Esports Medal Event Added to the 2022 Asian Olympics

As esports gains popularity, business and organizations become eager to invest in the industry that has become a worldwide phenomenon; soon, it will also become a part of one of the world's largest sporting events.

On Apr 17, the Olympic Council of Asia (OCA) and Alisports, Alibaba's sports-focused subsidiary, announced that they will be partnering to put esports on the official program of the 2022 Asian Games in Hangzhou, China. In addition, esports will be a demonstration event at the OCA's 5th Asian Indoor and Martial Art Games (AIMAG) in September and the 2018 Asian Games in Jakarta, Indonesia.

The Asian Games is seen as the second-largest sporting event in the world, the first being the Olympics. Esports' inclusion in such an event is because “(it will be) reflecting the rapid development and popularity of this new form of sports participation among the youth.”

OCA President HE Sheikh Ahmad Al Fahad Al Sabah said: “The Olympic Council of Asia has constantly been committed to the heritage, development and improvement of Asian sports, and we are extremely pleased about the strategic partnership with Alisports."

The game roster for these events has yet to be confirmed, but titles being considered for the 5th AIMAG include FIFA 2017, MOBAs (Multiplayer Online Battle Arena) and RTS (Real Time Strategy) games.

 

Jesus christ, i believe that this forum was made on the subject of Esports being in a proper sporting event, not whether Sm4sh or Melee should be picked. Take some chill pills and drink some water will ya'. You should be excited that Esports as a whole is being involved and not starting a flame/comment war that rivals the wars on YouTube. Esports being included is a huge step in gaming and i think we should all focus on that and hope it expands to all areas of Esports like Fighting games.

 

Jesus christ, i believe that this forum was made on the subject of Esports being in a proper sporting event, not whether Sm4sh or Melee should be picked. Take some chill pills and drink some water will ya'. You should be excited that Esports as a whole is being involved and not starting a flame/comment war that rivals the wars on YouTube. Esports being included is a huge step in gaming and i think we should all focus on that and hope it expands to all areas of Esports like Fighting games.

My thoughts exactly. Well said.

 

Jesus christ, i believe that this forum was made on the subject of Esports being in a proper sporting event, not whether Sm4sh or Melee should be picked. Take some chill pills and drink some water will ya'. You should be excited that Esports as a whole is being involved and not starting a flame/comment war that rivals the wars on YouTube. Esports being included is a huge step in gaming and i think we should all focus on that and hope it expands to all areas of Esports like Fighting games.

Lol agreed.

 

I really hope the ESports will become as big as regular sports. We can only hope that gaming companies will push their game(s) onto the ESports market, and that in the future, more competitive games will be surfaced onto the big stage.

 

It warned me that I'm likely dealing with gish gallop, which means I lose if I engage, unless I want increasingly large flows of it [and I don't].



It's not that I'm not interested in a rational argument about it, as I laid out an extremely detailed reasoning to why Project M's appearance of longer games is not due to slower gameplay but character diversity, it's that if I list specific things that make Project M have some aspects of gameplay that speed up the game [Marth's dair has less landing lag letting him combo from it more efficiently, you can teeter on edge, turn around, and press back softly to instantly grab ledge which for characters with slow jumpsquats might be faster than a wavedash to ledge, DACUS gives certain characters burst mobility to tech chase and move faster, reverse aerial rush gives characters like DK better approach options... the list goes on], they would have [from where I see how this has gone], been ignored... but I'll list them now here since apparently you're interested?

I just looked up gish gallop, and that's a really, really stupid concept that could not possibly apply to any argument actually focused on the exchange of ideas. For any argument I may make, if the set of information you believe leads you to conclude that what I say is wrong, you necessarily have a counter-argument to it, and if you don't have a counter-argument, you necessarily have been convinced by the argument I made. The only reason you would choose not to engage further in an argument in which you still believe me to be wrong is that you no longer find it worth the time it would take to resolve the differences in our relevant sets of information. I already articulated the pointlessness of communicating this fact to me, as well as the fact that, because you indicated that this is the case as a result of reading simply the last of several arguments I made after having read all of the others, your dismissal of my comment fails to circumvent the illogicality of the idea that the apparent nature of one argument has any effect on any other.
Project M does have tech that Melee lacks, but this does not mean that it is overall a faster game than Melee or that it requires more tech skill. My main reason for saying that was that I've played PM and it feels slower than Melee, going by the general speed of the game and how fast you can do things. It's not a highly educated opinion as I haven't played very much PM, but that was never the main reason for posting my comment. The main argument I was making was the comparison between Melee and Smash 4, something I'm significantly more knowledgeable about. It's particularly ironic that the comment about PM was the one you focused so much on.

