This is the weekend when the New England Patriots face-off the Indianapolis Colts in the play-offs, and I am a partisan. In Beantown now, folks are giddy. So much so, that news on the subject often qualifies as running a Madden Football 2007 simulation of Sunday's game and reporting the result (Fn1).
Sports themes seemed to have been washing ashore on Terra Nova for quite some time. Just recently there was the Red Sox maestro angle, earlier this year I suggested that MMORPG Player-versus-Player combat (PvP) was more like sports than, well, "war". One year ago, at about this time, I dragged Doug Flutie and his "Drop Kick" into the cookery. Throw into this broth a series of discussions over the past several months in and about this topic and I'm breathless: are MMORPGs indeed more sport than game, or vice versa?
The first task is to define sport and game in such a way that a meaningful contrast can be drawn.
To this end, I've searched high and low for a sensible definition and distinction. Most sources seem caught up in an assumption of physical exertion that clearly would not support my claim. So in the great tradition of debate I've continued my search for better sources.
I am glad to be able to report that the Department of Philosophy of West Virgina University introduces the wisdom of a fifth grader (Brynn) who seems to offer a way forward. An MMORPG might be a sport, or so it would seem by her sensible analysis. Read it there, the detail work is A+, but for those short on attention consider the highlights, the four theories she considered:
(BT1) An activity is a sport and not a game when the activity requires considerable physical effort.
(BT2): A competitive activity is a sport and not a game when the winning and losing is determined by times and/or scores.
(BT3): A competitive activity is a sport and not a game when the activity is an Olympic event.
(BT4): A competitive activity is a sport and not a game when the activity could be an Olympic event.
Which one do you find most relevant? BT2 caught my fancy: how do you "win" an MMORPG? Where I will eventually get to is a claim that MMORPGs are profoundly misunderstood by gamers and just about everyone else. Namely, everyone is fixated on their "gameyness." If an MMORPG is sport and not a game what would that mean for the sorts of discussions and analyses that one often attributes to them? Perhaps nothing, perhaps everything.
I have a few ideas, but will save them for after Sunday's game. Go Pats!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fn1. Here is Boston.com's (Boston Globe online) contribution "Pats edge Colts ... in Madden 2007 Boston.com utilizes video game to predict New England triumph".
/Ed 1/24. 2000 ABC forums discussion on "Sports and Games" - nicely introduces points raised in comments below.
How about "a competitive activity is a sport and not a game when it involves repeating the same actions over and over, with only subtle variations in the outcome"?
Posted by: Tim Keating | Jan 20, 2007 at 16:12
> If an MMORPG is sport and not a game what would that mean for the sorts of discussions and analyses that one often attributes to them?
What if sport is considered a MMORPG?
Wait, they don't have genuine role-playing? Neither do many MMORPGS! \
Still, SimSports on the Wii is a distinct possibility, I bags the drunken cynical washed up coach about to knock out the young star for calling me "over the hill.."
Posted by: ErikC | Jan 20, 2007 at 18:01
Tim> only subtle variations in the outcome
----------------------------
What then is a non-subtle variation in an outcome? Ah, you are "warm" however. The careful reader of the post will note that in fact Brynn opted for option BT4 after refuting my favorite, BT2. However, I will later argue that BT2 as presented by Brynn is flawed. But it can be salvaged. I'm sure we'll be able to repair it in a nick of time for the Super Bowl.
Posted by: nate combs | Jan 20, 2007 at 18:30
It's doesn't make sense to me to try to forge a meaningful analytical distinction between two so popularly constructed categories that are unquestionably of a particular historical moment. Culture is like that -- we come to see certain distinctions as so natural, we think if we only push hard enough we can delve into and discover the epistemological grounds for a difference that was arrived at through nothing more than the accidents of history.
The popular conceptions about what games are lead us down many, many fruitless paths when we try hold too closely to them while trying to introduce analytical rigor. "Sport" is no different.
As for no how MMORPGs have no "end state", that is a hugely important development in the history of games, but I don't see it as bearing on this discussion.
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Jan 20, 2007 at 19:54
Ah, but Thomas, I think that this could be an incredibly important distinction to understand if we're going to 'stop play' in the context of MMO games. Non-MMO games are starting to gain recognition around the world (esp Korea) as a public spectacle - even in the style of the arena. Still, I'm also not too clear on how this distinction is culturally supported.
So I feel you in terms of a cultural snapshot, and obviously Sport/gaming (more generally) is a longstanding aspect of culture. Mayan civilization, Greek civilization, they had competitions which held varying degrees of social significance. I'm not sure why we're separating this from the word 'game,' from this cultural sport effect. We've had games of chance, Majong, and whatever that Egyptian one with the beads is called. Both have been around just as long. Are we really talking about the social significance of a sport/game among a particular society?
Let's say that the distinction that we're going for is public social recognition, a mark of distinction for a game (Like StarCraft or Ice Skating) which has risen above others in social significance. In Korean arenas, we're seeing massively public and publicized StarCraft competitions. We've all heard that thousands gather to watch star players.
(BT1) Training to reach this level takes physical effort. These guys can train many hours each day, very likely requiring a high level of physical and mental health.
(BT2): They're exactingly scored at these arena events.
(BT3): No dice, yet.
(BT4): Definitely a possibility, as shown by the
But MMOs are separate from this, in that they ARE their own communities, with their own social standards of what is worthy of social praise. They're rich secondary worlds, populated with unique types of experience (just like putting on skates and gliding over frozen ice is its own unique experience - podkilling, ganking paladins and defending keeps for 6 hours are all unique). At the same time, MMOs are irrevocably part of the broader IRL. If someone wins a sporting event in an MMO, it impacts that person's real, primary life.
Trying to sift these differences in regards to MMO games isn't going to happen by simple comparison, because MMOs are their own distinct platform - a unique form of experience in so many ways.
Posted by: Neils Clark | Jan 20, 2007 at 21:04
Neils, I agree, but there is a world of difference between saying that the distinction between sport and game should interest us as a historically specific artifact, which it should, and suggesting that it will have any potential for generating a useful analytical distinction. We regularly get muddled about his around here, and part of the reason is precisely the cultural myopia that cultural anthropologists are trained to recognize.
