Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
That was my original post on another site to get the opinions of others. Now, I have found that there was a reason to this guy's ******** replies:Me said:
So, who else has had great times trying to argue with casual gamers?Him said:
So is SSB a sport? It does require physical dexterity and stamina (ever try perfect planking all your matches the whole day? Me neither. Perhaps that's merely psychological though, I can't imagine you burning a ton of calories doing it but I could be wrong) but in far different proportions to something like football (the American kind, for any EU/AU/etc people). Other than the rare "immaculate reception" type plays, football requires enough dexterity to catch a pass while both QB and receiver are under pressure. Compare that to Melee. On the other hand, calories.
It may sound crazy to some people here, but not all casuals are idiots nor are they all anti-competitive.
I think all of these quotes come a sort of stunning conclusion. Many people jump to ideas on the first nodes of thought that enter their mind without giving more consideration to a situation. In other words, people--outside of this topic--do not think logically enough lol
Forgive me, but I am slightly confused on your statement. I am getting this: The example with chess is worthy of the title 'sport' because it involves enough factors to change game play in a large number of ways. On the other hand, video games shouldn't be called a 'sport' because they lack enough variables to have numerous ways of gameplay. Is this what you meant?
Most people wouldn't lump together poker, chess, or Nascar as being run-of-the-mill sports. Usually when you ask your friends if they would like to play sports, I doubt that the first idea that comes to mind is playing videogames or any of the aforementioned activities. There is a difference between wanting the mass populace to consider videogaming a sport, having the mass populace accept that it is a sport, and believing that videogames are a sport.bovine said:
Not necessarily. Casual gamers enjoy playing games and have the ability to play a wider range of games than competitive gamers. Most competitive gamers dedicate a lot of time into playing a few games and mastering the technical skill-sets / details in competitive games in order to win against other players. Casual gamers might just enjoy running through Classical Mode in Brawl and Subspace Emissary. After getting all the characters, they might just try out a new game instead of bothering to really master any single character in-depth. Therefore they can play a wider range of games due to the fact that games in general interest them. Also, there are many non-competitive games that many competitive gamers may not consider.bo said:
You certainly posted a long-detailed explanation on another website. When I have time I'll read over your comments and reflect my own opinions, but it would be more convenient if you would repost them here. I'll touch upon the subjectivity argument real quick before I read the rest in detail later on. Keep in mind that I haven't finished reading your post in pastebin. But I found it relevant to the underlined quotation above.b said:
The conclusion you arrive at is that videogames are supposed to be competitive in nature. Yet you don't give examples of design analysis that lend credence to your point. Take for example Donkey Kong or Super Mario 64. I would state that these games weren't MADE to be competitive in nature, but rather exploration/journey games that are fun to play. Granted, there are competitive mini-puzzle elements in order to grab certain bananas / stars. But I wouldn't state that the main purpose of the game is to be competitive. After all, you can still clear the easy puzzles/activities in order unlock all the secret areas and defeat K. Rool / Bowser.b said:
The fundamental problem here is that you're using a very generic meaning of the word "skill." Hey, when I work my job I use a given "skill-set." Does that mean that my job can be considered a sport? After all, it requires skills to make sure that autoclave machine doesn't turn the room into a sauna or that random polymerase that I added to the murian mammalian epithelial cell was added in the microfuge tube correctly so that I can get a high-quality restriction fragment analysis result when I finish running my agarose gel. Many things require "skill" because there are many different platitudes, latitudes, and attitudes that the term can take on due to its encompassing nature. You tried to refine your definition of "skill" in another post, yet it still falls prey to having vague connotation:b said:
This definition is considerably dubious. If it pertains to the body in any way? What doesn't pertain to the body in any way? Sleeping pertains to the body. As does eating, standing, talking, and breathing. Using this as a "selective" criteria, it appears as if EVERYTHING could be considered "physical," making it an inadequate sub-set definition to your originally vague notion of "skill." The only way to possibly create a detailed sub-set for a vague definition is to make the the sub-category even vaguer than the encapsulating parent category. Which I apologize, but is what you have fundamentally done in order to fulfill a semantic requirement for your own justification in this example. Keep in mind that there are minor contradictions throughout your post (or maybe just one), such as your introduction statement in comparison to your previous statement I just reviewed.b said:
