Henman

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

Pishtosh, minor detail. Baseball and Icehockey have Canadian teams, does that mean the whole thing is still "club" and not "international" ?

The Champions League has teams from France. From England, from Spain. Is that an international competition? No, because it's not BETWEEN NATIONS.

Originally Posted by Deffeh

Just because its a competition between States, and not Countries, doesnt mean a thing.

It means its not an international. You can't just make up your own definitions of words to support your argument, that's what Muslim does.

[JC]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

More teams can win it.

What kind of a point is that?

More teams can realistically win the FA cup or Worthington Cup than can win the World Cup. Does that make them bigger competitions? .

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

Yeah? Explain.

Because 'tactics' have a large importance in the game? I don't really know how to prove this, dude. Long distance running and rowing are both tactical, just because you can't throw 10 forwards into a scrum if you're losing doesn't mean there's no tactics*.


*Football comparison, obviously.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

Pishtosh, minor detail. Baseball and Icehockey have Canadian teams, does that mean the whole thing is still "club" and not "international" ?

Yes, the Heineken Cup is a competition with teams from different countries but is still club.

Just because its a competition between States, and not Countries, doesnt mean a thing. Scotland to England is less significant than Washington to Texas.

Yeah I'm sure Jaromir Jagr was born in Washington DC. It's only a competition between locations if your team can only be drawn from within specific area boundaries.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Yeah I'm sure Jaromir Jagr was born in Washington DC. It's only a competition between locations if your team can only be drawn from within specific area boundaries.

Like U16 club football

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Like U16 club football

The word "club" there is probably a misnomer. Unless you're taking it to refer to the specific locations in which case it's alright I guess.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

The word "club" there is probably a misnomer. Unless you're taking it to refer to the specific locations in which case it's alright I guess.

Before they turn 16, you're only allowed to draw youth players from 1 hours away (or something like that), so it's fairly locational.

[Deffeh]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

It means its not an international. You can't just make up your own definitions of words to support your argument, that's what Muslim does.

Im making the relevance that its different to league play.

And who the **** cares if its international or not? Its interstate.

You might also want to explain to me how Washington Texas is so much different than Scotland England. Last i checked we were part of the United Kingdom, hommes.

Originally Posted by JC

What kind of a point is that?

More teams can realistically win the FA cup or Worthington Cup than can win the World Cup. Does that make them bigger competitions? .

No they cant. Without a major shock, itll be Arsenal, Man Utd, Liverpool, or Chelsea. Theres a supporting cast ok, but not a serious one. In Rugby theres only 10 teams with any good players, and realistically only 4 capable of winning anything.

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Because 'tactics' have a large importance in the game? I don't really know how to prove this, dude. Long distance running and rowing are both tactical, just because you can't throw 10 forwards into a scrum if you're losing doesn't mean there's no tactics*.


*Football comparison, obviously.

yer avin a larf. Kick it, gain yards, run the guys down, stay onside, be strong, be fat, be fast. Not that i could do it. Im not strong fat or fast enough. "omg where to throw this ball" isnt exactly a talking point in football, so why should it be in rugby? Its a game of strength. Theres no formations etc. The major decisions are "do i run into the guy in front of me and keep the ball or kick it to them but gain yards". Its an absolute snorefest, and one of the few things i can say in Glasgows favour is that this city is largely unpenetrated by the hoof and run thugsnorefest that is rugby.

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Yeah I'm sure Jaromir Jagr was born in Washington DC. It's only a competition between locations if your team can only be drawn from within specific area boundaries.

Sven Goran Erikkson must be a proud englishman sitting in his country garden with Owen Hargreaves. He'll be getting ready to play 100% portuguese Deco and his team.

Nigel Quashie will of course be sitting at home cursing the TV like a true scotsman.

[Ste]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

Nigel Quashie will of course be sitting at home cursing the TV like a true scotsman.

He used to play for forest... was shite if i remember correctly.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

You might also want to explain to me how Washington Texas is so much different than Scotland England. Last i checked we were part of the United Kingdom, hommes.

Because of history.

Originally Posted by Deffeh

yer avin a larf.

You're just dismissing random things out of hand; I can dismiss football as 'either running with the ball, passing or shootins' but it doesn't make it untactical. There doesn't have to be formations for it to be tactical (see my comments about running and rowing), and what a player does at a certain moment isn't as certain as you seem to think. Having multiple valid choices are the basis of tactical play.

[Deffeh]

Not really caring whether hes good or shite for scotland, he shouldnt be in our team if we are to retain any sort of National team pride. We're crap enough without any second rate english rejects.

however, i was demonstrating that all national football is now mercenary. These drawn borderlines dont mean jack shit

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

Sven Goran Erikkson must be a proud englishman sitting in his country garden with Owen Hargreaves. He'll be getting ready to play 100% portuguese Deco and his team.

