Forums › Off Topic › The Debate Forum › Should E-Sports really be cons...
🌙

Should E-Sports really be considered a sport?

Started by: Chaotic Penguin | Replies: 98 | Views: 10,489

Not_Nish
2

Posts: 10,837
Joined: Mar 2010
Rep: 10

View Profile
May 29, 2015 2:14 PM #1367083
Quote from Exilement
that really isn't the point of demonstrating an example of physical dexterity in gaming. I doubt someone practicing billiards for an hour and a half will be fatigued, it's still a sport. same with motorsports.


True, which is why I have a problem with E-sports and Chess being "disqualified" as sports solely because it doesn't fall under the rigid definitions of what one person considers a sport. Its like when old time filmmakers used to say animation will never be "true cinema" and it was just for kids. I'm willing to bet that no one on this forum would scoff at the notion of animation being a cinematic artform.
Exile
Administrator
2

Posts: 8,404
Joined: Dec 2005
Rep: 10

View Profile
May 29, 2015 3:02 PM #1367100
The simple fact is that many people equate sports with physical performance in a way that's categorically different from anything anyone can do with a controller. These same people seem to think that by calling competitive gaming a sport, it diminishes the physical conditioning necessary for sports like american football or whatever.

The argument essentially goes 'gamers aren't athletes, so what they do isn't a sport'. It's a fairly reasonable view but I can't see why they also must inherently refuse to acknowledge that gaming at a professional level requires the kind of extreme dedication that athletics require. It's a different discipline but one that many people are still very dedicated to. That plus the large-scale promotion and organization of these events leads some people to see it as a sport in its own right. Not an athletic sport, but one that does require extreme physical dexterity and reflexes and is just as competitive as any other sport. I don't see how this is so controversial unless someone inherently sees sports and athletics as inseparable.
Not_Nish
2

Posts: 10,837
Joined: Mar 2010
Rep: 10

View Profile
May 29, 2015 3:14 PM #1367104
Which is also the problem I have with Chess being disqualified by Externus. Surely, if entire sporting bodies are willing to determine it as a sport, then the definition of sport is changing and fluid? I'm not sure if its within the Debate Thread rules to deny a proven, established fact just so that your current argument makes more sense.

If Chess is a sport, then E-sports must be too. If Chess is not a sport, I need concrete reasons why Olympic committees and sporting federation classify it as a sport when they understand the concept of sports a 1000 times better than we do.

Thats like saying a platypus isn't a mammal despite every naturalist saying it is because "I don't think it should be one".
Externus
2

Posts: 673
Joined: Feb 2013
Rep: 10

View Profile
May 29, 2015 7:54 PM #1367180
Quote from Nish
Which is also the problem I have with Chess being disqualified by Externus. Surely, if entire sporting bodies are willing to determine it as a sport, then the definition of sport is changing and fluid? I'm not sure if its within the Debate Thread rules to deny a proven, established fact just so that your current argument makes more sense.

If Chess is a sport, then E-sports must be too. If Chess is not a sport, I need concrete reasons why Olympic committees and sporting federation classify it as a sport when they understand the concept of sports a 1000 times better than we do.

Thats like saying a platypus isn't a mammal despite every naturalist saying it is because "I don't think it should be one".


I'd suggest you stop Strawman-ing everything. "Rigid definition of what one person considers a sport." "That's like saying a platypus isn't a mammal despite every naturalist saying it is because 'I don't think it should be one.'" It's quite the contrary. More definitions of sport disagree with you. You're the one who's fighting the majority. It's not based off of any of my personal opinions. In fact, I don't recall using any of my opinion as part of my argument. I've only used definitions, and aporias within counter-arguments.

Also, I've argued against why people consider Chess a sport. Regardless, giving you the benefit of the doubt and using the definition of sport which Exile gave (which WOULD include Chess), it still wouldn't include E-Sports. Again, I've literally lost entire games so many times due to an unfortunate spawn or two, or having a shotgun fire a spread which cannot be predicted. I've lost due to reasons that are up to no one. That constitutes that the game has a luck element. A completely fair game is hard to come by, and you won't find it in your traditional E-Sports games, such as Hearthstone, Call of Duty, Halo, DOTA, and many other games. Even being on one team versus another makes a complete difference, because maps aren't always symmetrical. They don't fit the bill.

