Super Non-Stop Debate

The definition of sport is this An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment, The bit in bold is what I want to focus on as I can think of lot's of sports that barley do the physical exertion but do the bold like F1, Darts, Snooker are all on sporting channels for instance and the Olympics has shooting.

So I see eSports as the same vain as them.

You can't do that with the definition as is stated, Mas: there's an "and" in there. If it were an "or", then fine, but the "and" demands both physical exertion and skill.

I posed this question, and I agree with the motion. Sports will always require a bit more physical prowess than how quickly you can flick buttons and sticks for me. There are much more objective definitions, and anything that includes chess as a sport (I believe many do) has no reason not to include eSports, but subjectively, I'll never feel that eSports are "true sports".

And I'm not too sure about darts either.

I know there's know there no OR but was just pointing out a part of it which covers a vast amount of sports.

Like I said shooting is a Olympic sport, well I've shot a gun and I can do you it's not that physical yet it's in the Olympics. So is throwing a stick really far but guess what it's still a Sport.

Also if you watch Darts it has become much more then a pub game, huge number go watch (It's the biggest indoor sport in the UK) and now has the razzmatazz as well, just watch the world championship final. Sorry about the audio not being in English.

Balladeer wrote:

You can't do that with the definition as is stated, Mas: there's an "and" in there.  If it were an "or", then fine, but the "and" demands both physical exertion and skill.

I posed this question, and I agree with the motion.  Sports will always require a bit more physical prowess than how quickly you can flick buttons and sticks for me.  There are much more objective definitions, and anything that includes chess as a sport (I believe many do) has no reason not to include eSports, but subjectively, I'll never feel that eSports are "true sports".

And I'm not too sure about darts either.

I think the problem we have is in the interpretation of the word 'sport' and the use of the word 'proper'.

sport |spɔːt|
noun
1 an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment: team sports such as soccer and rugby[i]

proper |ˈprɒpə|
adjective
1 [ attrib. ] chiefly Brit. denoting something that is truly what it is said or regarded to be; genuine: she's never had a proper job | a proper meal.[b]

I think we have to accept that gaming involves physical exertion as well as skill, as any of us who have played Smash Bros can attest to, so that fits within this definition. With the use of the word 'proper', it is easy to be locked into the past, like with cricket, saying that 20Twenty is not proper cricket. I am probably like you Balladeer, I don't think of it as a 'proper' sport, and probably never will, but I do accept it as one based simply on what other pastimes are called sport. I just wish in this case that there was an accepted, appropriate alternative word to use, to distinguish the different nature of it, like 'competitive' [name of activity].

There is you put a e in front of sport which distinguishes it from other sports.

I wonder if other sports had this problem when they were invented like the javelin, as I would of gone that's throwing a stick that's not a sport to the person that first thought it up.

masofdas wrote:

There is you put a e in front of sport which distinguishes it from other sports.

I wonder if other sports had this problem when they were invented like the javelin,  as I would of gone that's throwing a stick that's not a sport to the person that first thought it up.

That is true, but shall we call spelling and chess iSport, as in intelligent sport? In the end, I don't care if they call it eSport, as I think we are just splitting hairs. Either way, it is really fSport, as in faux sport, because quite simply, it imitates actual sport, but eSport isn't the only imitator, as is shown by rhythmic gymnastics or ballroom dancing. Anyone old enough to remember the likes of Ian Botham, as in English cricket? He showed that a fat, beer drinking bloke could succeed at the elite end of a real sport, cricket, just like the non-sport of darts. Now you need to be a true, highly trained, super fit athlete to succeed at cricket (with the odd exception). Things change.

At least Darts is entertaining unlike Cricket and things have changed with the sport of darts as you look at videos of 20 years ago they had pints on stage now it's fancy water and they earn good prize money as well now and they train a lot and go all over the world like any other sport.

Also gymnastics is at the Olympics, so is a sport.

masofdas wrote:

At least Darts is entertaining unlike Cricket and things have changed with the sport of darts as you look at videos of 20 years ago they had pints on stage now it's fancy water and they earn good prize money as well now and they train a lot and go all over the world like any other sport.

Also gymnastics is at the Olympics, so is a sport.

Dressage is at the Olympics, so that is a sport as well. Live Pigeon Shooting used to be, as well as Tug of War and Croquet. I think it might be a mistake using the Olympics as a benchmark. A sport it appears becomes mainstream when it produces money. if eSport does that, then sure, it is.

So, Super Non-Stop Debate seems to have... stopped, a bit, due to Vido buggering off again. I know of at least one other forumite who'd be up for a good debate, so I might take over the thread.

Anyone interested? If so, MP me your motions (I've got one to kick things off if required). Unlike Vido, I prefer the "This house believes that..." way of phrasing things, allowing/forcing people to be "for" or "against".

Are we having a mas(ofdas) debate.

