Can "e-sports" = real sports?

[DustyLion]

I recently had this argument with a competitive Team Fortress 2 player. His basis was that video games are a "skill" every bit as skillful as any tangible competition. You practice, you play, you win or you lose.

I felt otherwise, my reasoning being that the amount of dedication and endurance needed to be good at a game is very small compared to the kind of effort needed to become good at a physical sport. Even the extreme cases such as Korean Star-Craft the effort is simply playing a game for a extreme amount of time. Games are designed to be "fun" to play and keep you engaged. A sport is a competition, you can enjoy playing it, but its not specifically designed to keep you hooked as a player.

Also most fundamental gaming skills are universal,how many ways can first person shooters be reinvented? Strategy games? The same basic concepts are nearly universal. If you try to apply (American) Football skills to Basket Ball it doesn't work. You can't have a rugby team play Soccer (Rest Of The World Football) and except them to competitive. In Video games you can take a Call of Duty player and put him in Bad Company 2 and he'll still get along realitively well.

Now I'm not saying Games don't take skill. That would be a incredibly ignorant assumption. You have good players and bad players, if you compete in MLG or Game Battles you have practice, so yeah it works kind of like a sport. But over all effort put into it doesn't really match the effort needed to perform in a real life competition. Be it physical like a sport, or mental such as Chess.

 

[Neuromaster]

...the amount of dedication and endurance needed to be good at a game is very small compared to the kind of effort needed to become good at a physical sport. Even the extreme cases such as Korean Star-Craft the effort is simply playing a game for a extreme amount of time. Games are designed to be "fun" to play and keep you engaged. A sport is a competition, you can enjoy playing it, but its not specifically designed to keep you hooked as a player.

Starcraft is a good example here. I see no reason why basketball is any less "fun" than Starcraft, and I'll wager that the average NCAA basketballer spends considerably fewer hours a week practicing than the average Korean pro-gamer. At high levels of SC and SCII at least, I don't buy the "dedication and endurance" thing. And trust me, when you're practicing 60+ hrs/week, it's not because the game was so well-designed and "hooked" you.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

I say they can't be sports, but not for the reasons listed in the OP. A sport is an athletic contest; since games are not athletic, they cannot be sports. Think about it -- has anybody ever called chess a sport? At high levels, it's at least as competitive as pro sports, and it requires a lifetime of study and practice to get to that point. But nobody considers it a sport.

 

[HumpinHop]

I don't think they can be strictly in the same category.

Video game sports come down to holding a controller or a keyboard, but the real energy is spent on mental decisions and reflexes.

Real sports come down to physical exertion and often split-second decisions, so the real energy is spent on your muscles and breathing.

That isn't to say you don't have to work your fingers down to the bone typing (believe me I've seen Korean SC2), or that real sports come down to who has stronger guys, but to me there's a distinctive line that separates them.

EDIT: Ammendum. I've always held the belief that a true sport is a physical and mental competition between opposing teams. Video games cover only the mental aspect (for the most part) so I would say they are more of a competition than they are a sport. But bare in mind I also exclude Golf and Fishing from the category of sports, hell I'd consider Chess as a sport before I thought of Golf as one.

 

[DeadlyYellow]

Eh. I'm one of those people that classify sports as competitions of physical prowess and skill. Classic definition is either of those two criteria, so competitions of mental capacity are technically sports whether I regard them as such or not.

 

[Jumplion]

With no offense to you, I do find your argument quite flawed and I will go step by step to explain why (not trying to patronize you, just going through). That and my keyboard fingers are itchy, so here we go!

...I felt otherwise, my reasoning being that the amount of dedication and endurance needed to be good at a game is very small compared to the kind of effort needed to become good at a physical sport.

I would say otherwise, as it takes much effort to memorize maps, units, costs, strategies, etc... depending on the type of game. Simply because you haven't played any game competitively does not mean that it takes a small amount of effort. Pro-gamers practice for hours on end, learning every trick, every tactic, and every maneuver they can do to outwit their opponents.

Just because football requires more physical exertion doesn't make the mental exertion that video games make you do any less significant. Chess is an excellent example of this.

Even the extreme cases such as Korean Star-Craft the effort is simply playing a game for a extreme amount of time.

So? Replace "Korean StarCraft" with any other sport (Basketball, baseball, even chess) and you get the exact same thing. Competitive sports are just an "extreme" version of the regular game as, yes, they are just simple games turned competitive.

Games are designed to be "fun" to play and keep you engaged. A sport is a competition, you can enjoy playing it, but its not specifically designed to keep you hooked as a player.