I'm not using a 'rigid' definition. I'm using a definition which would include Chess, and E-Sports are still not included. Even though this definition is still weaker as opposed to the traditional definition, E-Sports STILL doesn't count as a sport.

Also, because the Olympic Committee said it was a sport doesn't immediately dictate that Chess is a sport. Everyone is still debating it, regardless of their arbitrary decision to call it a sport.
Cook

Posts: 5,155
Joined: Nov 2009
Rep: 10

View Profile
May 29, 2015 8:08 PM #1367184
Quote from Scarecrow
you can't dismiss all possibility of skill being involved purely based on the fact that there are some random variables involved.


but videogames are inherently random, it's part of what makes them replayable.

There aren't "some" random variables in video games. Almost everything is random.

Let's look at CSGO.

Where you spawn is random. I know it doesn't sound like much, but a second or two can make a world of difference when it comes to getting to AWPing spots before the other team's shooter does.

Now weapon spreads. Sure, pro players will actually memorize how the weapons spread, but there's a random element to how they spread. Again, you can randomly kill somebody. Entire tournaments have been won because a guy heard a player on the other side of a wall, and hipfired an AWP, a one hit kill gun with a random hipfire spread, into that wall, and hit the dude and killed him. By random.

Also, the fact that these games use 64, or 128tic servers or whatever mean that some of the shots you make don't land. Glitches in games are just a part of playing them, like I personally have a huge thing with CSGO because on vanilla servers your shotguns will literally not register.

Like, you need random elements in a competitive video game so that it doesn't turn into a board game, and that there's suspense and excitement, but you can't have that in a professional setting.

Like, if they gave the AWP a crosshair and lazer accuracy it would be much less bullshitty because "oh, he aimed and killed me", but it'd ruin the game because everybody would use it, and it'd turn into insta-gib sim2000, kind of what Unreal Tournament competitions turn into, because the hitscan lazer guns are perfect because as a pro player you can rely 100% on your accuracy.
Not_Nish
2

Posts: 10,837
Joined: Mar 2010
Rep: 10

View Profile
May 29, 2015 8:50 PM #1367191
Cook, are you arguing that select videogames cannot be a sport? Or are you arguing that a videogame can NEVER be a sport? It is unclear because you're using only very specific examples that work to your favour to argue your point.

Quote from Externus
I'd suggest you stop Strawman-ing everything. "Rigid definition of what one person considers a sport." "That's like saying a platypus isn't a mammal despite every naturalist saying it is because 'I don't think it should be one.'" It's quite the contrary. More definitions of sport disagree with you. You're the one who's fighting the majority. It's not based off of any of my personal opinions. In fact, I don't recall using any of my opinion as part of my argument. I've only used definitions, and aporias within counter-arguments.

Also, I've argued against why people consider Chess a sport. Regardless, giving you the benefit of the doubt and using the definition of sport which Exile gave (which WOULD include Chess), it still wouldn't include E-Sports. Again, I've literally lost entire games so many times due to an unfortunate spawn or two, or having a shotgun fire a spread which cannot be predicted. I've lost due to reasons that are up to no one. That constitutes that the game has a luck element. A completely fair game is hard to come by, and you won't find it in your traditional E-Sports games, such as Hearthstone, Call of Duty, Halo, DOTA, and many other games. Even being on one team versus another makes a complete difference, because maps aren't always symmetrical. They don't fit the bill.

I'm not using a 'rigid' definition. I'm using a definition which would include Chess, and E-Sports are still not included. Even though this definition is still weaker as opposed to the traditional definition, E-Sports STILL doesn't count as a sport.

Also, because the Olympic Committee said it was a sport doesn't immediately dictate that Chess is a sport. Everyone is still debating it, regardless of their arbitrary decision to call it a sport.


