holt Flashcards
cybersport thesis
the claim that video games count as sport
holt doesn’t think hemphill’s arguments are good enough
- hemphill says cybersports requires intelligence, interactivity, and immersion
holt says cybersports are sports if they follow the core parts of sport
gross vs fine motor skills
gross: major musc groups, mvmt of entire body
fine: limited ROM, hands/fingers, etc.
hemphill’s opinion on gross vs fine motor skills
he rejects distinguishing gross vs fine bcs unnecessary and counterproductive
holt’s opinion gross vs fine
gross skills are sufficient to define a sport, but fine skills are NOT sufficient alone
says ignoring fine/gross weakens the argument for GMS video games
- if gross motor skills define a sport, then cannot reject that GMS video games are sport
domain of execution
where the skilled movement occurs i.e. physical action
domain of application
where the result of the action occurs i.e. net
conflict of execution vs application
traditional sport, domains coincide
cybersport separates the domains, so actions that occur IRL result in application in the virtual world
explains that cybersports aren’t real bcs the physicality doesn’t occur in the real world
- they can be used for training, not competition
video games and suitsian theory
video games lack constitutive rules…rules cannot be broken bcs the boundaries are part of the programming that define the virtual environment
player’s don’t need a lusory attitude bcs they cannot achieve the goal any other way
what does holt think abt suitsian theory and cybersports
thinks it’s wrong to reject cybersports just bcs lack of constitutive rules
prelusory goal is supposed to be achieved even WITHOUT the game context, but the checkmate only exists w/in chess
- same for video game goals
when does holt say cybersports are real sport
a cybersport is not a sport IF we see a meaningful difference b/w the domains (real vs virtual in execution and application)
as virtual reality is inc common, we may stop seeing the distinction
