You might think that I’m going to finish off the slogan here, but I’m actually asking a question.
What happens in Vegas?
I don’t know, because I haven’t played Fallout: New Vegas yet. (The polarizing reviews have left me a little scared.) In fact, I haven’t even played the DLC for Fallout 3 yet. I said that I would beat it, let it sit for a bit, and then go back and beat it with an evil character instead. I didn’t follow through on that last step.
Anyway, thanks to RPS for showing me this amazing fan-film tribute to Fallout -
And speaking of which, I’m a bit sad that RPS’s recent contest was limited to UK residents. I have a great DC comics meets video games idea: Batman in the Fallout universe. I could see him doing quite well. It would be like No Man’s Land x 1,000! We already know that color palette won’t be an issue -
Read this article recently about the oldest “bargument” (a fun, passionate debate over utterly trivial question that is entirely a matter of opinion), what makes a sport a sport.
(Is Calvin Ball a sport?)
He claims that the three fundamental characteristics of sports are:
People compete at it,
Computers can’t do it, and
Aesthetics don’t count.
This is the reasoning he uses to claim that cheerleading is not a sport while croquet is.
Personally, I think defining sport is like defining art. People are both quite set in their ways and usually unable to fully articulate them, so no one is ever moved away from their gut feeling about whether something is, in fact, sport and/or art. That said, although I’m more inclined than not to agree with this author, I immediately tried to think of sports that break one or more of those conditions. I still haven’t thought of a good one yet.
If you read the comments on the original article, some of the more interesting things that are thrown in for consideration are golf (seems to fit the requirements but many people say it isn’t), debate (commenter claims that it fits the requirements, but I feel that rhetoric is quite subjective, so it fails check #3), and robots (whether they count as “computers,” and if they would invalidate existing sports as robotics got more advanced).
I guess similar to the robots question is that of video games. Technically, #2 applies, since people can play against AIs, but you could make the argument that AIs are poor substitutes for a human opponent and are only for training purposes, similar to a tennis player hitting a wall or a baseball player in the batting cages.
Perhaps we can add a fourth check, or modify the second one to say that the endeavor must be human-powered? Then the computer/robotics aspect is severely limited, if not completely moot. Also, it would eliminate car racing, which I don’t think of as a sport. (Unless it was Flintstones car racing, which would be awesome!)
Also, the question of aesthetics is hazy, as demonstrated by the question of debate above. If you think about it, there is a certain amount of aesthetics in all sports with human referees or judges. Look at all the questionable calls during the World Cup, or those NBA players who have a reputation of flopping. Think about boxing or MMA matches that go to judges’ decision. All of these are subjective and can be gamed.
Anyway, can you think of any exceptions to the original three checks? And what do you think of my suggested change?