So I was watching a football game on TV last night (that's 'soccer' for you foreign-type people) and I thought about the history of football - I've never studied it, but I remember hearing that it really started being formalised as a game played in the streets of medieval England, using inflated pig bladders as a ball. By now, the sport's so deeply ingrained in our national psyche that kids as young as 3 are tottering about and nudging balls towards goals. It's a very big part of our national culture, as much as baseball is a part of American culture. So I'm wondering two things: Firstly, do you think the nature of a culture is reflected in the sport that it plays, or vice versa? Football is a game that demands a fair level of physical ability (fast running, accurate kicking), but what's more important is the ability to make strategic decisions at speed (when to pass, and when to push through). I'm not sure if that's a reflection of British society.. I suspect that it is. We're supposedly a nation of cynics, preferring well-placed sarcastic remarks over straightforward physical violence. Secondly, have any of you included fictional sports in your game worlds, and what were your experiences accordingly? Have you even thought about doing it?

I think culture and sports reflect on each other. You could probably look at how their relationship has been over the past maybe 50 years to see what happens.

I've never personally included a sport in a game, but when you mention that I immediately think of FFX and Blitzball. It fits so perfectly into the game, and actually has a significant effect on the story and characters. To me, it seems like any other "cultural" event in a story. Would you include a museum, art gallery or theatre? I think that if they fit into the game, and that if they either make the game seem or more and/or (preferably and) add more to the gameplay I think it's great.

tj963

A lot of fantasy settings include some sort of reference to an in-game "sport", but it's nearly always tongue-in-cheek. I'm thinking especially of Games Workshop's "Blood Bowl", but there are others (Judge Dredd often mentions some sort of "Aeroball" I think). The trouble seems to be that they're often designed by people who don't play (or watch) much sport, so the results look like ordinary games with lots of violence thrown in to liven things up.

It seems a missed opportunity for us game designers not to at least think about designing a "sport" game from the ground up, and to think about some of the rules of sport, and why they're there. Why an offside rule in football? Why no forward passing in rugby? (For that matter, why forward passing in American Football?) Why do football teams tend to deploy their outfield players in a 4-4-2 formation, when no rules actually constrain the players' positions?

I'm going to hedge the first question a bit and say that sport and culture reflect each other. The history of football in England actually fairly maps to our cultural changes (from a brutal game played by peasants in streets through rugby-football and association football, from the physical but fair 50s and the angry 70s to the rather slick Premiership today) in my opinion.

Fascinating question. In order to answer whether or not the nature of a culture is reflected by its favorite sports, you'd have to define the nature of both a culture and a given game. The trouble, I can immediately see, is in objectively identifying the elements of a culture.

You can identify certain emotional elements, dynamics and rules for a sport just as you can for any game, sure. But why are people watching the sport? Why is it considered popular? As a social outlet, a way to party and blow off steam? As a fantasy of popularity and triumph where the spectator dreams of being the winner? As a function of national identity?

I've thought about these kinds of "finishing touches" for worldbuilding, but it's already so tough to create the core components of a game world that I don't think I could justify including something that wasn't integral to the game.

Just a couple of disruptive questions/observations:

• The global stereotype of the British is not athletic. Or particularly physically graceful. Personal experience has done little to dislodge this stereotype, for me.


• The global stereotype of British footie fans is a hooligan.


• Perhaps the "national sport" or "national pastime" is more of a reflection of the aspirations of the culture than a documentation of it?


• What about changes? Baseball is still immensely popular in America, but it has far less penetration and market power than basketball and [American] football. That partly has to do with the number of players on each team, the number of teams, the number of games played and increasing competition for the attention of people in modern society. The declining popularity of baseball - the fact, for instance, that virtually no one outside of serious sports nuts who post on ESPN SportsNation cares about the "steroid scandal" - is a reflection of the shift in social realities and consequent entertainment preferences.
  
  We want shorter, more episodic, less involving content. You can catch up on a basketball or football game in a few minutes. This, in fact, is the basis of half-time shows, in which you're brought up to date on up to 30 games! Baseball is too slow-paced and methodical, for the most part, for this model to be particularly effective except during the playoffs, when the number of games is greatly reduced and the stakes are raised.


• Also, the question has been raised as to whether baseball truly still is America's "national pastime." How do we use a single sport as an indicator in the light of the mere possibility of such a shift? In the case of England, where does rugby fit into the mix? What about cricket?

