out". Each e-Sport will have a lifespan in terms of money-making viability for those involved. I've never considered eSports to be on par with traditional sports for this very reason. A traditional sport will have its rules modified sometimes, but it never loses its identity or suddenly get replaced by something of the same "genre". Football (soccer) will never be replaced by football 2.0, but every year we will get a new FIFA game, not to mention the Euro and World Cup editions.
|
I have to disagree with this argument because traditional sports do in fact change. When you look at minor changes in recent years such as the addition of replay reviews to football or more major changes like with hockey changing rules to increase scoring and speed up the pace of the game, it's clear that even athletic sports evolve and change over time.
|
On January 09 2013 05:50 lolmlg wrote:
I'm going to bypass all the really obvious reasons why e-sports aren't sports and hit on the one that nobody seems to want to admit.
Sports are not subject to cheese. In a sport there are only strategies. If a strategy could be thought of as unsportsmanlike, it is simply forbidden by the rules. All you have left at that point is a competition based on skill. But in a game like SC2, there are many scenarios where one player can be thought of as immediately at a disadvantage for reasons ultimately unrelated to their skill or preparation. "Juking your opponent with slick meta-mindgames" might be an impressive sounding euphemism for claiming a cheap win at any cost, but it doesn't change the essential nature of the act.
Not that the offending player is to blame for that act. He's just playing the game. But it precludes the game from being a sport. No longer a raw contest of skill, the exercise becomes a guessing game, regardless of how educated those guesses might be.
Think of it this way. In American Football, there is an emphasis on strategy, of trying to predict the moves of the opposite team and acting accordingly. That's fine. But have you seen the video of the team that suddenly stopped playing right after kickoff, walked around slowly acting confused, and then suddenly ran past their opponents into the end zone for some cheap and undeserved points? That's a cheese. And it simply doesn't have a place in any sport where something is on the line.
I really disagree with you here. In my opinion, sports are subject to cheese. You cite American Football as an example. I think this is a great example against your point, since in football there are all sorts of trick plays: for instance, in a play where the ball is direct-snapped to the running back, the quarterback may fake a fumble, acting confused as if he does not know where the ball went. There are plays like this in baseball as well, where an infielder will pretend that they don't have the ball, while hiding it in the glove. When the base runner steps off the bag, they tag them. Of course, baseball and football are sports if anything is, so if they have "cheese," sports can have "cheese."
|
On January 09 2013 05:50 lolmlg wrote:
I'm going to bypass all the really obvious reasons why e-sports aren't sports and hit on the one that nobody seems to want to admit.
Sports are not subject to cheese. In a sport there are only strategies. If a strategy could be thought of as unsportsmanlike, it is simply forbidden by the rules. All you have left at that point is a competition based on skill. But in a game like SC2, there are many scenarios where one player can be thought of as immediately at a disadvantage for reasons ultimately unrelated to their skill or preparation. "Juking your opponent with slick meta-mindgames" might be an impressive sounding euphemism for claiming a cheap win at any cost, but it doesn't change the essential nature of the act.
Not that the offending player is to blame for that act. He's just playing the game. But it precludes the game from being a sport. No longer a raw contest of skill, the exercise becomes a guessing game, regardless of how educated those guesses might be.
Think of it this way. In American Football, there is an emphasis on strategy, of trying to predict the moves of the opposite team and acting accordingly. That's fine. But have you seen the video of the team that suddenly stopped playing right after kickoff, walked around slowly acting confused, and then suddenly ran past their opponents into the end zone for some cheap and undeserved points? That's a cheese. And it simply doesn't have a place in any sport where something is on the line.
American Football has cheese. Ever heard of gimick plays?
Besside, what is unsportsmanlike about a sox pool or a proxy two rax/gate? If you can't defend you don't deserve to win.
|
On January 09 2013 05:50 lolmlg wrote:
I'm going to bypass all the really obvious reasons why e-sports aren't sports and hit on the one that nobody seems to want to admit.
Sports are not subject to cheese. In a sport there are only strategies. If a strategy could be thought of as unsportsmanlike, it is simply forbidden by the rules. All you have left at that point is a competition based on skill. But in a game like SC2, there are many scenarios where one player can be thought of as immediately at a disadvantage for reasons ultimately unrelated to their skill or preparation. "Juking your opponent with slick meta-mindgames" might be an impressive sounding euphemism for claiming a cheap win at any cost, but it doesn't change the essential nature of the act.
Not that the offending player is to blame for that act. He's just playing the game. But it precludes the game from being a sport. No longer a raw contest of skill, the exercise becomes a guessing game, regardless of how educated those guesses might be.
Think of it this way. In American Football, there is an emphasis on strategy, of trying to predict the moves of the opposite team and acting accordingly. That's fine. But have you seen the video of the team that suddenly stopped playing right after kickoff, walked around slowly acting confused, and then suddenly ran past their opponents into the end zone for some cheap and undeserved points? That's a cheese. And it simply doesn't have a place in any sport where something is on the line.
You start by thinking cheesy play isn't fair, but cheesy play is an actual strategy.
I don't like being cheesed but if someone 6 pools another person then why would you not give him the win ? There's just no reason for that and your point just isn't valid at all to me.
I mean, you play by the rules, when I watch european football ( like, the real foot getting in contact with a real ball ya know :-p ) there's always players faking injuries, that would be cheesy play, and every spectator just disregards the guy because everyone knows it's made up, but you rarely ever see someone getting punished for that, because just like in starcraft, they're abusing the limits of the game, but they're still in their right
|
Starcraft, LoL and DotA are constantly changing. But will that always be the case? SC:BW didn't have many changes, but the maps did have to change to keep the game fresh. Would SC:BW with no map changes be similar to a sport? Could SC2 be considered a sport once Blizzard is done balancing? Will our reliance on map changes to keep the game fresh stop us from reaching the same level as football or basketball?
|
A Very interesting read. I liked a lot of the points you made.
One thing I would argue against you is you make it seem that mainstream sports don't ever change, and e-sports is constantly changing. While this feels like it could be true, it's really not.
My example is the offense in the NFL (or just professional AMERICAN[for you foreigners ;p] football), and how it's changed over the years. Starting with the fact that there used to be no passing plays in football, it literally was all rushing...then it changed into a little bit of passing with the emphasis on running, then it changed into a good medium where you use running to open up passing game, then it changed into teams using passing more and more, and now you have teams with spread offenses, only running 1 out of every 4 plays (just to keep defenses honest).
The truth is, every now and then a new player (or more often a coach) comes along who has a different scheme, that completely changes the way American Football is played. This I feel is very comparable to how a different player in e-sports (particularly sc:bw and sc2) comes along and makes new plays that were previously unheard of, and completely changes the game (such as MC and his all-ins, Jaedong with his muta's in sc:bw, or even Taeja with his massive orbital builds)
That being said, i truly enjoyed your article. I'd give it 9/10 (taking a point of for 1 or 2 slight grammatical errors, i know it's stupid but, if you're going to be writing an article grammar should be 100% spot on perfect. This is why there's editors)
|
On January 09 2013 06:06 GregMandel wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2013 05:50 lolmlg wrote:
I'm going to bypass all the really obvious reasons why e-sports aren't sports and hit on the one that nobody seems to want to admit.
Sports are not subject to cheese. In a sport there are only strategies. If a strategy could be thought of as unsportsmanlike, it is simply forbidden by the rules. All you have left at that point is a competition based on skill. But in a game like SC2, there are many scenarios where one player can be thought of as immediately at a disadvantage for reasons ultimately unrelated to their skill or preparation. "Juking your opponent with slick meta-mindgames" might be an impressive sounding euphemism for claiming a cheap win at any cost, but it doesn't change the essential nature of the act.
Not that the offending player is to blame for that act. He's just playing the game. But it precludes the game from being a sport. No longer a raw contest of skill, the exercise becomes a guessing game, regardless of how educated those guesses might be.
Think of it this way. In American Football, there is an emphasis on strategy, of trying to predict the moves of the opposite team and acting accordingly. That's fine. But have you seen the video of the team that suddenly stopped playing right after kickoff, walked around slowly acting confused, and then suddenly ran past their opponents into the end zone for some cheap and undeserved points? That's a cheese. And it simply doesn't have a place in any sport where something is on the line. You start by thinking cheesy play isn't fair, but cheesy play is an actual strategy. I don't like being cheesed but if someone 6 pools another person then why would you not give him the win ? There's just no reason for that and your point just isn't valid at all to me. I mean, you play by the rules, when I watch european football ( like, the real foot getting in contact with a real ball ya know :-p ) there's always players faking injuries, that would be cheesy play, and every spectator just disregards the guy because everyone knows it's made up, but you rarely ever see someone getting punished for that, because just like in starcraft, they're abusing the limits of the game, but they're still in their right
I think that's a really bad example. Faking an injury is in no way within the rules of the game. If after the game ended a footballer came out and said "Yeah I faked that." There would be an outrage and they would be severely punished.
But in Starcraft a player won't even lose respect after cheesing an opponent in an important match. Players who know their opponents strategies on a specific map can predict what is going to happen and set a "cheesy" play that they know will work. It's a risky strategy sure but by and large no one looks down on MVP when he does a proxy 2rax in the GSL finals.
|
Of course esports isn't a sport. Sitting down playing a video game with no athleticism at all, with a talent pool that is microscopic, compared to real sports.
User was warned for this post
|
On January 09 2013 06:00 Tuer wrote:
I have to disagree with this argument because traditional sports do in fact change. When you look at minor changes in recent years such as the addition of replay reviews to football or more major changes like with hockey changing rules to increase scoring and speed up the pace of the game, it's clear that even athletic sports evolve and change over time.
Wow, that's interesting, because you sound like you're agreeing with what I'm saying about traditional sports. I didn't say they don't change; what I said was that they don't get replaced multiple times in a generation by different games of the same genre. Hockey's rules are never changed to the extent of becoming figure-skating with toothpicks, or you wouldn't watch it, but we have to watch our eSports get dumbed down or reinvented every generation (some generations being shorter than others - ie: CoD vs SC). Trying to validate what you do as an athletic activity because of its similarities to actual athletic activities while ignoring the VAST differences is part of the problem with the argument that eSports are truly parallel to Sports.
Blizzard chose to wait over 10 years to make Starcraft 2. How long were we actually wanting it to happen? Why do we get a new NHL game every year for the same console as the one before it when depth chart updates would solve most of the obsolescence issues with the one before it? Why can I walk outside and play soccer with friends for cheaper (the cost of a ball) than I can play Starcraft 2 (the cost of clients + computers + internet connection(s)) with the same friends? How can you ignore the arguments which invalidate eSports as real Sports and simply identify them as money-making mechanisms with short-term appeal?
|
On January 09 2013 06:16 decado90 wrote:
Of course esports isn't a sport. Sitting down playing a video game with no athleticism at all, with a talent pool that is microscopic, compared to real sports.
Please read the article.
|
|
|
Nice post. although i'd disagree that e-sport is not a sport. we see now, more often than ever, perfect physiques in sports. perfect bodies, muscles, made and trained especially for sport X. when we look at, say basketball, every NBA players has the right physique for basketball, they all have passed trough playing non-stop as kids, and playing in college leagues etc. they all almost have the same sport backgrounds. then what makes the difference between regular NBA player and Kobe Bryant? physique( which is the main difference between, e-sport and sports) or mental strengh(consistancy, positive thinking), intelligence, talent (im not even discussing what talent really is). when we reach a state where, physique doesnt count anymore to break records, its all about intelligence. the MAIN human muscle is the BRAIN. sports and e-sport are the same. the best trained brain wins it.
|
On January 09 2013 05:50 lolmlg wrote:
I'm going to bypass all the really obvious reasons why e-sports aren't sports and hit on the one that nobody seems to want to admit.
Sports are not subject to cheese. In a sport there are only strategies. If a strategy could be thought of as unsportsmanlike, it is simply forbidden by the rules. All you have left at that point is a competition based on skill. But in a game like SC2, there are many scenarios where one player can be thought of as immediately at a disadvantage for reasons ultimately unrelated to their skill or preparation. "Juking your opponent with slick meta-mindgames" might be an impressive sounding euphemism for claiming a cheap win at any cost, but it doesn't change the essential nature of the act.
Not that the offending player is to blame for that act. He's just playing the game. But it precludes the game from being a sport. No longer a raw contest of skill, the exercise becomes a guessing game, regardless of how educated those guesses might be.
Think of it this way. In American Football, there is an emphasis on strategy, of trying to predict the moves of the opposite team and acting accordingly. That's fine. But have you seen the video of the team that suddenly stopped playing right after kickoff, walked around slowly acting confused, and then suddenly ran past their opponents into the end zone for some cheap and undeserved points? That's a cheese. And it simply doesn't have a place in any sport where something is on the line.
I think you don't know enough about the sports you're talking about. There's some pretty greasy plays in american football, same as hockey, same as SC2.
Hell, there's more cheese in hockey than LoL when I think about it.
I can write more about that later, for now, lets call "cheese" a high risk high reward non-standard play.
|
On January 09 2013 06:13 Dujek wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2013 06:06 GregMandel wrote:On January 09 2013 05:50 lolmlg wrote:
I'm going to bypass all the really obvious reasons why e-sports aren't sports and hit on the one that nobody seems to want to admit.
Sports are not subject to cheese. In a sport there are only strategies. If a strategy could be thought of as unsportsmanlike, it is simply forbidden by the rules. All you have left at that point is a competition based on skill. But in a game like SC2, there are many scenarios where one player can be thought of as immediately at a disadvantage for reasons ultimately unrelated to their skill or preparation. "Juking your opponent with slick meta-mindgames" might be an impressive sounding euphemism for claiming a cheap win at any cost, but it doesn't change the essential nature of the act.
Not that the offending player is to blame for that act. He's just playing the game. But it precludes the game from being a sport. No longer a raw contest of skill, the exercise becomes a guessing game, regardless of how educated those guesses might be.
Think of it this way. In American Football, there is an emphasis on strategy, of trying to predict the moves of the opposite team and acting accordingly. That's fine. But have you seen the video of the team that suddenly stopped playing right after kickoff, walked around slowly acting confused, and then suddenly ran past their opponents into the end zone for some cheap and undeserved points? That's a cheese. And it simply doesn't have a place in any sport where something is on the line. You start by thinking cheesy play isn't fair, but cheesy play is an actual strategy. I don't like being cheesed but if someone 6 pools another person then why would you not give him the win ? There's just no reason for that and your point just isn't valid at all to me. I mean, you play by the rules, when I watch european football ( like, the real foot getting in contact with a real ball ya know :-p ) there's always players faking injuries, that would be cheesy play, and every spectator just disregards the guy because everyone knows it's made up, but you rarely ever see someone getting punished for that, because just like in starcraft, they're abusing the limits of the game, but they're still in their right I think that's a really bad example. Faking an injury is in no way within the rules of the game. If after the game ended a footballer came out and said "Yeah I faked that." There would be an outrage and they would be severely punished. But in Starcraft a player won't even lose respect after cheesing an opponent in an important match. Players who know their opponents strategies on a specific map can predict what is going to happen and set a "cheesy" play that they know will work. It's a risky strategy sure but by and large no one looks down on MVP when he does a proxy 2rax in the GSL finals.