 

My main reason for saying that was that I've played PM and it feels slower than Melee, going by the general speed of the game and how fast you can do things. It's not a highly educated opinion as I haven't played very much PM, but that was never the main reason for posting my comment. The main argument I was making was the comparison between Melee and Smash 4, something I'm significantly more knowledgeable about. It's particularly ironic that the comment about PM was the one you focused so much on.

"I have less skill in a game, therefore cannot take advantage of all it offers, and therefore say it feels slower."

>Watches games of Melee from 2003

Yeah, that game is SOOOOO FAST!

The only correct statement in here is that your opinion is extremely uneducated on the subject.

It's gish gallop because the arguments presented are *weak*, and your only basis for PM being slower is that you can't play it as fast, is *extraordinarily* weak. The fact that you provided numerous other arguments that basically read the same way did suggest to me that much, if not all, of the post would simply be gish gallop.

If you wanted my posts to instead get increasingly longer as I respond to more and more arguments, that might be more feasible in a week when I'm no longer stuck with a bunch of finals to study for.

Jesus christ, i believe that this forum was made on the subject of Esports being in a proper sporting event, not whether Sm4sh or Melee should be picked. Take some chill pills and drink some water will ya'. You should be excited that Esports as a whole is being involved and not starting a flame/comment war that rivals the wars on YouTube. Esports being included is a huge step in gaming and i think we should all focus on that and hope it expands to all areas of Esports like Fighting games.

Lol maybe I should've ignored the trolls, but I saw some echo chamber stuff and jumped in. Maybe should've just let it lie and sighed instead [like I do at most of those comments].

That said, agreed completely.

 

"I have less skill in a game, therefore cannot take advantage of all it offers, and therefore say it feels slower."

>Watches games of Melee from 2003

Yeah, that game is SOOOOO FAST!

The only correct statement in here is that your opinion is extremely uneducated on the subject.

It's gish gallop because the arguments presented are *weak*, and your only basis for PM being slower is that you can't play it as fast, is *extraordinarily* weak. The fact that you provided numerous other arguments that basically read the same way did suggest to me that much, if not all, of the post would simply be gish gallop.

If you wanted my posts to instead get increasingly longer as I respond to more and more arguments, that might be more feasible in a week when I'm no longer stuck with a bunch of finals to study for.



Lol maybe I should've ignored the trolls, but I saw some echo chamber stuff and jumped in. Maybe should've just let it lie and sighed instead [like I do at most of those comments].

That said, agreed completely.

"I have less skill in a game, therefore cannot take advantage of all it offers, and therefore say it feels slower".
...Actually, no, more like: "I have certain skills that I have learned in Melee, and when trying out Project M the game did not appear to support the same extent of expression of these skills". Even without knowledge of PM-specific stuff, I can validly make this observation because I do have sufficient experience with Melee, the game I'm comparing it to. The only reason I can not confidently conclude that PM is from all angles slower than Melee is because I'm not sufficiently aware of PM-specific things, of which I never claimed an absence.

"The only correct statement in here is that your opinion is extremely uneducated on the subject."
Lol. You didn't even make any arguments to disprove any of my other statements; you're just trying to come up with another sentence to insult me that doesn't actually make sense considering all you actually argued was that my opinions were misguided, not that I presented any factually inaccurate information, which is what your sentence now says.

"It's gish gallop because the arguments presented are *weak*, and your only basis for PM being slower is that you can't play it as fast, is *extraordinarily* weak. The fact that you provided numerous arguments that basically read the same way did suggest to me that much, if not all, of the post would simply be gish gallop."

Congratulations, you literally just stated the definition of gish gallop and said that "your arguments are gish gallop because they are [definition of gish gallop]. When the whole time we've been arguing about the validity of generalizing about the arguments of a specific comment based on the nature of one specific argument within, you don't accomplish anything by making an argument that is decidedly circular because you haven't even made any argument for the blanket claim your statement here uses. This is all regardless of the fact that you still haven't countered my illustration that gish gallop is not a concept that has any relevance to actual argumentation for the sake of understanding the truth.
You also still haven't shown how reading the last argument has any effect on the others. If those arguments "read the same way", and the way that an argument "reads" matters, why weren't you able to pick up on how they "read badly" when you read them? Or if you're saying that because they read the same way, they must be similar in validity to an argument that you were supposedly able to assess the validity of based on something other than how it "reads", why does the way an argument "reads" determine its validity? This is all regardless of the fact that you haven't given the meaning of "how an argument reads", or how this could possibly be any sort of meaningful construct.

