Switch Theme:

Are GW trying to lose the grim dark  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in gb
Ultramarine Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control





Holy Terra

Chaos has corrupted individual and civilisations that weren't a terrible place to live.

Slaanesh can corrupt people living in splendour and luxury, Tzeentch can corrupt great scientists searching for knowledge, etc.

-~Ishagu~- 
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





So, seeing as we're talking about the art, I'd actually like to weigh in myself.

I prefer the modern ones.

Now, I'm not saying that anyone is wrong for liking the old ones, or that either is objectively better or "more grimdark", but people on BOTH sides have been making those claims. Both are wrong.

For me, I think the modern ones are MORE grimdark, but that doesn't make it objective. It's art, and I don't think it's particularly fair for either party to point at it and use it as support for either claim. It's not objective, it's not quantifiable, and comes (again) down to perception, like every other discussion on "is 40k still grimdark".

You could look at the widest range of modern 40k material, or only look at the old stuff, and neither would make your argument any more objective.

TL;DR - It's wrong for anyone to claim with any sort of objectivity that either form of artistry is "more grimdark", seeing how subjective both "grimdarkness" and the art itself are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
EDIT: Case in point, the pictures (spoilered) provided here do literally nothing for me. If anything, they make me less interested. Of course, that's just my own perception, but given that ClockworkZion seems to imply that this is some kind of "gotcha" or trump card, it proves my point perfectly. It just falls flat, because it's not an objective medium. There's no "oomph" in that for me.
ClockworkZion wrote:i think the loss of detail is to blame. I mean look at these and tell me the newer, digital art has the same oomph as the traditional stuff:
Spoiler:



This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/02/27 13:10:37



They/them

 
   
Made in gb
Stubborn White Lion




I liked the old black and white "pencil sketches" because they always seemed to be more an illustrator/journalist who was in the thick of the action had sketched up. I felt more like I was "in" that world. JMO obvs.

I don't know if they were more grimdark or not, in truth that term seems to mean different things to different people and for some folk it is as simple as "things I like = grimdark, things I don't = not".

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/27 15:10:34


 
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





Dai wrote:
I don't know if they were more grimdark or not, in truth that term seems to mean different things to different people and for some folk it is as simple as "things I like = grimdark, things I don't = not".
Exactly: it's difficult to determine what points are "I dislike it, therefore it's not grimdark", and which points are "I don't think it's grimdark, therefore I don't like it".
For me, I think quite a lot of modern art looks better, therefore is more fitting of grimdarkness in my head, and the older stuff with (what I'd say are) goofier proportions, positions, and generally looking a bit flat aren't grimdark to me. However, I wouldn't even try and claim that's objective in any way, and it'd be ridiculous to point at a piece of art and claim it's objectively something which is already a subjective issue anyway.


They/them

 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






 Ishagu wrote:
I think nostalgia is playing with people here and they don't even realise it.

The Crimson Fist art example a few posts up is a clear example of this. The new art is better . .


"Technically more accurate" can have extremely little to do with effectiveness, so citing things like proportion or lighting as "objective" reasons why a piece is more effective isn't exactly a slam dunk. Consider character design from The Incredibles, vs. the character design in The Polar Express. Which has more accurate depictions of human beings? Which is more effective?. Art is far less about "scientific correctness" and much more about "effectiveness". Did the piece achieve what the author set out to achieve?

I'd argue that the original piece, because it's essentially flatly lit, does more for the gritty feel as minor details like wounds, fires and corpses are fighting for the viewers attention nearly as hard as the central figure with a decapitated head. One poster has completely missed that there is a "half-marine" lying dead in the foreground, because the hill of Crimson Fists is essentially in shilouette from the background, and many of the foreground details are lost in shadow. I'd also argue that the "incorrectness" of the image goes further to express the insanity of the universe. Rather than a cinematically framed and polished introduction to the setting, you get raw scribbles of impression and things that make no sense.

One is a crazy universe that is carefully presented to you for viewing. Another is a presentation more raw and unhinged, inviting you to take part in the insanity of the creators themselves. "Join us in our insanity!"

Both are valid, and both can be good. But I'd much prefer the balance to skew back in time a little bit. Less polished insanity and more raw insanity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I wouldn't even try and claim that's objective in any way, and it'd be ridiculous to point at a piece of art and claim it's objectively something which is already a subjective issue anyway.


Imo, if I were GWs art director, I'd give a healthy mix of both. Simply because different people are going to respond differently to different styles. In 3rd and 4th there was an excellent mix of realistically rendered art, plus a good smattering of the John Blanchian classics. Imo a lot of businesses get spooked by putting out stuff that's less polished, because they fear they'll get flak for publishing an unfinished product. But sometimes because the pieces are more sketchy and unfinished, it leaves the viewer to fill in the details for themselves, or look at them longer to tray and make sense of them. I think GW could go a little crazier in this regard.