So is basketball, baseball, chess, and many other games. Doesn't make it any less enjoyable to be in competition, nor does it make it any less of a sport that you don't have to be competitive in it. Sports must first be games to become competitive sports.

Also most fundamental gaming skills are universal,how many ways can first person shooters be reinvented? Strategy games? The same basic concepts are nearly universal. If you try to apply (American) Football skills to Basket Ball it doesn't work. You can't have a rugby team play Soccer (Rest Of The World Football) and except them to competitive. In Video games you can take a Call of Duty player and put him in Bad Company 2 and he'll still get along realitively well.

Most fundamental sport skills, like dribbling, throwing balls, whacking another ball, kicking, etc... are universal skills as well. Professional athletes just specialize and hone those skills to perform competitively.

I don't think you realize that you answered your own statement in that paragraph. It is flawed because you are comparing two entirely different sports (Football and Basketball) yet you compare two similar games (CoD and Battlefield). That's because they are entirely different types of games. Exactly how there are differences between FPSs, Strategy games, fighting games, etc... Each sport can have varying rules within those, making the different types of FPSs.

Spoiler: For space, here's a revised paragraph

If you try to apply Call of Duty skills to StarCraft II it doesn't work. You can't have a Street Fighter team play Forza Motersport and except them to competitive. In sports you can take a Football player and put him in Rugby and he'll still get along relatively well.

Now I'm not saying Games don't take skill. That would be a incredibly ignorant assumption. You have good players and bad players, if you compete in MLG or Game Battles you have practice, so yeah it works kind of like a sport. But over all effort put into it doesn't really match the effort needed to perform in a real life competition. Be it physical like a sport, or mental such as Chess.

But you can't know that, considering that you've never played competitively. I haven't either, but many teams go for days of constant practice, day in day out, over and over to hone their skills. Just because it doesn't seem like they don't take much effort doesn't mean it doesn't take effort. Go and try to be competitive at Street Fighter, I guarantee you it will take you months if not years to master every skill you can just to compete in the big leagues. It takes dedication to go pro.

But regardless, my whole opinion on Professional Video Gaming is; go for it. If you can make money off of doing something you love, by all means more power to you. It's great that you found your calling, and can make a living off of it as well. Many people would love to get paid to collect stamps or streak down the street naked (okay, maybe just me...). Just because it doesn't require anythign inantely physical does not mean that it cannot be played competitively

 

[deathninja]

Both disciplines require dedication and skill, but I'm inclined to separate (predominantly) mental and physical pursuits. While college football took a lot of time in both gym drills and classroom sessions, most sports fall heavily under one banner or the other.

 

[CrustyOatmeal]

Also most fundamental gaming skills are universal,how many ways can first person shooters be reinvented? Strategy games? The same basic concepts are nearly universal. If you try to apply (American) Football skills to Basket Ball it doesn't work. You can't have a rugby team play Soccer (Rest Of The World Football) and except them to competitive. In Video games you can take a Call of Duty player and put him in Bad Company 2 and he'll still get along realitively well

this is a horrible example. you compare american football players to basketball and then pro FPS players to another FPS? in order for this example to be correct you would have to say you can take a pro starcraft 2 player and put him in a CoD4 tournament and have him compete at the same level as the pros in that genre. each genre (FPS, sports, action, RTS, turn based games...) has its own skills it requires to be good

if you watch the pro sc2 games and fallow the competitions you would understand that the game is extremely difficult to master and all it takes is one small mistake in form and you loose a game, just like in chess or basketball, one mistake can mean the difference between victory and defeat. i just feel the term "sport" has been associated with physical sports too much to where average people cannot discern the difference between the two and thus calling anything non-physical in nature a "sport" does not compute for them

 

[Jumplion]

I say they can't be sports, but not for the reasons listed in the OP. A sport is an athletic contest; since games are not athletic, they cannot be sports. Think about it -- has anybody ever called chess a sport? At high levels, it's at least as competitive as pro sports, and it requires a lifetime of study and practice to get to that point. But nobody considers it a sport.

Plenty of people [http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_chess_a_game_or_sport] consider it a sport. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess] (middle of 3rd paragraph)

 

[MellowFellow]

...the amount of dedication and endurance needed to be good at a game is very small compared to the kind of effort needed to become good at a physical sport. Even the extreme cases such as Korean Star-Craft the effort is simply playing a game for a extreme amount of time. Games are designed to be "fun" to play and keep you engaged. A sport is a competition, you can enjoy playing it, but its not specifically designed to keep you hooked as a player.