So, yes, in some places, and some times, a distinction between something like "game" and "sport" (although the actual concepts will importantly vary, precisely because we're talking about things that are historically and culturally specific) is important to the people on the ground, and examining and understanding it may reveal to us volumes about things like class, or status, or any of a number of other things.
But the worst mistake we can make is proceed as if the "local" version of these distinctions, which are culturally real to us, are therefore the right universal human categories by which certain aspects of our experience should be understood.
Yes, MMOs are unique, but everything is, in a sense. I'm constantly at pains to prompt us to be pragmatic about how we understand these spaces. This means eschewing the all-too tempting tendency to leap to transcendent categories. Our understanding of these spaces for human action, as for all things, must be provisional. It's hard to sustain, but it's the only course that is true to how social processes work. As C. S. Peirce said, "Doubt is an art which has to be acquired with difficulty"
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Jan 20, 2007 at 21:40
>Thomas
I think cultural-first argument is over-emphasized. Yes there are differences and yes perhaps those differences are non-universal. On the other hand, to simply throw up one's hands and claim no distinction is worth making because it is all relative, seems also short-sighted.
I think is is useful, even if only provisionally, to look at cases and develop models. Models are meant to be thrown away at some time, but in their time they serve their purpose. Sometimes, in fact, the best models are the ones that illustrate why they are quite wrong.
As for Games vs. Sport - I want to save a little for the SuperBowl ;-). However. Yes, I don't believe this distinction is culturally universal. However, I do think there is a distinction worth making roughly along these lines in this culture. To paraphrase, if 'sport' doesn't exist to a 'gamer', then I think it would be necessary to invent it.
Posted by: nate combs | Jan 20, 2007 at 22:30
Nate, I am certainly *not* saying what you suggest I'm saying in your first paragraph. I am not a "relativist", I am a pragmatist. There is a distinct difference. Of course I agree with what you're saying in your second paragraph. I am only saying that, in this case, I have seen little reason to feel at all enthusiastic about the prospects for any kind of meaningful analystical distinction to be mined from this historically and culturally particular distinction.
I'm sorry to be so frankly negative. As you know, I enjoy your posts about this, that, and the other thing, but you have to understand that as long as you venture to muse about matters cultural and social theoretical, I'll be chiming in with a view informed by a lot of professional training about such things. While I have not ventured to post about matters computer scientific, I hope that should I do so you would apply an experienced and critical eye to my claims, as I am doing for yours. So while I am as curious to try out new ways of thinking laterally as the next person, in this case it instead seems to be an attempt to amplify a Western cultural predeliction into something universal, and it doesn't have legs.
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Jan 20, 2007 at 22:40
Thomas> I am not a "relativist", I am a pragmatist.
----------------------------------------------
Really. And the distinction to you is what?
Posted by: nate combs | Jan 20, 2007 at 23:03
The label of "relativst" is most often applied to suggest someone who does not believe that any useful distinctions can be made. That is, that because the distinctions that fill our experience are relative, nothing more can be said. A pragmatist believes that while transcendent accounts (according to some structural framework) are demonstrably problematic, we *can* make useful distinctions that are tested, not by reference to a model or system which is presumed to be "real," but by the marshaling of evidence and reasoning, always to answer the questions that interest us. The goal is a set of *reliable* (i.e., provisional) claims, rather than transcendentally true ones (for all places and times).
One of the hallmarks of this kind of approach is a commitment ot understanding processes rather than categories. The distinction between Louis Agassiz's biology and Darwin's is apt. Instead of striving to forge a framework (such as a taxonomy of species) that is held to be "real", Darwin demonstrated that such taxonomies only ever exist as a heuristic, and that reasoning *from* them is problematic. Instead, we should aim to understand the multiple processes that constitute natural selection. It is always easier to think that if we can construe a logical framework that is internally consistent, it will somehow reveal (determine) "true" claims about how the world works. But Darwin saw quite clearly how messy and contingent the world actually is. To his great credit, he did not then throw up his hands and say, "It's all relative," he proceeded, brilliantly, to seek to identify the multiple processes that together account for that open-endedness and the emergent phenomena that it generates.
I recommend (as I've done before), Louis Menand's The Metaphysical Club as a great read on American pragmatism and its relationship to Darwin's revolution.
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Jan 20, 2007 at 23:25
And, by the way, Nate, I'd venture to say that this is not only the distinction between pragmatism and relativism "to me", but that it's pretty close to what you would hear from anyone with a good familarity (as opposed to a set of popular associations) with what these terms mean.
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Jan 20, 2007 at 23:29
Okay, fair enough. Now let's apply this to your arguments in this thread. The significant assertions:
1.) "games" are a "popularly constructed categor(y)... of a particular historical moment."
2.) "sports" are a "popularly constructed categor(y)... of a particular historical moment."
3.) Because of (1.), 'games' cannot be analyzed rigorously
4.) Because of (2.), 'sports' cannot be analyzed rigorously
5.) Models are good if they are possible ("I agree with your second paragraph")
6.) Models on games and sports are not possible ("I have seen little reason to feel at all enthusiastic about the prospects for any kind of meaningful analystical distinction...")
7.) Models on games and sports (were they to exist) are bad because they might be interpreted universally ("amplify a Western cultural predeliction into something universal")
................................................
Here is my counter-argument
(1-4) I believe is possible given a sufficiently scoped cultural context. Its an open question what that scoping is ("Western culture" ... "Wargamer culture" ... "a particular friday night gamer group"), but given the right scoping, I believe it is true.
Therefore (6.) is not necessarily untrue.
So really, the argument comes down to the generality of the model (variant of [7.]). Fair enough. But what is wrong (in the worst case) with building a lot of little models - after all, linguistics is not poppycock just because Chomsky was wrong about a universal grammar.
Posted by: nate combs | Jan 21, 2007 at 00:37
You have misconstrued what I have said, Nate, in a fundamenetal ways.
Simply put, I never claimed (3). In fact this paper (now forthcoming in Games & Culture is an explicit effort to develop a conception of what games are that would be useful for analysis in a universal sense (of all things!). This approach is quite specifically not built from the popular conceptions of games and sports that you're trying to work from here (and argues for why they are so untrustworthy).
That paper, then, would be reason enough to have me barred for life from any of the secret relavist anthropologists' meetings, should they exist. This is because it is a constructive effort -- seeking to build a robust and universal (though provisional!) concept of games that sees them as processual.
