No killer games for Olympics

A while back I discussed whether or not esports should get into the Olympics or not. I’ve been touching on the subject few times of during the past few years, throw Olympics to the search bar. Now, the Olympics committee has made a definite statement in negative, but for all the wrong reasons.

The International Olympic Committee President Thomas Bach won’t allow video games, or esports for the matter, to enter the Olympics before violence is removed. To quote;

We cannot have in the Olympic program a game which is promoting violence or discrimination… …So-called killer games. They, from our point of view, are contradictory to the Olympic values and cannot therefore be accepted.

This is, of course, rather bullshit reason.

Games don’t promote violence. They may contain and even glorify it to some extent, but it no less play than any of combat sports. If we consider boxing and other harsher contact sports, electronic games are less violent than sports in general due to the lack of any sort of physical damage or contact. Visually, electronic games are more visceral for sure, but on comparison of promoting violence games and sports are not on the same level; sports has caused far more violence through the history than any game, even if we start counting only from the genesis of modern electronic games. This is no real argument of course, but it is an inane as what Bach offers.

As for discrimination, no electronic game promotes discrimination. I am sure this is more or less just showcasing how inclusive the Olympics is, but just as Bach’s own organisation, electronic gaming is all about how good you are. You won’t be getting into any teams or play over a championship if you don’t have the merit for it. Whether or not Bach truly believes that electronic games is dicks-only club, he couldn’t be more wrong. It’s just that men and women tend to like different kinds of games and there’s nothing wrong in that.

Furthermore, Bach says a game, which is rather interesting. If he finds a game that would truly promote violence and discrimination, then why not pick up another that doesn’t? This shouldn’t even be mentioned, but games can’t do either really, only their consumers and developers can. They are inanimate objects after all.

Killer game is rather old-fashioned way to describe any game with excessive killing and violence, essentially any modern R-18 title from God of War and Devil May Cry. Carmageddon and the like fall into this category as well. Anything with excessive killing, really.

Effectively, what Bach wants to get through, is that due to the visual nature of video games’ contest, they can’t be accepted to the Olympics. Well, outside him pandering the same shit everybody who seems to hit certain clique at his age, but that’s essentially what it is. He even boils it down to a point;

Of course every combat sport has its origins in a real fight among people… …But sport is the civilized expression about this. If you have egames where it’s about killing somebody, this cannot be brought into line with our Olympic values.

This is anthropomorphising games and game characters. While there is an applicable argument between the lines, games are about as much killing someone as any combat sport is. Nobody dies in an electronic game, they’re digital objects after all.

The true argument Bach makes is that the depiction of contest is uncivilised. To him and the committee, they’re a lesser sort of game to play. Make no mistake, this is a haughty high-stance they’re taking, considering the Olympics to be at the peak of cultural ladder near or at the top of the crowning position. The standards Bach sets up for electronic games can’t be met during his lifetime, simply due to the cultural gap between the people who consume sports and people who consume esports. There is overlap, make no exception, yet consider for a moment the stereotypical views about people who do and watch sports against people who play and watch electronic games. There you find what Bach drives after rather than the PR platitudes he puts out.

In the same breath, Kenneth Fok of Asian Electronic Sports Federation mentions American gun control and access to firearms to be part of the problem, which is another pandering platitude, which has no bearing on the subject. This comes just a shooting incident in a Madden tournament in Florida, twisting the two together despite both faulting the aforementioned rather than esports. While this blog shouldn’t take part into the whole gun control debate, it is far larger problem that ties deeper into society than just how guns are controlled. That is extremely easy and lazy way out to avoid the harsher issues that would take far longer time to sort out.

Whether or not esports got into the Olympics doesn’t matter, that’s not the issue here. The issue here is the continuing misconception about electronic games and violence, a discussion that has taken many forms in the culture. It’s not just electronic games either, considering violence and pinball were associated with each other, with the same applying to classic penny arcades and other similar establishments. The difference between high-class sports and everyday Joe’s coin cabinet in the cultural ladder and class difference can be felt in Bach’s argumentation. While some would see this a stretch, do keep in mind that electronic games, video games especially, are cultural continuation and carries the same spot in the general culture landscape as their predecessors. To put it rather harshly, let the peons play their games, the nobility shall play tennis.

It wold be possible for a game designed specifically for the Olympics to be accepted, but that’d be putting the merits of video games into question as legit format on their own. Even more so as an art form. Rather than trying to appeal to the Olympics or other similar events and organisations for legitimacy considering gaming, gaming should keep trucking forwards and find itself properly. Despite what Bach wants to think, gaming is, ultimately, just as civilised activity as sports.