Nigel Quashie will of course be sitting at home cursing the TV like a true scotsman.

The manager doesn't count, and at least there is (well, used to be) some semblance of location vs location (you have to allow passport holders etc, obviously) before FIFA ****ed around with it.

[Deffeh]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Because of history.



You're just dismissing random things out of hand; I can dismiss football as 'either running with the ball, passing or shootins' but it doesn't make it untactical. There doesn't have to be formations for it to be tactical (see my comments about running and rowing), and what a player does at a certain moment isn't as certain as you seem to think. Having multiple valid choices are the basis of tactical play.

You can simplify down anything like that, but put simply, Rowing, Running arent in the same tactical league as Football (which incidently probably isnt as Tactical as Gridiron, which is why i love it). Rugby isnt either. There isnt as wide an array in choices. Theres isnt as an "impressive" way to score points. You can be a rugby genius and be shit because you arent 6"2 250 pounds. You can be a midget and a legend (lo maradona, zola).

[Deffeh]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

The manager doesn't count, and at least there is (well, used to be) some semblance of location vs location (you have to allow passport holders etc, obviously) before FIFA ****ed around with it.

Ireland have been playing English for years. We've been stealing your rejects at the rate of noughts,

Theres always going to be a grey area, people like Michael Owen, or Dominic Matteo etc, but what can we do? All i know is when i go to See Scotland, win lose, draw, lose, lose, lose, draw, or lose (i felt it neccesary that noone thought i think all 3 outcomes are as likely), i cant even be confident that when im watching "Scotland", there are 11 "Scotsmen" out there. So wheres my pride? Wheres the difference now, when we're playing anyone wholl play for us, between this as two members of the union of great britain, and two states in America.

The History only adds an edge to the rivalry, it makes no real difference

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

You can simplify down anything like that, but put simply, Rowing, Running arent in the same tactical league as Football (which incidently probably isnt as Tactical as Gridiron, which is why i love it). Rugby isnt either. There isnt as wide an array in choices. Theres isnt as an "impressive" way to score points. You can be a rugby genius and be shit because you arent 6"2 250 pounds. You can be a midget and a legend (lo maradona, zola).

That doesn't make them 'tactically inept' though; I never claimed that rugby, or running, was anything like Football for tactical variation.

[JC]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

6"2 250 pounds

Jason Robinson isnt that big. That ace Figian sevens player isnt either.

[Deffeh]

Originally Posted by JC

Jason Robinson isnt that big. That ace Figian sevens player isnt either.

It was an exaggeration. Robinsons the athletic fast black fella aye?

Hes not exactly Gianfranco zola

[SeanG]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

i dont like people not arguing with me.

Which is why I'm quite sure you don't actually believe half of the stuff u type. You just type it to be 'a rebel' and 'different'

[Deffeh]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

That doesn't make them 'tactically inept' though; I never claimed that rugby, or running, was anything like Football for tactical variation.

I cannot be impartial on rugby and am prone to exaggeration. But rugby is still a straightforward game with very little variation. Probably a reason why the "better" team wins more often

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

Hes not exactly Gianfranco zola

The only people like Zola liked tens of thousands of years ago in northern europe.

[Lupin]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

And i dont like people not arguing with me. Youve yet to state your case but say "no ur rong"

a big competition is something where a couple of nations (souverain countries) take part. how big it exactly is depends of nations being part of the cup, how big the audience is and secondary how much ppl watch it in TV.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

I cannot be impartial on rugby and am prone to exaggeration. But rugby is still a straightforward game with very little variation. Probably a reason why the "better" team wins more often

Nah, the reason for that is because it's territorial, and high scoring.

[JonnyBGood]

Deffeh, there have been many backs in rugby who were fantastically skilled players without being the stereotypical modern rugby-player. Please do not let the television-reinforced modern concept of rugby become the only way to possibly play the game.

[Deffeh]

I must say this thread has developed and evolved wonderfully from a "henman lost a set" start

[Evergreen]

Let's face it if it wasn't for our godforsaken patriotism in the UK we'd have only one international football and rugby side from that country.

If that was true then the Rugby World cup would have a much smaller group format..... in football it wouldn't affect it one jot.

In America I can tell you this Louisiana and California are about as similar as England and Australia..... just because they are all united STATES of the north america doesn't mean that they are exactly one country, we have an EU Goverment doesn't mean all of the EU is one country, and the fact more states (which all have their own goverments and laws just a similar currency lo like europe) take part in the world series than countries take part in the cricket world cup or rugby world cup I think the term world series is justifiable.