Your counter-argument claim is fine as far as it goes -- we can certainly make claims about games and sports as historically and culturally situated (I acknowledged that above), but I'm actually here articulating that the more ambitious claims (which make relativists twitch) *are* possible. It's just that our common sense about popular distinctions are rarely a good place to begin building such robust approaches.
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Jan 21, 2007 at 00:54
Erk -- awful typo; my apologies. Late Saturday night writing FTL.
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Jan 21, 2007 at 00:57
*typos
/sigh
/goes to bed
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Jan 21, 2007 at 00:59
Thomas>
Simply put, I never claimed (3). In fact this paper (now forthcoming in Games & Culture is an explicit effort to develop a conception of what games are that would be useful for analysis in a universal sense (of all things!). This approach is quite specifically not built from the popular conceptions of games and sports that you're trying to work from here (and argues for why they are so untrustworthy).
-------------------------------------------
Okay, I take your revision on (3.). In which case, as I'm not proposing a model of 'game' here (e.g. hypothetically, I could be using Joe Ludologist's model of 'game'), I then take that our disagreement distills down to the distinction of 'sport' from 'game.' I can live with that, I may disagree, but as i'm proposing a model of neither, just a distinction, its an abstract point. An argument for another day.
Posted by: nate combs | Jan 21, 2007 at 01:18
Wait, what? Clearly sport and game are not exclusive categories. Baseball, Football, Tennis, Hockey... these are all games as well as sports. You might be able to come up with some ambiguous border examples, but for the most part it seems obvious that all sports are games. Yes, it is interesting, and non-obvious, to figure out what defines this sub-category, but let's begin with a clear understanding that things aren't either games or sports, but that games can be more or less sport-like.
Sports tend to be competitive and to involve physical exertion, but these things are not sufficient to automatically make a game into a sport.
To my mind, the key quality that makes a game sport-like is not intrinsic, but is instead a feature of the larger context around the game.
As a thought experiment I have just invented a game called Tree Touch. In Tree Touch you have to run around my back yard and touch every tree. Whoever does this in the shortest time wins.
This game is physical and competitive but it isn't a sport. Or rather, it doesn't "feel" like a sport, right?
But let's say Tree Touch catches on and becomes something of a tradition. Let's say we do it every year, and invite the whole town to watch. Then other people start playing Tree Touch in their yards. Eventually there is a National Tree Touch Association that puts together tournaments, and manages player ranking and rules disputes. Now Tree Touch feels exactly like a sport.
A game becomes more sport-like when an institutional framework evolves to manage and administer competition for a large-scale community of players and spectators through tournaments and organized matches.
This is why Poker is broadcast on ESPN. This is why Chess feels more like a sport than Scrabble, and Scrabble feels more like a sport than Settlers of Cataan. This is why StarCraft feels very much more like a sport than Company of Heroes, though they have very similar intrinsic qualities.
Overall, WoW doesn't feel at all sport-like to me, but the structured PVP that takes place in the battlegrounds definitely does.
Posted by: Frank Lantz | Jan 21, 2007 at 04:08
I think Nate's question (and Brynn's) does not have aspirations to be about something more than, as Nate puts it, a certain "scoped cultural context." Nate and Brynn point out that in the English language we've got two words, "game" and "sport," that are overlapping categories. So it's a narrow question, yes, but the questions just seem to be "why two terms?" and "what do they cover?" (I limit to English because I think other languages, e.g. German, French, and Latin, don't pose this exact question.)
Maybe it's just too obvious and not enough fun, but the first place I'd go would be a dictionary. See, e.g., the American Heritage Dictionary that Google coughs up, which provides a pretty rich field of meanings, albeit somewhat messier than what Brynn suggested:
Game
Sport
Somewhat unsatisfying, I guess, but maybe this kind of linguistic particularism demonstrates why Thomas says the game (or the sport) isn't worth the candle?
Posted by: greglas | Jan 21, 2007 at 07:17
I should add that I actually think the game *is* worth the candle here. It's a pretty narrow game, yes, but these two words are currently "in play" in some interesting ways. For instance, has "Madden" (or EA generally) made a certain generation think of football as less of a sport and more of a game? (I'm also thinking of that Fox robot -- I assume there's something interesting going on there.)
Posted by: greglas | Jan 21, 2007 at 07:29
@Nate: Fair enough.
@Frank: That's a great comment that shows up the limits of this distinction when looked at closely. It's because we can so easily demonstrate the flimsiness of a characterization of them as mutually exclusive categories that we might want to be interested in why such representations take place.
So I'll reiterate that I think this kind of focused inquiry, where "sport" and "game" are cultural representations that can be explored, is worth the candle. My primary concern here has been simply that we not confuse that kind of worthy inquiry with a conceptually foundational one.
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Jan 21, 2007 at 09:33
Frank>
To my mind, the key quality that makes a game sport-like is not intrinsic, but is instead a feature of the larger context around the game.
------------------------------------
I think this is a great point and key to moving Brynn from her quandry:
Of all the theories she considered, BT4 was Brynn’s favorite, and if she had to give an answer BT4 would be it. Here are some reasons to think we do not yet have a good enough answer. BT4 implies that decisions that are made, or will be made, by the Olympic Committee, can never be wrong. Isn’t it possible that some activity could be played in the Olympics, but it would not really be a true sport? And, isn’t it possible that there could be a sport that would never be an Olympic sport? Maybe there could be a sport that is too boring, too violent, or too weird to be picked as an Olympic sport. That should not disqualify it as a true sport. And, finally, isn’t there one big question that the Olympic Committee asks, when deciding whether an activity should be in the Olympics? Isn’t that question: “When is an activity a sport and not a game?” So, we would still need an answer to the question!
So if Football may be only a game and not a sport under some circumstances, then the question becomes under what circumstances?
With Frank's Tree Touch ... WoW examples, game is promoted (if that is the right metaphor) to sport, but so too it would seem that a sport can be demoted (metaphor) to only a game. For example, I create a Football counter-top board game.
But I would also hypothesize that all activities are not created equal. Some games can be turned to sport more easily than others. Likewise, some sports can be turned to only games more easily than others.
This is why Brynn's theory (BT2), for example, are not independent of those such as (BT4). The claim being that the extrinsic is not independent of the intrinsic.