Video games in Olympics?

Tony Estanguet, the co-president of the Paris Olympic bid committee, seems to know there is some kind of writing on the wall and has held talks with the eSports representatives and the IOC about them joining the Olympic games in 2024. While he argues that digital prowess should be considered a legit sport if Olympics is to maintain its relevancy. Estanguet should look elsewhere first and begin to work on removing the corruption and the financial strain the games cause to a nation.

The idea of digital games in Olympic games is not too far-fetched. After all, the two do share the core common root in games and competition. However, despite their spirit common ancestry, the two beasts are very much different in the end. Olympics have a history on themselves that fetch respect alone, and in the core still aim to celebrate the physical fitness of the human body. Albeit with the healthy help of helping substances and loads of less than clean money. Nevertheless, sports does include activities like chess, but that never got into Olympics by that merit.

It’s all about money, really. If this news bit is to be believed, an eSport star makes money than your average Olympic athlete. With electronic game industry eclipsing Hollywood and movie industry at large in worldwide revenues and cultural impact to the point of political agendas being driven into the sub-culture through sheer force, it’s no wonder Estanguet would like to give this newfangled thing a careful, close look.

Not that the idea hasn’t been amused before, but that’s exactly why modern eSports scene has come to be. Not because it was regarded as sports worthy the Olympics to begin with, mind you. Money goes where the viewers are, and it would seem the newer generations do not value seeing people doings traditional sports (if you will in this context) on-screen, when they could see professional video game players raking in bucks and points like no other. Perhaps the biggest difference is between Olympics and eSports tournaments is that anyone could become a good player with few months time put into a game and compete in a tournament, whereas an Olympic athlete has to live the life. It’s not an easy life either, and not everybody can become the world champion in 100m dash. However, the chance of becoming a damn good Counterstrike player is much more attainable goal.

If electronic games would enter the Olympics via eSports, there would be further shift to appease the broadcasting companies and such even further than what they already are. Outfit bans would become a common practice within these tournament circles to adhere to the high standard Olympics and their broadcasters would demand, which would still be ridiculous considering the same channels would be airing gymnastics, swimming and hurdles, all sports with people in rather skimpy outfits. If eSports would enter Olympics, you can bet on companies changing their designs to fit these standards from the get go rather than sticking to their guns. After all, if we’re to count games as a form of art, then they should be able to present anything the author/s intend without censorship. What a riot.

Thomas Bach is on a high horse when he questionsed whether or not eSports would stand to Olympic rules and would respect the values of sports. They lost that long time ago themselves, but it’s the front what matters the most. He also mentions that the implementation of Olympic rules should be monitored and secured, which more or less can be shortened into They have to change to fit out agenda. The Olympics committee doesn’t see video games and sports and within this generation they never will. Furthermore, there is no reason to see video games as sports to begin with.

I bet there is behind the doors talk about gaming maturing or needing to mature before it can take its place among the higher cultural phenomena like the Olympics. As I’ve argued before, this is a fallacy and video games do not need, should not, prove themselves to be like other media formats or games to stand on their own. The value of games as themselves can not reach its mature point until its hardcore consumers start masturbating over it as art or sports, literal storytelling or other such forms included, and begin to treat electronic games as they are. It’s not going to happen over night or in a week. There needs to be a paradigm shift with time. Electronic games need to achieve similar status to that of poker (or cards in general), where it is universally accepted as a valid form of entertainment where there are possibilities of serious competition while offering the player/s to have a solitary game against the deck/game itself.

No, video games should not be included into the Olympic games. If anything, eSports should create its own official Olympiad similar to Chess Olympiad. Hell EVO essentially is that for fighting games, and they even offer Special Olympics equivalent with the inclusion of Smash Bros. I know, that’s a terrible joke, but I know at least one you chuckled. This format could be easily expanded and included in a larger event, where you could have all the big names in town within the same Olympics-styled event, with e.g. Starcraft being played all the while you have people competing for the next high score result of Donkey Kong. It is a possibility, it just would take loads of money to be organised. Seeing how much money there is overall within these competitive gaming circles, it wouldn’t be a far fetched idea.

We could throw in an additional question whether or not there is a need for such an event. Video games shouldn’t need to be validated through Olympics, or an Olympics like event. Would it be better, in the end, if eSports would stay in somewhat similar form as it is now and naturally evolve to whatever shape it’ll be in the future? Whatever the direction may be in the future, rest be assured either one will shape how the games will look and play, with distinct lack of that original artistic intent being replaced with intent of making the games more sports-like (e.g. overly balanced, but not fun fighting games) and sticking to rules set by a committee outside electronic games industry.