I'm up for getting pissed and explaining why you're all wrong.

Okay, let's have a motion.

This house believes that Nintendo is dooming itself to fail in the home console market by not matching the graphical horsepower of its competitors.

This motion is put forward by our good friend Jay Moyles. Care to start this debate off, Jay?

Sure! I'm going to argue with myself at first to get us kicked off as sort of an extension of the motion, and also because I'm not sure of my stance yet.

So, Nintendo's past two consoles have been behind by a generation in terms of graphical horsepower, yet their games have never been particularly ugly. Super Mario Galaxy? Gorgeous aesthetics, colourful fun. Mario Kart 8? 12 player carnage has never looked better. See, the issue is that, besides a choice few developers, third parties do not know what to do with the reduced graphical power. Nintendo know their own consoles, and can squeeze every drop of graphical goodness out of their machines. Third parties don't, and don't develop for the machines as a result.

This could stem into a "Nintendo needs to succeed in isolation" debate, but I think the lack of solid third party support is a symptom of the reduced graphical power. Activision aren't going to release on Nintendo's platforms if it involves them creating a version of Call of Duty which is totally different to the Other Consoles. Case in point:

Call of Duty Black Ops Wii/PS3 Comparison:

So yeah, I think they are limiting themselves by not increasing the graphical fidelity as it scares off the third parties.

BUT - Fronk brought up a very good point on the Twittah earlier today. He said (paraphrasing here) that Nintendo didn't fight against its competitors last generation, but disinterest. Their console was graphically weak, but it was also radically different from the Other Two. It got people interested, and was able to be sold at a budget price due to the weaker graphical horsepower.

The issue with Wii U was marketing - I wasn't really following Nintendo at the time and had no idea about its launch. My parents thought it was a Wii addon, and one of my friends thought it was just the Gamepad. But again, the lower horsepower enabled to be sold at a cheaper price than its competitors.

So yeah, pros and cons. Let's debate!

Interesting one as COD you bring up did come to Wii okay it look nowhere near as nice but did come to it due to the large install base.

And take the Wii U again it got two CODs okay not on par with its PS4 counter part but is with PS3 for instance.

But never a 3rd COD which is on PS3 that it could come to the Wii U and look like that.

I don't think that the issue is with power as the Wii did get COD due to the install but the actual install base is the issue, Wii U's is small and likely Nintendo fans whom quite likely own another system to play COD.

So this could be applied to the NX if the install base and is worth a 3rd party studios time it will come also timing if the NX is next year and is on par with PS4 then easier for 3rd parties to bring over but let's say it was coming 2019 and was on par with PS4 and then PS5 is 2020 then you have the same issue as now with the Wii U.

Sugar, I don't think I'm even going to have time to participate properly in my own motion.

I think I'm probably an against here. Not because it isn't a third-party problem - it is - but because there are bigger problems, not to mention that the most important type of power probably isn't even graphical.

I'd say that image and marketing is the number one problem for Ninty, though. Especially after the Wii U's dismal campaign.

I'm fine with whatever approach Nintendo do, just so long as they approach it competently this time.  At this point in time their best option is probably to remain unique snowflakes as Sony and microsoft are too well established for them to try and get in on the action, but if they're going to do that then they absolutely must start being more savvy about consumers.  This e3 highlighted just how out of touch they are, what with Reggies absolutely ridiculous comments seeming to imply it was our fault that the e3 show was poorly received.  

At this point in my opinion it's going to be less about graphical power (I think the industry has gone too far in that direction for its own good anyway, games cost so much to make now that it's completely killed off mid level productions that made the playstation 2 the system it was) and much more about them carving out their own niche and selling that niche to the mass market.  They did it with the Wii, then the DS, but to do it again they need to get their heads out of their rear ends.

Making the NX more powerful could be a sign of that happening though, if they choose to do so. At the very least if they made their hardware capable of hosting the big block buster multiplats on their systems certainly wouldn't do them any harm.

Balladeer wrote:

Sugar, I don't think I'm even going to have time to participate properly in my own motion.

I initially misread that as you calling Mas sugar...

If 'failure' is 'coming third', then I think they are. The words are finely chosen, though: having similar architecture to their competitors would help, even if the graphical power were not so high. In this era of AAA games being so expensive to develop, Nintendo are going to have to do something to persuade the necessary third parties to make games for their console(s). If your machine does not have a FIFA or a COD, you are automatically turning away a large number of gamers... and that's got to stop.

(I want to buy FIFA '16 to support the women's teams being in there, and I can't )

The lack of power, for me at least, isn't the main problem. The problem as I see it is that Nintendo and their "fans" feel the need to drag this point up. Like you say, Mario Galaxy 2 and multiple other games look amazing with the power they have, but if provided with solely the details of each console in a generation, and no idea of any games which are on those consoles, anyone would go with the console providing the best power.

