The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Almost any game can be played competitively, the drive to finish first, to get a higher score, to beat the game before your friend. But not all games are suitable for 'sport', sport does not simply require competition, a football game is not played for the sole benefit of settling which team of 11 players is better, but to provide entertainment for the people in the stands. Most games are only designed to be entertaining to the people playing them, or to people who know the game intimately, and can 'play vicariously', seeing at each juncture what THEY would do in this game, or simply learning from someone else playing.
Could games ever become a sport?
Yes, but only when they begin to offer things which are both entertaining to the broad spectrum, and offer things which no other sport can. Most of the games we have now, the popular multiplayer ones that is, although they may offer an experience that other sports cannot (saving possibly paintball), they are never going to entertain the massmarket. 90% of the population of the world doesn't see the attraction of CounterStrike, they wouldn't watch it on TV even if it were all that was on.
Games will also need to be utterly convincing, fire up any old FPS you like, and watch somone moving. do they look like a person, in contact with the surface they're standing on. Probably not, chances are they're sliding across it whilst their legs move. To get the audience, there will need to be the human element of relationship between characters and environment, something that average Joe non-gamer in the audience can understand and relate to. He knows football, cause he's kicked a ball once before, and he's run around a couple of times. A real model of the physics involved in walking, in running, all based on the avatar, only moving forwards as his legs actually push him, moving exactly like a human would, because the same forces that make a human move are modelled, not just moving the camera and flailing the avatar's legs around, would be needed to convince Joe that something like this just might, in the realms of improbability, be happening somewhere. Until you can convince him, he won't be watching a sport, he'll be watching someone play a computer game, and he'll probably change channel.
Games aren't a sport now, and won't be for a long time, not until someone makes a game that's as entertaining to watch as it is to play, a game DESIGNED for an audience as well as the players, and until that game is an experience more widely attractive than shooting people. Speedball Arena is stepping in the right direction, but I fear for it's success, since it looks like a lazy Unreal Tournament mod at best (and has ditched the aesthetic that made Speedball so much fun, in favour of, well, looking like Unreal Tournament with balls).
I don't think playing games will become a sport any time soon. I seem to remember UK Sports and the English Sports Council refusing a recent application to have computer gaming recognised as a sport because: "It doesn't fit in with the criteria by which we decide whether or not something is a sport. For one thing, it's not active enough." Darts and snooker for example, aren't classified as 'sports'. For gaming to become a sport it needs to have a governing body as such. It also has to have been up and running for three years, with a juniors' section and a competitive element. There also needs to be equal opportunities for women.
Which seems a bit odd, the main reason games playing has been rejected as a sport is because it's seen as not active enough, but sports like angling are still there. And they can't declassify angling because it's the fifth biggest sport in the UK. If you think of the difference between a pastime and a sport, then the defining moment is when you start seeing proper tournaments with well-defined rules. Video games have got all that. If you kick a football against a wall it's a pastime, but as soon as you have a league system that's when it crosses the boundary. Why do we have sport? The reason is to try and encourage communities to interact with each other. Games do all that.
Games being a sport would be great. Though until games look realistic enough no one will watch them except gamers, which is basically what happens now. The only people who use spectator mode on CS are CS players, because it just looks like some blocky stick figures running around firing cack looking guns at each other and causing cardboard explosions to a non gamer. We all know different, but until gaming looks good to outsiders it will never be taken seriously. Having seen the Doom 3 screenies, I reckon that we at least have the technology to make something look reasonably realistic, but it's mostly down to programmers.
Still, I dream of the day when tournaments take over from golf on grandstand, and Des will be there, offering us to press the red button to enter spectator mode, and John Carmack is there analysing at half time in the Quake 4 64 a side CTF match. Oh, well, maybe one day. IF games ever become a sport I personally don't see any AIs being involved whatsoever. To pro gamers (ie. the kind of people who breeze through Q3 on Nightmare bots) they would be too easy.
Could games ever become a sport?
Flux.
Could games ever become a sport?
Yes, but only when they begin to offer things which are both entertaining to the broad spectrum, and offer things which no other sport can. Most of the games we have now, the popular multiplayer ones that is, although they may offer an experience that other sports cannot (saving possibly paintball), they are never going to entertain the massmarket. 90% of the population of the world doesn't see the attraction of CounterStrike, they wouldn't watch it on TV even if it were all that was on.
Games will also need to be utterly convincing, fire up any old FPS you like, and watch somone moving. do they look like a person, in contact with the surface they're standing on. Probably not, chances are they're sliding across it whilst their legs move. To get the audience, there will need to be the human element of relationship between characters and environment, something that average Joe non-gamer in the audience can understand and relate to. He knows football, cause he's kicked a ball once before, and he's run around a couple of times. A real model of the physics involved in walking, in running, all based on the avatar, only moving forwards as his legs actually push him, moving exactly like a human would, because the same forces that make a human move are modelled, not just moving the camera and flailing the avatar's legs around, would be needed to convince Joe that something like this just might, in the realms of improbability, be happening somewhere. Until you can convince him, he won't be watching a sport, he'll be watching someone play a computer game, and he'll probably change channel.