Do dooooo get over this horrible protectionism from all things american..... canadian teams have won 'american' competions (toronto blue jays have won the world series, Calgary Flames and Montreal Canadiens have won the stanly cup) it's just that other countries do not play said sports at a professional level they wish to compete at, in fact most european hockey teams and football teams and baseball teams are purely feeder teams for north american sides.

Now the MAIN difference (though it isn't much of a difference trust me) is that these sides in the World Series, the Stanley cup etc, field teams of players which are usually not native to the area they represent, but then again France European and World Champions of recent years fielded players.... not native... to the nation they represent (lo goverment hand outs of national idendity for sake of pride) hi all them senegalese/mali/irvorian 'french' players taking them to the cup, let's not forget that Zinedine Zidane is Algerian....

[Deffeh]

Rangers fan in pro britain shocker. Though i agree with you, mainly.

[Evergreen]

I prefer being called a North Briton.

I've learned that what we celebrate today is just trying to undo everything that the act of union gave us scots back in the 18th century.

I certainly don't fancy harking back to the days of sheep bled porridge and barbarianism.... national identity is great but keep it out of ****ing politics and the economy and the....

Being a North Briton is what put scotland on the map, not being a ****ing chuffing sexist useless ****ing highlander.

[Deffeh]

You're speculating about what would have happened. Im fairly confident we still would have evolved somewhat more than you suggest, Sunday.

Im not actually anti-britain. But i consider myself a Scotsman first and a Briton second.

[Evergreen]

I'd like to think Africa would be as productive as India right now if we didn't face such stumbling blocks as the french, the dutch, disease.

[Ste]

Originally Posted by Evergreen

we

eh?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Ste

eh?

He's a homie.

[Ste]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

He's a homo.

heh
still makes me laugh

[Nodrog]

Most physical sports are objectively shit anyway, and the only reason people watch boring crap like rugby is because they dont show genuinelly exciting sports like quake or starcraft on TV yet. This will probably change within the next 10-20 years though.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

The Champions League has teams from France. From England, from Spain. Is that an international competition?

Yes

6 entries found for international.
in·ter·na·tion·al P Pronunciation Key (ntr-nsh-nl, -nshnl)
adj. Abbr. int. or intl.
Of, relating to, or involving two or more nations: an international commission; international affairs.
Extending across or transcending national boundaries: international fame.

...

\In`ter*na"tion*al\, a. [Pref. inter- + national: cf. F. international.] 1. Between or among nations; pertaining to the intercourse of nations; participated in by two or more nations; common to, or affecting, two or more nations.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Yes

That's a stupid definition.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Most physical sports are objectively shit anyway, and the only reason people watch boring crap like rugby is because they dont show genuinelly exciting sports like quake or starcraft on TV yet. This will probably change within the next 10-20 years though.

Quake and Starcraft are bad to watch though, because, except in a 1v1 DM, the action can happen all over the place at once; something like Bombing Run, which is more focused, would do much better as a spectator game.

[JC]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Most physical sports are objectively shit anyway, and the only reason people watch boring crap like rugby is because they dont show genuinelly exciting sports like quake or starcraft on TV yet. This will probably change within the next 10-20 years though.

Originally Posted by Ste

he
still makes me laugh

[Ste]

computer games are only fun if you're playing - they are certainly not spectator sports... well, some of the sport games i suppose would almost be interesting...

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Quake and Starcraft are bad to watch though, because, except in a 1v1 DM, the action can happen all over the place at once.

Yes, and digital TV will allow the spectator to select which player's POV he wishes to view the action from, or maybe he would like to use one of the preset camera's arranged around the expected action points.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Ste

computer games are only fun if you're playing - they are certainly not spectator sports... well, some of the sport games i suppose would almost be interesting...

Computer games can be very interesting to watch, but currently there's not enough people with the knowledge of what things 'represent' (even something relatively simple like SS timing hardly has the mass penetration of the new offside interpretation).

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Yes, and digital TV will allow the spectator to select which player's POV he wishes to view the action from, or maybe he would like to use one of the preset camera's arranged around the expected action points.

Arranged action points are bad, a decent controlled chasecam (combined with knowledge of the position of the other place) would be best.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Ste

computer games are only fun if you're playing - they are certainly not spectator sports... well, some of the sport games i suppose would almost be interesting...