"Lol maybe I should have ignored the trolls, but I saw some echo chamber stuff and jumped in. Maybe should've just let it lie and sighed instead [like I do at most of those comments]."
LOL. So, you're in an argument in a thread, and when someone in said thread opines that the arguments are not worthwhile, you take the opportunity to claim that everyone you were arguing with is a "troll" and that you are someone who always understands the truth and only "jumps in" when comments are particularly bad in a fashion that gives the impression that you are either trying to suck up to the person giving a negative opinion on the argumentation or further trying to paint a picture of superiority to the people you're arguing with, both of which are completely ridiculous. I don't think the person who thinks these arguments are stupid and detracting from the point of this post cares that you think your positions in said arguments are the most accurate, or that you think you're so much more rational than most smashboards debaters that you lack the interest to debate with them. As previously stated, I am not fazed by these claims.

 

"I have less skill in a game, therefore cannot take advantage of all it offers, and therefore say it feels slower".
...Actually, no, more like: "I have certain skills that I have learned in Melee, and when trying out Project M the game did not appear to support the same extent of expression of these skills". Even without knowledge of PM-specific stuff, I can validly make this observation because I do have sufficient experience with Melee, the game I'm comparing it to. The only reason I can not confidently conclude that PM is from all angles slower than Melee is because I'm not sufficiently aware of PM-specific things, of which I never claimed an absence.

"The only correct statement in here is that your opinion is extremely uneducated on the subject."
Lol. You didn't even make any arguments to disprove any of my other statements; you're just trying to come up with another sentence to insult me that doesn't actually make sense considering all you actually argued was that my opinions were misguided, not that I presented any factually inaccurate information, which is what your sentence now says.

I wasn't referring to the whole post, I was referring very specifically to the argument you posted within what I quoted. I suppose I technically quoted a single part more than what I was trying to do so [my mistake], but if you think this was a rebuke of the post as a whole, that's a failure in communication on my end [as it *was* rather ambiguous rereading it].

"It's gish gallop because the arguments presented are *weak*, and your only basis for PM being slower is that you can't play it as fast, is *extraordinarily* weak. The fact that you provided numerous arguments that basically read the same way did suggest to me that much, if not all, of the post would simply be gish gallop."

Congratulations, you literally just stated the definition of gish gallop and said that "your arguments are gish gallop because they are [definition of gish gallop]. When the whole time we've been arguing about the validity of generalizing about the arguments of a specific comment based on the nature of one specific argument within, you don't accomplish anything by making an argument that is decidedly circular because you haven't even made any argument for the blanket claim your statement here uses. This is all regardless of the fact that you still haven't countered my illustration that gish gallop is not a concept that has any relevance to actual argumentation for the sake of understanding the truth.

If the argument is weak, it's a last-ditch effort usually, not something to bring up first. I would expect you to lead with stronger arguments, the way actual argumentation works [because, given the limited time people have, spending it typing up long diatribes on here doesn't seem very efficient].

You also still haven't shown how reading the last argument has any effect on the others. If those arguments "read the same way", and the way that an argument "reads" matters, why weren't you able to pick up on how they "read badly" when you read them? Or if you're saying that because they read the same way, they must be similar in validity to an argument that you were supposedly able to assess the validity of based on something other than how it "reads", why does the way an argument "reads" determine its validity? This is all regardless of the fact that you haven't given the meaning of "how an argument reads", or how this could possibly be any sort of meaningful construct.

This was the general feel [since we seem to be saying the feel of something is sufficient to pass judgment] of the post. By "reads badly", I mean this: an argument which could likely be rebutted solidly, but would take a significantly longer block of text to do so than was presented. It could also be rebutted somewhat efficiently, but with a similarly weak argument [and at that point, putting forth the effort to do so seems disingenuous, because at that point neither of us are really trying...]. I can reread your arguments if you really want me to, but we can also agree to disagree and drop this stupid thing [as it's not like our argument will affect what esports show up >_>].

"Lol maybe I should have ignored the trolls, but I saw some echo chamber stuff and jumped in. Maybe should've just let it lie and sighed instead [like I do at most of those comments]."
LOL. So, you're in an argument in a thread, and when someone in said thread opines that the arguments are not worthwhile, you take the opportunity to claim that everyone you were arguing with is a "troll" and that you are someone who always understands the truth and only "jumps in" when comments are particularly bad in a fashion that gives the impression that you are either trying to suck up to the person giving a negative opinion on the argumentation or further trying to paint a picture of superiority to the people you're arguing with, both of which are completely ridiculous. I don't think the person who thinks these arguments are stupid and detracting from the point of this post cares that you think your positions in said arguments are the most accurate, or that you think you're so much more rational than most smashboards debaters that you lack the interest to debate with them. As previously stated, I am not fazed by these claims.