Yeah my example was probably terrible, I wanted to talk about handball or rugby but no-one on TL probably know about those sports ( I mean rugby is ok in europe and handball pretty much also except in UK I do believe ), so yeah that's more because I got carried away because of how shocked I was by his argument, maaaaaah bad :D
|
what happens if somebody clicks reply as soon as this goes up and posts something as fast as they can and they get a post in between the OP and the credits?
|
On January 09 2013 06:52 snively wrote:
what happens if somebody clicks reply as soon as this goes up and posts something as fast as they can and they get a post in between the OP and the credits?
umm the make a post that's irrelevant b/c they didn't read the OP?
But it shouldn't matter b/c that didn't happen anyways
|
Not quite convinced by the athletes argument.
|
On January 09 2013 05:50 lolmlg wrote:
I'm going to bypass all the really obvious reasons why e-sports aren't sports and hit on the one that nobody seems to want to admit.
Sports are not subject to cheese. In a sport there are only strategies. If a strategy could be thought of as unsportsmanlike, it is simply forbidden by the rules. All you have left at that point is a competition based on skill. But in a game like SC2, there are many scenarios where one player can be thought of as immediately at a disadvantage for reasons ultimately unrelated to their skill or preparation. "Juking your opponent with slick meta-mindgames" might be an impressive sounding euphemism for claiming a cheap win at any cost, but it doesn't change the essential nature of the act.
Not that the offending player is to blame for that act. He's just playing the game. But it precludes the game from being a sport. No longer a raw contest of skill, the exercise becomes a guessing game, regardless of how educated those guesses might be.
Think of it this way. In American Football, there is an emphasis on strategy, of trying to predict the moves of the opposite team and acting accordingly. That's fine. But have you seen the video of the team that suddenly stopped playing right after kickoff, walked around slowly acting confused, and then suddenly ran past their opponents into the end zone for some cheap and undeserved points? That's a cheese. And it simply doesn't have a place in any sport where something is on the line.
uh... this exists in sports, try basketball for example where if its a close game the team that is behind will continually foul the worst free throw shooter to try and get possession and make up the couple of lost points. If there is cheese in sc2 ... certainly exists in sports too.
what i mean is if there is only strategies in sports its the same with video games as e-sports..
|
Disagree, anything with a timer and winner & loser outcome is a sport, I personally know people who can't handle sc2 just because its too competitive and they never competed in anything in their life so why start now?
|
Pretty good article, but it's sometimes difficult to follow your train of thought. You start off by saying comparing Esports to traditional sports is a bad model but then directly compare E-Athletes to traditional athletes as a means of justifying Esports? Based on your replies it seems you feel that Esports is a legitimate sport? While I agree to an extent, there are several large factors that I believe separate Esports from mainstream sports.
Mainly, the "spectacle" of Esports is severely lackluster in the context of our society. An average person watching SC2 for the first time will most likely be more confused that awed. With any given traditional sport the physical strain, ability and effort of the athletes is immediately apparent. You don't have to have attempted a dunk to know that it is an incredible feat of athleticism. Even if you've never played football in your life, a bicycle kick goal is going to get you out of your chair. Watching the combination of insane speed, power and strength in the NHL can be appreciated even by those who have never stepped in a rink.
SC2 is not like this at all. To a bystander there is nothing inherently impressive about watching someone move their fingers really fast. People are more likely to discount it as button mashing until they are more familiar with the sport. This is one of the chief reasons why SC2 will most likely never progress from being a niche Esport.
|
On January 09 2013 05:45 shindigs wrote:Show nested quote +So why isn’t E-Sports a sport? You have the athletes, you have the mimicked atmosphere (just on a smaller scale), what prevents it from being that of sports? Because the game changes. The core game mechanics improve, change, and are bias towards one side or another. In StarCraft, you have three asymmetrical races that have their pros and cons, in ARTS games such as Dota, you have a multitude of heros that interact with one another differently. For FPS games, a variety of guns also means countless approaches towards taking down your opponent. These varied factors help keep the game fresh, new and entertaining. It displays unlimited possibilities that surpass that of sports on a basic ruled level. Can you elaborate on this? Are you saying that the variety of the game and the flexible nature of the software (updates) leads to variations that are not present in traditional sports? TBH I think the argument is not even worth having, since we can have the exact same discussion about traditional sports. The discussion is interesting though since it makes people think more about the game and competitive scene.
Yes, I am saying that E-Sports can be built and branched to accomodate all forms of audiences (so long as it follows the three rules listed in my previous article[s]).
Traditional sports can't, but reinvent themselves in other forms and ways.
On January 09 2013 05:50 myBattleship wrote:
"Because video-game(s) can change so much, be improved and become visually stunning, the possibilities to innovate it makes it better than mainstream sports."
is more of an opinion than fact. maybe you think it makes it better than mainstream sports. But that's not by definition so. Besides, there are arguments to be made that the mainstream sports are made better because you see the athlete performing certain task or showcasing certain skill himself, without any kind of peripheral (keyboard/mouse). When you see someone do a 100m sprint, you can appreciate the winner's effort. Where's starcraft is still somewhat of a faceless sport. Yeah you see guys in booths playing the game, but you aren't watching them play (as in looking at their fingers on the mouse/keyboard), you're watching the in-game screen which is not as appealing as watching the actual physical performance of an athlete.
Either way, I still like starcraft and all other competitive games. But I don't think one form of "sport" is better than the other.
As stated before, both have their flaws and advantages
On January 09 2013 05:50 Zealos wrote:
Nothing much to add to this discussion, but I would just like to say that this is awesome stuff you're doing, and I enjoy reading each one. Keep it up !
Thanks!
On January 09 2013 06:00 Tuer wrote:
I have to disagree with this argument because traditional sports do in fact change. When you look at minor changes in recent years such as the addition of replay reviews to football or more major changes like with hockey changing rules to increase scoring and speed up the pace of the game, it's clear that even athletic sports evolve and change over time.
These are not equals. I don't disagree that both games evolve, but I would say more that the ability to select more than 7-8 units to almost an unlimited amount is equal to a change of the rules or new technology to facilitate certain strategies (or issues).
Adding an additional unique unit/player into the game that has a new role and ability is definitely changing the game more than new rules. I feel rules are more preventive than beneficial for a game's evolution. It just pushes the game to see new strategies within the confines of what's legal. For video-games, throw a new unit into the mix changes everything (or so it is intended).
On January 09 2013 06:08 Dujek wrote:
Starcraft, LoL and DotA are constantly changing. But will that always be the case? SC:BW didn't have many changes, but the maps did have to change to keep the game fresh. Would SC:BW with no map changes be similar to a sport? Could SC2 be considered a sport once Blizzard is done balancing? Will our reliance on map changes to keep the game fresh stop us from reaching the same level as football or basketball?
In today's market, I will say yes. In 90s? Perhaps not, but definitely so with the way the video-game industry functions and markets.
|
On January 09 2013 05:35 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2013 05:35 GregMandel wrote:Great post as always Torte, even though the title is actually provocative it's again really well constructed and argumented, love your articles 10/10 would read again hehehe Yes, I intentionally made it provocative to attract new readers and invoke good discussions :B I also wanted to push DustinBrowder's button :B Haha, i like that.
Good post, definitely worth reading.
|
On January 09 2013 06:08 Ryuhou)aS( wrote:
A Very interesting read. I liked a lot of the points you made.
One thing I would argue against you is you make it seem that mainstream sports don't ever change, and e-sports is constantly changing. While this feels like it could be true, it's really not.
My example is the offense in the NFL (or just professional AMERICAN[for you foreigners ;p] football), and how it's changed over the years. Starting with the fact that there used to be no passing plays in football, it literally was all rushing...then it changed into a little bit of passing with the emphasis on running, then it changed into a good medium where you use running to open up passing game, then it changed into teams using passing more and more, and now you have teams with spread offenses, only running 1 out of every 4 plays (just to keep defenses honest).
The truth is, every now and then a new player (or more often a coach) comes along who has a different scheme, that completely changes the way American Football is played. This I feel is very comparable to how a different player in e-sports (particularly sc:bw and sc2) comes along and makes new plays that were previously unheard of, and completely changes the game (such as MC and his all-ins, Jaedong with his muta's in sc:bw, or even Taeja with his massive orbital builds)
That being said, i truly enjoyed your article. I'd give it 9/10 (taking a point of for 1 or 2 slight grammatical errors, i know it's stupid but, if you're going to be writing an article grammar should be 100% spot on perfect. This is why there's editors)
I like your post, very insightful!
I think the change I'm aiming more for is more towards really changing the game. We can see that in StarCraft & the expansions at how each new unit is meant to both fill the flaws of an asymmetrical race as well as give it new options and abilities.
For your Football example, this is more like everyone doing one-timing attack (4-gate) and then the new "metagame" evolved into passing, this happens in StarCraft, but patches also fast-forward this progress (this is an area I didn't delve into further, that is my fault).
I'm not denying sports don't change, there's just a vast difference between the two and the approach helps emphasize that.
Thank you <3
Please show me all grammatical errors. I do not have an editor, it's just me reading and re-writng!
On January 09 2013 06:52 snively wrote:
what happens if somebody clicks reply as soon as this goes up and posts something as fast as they can and they get a post in between the OP and the credits?
Good luck, I'm very fast because I can format the posts in my own sub-forum.
|
On January 09 2013 07:38 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2013 05:45 shindigs wrote:So why isn’t E-Sports a sport? You have the athletes, you have the mimicked atmosphere (just on a smaller scale), what prevents it from being that of sports? Because the game changes. The core game mechanics improve, change, and are bias towards one side or another. In StarCraft, you have three asymmetrical races that have their pros and cons, in ARTS games such as Dota, you have a multitude of heros that interact with one another differently. For FPS games, a variety of guns also means countless approaches towards taking down your opponent. These varied factors help keep the game fresh, new and entertaining. It displays unlimited possibilities that surpass that of sports on a basic ruled level. Can you elaborate on this? Are you saying that the variety of the game and the flexible nature of the software (updates) leads to variations that are not present in traditional sports? TBH I think the argument is not even worth having, since we can have the exact same discussion about traditional sports. The discussion is interesting though since it makes people think more about the game and competitive scene. Yes, I am saying that E-Sports can be built and branched to accomodate all forms of audiences (so long as it follows the three rules listed in my previous article[s]). Traditional sports can't, but reinvent themselves in other forms and ways.
At the same time, can't the nature of Esports and their dependency on the coding of the games be a massively limiting factor? In SC2 we see Blizzard actively dictating the metagame and driving competitive play in a direction of their choice. There are preconceived notions of how each race is supposed to play which Blizzard seems intent on maintaining. Most innovations in the gameplay have been curtailed or stopped all together. We don't get the amazement of seeing someone like Usain Bolt smashing the world record or Michael Jordan taking off from the free throw line. There's a saying "rules are meant to be broken" but in SC2 the rules just get adjusted.
|
On January 09 2013 07:49 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2013 07:38 Torte de Lini wrote:On January 09 2013 05:45 shindigs wrote:So why isn’t E-Sports a sport? You have the athletes, you have the mimicked atmosphere (just on a smaller scale), what prevents it from being that of sports? Because the game changes. The core game mechanics improve, change, and are bias towards one side or another. In StarCraft, you have three asymmetrical races that have their pros and cons, in ARTS games such as Dota, you have a multitude of heros that interact with one another differently. For FPS games, a variety of guns also means countless approaches towards taking down your opponent. These varied factors help keep the game fresh, new and entertaining. It displays unlimited possibilities that surpass that of sports on a basic ruled level. Can you elaborate on this? Are you saying that the variety of the game and the flexible nature of the software (updates) leads to variations that are not present in traditional sports? TBH I think the argument is not even worth having, since we can have the exact same discussion about traditional sports. The discussion is interesting though since it makes people think more about the game and competitive scene. Yes, I am saying that E-Sports can be built and branched to accomodate all forms of audiences (so long as it follows the three rules listed in my previous article[s]). Traditional sports can't, but reinvent themselves in other forms and ways. At the same time, can't the nature of Esports and their dependency on the coding of the games be a massively limiting factor? In SC2 we see Blizzard actively dictating the metagame and driving competitive play in a direction of their choice. There are preconceived notions of how each race is supposed to play which Blizzard seems intent on maintaining. Most innovations in the gameplay have been curtailed or stopped all together. We don't get the amazement of seeing someone like Usain Bolt smashing the world record or Michael Jordan taking off from the free throw line. There's a saying "rules are meant to be broken" but in SC2 the rules just get adjusted.
At the same time, can't the nature of Esports and their dependency on the coding of the games be a massively limiting factor?
I would figure it to be the other way. Your justification seems to be pointing more towards the lack of a developer's connection and direction with the community & E-Sports as a whole, to which many would agree. I wouldn't necessarily associate that with the coding because the possibilities are near endless!
Strategy is a whole 'nother area to delve into, not my forte either ):
|
Esport is not a sport. We should not even use sports in it. Look at how unfit people are playing it. I agree there is a community and prove the point that gaming is sociable. But how can people begin to think esport is close to being a sport. We will all die to obese related diseases if the whole world starts thinking we can do sports by playing games. The only game I can consider sports like are games on WI. As much as I like gaming, I don't see how it can become socially acceptable as sports anytime soon.
Are we going to start calling playing rubric cube box-sport?
|
On January 09 2013 08:11 Zaurus wrote:
Esport is not a sport. We should not even use sports in it. Look at how unfit people are playing it. I agree there is a community and prove the point that gaming is sociable. But how can people begin to think esport is close to being a sport. We will all die to obese related diseases if the whole world starts thinking we can do sports by playing games. The only game I can consider sports like are games on WI. As much as I like gaming, I don't see how it can become socially acceptable as sports anytime soon.
Please read the article, it's listed why we call E-Sports and towards who we target that term for.
|
On January 09 2013 08:11 Zaurus wrote:
Esport is not a sport. We should not even use sports in it. Look at how unfit people are playing it. I agree there is a community and prove the point that gaming is sociable. But how can people begin to think esport is close to being a sport. We will all die to obese related diseases if the whole world starts thinking we can do sports by playing games. The only game I can consider sports like are games on WI. As much as I like gaming, I don't see how it can become socially acceptable as sports anytime soon.