So what might be some of the extrinsic factors. A few doodles:
Ability to support spectators, ...
- having well-defined measurables (points/scores)
- structured
...?
Posted by: nate combs | Jan 21, 2007 at 10:17
Don't sports tend to be inherently symmetrical, synchronous, zero sum games.
This is cetainly not true of most MMOs, which allow everyone to level up to 60... 70... and don't usually even have well defined "win" conditions, can be played by teams of completely different sizes, at different times of day and where the starting conditions for each group can be markedly different.
Posted by: Daniel Speed | Jan 21, 2007 at 11:24
Daniel Speed>
inherently symmetrical, synchronous, zero sum games.
------------------------------------
Excellent point. But which is the real principle at work here, symmetricality or fairnesss and sportsmanship, zero sum or measurable differences?
What I'm getting at is that symmetricality and zero sumness could be seen as convenient mechanisms to achieve a deeper design objective.
Posted by: nate combs | Jan 21, 2007 at 11:38
I'm going to start from the position that all sports are games, but not all games are sports. Feel welcome to debunk this with counter-examples, but everything that I can think of at the moment points in this direction if you're taking a strict interpretation of "Sports". All of the properties you've mentioned in bold would to me appear to be properties of competition.
If this is the case, then Sports are a subset of Games, and the debate is really about the properties of Games that are not Sports, and if MMOGs fall into that, since it seems to be a given that they're Games.
One of the first steps to decide is if you can have a sport that doesn't have a competitive win condition - anything beyond that seems irrelevant before establishing this.
Running a marathon would intuitively seem to be a sport to me (you can run it and win), but just training for it would not. Shooting rifles would be a hobby, unless you're competing. Swimming is exercise, unless you're competing...
If you determine that there is a competition, only then does it make sense to me to establish the properties of that competition.
Posted by: Daniel Speed | Jan 21, 2007 at 12:12
Hmm, I'll go with Wiki's definitions. Based on those definitions, the key distinction is that sport is competitive and have winners/losers. Game is much broader in that a games does not need to be competitive nor have winners or losers. Play is even more broader in that it does not require rules.
Here are the wiki definitions for sport and game.
Sport: Sport is an activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively. Used by itself, sports commonly refer to activities where the physical capabilities of the competitor are the sole or primary determiner of the outcome(winning or losing), but the term is also used to include activities such as mind sports and motor sports where mental acuity or equipment quality are major factors. All sports have a winning player or team and a losing player or team. If there is no loser or winner its not a sport.
Game: A game is a structured or semi-structured activity, usually undertaken for enjoyment and sometimes also used as educational tools. (The term "game" is also used to describe simulation of various activities e.g., for the purposes of training, analysis or prediction, etc., see "Game (simulation)".) Games are generally distinct from work, which is usually carried out for remuneration, and from art, which is more concerned with the expression of ideas. However, the distinction is not clear-cut, and many games may also be considered work and/or art. Key components of games are goals, rules, challenge, and interactivity. Games generally involve mental or physical stimulation, and sometimes both. Many games help develop practical skills, serve as a form of exercise, or otherwise perform an educational, simulational or psychological role.
Posted by: magicback (Frank) | Jan 21, 2007 at 13:12
Daniel>
All of the properties you've mentioned in bold would to me appear to be properties of competition.
Frank> sport is competitive and have winners/losers
----------------------------------------------
Yes, I thought however Brynn established that competition cannot be the discriminating feature - as some games (Cribbage, Scrabble, Chess, ...) are competitive with winners and losers.
I still harken back to what I take to be Frank Lantz's point - there are extrinsic qualities that need to be factored in.
As for the point that Sports may be a subset of Games, I guess I can go along with that (meaning that I can't think of a counter-example :). Then the questions become:
1.) under what circumstances can a game graduate to a sport
2.) can all games become a sport
Posted by: nate combs | Jan 21, 2007 at 13:42
Added footnote.
Fn1. Here is Boston.com's (Boston Globe online) contribution "Pats edge Colts ... in Madden 2007 Boston.com utilizes video game to predict New England triumph".
Posted by: nate combs | Jan 21, 2007 at 13:51
There are extrinsic qualities to the concept of sport, but they are hard to pin down as they varies across cultural spectrum.
So, while Brynn may have stated that competition and the condition on winner and loser may not be the differentiating factors, I'll just echo Frank Lantz comment on sports having an "institutional framework".
Thus, while Cribbage, Scrabble, or Chess are clearly games, they can be made sports if there is an structured multiplayer and multi-round competitive framework (to yield an ultimate winner). They question therefore is "Do you want to play a game of chess or do you want to get into the sport of chess?"
Frank
Posted by: magicback (Frank) | Jan 21, 2007 at 13:58
Frank>
I'll just echo Frank Lantz comment on sports having an "institutional framework".
-----------------------------------------
Okay. Perhaps this is the best we can do at this time. To tie this back into the OP. Are MMORPGs better typified as examples of fun within an "institutional framework" vs. "game fun".
One argument would coincide with their social systems, arguably there are measures of fairness and fair conduct as well as yardsticks for scoring (uberness). On the surface, however, Frank Lantz's notion of structure doesn't translate well into this. But on the other hand, considering the audience, perhaps there is structure enough. The key idea here, however, is that the audience to the sport of MMORPG is not an external audience, but the internal one.
Posted by: nate combs | Jan 21, 2007 at 14:37
Maybe the reason that having an institutional framework makes a game feel sport-like has something to do with the notion of Agon within Callois' categories of play.
The purpose of the National Football League is to highlight the competitive aspect by taking your performance as an individual player and the outcome of every individual game and placing it in a large-scale hierarchical framework that gives it meaning in a universal value system. So that everytime I play Football, in it's official capacity as sport, I am in a real way competing against all of the other people who play Football.
In other words, it's not whether or not WoW is a sport, it's that every sport is massively-multiplayer. Sports leagues are analog (or rather media-independent) networks, connecting thousands, or hundreds of thousands of players together.
League Football and WoW are two different examples of attempts to create compelling many-player game experiences. I think, and hope, we will see more attempts in the future, and they might resemble different aspects of WoW and Football and they might not. From a game design perspective the interesting problem is how to make many-player interaction deep and meaningful.