My point was that I jumped in to say I thought the original claims against non-Melee games were stupid. This person was saying that the arguments were dumb. I was more or less apologizing for causing such a fiasco on this comment thread [as, had I simply said nothing, there wouldn't have been this mess of text in the first place].

I called them a troll because this person clearly came to either start an argument or preach to the choir... the article had nothing to do with Melee or Smash 4 and they came in saying Melee > Smash 4 using a rather long post to do so... maybe you don't think that's trolling, but it certainly matches with definitions I've seen...

While the apology was probably underhanded [and therefore rendered mostly ineffective to those reading it], the primary purpose as I wrote it was apologetic [although I seem to have missed the mark ._.], since in the end, this wall of text wouldn't have been written if I had never said anything in the first place [and while it wouldn't have been if they never posted either, it needs a second person to actually start an argument].

 

I wasn't referring to the whole post, I was referring very specifically to the argument you posted within what I quoted. I suppose I technically quoted a single part more than what I was trying to do so [my mistake], but if you think this was a rebuke of the post as a whole, that's a failure in communication on my end [as it *was* rather ambiguous rereading it].



If the argument is weak, it's a last-ditch effort usually, not something to bring up first. I would expect you to lead with stronger arguments, the way actual argumentation works [because, given the limited time people have, spending it typing up long diatribes on here doesn't seem very efficient].



This was the general feel [since we seem to be saying the feel of something is sufficient to pass judgment] of the post. By "reads badly", I mean this: an argument which could likely be rebutted solidly, but would take a significantly longer block of text to do so than was presented. It could also be rebutted somewhat efficiently, but with a similarly weak argument [and at that point, putting forth the effort to do so seems disingenuous, because at that point neither of us are really trying...]. I can reread your arguments if you really want me to, but we can also agree to disagree and drop this stupid thing [as it's not like our argument will affect what esports show up >_>].



My point was that I jumped in to say I thought the original claims against non-Melee games were stupid. This person was saying that the arguments were dumb. I was more or less apologizing for causing such a fiasco on this comment thread [as, had I simply said nothing, there wouldn't have been this mess of text in the first place].

I called them a troll because this person clearly came to either start an argument or preach to the choir... the article had nothing to do with Melee or Smash 4 and they came in saying Melee > Smash 4 using a rather long post to do so... maybe you don't think that's trolling, but it certainly matches with definitions I've seen...

While the apology was probably underhanded [and therefore rendered mostly ineffective to those reading it], the primary purpose as I wrote it was apologetic [although I seem to have missed the mark ._.], since in the end, this wall of text wouldn't have been written if I had never said anything in the first place [and while it wouldn't have been if they never posted either, it needs a second person to actually start an argument].

Oh I know you were only referring to a certain portion of the post. That's what I was talking about.

"If the argument is weak, it's a last-ditch effort usually, not something to bring up first."
But it was the last argument, wasn't it?

"This was the general feel [since we seem to be saying the feel of something is sufficient to pass judgment] of the post. By "reads badly", I mean this: an argument which could likely be rebutted solidly, but would take a significantly longer block of text to do so than was presented. It could also be rebutted somewhat efficiently, but with a similarly weak argument [and at that point, putting forth the effort to do so seems disingenuous, because at that point neither of us are really trying...]. I can reread your arguments if you really want me to, but we can also agree to disagree and drop this stupid thing [as it's not like our argument will affect what esports show up >_>]."

Sure, we can drop it if you want. I'd be fine with that. I just don't really get the focus on "weak arguments" being so annoyingly effective. If an argument is wrong, then you can just tell them why it's wrong.


I don't think that person was intentionally trolling, they were just saying stuff that didn't really need to be said in this thread. It's not likely that any smash game will get into the olympics. Rather it's games like CS:GO and Dota that will be there, if any.

 

Ugh you guys are seriously fighting over this? Who cares!?! Melee is just full of glitches (luigi invisible ceiling) and engine exploits (wavedashing), with maybe 8 viable characters. This game is a broken unbalanced mess and yet all this does is make people want to throw a skill wall around it because you're better at breaking the game than your opponent.

Sm4sh also has very few non-grab oriented combos, obnoxiously easy to grab ledges, super fast spammy rolls, a stupid and unecessary rage mechanic. It at least has decent character balance I suppose but that's basically it.

To me these games both suck competitively and I have no idea why y'all dedicate so much time to fighting over which one of these sucks more. They both suck. Get over it. Anyways I'll probably be crucified for this post but whatevs.