Are we going to start calling playing rubric cube box-sport?
I've yet to see a pro SCII player that looks less fit than a linebacker...
Also, sport and physical exercise aren't necessarily the same thing. They overlap a lot but a sport doesn't have to be physically demanding to be a sport.
|
On January 09 2013 08:15 Fischbacher wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2013 08:11 Zaurus wrote:
Esport is not a sport. We should not even use sports in it. Look at how unfit people are playing it. I agree there is a community and prove the point that gaming is sociable. But how can people begin to think esport is close to being a sport. We will all die to obese related diseases if the whole world starts thinking we can do sports by playing games. The only game I can consider sports like are games on WI. As much as I like gaming, I don't see how it can become socially acceptable as sports anytime soon.
Are we going to start calling playing rubric cube box-sport? I've yet to see a pro SCII player that looks less fit than a linebacker... Also, sport and physical exercise aren't necessarily the same thing. They overlap a lot but a sport doesn't have to be physically demanding to be a sport.
I get the point that you're trying to make and I agree with it... But the way you're going about it is all wrong. Taeja, in all his awesomeness is skinny as a twig on one extreme, and desrow is the other extreme. Those linebackers have a TON of muscle which I think counts towards being fit (in most cases).
|
I'm mainly refuting the part of this article that claims the game changes makes it not a sport, but really, if you do something for sport, then that's what it is, and if you do it professionally then it counts as that.
To state that mainstream sports don't change is quite incorrect though, and that's my main issue with this. Every World Cup the ball selection is a major issue and can be a problem that players become vocal about. Offside rules are altered at times, and are not the same in all leagues depending on the league or if it's international play. Formula 1 (i know there are some people who don't consider this a sport either) changes its rules all the time. Practically every new season comes with a patch. Its up to the governing body to decide whether something is in the spirit of the rules or not, and great designers are known for being able to bend the rules to get what others might consider a cheap advantage, and drivers are judged for being quick, but also for what car they have.
And there are also pretty much only three engine manufacturers now as well. The significant difference half a second to a second means in racing always remind me of people acknowledging a far ahead grand-master really is from everything else.
Tennis changes. Racket improvements make a huge difference. Playing the net these days is rare, and practically meta. Is a drop shot cheesy because you can't hit a passing shot? Are nike and gatorade ruining sports? Do $500 practically weightless soccer shoes not count? Esports is competitive, its a sport, it counts. A friend of mine who doesn't ever really watch esports thought the Blizzard Cup reminded him of the Champions League. And this is not 'entertainment'. Sniper is not an entertainer. I'm not a wrestling or UFC fan at all, but I think your 'categorization' of them in all this is inaccurate as well. I just can't say I agree.
|
On January 09 2013 08:25 hg2g2 wrote:
I'm mainly refuting the part of this article that claims the game changes makes it not a sport, but really, if you do something for sport, then that's what it is, and if you do it professionally then it counts as that.
To state that mainstream sports don't change is quite incorrect though, and that's my main issue with this. Every World Cup the ball selection is a major issue and can be a problem that players become vocal about. Offside rules are altered at times, and are not the same in all leagues depending on the league or if it's international play. Formula 1 (i know there are some people who don't consider this a sport either) changes its rules all the time. Practically every new season comes with a patch. Its up to the governing body to decide whether something is in the spirit of the rules or not, and great designers are known for being able to bend the rules to get what others might consider a cheap advantage, and drivers are judged for being quick, but also for what car they have.
And there are also pretty much only three engine manufacturers now as well. The significant difference half a second to a second means in racing always remind me of people acknowledging a far ahead grand-master really is from everything else.
Tennis changes. Racket improvements make a huge difference. Playing the net these days is rare, and practically meta. Is a drop shot cheesy because you can't hit a passing shot? Are nike and gatorade ruining sports? Do $500 practically weightless soccer shoes not count? Esports is competitive, its a sport, it counts. A friend of mine who doesn't ever really watch esports thought the Blizzard Cup reminded him of the Champions League. And this is not 'entertainment'. Sniper is not an entertainer. I'm not a wrestling or UFC fan at all, but I think your 'categorization' of them in all this is inaccurate as well. I just can't say I agree.
Wrestling (not WWE, but the traditional sport), also changes rules quite frequently. During my time in junior high and high-school there were in fact three major rules changes in freestyle wrestling rules. (I say freestyle to differentiate from folkstyle which is more common in the states or greco-roman wrestling).
|
The change argument has some valid criticism like that the core game play in every game remains the same and in cs1.6 the settings (maps and no updates) were the same for a very long time. Then there sports perspective that regular sports don't change but this isn't true at all. As a hockey fan i can say that the game has changed very dramatically over time and often over decades even.
|
There are many things similar to the "esport" you mention. Competitive chess, board games, spelling bee and eating competition. Is it justifiable to call them names like c-sport, b-sport and spelling sport? Personally I feel that the word sport cannot be used just because there are similarity to sport. There are way too many activities with sports like characteristic. Sport in itself is too fundamental.
|
I know that it goes in a completely opposite direction than trying to disargue that esport is not an actual sport, and you're trying to say something way more important. But simply arguing against the title, yes esport can be considered a sport, saying otherwise is by definition quite wrong ^^
|
Was about to respond that I'm sick of people arguing semantics on this. Then read the full article and saw it was as good as the rest of the series. Thanks for the good read Torte.
|
So why isn’t E-Sports a sport? You have the athletes, you have the mimicked atmosphere (just on a smaller scale), what prevents it from being that of sports? Because the game changes. The core game mechanics improve, change, and are bias towards one side or another. In StarCraft, you have three asymmetrical races that have their pros and cons, in ARTS games such as Dota, you have a multitude of heros that interact with one another differently. For FPS games, a variety of guns also means countless approaches towards taking down your opponent. These varied factors help keep the game fresh, new and entertaining. It displays unlimited possibilities that surpass that of sports on a basic ruled level.
Because video-game(s) can change so much, be improved and become visually stunning, the possibilities to innovate it makes it better than mainstream sports. The way these games are accessed and the tools used to better spectate each match and provide insightful information for viewers and commentators alike surpass that of mainstream sports.
i really don't agree with this at all.
trying to compare a bunch of games to the whole "sport" universe and making baseless claims really. how do you even want to compare sc2, cs and dota together vs football, soccer (as you guys call it) and basketball?
all these games have metagames, that define everything. if you're not knowledgeable enough about these sports (no idea what you know about these) it doesn't mean it's junst a bunch of guys running after a ball.
Ever heard of barcelona, netherlands or italy? Yeah every once in a while someone comes up with a new style of playing in soccer that creates a revolution for the whole following generation. But then people adapt, prepare counter strategies, then in the middle of the game you also have coaching. Players also have evolved into being able to fill different roles depending on the state of the game, etc. Put it short, strategy can only be appreciated by hardcore fans / experts. Sounds very much like in e-sports to me. You could also have the counter argument of a very famous basketball caster saying : "oh our sport is changing all the time, so many strategies in our league, you have an amazing player pool which brings new players every draft blablabla : our sport is infinite and always reinventing itself, not like these nerds of counter-strike that just run around killing people on a damn video game".
Sports have strategies, metagame, new players, new rules, new equipments, etc.
The second argument is meaningless too. Just like you won't get the best production for a 2nd league soccer match, you won't get all your awesome tools in a Competo Cup stream. But in the champion's league, or superbowl game, you will get just as much insightful information as in a sc2 or cs match. This also took years to develop, e-sports is just profiting from this progress in "what the viewer wants to see in a competitive environment".
No offense, but it just sounds like these 2 points come from someone that's a fan of something and that has quite low knowledge about the things he is comparing his hobby to, saying very general (quite bullshit) things about something as complex as the world of ALL THE SPORTS in general.
Imagine the contrary now, some football geek saying e-sports is worthless because of X, and as an e-sports fan you basically know what he says is wrong.
|
I'm still a bit confused. Perhaps it was in your previous article, but how do you define a traditional sport?
Aren't traditional sports reworked with reinvented rules? When people play a pick up game on the street - is the game not a sport if it's a variation of basketball or soccer with neighborhood rules? Will I end this post with a non-rhetorical question?
|
On January 09 2013 07:45 Torte de Lini wrote:
Please show me all grammatical errors. I do not have an editor, it's just me reading and re-writng!
I sent you a PM. I didn't want to take up a bunch of space in this thread with me being a stickler for proper grammar.
|
I always enjoy reading TDL and this was no exception.
I do feel there is an lack of any actual argument about the issue. Your only point about e-sports not being a sport (game change) is more an argument why esports cannot be compared to traditional sports. I do admit that the constant change in games (and/or within games) makes e-sports more comparable to "tv talent shows" on some levels. However, it doesn't change e-sports from being a sport (or not), it just defines e-sports the way "track and field" or "combat sports" defines a subset of sports.
The other thing about all the change is that you have to consider how new e-sports is compared to the rest of the sports world. If you consider "ball sports" for a minute you can trace how some of them evolved (changed). Football (soccer), rugby, American football, and basketball. The difference is that the change has happened relatively slowly. Those are major sports that have (now) been established for a long time. On a less known level we have things like Ultimate and disc golf.
Perhaps we should be comparing e-sports with motorsports (or other sports where constant technological advances impact the sport on a greater level). When you look at the kinds of cars or motorcycles raced 40 years ago some of the events don't even look the same. Also, like the evolution of our traditional sports we see what started with a few model-A races expand into motorcycles, and boats as well as split into hundreds of varieties based track or race type (with subsets for different classes). This is is what we're seeing in e-sports. It's just happening faster.
As a final note, please don't ever compare UFC (mma) with WWE again :D
|
Nice write up, but so many of these similar threads lol.
EDIT: Who cares if eSports is similar to Sport or not...........what is important is we must grow together as one and promote eSports to the rest of the world! Isn't it beautiful to see eSports grow? So that should be where we put our energy, effort, time and focus, not debating whether eSportsis a sport or not..........
|
yo sc2 is taxing on my mind and muscles. i get so stressed playing it so i dont really 
|
On January 09 2013 08:25 TheDougler wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2013 08:15 Fischbacher wrote:On January 09 2013 08:11 Zaurus wrote:
Esport is not a sport. We should not even use sports in it. Look at how unfit people are playing it. I agree there is a community and prove the point that gaming is sociable. But how can people begin to think esport is close to being a sport. We will all die to obese related diseases if the whole world starts thinking we can do sports by playing games. The only game I can consider sports like are games on WI. As much as I like gaming, I don't see how it can become socially acceptable as sports anytime soon.
Are we going to start calling playing rubric cube box-sport? I've yet to see a pro SCII player that looks less fit than a linebacker... Also, sport and physical exercise aren't necessarily the same thing. They overlap a lot but a sport doesn't have to be physically demanding to be a sport. I get the point that you're trying to make and I agree with it... But the way you're going about it is all wrong. Taeja, in all his awesomeness is skinny as a twig on one extreme, and desrow is the other extreme. Those linebackers have a TON of muscle which I think counts towards being fit (in most cases).
I don't consider linebackers fit because while they certainly have a lot of muscle they don't really have a healthy body.
That part of my post was really just in jest, though. The only point that had any worth to it, imo, is that a sport does not need to be correlated with physical exertion. Hence why I consider things like Golf, Shooting and Curling sports.
|
I don't think you know what you are talking about...
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://www.theteaent.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/ray-lewis.jpg) RAY LEWIS, SO UNHEALTHY! ![[image loading]](http://behindblondiepark.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/new-england-patriots-linebacker-tedy-bruschi-2008.jpg) TEDY BRUSCHI, SUCH A SLOB! ![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-8IBeVam7E28/TiYQQ06tpdI/AAAAAAAAycc/BFs9KKUjZJg/s1600/Shawne+Merriman.jpg) SHAWNE MERRIMAN, DISCUSTING!
|
someone keeps drawing funny pictures on their body.
|
Australia8532 Posts
Your introduction was great and then you continued the enlightening discussion through a plausible dissection of the e-Sports environment. All of this was setting me up for a great, contentious and exciting issue.
And then...
So why isn’t E-Sports a sport? You have the athletes and you have the mimicked atmosphere (just on a smaller scale). What prevents it from being that of sports? Because the game changes.
To me, this is a very weak distinction and platform to argue from. I don’t mean to be rude but I feel this exposes a real lack of understanding of ‘real’ sports. Within a single game this position is even harder maintain as the value of strategy in traditional sports is significantly undervalued in your analysis. If you extrapolate your position into the general gaming genre, and then contend that eSports =/= sports because developers are constantly able to release new games and expansions, then I feel that this actually weakens the appeal of eSports and represents a real barrier to garnering a significant following and viewer base.
Ultimately, eSports is almost a community-specific term used by those who wish to justify the seriousness of their game. I personally don’t have a problem with it, but I think everyone is over-estimating the reach of “eSports” and the care-factor from the general population. Furthermore:
E-Sports is not necessarily sports, but is an accurate term to help the general public understand what E-Sports composes of
I have tried to use the term eSports with people outside the community and they honestly don’t understand the implication I am intimating. Also, it is extremely hard to be taken seriously by a person outside the community when you use the term eSports as they generally relate “sports” to physical activity and acumen IN ADDITION to strategy. Overall, I just much prefer the term “competitive gaming.”
|
I feel overall you guys are making good points that perhaps I did undervalue that of how much sports changes. However, I stand by the differencing view of video games not similar to sports because of how much it changes.
If we disregard the asymmetry of video games (two identical teams with different, guns, races, advantages, asymmetrical maps, different heros/champions, different timed bonuses, etc), the amount of change we see as the games grow through new ages (Brood War to StarCraft II) is quite large. It is approached much differently and on a whole new level that is distinctive from that of sports. For most traditional mainstream sports, the rules, goals and ability to play [or tools/knowledge] remains quite low. Video games have the same basic rules that most can identify with (plant the bomb, destroy the other team, increase economy to build army to overcome opponent) as well, however, the details involving how to go about it hinders video games being less approaching or accessible for people than that of sports.
This is one of the many aspects that really distinguishes sports from video games/E-Sports. I can see how "sports doesn't change" can seem like I'm installing the idea of it being stale or redundant (I don't think I wrote that, but its implicit by how E-Sports cannot be like sports because of how rapid and swift it changes). But it's the fact that it can remain so concretely easy to be involved on a lower-level and then engage in key roles on a higher level (with accompanying strategy) is what makes Sports so much better than E-Sports in that regard. We're not talking about strategy or the pace at which it constantly reinvents itself; that's found in many and all games and sports. We're talking about the core idea of the sport changing: revised to make it easier, harder, more focused in one area than another (engagements over macromanagement, etc.)
