-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
HBO's 'Real Sports' panel laughs at eSports segment
- Thread starter element
- Start date
@bold: I dunno man. I'm sure the last minute of the previous knicks game killed a few brain cells
Do you know Daigo? Do you know what he does? Or are you saying you need scars to say you train vigorously?
esports is a silly term. Imagine the finger pushups those athletes do to stay in top gaming shape.
As far as spectating a game goes, I can't see it ever reaching the ubiquity of sports. The thing about a lot of these sports is that, while fine points have been redefined, the core hasn't changed much for them. Amazing feats in sports are amazing because we know how difficult it is to pull them off.
With games, new games and new versions are constantly being released, moving goalposts for players and viewers alike. Daigo's epic win wouldn't make any sense if you didn't have an understanding of SF3 mechanics; similar examples can probably be shown for LoL, DoTA and all those other games that people love to watch these days. It's a jarring experience if you never played the game, and when there's a new major competitive game out every other year or so I'd say it takes too much effort to continue following them.
As far as spectating a game goes, I can't see it ever reaching the ubiquity of sports. The thing about a lot of these sports is that, while fine points have been redefined, the core hasn't changed much for them. Amazing feats in sports are amazing because we know how difficult it is to pull them off.
With games, new games and new versions are constantly being released, moving goalposts for players and viewers alike. Daigo's epic win wouldn't make any sense if you didn't have an understanding of SF3 mechanics; similar examples can probably be shown for LoL, DoTA and all those other games that people love to watch these days. It's a jarring experience if you never played the game, and when there's a new major competitive game out every other year or so I'd say it takes too much effort to continue following them.
organized ball. how bout just a pick up game at any park in any town. those are just as physical, some times more, as an organized game.
TouchMyBox
Member
Well, I guess now that museums are acquiring video games into their collections, we need something to do with the passion left-over from arguing if video games are art or not.
Yeah that was a stupid comment because wtf are other sports? They are a fucking game as well. So it's stupid to just dismiss reports with that comment.
No.
Why do you think games put " the entertainment event of the season" in front of their stuff, you think this is a game?
No, it makes more money than every industry.
Slamtastic
Member
This is the crux of what I'm talking about.
This notion that because they experiences physical pain and tiredness, they and their activities are entitled to more respect, viewers, money, etc.
People who play games at a high level and put in plenty of their own hard work at them want those too, so they call themselves "athletes" playing an "esport".
It's less about giving money and viewers to LoL and Starcarft, it's about reevaluating fanaticism for football and basketball, and seeing them as games that anyone can play if they want, but some people play them better, same as with any competition.
ryutaro's mama
Member
Marketing, how does it work?
HiredN00bs
Banned
This is like watching a video in 1995 of a bunch of mailman laughing at e-mail.
ClassyPenguin
Banned
Oh god, science journalism is right up there with gaming journalism in terms of integrity. Holy shit balls.
ThatCrazyGuy
Member
Yea, I think the term is not apt as well. But then again, what other term could they use.
iamshadowlark
Banned
I would say that because it's true but I think people who don't follow the game would just think about the "games" they have in their driveway or something.
SomeOneInaHat
Member
Athletic sports are a laudible occasion as well. It's all just rediculousness, and that's why I love it. The fanfare is just so engrossing.
Marketing based of facts and then advertising those facts as selling points.
How does it work.
Its been making more money than everything for years.
YEARS.
how do you not know this?
Haha, that's pretty much it.
People are drawn to competition. It doesn't really matter what it is, as long as it's something you can practice at and get better than someone else at, and it gets the right marketing and advertisement, people will start caring about who might win, or who's the best at whatever.
Esports will likely become a mass-market popular thing at one point, but I think the best way to introduce it to the masses would be through something like Quake 1v1 matches.