Starcraft is a good example here. I see no reason why basketball is any less "fun" than Starcraft, and I'll wager that the average NCAA basketballer spends considerably fewer hours a week practicing than the average Korean pro-gamer. At high levels of SC and SCII at least, I don't buy the "dedication and endurance" thing. And trust me, when you're practicing 60+ hrs/week, it's not because the game was so well-designed and "hooked" you.

Your comparison with the NCAA doesn't really work because the NCAA, I believe, limits the amount of time teams can practice together, or at least with their coaches.

To become a pro at either is obviously hard and takes a lot of practice, but to be a pro in a sport, you also have to get a little lucky with the type of body you are given. Two guys could be on a equal level skill-wise in basketball, but if one is only 5ft 10in and the other is 6ft 5in, the taller player has WAY better shot at making it into the NBA.

Anyways, I have always viewed a sport as being something that requires physical and mental abilities. Video games don't apply to the physical part, so I don't think I will ever consider them a sport.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

I say they can't be sports, but not for the reasons listed in the OP. A sport is an athletic contest; since games are not athletic, they cannot be sports. Think about it -- has anybody ever called chess a sport? At high levels, it's at least as competitive as pro sports, and it requires a lifetime of study and practice to get to that point. But nobody considers it a sport.

Plenty of people [http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_chess_a_game_or_sport] consider it a sport. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess] (middle of 3rd paragraph)

If I had to guess, I'd say that's a quirk of including it in the Olympics; calling chess a sport is stretching it further than calling darts or bowling sports, and people tend to snicker when those games get called sports.

 

[Jumplion]

To become a pro at either is obviously hard and takes a lot of practice, but to be a pro in a sport, you also have to get a little lucky with the type of body you are given. Two guys could be on a equal level skill-wise in basketball, but if one is only 5ft 10in and the other is 6ft 5in, the taller player has WAY better shot at making it into the NBA.

Depending on the video game, your mental capacity to asses situations and do split-second decisions can also make or break your chances, or match, or whatever.

Anyways, I have always viewed a sport as being something that requires physical and mental abilities. Video games don't apply to the physical part, so I don't think I will ever consider them a sport.

I would say that Chess is considered a sport, but since it's your own personal definition I can't really change that. Sooooo, whatever.

 

[Neuromaster]

Your comparison with the NCAA doesn't really work because the NCAA, I believe, limits the amount of time teams can practice together, or at least with their coaches.

To become a pro at either is obviously hard and takes a lot of practice, but to be a pro in a sport, you also have to get a little lucky with the type of body you are given. Two guys could be on a equal level skill-wise in basketball, but if one is only 5ft 10in and the other is 6ft 5in, the taller player has WAY better shot at making it into the NBA.

Anyways, I have always viewed a sport as being something that requires physical and mental abilities. Video games don't apply to the physical part, so I don't think I will ever consider them a sport.

I recently had this argument with a competitive Team Fortress 2 player. His basis was that video games are a "skill" every bit as skillful as any tangible competition. You practice, you play, you win or you lose.

If it comes down to athleticism, no e-sports obviously don't qualify. Nobody's arguing that; if they were, it'd be /thread pretty damn quickly. The more interesting question is the one the OP brought up - the question of skill. As far as that's concerned I'd easily lump e-sports in with games of skill like chess or poker.

 

[Jumplion]

I say they can't be sports, but not for the reasons listed in the OP. A sport is an athletic contest; since games are not athletic, they cannot be sports. Think about it -- has anybody ever called chess a sport? At high levels, it's at least as competitive as pro sports, and it requires a lifetime of study and practice to get to that point. But nobody considers it a sport.

Plenty of people [http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_chess_a_game_or_sport] consider it a sport. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess] (middle of 3rd paragraph)

If I had to guess, I'd say that's a quirk of including it in the Olympics; calling chess a sport is stretching it further than calling darts or bowling sports, and people tend to snicker when those games get called sports.

How is bowling not a sport? It's athletic, just like you, and many others, required? It requires practice and dedication, honing "universal skills" (throwing a ball) as the OP required, and it can be played competitively with teams.

I mean, sure, they may not be one of the better-known/most-played sports out there, but just because it's not as physical as (American) football or (Rest of the world) football doesn't make them any less of a sport.

Going "Oh sure, it may take years upon years to learn and master the art of chess, dedicating much time and learning towards new strategies and becoming a professional Chess player. But it's not a sport!" is pretty insulting to those who have dedicated themselves to mastering the game.

 

[MrStab]

If they were considered a real sport do you think they would be classified as "E-sports?". No they wouldn't because a sport is a physical competition, which isn't to say that professional gamers shouldn't get praise because they should that shit is intense they'll just never be on the same stage and that in my opinion is the way it should be.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

I say they can't be sports, but not for the reasons listed in the OP. A sport is an athletic contest; since games are not athletic, they cannot be sports. Think about it -- has anybody ever called chess a sport? At high levels, it's at least as competitive as pro sports, and it requires a lifetime of study and practice to get to that point. But nobody considers it a sport.