Posted by: Frank Lantz | Jan 21, 2007 at 15:39
Misspelled "Caillois".
Posted by: Frank Lantz | Jan 21, 2007 at 15:41
There is the discipline of the philosophy of sport which, over the past fifty odd years has been refining the definition of games and sport. At this point in time, the generally accepted definitions are based upon the work of Suits (1988) and Meier (1988).
The basic definitions are:
Game: any activity in which we introduce unnecessary obstacles to its completion.
Sport: a subset of games that exhibit physical skill or prowess as a primary characterisitic to that activity.
for example, chess is considered a game because the player can ask an independent actor (i.e. somebody/something else) to move a piece according to the players instructions. Whilst Football (and I refer to any variety of football here - USA, Soccer, Australian Rules) is a sport because the player cannot ask somebody/something else to perform the action and still be considered to be playing the game. That is to say, the player must perform the physical action.
Computer based gaming provides an interesting example, because it could be simply a game, or a sport depending upon your point of view and how analytically minute you care to draw the line around physical.
Reading:
Meier, K.V (1988) "Triad Trickery: Playing with Sport and Games", The Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, XV pp.11-30
Suits, B. (1988) "Tricky Triad: Games, Play and Sport", The Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, XV, pp.1-9
Posted by: Chris Jones | Jan 21, 2007 at 16:07
"any activity in which we introduce unnecessary obstacles to its completion."
/boggles and recovers
well, I never knew there was a Journal of the Philosophy of Sport! Thanks, Chris! I'm going to check right now and see if I can dig these up.
Posted by: greglas | Jan 21, 2007 at 16:50
I like the game definition, as far as it goes (unnecessary obstacles and contrived contingency are not that far apart, in my mind), but the idea of "completion" (often referred to around here as "end state condition" or similar) is limiting.
I think the sports definition is not as robust as the institutionalization argument that Frank introduced (and the second Frank extended :) ).
Posted by: Thomas Malaby | Jan 21, 2007 at 17:01
Unfortunately Journal of Phil of Sport is not available on my university system and they've got the articles walled off on the home page. Pity!
Posted by: greglas | Jan 21, 2007 at 19:29
Quoting:
"The basic definitions are:
Game: any activity in which we introduce unnecessary obstacles to its completion.
Sport: a subset of games that exhibit physical skill or prowess as a primary characterisitic to that activity."
No disrespect to Suits and Meier but I think we can all agree that these definitions aren't great. That sports are games of physical skill is on the one hand trivially obvious and on the other hand totally insufficient, as it doesn't explain why Golf is a sport and Mini-Golf is just a game, or why Table Tennis is a sport and Ping Pong is just a game.
Really, as our sixth-grader pointed out, any robust definition of sport needs to be able to tell us why Tag isn't one.
Posted by: Frank Lantz | Jan 21, 2007 at 21:16
Nate: Sorry about the Pats.
Posted by: Mike Sellers | Jan 21, 2007 at 22:22
Tag doesn't really have a winner, as far as I can remember. It also starts with someone who is "it", so it's not symmetric, or "fair".
As far as I'm aware, Ping Pong IS Table Tennis, but Ping Pong is trademarked in the US. If you're going to name a sport, you're probably better off going with something that's not trademarked or colloquial.
I'm sticking to my guns and maintaining that sports are physical, symmetric, synchronous, zero-sum games (until someone can think of a counterexample, or just generally show that I'm missing something).
Posted by: Daniel Speed | Jan 22, 2007 at 04:35
Mike> Nate: Sorry about the Pats.
-----------------------------------
Sigh.
Posted by: nate combs | Jan 22, 2007 at 05:21
Actually it's commonly argued by the talking heads on networks like ESPN that golf isn't a sport, it's a game. (Max Kellerman springs to mind.)
One thing about spectator sports: all of the popular ones are by and large competitive, in that they have a clearly defined winner and loser. I can't really think of any exceptions. Playground tag, on the other hand, obviously doesn't. Neither do most MMORPG's, unless you cross over into the PvP arena.
So far as the definition of sports as a subset of games, I would question what the unnecessary obstacles are in the case of a foot race.
Posted by: lewy | Jan 22, 2007 at 05:31
Daniel> sports are physical, symmetric, synchronous, zero-sum games
---------------------------------------------
How about a thought experiment. Is Madden Football a sport? I anticipate you'd say its a game. Is "Madden Football Online" where individuals can influence a virtual football player a sport? Not physical enough? What if a Wii controller were thrown into the mix - 1 per player. You can get a real workout playing your Madden toon. You'd invite your friends over on Saturdays and just like PU kick-the-can, would pick teams. No audience - what if it were replayed on bigscreen for neighborhood parents? Are we getting into sports territory? Where is the line?
As for symmetricallity. What if Joey's team were handicapped because Joey was just simply too darn good. What if then the teams were, on the surface at least asymmetrical (pick your handicap). Now, I anticipate your answer that they are still symmetrical with regard to players perception of capability (ie. they are 'fair'). But what if Joey announced one saturday that he were feeling a little 'oatish' and wanted to be handicapped 'for a good challenge'. So now the teams were no longer 'symmetric' in terms of 'fairness' but the participants thought it was cool. No longer a sport?
Now, complicate this further. What if your Saturday Madden brigade had a geeky egalitarian flair to them. What if scoring was in fact based on the in-game (err, v-sport :) score multiplied by a value derived from a complex celestial algorithm so that in fact to any reasonable outsider, the points awarded would appear most arbitrary. But it made sense to them and was quite not zero-sum. No longer a sport?
As for synchronicity. Individual sports are quite asynchronous, non? Javelin throws are turn-based.
Posted by: nate combs | Jan 22, 2007 at 05:51
Just to anticipate a counter-argument on agency in the "madden football online" throught experiment (playing an avatar is not directly physical enough).
Consider sheep dog trials. Are sheep dog trials a sport or a game? To me they are more sport. The avatar there is a sheep dog.
Posted by: nate combs | Jan 22, 2007 at 06:01
I don't think that turn taking counts against being a synchronous game - the the example of chess - you can talk about playing it synchronously, in which both players are present (but can't take moves at the same time) or asynchronously, which is the play by mail example. As far as I'm aware, within the context of games, it just means that the players are aware of the actions of the other players, as they make them.
