What is a sport? Let us first take a look at its etymological definition: per Google, a sport is an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual competes against another or others for entertainment. That means that it is primarily the exertion of physical skill what can give an activity the status of a sport.
I contend that, regardless of how sedentary some of the actions in gaming may be, any sort of activity that requires talent is worthy of praise by virtue of the amount of practice required to acquire some degree of expertise in that activity. Therefore, it certainly holds merit in this sense, and should not be mitigated, nor overlooked, simply because it is, on some level, a virtual activity.
It is, however, this very process of visualisation what causes there to be criticism: a simple combination of buttons will prompt the avatar on screen to do significantly more than what the player needs to do to get it to do that. In this sense, then, it stops being a matter of physical dexterity, and becomes one of hand-eye coordination; of careful, calculative planning; of analysing the enemy.
I don't dislike e-Sports, and I certainly don't mind people denominating them as sports. It should be noted, however, that they challenge convention by enhancing the definition of a sport by rejecting the notion that sports are exclusively activities of physical ability, and embracing the idea that they are simply grounds on which one may test the integrity and the speed of one's computational capacities.
In the context of video games requiring many moves per second, this computational capacity is exhibited in the speed with which experts play the game. Other games, like chess, have been recognised as official sports on account of the fact that one requires the mental capacity to think in terms of many moves into the future in order to make the right call. We thereby see another factor underpinning what constitutes a sport: the element of strategy.
I am, however, a spectator. This is primarily due to the fact that I have only played a couple of games competitively, and it has only been enjoyable insofar as this competition is among friends. Otherwise, a certain level of tension and enmity is introduced into the gaming experience, which can make it seem somewhat hostile or unpleasant. –I, particularly, don't possess the personality to be thrown into such a competitive atmosphere for nothing more than glory and distinction.
In a sense, it is allegorical. In life, there are people who choose to make it big (i.e. make a lot of money, obtain a lot of wealth, power, etc.) by virtue of the fact that others are competing, striving, in a way, for the same thing; some exert their will to power and maximise all conditions for their success by going out and competing to demonstrate mastery. However, others are comfortable, or rather, conform with watching, participating and enjoying, but are not caught in an endless inner strife to demonstrate dexterous superiority.
Monday 23 April 2018
Wednesday 18 April 2018
A Visit to the Arcade – Physical Presence and Human Relations
What is it about being physically engaged with each other in competition that makes us so prone to enjoy forms of entertainment such as bowling, mini-golf, and other games that require little skill but place heavy emphasis on score keeping? And, moreover, are these type of activities entertaining by virtue of the activity itself, or, rather, by our active examination of our performance in relation to our opponent?
Thereby, a game requiring the physical presence of all parties makes games like the above-mentioned ones fun games to play with friends and acquaintances. In fact, the ability to associate with someone on a competitive, and therefore personal level, allows you to engage that person in an entirely different way; it introduces a sense of fun along with the competition, which rids it of its frustrating aspects, making the game a matter not only of skill, but also of group dynamics.
This is most evidently what I perceived in our trip to the arcade. For the first time in a while, the entire experience of gaming and competing seemed fun, innocent –healthy, to some extent. I really enjoyed being able to witness, perceive and respond to the reactions of those whom I played with/against, as opposed to letting everything boil down to got the W and who got the L.
Clearly, it is precisely this sociability which has made online gaming so popular, particularly within the context of AAA console titles (i.e. Fortnite) –the fact that players can now speak to each other in real-time as they interact with each other on screen is nothing short of a technological marvel which brings people together.
However, it is always important to step outside and spend quality time with friends engaging in some sort of activity in which you are all physically present. This is, after all, what leads people to believe in the value of friendship: the ability to share common interests as well grow together and in relation to each other.
Thereby, a game requiring the physical presence of all parties makes games like the above-mentioned ones fun games to play with friends and acquaintances. In fact, the ability to associate with someone on a competitive, and therefore personal level, allows you to engage that person in an entirely different way; it introduces a sense of fun along with the competition, which rids it of its frustrating aspects, making the game a matter not only of skill, but also of group dynamics.
This is most evidently what I perceived in our trip to the arcade. For the first time in a while, the entire experience of gaming and competing seemed fun, innocent –healthy, to some extent. I really enjoyed being able to witness, perceive and respond to the reactions of those whom I played with/against, as opposed to letting everything boil down to got the W and who got the L.
Clearly, it is precisely this sociability which has made online gaming so popular, particularly within the context of AAA console titles (i.e. Fortnite) –the fact that players can now speak to each other in real-time as they interact with each other on screen is nothing short of a technological marvel which brings people together.