Moving on:b said:
I am incredulous to your aesthetic taste in placing this in the beginning of your post, much less inside your response in the first place. The primary question is whether or not such a term as "e-sports" is validated, much less the consideration of whether or not "e-sports" can be viewed as being superior to the "traditional" view of sports.b said:
Preceding this post was the "skill" and "physical" discussion that I touched upon before. "Competition" is also a weak selection factor to determine gauging whether or not a given subject matter can be considered a "sport." Life itself is rife with competition in regards to competing for getting accepted into desirable colleges, getting better grades than the rest of the class, and trying to make yourself a more attractive mate to a particular girl who may be at a party. There are jobs and institutions to award competition among students and workers who manage to use their time efficiently and productively. Yet this criteria isn't sufficient enough to be considered a "sport." Even though according to your terminology, "studying" could be considered a "sport" because it involves "physical" interaction (use eyes to read and hands to turn pages) and requires "skill" (must be able to put together information quickly and know how to research difficult information to obtain an answer).b said:
I think you misunderstanded me, I was just saying that is the basic sterotype, not that all people see it that way. I was just pointing out that sometimes people veiw video games as a waste of time or are generally bad for you, and they do so because it's so easy to do so. With all the violent games out there, some parents think that games are hard to understand (even with the ESRB rating system) and jump to the conclusion that all games are bad.
I suck at DDR, so I avoid playing it
Never heard of ITG 
My statement still holds true. People who believe in sterotypes fail to think more on the subject. If people considered the facts more, they would likely conclude that videogames are similar to reading a book, watching tv, playing kickball, etc.
I think your assertive generalization on people who believe in stereotypes needs some revision. Stereotypes exist because they are more or less true for a given majority of a given population. Take for instance the stereotype that Asians are good test-takers or are conscientious about their grades. The following is a 2005 SAT Division Chart By Race. The results reveal that Asians scored the highest on their SATs compared to other races. It is important to draw a distinction between individuals who rely on a stereotype to characterize a given race, individuals who rely on a stereotype to characterize other individuals of that race, and individuals who arrive at a stereotype by empirical evidence. Just as you might arrive at your beliefs through empirical research, the same may be true for individuals who conclusively arrive at what has been negatively connoted as "stereotypes" in this day and age. Not everyone who agrees with a stereotype is a bigot... and vice versa... not all bigots are individuals who are in consensus with stereotypes.
You do know that if you're too open-minded, you're equally likely to get nothing done. Being agreeable with all opinions just means that you waste time listening to all opinions. As you stated before, you feel that certain opinions lack "thought" and "consideration" therefore making them less viable then other posts. Apparently you don't believe in people being completely "open-minded" about everything, as you've adjudicated selection criteria to rank and evaluate given topics that you encounter on a day-to-day basis. It is therefore questionable how "Xeylode Open-Mindedness" would translate to any other individual in any given circumstance.X said:
2nd part first because I agree with it totally. Yes, I am making a generalization on people needing to be more open-minded. This is a trait that I feel people should have and often my experiences reflect such a belief. I find more examples of inflexible attitudes than I do flexible ones. Also, I do agree with being too open-minded is a bad thing. My ideaology is a good mix is in most cases the best trait. There will always be the exceptions where being one extreme over another is preferable. Now, onto the first part.
But, when are we never are never hypocrites in life? >_> Also, look at how the conversation has proceeded. We have gone from defining what sports are to the philosophy of human nature. Why does it seem everything ends up at the philosophy of human nature? 
It's actually considered a sport by the International Olympic Committee.
the IOC is a corporation that makes money off the Olympics. Adding more competitions with popular support gives them better profits.
Those guys make six figure salaries too.
Wii Sports is so a sport.
perhaps this is the hope of the t/s
lol rightttttt. which is why you have to go through conditioning to play it....next up, wii fit?
You kinda answered your own point here. You said "most people wouldn't lump together poker, chess, or Nascar as being run-of-the-mill sports." That means that, regardless of whether or not they are "run-of-the-mill," they are sports nonetheless.