Symmetry in games is never about *everything*, or the only games it would ever apply to would be games of chess played by exactly the same AI running on exactly the same hardware. As a concept, it's fairly hard to apply it outside of theoretical games - but the point is that both teams have the same opportunities, and bring only their different abilities (and equipment, within the structure of rules of what is allowable) to the game.
Many games, and sports have a concept of handicaps, and golf is a good example - as I understand it, in the professional sport of golf, all golfers play off a handicap of 0, even though it's possible to have a positive handicap. Although golf is a Sport, I'm going to argue that when you play with handicaps, you're playing a Game, because you're penalizing ability within the competition itself.
Chess has skill based rankings as well, but they're not used to decide who won, only how significant the win was in terms of rankings. Football (Soccer) is all about multi-million dollar contracts, and there's obviously a difference between a team like Manchester United and your informal company team. The point is that both teams have the same number of people, and one team is not explicitly disallowed from having defenders when they play against each other.
I think your Wii Madden is getting fairly close to being a sport, minus, of course, popular acceptance for that usage of the label to stick. What I don't think you'll ever get is the exact line you're asking for.
What is "clever"? IQ over 120, exactly? Can you get everyone to agree to that, or might people want to apply the word clever to someone who sucks at Mensa tests, but might be able to understand and predict complex systems?
If you want an exact definition of what the word Sport means, it's just what people use it to mean, which is an intentional tautology that ignores that people don't usually agree.
Posted by: Daniel Speed | Jan 22, 2007 at 07:01
They're called the Olympic Games... but I don't see much of a game in synchronised swimming or figure skating. I can see the contest in them, though.
Is it artificial obstacles, or constraints that make a game? I don't see the obstacles in a foot race either, but I do see the constraints (the start and finish line, the shout/bang to go.) As opposed to running for your life from a pack of wild dogs, which isn't a game really, unless it's someone else's game of hunting you. They might even make sport of it.
Posted by: Ace Albion | Jan 22, 2007 at 10:45
I'd say that a sport differs from a game in that
1) It contains a physical element or elements the removal of which would substantially alter the nature of the activity.
Thus, in the example given in the article, checkers could be played with or without 50-lb pieces. But the addition or removal of each would not substantially alter the experience. Put chess on a computer instead of a board and the experience is unchanged. Put rugby on a computer (or golf, soccer or the rest)
To this end, I would say that tag is a sport, excepting only that it fails the second qualification, which is rather self-referential and deals only with "why are some activities *called* sports, and some *called* games:
2) People treat it as a sport.
Let me explain that. In India, a minor variation on tag (kabadi) is treated as a sport. You could introduce it into just about any playground and kids would "get it" as a sort of tag (in the US: here we might see it more as British Bulldogs with two rule changes), but we in the west would see them playing a game. Many Indians would see the same activity as a sport.
The same could be said for the shuffleboard/curling contrast, or darts and throwing a ball into a lineout in rugby: society decides which is sport and which game on a range of apparently arbitrary, but in fact deeply-grounded cultural and historical grounds.
In no way at all could an MMO be seen as a sport.
Posted by: Endie | Jan 22, 2007 at 12:02
Some interesting points have been raised in regards to the distinction betweeen games and sports, and various definitional approaches; I speak from a sport philosophy perspective and just seek to introduce some of the notions core to my discipline.
Some of the issues (briefly)
Institutional: not considered necessary, or arbitrary at best. At what level of support/fan base does a game change to a sport? See Suits, Meier, Schnieder
Competition: again not necessary. competition cannot account for single person versus environment sports such as mountain climbing. See Esposito, Suits, Meier and possibly Caillois.
Fairness (Symmetry): One of the current raging debates in the ethics of sport. What is fair? Is there such a thing as fair? Can a cheater play the game? Drugs and other performance enhancers in sport and so on. My position is fairness and the level playing field are myths or at least anacronisms left over from colonial days. There is currently no requirement for a level playing field or fairness in modern corporatised sport.
there is way too much reading here - pick up any copy of the Journal of the Philosophy of Sport in the last 10 years and there will be at least one article on fair play etc. There is a new journal out later this year called "Sport Ethics and Philosophy" that will specifically deal with this growing area of philosophy. http://www.britishphilosophyofsport.paisley.ac.uk/events.html
Some specific concerns:
Ace > "I don't see the obstacles in a foot race either, but I do see the constraints..."
According to Suits, the 'obstacles' that are artificial in a foot race are: keeping to the track -which might not be the most direct route between points A and B; The time factor, or requirement to get to point B before a certain time or other racers. Bernard Suits details the particular case of a race in his book "The Grasshopper". Suits (,Meier and others) speak about constitutive and regulatory rules of a game in detail in several articles and they speak to the issue much better than I can :) I can post references if there is anyone who wants them?
Frank L> "That sports are games of physical skill is on the one hand trivially obvious and on the other hand totally insufficient..."
Exactly! The problem with the physicality dimension to sport is that it is completely arbirary, analytic and insufficient to easily account for every current or emerging case, for example, digital games and micro-fine motor skills.
If you adopt the monist viewpoint that everything is physical, that is to say, there is no cartesian or mind-body split, then thought is a physical action, therefore everything we do is physical, therefore every game is automatically a sport. Or to perhaps use a better example, lets introduce a new sport called minute movement finger wobbling. The goal is to move your index finger as little as possible as slowly as possible. Points are scored for the slowest, most minimalist movement, whilst still being visible to the judges. Under the current definition this is a sport, because physicality is important to the execution of the activity. Probably not the most interesting or widely followed sport, but that is immaterial to the definition.
Now introduce digital or computer games to the mix. What is the difference? Digital based games have a physical component that is essential to the execution of the task - use of the controller. There is more physical action in using a console controller or keyboard, than there is to pistol shooting. One is a sport, the other is not. Now Frank McBride (1979) states that it is impossible to define sport because of the cultural and language differences, essentially, sport is too broad and vague a term to define. The best we can hope for is a Wittgestinian "family resemblance". Unfortunately I think this idea falls down also, because as soon as you define what that family resemblance is, then you are right back to the original problem.