However, it is always important to step outside and spend quality time with friends engaging in some sort of activity in which you are all physically present. This is, after all, what leads people to believe in the value of friendship: the ability to share common interests as well grow together and in relation to each other.
Tuesday 10 April 2018
The Exploitation of Purposelessness in the Age of Technology
What is the fundamental interest in casual gaming? Moreover, what lies behind the investment of people's time into such an activity? Could we potentially derive —or perhaps extrapolate— an explanation concerning the rise of casual mobile gaming from the more fundamental drive to productively make use of one's time?
When looked at objectively, the fact that the merits and accomplishments achieved in mobile gaming are only relevant within its virtual universe make it an objective waste of time. By this, I simply mean that the progress accomplished in a particular mobile game exists only in the eye of the beholder: that is, there is no value in the progress accomplished unless it matters to the user. However, the real problem with this type of gaming is not necessarily the gratuitous and purposeless investment of one's time, but what progress in such a game entails, and the way it is taken advantage of by people with tangible resources.
That is not to say, however, that an obsession with being productive in an unproductive virtual environment cannot be exploited; on the other hand, the more time people choose to waste on these sort of applications, the more the creators financially benefit – and not just the creators! Fellow gamers, especially those with programming prowess (at least enough to set up a bot or two), can unfairly gain an advantage of others who devote significant portions of their lives to such types of games.
So what is the danger? It is precisely the absence of true, objective advancement —essentially, the fact that progress does not equate to effort. The fact that anyone with money can buy virtual currency in that video game and put others to shame simply amounts to a system in which virtual status supersedes actual merit. It is, in a sense, a true depiction of the capitalist system in which we –voluntarily or not– are forced to function: a system in which your financial and socioeconomic circumstances, and not your effort, are more likely to land you "ahead of the game."
In this view, the problem doesn't lie so much in the fact that people are needlessly wasting their time accomplishing something that will amount to nothing, but the fact that others who have money are excused from playing according to conventional rules, thereby rendering the quasi-productive use of one's time entirely useless –even in the context of the mobile video game.
It is precisely for this reason, then, that mobile (casual) gaming is now surpassing the traditional PC and console markets in terms of revenue: because it isn't an industry devoted to providing a genuinely immersive and personal game experience –one in which progress necessarily requires skill and competence– but one solely focused on the capitalisation of virtual resources by virtue of real money. I am thereby entirely opposed to the continued exploitation of users for their virtual (and by definition, imaginary) fulfilment, especially when they could be devoting the same amount of productive energy to doing something palpably useful –i.e. learning a language, learning new programming languages, etc.
When looked at objectively, the fact that the merits and accomplishments achieved in mobile gaming are only relevant within its virtual universe make it an objective waste of time. By this, I simply mean that the progress accomplished in a particular mobile game exists only in the eye of the beholder: that is, there is no value in the progress accomplished unless it matters to the user. However, the real problem with this type of gaming is not necessarily the gratuitous and purposeless investment of one's time, but what progress in such a game entails, and the way it is taken advantage of by people with tangible resources.
That is not to say, however, that an obsession with being productive in an unproductive virtual environment cannot be exploited; on the other hand, the more time people choose to waste on these sort of applications, the more the creators financially benefit – and not just the creators! Fellow gamers, especially those with programming prowess (at least enough to set up a bot or two), can unfairly gain an advantage of others who devote significant portions of their lives to such types of games.
So what is the danger? It is precisely the absence of true, objective advancement —essentially, the fact that progress does not equate to effort. The fact that anyone with money can buy virtual currency in that video game and put others to shame simply amounts to a system in which virtual status supersedes actual merit. It is, in a sense, a true depiction of the capitalist system in which we –voluntarily or not– are forced to function: a system in which your financial and socioeconomic circumstances, and not your effort, are more likely to land you "ahead of the game."
In this view, the problem doesn't lie so much in the fact that people are needlessly wasting their time accomplishing something that will amount to nothing, but the fact that others who have money are excused from playing according to conventional rules, thereby rendering the quasi-productive use of one's time entirely useless –even in the context of the mobile video game.
It is precisely for this reason, then, that mobile (casual) gaming is now surpassing the traditional PC and console markets in terms of revenue: because it isn't an industry devoted to providing a genuinely immersive and personal game experience –one in which progress necessarily requires skill and competence– but one solely focused on the capitalisation of virtual resources by virtue of real money. I am thereby entirely opposed to the continued exploitation of users for their virtual (and by definition, imaginary) fulfilment, especially when they could be devoting the same amount of productive energy to doing something palpably useful –i.e. learning a language, learning new programming languages, etc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)