The versatility, finesse, etc - the range of the Quake mechanics, or even something like the Delta Force 1-2-3 mechanics, allows the skill roof to be quite high, or it allowed a lot of room for improvement and practice. Something like Call of Duty has a, comparatively, very low skill-roof - the range of mechanics in CoD means that difference between a great, experienced player and a beginner isn't nearly as significant as in Quake or DF games.
One of the definitions of any competitive sport should be that an experienced player can, in general, absolutely dominate a beginner - ie, it has enough variables and complexity to allow a lot of room for improvement.
But, then again, I think there's another reason why the general public might have a hard time accepting "eSports" as something legitimate - every game, the graphics, rules, mechanics, interaction changes. Not to mention that balance is entirely up to the developers through patches. It's completely up to the developers of the game, who aren't affiliated with the current eSports scene, or have any ties to it, not any outside, general & enforceable, rules.
In order for eSports to have more legitimacy, there'd need to be a separate agency that is capable of accepting or not accepting certain games into a competitive league (Also a separate corporation.), has the power to make the developers fine-tune their game to make it correspond to whatever the rules are for certain games.
Right now, eSports just goes after whatever game that comes out, and that people play.
To make an eSports scene like this happen, though, there'd need to be some incentive for developers to want to do this - once there's enough money in eSports, though, it's probably very likely that they will.
The most efficient and likely way something like this will play out, though, is probably similar to how NFL works, or whatever it's called - an agency/corporation, probably a game-publisher, will create their own "competitive" games, leagues, set their own rules, allow anyone to play and practice with their game. Maybe they'd hire their own pro teams and let them play against each other, or maybe they'd just arrange the competitions where unaffiliated teams play against each other - ie, Coca Cola team, sponsored by Coca Cola, plays against Pepsi team, sponsored by Pepsi. Or official school teams. Winner gets money from the maker of the game. That's quite similar to how it works nowadays I suppose.
But games are created and limited by technology, which means that there are a bunch of variables involved. Graphics, means of interaction, mechanics, balance and so forth. This means that a separate corporation that sets and enforces the rules, and a corporation that hosts the game would have to enter the picture, or something similar - ie, publisher submits game to the corporation that hosts games for professional competition, the rules corporation decides whether or not it obeys the rules of whatever game category they submitted it to, and makes sure any necessary patches do so too. Why, or how, some separate corporations would have the power, or even the incentive to do so, I do not know.
Maybe one of them allows the game to broadcast matches on TV (Ie, major network channel.), but in order to do so, the game would have to follow the rules of that other corporation (Ie, pro gaming league that determines whether or not that game can be played professionally.). All though, one corporation that creates the games, sets the rules and maintains the pro competitive scene, with the teams being sponsored and trained by unaffiliated corporations or agencies, is probably the easiest way.
Basically, there needs to be a "set" game, with set rules, like Chess, or Poker, that the audience can get a good grasp of. But is there even any incentive to do so when the technology allows for so much variety?
Esports will likely become a mass-market popular thing at one point, but I think the best way to introduce it to the masses would be through something like Quake 1v1 matches.
The versatility, finesse, etc - the range of the Quake mechanics, or even something like the Delta Force 1-2-3 mechanics, allows the skill roof to be quite high, or it allowed a lot of room for improvement and practice. Something like Call of Duty has a, comparatively, very low skill-roof - the range of mechanics in CoD means that difference between a great, experienced player and a beginner isn't nearly as significant as in Quake or DF games.
One of the definitions of any competitive sport should be that an experienced player can, in general, absolutely dominate a beginner - ie, it has enough variables and complexity to allow a lot of room for improvement.
But, then again, I think there's another reason why the general public might have a hard time accepting "eSports" as something legitimate - every game, the graphics, rules, mechanics, interaction changes. Not to mention that balance is entirely up to the developers through patches. It's completely up to the developers of the game, who aren't affiliated with the current eSports scene, or have any ties to it, not any outside, general & enforceable, rules.
