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!
DustyLion said:
...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.
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
I was going to post something, but then I read this. Sums up my views pretty nicely.
As for games not taking skill or time to learn and transferring from one game to the other -- even in the same genre... yeah, wow... you have no idea what you're talking about dusty. Real world situation -- me, pretty damn good, I take out most other people in any FPS. Tournament -- people have stop watches and alarm clocks to time item spawns, memorized levels, actual game plans, etc., and well, I'm lucky if I get out of the first round of elimination. Being competitive takes time and effort. Playing online with random people is like playing a pickup game of football with your co-workers, being the best player, and then saying football takes no skill. That doesn't make any sense.
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.
Oh, I know that just 'cause the Olympics say it's a sport doesn't really mean much, I was just using it as leverage. People just assume that a "sport" must mean something that involves a bunch of dudes/dudettes running around, sweating everywhere, and tossing a ball everywhichway, but that drastically limits and denies respect to certain activities that certainly deserve it.
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.
First, there is a difference between skill and ability. Video games require just as much skill as sports, maybe more, but sports require more physical ability. In the first part of your argument, you say that sports require more skill because they require physical abilities, and then in the second part, you ignore that and say that "skills" don't transfer from one sport to another, when physical abilities like speed and agility transfer exceptionally well from one sport to another.
Also, speaking as a 3 sport school athlete, skills do transfer very well from one sport to another. If you can "read" the other player, it gives you just as much of an advantage in tennis as it does in soccer as it does in basketball. If you have good lateral motion skills, that will be an asset in tennis, and soccer, and basketball, and rugby. If you track and predict motion well, that will allow you to follow a soccer ball, and a football, and a basketball, and a tennis ball, and a badminton birdy, and a hockey puck and ect. Sure, working on your free-throws won't help you with your tennis serve, but many of the basic skills are the same.
And that same concept is true for video games. If you take a halo player, and stick him in COD, he will have most of the same basic skills, but he won't have the experience and advanced skills with the different mechanics. Yes, it's closer than a lot of sports, but it's pretty close to the differences between football and rugby.
Finally, if you put the same amount of time into a sport as you put into becoming good at a specific genre of video games(hundreds or even thousands of hours), you would also just as good at that sport, because endurance and strength and ect. are built up by practice as much as skills are. Pros are pros because they put a huge amount of time into it, no matter what your a pro at. If it was so easy to be a professional video game player, a lot more people would be, like me.
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.
Oh, I know that just 'cause the Olympics say it's a sport doesn't really mean much, I was just using it as leverage. People just assume that a "sport" must mean something that involves a bunch of dudes/dudettes running around, sweating everywhere, and tossing a ball everywhichway, but that drastically limits and denies respect to certain activities that certainly deserve it.
But how does calling something a sport entail giving it respect? That's like saying it's disrespectful to painting to not recognize it as music. They're both art, but they're in different categories -- categories that aren't of degree, but kind.
No.. A component of sports is that physical enhancement improves your game, or just being blessed with longer legs etc.
Which is why fishing and darts are not sports.
I get what you mean, but semantically it makes no sense.
Owyn_Merrilin said:
Jumplion said:
Staskala said:
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.
Oh, I know that just 'cause the Olympics say it's a sport doesn't really mean much, I was just using it as leverage. People just assume that a "sport" must mean something that involves a bunch of dudes/dudettes running around, sweating everywhere, and tossing a ball everywhichway, but that drastically limits and denies respect to certain activities that certainly deserve it.
But how does calling something a sport entail giving it respect? That's like saying it's disrespectful to painting to not recognize it as music. They're both art, but they're in different categories -- categories that aren't of degree, but kind.
In fairness it may be a copied assumption from people wanting cheerleading to be a sport. People assumed it was a pride thing, but legally it's better to have it a sport since injuries and safety regulations are different for things defined as sports. In the US<
There's no reason that games and sports couldn't be treated in a similar manner. Professional gamers and athletes probably spend an equal amount of time training, but what the gamer lacks in physical training is made up for in more strategic training.
We've treated Chess in a similar manner haven't we?
But how does calling something a sport entail giving it respect? That's like saying it's disrespectful to painting to not recognize it as music. They're both art, but they're in different categories -- categories that aren't of degree, but kind.
Uhhh, that analogy doesn't make much sense, and you answered your own question. They're both art. Switch "art" with "sports" and painting/music with "basketball/poker" and they're still both sports.
Can't something only be a sport when two opposing forces(individuals or teams) are more or less fighting against each other?
Football, Basketball, Baseball, Hockey, hell even Tennis makes the cut, as I'm sure a lot of other sports do that are as confrontational.
Things like Golf or Bowling though, are those really sports? In those it narrows down to your individual, unhindered performance. Take any golf tournament and create two equal golf courses, with one player on each. They both go through the course by themselves and get their scores, then compare at the end. Would that be ANY different to what they do now?