I'll tell you why you're wrong in a few sentences.

The verdict right now OFFICIALLY among sporting bodies is that chess is a sport. Hence, any argument against Chess being a sport must make a convincing enough argument that it isn't one based on facts rather than personal opinions. Since Chess is officially a sport, despite all these invisible people whom you claim deny it's place as a sport (people who have no standing in any official sporting capacity btw) that automatically means that the 'physical dependency' rule that you have imposed (and claim that the 'majority' impose, despite providing no proof of this claim) is null and void and that mentally and strategically taxing games can also be termed sports. Hence, E-Sports can be considered sports.

When you say "more definitions disagree with you", you're completely discounting exceptions. If an exception can be made for chess, it can be made for E-sports too. Thats why I used the platypus example. It seems to be a mammal, but it lays eggs, something which NO OTHER mammal does. Do we disqualify it as a mammal? No, we call it one, and make the exception. If we discover 2-3 more animals exactly like the platypus (has fur, produces milk BUT lays eggs) are we going to call those animals reptiles instead of mammals? No. We'd call them mammals too.
Exile
Administrator
2

Posts: 8,404
Joined: Dec 2005
Rep: 10

View Profile
May 29, 2015 9:18 PM #1367202
Quote from Nish
Thats why I used the platypus example. It seems to be a mammal, but it lays eggs, something which NO OTHER mammal does.


Except for 4 species of echidna and several other extinct species.

Quote from Nish
Do we disqualify it as a mammal?


No, because egg-laying isn't a disqualifying factor for being classified as a mammal. There's even a name for egg-laying mammals, monotremes.

I'm not even sure where this analogy relates to the debate. This is getting ridiculous. Everyone can agree that it's not a traditional sport but shares a lot of qualities with them and is similar to other mental sports like chess, go, poker, etc. Everything else is just a dumb argument over semantics and dictionary definitions. What's the point?
Externus
2

Posts: 673
Joined: Feb 2013
Rep: 10

View Profile
May 29, 2015 9:36 PM #1367211
Quote from Nish
Cook, are you arguing that select videogames cannot be a sport? Or are you arguing that a videogame can NEVER be a sport? It is unclear because you're using only very specific examples that work to your favour to argue your point.



I'll tell you why you're wrong in a few sentences.

The verdict right now OFFICIALLY among sporting bodies is that chess is a sport. Hence, any argument against Chess being a sport must make a convincing enough argument that it isn't one based on facts rather than personal opinions. Since Chess is officially a sport, despite all these invisible people whom you claim deny it's place as a sport (people who have no standing in any official sporting capacity btw) that automatically means that the 'physical dependency' rule that you have imposed (and claim that the 'majority' impose, despite providing no proof of this claim) is null and void and that mentally and strategically taxing games can also be termed sports. Hence, E-Sports can be considered sports.

When you say "more definitions disagree with you", you're completely discounting exceptions. If an exception can be made for chess, it can be made for E-sports too. Thats why I used the platypus example. It seems to be a mammal, but it lays eggs, something which NO OTHER mammal does. Do we disqualify it as a mammal? No, we call it one, and make the exception. If we discover 2-3 more animals exactly like the platypus (has fur, produces milk BUT lays eggs) are we going to call those animals reptiles instead of mammals? No. We'd call them mammals too.


You've moved on from Strawman-ing to full on Texas Sharp Shooters.

Did you miss everything else I said? If you're following the definition of a sport which DOES include Chess, E-Sports are still not included. I'm not gonna bother repeating it AGAIN. Read for yourself.

Also, I have used facts. But, I have an odd surmise that you don't read anything and just continue to say whatever you feel because you enjoy talking. I mean this in the least insulting way possible, but, do you seriously even read anything anyone says? Or does it give you self-satisfaction to be degrading and act condescending even when you don't even address anything that people say?

Quote from Exilement
Everything else is just a dumb argument over semantics and dictionary definitions. What's the point?