But in a hobby like 40K, more raw pieces are also may times going to be the pieces that are more accessible. Seeing stuff that you can potentially create along with the product authors can be huge for aspiring creators. (The painting side of the hobby basically IS that). When we get a glimpse of Jes Goodwins sketches for early Eldar or whatever, the pencil-and-sketchbook medium is obvious. As a young artist, I saw those images and went "I could draw that!". And that gave me handy artistic goals to work towards. There's an automatic "audience inclusion factor" when it's clear how things are made.

They used to have more obviously homemade terrain, and instructions/patterns for doing that too. So, same idea on the "table design" kind of thing.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/02/27 17:33:57


And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis




On the Internet

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
So, seeing as we're talking about the art, I'd actually like to weigh in myself.

I prefer the modern ones.

Now, I'm not saying that anyone is wrong for liking the old ones, or that either is objectively better or "more grimdark", but people on BOTH sides have been making those claims. Both are wrong.

For me, I think the modern ones are MORE grimdark, but that doesn't make it objective. It's art, and I don't think it's particularly fair for either party to point at it and use it as support for either claim. It's not objective, it's not quantifiable, and comes (again) down to perception, like every other discussion on "is 40k still grimdark".

You could look at the widest range of modern 40k material, or only look at the old stuff, and neither would make your argument any more objective.

TL;DR - It's wrong for anyone to claim with any sort of objectivity that either form of artistry is "more grimdark", seeing how subjective both "grimdarkness" and the art itself are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
EDIT: Case in point, the pictures (spoilered) provided here do literally nothing for me. If anything, they make me less interested. Of course, that's just my own perception, but given that ClockworkZion seems to imply that this is some kind of "gotcha" or trump card, it proves my point perfectly. It just falls flat, because it's not an objective medium. There's no "oomph" in that for me.
ClockworkZion wrote:i think the loss of detail is to blame. I mean look at these and tell me the newer, digital art has the same oomph as the traditional stuff:
Spoiler:




I never intended it as a gotcha, but rather it was something that just kind of clicked for me as I was looking for something and found that the new art felt too smooth and clean compared to the older art. There is a noticable lack of detail when you compare the two (detail they even color over when reusing the old art) that just takes something away from the new art. And that's not even getting into the toning down of some of the conent.

Art is a subjective thing, so I won't claim that there is a "right" way to art, but I feel like we subconsciously noticed the changes in the art and that, for most people, has made it feel less grimdark without being able to put a pin in the reason why.
   
Made in nl
Inquisitorial Keeper of the Xenobanks






your mind

I also prefer animation that doesn't look like CGI.
Hand drawn, human interpretations through a physical medium are more visceral, have more feeling and are indeed more worthy of admiration than anything produced with software.
Just my opinion? Try doing one, then try doing the other.
One results in lasting skills that translate across media.
One does not.

   
Made in gb
Junior Officer with Laspistol




Manchester, UK

 jeff white wrote:
One results in lasting skills that translate across media.
One does not.


CGI definitely gives the artists lasting skills that translate across media. I may not be the biggest fan of the overuse of CGI in recent years, but it is definitely a skill.

The Tvashtan 422nd "Fire Leopards" - Updated 19/03/11

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 Trickstick wrote:
 jeff white wrote:
One results in lasting skills that translate across media.
One does not.


CGI definitely gives the artists lasting skills that translate across media. I may not be the biggest fan of the overuse of CGI in recent years, but it is definitely a skill.


The difficulty is when CGI is used to substitute for skill. Movies that think they don't need a plot, or good acting, or dialogue, just so long as they have high-resolution explosions. Video games that insist on ever-more-elaborate methods of rendering dirty brown stuff is a substitute for gameplay, plot, or visual design. That kind of thing.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Trickstick wrote:
 jeff white wrote:
One results in lasting skills that translate across media.
One does not.


CGI definitely gives the artists lasting skills that translate across media. I may not be the biggest fan of the overuse of CGI in recent years, but it is definitely a skill.


The difficulty is when CGI is used to substitute for skill. Movies that think they don't need a plot, or good acting, or dialogue, just so long as they have high-resolution explosions. Video games that insist on ever-more-elaborate methods of rendering dirty brown stuff is a substitute for gameplay, plot, or visual design. That kind of thing.

Those decisions often have precious little to do with the actual practitioner of the CGI implementation though. So not really the same. Good CGI still requires design, proportion, color, composition, lighting etc, which are all transferable skills to other disciplines like cinematography, illustration, etc. Often programming skills as well, depending on what you're doing.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/27 19:55:33


And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





ClockworkZion wrote:I never intended it as a gotcha
In which case, I offer my apologies for misreading your comment. Sorry!
Art is a subjective thing, so I won't claim that there is a "right" way to art, but I feel like we subconsciously noticed the changes in the art and that, for most people, has made it feel less grimdark without being able to put a pin in the reason why.
If many people associated the grimdarkness with the "texture" of the art, then I can see why they'd feel it was lost. But as someone who didn't really associate the art with the grimdarkness (or essence thereof), it wasn't really a factor for me, and in many cases, more modern art is more "40k" than older stuff - at least, for me.