On the other hand, video games can change so drastically, it is no longer really the same game besides maintaining the rules that define its very genre. But you sacrifice potential accessibility or you try to make it so accessible and easy to learn that you alienate your core crowd.
Very interesting topic to explore I feel :3
|
Amen bkrow. I don't even like using the buzzword anymore myself.
*
I'm going to touch base on a few issues:
- Shelf-life is an important component of competitive gaming and it actually works against it.
- I'd say the sub-culture is more socially acceptable today because the new generation of parent's grew up playing Atari/NES/etc.
We have to be careful when we're talking about sports entertainment and MMA. If we're talking about how the core fans interact with wrestling and the sport of MMA then fine. There are some similarities there, but let's not confuse what is sport and what isn't. Sport and spectacle overlap one another. I find it very flimsy. >_<
Recall how I spoke about different generations viewing things differently before. Let's look at the MMA/UFC specifically and how old fashioned sports purists who enjoy boxing loathe the idea of MMA because they find it to be too barbaric as Bob McCowan used to put it. Keyword here being used to. Sure enough, we're showing the old purists like him that there is a lot more to it and it's not as barbaric as it appears to be. Now, some of these sports purists are starting to buy into MMA as an actual sport.
Not only that but we're seeing growth when fighters win with certain styles (the meta game is always shifting). This leads to more fighters and enthusiasts training in those styles. For instance, Karate registration exploded when the Dragon Machida won the belt. From an audience perspective I can buy into Torte's spiel about MMA, which is very similar to that of the WWE and it's appeal to their respective core fans, but if we're talking about the sport's dynamics? Yeah, it might be better to leave the two alone.
|
On January 09 2013 08:34 Zaurus wrote:
There are many things similar to the "esport" you mention. Competitive chess, board games, spelling bee and eating competition. Is it justifiable to call them names like c-sport, b-sport and spelling sport? Personally I feel that the word sport cannot be used just because there are similarity to sport. There are way too many activities with sports like characteristic. Sport in itself is too fundamental.
You are a bit late to the party with those arguments. It's called esports since fucking QuakeWorld or something, since the 1990s. It's a word that the people used, that started all we have now. They dreamed of stadiums full of cheering fans watching clanwars live, like what you know from a real sport. They wanted to push people to think of that... so "e-sports".
I personally would have liked something else, perhaps simply "competitive gaming". Also, "cybersports" in a Russian accent sounds neat.
|
The fighting game community is the only one that is honest about all this. They aren't athletes, it's just playing games competitively.
|
On January 09 2013 08:15 Fischbacher wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2013 08:11 Zaurus wrote:
Esport is not a sport. We should not even use sports in it. Look at how unfit people are playing it. I agree there is a community and prove the point that gaming is sociable. But how can people begin to think esport is close to being a sport. We will all die to obese related diseases if the whole world starts thinking we can do sports by playing games. The only game I can consider sports like are games on WI. As much as I like gaming, I don't see how it can become socially acceptable as sports anytime soon.
Are we going to start calling playing rubric cube box-sport? I've yet to see a pro SCII player that looks less fit than a linebacker... Also, sport and physical exercise aren't necessarily the same thing. They overlap a lot but a sport doesn't have to be physically demanding to be a sport.
and I want to know to what extent should something be physical enough to be called sports.
Is moving finger and arm not enough? Or maybe swing a gold pad? Or shooing and archery? And how about racing?
|
An interesting thing to note - On both IGN and Gamespot, any mention of eSports or StarCraft (in fact, negative comments on IGN's IPL SC2 youtube page is common) generate bashing of SC2.
In contrast, Marvel Vs Capcom 3 (or fighting games in general) and Gamespot and/or their coverage of EVO or any fighting game tournament has not a single flame.
I think the offending term is "eSport". Evolution Championship Series (EVO) doesn't really advertise eSports (at least AFAIK, I haven't really followed EVO, I just looked on their pages and their videos and see no offending term). EVO simply advertise itself as a competitive video game tournament.
[Edit}
On January 09 2013 14:14 Serpico wrote:
The fighting game community is the only one that is honest about all this. They aren't athletes, it's just playing games competitively.
Neat, someone mentioned this while I was writing. Again, another interesting to note in my observation regarding why gamespot/ign posters are bashing Starcraft Tournaments but not EVO fighting game tournaments.
____________________
As much as I like eSports, I feel that eSports in general has lead to some level of elitism and bashing other non "eSports" games. Which is why at times I am partly sort of with the anti-eSports crowd (the term itself, not the concept). But on the other hand, South Korea had something really special with Starcraft and describing as simply a video game tournament doesn't do it justice (we all remember the epic intros, the huge crowds, etc). So I definitely agree with TDL's point on why call it "eSports" even when it's not really a "sport".
Now onto my opinion why I am against calling eSports a real sport. It might sound silly but these are just my thoughts (maybe silly but maybe others may agree).
I remember reading an article about how Bejeweled could help contribute to brain function or something (comparing to to similar Tetris effects on the brain) but there was a comment bashing Bejeweled as a mindless luck based game that only involves recognizing patterns.
+ Show Spoiler +
The commenter said Starcraft would be a better game (or Tetris Attack, "Tetris Attack" is like bejeweled in the sense that you try to match 3 matching pieces but it's less luck-based since you can move pieces to try to get them to the designated location).
Tetris Attack I can agree on but I'm honestly not so sure about SC.
The thing is, (in the case of Bejeweled, even if luck based) the fact that it is simple and involves recognizing patterns (which is also simple) and low stress play (SC can be a stressful game to play at times) is potential why it may have positive effects on mental health.
I've played StarJeweled (close enough to Bejeweled I'd say), I've played a ton of Tetris, and I've played a ton of SC2.
Out of the three, I felt that Tetris and StarJeweled were both simple and relaxing games. They weren't "distracting" to me at all.
SC2 on the other hand, I remember thinking about various strategies and things constantly at times (outside of the game). Sometimes I was obsessed with how to win or deal with certain strategies. At times I was overly obsessive with it where it might distract me from other things (like doing a test or something).
I don't know if there are any studies on a game like Starcraft compared to a game like Tetris (does the simpler game promote better brain function than the non-simple game)? My argument against SC (not scientiific but just a person experience) is that SC is less of a relaxing and a more stressful game. Plus, the variety in the game can lead to an excessive obsession.
Tetris on the other hand is really simple and it's not really obsessive prone game (I definitely had fun playing it on breaks at times in college but I never obsessed over the game).
Despite how SC is so much more sophisticated, my experience with Tetris (and Starjeweled) was better than playing SC in terms of mental state is better.
Regarding SC2 - I'd like to emphasize how stress can really be a bad thing on your mental state. It feels bad when going on a losing streak or getting cheesed (at least for most people). If you lose 5 games in a row or got cheesed and lost in a bad way, how does it affect your mental state? Usually it's a terrible feeling. You try to make it up by maybe playing more or become obsessive over those loses (maybe to the point of it distracting you from daily activities or whatever else you should be doing, like maybe a test or work or whatever).
+ Show Spoiler +Tetris and Bejeweled, don't really have these issues because they're simple and relaxing. Arguably Bejeweled is less skill based and more luck based than Tetris, in fact the person is right that Bejeweled is simply recognizing and memorizing patterns compared to Tetris... but the point is that both function similarly in that simply focusing on recognizing those patterns helps promote brain activity the same way, despite one being simpler than the other. The point of all this is despite the person bashing Bejeweled for being "an EZ game to play" or "luck based", Bejeweled probably contributes to a better and positive overall mental health than Starcraft (the person's example of a better game for that job). An important thing to note is that while SC is more complex, it's primary a competitive player vs player game (which again, leads to the scenario of feeling bad or trying to make things up when you lose 5 times in a row, etc). I remember reading that someone's wife (they were introducing to the game or something) threw their keyboard in frustration after being cannon rushed (an unfortunate way to introduce anyone to the game of Starcraft >.>). Simple (but still requires attention and reaction) games like Tetris or Bejeweled probably do a better job of leading to a healthy mental stat than Starcraft. Again here is Wikipedia (citing sources of course) Tetris effects on the brain section. Tetris has also shown to help deal with mentally traumatic events (reducing flashbacks, etc).
________________
So what am I going on and on about Starcraft vs Tetris vs Bejeweled? (And how the games affect a person's mental state?)
+ Show Spoiler +
I've always viewed video games as for relaxing and casual fun (or as a hobby in case of more serious investment into said game) as a #1 thing.
The concept of eSports has generally led to lots of people being a bit negative towards others' activities, a sort of elitism.
Compared to regular sports or anything else, I honestly find the eSports community at times to be the least enjoyable community to be in.
Don't get me wrong though, I like TL and have (and still have) great times being a part of the community (aside from the excessive non-constructive caster bashing that may happen frequently on the LR threads). I said this before but I am into and still into SC2 because of the positive atmosphere and experience. Artosis and Tasteless making Nestea jokes, people making memes, jokes in general about the game or SC2, etc.
I definitely want competitive video gaming to be successful (eSports in South Korea, we all like that one of our favorite games is on TV somewhere in the world) but I definitely don't want it to be this thing where people bash other people for playing other games. I remember reading comments where go away from SC2 to easier games like Guild Wars 2, Diablo, etc. I see comments like that all the time and it really puts me off from the concept of eSports.
Finally, I'm not sure how well eSports really contributes to a healthy person in general. Lots of people proudly defend their game as being really complex and how they're good at it, or whatever but at the same time bash other games or put down other people for doing other activities.
The question is, how much does said "playing eSports" really contribute to a person's health? Competitive mind set and striving to better oneself can be healthy but at times it clearly degenerates into random hate or bitterness or whatever, especially in regard to online video games (cause it's the internet of course).
You can be competitive outside of online video games easily - in regular sports, physical activity not only helps you physically but mentally as well... it's been shown working out and exercise helps you sleep, helps you in several ways... Competitive online video games on the other hand, do they do all that? Maybe they help in certain cases for certain people, and maybe they're better than playing <insert random mindless pay2play facebook> game here, but I don't think they're that much of a superior medium that it should lead to elitism or bashing of other people's activities (which I see a lot around here).
tl;dr - Tetris or Bejeweled > Starcraft. The gist of this post is I'm against negativity and bashing other people's activities or enjoyment. (I'm sure most people have had experience with some negative or bashful person maybe IRL or maybe through some other form. I'm sure this may be obvious but negativity is bad and can lead to more negativity which is totally ruining eSports guys! Because negativity = bad. Yes, I'm being captain obvious but seriously though, I do see a lot of bashing of games. LoL being a good example.)
(Okay one final point - I say a game can be competitive or an "eSport" if the top players of a game can be consistently top. See a game like the Pokemon card game? Casual uncompetitive game? Well, there have been several consistently top players in Pokemon. Same in Magic: The Gathering, and other games. I don't play LoL but if the top teams are consistently at the top... then it's an eSport and/or a viable competitive game. The point I'm making it as long as there is something from skill that can differentiate players from one another, and it can be consistently proven, then it's an eSport material game.)
Edit - I spoilered some stuff to take less page space. Also as I was rereading my last comments, I noticed that I started to lean onto sports being a sport because it can contribute to a person's health (or abilities that help them in situations in life, lift weighting for example). Aside from dangerous sports or maybe abusing performance enhancing drugs or something, I guess in a way I consider sports any sort of competition that promotes a healthier person.... that and I'm being bias towards the rising elitism of which competitive online video game is better to play and game bashing in general (which I don't consider "healthy" in terms of social communication IMO >.>).
|
I used to use the term "competitive gaming" because I felt E-Sports was a very loaded word that had too much weight and expectations, especially people within the scene (this bothered me for like 2 years).
I started thinking about this basic three-level of E-Sports of competitive gaming & progamers to what E-Sports really entails (spectators, fans, marketing) to the EPA.
The EPA is beyond import and I feel its not considered often while also misconstrued (the often limping argument making X game or Y free-to-play to attract more people and thus convert more people into E-Sports).
When I explain to people what E-Sports is, I use the term with two emphasis:
1. People enjoy watching other people games better than they can play (similar to watching my sister beat a level I couldn't do as a kid or getting that high-score) and will attend a bar to see it (similar to watching sports at a bar)
2. These players are paid to play professionally (I cite BW salaries from way back to add some real credibility) and I dictate their work ethics + environment [team houses, etc.]
These two points help solidify the idea of E-Sports as something resembling what they know, but also that it is an emerging idea/niche scene.