Also, we struggle with issues like these because of the insularity that has been displayed by game developers - ironically, particularly with amateurs and indies - because of the preponderance of CS origins and general lack of athletic ability that tends to accompany that. I can't count anymore the number of times that I've mentioned sports games on this site and received extremely ignorant comments to the effect of "if I wanted to play basketball, I'd just go outside." Yeah, right, fatso dweebo.

At some point, we need to stop asking ourselves questions and start asking the people around/beside/apart from us. I've been getting very much the same vibe at the GDC, with an increasing enthusiasm for input from academia and a variety of professions as games are exploding in terms of the technology and amount of content and consumer expectations. How do we involve sociologists in our debate, for instance, who - anthropologists, historians, etc - are likely to know way more about possible correlation between national identity and national sporting pastime than a rag-tag bunch of (often merely aspiring) game developers.


Okay, I'll resume lurking this forum.

Quote:

Original post by tj963 To me, it seems like any other "cultural" event in a story. Would you include a museum, art gallery or theatre? I think that if they fit into the game, and that if they either make the game seem or more and/or (preferably and) add more to the gameplay I think it's great.

I wouldn't have expected art galleries or theatres to be major element of gameplay, but they'll add to the richness of the story by providing character development for an entire society. You're right that sport is just another element of culture, but I think it's possibly more important than the rest - more people seem to get involved, and more of one's life is planned around it. I can't really picture people going down the pub to knock back a pint and watch the latest Stoppard on the cable TV [grin]

Quote:

Original post by Acapulco It seems a missed opportunity for us game designers not to at least think about designing a "sport" game from the ground up, and to think about some of the rules of sport, and why they're there. Why an offside rule in football? Why no forward passing in rugby? (For that matter, why forward passing in American Football?) Why do football teams tend to deploy their outfield players in a 4-4-2 formation, when no rules actually constrain the players' positions?

Definitely. The only game I know of in which a fictional sport plays a major role is the Harry Potter series from EA (the 'Quidditch' games). Admittedly, they didn't come up with the game - Rowling did (and I'd be interested to hear how she went about designing it) - but they employ it as a means to vary the gameplay from time to time.

I could see an RPG in which the player roams the land in pursuit of some goal or what have you, but also encounters the national sport along the way - possibly playing it to an extent that they become renowned for their skill, and so they're no longer "mysterious vagrant" but instead "sporting champion," and people's reactions to them change accordingly. It'd be an evolution of the 'minigame' concept - the same gameplay, in a larger format, integrated more strongly into the story.

Even then, I don't think that it needs to be a sport that the player participates in. Simply making it a thematic element would have a big effect - have characters that stop talking to you and leave because "they need to go and practice with the rest of the team." Making NPCs 'aware' of the sport, and having them participate in it, would be a fairly simple way to add depth to them.

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator In order to answer whether or not the nature of a culture is reflected by its favorite sports, you'd have to define the nature of both a culture and a given game. The trouble, I can immediately see, is in objectively identifying the elements of a culture.

That's true. It's one of these things that one can pontificate endlessly, and get nowhere [grin] I'm just working on the basic principle that physical/violent people tend to prefer physical/violent sports (like football), while more mentally-oriented people prefer mentally oriented sports (like chess). Seems like a bit of a 'no shit, sherlock' concept but I think it supports the 'reflection of the culture' idea - and puts sport (or 'national pasttime,' I think you're right Oluseyi, it's better) as an efficient means for an observer to get the measure of a culture.

Here's an example. A big part of Roman culture was the gladiators fighting in the games. This suggests to me that the Romans as a people were violent and placed little value on a life - and hey, look, they conquered most of Europe. The greeks, on the other hand, seem to have been more interested in the perfection of the human form - athletics, etc - is that reflective of their culture? I think of great philosophers, but then I think of Alexander...

If you reach the Land of the Elves in a game, and the first town you come to has a large stadium in which elves battle each other using magic, it's going to suggest to you that elven culture values magic dexterity. Similarly, if you come to the stadium and inside elves try to decapitate as many humans as possible within a set time limit, you're going to try and get out of the Land of the Elves as fast as your little legs can carry you [grin]

Quote:

You can identify certain emotional elements, dynamics and rules for a sport just as you can for any game, sure. But why are people watching the sport? Why is it considered popular? As a social outlet, a way to party and blow off steam? As a fantasy of popularity and triumph where the spectator dreams of being the winner? As a function of national identity?

It's getting dangerously close to 'why do we play games?' that is [smile] but I suspect that all those suggestions play a part in it. The cliche is the dream that you're at a football game and one of the players has an injury. The manager points to you - yes, you - and motions you to come down onto the pitch to fill in their spot. At the same time, it serves as an excuse to go down the pub (either to watch, celebrate, or commiserate), an excuse to get together with your mates, etc.