Games aren't a sport now, and won't be for a long time, not until someone makes a game that's as entertaining to watch as it is to play, a game DESIGNED for an audience as well as the players, and until that game is an experience more widely attractive than shooting people. Speedball Arena is stepping in the right direction, but I fear for it's success, since it looks like a lazy Unreal Tournament mod at best (and has ditched the aesthetic that made Speedball so much fun, in favour of, well, looking like Unreal Tournament with balls).
I don't think playing games will become a sport any time soon. I seem to remember UK Sports and the English Sports Council refusing a recent application to have computer gaming recognised as a sport because: "It doesn't fit in with the criteria by which we decide whether or not something is a sport. For one thing, it's not active enough." Darts and snooker for example, aren't classified as 'sports'. For gaming to become a sport it needs to have a governing body as such. It also has to have been up and running for three years, with a juniors' section and a competitive element. There also needs to be equal opportunities for women.
Which seems a bit odd, the main reason games playing has been rejected as a sport is because it's seen as not active enough, but sports like angling are still there. And they can't declassify angling because it's the fifth biggest sport in the UK. If you think of the difference between a pastime and a sport, then the defining moment is when you start seeing proper tournaments with well-defined rules. Video games have got all that. If you kick a football against a wall it's a pastime, but as soon as you have a league system that's when it crosses the boundary. Why do we have sport? The reason is to try and encourage communities to interact with each other. Games do all that.
Games being a sport would be great. Though until games look realistic enough no one will watch them except gamers, which is basically what happens now. The only people who use spectator mode on CS are CS players, because it just looks like some blocky stick figures running around firing cack looking guns at each other and causing cardboard explosions to a non gamer. We all know different, but until gaming looks good to outsiders it will never be taken seriously. Having seen the Doom 3 screenies, I reckon that we at least have the technology to make something look reasonably realistic, but it's mostly down to programmers.
Still, I dream of the day when tournaments take over from golf on grandstand, and Des will be there, offering us to press the red button to enter spectator mode, and John Carmack is there analysing at half time in the Quake 4 64 a side CTF match. Oh, well, maybe one day. IF games ever become a sport I personally don't see any AIs being involved whatsoever. To pro gamers (ie. the kind of people who breeze through Q3 on Nightmare bots) they would be too easy.
Could games ever become a sport?
Flux.
Remember that brilliant movie 'The Wizard' and the Nintendo World Championships?
Almost any game can be played competitively, the drive to finish first, to get a higher score, to beat the game before your friend. But not all games are suitable for 'sport', sport does not simply require competition, a football game is not played for the sole benefit of settling which team of 11 players is better, but to provide entertainment for the people in the stands. Most games are only designed to be entertaining to the people playing them, or to people who know the game intimately, and can 'play vicariously', seeing at each juncture what THEY would do in this game, or simply learning from someone else playing.
Could games ever become a sport?
Yes, but only when they begin to offer things which are both entertaining to the broad spectrum, and offer things which no other sport can. Most of the games we have now, the popular multiplayer ones that is, although they may offer an experience that other sports cannot (saving possibly paintball), they are never going to entertain the massmarket. 90% of the population of the world doesn't see the attraction of CounterStrike, they wouldn't watch it on TV even if it were all that was on.
Games will also need to be utterly convincing, fire up any old FPS you like, and watch somone moving. do they look like a person, in contact with the surface they're standing on. Probably not, chances are they're sliding across it whilst their legs move. To get the audience, there will need to be the human element of relationship between characters and environment, something that average Joe non-gamer in the audience can understand and relate to. He knows football, cause he's kicked a ball once before, and he's run around a couple of times. A real model of the physics involved in walking, in running, all based on the avatar, only moving forwards as his legs actually push him, moving exactly like a human would, because the same forces that make a human move are modelled, not just moving the camera and flailing the avatar's legs around, would be needed to convince Joe that something like this just might, in the realms of improbability, be happening somewhere. Until you can convince him, he won't be watching a sport, he'll be watching someone play a computer game, and he'll probably change channel.
Games aren't a sport now, and won't be for a long time, not until someone makes a game that's as entertaining to watch as it is to play, a game DESIGNED for an audience as well as the players, and until that game is an experience more widely attractive than shooting people. Speedball Arena is stepping in the right direction, but I fear for it's success, since it looks like a lazy Unreal Tournament mod at best (and has ditched the aesthetic that made Speedball so much fun, in favour of, well, looking like Unreal Tournament with balls).
I don't think playing games will become a sport any time soon. I seem to remember UK Sports and the English Sports Council refusing a recent application to have computer gaming recognised as a sport because: "It doesn't fit in with the criteria by which we decide whether or not something is a sport. For one thing, it's not active enough." Darts and snooker for example, aren't classified as 'sports'. For gaming to become a sport it needs to have a governing body as such. It also has to have been up and running for three years, with a juniors' section and a competitive element. There also needs to be equal opportunities for women.