The solution for me is this: Either catch up with the other options on the market or don't explicitly bring your power, or lack thereof up.

You know the thing about non-stop debating?  It doesn't stop.  So here, have a motion of my own:

This house believes that a shift from local towards online multiplayer is a bad thing.


Because it's my motion, I'll say that I'm for.  Ignoring for a moment that some people still don't have perfect connections ( ), I believe that online multiplayer is inherently worse than local.  In the best case scenario, where you've got voice chat/Skype with all participants, you still can't convey your feelings as well without facial expressions, or put your friends in a wrestling hold if they blue shell you, if they're elsewhere in the world.  

(In the worst case scenario, of course, we're talking about playing a bunch of racist teenagers from Alabama who think they're much better than they are.  If you've got a bunch of racist teenagers from Alabama playing local multiplayer with you, you probably brought it upon yourself.)

But is there necessarily a sacrifice of local multiplayer due to online?  I think yes.  It's most obvious with games like MKWii, where online runs like a charm and local runs like Qwop: there has been a clear concentration of one over the other.  More generally, a shift towards a primarily eight/sixteen/more-player focus results in maps or courses that are too bloated for just four players.  Some games, like Splatoon, have an obviously subpar local mode.  I might have bought Splatoon by now if there was a proper local ink deathmatch mode.

Tear me apart, why don'tcha!  And send in your motions.  There'll be a non-gaming one next, whether I get one or not.

I love local multiplayer - I've spent so many hours beating up mates in Hyrule Temple in SSBM, or making our own round robin Street Fighter tournaments or even blasting through Halo 3 cooperatively splitscreen. The thing is, and this is the reason I disagree with the motion, I experienced all of these local multiplayer memories when I lived in the same town as my friends. Now, if I wanted to organise a Smash Bros. session, I'd have to wait until Christmas when my friends were back home.

Or, I can fire up Skype, boot up Smash Bros. and waste away hours chatting away online. Yes, that truly personal touch is lost and if you're playing publicly you'll eventually run into some wanker, but I don't believe the shift towards online multiplayer is an inherently bad thing. Just different, innit?

I don't think Online Multiplayer is a bad thing, I think the issue is times have changed and gamers have changed.

If you were born the same day as the Dreamcast Nov 27 1998 in Japan, You now be coming up to 17 years old and every console on the market since then has a online feature (some before the Saturn had online Multiplayer but DC's was more mainstream), so those bunch of racist teenagers from Alabama have never really known anything different.

I'm not saying they don't go over there mates to play Madden but it does seem to be only those sort of games and fighters that get played local now.

The other issue is age & time, there's advert on TV with a dad as a seal, a navy seal playing a shooter online and that's going to be the only time he plays a game, I'm kinda in that boat and Jay the same it seems people we did play local games with, we no longer play with due to people moving, getting married etc

I now have friends from work, here, twitter etc I play games with and that's online as that's the only way we can do it.

I have played with a few friends local from work and we played FIFA and that was it as that was the only game that really came to mind when playing local as take COD we did play but took it turns playing online.

But I've been to timewarp the local arcade / retro games place and have played MK64, Melee, Smash Wii U, Goldeneye local MP and that was amazing fun and I had more fun then playing Smash Wii U then I have had at home and Melee still remains my favourite mainly due to the memories of playing it local MP along where Smash U I've only played a few online games and done classic with like half the characters.

I'm trying to join in with this (in my head at least), but I keep coming to the conclusion that I'm greedy and I want both online and local multiplayer.

Both can easily co-exist and I'm with Jimbob on greedily wanting both in my games, for example games like Rocket League (which I'm playing at the minute) has both options & it seems to me that more developers are headed in that direction rather than opting for one or the other, so is the shift from local towards online multiplayer a bad thing?

If this was being asked at the boom of online with your Call of Duties etc I might have said yes but I'm going to say no it isn't and given what I've said above you are even getting less games that ship with just online modes, though a lot of that depends on the type of game we are talking about.

Also since it was brought up Splatoon is probably the best competitive online game I've played this year, many times I've happily plonked myself in front of that for 4 hours or so and laughed and swore as the ink is flying everywhere & I cannot wait for next months update that will add a proper party/friend system.

It might just be the best game on wii U.

(Side note: also a standard death match for splatoon would be lame just like battle dojo the focus would be about kills splats and that's not what makes the game fun)

Online is a bad thing when done at the expense of local, as I would much rather have local play (especially co-op). Nothing for me will beat going round a friend's house and playing games into the early hours of the morning. MK8 is a favourite amongst my housemates, and with my friends we play a huge variety of games - most recently we were playing Beyond Two Souls in co-op, for example, as well as Monster Hunter 4U, Helldivers and Towerfall Ascension (the last 3 all being amazing local multiplayer games).

Of course it depends on the game and the genre of multiplayer it involves. Some clearly only work in online, and others are clearly meant for local.