Quote:

I've thought about these kinds of "finishing touches" for worldbuilding, but it's already so tough to create the core components of a game world that I don't think I could justify including something that wasn't integral to the game.

I don't think it's something that could be considered a 'finishing touch' in any case. As noted, it allows so much to be hung on it - so many activities centered around and relating to it. There's a risk that if it's left until the end it'll come out as an 'Oh, and in their free time, they play a bit of this' instead of seeming like something that people throughout the world are engaged by.

Quote:

Original post by Oluseyi * The global stereotype of the British is not athletic. Or particularly physically graceful. Personal experience has done little to dislodge this stereotype, for me.

Wow, and you haven't even met me. [grin] That said I don't think that's particularly true - it depends on your stereotype, sure, but most of the people I see from day to day don't look out of shape. Granted, that doesn't mean they're athletic, but the 'beer gut' is less endemic these days. What of the American sterotype, I wonder?

Quote:

* The global stereotype of British footie fans is a hooligan.

Agreed.

Quote:

* Perhaps the "national sport" or "national pastime" is more of a reflection of the aspirations of the culture than a documentation of it?

Hmm, perhaps. But while people may be aspiring to play football in the same way as the people they go to watch in the stadium, they still play it (however badly) outside of that. Are we saying that the national pastime is purely watching football? Two people walking down the street, come across a can lying on the ground. Kick it back and forth as they they go before punting it into the bus shelter from a distance...

Quote:

* What about changes? Baseball is still immensely popular in America, but it has far less penetration and market power than basketball and [American] football. That partly has to do with the number of players on each team, the number of teams, the number of games played and increasing competition for the attention of people in modern society. The declining popularity of baseball - the fact, for instance, that virtually no one outside of serious sports nuts who post on ESPN SportsNation cares about the "steroid scandal" - is a reflection of the shift in social realities and consequent entertainment preferences.

That's interesting. If we were to examine the differences in character between baseball and basketball/amFootball, would we find a similar shift in character has occurred to the 'average joe?' Did 9/11, and it's pushing on the national identity into one more agressive, cause an increase in the popularity of 'agressive' sports?

Quote:

We want shorter, more episodic, less involving content. You can catch up on a basketball or football game in a few minutes. This, in fact, is the basis of half-time shows, in which you're brought up to date on up to 30 games! Baseball is too slow-paced and methodical, for the most part, for this model to be particularly effective except during the playoffs, when the number of games is greatly reduced and the stakes are raised.

And interestingly, I don't think that's true to the same extent over here. We've got cricket - slow-paced, and not necessarily easy to bring yourself up to date on - and it's still immensely popular. Perhaps less so than it used to be; you don't usually find a set of stumps on the village green any more.

Quote:

* Also, the question has been raised as to whether baseball truly still is America's "national pastime." How do we use a single sport as an indicator in the light of the mere possibility of such a shift? In the case of England, where does rugby fit into the mix? What about cricket?

Certainly - the only way a country could have only one national pastime is if the country consisted only of one type of person, and that's hardly true. The Romans may have enjoyed their gladiators, but there were more refined games around as well - just not with the same popularity. Really, drawing conclusions about a society based on only one sport is like drawing conclusions based on only one person...

Sports and Cultures
Sport and culture reflects each other. I think this is the normal answer. But I would also point out that cultures are very susceptible to changes. When you compare the influence of injections such as sports and musics to another culture, the subject, you can observe whether it is more likely that the injection adapts to the subject, or that the subject adapts to the injection.

In general, you will find this:
Culture adapts to the sport;
Musics adapts to the culture.

Why?

Formal Rules - Sports have formal rules, while cultures in general are not described in formalized rules that are not up to interpretion. when you present a set of rules to where rules are undefined, the rules are likely to be accepted, along with the subconscious implications of the rules. Compared to sports, a style of musics is not injected to a culture with sets of formal rules. Musics are up to the interpretation of the culture, in this case, the subconsious rules in the culture will dorminate over the rules in the musics.


What do you think about games as a cultural injection?



Including Sports in Games
I have included sports in the game world, it has always a consideration. When you create a game world or any hypothetical world, the most common question is, "what is life like in this world?" In other words, "what do the people do? how do they think? what do they value? How do they express themselves?" When you think about the last question, sports is a vivid way of expressing cultural belief. You can create musics that reflect the game world, you can design their habitats to reflect the people's believes. And by using sport, you can involve the player in the believes of the culture, where the player must adapt to the rules of the game, which reflects the rules of the culture.