|
On January 09 2013 14:15 Goldfish wrote:An interesting thing to note - On both IGN and Gamespot, any mention of eSports or StarCraft (in fact, negative comments on IGN's IPL SC2 youtube page is common) generate bashing of SC2. In contrast, Marvel Vs Capcom 3 (or fighting games in general) and Gamespot and/or their coverage of EVO or any fighting game tournament has not a single flame. I think the offending terms is "eSports". Evolution Championship Series (EVO) doesn't really advertise eSports (at least AFAIK, I haven't really followed EVO, I just looked on their pages and their videos and see no offending term), but advertise simply as a competitive video game tournament. As much as I like eSports, I feel that eSports in general has lead to some level of elitism and bashing other non "eSports" games. Which is why at times I am partly sort of with the anti-eSports crowd (the term itself, not the concept). But on the other hand, South Korea had something really special with Starcraft and describing as simply a video game tournament doesn't do it justice (we all remember the epic intros, the huge crowds, etc). So I definitely agree with TDL's point on why call it eSports even when it's not really a "sport". _______________ Now onto my opinion why I am against calling eSports a real sport. It might sound silly but these are just my thoughts (maybe silly but maybe others may agree). I remember reading an article about how Bejeweled could help contribute to brain function or something (comparing to to similar Tetris effects on the brain) but there was a comment bashing Bejeweled as a mindless luck based game that only involves recognizing patterns. The comment replied and said Starcraft would be a better game (or Tetris Attack, Tetris attack is like bejeweled in the sense that you try to match 3 matching pieces but it's less luck based since you can move pieces to try to get them to the designated location). Tetris Attack I agree but I'm honestly not so sure about SC. The thing is, (in the case of Bejeweled, even if luck based) the fact that it is simple and involves recognizing patterns (which is also simple) and low stress play (SC can be a stressful game to play at times) is potential why it may have positive effects on mental health. I've played StarJeweled (close enough to Bejeweled I'd say), I've played a ton of Tetris, and I've played a ton of SC2. Out of the three, I felt that Tetris and StarJeweled were both simple and relaxing games. They weren't "distracting" to me at all. SC2 on the other hand, I remember thinking about various strategies and things constantly at times (outside of the game). Sometimes I was obsessed with how to win or deal with certain strategies. At times I was overly obsessive with it where it might distract me from other things (like doing a test or something). I don't know if there are any studies on a game like Starcraft compared to a game like Tetris (does the simpler game promote better brain function than the non-simple game)? My argument against SC (not scientiific but just a person experience) is that SC is less of a relaxing and a more stressful game. Plus, the variety in the game can lead to an excessive obsession. Tetris on the other hand is really simple and it's not really obsessive prone game (I definitely had fun playing it on breaks at times in college but I never obsessed over the game). Despite how SC is so much more sophisticated, my experience with Tetris (and Starjeweled) was better than playing SC in terms of mental state is better. Also in games like SC2, I'd like to emphasize how stress can really be a bad thing on your mental state. It feels bad when going on a losing streak or getting cheesed? If you lose 5 games in a row or got cheesed and lost in a bad way, how does it affect your mental state after? Usually it's bad. You try to make it up by maybe playing more or something. Tetris and Bejeweled, the single player versions of course, don't have these issues really.) The point of all this is despite the person bashing Bejeweled for being "an EZ game to play" or "luck based", Bejeweled probably contributes to a better and positive overall mental health than Starcraft (the person's example of a better game for that job because it's more complex). An important thing to note is that while SC is more complex, it's primary a competitive player vs player game (which again, leads to the scenario of feeling bad or trying to make things up when you lose 5 times in a row, etc). Also I remember reading that someone's wife (they were introducing to the game or something) threw their keyboard in frustration after being cannon rushed (an unfortunate way to introduce anyone to the game of Starcraft >.>). Simple (but still requires attention and reaction) games like Tetris or Bejeweled probably do a better job of leading to a healthy mental stat than Starcraft. Again here is Wikipedia (citing sources of course) Tetris effects on the brain section. Tetris has also shown to help deal with mentally traumatic events (reducing flashbacks, etc). ________________ So what am I going on and on about Starcraft vs Tetris vs Bejeweled? (And how the games affect a person's mental state?) I've always viewed video games as for relaxing and casual fun (or as a hobby in case of more serious investment into said game) as a #1 thing. The concept of eSports has generally led to lots of people being a bit negative towards others' activities, a sort of elitism. Compared to regular sports or anything else, I honestly find the eSports community at times to be the least enjoyable community to be in. Don't get me wrong though, I like TL and have (and still have) great times being a part of the community (aside from the excessive non-constructive caster bashing that may happen frequently on the LR threads). I said this before but I am into and still into SC2 because of the positive atmosphere and experience. Artosis and Tasteless making Nestea jokes, people making memes, jokes in general about the game or SC2, etc. I definitely want competitive video gaming to be successful (eSports in South Korea, we all like that one of our favorite games is on TV somewhere in the world) but I definitely don't want it to be this thing where people bash other people for playing other games. I remember reading comments where go away from SC2 to easier games like Guild Wars 2, Diablo, etc. I see comments like that all the time and it really puts me off from the concept of eSports. Finally, I'm not sure how well eSports really contributes to a healthy person in general. Lots of people proudly defend their game as being really complex and how they're good at it, or whatever but at the same time bash other games or put down other people for doing other activities. The question is, how much does said "playing eSports" really contribute to a person's health? Competitive mind set and striving to better oneself can be healthy but at times it clearly degenerates into random hate or bitterness or whatever, especially in regard to online video games (cause it's the internet of course).
You can be competitive outside of online video games easily - in regular sports, physical activity not only helps you physically but mentally as well... it's been shown working out and exercise helps you sleep, helps you in several ways... Competitive online video games on the other hand, do they do all that? Maybe they help in certain cases for certain people, and maybe they're better than playing <insert random mindless pay2play facebook> game here, but I don't think they're that much of a superior medium that it should lead to elitism or bashing of other people's activities (which I see a lot around here).tl;dr - Tetris or Bejeweled > Starcraft. The gist of this post is I'm against negativity and bashing other people's activities or enjoyment. (I'm sure most people have had experience with some negative or bashful person maybe IRL or maybe through some other form. I'm sure this may be obvious but negativity is bad and can lead to more negativity which is totally ruining eSports guys! Because negativity = bad. Yes, I'm being captain obvious but seriously though, I do see a lot of bashing of games. LoL being a good example.) (Okay one final point - I say a game can be competitive or an "eSport" if the top players of a game can be consistently top. See a game like the Pokemon card game? Casual uncompetitive game? Well, there have been several consistently top players in Pokemon. Same in Magic: The Gathering, and other games. I don't play LoL but if the top teams are consistently at the top... then it's an eSport and/or a viable competitive game. The point I'm making it as long as there is something from skill that can differentiate players from one another, and it can be consistently proven, then it's an eSport material game.)
This makes a lot of sense, especially the stress part. I wrestle and run both track and cross country (high school varsity, somewhere in the above average but not amazing category) but when I lose i don't really feel angry afterward. On the other hand, a losing streak in SC2 makes me angry afterward, even though the game itself meant a lot less, since no team was depending on me, and I don't put in hours to be better in SC2. I really don't know why this is, but SC2 affects me mentally much more than traditional sports.
|
Very interesting as usual but the following is something I cannot totally agree with
"Because the game changes. The core game mechanics improve, change, and are biased towards one side or another. In StarCraft, you have three asymmetrical races that have their pros and cons, in ARTS games such as Dota, you have a multitude of heros that interact with one another differently. For FPS games, a variety of guns also means countless approaches towards taking down your opponent. These varied factors help keep the game fresh, new and entertaining. It displays unlimited possibilities that surpass that of sports on a basic ruled level.
Because video-game(s) can change so much, be improved and become visually stunning, the possibilities to innovate it makes it better than mainstream sports. The way these games are accessed and the tools used to better spectate each match and provide insightful information for viewers and commentators alike surpass that of mainstream sports."
Because
1) Every sport changes over time the mechanics and the dynamic and strategies all evolve and change. All forms of football (American football, Rugby League, Rugby Union and Soccer) all evolved out of village ball games played in England in the 18th and 19th centuries. They are all different sports but you can see the underlining basics in all of them. With these sports we are talking about change, evolution and consolidation over hundreds of years.
2) Even within each sport rules change and regulation change and skill level increase and strategy changes over time. Equipment, training techniques etc all undergo change. People recruit players and coaches based on the current “meta game” in all of these sports. New technology help officiating. Each of these sport have very different rules than they had 30 years ago.
3) All of these sports have aspects that “.. are biased towards one side or another.” Ranging from a simple home ground advantage to teams developing new play styles and strategies that use and abuse the current rules to their advantage.
4) “ARTS games such as Dota, you have a multitude of heros that interact with one another differently.” In every sport you have a multitude of players with abilities and strengths and weakness and they interact with their team mates and their opponents in a multitude of ways.
5) “These varied factors help keep the game fresh, new and entertaining. It displays unlimited possibilities that surpass that of sports on a basic ruled level.” This happens in mainstream sports. But in mainstream sports these tend to evolve into off shoot sports. Arena football (US), Touch footy (Australia\UK\NZ), Oz Tag (Aus/NZ/UK), 5 aside soccer, indoor soccer, beach soccer to name just a few. I’ll even add in computer varieties like FIFA. The games themselves are kept fresh by new skills new playing styles and new approaches to any new rule changes that may occur.
6) Diversity abounds in mainstream sports – different playing conditions, temperature, snow, heat, humidity, playing surfaces, stadiums, wind factors, time of day – all of these can add visuals that make the spectacle a ascetically pleasing as any SC or DOTA has to offer. They also add a requirement for a different playing approach which may bias one team over another. In some cases they require a shift of focus to other skills.
7) “The way these games are accessed and the tools used to better spectate each match and provide insightful information for viewers and commentators alike surpass that of mainstream sports” – by this I assume the media and online viewing of E-sports. Well the same has been going on in main stream sports for decades. In fact I would argue mainstream sport is so far ahead of e sport it is ridiculous. There are a multitude of graphs, stats and information that can be displayed on broadcasts. Diagrams can be drawn on the field the plays and incidents replayed and highlighted. Live in game information like downs and distances (American football), Tackle Counts (Rugby league), red cards yellow cards (soccer) and game clock and times are all in you line of sight. These things are even possible at live grounds by been shown on giant TV screens.
i wanted to add more but tits grown in to quite a long post - I will however add more if required to reinforce the points above at a later date.
|
On January 09 2013 14:24 Walnuts wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2013 14:15 Goldfish wrote:An interesting thing to note - On both IGN and Gamespot, any mention of eSports or StarCraft (in fact, negative comments on IGN's IPL SC2 youtube page is common) generate bashing of SC2. In contrast, Marvel Vs Capcom 3 (or fighting games in general) and Gamespot and/or their coverage of EVO or any fighting game tournament has not a single flame. I think the offending terms is "eSports". Evolution Championship Series (EVO) doesn't really advertise eSports (at least AFAIK, I haven't really followed EVO, I just looked on their pages and their videos and see no offending term), but advertise simply as a competitive video game tournament. As much as I like eSports, I feel that eSports in general has lead to some level of elitism and bashing other non "eSports" games. Which is why at times I am partly sort of with the anti-eSports crowd (the term itself, not the concept). But on the other hand, South Korea had something really special with Starcraft and describing as simply a video game tournament doesn't do it justice (we all remember the epic intros, the huge crowds, etc). So I definitely agree with TDL's point on why call it eSports even when it's not really a "sport". _______________ Now onto my opinion why I am against calling eSports a real sport. It might sound silly but these are just my thoughts (maybe silly but maybe others may agree). I remember reading an article about how Bejeweled could help contribute to brain function or something (comparing to to similar Tetris effects on the brain) but there was a comment bashing Bejeweled as a mindless luck based game that only involves recognizing patterns. The comment replied and said Starcraft would be a better game (or Tetris Attack, Tetris attack is like bejeweled in the sense that you try to match 3 matching pieces but it's less luck based since you can move pieces to try to get them to the designated location). Tetris Attack I agree but I'm honestly not so sure about SC. The thing is, (in the case of Bejeweled, even if luck based) the fact that it is simple and involves recognizing patterns (which is also simple) and low stress play (SC can be a stressful game to play at times) is potential why it may have positive effects on mental health. I've played StarJeweled (close enough to Bejeweled I'd say), I've played a ton of Tetris, and I've played a ton of SC2. Out of the three, I felt that Tetris and StarJeweled were both simple and relaxing games. They weren't "distracting" to me at all. SC2 on the other hand, I remember thinking about various strategies and things constantly at times (outside of the game). Sometimes I was obsessed with how to win or deal with certain strategies. At times I was overly obsessive with it where it might distract me from other things (like doing a test or something). I don't know if there are any studies on a game like Starcraft compared to a game like Tetris (does the simpler game promote better brain function than the non-simple game)? My argument against SC (not scientiific but just a person experience) is that SC is less of a relaxing and a more stressful game. Plus, the variety in the game can lead to an excessive obsession. Tetris on the other hand is really simple and it's not really obsessive prone game (I definitely had fun playing it on breaks at times in college but I never obsessed over the game). Despite how SC is so much more sophisticated, my experience with Tetris (and Starjeweled) was better than playing SC in terms of mental state is better. Also in games like SC2, I'd like to emphasize how stress can really be a bad thing on your mental state. It feels bad when going on a losing streak or getting cheesed? If you lose 5 games in a row or got cheesed and lost in a bad way, how does it affect your mental state after? Usually it's bad. You try to make it up by maybe playing more or something. Tetris and Bejeweled, the single player versions of course, don't have these issues really.) The point of all this is despite the person bashing Bejeweled for being "an EZ game to play" or "luck based", Bejeweled probably contributes to a better and positive overall mental health than Starcraft (the person's example of a better game for that job because it's more complex). An important thing to note is that while SC is more complex, it's primary a competitive player vs player game (which again, leads to the scenario of feeling bad or trying to make things up when you lose 5 times in a row, etc). Also I remember reading that someone's wife (they were introducing to the game or something) threw their keyboard in frustration after being cannon rushed (an unfortunate way to introduce anyone to the game of Starcraft >.>). Simple (but still requires attention and reaction) games like Tetris or Bejeweled probably do a better job of leading to a healthy mental stat than Starcraft. Again here is Wikipedia (citing sources of course) Tetris effects on the brain section. Tetris has also shown to help deal with mentally traumatic events (reducing flashbacks, etc). ________________ So what am I going on and on about Starcraft vs Tetris vs Bejeweled? (And how the games affect a person's mental state?) I've always viewed video games as for relaxing and casual fun (or as a hobby in case of more serious investment into said game) as a #1 thing. The concept of eSports has generally led to lots of people being a bit negative towards others' activities, a sort of elitism. Compared to regular sports or anything else, I honestly find the eSports community at times to be the least enjoyable community to be in. Don't get me wrong though, I like TL and have (and still have) great times being a part of the community (aside from the excessive non-constructive caster bashing that may happen frequently on the LR threads). I said this before but I am into and still into SC2 because of the positive atmosphere and experience. Artosis and Tasteless making Nestea jokes, people making memes, jokes in general about the game or SC2, etc. I definitely want competitive video gaming to be successful (eSports in South Korea, we all like that one of our favorite games is on TV somewhere in the world) but I definitely don't want it to be this thing where people bash other people for playing other games. I remember reading comments where go away from SC2 to easier games like Guild Wars 2, Diablo, etc. I see comments like that all the time and it really puts me off from the concept of eSports. Finally, I'm not sure how well eSports really contributes to a healthy person in general. Lots of people proudly defend their game as being really complex and how they're good at it, or whatever but at the same time bash other games or put down other people for doing other activities. The question is, how much does said "playing eSports" really contribute to a person's health? Competitive mind set and striving to better oneself can be healthy but at times it clearly degenerates into random hate or bitterness or whatever, especially in regard to online video games (cause it's the internet of course).