In order for eSports to have more legitimacy, there'd need to be a separate agency that is capable of accepting or not accepting certain games into a competitive league (Also a separate corporation.), has the power to make the developers fine-tune their game to make it correspond to whatever the rules are for certain games.
Right now, eSports just goes after whatever game that comes out, and that people play.
To make an eSports scene like this happen, though, there'd need to be some incentive for developers to want to do this - once there's enough money in eSports, though, it's probably very likely that they will.
The most efficient and likely way something like this will play out, though, is probably similar to how NFL works, or whatever it's called - an agency/corporation, probably a game-publisher, will create their own "competitive" games, leagues, set their own rules, allow anyone to play and practice with their game. Maybe they'd hire their own pro teams and let them play against each other, or maybe they'd just arrange the competitions where unaffiliated teams play against each other - ie, Coca Cola team, sponsored by Coca Cola, plays against Pepsi team, sponsored by Pepsi. Or official school teams. Winner gets money from the maker of the game. That's quite similar to how it works nowadays I suppose.
But games are created and limited by technology, which means that there are a bunch of variables involved. Graphics, means of interaction, mechanics, balance and so forth. This means that a separate corporation that sets and enforces the rules, and a corporation that hosts the game would have to enter the picture, or something similar - ie, publisher submits game to the corporation that hosts games for professional competition, the rules corporation decides whether or not it obeys the rules of whatever game category they submitted it to, and makes sure any necessary patches do so too. Why, or how, some separate corporations would have the power, or even the incentive to do so, I do not know.
Maybe one of them allows the game to broadcast matches on TV (Ie, major network channel.), but in order to do so, the game would have to follow the rules of that other corporation (Ie, pro gaming league that determines whether or not that game can be played professionally.). All though, one corporation that creates the games, sets the rules and maintains the pro competitive scene, with the teams being sponsored and trained by unaffiliated corporations or agencies, is probably the easiest way.
Basically, there needs to be a "set" game, with set rules, like Chess, or Poker, that the audience can get a good grasp of. But is there even any incentive to do so when the technology allows for so much variety?
sleeping_dragon
Banned
Well at least once the esport athlete retire they will become a doctor or electrical engineer which actually contribute something to society unlike some real athlete who live on the street.
I really don't understand how groups of gamers can get so incessant about needing their hobby/consoles/whatever constantly validated or put into every damn box on earth.
Video Games are Art!
Video Games are Movies!
Video Games are sports!
Can't video games just be, you know, video games?
TyrantGuardian
Member
Old men... running the world. Savage.
What a joke panel. At least the hosts were trying to inject some logic into the discussion, unfortunately to no avail.
What a joke panel. At least the hosts were trying to inject some logic into the discussion, unfortunately to no avail.
"Sport (or sports) is all forms of usually competitive physical activity which,[1] through casual or organised participation, aim to use, maintain or improve physical ability and skills while providing entertainment to participants, and in some cases, spectators."
Seriously?
Video games are( can be ) all those things.
Its 2013 .
Entertainment does not have to be limited to one thing.
Entertainment is fluid.
The_Hitcher89
Member
Its not for me personally, but those panelists come across as a right bunch of twats
Definition
The precise definition of what separates a sport from other leisure activities varies between sources. The closest to an international agreement on a definition is provided by SportAccord, which is the association for all the largest international sports federations (including association football, athletics, cycling, tennis, equestrian sports and more), and is therefore the de facto representative of international sport.
SportAccord uses the following criteria, determining that a sport should:[1]
have an element of competition
be in no way harmful to any living creature
not rely on equipment provided by a single supplier (excluding proprietary games such as arena football)
not rely on any "luck" element specifically designed into the sport
Seriously?
shadowstar
Member
The dexterity required is a physical part of the activity. Not everyone has the apm or finger dexterity required to perform at that level.