I never saw it as a sport because realistically you could record a session by yourself at a bowling alley or a golf course and nothing would be different because the other person can't do anything to oppose you or impede your progress. In football you can tackle the guy carrying the ball, in Tennis you're preventing the other guy from scoring while trying to score on him with every movement you make. Bowling and golf? They're literally just taking turns, and I can never see it as a sport because of that.
A competition absolutely, but nothing more than that.
But how does calling something a sport entail giving it respect? That's like saying it's disrespectful to painting to not recognize it as music. They're both art, but they're in different categories -- categories that aren't of degree, but kind.
Uhhh, that analogy doesn't make much sense, and you answered your own question. They're both art. Switch "art" with "sports" and painting/music with "basketball/poker" and they're still both sports.
No, you're missing the point; the equivalent word to "art" here is "games." Basketball and poker are both games, but one is a sport, and the other is a card/gambling/casino game. Should we call basketball a casino game because it has rules, a winner, and a loser? Or should we recognize that there are different categories of games? It's not a tough decision.
I don't think that they can't be sports, like football or baseball, or anything else since the only endurance-based thing that can be measured is your bladder endurance (joking aside, I don't see much as far as endurance in video games)
At the same time, I believe that there are some games that should be able to be counted for professional tournaments, like Starcraft (note, I don't consider things like Chess a sport).
Eh.. I don't see the comparison as a valid one. Sure your basketball skills don't translate into football skills, but neither do your Starcraft skills translate into Street Fighter skills.
I think it really depends on what you consider a sport. If you go by the ESPN definition where competitive but not physical things like poker and darts are considered sports then, absolutely yes, games are sports. If you go the definition that a sport requires some sort of full body physical exertion then, no, games are not sports.
If the question is can games be as competitive and mentally taxing, with an added level of physical interaction if not outright exertion then theres no question games are right up there. If you disagree, then you just haven't watched or been a part of high level gaming competitiion. Go back to that story posted here just today about Daigo's Chun Li super parry and watch the associated match video. That moment and, perhaps more importantly, the audience reaction should go a long way to changing your mind.
Dictionary.com --noun "1 - an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc."
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.
Sure, the shooting mechanics and the like may be universal, but so is the 'here is ball, there is goal, make ball go in goal' objective common among almost any sport. Kicking is a skill transferable from Football to American Football, and the mechanics of tennis and raquetball are also pretty similar.
The only way to get good at a sport is to play it for 'an extreme amount of time', and the way to become better than your opponents is to be creative with how you play this game. These things are done in both sports and E-sports. (Sydney Crosby's unique puck handling in Hockey which inspired a change in the game, and Spanishiwa's unique macro style in Starcraft 2 as two examples)
And the bit about sports taking more dedication to accomplish is nonsense, defeated by the example you quoted, Starcraft. These people have to play and get better, there is a reason I couldn't just play against a high ranked starcraft player and win, because they have made it a priority to prepare. The dedication it takes to prepare for these games is immense, you have to learn builds, work on developing multi-tasking as a skill, work on reflexes and quick thinking skills, etc.
Larry Bird once said that to get as good as he was he would shoot 1000 or so shots on a basket a day, if that isn't comparable to someone playing a video game an obscene amount of time then I don't know what to say.
Sports were originally designed to be 'fun' as well. They have other purposes, like developing applicable skills, but competition occurs in both sports and e-sports while both still remain fun.
To quote an example personal to me, I've done very difficult math exams and come out of them way more tired than doing personal training sessions which are extremely tiring physically.
And I've finished tough matches in video games like Starcraft 2 that were actually exhausting mentally.
Depends on how far you're taking the definition of sports. If we're talking sheer mental/strategic skill, then yeah, competitive gaming can be every bit as challenging as basketball, football, soccer and other sports.
Physically, though? Not even close. There's no denying that playing some games at the competitive level takes a certain amount of dexterity, but it's not even close to the level of athleticism required to participate in any other sport. It's kind of ridiculous to imply that it is.
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.
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.
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.
No, you're missing the point; the equivalent word to "art" here is "games." Basketball and poker are both games, but one is a sport, and the other is a card/gambling/casino game. Should we call basketball a casino game because it has rules, a winner, and a loser? Or should we recognize that there are different categories of games? It's not a tough decision.
Actually, they're both sports, poker even has its own national league and tournament.
Yes, they are different categories of games, I don't know why you're arguing this as I agree. A "basketball game" and a "casino game" are two different types of games, but they are still sports (at least the non-luck based ones). I really don't know what you're arguing here, you're making a faulty comparison. Art is a whole, it is not a bunch of specific things. Music and paintings make up art. Basketball and chess make up sports.
When you're thinking of sports, you're thinking that they must have physical exertion otherwise it's not a sport at all, but this is not the case. Any sort of game that takes some amount of skill to perform, whether that be mental or physical or whatever, could easily be classified as a sport. Roulette would not be a sport as it is based on luck. Poker takes skill, knowing when to bluff, and observing your opponents. It takes skill, regardless of whether a ball is being thrown around a court.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