EVO censorship Round 2

Of course the weekend I’m away from the town and all the news happens to be the very weekend Evolution Championship Series, or just EVO, takes place. Not that I really am into the VS fighting game tournament scene anymore.  Mostly due to how retarded the whole thing has gone to with eSports and how Capcom has begun to cater this audience alone. Street Fighter V was an attempt to hit true with this audience, but most people will just tell you Capcom wanted the game to be a massive hit with the casuals. There’s a clear lack of self-awareness in this scene. It’s a post to its own rights, but I’m not going to spend any more time with SFV than I have to. Capcom would do if they would end this Season bullshit and release all the content as Super Street Fighter V.

Last year EVO showed their total lack of awareness both culturally and within the scene by bending over to ESPN’s demand to censor Rainbow Mika’s costume due to the televised nature of the action. At the time no reason was given. This happened against with this year’s EVO with Cammy’s standard costume, the one she has been wearing for some twenty years, was censored. However, this time ESPN gave a statement, and the supposed reason was broadcasting standards.

Broadcast standards are a bullshit reason. If ESPN would enforce their attitude towards all the programs, you wouldn’t see cheerleaders, women swimming or any other sport with female athletes in as tight outfits as possible. If you’re thinking I’m being some sort of pervert wanting to see skin-tight outfits, you’d be right, but in case of sports they have a functional basis. For example, in cycling you better have an outfit that does not create drag. Movement is also much easier in an outfit that conforms to you body, or has as little elements interfering with your motions as possible. Even Bruce Lee himself stated that going with suit that has as little separation from the body is the best for fighting, hence his iconic yellow suit.

So what about the cultural thing you mentioned, I hear you ask. Well, ESPN showcases wrestling as well. With Rainbow Mika being a joshipro wrestler, her outfit has been modeled after this scene. Not that the American outfits are any less revealing, but it has to be emphasized that Japanese wrestling scene has multiple key differences from American or European one. It’s treated more a fighting scene and outfits are far more flamboyant and cartoon inspired. Rainbow Mika’s blue outfit with the cuts it has, and her attitude, is a perfect representation of a over-the-top Joshipro wrestler. Hell, even Mika’s slightly coarse voice and hip attacks are straight from the ring. None if this is outside what ESPN already shows in their wrestling programs meant for all ages. Suddenly seeing something terrible in leotards and women fighting in them is duplicitous at best.

It’s almost like ESPN is all right showcasing real life flesh, but polygon models are too sexy to be showcased around.

If you’re in the mind that using your hips in an attack is a bad idea, there are multiple ways it can be utilised effectively. This is because the control of you hip can mean whether or not you stand or not, and using the centre in an attack means you can throw that mass into a concentrated attack. Works great in throws, where hip balance is most often used.

Does this have an effect on the scene and how enthusiastic it is about their game? If we are to believe the case Reaxxion has made for Dead or Alive 5, it indeed does. While some of the 25 costumes in there are a bit racy and questionable, the point of these costumes is to be silly. DoA as a franchise has always had this element to it, where the beauty and coolness of these characters have been celebrated, as well joked about. As Reaxxon says, censoring content in order to make some sort of safe space where women can contest with men is ridiculous. If any offense should be taken, it should be taken from the fact that people are being treated like babies through assumption that they can’t handle certain outfits and suits.

Character outfit selection also has the effect of changing the atmosphere and feeling of the game. While some may scoff at this, the very idea of changing outfits that fit a situation and appearance is valid within VS fighting games. The chosen outfit reflects on the character, both the player and the playable character, and this reflection carries into the style of play. Street Fighter V on the other hand throws this away, as there is just one style of play per character. What this essentially means that overall styles and choices that the player makes in visual terms that may not be conscious are now being censored and won’t have representation.

While this won’t hold any water with ESPN, it is nevertheless a valid concern. Furthermore, if broadcasting standards are used to explain why a character’s outfit must be banned (all the while the channel is showcasing equally amount of skin and breast physics on other all-family sports events they’re airing) it may lead into companies enforcing censoring changes to already realised content, or approach the task of game creation and character design with self-censorship in mind. Street Fighter V is again an example how Capcom has bent over the whole eSports scene in how much they have censored from the game both pre- and post release.

