EPTBBC: Should eSports be Olympic events? - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
TC_Beynbio
Norway81 Posts
| ||
|
Ovid
United Kingdom948 Posts
| ||
|
Ovid
United Kingdom948 Posts
On December 25 2014 20:58 TC_Beynbio wrote: It wouldn't be exciting for non-esports fans who don't know it that much. (For esports fans it will be exciting). Not all countries have players who are the same lvl as the pros are That's the same thing as real sports though there's lots of amateurs from the smaller countries going up against pros. | ||
|
Ljas
Finland725 Posts
On December 25 2014 17:19 Lazare1969 wrote: This is one of those ideas that sounds cool at first, and then after a couple seconds of thinking you realize that it's incredibly stupid. StarCraft is a proprietary product by Blizzard. Think about the legal and financial mess of license agreements this would entail. Blizzard does not deserve excess money thrown at them. If StarCraft was open-source and released under a strict copyleft license, then maybe it would be a plausible idea. Like that's ever going to happen. This. An olympic sport should absolutely not be something that's 100% under the control of a profit-seeking company. Not even FIFA can flick a switch and intantaneously end every game of football being played. | ||
|
Alcathous
Netherlands219 Posts
| ||
|
TurboMaN
Germany925 Posts
| ||
|
SC2Towelie
United States561 Posts
| ||
|
Makro
France16890 Posts
| ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
| ||
|
vult
United States9400 Posts
| ||
|
brickrd
United States4894 Posts
i really dislike the obsession with making everyone's hobby a "sport". poker is a sport, esports are a sport, everything is a sport. for me "sports" means physical sports, and that's fine. it doesn't mean physical sports are somehow morally better than other recreations. but in terms of language i think it's fine for sports to just be sports. also, in terms of logistics, i don't see what the point is of having esports "at" the olympics. physical sport fans aren't that likely to be interested in them, and vice versa. why force them together? the only reason i can think of is because of a bitter jealousy on the part of geeky esports fans, which i find petty and pointless. you don't have to force shit down people's throats just because they like athletics and not computer games. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17151 Posts
sooner or later you must draw the line in the minimum required physicality. it all depends on where you want to draw that arbitrary line. if you include Curling though then i think you SC qualifies as well. Curling has 50 year old world champions. flip side of this is.... If Curling is not physical enough and does not qualify then neither should Starcraft. | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
| ||
|
brickrd
United States4894 Posts
On December 25 2014 23:53 JimmyJRaynor wrote: there is no 1 right answer for this. sooner or later you must draw the line in the minimum required physicality. it all depends on where you want to draw that arbitrary line. if you include Curling though then i think you SC qualifies as well. Curling has 50 year old world champions. flip side of this is.... If Curling is not physical enough and does not qualify then neither should Starcraft. it's not really that simple. you don't have to draw a line with physicality as the one and only criterion, and inclusion in the olympics is based on more than whether something is categorically a sport. baseball was removed and baseball is a sport by anyone's definition. | ||
|
Tuczniak
1561 Posts
| ||
|
SigmaoctanusIV
United States3313 Posts
| ||
|
Technique
Netherlands1542 Posts
But if you forget all the obvious issues... What game would it be? The problem is these games constantly change/get updated. You would have to decide on 1 game (a final version mind you - no more patches) and stick to that.... So that people can train in 4 year Olympic cycles, good luck finding a rts game which doesn't get stale in that scenario. And of course it should be a rts game, since fighting/fps genres and the like have real world physical counterpart that are much more appropriate for the Olympics. | ||
|
Starecat
940 Posts
| ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17151 Posts
On December 26 2014 00:01 brickrd wrote: it's not really that simple. you don't have to draw a line with physicality as the one and only criterion, and inclusion in the olympics is based on more than whether something is categorically a sport. baseball was removed and baseball is a sport by anyone's definition. right, there are 43857847 potential sports that can be put into the olympics. there has to be some limit due to logistics. i think 28 was the limit when baseball got dropped. that is the "official" IOC narrative. what it really boils down to is greasing the skids of the IOC. and the MLB and MLBPA was unwilling to do so and unwilling to pay to the insurance for the players.. something the NHL and NBA are willing to do... namely, pay for the player's insurance. the IOC refuses to pay for insurance for the players pro contracts. that's the reason baseball was dropped. If some software publisher really greases the IOC skids they could get their game into the olympics.\ it'd be obscene... but the IOC is all about kick backs and quid pro quo. | ||
|
Terah
Austria4 Posts
On December 25 2014 20:50 FanaticCZ wrote: Absolutely not. Olympics are about physical abilities so skinny nerds playing computer games dont really fit.  Sure the Beer-Belly Air-Pistol and Skeet shooters are the best Athletes in their Sport. But Code S level players keeping up their highest level of focus with an average of 300 APM matching up in BO-x Series which can last up to several hours are just skinny nerds. Or take a look at riding; the only reason why this is still in the olympics is because it was there even in the ancient olympic games - not because it is so demanding for the rider to jump over several obstacles. | ||
| ||