You can be competitive outside of online video games easily - in regular sports, physical activity not only helps you physically but mentally as well... it's been shown working out and exercise helps you sleep, helps you in several ways... Competitive online video games on the other hand, do they do all that? Maybe they help in certain cases for certain people, and maybe they're better than playing <insert random mindless pay2play facebook> game here, but I don't think they're that much of a superior medium that it should lead to elitism or bashing of other people's activities (which I see a lot around here).tl;dr - Tetris or Bejeweled > Starcraft. The gist of this post is I'm against negativity and bashing other people's activities or enjoyment. (I'm sure most people have had experience with some negative or bashful person maybe IRL or maybe through some other form. I'm sure this may be obvious but negativity is bad and can lead to more negativity which is totally ruining eSports guys! Because negativity = bad. Yes, I'm being captain obvious but seriously though, I do see a lot of bashing of games. LoL being a good example.) (Okay one final point - I say a game can be competitive or an "eSport" if the top players of a game can be consistently top. See a game like the Pokemon card game? Casual uncompetitive game? Well, there have been several consistently top players in Pokemon. Same in Magic: The Gathering, and other games. I don't play LoL but if the top teams are consistently at the top... then it's an eSport and/or a viable competitive game. The point I'm making it as long as there is something from skill that can differentiate players from one another, and it can be consistently proven, then it's an eSport material game.) This makes a lot of sense, especially the stress part. I wrestle and run both track and cross country (high school varsity, somewhere in the above average but not amazing category) but when I lose i don't really feel angry afterward. On the other hand, a losing streak in SC2 makes me angry afterward, even though the game itself meant a lot less, since no team was depending on me, and I don't put in hours to be better in SC2. I really don't know why this is, but SC2 affects me mentally much more than traditional sports.
Let me explain one thing on this matter, "Being Health",no matter mentally or physically is never a goal or achievement of most sports in competitive level.
Does anyone consider a sports require ppl with height over 2.00 meter health? Most of them can hardly live over 65, not to mention the serious heart problem in later age.
Or does anyone consider use head, instead of foot, to impact a ball at 150km/h speed mentally or physically health? Not to mention all the injury or even sudden death in a football game.
And a marathon or Ironman Triathlon is no where near a life style physically healthy.
And srsly, is there any physically or mentally health part about F1 or Nascar drivers? Dont get me wrong, i am a huge racing fan. But those died in racing accidents would tell you that racing is never about a better living style.
so to sum up, e-sports is just like any other sports, they demands sacrifice, both physically and mentally.
|
On January 09 2013 14:24 Walnuts wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2013 14:15 Goldfish wrote:An interesting thing to note - On both IGN and Gamespot, any mention of eSports or StarCraft (in fact, negative comments on IGN's IPL SC2 youtube page is common) generate bashing of SC2. In contrast, Marvel Vs Capcom 3 (or fighting games in general) and Gamespot and/or their coverage of EVO or any fighting game tournament has not a single flame. I think the offending terms is "eSports". Evolution Championship Series (EVO) doesn't really advertise eSports (at least AFAIK, I haven't really followed EVO, I just looked on their pages and their videos and see no offending term), but advertise simply as a competitive video game tournament. As much as I like eSports, I feel that eSports in general has lead to some level of elitism and bashing other non "eSports" games. Which is why at times I am partly sort of with the anti-eSports crowd (the term itself, not the concept). But on the other hand, South Korea had something really special with Starcraft and describing as simply a video game tournament doesn't do it justice (we all remember the epic intros, the huge crowds, etc). So I definitely agree with TDL's point on why call it eSports even when it's not really a "sport". _______________ Now onto my opinion why I am against calling eSports a real sport. It might sound silly but these are just my thoughts (maybe silly but maybe others may agree). I remember reading an article about how Bejeweled could help contribute to brain function or something (comparing to to similar Tetris effects on the brain) but there was a comment bashing Bejeweled as a mindless luck based game that only involves recognizing patterns. The comment replied and said Starcraft would be a better game (or Tetris Attack, Tetris attack is like bejeweled in the sense that you try to match 3 matching pieces but it's less luck based since you can move pieces to try to get them to the designated location). Tetris Attack I agree but I'm honestly not so sure about SC. The thing is, (in the case of Bejeweled, even if luck based) the fact that it is simple and involves recognizing patterns (which is also simple) and low stress play (SC can be a stressful game to play at times) is potential why it may have positive effects on mental health. I've played StarJeweled (close enough to Bejeweled I'd say), I've played a ton of Tetris, and I've played a ton of SC2. Out of the three, I felt that Tetris and StarJeweled were both simple and relaxing games. They weren't "distracting" to me at all. SC2 on the other hand, I remember thinking about various strategies and things constantly at times (outside of the game). Sometimes I was obsessed with how to win or deal with certain strategies. At times I was overly obsessive with it where it might distract me from other things (like doing a test or something). I don't know if there are any studies on a game like Starcraft compared to a game like Tetris (does the simpler game promote better brain function than the non-simple game)? My argument against SC (not scientiific but just a person experience) is that SC is less of a relaxing and a more stressful game. Plus, the variety in the game can lead to an excessive obsession. Tetris on the other hand is really simple and it's not really obsessive prone game (I definitely had fun playing it on breaks at times in college but I never obsessed over the game). Despite how SC is so much more sophisticated, my experience with Tetris (and Starjeweled) was better than playing SC in terms of mental state is better. Also in games like SC2, I'd like to emphasize how stress can really be a bad thing on your mental state. It feels bad when going on a losing streak or getting cheesed? If you lose 5 games in a row or got cheesed and lost in a bad way, how does it affect your mental state after? Usually it's bad. You try to make it up by maybe playing more or something. Tetris and Bejeweled, the single player versions of course, don't have these issues really.) The point of all this is despite the person bashing Bejeweled for being "an EZ game to play" or "luck based", Bejeweled probably contributes to a better and positive overall mental health than Starcraft (the person's example of a better game for that job because it's more complex). An important thing to note is that while SC is more complex, it's primary a competitive player vs player game (which again, leads to the scenario of feeling bad or trying to make things up when you lose 5 times in a row, etc). Also I remember reading that someone's wife (they were introducing to the game or something) threw their keyboard in frustration after being cannon rushed (an unfortunate way to introduce anyone to the game of Starcraft >.>). Simple (but still requires attention and reaction) games like Tetris or Bejeweled probably do a better job of leading to a healthy mental stat than Starcraft. Again here is Wikipedia (citing sources of course) Tetris effects on the brain section. Tetris has also shown to help deal with mentally traumatic events (reducing flashbacks, etc). ________________ So what am I going on and on about Starcraft vs Tetris vs Bejeweled? (And how the games affect a person's mental state?) I've always viewed video games as for relaxing and casual fun (or as a hobby in case of more serious investment into said game) as a #1 thing. The concept of eSports has generally led to lots of people being a bit negative towards others' activities, a sort of elitism. Compared to regular sports or anything else, I honestly find the eSports community at times to be the least enjoyable community to be in. Don't get me wrong though, I like TL and have (and still have) great times being a part of the community (aside from the excessive non-constructive caster bashing that may happen frequently on the LR threads). I said this before but I am into and still into SC2 because of the positive atmosphere and experience. Artosis and Tasteless making Nestea jokes, people making memes, jokes in general about the game or SC2, etc. I definitely want competitive video gaming to be successful (eSports in South Korea, we all like that one of our favorite games is on TV somewhere in the world) but I definitely don't want it to be this thing where people bash other people for playing other games. I remember reading comments where go away from SC2 to easier games like Guild Wars 2, Diablo, etc. I see comments like that all the time and it really puts me off from the concept of eSports. Finally, I'm not sure how well eSports really contributes to a healthy person in general. Lots of people proudly defend their game as being really complex and how they're good at it, or whatever but at the same time bash other games or put down other people for doing other activities. The question is, how much does said "playing eSports" really contribute to a person's health? Competitive mind set and striving to better oneself can be healthy but at times it clearly degenerates into random hate or bitterness or whatever, especially in regard to online video games (cause it's the internet of course).
You can be competitive outside of online video games easily - in regular sports, physical activity not only helps you physically but mentally as well... it's been shown working out and exercise helps you sleep, helps you in several ways... Competitive online video games on the other hand, do they do all that? Maybe they help in certain cases for certain people, and maybe they're better than playing <insert random mindless pay2play facebook> game here, but I don't think they're that much of a superior medium that it should lead to elitism or bashing of other people's activities (which I see a lot around here).tl;dr - Tetris or Bejeweled > Starcraft. The gist of this post is I'm against negativity and bashing other people's activities or enjoyment. (I'm sure most people have had experience with some negative or bashful person maybe IRL or maybe through some other form. I'm sure this may be obvious but negativity is bad and can lead to more negativity which is totally ruining eSports guys! Because negativity = bad. Yes, I'm being captain obvious but seriously though, I do see a lot of bashing of games. LoL being a good example.) (Okay one final point - I say a game can be competitive or an "eSport" if the top players of a game can be consistently top. See a game like the Pokemon card game? Casual uncompetitive game? Well, there have been several consistently top players in Pokemon. Same in Magic: The Gathering, and other games. I don't play LoL but if the top teams are consistently at the top... then it's an eSport and/or a viable competitive game. The point I'm making it as long as there is something from skill that can differentiate players from one another, and it can be consistently proven, then it's an eSport material game.) This makes a lot of sense, especially the stress part. I wrestle and run both track and cross country (high school varsity, somewhere in the above average but not amazing category) but when I lose i don't really feel angry afterward. On the other hand, a losing streak in SC2 makes me angry afterward, even though the game itself meant a lot less, since no team was depending on me, and I don't put in hours to be better in SC2. I really don't know why this is, but SC2 affects me mentally much more than traditional sports.
Thanks for positive reply .
Anyway, I edited my post a bit (mainly just spoilered it to not be a huge wall of text) and just kept the essentials.
I didn't put this in my original post but overall, I think the best way to consider whether something is a "sport" or not is if it is something that improves someone's health amidst competition.
(Yes, there are dangerous sports. Yes, some people abuse performance enhancement drugs that may negativity effect them overall. Yes, there is drama in competitive sports that may ruin people's life, etc. Still, most common sports have some form of physical activity that helps boost one's physical and mental health.)
Not to turn this into a health thing but I now feel the most important thing of sports (from an overall perspective on society as a whole) is that it's usually competition but it's competition that promotes both physical and mental health.
On the other hand, things like competitive video games can be sort of a grey area in this department.
As for "Sports" and it's definition, wikipedia has this to say about sports:
"Sport (or, primarily in North America, sports) is all forms of competitive physical activity which, through casual or organised participation, aim to use, maintain or improve physical ability "and" provide entertainment to participants."
(I added the quotes on "and".)
Also, yes Wikipedia is a wiki (though they do cite where they took the definition from and it's similar to what can be considered Olympics material) but IMO that's a good and agreeable definition of sports. In terms of eSports though, it is definitely entertainment worthy but it isn't always health improving.
On January 09 2013 14:40 Baroninthetree wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2013 14:24 Walnuts wrote:On January 09 2013 14:15 Goldfish wrote:An interesting thing to note - On both IGN and Gamespot, any mention of eSports or StarCraft (in fact, negative comments on IGN's IPL SC2 youtube page is common) generate bashing of SC2. In contrast, Marvel Vs Capcom 3 (or fighting games in general) and Gamespot and/or their coverage of EVO or any fighting game tournament has not a single flame. I think the offending terms is "eSports". Evolution Championship Series (EVO) doesn't really advertise eSports (at least AFAIK, I haven't really followed EVO, I just looked on their pages and their videos and see no offending term), but advertise simply as a competitive video game tournament. As much as I like eSports, I feel that eSports in general has lead to some level of elitism and bashing other non "eSports" games. Which is why at times I am partly sort of with the anti-eSports crowd (the term itself, not the concept). But on the other hand, South Korea had something really special with Starcraft and describing as simply a video game tournament doesn't do it justice (we all remember the epic intros, the huge crowds, etc). So I definitely agree with TDL's point on why call it eSports even when it's not really a "sport". _______________ Now onto my opinion why I am against calling eSports a real sport. It might sound silly but these are just my thoughts (maybe silly but maybe others may agree). I remember reading an article about how Bejeweled could help contribute to brain function or something (comparing to to similar Tetris effects on the brain) but there was a comment bashing Bejeweled as a mindless luck based game that only involves recognizing patterns. The comment replied and said Starcraft would be a better game (or Tetris Attack, Tetris attack is like bejeweled in the sense that you try to match 3 matching pieces but it's less luck based since you can move pieces to try to get them to the designated location). Tetris Attack I agree but I'm honestly not so sure about SC. The thing is, (in the case of Bejeweled, even if luck based) the fact that it is simple and involves recognizing patterns (which is also simple) and low stress play (SC can be a stressful game to play at times) is potential why it may have positive effects on mental health. I've played StarJeweled (close enough to Bejeweled I'd say), I've played a ton of Tetris, and I've played a ton of SC2. Out of the three, I felt that Tetris and StarJeweled were both simple and relaxing games. They weren't "distracting" to me at all. SC2 on the other hand, I remember thinking about various strategies and things constantly at times (outside of the game). Sometimes I was obsessed with how to win or deal with certain strategies. At times I was overly obsessive with it where it might distract me from other things (like doing a test or something). I don't know if there are any studies on a game like Starcraft compared to a game like Tetris (does the simpler game promote better brain function than the non-simple game)? My argument against SC (not scientiific but just a person experience) is that SC is less of a relaxing and a more stressful game. Plus, the variety in the game can lead to an excessive obsession. Tetris on the other hand is really simple and it's not really obsessive prone game (I definitely had fun playing it on breaks at times in college but I never obsessed over the game). Despite how SC is so much more sophisticated, my experience with Tetris (and Starjeweled) was better than playing SC in terms of mental state is better. Also in games like SC2, I'd like to emphasize how stress can really be a bad thing on your mental state. It feels bad when going on a losing streak or getting cheesed? If you lose 5 games in a row or got cheesed and lost in a bad way, how does it affect your mental state after? Usually it's bad. You try to make it up by maybe playing more or something. Tetris and Bejeweled, the single player versions of course, don't have these issues really.) The point of all this is despite the person bashing Bejeweled for being "an EZ game to play" or "luck based", Bejeweled probably contributes to a better and positive overall mental health than Starcraft (the person's example of a better game for that job because it's more complex). An important thing to note is that while SC is more complex, it's primary a competitive player vs player game (which again, leads to the scenario of feeling bad or trying to make things up when you lose 5 times in a row, etc). Also I remember reading that someone's wife (they were introducing to the game or something) threw their keyboard in frustration after being cannon rushed (an unfortunate way to introduce anyone to the game of Starcraft >.>). Simple (but still requires attention and reaction) games like Tetris or Bejeweled probably do a better job of leading to a healthy mental stat than Starcraft. Again here is Wikipedia (citing sources of course) Tetris effects on the brain section. Tetris has also shown to help deal with mentally traumatic events (reducing flashbacks, etc). ________________ So what am I going on and on about Starcraft vs Tetris vs Bejeweled? (And how the games affect a person's mental state?) I've always viewed video games as for relaxing and casual fun (or as a hobby in case of more serious investment into said game) as a #1 thing. The concept of eSports has generally led to lots of people being a bit negative towards others' activities, a sort of elitism. Compared to regular sports or anything else, I honestly find the eSports community at times to be the least enjoyable community to be in. Don't get me wrong though, I like TL and have (and still have) great times being a part of the community (aside from the excessive non-constructive caster bashing that may happen frequently on the LR threads). I said this before but I am into and still into SC2 because of the positive atmosphere and experience. Artosis and Tasteless making Nestea jokes, people making memes, jokes in general about the game or SC2, etc. I definitely want competitive video gaming to be successful (eSports in South Korea, we all like that one of our favorite games is on TV somewhere in the world) but I definitely don't want it to be this thing where people bash other people for playing other games. I remember reading comments where go away from SC2 to easier games like Guild Wars 2, Diablo, etc. I see comments like that all the time and it really puts me off from the concept of eSports. Finally, I'm not sure how well eSports really contributes to a healthy person in general. Lots of people proudly defend their game as being really complex and how they're good at it, or whatever but at the same time bash other games or put down other people for doing other activities. The question is, how much does said "playing eSports" really contribute to a person's health? Competitive mind set and striving to better oneself can be healthy but at times it clearly degenerates into random hate or bitterness or whatever, especially in regard to online video games (cause it's the internet of course).
