As video games rise in popularity and thousands flock to watch championship matches of some of today’s most popular games, there is increasing debate over whether or not video games are considered sports.
Because of their competitive nature, gaming has adopted “eSports” as a moniker. Although this tag doesn’t go to the extent of classifying gaming as a true sport, it does suggest an encroachment on the historical term.
Now, the argument has been taken a step further. In a recent interview with the BBC, Rob Pardo, the creator of the massive hit World of Warcraft (WOW), makes a claim for video games to be included in the Olympics:
“There’s a very good argument for eSports being in the Olympics. I think the way that you look at eSports is that it’s a very competitive skillset and you look at these professional gamers and the reflexes are lightning quick and they’re having to make very quick decisions on the fly.”
Whether you side with Pardo or not, there is weight to his statement. And as each side begins to gain support, it’s clear the debate will only intensify.
Odd Sports
There’s a strong case for a game like Call of Duty (COD) to be included in the Olympics as a sport. Not only is it an internationally played game, but it’s easy enough for viewers to understand, making it a perfect spectator…eSport.
COD isn’t a game that’s bashful to the stage either. As a leap forward for Major League Gaming (MLG), the massive multi-player hit was included in last year’s X-Games.
But how odd would it be to watch nations compete against each other on a virtual battlefield playing, say, capture the flag? In reality, it would be more appealing and perhaps more entertaining than many previous Olympic sports.
Take Tug of War for example. The concept is very similar, only instead of a bunch of bruting men with lush beards looking to overpower the opposition, there are men and women battling over a virtual flag with headsets and controllers.
Team tactics in COD are also very in depth. It’s not simply a few people pushing buttons to reach a desired outcome. As stated by Pardo:
“When you look at their ‘actions per minute’, they’re clearing over 300”.
In comparison, 300 birds rained from the sky in the entire live pigeon shooting event during the 1900 Olympics. Not only is Call of Duty more efficient and fan friendly, but PETA won’t be up in arms about a digital battle for hardpoints.
While video games in the Olympics may come across as odd, just take a look at solo synchronized swimming and then decide which takes the medal for most strange.
But perhaps it boils down to what the International Olympic Committee (IOC) wants.
Qaulifications
Super Smash Bros is a long running fan favorite of gamers of all types. Unlike Call of Duty, it’s rated T for teen because cartoon violence isn’t quite as violent as headshots are in COD.
While Super Smash Bros is fan friendly, perhaps video games finding a home in the Olympics boils down to what the IOC wants.
In the past, we’ve seen sports like cricket shy away from the Olympics because its governing body (the International Cricket Committee) expressed concern over scheduling issues.
Otherwise, the IOC controls whether or not an event sees the light of the torch in the Games. Qualifications include things like popularity of sport, media, infrastructure, and what the sport brings to the Olympics.
If it’s entertainment the IOC is looking for, there’s no doubt that watching Mario and Peach take part in hand to hand combat would be more joyful to watch than rope climbing (included in the 1932 Olympics).
But in reality, Super Smash Bros isn’t the best option for gaming to earn a bid into the Olympics. A sport like squash is much more likely to stamp a ticket to the Games.
So what might it take to allow gaming to don the Olympic rings?
Blurred Lines
If popularity is a qualification, Defense of the Ancients 2 (DOTA 2) surely makes the cut. At any one time, upwards of 800,000 players can be battling it out worldwide.
While DOTA 2 is a lot more difficult to watch and understand than a title like COD, there’s plenty of action for spectators to enjoy.
But video games may struggle when it comes to the “athlete” debate. Many claim that physical exertion draws a line between actual sports and a competition (like chess).
This “line” may already be blurred though, giving hope to gamers yet. When you look at sports like curling which takes a ton of skill, it’s easy to argue there isn’t a ton of physical exertion to be had.
Pardo makes a good case for gaming:
“I think the way that you look at e-Sports is that it’s a very competitive skillset and you look at these professional gamers and the reflexes are lightning quick and their having to make very quick decisions on the fly.”
Replace “e-Sports” with curling and professional games with curlers and the statement carries the exact same meaning.
But does gaming involve too much technology?
How Much Tech is Too Much Tech?
Sure, gaming is a based purely on technology, from PCs built for high frame rates and intense graphics, to powerful consoles like PS4 and the Xbox One. Even PC Mag is in favor of video games leaving the Olympics well enough alone.
But it’s fair to ask the question: Are the Olympics afraid of the future?
Technology is evolving sports every day. Cycling has become a sport majorly driven by technology, even down to the molecular level.
While it’s not quite the same type of technology as gaming, it’s important to embrace the future. Sports aren’t built to stay the same. They’re actually in a constant state of flux because of tech.
The point is, the world can’t be afraid of technology in the Olympics. Perhaps gaming is just a natural step in progression. It may be part of the evolution of the Olympic Games!
Or not.
Wherever you may fall in the “gaming v Olympics” argument, it’s safe to say we can all be thankful we aren’t still watching obstacle course swimming (sorry).
Surely, COD is much more entertaining to watch. Where do you stand in this argument?