Plenty of people [http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_chess_a_game_or_sport] consider it a sport. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess] (middle of 3rd paragraph)

If I had to guess, I'd say that's a quirk of including it in the Olympics; calling chess a sport is stretching it further than calling darts or bowling sports, and people tend to snicker when those games get called sports.

How is bowling not a sport? It's athletic, just like you, and many others, required? It requires practice and dedication, honing "universal skills" (throwing a ball) as the OP required, and it can be played competitively with teams.

I mean, sure, they may not be one of the better-known/most-played sports out there, but just because it's not as physical as (American) football or (Rest of the world) football doesn't make them any less of a sport.

It is, but it's on the extreme end of what can be called a sport; note I didn't say that I didn't consider it a sport, just that people tend to snicker when it gets mentioned as a sport.

Edit: As for your edit: there is nothing insulting about calling a spade a spade. Just because something takes years of dedication to be at the top level doesn't make it a sport. Otherwise, musicians would be athletes, and my highschool music department would have been funded just as well as the sports department -- and the rest of the department would have been funded as well as the band, which gets first dibs because of its connection to the football team.

 

[Jumplion]

I say they can't be sports, but not for the reasons listed in the OP. A sport is an athletic contest; since games are not athletic, they cannot be sports. Think about it -- has anybody ever called chess a sport? At high levels, it's at least as competitive as pro sports, and it requires a lifetime of study and practice to get to that point. But nobody considers it a sport.

Plenty of people [http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_chess_a_game_or_sport] consider it a sport. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess] (middle of 3rd paragraph)

If I had to guess, I'd say that's a quirk of including it in the Olympics; calling chess a sport is stretching it further than calling darts or bowling sports, and people tend to snicker when those games get called sports.

How is bowling not a sport? It's athletic, just like you, and many others, required? It requires practice and dedication, honing "universal skills" (throwing a ball) as the OP required, and it can be played competitively with teams.

I mean, sure, they may not be one of the better-known/most-played sports out there, but just because it's not as physical as (American) football or (Rest of the world) football doesn't make them any less of a sport.

It is, but it's on the extreme end of what can be called a sport; note I didn't say that I didn't consider it a sport, just that people tend to snicker when it gets mentioned as a sport.

Doesn't make it any less of a sport. It may not be in the "pop culture" of sports, but it's a sport nonetheless no matter whether people think it's silly compared to the "real" sports like football or basketball.

 

[ciancon]

Without resorting to a text-dump;

I'd say that only strategy videogames = real life strategy games e.g. Chess (it's a sport i swear!)

Videogames can be as tense and thrilling as physical games, but nowhere near as taxing.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I'd say competitive video gaming is a bit of a gray area. There is some physicality to it, some people are better at maneuvering their fingers around a controller or keyboard than others, and you can practice and train to become better at it. It does take quick reflexes to play many video games just like it takes quick reflexes to play baseball. And, of course, video games require all the mental thinking of traditional sports as well.

A game like chess is all mental; if you wanted to, you could have someone else move the pieces for you, you'd just tell them where to move them. There's absolutely no physicality involved. Someone doesn't beat you in chess because they were better at physically moving the chess pieces than you. I think video games are more sport-like than chess. And I am not arguing for or against chess to be a sport or not, just saying it doesn't require any physical skill.

 

[Staskala]

How is bowling not a sport? It's athletic, just like you, and many others, required? It requires practice and dedication, honing "universal skills" (throwing a ball) as the OP required, and it can be played competitively with teams.

I mean, sure, they may not be one of the better-known/most-played sports out there, but just because it's not as physical as (American) football or (Rest of the world) football doesn't make them any less of a sport.

Going "Oh sure, it may take years upon years to learn and master the art of chess, dedicating much time and learning towards new strategies and becoming a professional Chess player. But it's not a sport!" is pretty insulting to those who have dedicated themselves to mastering the game.

As a former somewhat "professional" chess player I can only say that we don't really consider it a sport, or rather, not part of the same group as physical sports. We really need more diverse terms, rather than a single umbrella term for all activities that somehow involve competition.

Anyway, you can make a sport out of anything as long as it has rules, requires some sort of skill (otherwise it would only require luck) and competition, that's how it has always been.
People invent new sports all the time, it doesn't take recognition by the Olympic Committee to turn something into a sport.
Physical activities, board games, card games and whatnot have all been turned into sports, I don't see why e-sports should be an exception.