Along with dexterity muscle memory is what seperates pro game players from average players.
if you don't think muscle memory is physical, well...I don't know what to tell you
Entertainment is fluid, video games are video games.
seriously? most games considered sports are quite harmful to many living creatures. football, futbol, basketball, hockey, racing, rugby, lacrosse, you name it competitors and in many cases spectators get injured during events. the sportaccord guidelines seem like crap to me sorry.
RealityPales
Member
That's not exactly how it went down. Bryant Gumbel and Soledad O'Brien (among others) defended it, whereas a vocal minority of the panel disagreed. Lets not prematurely equip the pitchforks.
FunkyMunkey
Banned
It's not a sport. Just because it's competitive doesn't make it a sport.
Remind me of this sketch about Star Wars and Sports
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIUQw1w5OqM
A sport is anything you can play competitively. Sure, video games are not Athletic sports, but I'm pretty sure you give Usain Bolt a mouse and a Keyboard and you put it in a Starcraft match or Moba match and he would get destroyed.
Chess is considered a sport also.
"Sport is generally recognised as activities which are based in physical athleticism or physical dexterity, with the largest major competitions such as the Olympic Games admitting only sports meeting this definition,[3] and other organisations such as the Council of Europe using definitions precluding activities without a physical element from classification as sports."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIUQw1w5OqM
A sport is anything you can play competitively. Sure, video games are not Athletic sports, but I'm pretty sure you give Usain Bolt a mouse and a Keyboard and you put it in a Starcraft match or Moba match and he would get destroyed.
Chess is considered a sport also.
"Sport is generally recognised as activities which are based in physical athleticism or physical dexterity, with the largest major competitions such as the Olympic Games admitting only sports meeting this definition,[3] and other organisations such as the Council of Europe using definitions precluding activities without a physical element from classification as sports."
Burgerface
Neo Member
They are just mad because more people watch this "game" then their crap sports program.
As long as the balls/equipment aren't made from animal parts then there is no harm to living creatures inherent to the sports.
Spectators getting harmed is in no way inherent to the games, that has everything to do with the alcohol and team fanaticism that is sometimes prominent.
The players getting harmed is another thing, but the players aren't supposed to have lasting physical harm from playing sports.
I agree that the not harming physical animals thing is silly criteria for a sport, but this is an international set of rules and there clearly must be some places in the world that consider that a necessary criteria for a sport.
Why compare it to chess or poker, those are basically purely mind sports. Actually competitive gaming requires physical dexterity, like reaction times and hand eye coordination, if target shooting, golf, pool and snooker can be considered sports so can competitive online games. If you like them or not is a different story...........
Maidenpool?
Member
Those same skills are needed to play Jeopardy... So is Jeopardy now a sport too?
When we think of sports, we think of a physical competition using your muscles to some degree,(and yes racing is a sport, f1 drivers lose around ten lbs a race and are in top shape) with or without teammates, ideally battling the conditions.
The image of some guy hunched over in front of a giant screen, cussing like a twelve year old who has had too much sugar doesn't inspire any confidence, nor does it come close to resembling a true "sport."
shadowstar
Member
That is not true though. What you typed is useless since you started it off with a joke that holds no facts. There is precision, timing, aim, and other things that go into the type of dexterity required for high level gaming.
The definition by SportAccord is crap really.The only thing they got right is the competitive aspect of it.
" be in no way harmful to any living creature" That's a definition for humanism, not sport. Do you consider boxing as sport?
" not rely on equipment provided by a single supplier" That's a definition of capitalism, not sport. If all the players agree on the equipment, it become part of the rules.
" not rely on any "luck" element specifically designed into the sport" And why not? I don't see why having a random element thrown in be against sport. Rugby balls are shaped that way so they can bounce randomly on the field. Unless that is you don't think rugby is a sport.
SportAccord definition is more the definition of what a correct modern sport should be, in addition to being a just a sport.
I'll quote myself:
We can argue about the physical fitness needed for videogames, but that's the only thing from keeping it from the sport definition. Do esports require physical fitness?