I propose that the difference between games and sport needs to be approached from a different, non-physical viewpoint. Hopefully I'll be able to tell you what I think that is in a couple of years when I finish my ph.d thesis ;)
Regards,
cj
Posted by: Chris Jones | Jan 22, 2007 at 16:54
Endie>
society decides which is sport and which game on a range of apparently arbitrary, but in fact deeply-grounded cultural and historical grounds.
In no way at all could an MMO be seen as a sport.
------------------------------------------
The contradiction here is that as society and culture turns, so too perceptions. I think change could be accelerated as the boundaries of technology work the edges.
Okay, as so much of the discussion emphasized, much of the pushback is definitional: is physical involvement required, etc. But I think we can see from some of the excellent points raised above that this may be quite negotiable over time.
Posted by: nate combs | Jan 22, 2007 at 21:16
To me, one of the main differences between sports and games is that in sports, there is a persistence of some kind of score between instances.
The vast majority of the time, nobody gives a rat's ass who won a game of tag, a game of Scrabble (except you and your mom, Cliff), a game of Uno, etc. etc. from one time to the next. In many, many cases (probably the majority of times it's played), nobody cares who wins a game of chess after it's done. There are tournaments, sure, and those players (and their fans) care... but, worldwide, I bet the number of people paying attention to chess players' rankings pales into insignificance compared to the number of people who play it casually.
Now... compare that to the number of people who physically, regularly play football, vs. the number of people who know the "meta scores" related to the sport; i.e., all the data related to rankings not contained in a specific game. I'm guessing orders of magnitude more people in the US know various ranking of teams, players, etc. from the various "sports channels" than actually play "a game of football."
Sport, then, may be something the play of which is more important the more it is played at a meta level, whatever that means; for money, by a specific team, for rankings, sanctioned by an Olympic committee, observed, gambled on, etc. etc.
So... I'll stick out my neck and suggest that the more an activity is tends to be completely enjoyed as a contained experience, the more likely we will consider it a game. The more likely that its enjoyment is somehow connected to and compared with other instances of its play, the more likely we will call it a sport.
Posted by: Andy Havens | Jan 23, 2007 at 01:35
Sports are games in which I am picked last.
Posted by: Frank Lantz | Jan 23, 2007 at 15:27
Andy>
I'll stick out my neck and suggest that the more an activity is tends to be completely enjoyed as a contained experience, the more likely we will consider it a game. The more likely that its enjoyment is somehow connected to and compared with other instances of its play, the more likely we will call it a sport.
------------------------------------------------
It would also seem to dovetail with earlier idea that sport = "institutionalized". In other words, why institutionalize anything unless there were "meta" objectives to be had - establish common rules and practices, preserver of scores, grantor of honorifics and bestower of priviledges, etc.
It would also answer the question on what "sportsmanship" is and why its meaning seems to vary by the sport, or so it would seem (World Wrestling Federation vs. Gladitorial combat vs. Cricket). Fairness is an enshrined institutional value. If you buy this, however, it would undermine my original premise that an MMORPG was a sport - witness the "Fallacy of War" link in OP and the different ideas players assign to the meaning of PvP. MMORPGs would not be a sport by this reasoning as their core institutions governing player conduct etc are weak.
Posted by: nate combs | Jan 23, 2007 at 19:09
MMORPGs would not be a sport by this reasoning as their core institutions on player conduct etc are weak.
----------------------------------------------
But the hypothetical Madden Football Online could very well be a different story.
Posted by: nate combs | Jan 23, 2007 at 19:13
A similar parallel is when does the MMO genre of activities become an industry on it's own: probably because (1) the people in the industry says so and (2) is accepted by the general public. This process of defining terms at work--the same process that would-be nations try to gain legitimacy in the world after declarating their independence.
But as to the distinct features, I'll restate that in addition to being an institutionalized competitions, the two other features are:
1. multiplayer
2. multiround
In my view a Madden Football Online could be made a sport.
Posted by: magicback (Frank) | Jan 23, 2007 at 19:48
magicback>
multiplayer
-------------------------------------
Yes, I liked Frank L's spin that "every sport is massively-multiplayer" (and not necessarily vice versa).
I'm not sure why you think 'multiround' is significant - unless it is variant on Daniel's requirement of synchronicity (which I gather after his clarification to mean something like "players being colocated"). I guess the virtual extension of that meaning would be "players being virtually colocated"). Dunno, sounds weak to me.
Posted by: nate combs | Jan 23, 2007 at 20:26
> Dunno, sounds weak to me.
I mean the virtual requirement.
Posted by: nate combs | Jan 23, 2007 at 20:57
Re: Multi-rounds,
Why synchronicity and concurrency can be a feature of sports, what I mean by multi-rounds is closer to multi-stages rather than rounds of action within a game.
A game of chess is a game, but if you start institutionalized the competition (and create a sport culture around it), where there are multi-rounds(stages) of individual games of chess, then sport is created.
For example, starcraft is a game. However, groups of people in different parts of the world have organized and create a competitive sport out of a game of starcraft.
In another example, people may consider the regular Magic: The Gathering turnaments as a sport. Players compete with each other over multiple rounds to yield a single winner.
Thus, to further define institutionalization as a thought experiment (I'm thinking my way through this), we can consider this as a meta-rule for multiple instances of game with multiple players.
A game is a single instance between mutliple players with set rules within the game.
A sport (without the condition of a sporting culture) has mutliple instances between multiple layers with set meta-rules governing over the multiple instances.
Frank
Posted by: magicback (Frank) | Jan 24, 2007 at 01:27
magicback>
Why synchronicity and concurrency can be a feature of sports, what I mean by multi-rounds is closer to multi-stages rather than rounds of action within a game.
A game of chess is a game, but if you start institutionalized the competition (and create a sport culture around it), where there are multi-rounds(stages) of individual games of chess, then sport is created.
------------------------------------
Oh, I get it. Yes, as you point out, building and managing a competition ladder can be one reason for institutionalization.
Okay, I see this as helpful in some cases - e.g. your example, the "sport of chess", where a "game" can be built up into a "sports" system. But I still am not sure about why this needs to be a requirement for all sports (in the same way 'multiplayer' seems to be). For example, what if i concocted a massively multiplayer that involved a contest played simultaneously across the world (oh, 12.00 GMT) once a month. There would be one winner and scores would be rolled-forward. Such a sport would require a sort of "normalized" scoring scheme (scores meaningful across all matches), but I don't see the requirement for multistages.