I just want to know, doesn't the fact that RNG exists in video games eliminate E-Sports as a sport? There is a luck element to it. And that does disagree with the definition you gave.
Exile
Administrator
2

Posts: 8,404
Joined: Dec 2005
Rep: 10

View Profile
May 29, 2015 10:38 PM #1367219
I'm really not of the opinion that esports are a sport, it is what it is, competitive gaming. I've been playing devil's advocate, I see merits and problems with both sides of the argument but ultimately I think the semantics are trivial. e-sports are a legitimate competitive scene, that's really all that should matter.

That said I don't think the randomness detracts from anything. The only relevant game that I've played enough to speak about with confidence is CoD and the spawns don't really impact the end result all that significantly. If your team is in a position where the other team can capitalize on an unlucky spawn then you're either doing something wrong or their team is doing something right. It doesn't randomly punish or reqard players to the point of unbalancing the game.

Things like weapon spread are calculated randomly but high-level players tend to use weapons known to be consistent and predictable so it's a non-issue in gameplay. and cook's comment about someone winning in CS with a blind luck shot through a wall is pointless, it's no different than a basketball team winning at the last second by chucking the ball from across the court with seconds left. There's a difference between the game allowing for lucky situations and luck being an essential component of gameplay, but even then if the randomness affects all players equally and not to the degree where it significantly changes gameplay, I don't think it matters.
Externus
2

Posts: 673
Joined: Feb 2013
Rep: 10

View Profile
May 29, 2015 11:03 PM #1367225
Quote from Exilement
I'm really not of the opinion that esports are a sport, it is what it is, competitive gaming. I've been playing devil's advocate, I see merits and problems with both sides of the argument but ultimately I think the semantics are trivial. e-sports are a legitimate competitive scene, that's really all that should matter.

That said I don't think the randomness detracts from anything. The only relevant game that I've played enough to speak about with confidence is CoD and the spawns don't really impact the end result all that significantly. If your team is in a position where the other team can capitalize on an unlucky spawn then you're either doing something wrong or their team is doing something right. It doesn't randomly punish or reqard players to the point of unbalancing the game.

Things like weapon spread are calculated randomly but high-level players tend to use weapons known to be consistent and predictable so it's a non-issue in gameplay. and cook's comment about someone winning in CS with a blind luck shot through a wall is pointless, it's no different than a basketball team winning at the last second by chucking the ball from across the court with seconds left. There's a difference between the game allowing for lucky situations and luck being an essential component of gameplay, but even then if the randomness affects all players equally and not to the degree where it significantly changes gameplay, I don't think it matters.


Not entirely true about high-level players knowing how to understand weapon spread. I've been playing Halo 4 for almost 3 years, and I still have no clue what's going to happen when I use a shotgun, or I use one of the primary weapons which has spread as well. There's no way to ever know.
I'd also like to mention, in games such as football or basketball, there is no stacking. If the other team scores, it doesn't just become exponentially harder to the point where you literally have to hope the game gives you some leniency. CoD has some disgusting spawning; I'm not sure how your experience is. The thing is, games aren't leveled. Luck is required when you have to hope to be able to spawn somewhere close to the battle to help out teammates, or to not be in view of a sniper. In pretty much every sport, including Chess, you control your destiny almost to the fullest. Even Poker, where it's all chance, doesn't prioritize luck in the same way games do. In Poker, it's ALL random. Every hand is new; your odds don't stab you in the back in the future. The problem with games are they aren't fair. As whiny as it sounds, it's true. They're hardly even games, much less sports. It may sound like I'm making a hyperbole of this, but when you want to consider something a sport to a professional level, or a level on par with Basketball, Wrestling, Baseball, and many other things, these things aren't okay. Randomness that can continue to ruin an entire match, or make you win one is unfair.
Unbounded

Posts: 249
Joined: Feb 2015
Rep: 10

View Profile
May 30, 2015 12:47 AM #1367244
I mean, if you want to tackle the whole randomness in games thing we can just say that "not every videogame would realistically be considered a sport", in the same way that not every game that requires physical activity is considered a sport. (Or should be, at least.)