Therefore, like anyother things in a game that can reflect a culture, the design of a in-game sport is never arbitrary. What aspects of a culture can be expressed in a sport? How would you use design a sport to capitalize cultural believes?

Quote:

Original post by superpig Wow, and you haven't even met me. [grin] That said I don't think that's particularly true - it depends on your stereotype, sure, but most of the people I see from day to day don't look out of shape. Granted, that doesn't mean they're athletic, but the 'beer gut' is less endemic these days. What of the American sterotype, I wonder?

The American stereotype is the highschool linebacker - big, strong, inelegant, lacking in grace and/or fine coordination, destined for a beer gut. However, this stereotype is changing as male fashion and bodies have come under intense media scrutiny, resulting in the aspirational stereotype, which is the basketball player: lean, athletic, graceful, tall. Even [American] football players are looking more and more like basketball players (star players are increasingly over six feet tall) and played basketball at either high school or college level. This is why I advocate looking at sports as both index of current state and indicator of aspiration.

Quote:

Hmm, perhaps. But while people may be aspiring to play football in the same way as the people they go to watch in the stadium, they still play it (however badly) outside of that. Are we saying that the national pastime is purely watching football? Two people walking down the street, come across a can lying on the ground. Kick it back and forth as they they go before punting it into the bus shelter from a distance...

No, we're looking at the relationship we have to media representations of the best of ourselves. Nearly everyone can play a sport after a fashion, but we would rather watch professionals do it, much like we can all dance and/or sing and/or act - perhaps not very well - but would rather watch professionals do it. Spectacle and presentation interpellate, call us to respond (emotionally) to that which lies before our eyes, usually in a participatory fashion such that we imagine ourselves to be the actor, be the dancer, be the singer, be the athlete... Is it coincidental that many people kick the air as a striker shoots the ball into the goal, or that they almost feel the recoil of the rim as the basketball player slams home the monster dunk?

I think not.

Quote:

That's interesting. If we were to examine the differences in character between baseball and basketball/amFootball, would we find a similar shift in character has occurred to the 'average joe?' Did 9/11, and it's pushing on the national identity into one more agressive, cause an increase in the popularity of 'agressive' sports?

I don't know that 9/11 pushed a more aggressive national stance, because there was a huge backlash against the aggression of the "War on Terror," which appears to have yielded a confused mix at home. While some material, beyond just sports, has been much more aggressive and violent (Bad Boys 2 was a pornography of graphic gunplay, for instance), there has also been a more vocal push for "family values" and "wholesome entertainment."

In the end, the relationship between sports and culture is not linear, as many other factors have an influence. Correlations drawn in isolation are destined to be skewered, as they attempt to compensate for shifts due to other, unaccounted for, factors.

Quote:

And interestingly, I don't think that's true to the same extent over here. We've got cricket - slow-paced, and not necessarily easy to bring yourself up to date on - and it's still immensely popular. Perhaps less so than it used to be; you don't usually find a set of stumps on the village green any more.

See above. In this case, I think the historical pull of cricket is much stronger than baseball, as the game has been around for a much longer time. Additionally, one can't ignore the fact that there are national teams - in fact, I've never heard of British cricket clubsides, though they undoubtedly exist - which changes the relationship dynamics by injecting a large amount of patriotism. American sports are more regionally affiliated, though basketball received a huge national boost from the backstory of the contests with the USSR in '84, '88 and '92, but its popularity has since waned. [International] football is, in fact, more popular nationally than regionally in the US, because of the allure of the existing institution that is the World Cup.

Quote:

Certainly - the only way a country could have only one national pastime is if the country consisted only of one type of person, and that's hardly true. The Romans may have enjoyed their gladiators, but there were more refined games around as well - just not with the same popularity. Really, drawing conclusions about a society based on only one sport is like drawing conclusions based on only one person...

Aye. But I don't think that makes it an unworthy investigation, as all forms of socio-cultural analysis yield insights - or raise questions - that deepen our understanding of humans and enable us to tap into that to create better games.

Quote:

Original post by Oluseyi The global stereotype of the British is not athletic. Or particularly physically graceful. Personal experience has done little to dislodge this stereotype, for me.

Yet Great Britain came 10th in the Olympics medal table last time (out of 75 medal-winning nations), so I don't know if the stereotype is necessarily true.

To address the original question, I don't think the nature of the culture is reflected to any significant degree. Soccer is popular because it's cheap, and I suspect the same goes for basketball and American football.