You can be competitive outside of online video games easily - in regular sports, physical activity not only helps you physically but mentally as well... it's been shown working out and exercise helps you sleep, helps you in several ways... Competitive online video games on the other hand, do they do all that? Maybe they help in certain cases for certain people, and maybe they're better than playing <insert random mindless pay2play facebook> game here, but I don't think they're that much of a superior medium that it should lead to elitism or bashing of other people's activities (which I see a lot around here).tl;dr - Tetris or Bejeweled > Starcraft. The gist of this post is I'm against negativity and bashing other people's activities or enjoyment. (I'm sure most people have had experience with some negative or bashful person maybe IRL or maybe through some other form. I'm sure this may be obvious but negativity is bad and can lead to more negativity which is totally ruining eSports guys! Because negativity = bad. Yes, I'm being captain obvious but seriously though, I do see a lot of bashing of games. LoL being a good example.) (Okay one final point - I say a game can be competitive or an "eSport" if the top players of a game can be consistently top. See a game like the Pokemon card game? Casual uncompetitive game? Well, there have been several consistently top players in Pokemon. Same in Magic: The Gathering, and other games. I don't play LoL but if the top teams are consistently at the top... then it's an eSport and/or a viable competitive game. The point I'm making it as long as there is something from skill that can differentiate players from one another, and it can be consistently proven, then it's an eSport material game.) This makes a lot of sense, especially the stress part. I wrestle and run both track and cross country (high school varsity, somewhere in the above average but not amazing category) but when I lose i don't really feel angry afterward. On the other hand, a losing streak in SC2 makes me angry afterward, even though the game itself meant a lot less, since no team was depending on me, and I don't put in hours to be better in SC2. I really don't know why this is, but SC2 affects me mentally much more than traditional sports. Let me explain one thing on this matter, "Being Health",no matter mentally or physically is never a goal or achievement of most sports in competitive level. Does anyone consider a sports require ppl with height over 2.00 meter health? Most of them can hardly live over 65, not to mention the serious heart problem in later age. Or does anyone consider use head, instead of foot, to impact a ball at 150km/h speed mentally or physically health? Not to mention all the injury or even sudden death in a football game. And a marathon or Ironman Triathlon is no where near a life style physically healthy. And srsly, is there any physically or mentally health part about F1 or Nascar drivers? Dont get me wrong, i am a huge racing fan. But those died in racing accidents would tell you that racing is never about a better living style. so to sum up, e-sports is just like any other sports, they demands sacrifice, both physically and mentally.
Definitely good counterpoints. You're definitely right in the case of most sports nowadays is not about health (if it's about health, go to the gym). It's usually about entertainment and being able to have a career doing what you like doing. In sports that aren't too dangerous, health is a bonus.
At this point, I'm sort of just leaning back on my own views (which is definitely not right but what I'd like sports to be rather than what it is).
I may edit something in once I find a good way to try to differentiate sports vs eSports more.
|
Baroninthetree what are you trying to get at? Most cannot barely make it to 65? Are you talking about professional wrestlers or wrestle, wrestlers? lmao
There's a pretty big difference between amateur wrestling and sports entertainers. The other guy was talking about amateur wrestling as a sport. Not to be confused with the showbiz one. I have no idea what you're trying to say about marathon runners, triathletes and race car drivers. They train hard and it is very much apart of their lifestyle. There is a mental and physical component to all of them.
|
On January 09 2013 05:50 lolmlg wrote:
I'm going to bypass all the really obvious reasons why e-sports aren't sports and hit on the one that nobody seems to want to admit.
Sports are not subject to cheese. In a sport there are only strategies. If a strategy could be thought of as unsportsmanlike, it is simply forbidden by the rules. All you have left at that point is a competition based on skill. But in a game like SC2, there are many scenarios where one player can be thought of as immediately at a disadvantage for reasons ultimately unrelated to their skill or preparation. "Juking your opponent with slick meta-mindgames" might be an impressive sounding euphemism for claiming a cheap win at any cost, but it doesn't change the essential nature of the act.
Not that the offending player is to blame for that act. He's just playing the game. But it precludes the game from being a sport. No longer a raw contest of skill, the exercise becomes a guessing game, regardless of how educated those guesses might be.
Think of it this way. In American Football, there is an emphasis on strategy, of trying to predict the moves of the opposite team and acting accordingly. That's fine. But have you seen the video of the team that suddenly stopped playing right after kickoff, walked around slowly acting confused, and then suddenly ran past their opponents into the end zone for some cheap and undeserved points? That's a cheese. And it simply doesn't have a place in any sport where something is on the line.
Every sport has tricks or something in it. Cheese has nothing to do with why something is or is not a sport.
Oh and I think Sc2 has as many aspects of a sport as some other things out there which are counted 
|
You are in some roundabout way trying to elevate eSports to something that is unique when compared to traditional sports, not as something beneath. It was a good attempt, but I feel like nothing knew has been stated here. But yeah, as was pointed out, you really dropped the ball on the whole "eSports is constantly changing" alleged difference. Sports pun.
This relentless need to identify, and label, and explore... What's there to understand? Some people just enjoy playing video games competitively. It doesn't need to be something more. It is what it is. The fixation on the state of the scene, and the future of ESPORTS is one of the many things wrong with ESPORTS itself. Ultimately the wrong people are too interested. They want to know how much money they can make off of hobbyists.
|
i guess should move to blog?
|
On January 09 2013 15:22 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
But yeah, as was pointed out, you really dropped the ball on the whole "eSports is constantly changing" alleged difference. Sports pun.
I've already spoke about the changing dynamics in MMA because Torte brought it up. I probably should have expanded on this idea because it applies to every sport. Whether they're direct or indirect.
|
While i personally dont like the terms "eSports" and "cyberathletes" and prefer progaming/progamers - as long as things like curling are "olympic sports", computer games have every right to say competitive gaming is a sport too.
|
Torte, I fucking love you. Please for the love of nestea never EVER stop producing stuff for me to read.
|
Well, I got a follow up to my original post. I'm glad so far people are taking the "it's healthy argument" okay.
I thought about my original post and I think the problem with the term "eSports" is that "eSports" generally applies exclusively to the highest level of play.
In regular sports, there are two different levels of play. Professional level where it's more about entertainment involving some form of physical competition, and the casual level where the focus is about having fun and exercise. The latter (casual play for exercise) has a real positive connotation (well not sure about other areas but in the US, everyone views playing sports positively).
Generally, people think of both when they hear "sports".
When you say "hey I play sports" to some random person on the street, they think "good for you" (referring to exercise is good for you, etc).
When you instead say "hey I play eSports" to some random person, they will probably question why you call video games a sport mainly because most don't have as much as a positive connotation with playing video games compared to playing sports.
So, it's a matter of how people view the term sports and how sports has this connotation with "good for you" while video games aren't always good for you. It's more how to advertise it, and how do random people think or hear when they hear the term "eSport".
eSports is appropriate for high levels of play IMO. It's similar to regular sports in that people are making a career playing a game competitively (in this case, a video game). Regular sports, it's mostly about the entertainment via competitive play. In cases where it's healthy, that's mostly a bonus rather than the focus of "professional sports".
In contrast to high level of play, low level of play (casual play) of sports is also a physical exercise (which while physical, can also improve a person's healthy mentally as well, which includes being able to sleep better and being able to think more clearly).
Lower level play of eSports is "just playing a video game" (playing a video game's health benefits vary from game to game and have not really been studied all that much).
Video games (even Starcraft), compared to regular Sports do not have as much of as a health benefit (take note I'm saying this broadly - physical exercise has shown to not only be good for physical health but mental health as well).
Starcraft is a hard game and you do have to think to play it but there aren't really that many document studies or anything involving games and their effects on the health.
There have been studies on more "relaxing" games like Tetris but Starcraft is more of a stressful game.
Not only that, you can become obsessed with things like how you lose, etc while it's almost non-existent in more casual games like Tetris or Bejeweled (in Bejeweled cases, there was an article about it that said it had similar benefits as Tetris; despite them being two different games, they're similar in the sense that both are simple to play but still involve some sort of beneficial brain activity to play).
So at least until it's been shown that playing a game like SC is really beneficial to a person's health (comparable to sports or maybe even Tetris since it's been studied), there will probably be opposition to the labeling of high level video game play as "eSports".
tl;dr - Regular "sports" already has this connotation where (at least in the casual level), it has a positive meaning. Again - When you say "I play sports", people can understand that and say good for you (people view sports not only as playing a game but exercising too). When you say, "I play eSports", I can see people being puzzled and a bit put off since a lot of people regard playing sports as a beneficial activity while playing video games isn't always the case (it really varies on the game of course).
So in high level professional play, calling video games in eSports is somewhat okay IMO (I mean, it's really similar in that in both cases, it's about people providing entertainment to viewers from high level competitive play of a game). The only problem is that regular sports have two meanings (when people hear "sports"): professional play and casual play (people view playing sports casually as "good for you", while the same can't be said for random video games).
|
On January 09 2013 16:07 rename wrote:
While i personally dont like the terms "eSports" and "cyberathletes" and prefer progaming/progamers - as long as things like curling are "olympic sports", computer games have every right to say competitive gaming is a sport too.
I'm going to nitpick here. When every figure mentions the Olympics they call it the Olympic Games. Look at every speech/address and you'll know this to be true. There's a very thin line here and there's a good reason as to why they use Games instead of sport because it applies to practically everything. Let's have a game of fill-in-the-blank and it all works!
|
|
|
Good write-up, but considering how much time/effort was put into it for 4 pages of discussion, I think it's valid to bring up these question. Does it matter that E-Sports isn't a sport? Does it change the significance of the entire scene if we stop calling it a sport?
|
^yea i don't understand why anyone even cares
|
It's just something to talk about (:
|
|
|
While it can be argued back and forth why or why not it's a sport it, that discussion concerns me very little (not that it is wrong of you to discuss it), as the factors you present here isn't really of any value for a main-stream media to perceive it as a sport. E-Sports, whether it is or is not a sport, is regardless a term that quite accurately describes what it is all about, as Torte de Lini wrote. Even if the minor details are non-conclusive we should avoid pettyfogging the issue at hand, which is to convince the mainstream that it is indeed a sport, and I don't think any of the arguments for or against will have any sort of relevance when it comes to that. The thing that is holding back E-sports is the cultural distaste many have for videogames, you see a similar stuggle with poker, allthough that has gotten much further in the process.
|
Wow sick read, will read more after i'm home tomorrow!
|
As others have said, I don't think that pointing at "regular" sports and saying they don't change is a fallacy. Regular sports change all the time. NHL Hockey goes through all sorts of rule changes that could be analogous to balance patches-- for example, the rules on goaltender interference and what the goal crease means and who gets to be in there and why. At one point this was changing every season. There was a point where a goal could be called back because an offensive player had a skate in the crease! (Fortunately that was changed back next season as it was a stupid rule, but it was put there to protect goalies from interference)
So regular sports change, albeit more slowly. That's not a good reason to say that eSports isn't "sports".
A good reason would be simply that the type of competition is different, and relies on electronic components and software as an intermediary rather than physical objects such as sticks, pucks, balls, etc. That's a big difference, and an important one.
That's why the "e" is there in eSports. To make it different. To point out that it is different.
People get hung up on the physical exercise part, but I think that's an emotional reaction to the age-old jocks-versus-nerds argument. But with the word "eSports", the WORD ITSELF acknowledges that it is different. It shares many parts of sports: teams, training regimens, tournaments, fans, trades, gossip, sponsorships. It does not share the SAME sort of physical effort (although pulling high APMs consistently is a form of exercise, it's not what is traditionally thought of as sports)
But again, why would the physical part make it NOT sports just because it is a different form of physical activity? Look at curling. It is defined in Wikipedia as a sport: "Curling is a sport in which players slide stones across a sheet of ice towards a target area which is segmented into four rings." SPORT. Now, curling takes some physical exercise, but it's not really like other sports, is it? Yet it's defined as a sport. So the AMOUNT of physical exercise isn't what makes something a sport or not.
So the AMOUNT of change in the game rules doesn't make something a sport or not a sport, because some sports change faster than others and slow or fast change doesn't make it a sport or not a sport.
The AMOUNT of physical exercise doesn't make something a sport or not a sport. Otherwise, curling would not be a sport, as it has significantly less physical activity than other sports.
The difference is the need for computers and software. That's the "e" part in "eSports".
It's a perfectly acceptable word.
|
So I made the mistake of posting this in a new thread. But here is my reply to TorteDeLini
In an extremely interesting and thought-provoking article, Michael Cohen over at Armchair Athleticism impressed me that I decided to write a reply. While I agree with most of the points raised by the article in question, I can’t help but not agree with the conclusion that is reached from these points. The articles’ argument is summarized as follows
E-Sports is not necessarily spots, but is an accurate term to help the general public understand what E-Sports composes of
Firstly let us state that the reply I am making may be somewhat theoretically involved. The arguments against Cohen are not intended to show mistaken views of another, but to form a dialogue that may be continued into the future. While I agree that the term ‘E-sports’ is primarily used as a tool to explain competitive gaming to the uninitiated, I don’t agree that e-sports is not necessarily a sports.
