icycalm wrote:Since the "esports" label is stupid and misleading (since videogames aren't sports), I am introducing the term "cyberwar" to replace it. So, "Best cyberwar team" etc. If anyone has a better idea, give it to me and I'll consider it.
I have a few thoughts on the word "cyberwar". Firstly: does "cyberwar" sound too grand for what these guys do?
I then wondered: how many people are involved in a typical "cyberwar"? Between two and ten? Is that a war, or just a brawl? But I realised there are only between two and ten generals (in a strategy game). There are hundreds or thousands of soldiers on each team too. They just happen to be played by artificial intelligences.
It nonetheless seems to me a videogame is not a war in a similar way it is not a sport. It cannot be a sport because there is no physicality, it cannot be a war because it has no death or significant consequence. The "e" and the "cyber" change the word and the meaning but perhaps both are similarly confusing and misleading.
StarCraft nerds already pretend to be athletes. Is it better if they claim to be warriors instead?
Another thing: esports also covers fighting games. I suspect they do not have much future in that capacity because it is the war simulations that will come to dominate (and for the most part already do), but for the moment "cyberwar" sounds silly for a Street Fighter match, at least to me.
The only other thing I can think of is that I could be thinking of "war" in a narrow sense, the grand sense, rather then as a general synonym for conflict. In my head, though, whilst it is an awesome sounding word, it doesn't seem to quite fit the description. "Cyberfight", maybe?