It is a sad business fact that if Capcom and other fighting game developers want to hit the big money with TV broadcasts and be as mainstream as eSports can be, they must make a choice between staying true to the vision they have or bending over and allowing changes made according to what other execs think is the best. Again, if we are to treat games as art, they must have the autonomy and must stay as intended. Reality shows that games are anything but art, and if business sensibilities tell a company to censor their content in an attempt to appease someone, they will. It’s money that’s on the line, and they’d rather make these short-sighted decisions that will affect franchise’s popularity and how much consumer value it.

Digital gambling?

It’s a thing you don’t hear much. I was reading a book this morning with family, and I heard something about games, be it digital or traditional (as they put) having an adverse effect on people who play them.  There was no true cohesion in what they were saying, talking about gambling and money games in general via mobile devices and such. Not until they started showcasing Counter Strike and talking about how that affects people too. They were speaking of esports.

It sounds so unnecessary. Electronic gaming seems to be a term these people do no simply use and in the views of those who handle addicted gamblers, digital gaming seems to be largely the same thing as their paper counterpart. What throws a spin to this whole thing is that the professional commentator of digital gaming in the show portrayed video and console games as a whole in the same light as gambling. All of them share the same points of decision-making and addictive qualities, she said. I had to question aloud whether or not this was an intentional narrative made to showcase that Super Mario Bros. is in the same league and Internet poker. In whatever game in general, be it soccer or the like, we go through similar thought patterns and have to discern the best outcome. We gamble and we may win or lose against the odds, there’s nothing special to it in of itself. Gambling addicts are a whole another thing, as are the people who sit days worth in front of the computer playing MMORPGs and start to get rotten feet.

The idea of labeling all electronic games under one banner is largely stupid, especially when digital game is, essentially, just a synonym for a video game. After all, a video game is a visual multimedia source that is combined with set rules and controls the player interact and commands, often to achieve a victory condition. Some form of money may be present, especially in modern mobile phone games, but that alone should not be contrasted to gambling.

The first thing I found about digital gaming as such was from Peluuri, an online site for gambling addicts. Without noticing it, those who consume electronic games in genera have been lumped together with gambling addicts. The reason isn’t hard to guess; news about some child dropping thousands into a mobile game for whatever reason still pop up frequently, and the fact that esports has brought the dimension of gambling into video game circuits.

Except, what the expert in the telly show was talking about the problems digital gaming brings with it, and the aforementioned website confirms her assertions. Problem gaming is defined excessive amount of time and/or money spend on money games, that have a negative effect on the person’s life, like his psychic or physical health, studies or work life, economy and/or human relations. …for those who consume computer games in large quantities, it was noted that they share similar problems with handling their emotions, channeling them properly or escapism via games similar to those who gamble. All this seems to give note that while site speaks mostly about gambling, the people who handle gambling addicts have dropped video game addicts into the same category because the majority of the addicts on either side share the same psychological problems.

Why the hell do people think games are the reason when even these help websites clearly say that’s in the person and not in the game that’s wrong?

Why the hell do they find a need to use digital gaming? What’s the point of using yet another term for something that already had two valid terms? There is now answer, but I’ll amuse myself this a bit. Video and computer games replaced electronic gaming at one point completely, and now that both of those terms have been dragged through the mud for a good couple of decades now, the current generation that doesn’t want to associate their research and intentions with any of have decided to choose a more diplomatic term. We do live in a digital age, after all.

The advent of esports of course seems to have played a rather large part in this. People gamble which team will win, and biased researchers will see whatever they want in the electronic/digital/computer/console game landscape. Is the person who contests in esports comparable to a person who gambles? Perhaps to a person who gambles at a tournament, but I’d make a comparison with a race driver more. Sponsors put money into the machines the competitor then puts all his efforts in. Esports is someone’s career after all, at least to some extent.

In the end, making it a game addiction when people don’t have any other outlet to channel their problems into is deceptive, blaming the thing that’s being used to channel things rather than accuse the person of wrongdoing. It’s the same with same when games are blamed to cause shootings. In the end, the individual person and his problems are always the key to everything. If gambling, video games, booze, driving, masturbation, rock climbing or any other activity worsens their life, why in the hell are their relatives and friends letting him ruin his life like that? Even adults needs help, sometimes forced.

Traditionally, gambling has been treated as its own thing while all other forms of addiction, be it sports or the like, have been their own thing. Mixing computer and console games give them the wrong connotation, and adding digital gaming as a new thing for the old doesn’t help. Not that the common consumer even cares about this, all they want is to have those drunkard failed gamblers off their block, and get those no-good video game nerds outside to breathe some fresh air and mingle with other people.