Posted by: nate combs | Jan 24, 2007 at 03:52
BTW, Frank's analogy of "Chess as sport" (via institutionalization) seems a lot less hypothetical than one might at first think.
There is already a working template, so to speak, with the USCF (United States Chess Federation) - USCF represents the US in the World Chess Federation. One doesn't have to dig very deep in those discussions to find the likeness of these activities with "sports", e.g.
Chess is not always merely a game between one player and his mates but an international mental sport that has millions of enthusiasts nationally and internationally, of which there are only 90.000 in the US organized into the USCF representing the estimated 20,000,000 chess players in the US, because of reasons beyond merely playing chess.
(from here)
Or the one I like: "Chess Bitch: Women in the Ultimate Intellectual Sport."
Chess Bitch, written by the 2004 U.S.Women’s Chess Champion, is an eye-opening account of how today’s young female chessplayers are successfully knocking down the doors to the traditionally male game, infiltrating the male-owned sporting subculture of international chess, and giving the phrase “play like a girl” a whole new meaning.
(from here)
Posted by: nate combs | Jan 24, 2007 at 04:07
Hmm Nate,
I guess it's just you and me on this thread now.
Re: stages, rounds, etc.
I guess I'm not explaining well. In your example of multiple instances of games simutaneously being played at a set time each month meet the conditions for multiple player and multiple instances.
Now, with scores being rolled-forward to the next "round" or "stage" or "event", the condition for "multi-rounds" is met.
However, if the scores are not rolled-forward I would consider that the condition of "institutionalization" is not met. While, I don't have a complete or a strong definition for institutionalization, I think it does require some level of semi-persistence. The best differentiating factor I can come up with for this is meta-rules that govern games played over multiple instances.
Frank
Posted by: magicback (Frank) | Jan 25, 2007 at 04:50
Hmm Nate,
I guess it's just you and me on this thread now.
Re: stages, rounds, etc.
I guess I'm not explaining well. In your example of multiple instances of games simutaneously being played at a set time each month meet the conditions for multiple player and multiple instances.
Now, with scores being rolled-forward to the next "round" or "stage" or "event", the condition for "multi-rounds" is met.
However, if the scores are not rolled-forward I would consider that the condition of "institutionalization" is not met. While, I don't have a complete or a strong definition for institutionalization, I think it does require some level of semi-persistence. The best differentiating factor I can come up with for this is meta-rules that govern games played over multiple instances.
Frank
Posted by: magicback (Frank) | Jan 25, 2007 at 04:50
Institutionalisation is a bad criteria for a definition of sport. At what level of involvement does a game become a sport? And how do you justify the line in the sand?
Posted by: Chris Jones | Jan 25, 2007 at 06:53
A single instance of 22 sweaty guys running up and down a grass pitch is still called a "game" of football.
Sport is a subset of games, but games are sub-instances of sports...
For all the sport involved, it's still called The Olympic Games.
Maybe the only difference between games and sports is how much money people are gambling on the outcome.
Posted by: Ace Albion | Jan 25, 2007 at 08:17
"A game becomes more sport-like when an institutional framework evolves to manage and administer competition for a large-scale community of players and spectators through tournaments and organized matches."
This makes sense. It could be said that some games are more sport-like than others. The degree of 'sportness' would be the size of this community of players. A game would have maximum 'sportness rating' if there was a framework in place to decide who is the best in the world. A game would have the minimum sportness rating if it was only played with your friends, which is often the case with Tag.
From an opposite viewpoint, a marathon would obviously be a sport, but it is also a game, although a very simple one. (Run from point A to point B). It has the minimum gameness rating. :)
A game would always be a game, but it can have varying amounts of sporting quality attached?
Posted by: Ta | Jan 26, 2007 at 04:53
Something I remembered- at the university I attended, the Student Union made some policy decision that "clubs" would be restricted only to activities involving competition against other institutions' teams and/or representing the university. Basically, wearing team colours or having the university name ironed onto the back/lapel of the shirts. Clubs like the role-playing club were demoted to "societies".
I think there's that kind of "us and them" idea behind most sport. It's a game when played with family, a sport when played against other families. Then magnified to school, village, town, city, county, country... If you're playing with others it's a game, if you're playing against them (in the more overall sense, not just according to the game rules) then it's sport? Or war maybe.
Posted by: Ace Albion | Jan 26, 2007 at 08:58
Ta>
It could be said that some games are more sport-like than others.
Ace>
I think there's that kind of "us and them" idea behind most sport.
---------------------------------
Both of these strike me as reasonable. For example, running with the Chess example a bit more: when I play a game with a family member, It likely wouldn't feel very much as a sport (unless we're very competitive). Whereas play a USCF tournament - whole different ball game.
Posted by: nate combs | Jan 26, 2007 at 19:18
While trying not to drag in the 'sport culture' element, what's of interest to me are the meta-rules or features that transforms something from being a mere game into a sport.
I use the term institutionalization, but what I really want to focus on are what institutionalizes a game.
Intent by the participants is one: "I assert that I am, therefore I am."
Acceptance is another: "I assert that you are, therefore you are."
Well, if enough people say that a sport have been created around a particular game, then at least for these people there is a sport.
Frank
Posted by: magicback (Frank) | Jan 26, 2007 at 23:18
Aaron made a comment in the Brynn thread (WVU site, in OP) to the effect that he thought sports could be played professionally whereas non-sporting games could not be. This may be useful. On the one hand it points to the idea that if you are playing a game as a sport it needs to be comparable/identifiable with the broader community of like-minded players out there. But it also suggests a spectator dimension.
Posted by: nate combs | Jan 27, 2007 at 08:44
BTW, deep in this discussion on the Guardian site ("Is pool a sport or a game?") are good points raised there. A meaning attributed to Jay Coakley seems useful. Attributed to him is this:
"Sports are institutionalized competitive activities that involve vigorous physical exertion or the use of relatively complex physical skills by individuals whose participation is motivated by a combination of personal enjoyment and external rewards" (Sport in Society, 6th Edition, 1998, p.19).
Clearly, as I've presented above, I think the requirement on physical exertion is too restrictive, but I think the specific point on external rewards dovetails nicely with later ideas on institutionalization and professionalization.
Posted by: nate combs | Jan 27, 2007 at 09:18