For instance, if I just made up a game that was heavily inconsistent, made little sense, was unfun, etc I highly doubt we would consider that game a sport. In the same way, if someone tried taking something like Mario Party and tried making that a sport I'm not sure it'd fly.

As we've stated though, there are several games that actually can fit the definition of a sport when played at a high level. They will require a great degree of physical and mental exertion in some form. They can require strategy and planning, teamwork, etc. If we stick to a rigid definition then some games should definitely fall under that umbrella.

What I don't agree with, however, is cherry-picking certain games that probably wouldn't fall under the definition of a sport and then saying: "See? Games can't be sports!" That implies that every game that exists requires no skill and is something that quite literally everyone can just pick up and do, which quite frankly is not the case.
Externus
2

Posts: 673
Joined: Feb 2013
Rep: 10

View Profile
May 30, 2015 5:09 AM #1367344
Quote from Unbounded
I mean, if you want to tackle the whole randomness in games thing we can just say that "not every videogame would realistically be considered a sport", in the same way that not every game that requires physical activity is considered a sport. (Or should be, at least.)

For instance, if I just made up a game that was heavily inconsistent, made little sense, was unfun, etc I highly doubt we would consider that game a sport. In the same way, if someone tried taking something like Mario Party and tried making that a sport I'm not sure it'd fly.

As we've stated though, there are several games that actually can fit the definition of a sport when played at a high level. They will require a great degree of physical and mental exertion in some form. They can require strategy and planning, teamwork, etc. If we stick to a rigid definition then some games should definitely fall under that umbrella.

What I don't agree with, however, is cherry-picking certain games that probably wouldn't fall under the definition of a sport and then saying: "See? Games can't be sports!" That implies that every game that exists requires no skill and is something that quite literally everyone can just pick up and do, which quite frankly is not the case.


If you're talking about the games mentioned, those are the most popular ones, which is why I mentioned them. Tekken and Street Fighter aren't the first thoughts that come to mind when someone mentions professional gaming or E-Sports. Halo, CoD, DOTA, Hearthstone/other MMO's, are usually the most talked about ones. It's impossible for me to delve into every game, so I'll just say what's most relevant.
Cook

Posts: 5,155
Joined: Nov 2009
Rep: 10

View Profile
May 30, 2015 6:13 AM #1367363
Quote from Nish
Cook, are you arguing that select videogames cannot be a sport? Or are you arguing that a videogame can NEVER be a sport? It is unclear because you're using only very specific examples that work to your favour to argue your point.


CSGO is a hugely competitive game.

Next to LOL, CSGO is probably the leading game in competitive gaming.
Vorpal
2

Posts: 11,944
Joined: Jul 2007
Rep: 10

View Profile
May 30, 2015 11:44 PM #1367701
Quote from Captain Cook
CSGO is a hugely competitive game.

After LOL, CSGO is probably the leading game in competitive gaming.

Fixed.

yeah league is probably the biggest deal right now, which is a bummer because I've been losing interest in it. Don't forget about Dota2 and the fact that heroes of the storm is making a huge splash.

Also I'd put starcraft before CSGO.

I think simply because CSGO games aren't that stimulating to watch.

I'd say probably the most exciting game to watch is melee, but it's not THAT popular.
Chaotic Penguin
2

Posts: 338
Joined: Mar 2015
Rep: 10

View Profile
May 31, 2015 2:53 AM #1367779
Dota 2's tournaments have by far the largest prize pools in gaming, last year first place, even though only getting 46% of the prize pool, whisked away a whopping $5,028,121. This year, on TI5, the current prize pool is $10,042,582, and we're not even halfway towards the end of people buying books. However, if your not 1st place, you don't actually even get that much, certainly not enough to accommodate for the money spend on training, whether that be a gaming computer, your room rent, your internet, or whatnot. People in sports like soccer and basketball don't necessarily have to win in order to get millions of dollars. I believe that the fact that E-Sports is so high risk compensates for the fact that it is
Quote from Externus
[Chess is] not a physical activity, and it doesn't require physical fitness to play. Neither do E-Sports.