Let us being by invoking what the use of the word ‘necessary’ may imply in this context. In order for something (x) to be necessarily something else (y), x must satisfy the conditions of y. An obvious example of this is that of the Bachelor. For William to be a bachelor, he must fulfill necessarily the conditions of being a bachelor, namely, being a unmarried, male adult. If William is a male adult, but married, he does not necessarily fulfill the conditions of being a bachelor. Similarly, if E-sports is necessarily a sport, as I wish to argue in this post, contra Cohen, then I must show that E-sports fulfills the necessary conditions of being a sport. The question for me then becomes
1. What are the conditions of something being a sport?
2. Do the E-sports group necessarily fit these conditions?
Now, we may go the basic route and look up the dictionary definition of the term Sport: An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others. This can either be in a professional format or within a casual environment. Upon this definition we can presumably argue then that those games usually understood within the context of E-sports are to be understood as sports (though this too may also rely on a semantic discussion on the notion of ‘physical exertion’) However this does not satisfy my own goals for this article, nor do I think Cohen would be satisfied with that form of argument. My goal then is to go through Cohen’s own article countering his argument, while trying to provide examples and arguments for my contention.
Before I begin to get in depth about the e-sports aspect of the article in particular, I want to pick up on one specific thing. Cohen begins their article by stating that
comparing e-sports to professional mainstream sports can be a poor perspective that ultimately narrows and shapes it to be something that it cannot feasibly become (but may be something even more)
I think can be quite true of many comparisons, but comparisons between competitive gaming (e-sports) and “traditional sports” can actually help us in encouraging development within areas of e-sports that my struggle. I think we can look at the current state of Starcraft 2 in particular, in which, to some extent, we have an over-saturation of events and ask, how do we maximize e-sports without incurring both player fatigue and viewer fatigue? This I can be worked out by comparing models of particular sporting codes with e-sports codes (FPS, RTS, ARTS etc), but that is a discussion for another time. The main point to get across here is that I think Cohen is to narrow in the scope of how he understands comparison. We may look at academia to show how comparisons don’t narrow scopes or specific relations, but open up broader categories of discussion.
Now, Cohen is not specifically saying that E-sports is not a sport, but that it is not necessarily a sport, and to some extent, makes the allusion that E-sports goes beyond traditional sports. Cohen presents three examples that show how E-sports may sufficiently be a sport, but is not necessarily a sport. The author argues that there are three levels which allow one to understand the subculture of E-sports, these being
Competitive Gaming: competitive gaming being without the spectators or much of a news media following. Essentially, it’s just the game, the players and the small community who were active or involved in the organizing of competitions. As we step further out into the second-level, we start introducing the large following of communities such as Team Liquid, the sub-reddits as well as large-scale events to connect further these online communities into a gaming expo-like setting.
This is E-Sports. E-Sports is a spectacle to dress and curtain the core game and competition. The atmosphere is what is the most appealing for events such as IGN’s Pro League, North-American Star League finals and Major League Gaming which helps add flair and life to something that occurs within computer systems. The roaring fans and the enthusiastic and excited commentators are areas that help emphasize and improve the excitement of what goes in the game. These elements are found within mainstream sports and are why we title competitive gaming as E-Sports.
E-sports Population Activity is an overview of how popular, active and worthwhile is E-Sports for these companies. It takes into account of the core of the game, its active teams and progamers, leagues and events as well as growth of community websites. I titled EPA as a global measurement to help identify just how popular and strong this subcultures growth is. For some games such as Tribes: Ascend and Street Fighter x Tekken, their EPA has been greatly reduced despite numerous attempts at trying to improve it (this could be for a variety of issues). Team Fortress 2, also a popular competitive game, is not as popularly viewed as Counter-Strike for other reasons. Their EPA is low and thus perhaps why companies aim to not acknowledge, improve or work towards changing that (because it isn’t realistically feasible for the company’s resources to devote towards or maybe because the company sees other more profitable ways to take advantage of their video-game product).
There isn’t much to disagree with these definitions, or the way in which they are used to describe the culture of e-sports and they basically mimic the structures of the traditional sporting arena. But there may be some points of contention that can be addressed. In terms of competitive gaming this, as Cohen says really forms the core of any gaming community. Those players who seek to establish a small grass roots level of competition. However, it should also be noted that grass roots competitions are the lifeblood of any professional gaming league. Millions of dollars is spent on little leagues, Junior Rugby, Cricket, Basketball and Soccer to encourage boys and girls to take up these sports. A question that the e-sports community needs to address, and one that I hope to address later in this blog series is how does the community respond to grass roots endeavors?
Furthermore Cohen states that E-sports itself (apart from competitive gaming) can be understood in terms of the glitz and glamor, the ability to show off the core gaming community. It is the internet that allows for this aspect of the e-sports community to take off, it is forums such as teamliquid.net, reddit and twitter which fuel the growth of e-sport. I don’t disagree with that statement, I think it is fundamentally true that without the internet and without the use of social media, e-sports would not have grown to the place it is today. What I am skeptical about is that Cohen thinks that the spectacle of e-sports is why we title competitive gaming as e-sports. I don’t think this is correct, I think Cohen has neglected the similarities between competitive gaming groups and grass roots sporting communities.
The third level takes on an extremely complex issue, but an important one that should be addressed and that is the interaction of gaming companies within E-sports. I won’t deal with this specific aspects here but of the complex and intertwining issues that need to be addressed within it, I will however say that I think the EPA measurement that Cohen introduces is a good way to begin such a process.
Let us move on to the final aspect. If both E-sports and traditional sports follow this similar structure, the question is why isn’t e-sports a sports?
According to Cohen
Because the game changes. The core game mechanics improve, change, and are biased towards one side or another….. These varied factors help keep the game fresh, new and entertaining. It displays unlimited possibilities that surpass that of sports on a basic ruled level.
The above statement is perhaps the most controversial aspect of the piece. Cohen argues that E-sports aren’t sports because of the evolution of the games themselves. But I wonder whether Cohen falls into the trap they warned us of at the start of the article. I think at this point Cohen’s definition of sport has become so narrow that it can’t transcend its own being. Sport, because of what we think it is, cannot ever transcend into something else. The discourse on what a sport is, cannot be challenged if we accept Armchair’s point here, I say we should disregard this point and go back to the point on comparative analysis. This point was that such analyzes are useful as long as they don’t attempt to constrain us in any way.
Furthermore, I don’t think the points made by Armchair about E-sports necessarily deter it from being labeled a sport. They write
The core game mechanics improve, change, and are biased towards one side or another
Yes this is a completely agreeable statement, but it neglects the fact that the core mechanics of sports change all the time. If we watch Football, Soccer, Cricket, Basketball or Tennis games from 50 years ago we will see a different style of play, a different mechanic of how to approach strategy and etc. I may here be confused by the way Cohen uses the term mechanic (I understand it as basically the tools of the trade). Let us take an example.
Cohen writes
n StarCraft, you have three asymmetrical races that have their pros and cons, in ARTS games such as DotA, you have a multitude of heroes that interact with one another differently. For FPS games, a variety of guns also means countless approaches towards taking down your opponent.
As such, I think Cohen is using the term in the way I understand it, that is as a tool or the ‘means of production’ of the game. Now if we take this understand we can also apply it to traditional sporting games as well. In Australia, where the game of cricket is extremely popular, the ‘means of production’ of a Cricket game are a bat, a leather ball, and a cricket pitch. If you ever watch a cricket match you’ll notice the commentators talking a lot about the pitch or the type of cricket bat that the player is using. How he uses such tools in the game. Cricket pitches in Australia are extremely different to those in India, Sri Lanka and the West Indies for various reasons and they change according to weather and maintenance. Game Patches, Hot fixes and alike all work the same way as Cricket pitches or football fields. They are the place which the game takes place and whoever understands the patch, pitch or field better also has a better chance at winning. We can understand the developers as the people who look after the patch, pitch or field. I’m deeply skeptical of the assumption that Blizzard tries to influence game play, I think this may be false. I’d rather like to say that they try to do something to the ‘field’ that will increase the chances of something else happening. Others have talked about ‘changing rules’ and such, but I think the discussion on mechanics is much clearer by talking about tools in the way I have done above.
Finally
Cohen writes
The reality is that E-Sports will always be a “you’re either in or you’re out” sort of pond and because most current adults have grown being out of video-games or not as competitively involved with it, most are definitely out. However, as the digital age encompasses more generations and old values start to shrink, the accessibility and acceptance of video-games and potentially E-Sports is bound to expand.
Most sports tend to be “you’re either in or you’re out” types of affairs. Sports are also deeply rooted in nationalistic tendencies, when a country tends to do well in a sport that sport would have a certain following within that country. Cricket of course is a good example in Australia, but so is Soccer. Until the 2006 Soccer World Cup in Germany, the sport was hardly mentioned in the media, was not a big sport at grass roots, but then Australia suddenly started doing reasonably well and now , 7 years on, we have a reinvigorated A-League and a well supported Soccer team. When mOOnGLaDe, the Australian Starcraft player, when to the WCS in Shanghai we actually saw a couple of articles in national newspapers about E-sports, even though he didn’t win, there was something about having an Australian participate which made some (not many) people look up.
I want to end this on a positive note. I think I have successful shown contra Cohen’s arguments that E-sports can be considered a sport, I think it is wrong to understand ‘mainstream’ sports as the definition of sports, Sports come and go, they evolve and die out. The definition of sports should always be in a state of flux trying to determine itself. Perhaps the next stage in this determination is the advent of E-sports, perhaps E-sports has already reached its Nadir. I want to mirror something that Cohen did say that, E-sports has the potential to expand beyond limits that anyone thought imaginable. But we need to do this as a community, we need to expand grass roots exposure and show Adults and kids alike that video games are cool and they are a sport.
|
Damn I totally fail to understand why this is important or worth discussing.
No matter what word you put onto it, it doesnt change the nature or entertainment value of competetive gaming one bit.
edit: I guess the poster after me said it better lol.
|
Ultimately, I'm not really sure that the fight for a definition of "sports" that includes competitive gaming makes much sense for us as a community to take on, in that it potentially (in this poster's mind, definitely) creates more problems than it solves. The use-value of a piece of language can be a fickle foe, especially when approached artificially (as in us talking about the meaning of the word "sports" rather than letting it become defined through organic practice), and I am of the mind that, at least when it comes to collective popular sports culture in the United States, the conventional perception of "sports" is too deeply rooted in notions of overtly physical activity to warrant an explicit challenge. Keeping this in mind, it makes more sense to take on an air of pragmatic deference when it comes to how we handle matters of addressing this thing we call "e-sports"; it is not a person, and it does not care what we call it unless we want it to.
|
I just have to agree with Farva...this is an issue that has been brought up countless times. In all of the arguments that have arisen, the one thing I have learned is that it is completely irrelevant, unless one enjoys a tedious exploration into differentiating what may technically be defined as a sport and what isn't.
"Sport" isn't clearly defined. Heck "game" isn't clearly defined either...there are confusing boundaries for many words, and its uncertain when one word's meaning fades into that of another word. Language is naturally somewhat ambiguous, because no one defines things so precisely from the outset - sport has always been understood in terms of our common sense. No one actually goes to the dictionary to reaffirm what they believe sports are, it is just something that is understood in broad terms through popular usage; as with many other words, their definition is determined primarily by context.
Therefore, I think that trying to ascertain what should or shouldn't be considered a sport on such a technical level, when the term itself is unclear and meant to be understood only in broad terms, is an exercise in futility.
Moreover it doesn't serve any meaningful purpose to rebrand e-sports as sports except to make people feel accepted amongst the masses who watch sports. This is completely unnecessary, and to be frank, an embarrassing sign of weakness that you need other people to view what you do as being equivalent on some level to what they watch in order to garner their respect (or maybe even your own self-respect).
We don't need technical arguments examining why e-sports should be considered a type of sport. "Electronic sports" is a simple, straightforward term that everyone can understand, in that most of the action/game play is happening in a computer over a network, rather than in physical reality. I feel like people are so ashamed of how society views them, that they want to avoid these clear definitions of what their interests clearly entail, and instead go into semantic arguments to try to explain how what they do is technically just like what people who play football do.
I think its fine to point out that people need to have the same level of focus or commitment that those people who play traditional sports have. But that's why we call it an e-sport...it is implied by the word "sport" contained within, that there is intense competition and training required. Explaining this by making comparisons to physical sports is totally superfluous.
|
I definitely agree with the people saying this isn't an important topic because all it is to me is a definition or a label which doesn't actually lead to any change.
What i think is interesting, and probably quite important though, is the impact that this topic does have on the industry. The comment about eSports writers is a good one. When they open with this preface about trying to describe eSports, at least in my cynical eyes it comes across as them trying to justify eSports. I hate that, it really rubs me the wrong way and sometimes comes across as needy, desperate, uncertain, insecure, defensive, and overall from a position of weakness, rather than one of confidence and strength. I've no doubt the people writing these things love eSports and have the passion, just don't frame it from such a weak position.
If someone has a bias, and you fuel that with your initial premise, you've already lost them. You've told them that even you, the mouth piece of that which they're uncertain about, aren't even confident in your subject matter. I think the continuation of this debate in turn forces people to succumb to this uncertainty. It also invites others to debate it too, and never get further than "lol its not real sports", rather that focus on the greatness that eSports does have regardless of whether its a sport or not. I would like people to be able to embrace eSports for what it is: professional gaming competition, rather than trying to define it and measure it against other accepted sports like a little kid trying to fit in with the big cool kids.
What i think we want isn't a definition or a label, but acceptance. We want our pie to get bigger, we want more people to be involved so we can maybe some day have eSports globally look like what it was in Korea. I'm not gonna talk about how we can do that, because i have no effing clue and this isn't what this topic is about. But i think when we try and define and justify eSports in this 'is it a sport' debate, we weaken our position, we dilute or stray away from the message, and we get people arguing against each other when we could instead be focusing on all the definite positives and how to capitalise on and present those to a wider audience.
Furthermore if we are defined as a sport, this doesn't make people accept us. I don't accept curling or synchronised swimming or horse racing or motorsport as sports, and i wouldn't accept eSports just because they were considered sports too. But i can accept that it (and those other things i mentioned) is elite competition and that's more important than being labelled a sport or not.
The WWE / UFC comparison was interesting. I think we can learn a lot from there, and the comparisons between how those businesses operate compared to real sports. I think that's a really interesting topic, how they market their fighters as stars and fights can be chosen as much based on merit as they are on drawing power. eSports does that to some extent too. But i won't go into that as we're off topic enough but i like that you brought it up. Comparisons are very useful if we use them properly and i think those are great ones to look at.
I don't want to poop on people who do enjoy this topic as one of debate. Debating is fun for a lot of people i'm just not one of them because quite frankly i hate the internet. I just wish this wouldn't be viewed as an important debate that we need to entertain for the health of eSports or anything, but rather just a fun, almost pedantic one that people can riff back and forth with in their spare time. I know it does interest people, and that's fine. I just don't think it helps, and to some extent i think it's harmful when it influences how we present ourselves to a wider audience.
As an aside, i just read rad's post and i think i'm pretty much saying what he said, kinda funny
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kwkQa.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9FExs.png)
