In today's society, we have what we term, "jocks." These people play sports, they're physically fit. They waste hours upon hours playing sports such as basketball, soccer, and football. They will go, they will win, and if they're good, they will get a school scholarship to an Ivy League school. After that, they will join the school football team, and they will lead their team to victory.
Also in today's society, we have the term, "Cyber jocks." These people play computer games, but they are not physically fit. They waste just as many hours playing games such as Counter Strike, Starcraft, and Quake. They will go, they will win, and if they're good, they will beat Fatality(World famous CS player).
But wait. Something is wrong. What ever happened to the college part? Oh yeah, that's right. The person, who has managed to beat fatality, has just been kicked out of college due to his suffering grades. Whereas the football player still has his scholarship, and is still in school despite his suffering grades.
Kids, who waste hours upon hours playing Counter Strike, do not get their scholarship, even though they placed fourth during the world cyber games. Kids who waste hours upon hours playing Quake, do not get their scholarships, even though they placed twelfth in
This is discrimination. Both Football, and Counter Strike, waste the same amount of time. With football, it requires peak physical condition. In counter strike, it requires peak motor skills. So why is it that football player receive full scholarships, and Counter Strike players receive a blacklist?
I'll tell you why. It's discrimination. Today's society frowns upon 1337 computer gamers. Both activities are games, and both require immense amount of time. However, we prefer football players over, "lazy counter strike players who just waste all their time in front of their computers." Well, why can't we say the same thing to football players. "Lazy football players who just waste all their time on the field."
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Discrimination!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
A lot of jocks don't go to ivy league schools so your first statement is incorrect
Actually, playing shooters and strategy games take quite a bit of talent. Not everybody has insanely good motor and precision skills.
You, have not seen a talented CS player.
You can play your entire life, but that .02 reaction improvement does alot. I mean, I can practice all my life, and F4Tal1ty will still kick my ass.
I don't think you're born with video game talent, if you play everyday for the rest of your life, i think you'll beat fatality.
Nah.
Those who are good in sports (especially hockey) can probably be very good at computer games. Not everybody is born with lighning fast reaction skill. After a while, I'll only get as good as I can possibly get.
And Candice
People DO watch other people play games, sad as it may sound.
Video games do require quite a bit of skill. Real-time strategy games like Age of Empires (Warcraft, Starcraft, etc.) require not only fast motor skills but quick thinking too. Top video gamers require talent just as much as the top athletes, although the type of talent is usually different.
For those unfamiliar with the video game world, there are many tournaments held just to watch the best compete against the best. A few years ago when Age of Kings (Conquerors) was hot, there was a $50 000 tournament on zone.com, where the resulting top player of certain countries (e.g. Canada, South Korea, United States) would qualify to go to Microsoft's headquarters to compete against each other for a stake for the #1 spot. When the results were finished, people poured over the recorded games (In Age of Kings you can record games to watch them later) to watch the world-class players play against each other. Not only is it entertaining to see the skilled fight the skilled, you might even learn something to help your own skills, which is just as much an incentive.
This is highly analagous to the way the general population feels about sports games. Instead of recorded games, people watch their games live through their televion sets or up at the stadium or the basketball courts.
I think the point can be narrowed even better by considering not just video game players but chess players.
The same "discrimination" can be shown, and perhaps more uncontroversially, against world-class chess players. The masters and international masters (or grandmasters) who enter Ivy-League schools will probably hold some advantage because of their chess prowess, but probably nowhere near (and minus the scholarships) the advantage the top high-school athletes have when they apply to their respective colleges.
And it's all quite simple actually: Like video games, chess is just not as popular as baseball, basketball, hockey or football. If one day video games became as popular as sports, then we might see the scholarships that Roger is calling for. But until then, sports will rule.
So, skills don't mean too much do they? It's how many people are interested. Case in point: The top 20 chess players make a fraction of what the top 20 players make in any of the high profile sports. Kasparov himself, distinctly higher-paid than the rest due to his popularity, probably made the same thing as an NHL bench player, but was the best in the world and arguably in history, in one of the most challenging and intellectually-demanding games today. Worse yet, many grandmasters below the top 50 have to take on second jobs. That's just sad.
Post a Comment