Games that involve a high degree of tactics and strategy such as quakeworld are interesting to watch for the same reason as most tactical games. Obviously noone wants to just watch a bunch of idiots running around a map shooting each other while paying no attention to higher level strategy or skills, but then we arent going to be showing unreal tournament 200x or quake 3 on television anyway.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

but then we arent going to be showing unreal tournament 200x or quake 3 on television anyway.

UT2K4 has plenty of skill attached; more so, probably, because of the increased possibilities for mobility.

[Evergreen]

Aren't most computer games just....

Chess, Cowboys and Indians(paintball), D&D with knobs on?

They have been around forever and they have soooo made it on to tv yah?

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

UT2K4 has plenty of skill attached; more so, probably, because of the increased possibilities for mobility.

Not really. Games that have all weapons fairly equal generally lose higher level strategic elements because there's no longer the issue of map control. It all comes down to 'how good you are at shooting people' really.

Sunday: I wouldnt say chess is suited for televison (although I think major Go tournaments are televised in Japan).

[Dante Hicks]

When Nigel Short played Kasparov they televised the matches on Channel 4 (Chess I mean). Me and my friends used to go round someones house and watch the games. I think they were on after Countdown!

From what I can recall, it didn't do that badly in terms of viewers (despite the fact it's very slow moving). Because it was a British player people's interest piqued. Some sort of Blitz game could be more appropriate though.

They already show computer games on TV anyway in a variety of contexts (from Gamesmaster type programmes here, to ESPN2 or something showing Starcraft) and it'd be trivial to imagine a variety of TV formats :
- Deathmatch / Clan FPS matches (which again, would be more interesting if there was rivalry)
- Some sort of Big-Brother type thing for a MMORPG (where you could get some live footage mixed in with the days highlights of the big battles / events). Perhaps if they had a high stakes MMORPG where you did get permadeath and "celebs" playing it or something.
- Pretty much any RTS could be shown in a football match type setting.

Oh, and there's at least one TV programme where they show paintballing.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Not really. Games that have all weapons fairly equal generally lose higher level strategic elements because there's no longer the issue of map control.

Oh but there is. For a start, the weapons are all better at different things; if your opponent is 'best' with one weapon, it's a perfectly valid tactic to keep that weapon away from them.

Even if that isn't true, map domination is still important; control of the DD and SS win and lose matches by some distance, there's also the fact that the levels tend to be more compacted that Quake levels; having the high ground in Spirit or Trite actually means something, unlike DM4.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

- Pretty much any RTS could be shown in a football match type setting.

I would disagree. The thing about football is there is a definite focal point (the ball) which almost everything of interest is guaranteed to happen around. In an RTS, you can have several focal points in a 1 on 1, let alone in larger AT or RT games.

Every gametype has this problem except 1 on 1 DMs and Bombing Run; otherwise there's more than one possible focal point.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Oh, and there's at least one TV programme where they show paintballing.

There was one on Bravo with that woman from Bitz, I can't remember anything about it apart from seeing the adverts plastered over Sky 1.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I would disagree. The thing about football is there is a definite focal point (the ball) which almost everything of interest is guaranteed to happen around. In an RTS, you can have several focal points in a 1 on 1, let alone in larger AT or RT games.

True, although it'd be relatively trivial to flick between "cameras" for an experienced producer. Again, I'm thinking of something like Big Brother with it's 8 million cameras and stuff. You could also give them a specific thing to do, e.g. like a sort of capture the flag (but there's only one flag, or something) or "capture a region" which would centralise action, if that did prove a major problem. Perhaps it'd be one of those things which would be better to watch the edited highlights, rather than a live show.

I think the point is that anything can be made to be compelling viewing. Poker, springs to mind.

And the paintballing program was god awful, completely unexpectedly.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

e.g. like a sort of capture the flag (but there's only one flag, or something)

Bombing Run!

It's a gamemode in UT2K3 and UT2K4, in which a ball is spawned in the centre of a map, and you have to fire it through the opponent's goal (3 points) or run/jump it through (7 points). The ball carrier can't use a weapon whilst carrying the ball, and their Translocator shots are reset to 0, but can pass (and lock on to teammates to pass to).

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

or "capture a region" which would centralise action

Onslaught!

It's a gamemode in UT2K4, in which you have two power cores, and a series of nodes around the maps. You build the nodes by travelling to them (either on foot or in the vehicles provided) and then constructing them with your link gun. You can only build nodes that have a link to your core or to a node chain which is connected to your core, and once you have a chain set up to the opponents power core, you can damage it. 2 points for a win in normal time, 1 point for a win in overtime (in overtime, the cores tick down gradually proportional to the number of nodes the teams control).

It's like Battlefield 1942, except it's focused around some set locations, so even if the maps are bigger, the 'action' is always focused on a specific area.