I can't say things exactly as I want the first time, man. Anyways, if you don't like the competitive aspect of the game, you obviously care LESS about the game. This is completely subjective. However, you care less only compared to the community of competitive gamers. The Smash community itself is pretty big, and the StarCraft community is humongous.Acrostic said:
"Interest" is not a relative term. It's vague. There's a difference. Vagueness is why some polls used to survey the opinions of the American public were semi-ineffective as someone who, say, dedicated their life to a cause would have the same weight as someone who kinda believes in the cause. And interest is innately relative ONLY RELATED TO OTHER PEOPLE. There is no way a non-quantifiable subject can be definite in its value. Saying "I am interested in Chemistry" basically just means you're more interested it in other subjects or compared to how much interest you have had in other subjects prior. If you're going to argue logistics like that, so will I. However, this is fairly irrelevant to the argument.Acrostic said:
There is no way a game can not be competitive. Name one game that is not competitive that's fun. Every game that exists is competitive. If it wasn't/isn't competitive, it's a failure. In Super Mario 64, you're competing against all the enemies that are in the game; you're competing against the system that's trying to make you lose health while you're simultaneously trying to collect the stars. The end stretch is a BOSS that you have to BEAT by fighting. You fight these guys all the time. If games weren't competitive, they wouldn't be fun. Most of the fun is derived from seeing yourself beat someone/the game. If not, it's seeing how you measure against other people/the game.Acrostic said:
I don't know what Donkey Kong you're referring to; it could be the oldest one where Mario tries to reach Peach or the semi-recent ones, so I'll avoid answering unless you can clarify. But for SM64, if I told someone that the end of the game involved beating Bowser (they should know at least when the game ends), given that they devoted all their time to it, they will realize that the point of the game is the collect all the stars and beat the bosses because they can see they are making progress. They will recognize that the things killing them are obstacles and that they must beat them in order to reach a goal. Your argument is like saying someone who's just finished school things that everyone's out to screw up their life and that there is no future purpose.Acrostic said:
First off, just for future reference, stop being so grandiloquent. I understand what you're saying, but if you use words that pertain to a specific field of work, you kinda mess up your argument if the person reading doesn't know what you're talking about. Nobody is omniscient. That said, jobs do require skill. You go to school to learn those skills. The job does satisfy the criteria of a sport in that you require skill. Professional athletes participate in sports as their job. So yes, your job can be a sport. LOL. It depends on the job.Acrostic said:
As you can see, jobs do not require strength, agility, or stamina and are not assessed by such. Gaming requires agility and mental stamina (not to say that jobs don't require mental stamina). For, say Melee, agility, efficiency, and consistency in your actions are what your assessed on as well your ability to comprehend what goes in the game. Now, as we have previously defined chess and poker as a sport, we don't even need to satisfy this criteria to be a sport.Definition of "athletic" said:
LOL GRANDILOQUENCE. This is basically saying you're not credible. That means all your arguments are worthless. This (coincidentally) ruins your credibility for the argument. However, I will pass this and continue responding.Acrostic said:
Better in some aspect. Stop selecting certain parts and ignoring the rest.Acrostic said:
If you play for the sake of competing and not just having fun (same with the argument of a job and a sport; the can but do not always overlap), then you are participating in competitive gaming. I defined it for you.Acrostic said:
Once again, STOP TAKING PARTS THAT YOU WANT.Acrostic said:
MOSTLY. Are you saying that everyone's around 5 feet tall? No; the majority are tall. And are you saying that Tyrone Bogues would have had a harder time blocking shots if he was taller? No; he was an exception. People have to work harder to make up for their innate disadvantages. Perhaps Tyrone Bogues was born with great genes for building leg muscle. Then that was a physical advantage he was born with.Me said:
Stop selecting certain parts. I'm getting tired of it, even if you haven't gotten this feedback yet to revise your responses. If you look at my pastebin, you'll notice that the "Therefore, Melee is a sport" is at the end of a sentence of a paragraph. IT'S SUMMING UP THE IDEAS OF THE PARAGRAPH, NOT THE SENTENCE THAT WAS DIRECTLY BEFORE IT. Do you want me to say "Therefore, Melee satisfies this criteria" after each other sentence? That's poor writing.Acrostic said:
I bolded a spelling error, lol.Acrostic said:
quoted for emphasis
Soccer is a game. A great game... but a game, nonetheless