Which seems a bit odd, the main reason games playing has been rejected as a sport is because it's seen as not active enough, but sports like angling are still there. And they can't declassify angling because it's the fifth biggest sport in the UK. If you think of the difference between a pastime and a sport, then the defining moment is when you start seeing proper tournaments with well-defined rules. Video games have got all that. If you kick a football against a wall it's a pastime, but as soon as you have a league system that's when it crosses the boundary. Why do we have sport? The reason is to try and encourage communities to interact with each other. Games do all that.
Games being a sport would be great. Though until games look realistic enough no one will watch them except gamers, which is basically what happens now. The only people who use spectator mode on CS are CS players, because it just looks like some blocky stick figures running around firing cack looking guns at each other and causing cardboard explosions to a non gamer. We all know different, but until gaming looks good to outsiders it will never be taken seriously. Having seen the Doom 3 screenies, I reckon that we at least have the technology to make something look reasonably realistic, but it's mostly down to programmers.
Still, I dream of the day when tournaments take over from golf on grandstand, and Des will be there, offering us to press the red button to enter spectator mode, and John Carmack is there analysing at half time in the Quake 4 64 a side CTF match. Oh, well, maybe one day. IF games ever become a sport I personally don't see any AIs being involved whatsoever. To pro gamers (ie. the kind of people who breeze through Q3 on Nightmare bots) they would be too easy.
Could games ever become a sport?
Flux.
Could games ever become a sport?
Yes, but only when they begin to offer things which are both entertaining to the broad spectrum, and offer things which no other sport can. Most of the games we have now, the popular multiplayer ones that is, although they may offer an experience that other sports cannot (saving possibly paintball), they are never going to entertain the massmarket. 90% of the population of the world doesn't see the attraction of CounterStrike, they wouldn't watch it on TV even if it were all that was on.
Games will also need to be utterly convincing, fire up any old FPS you like, and watch somone moving. do they look like a person, in contact with the surface they're standing on. Probably not, chances are they're sliding across it whilst their legs move. To get the audience, there will need to be the human element of relationship between characters and environment, something that average Joe non-gamer in the audience can understand and relate to. He knows football, cause he's kicked a ball once before, and he's run around a couple of times. A real model of the physics involved in walking, in running, all based on the avatar, only moving forwards as his legs actually push him, moving exactly like a human would, because the same forces that make a human move are modelled, not just moving the camera and flailing the avatar's legs around, would be needed to convince Joe that something like this just might, in the realms of improbability, be happening somewhere. Until you can convince him, he won't be watching a sport, he'll be watching someone play a computer game, and he'll probably change channel.
Games aren't a sport now, and won't be for a long time, not until someone makes a game that's as entertaining to watch as it is to play, a game DESIGNED for an audience as well as the players, and until that game is an experience more widely attractive than shooting people. Speedball Arena is stepping in the right direction, but I fear for it's success, since it looks like a lazy Unreal Tournament mod at best (and has ditched the aesthetic that made Speedball so much fun, in favour of, well, looking like Unreal Tournament with balls).
I don't think playing games will become a sport any time soon. I seem to remember UK Sports and the English Sports Council refusing a recent application to have computer gaming recognised as a sport because: "It doesn't fit in with the criteria by which we decide whether or not something is a sport. For one thing, it's not active enough." Darts and snooker for example, aren't classified as 'sports'. For gaming to become a sport it needs to have a governing body as such. It also has to have been up and running for three years, with a juniors' section and a competitive element. There also needs to be equal opportunities for women.
Which seems a bit odd, the main reason games playing has been rejected as a sport is because it's seen as not active enough, but sports like angling are still there. And they can't declassify angling because it's the fifth biggest sport in the UK. If you think of the difference between a pastime and a sport, then the defining moment is when you start seeing proper tournaments with well-defined rules. Video games have got all that. If you kick a football against a wall it's a pastime, but as soon as you have a league system that's when it crosses the boundary. Why do we have sport? The reason is to try and encourage communities to interact with each other. Games do all that.
Games being a sport would be great. Though until games look realistic enough no one will watch them except gamers, which is basically what happens now. The only people who use spectator mode on CS are CS players, because it just looks like some blocky stick figures running around firing cack looking guns at each other and causing cardboard explosions to a non gamer. We all know different, but until gaming looks good to outsiders it will never be taken seriously. Having seen the Doom 3 screenies, I reckon that we at least have the technology to make something look reasonably realistic, but it's mostly down to programmers.
Still, I dream of the day when tournaments take over from golf on grandstand, and Des will be there, offering us to press the red button to enter spectator mode, and John Carmack is there analysing at half time in the Quake 4 64 a side CTF match. Oh, well, maybe one day. IF games ever become a sport I personally don't see any AIs being involved whatsoever. To pro gamers (ie. the kind of people who breeze through Q3 on Nightmare bots) they would be too easy.
Could games ever become a sport?
Flux.