Basically, with a subjective medium, trying to find an answer to a subjective question isn't really appropriate!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/28 00:33:55



They/them

 
   
Made in us
Committed Chaos Cult Marine





To me as long as the Doom Eagles are still in 40k it will always been Grimdark. Seriously, their initiation rites are crazy.

As others have said, I think the Grimdark, which I always took as an edgy, angsty teenage way to manufacture maturity in a setting, is still there. I think it has just been pushed further into the margins the further we get from the 1990s.

Which when I see that black and white ink and pencil art: the 1990s. Maybe the late 1980s if you count Larry Elmore type stuff. I guess we could the 1990s were just a Grimdark decade where trench coat and sunglasses wearing vampires wielded katana vs. cybernetic demon secret agents covered in pouches and straps. Unironically.

I think that aesthetic comes off kitsch to most of those younger than Generation X. Much in the same way much of Generation X is pretty disinterested in Westerns or Rayguns and Rockets sci-fi. I remember watching the Crow with some people about 10 years my junior. All the Gothic brooding and angst of the movie was hilarious to them. They said it was the most nineties thing ever. Me, I have fond memories of watching with my girlfriend way back in high school and listening to the soundtrack a lot. It was a wake up call to me that there was a temporal cultural gulf between us even if it was just ten years maybe less.

Honestly, I think 40k is like Batman and can be as dark or light serious or comical as anyone wants Bruce Wayne, Gothem or any other part of what Bill Kane started. Everything is possible and what is currently most popular is how either get framed to attract modern audiences. Which is fine by me. I like the idea of all my armies running the gamut. My Black Legion can be self-deceiving monsters of humanity seeking only to destroy and enslave in the name of dark gods to Saturday Morning Cartoon Villains screaming 'We get you next time!" as they run away from this week's failed scheme.
   
Made in nl
Inquisitorial Keeper of the Xenobanks






your mind

 Trickstick wrote:
 jeff white wrote:
One results in lasting skills that translate across media.
One does not.


CGI definitely gives the artists lasting skills that translate across media. I may not be the biggest fan of the overuse of CGI in recent years, but it is definitely a skill.

Nl one said that it want a skill.
But no one will be painting murals with it...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Insectum7 wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Trickstick wrote:
 jeff white wrote:
One results in lasting skills that translate across media.
One does not.


CGI definitely gives the artists lasting skills that translate across media. I may not be the biggest fan of the overuse of CGI in recent years, but it is definitely a skill.


The difficulty is when CGI is used to substitute for skill. Movies that think they don't need a plot, or good acting, or dialogue, just so long as they have high-resolution explosions. Video games that insist on ever-more-elaborate methods of rendering dirty brown stuff is a substitute for gameplay, plot, or visual design. That kind of thing.

Those decisions often have precious little to do with the actual practitioner of the CGI implementation though. So not really the same. Good CGI still requires design, proportion, color, composition, lighting etc, which are all transferable skills to other disciplines like cinematography, illustration, etc. Often programming skills as well, depending on what you're doing.

Ummm... programming? Cinematography involving CGI. Ok.. anything not requiring a machine? Look, facts are that tech saves labor. Sure using tech involves skill. As much? I argue no. As transferable into other domains irl not requiring a specific tech? I argue no.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/28 06:17:13


   
Made in gb
Stalwart Veteran Guard Sergeant





England

 jeff white wrote:
 Trickstick wrote:
 jeff white wrote:
One results in lasting skills that translate across media.
One does not.


CGI definitely gives the artists lasting skills that translate across media. I may not be the biggest fan of the overuse of CGI in recent years, but it is definitely a skill.

Nl one said that it want a skill.
But no one will be painting murals with it...


I would disagree with you there. People can- and have- created beautiful art with computers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Insectum7 wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Trickstick wrote:
 jeff white wrote:
One results in lasting skills that translate across media.
One does not.


CGI definitely gives the artists lasting skills that translate across media. I may not be the biggest fan of the overuse of CGI in recent years, but it is definitely a skill.


The difficulty is when CGI is used to substitute for skill. Movies that think they don't need a plot, or good acting, or dialogue, just so long as they have high-resolution explosions. Video games that insist on ever-more-elaborate methods of rendering dirty brown stuff is a substitute for gameplay, plot, or visual design. That kind of thing.

Those decisions often have precious little to do with the actual practitioner of the CGI implementation though. So not really the same. Good CGI still requires design, proportion, color, composition, lighting etc, which are all transferable skills to other disciplines like cinematography, illustration, etc. Often programming skills as well, depending on what you're doing.

Ummm... programming? Cinematography involving CGI. Ok.. anything not requiring a machine? Look, facts are that tech saves labor. Sure using tech involves skill. As much? I argue no. As transferable into other domains irl not requiring a specific tech? I argue no.



Again, I disagree. To become proficient with CGI requires a huge amount of practice. It is most definitely a very hard skill to learn, to movie-standard at least. That’s why movie’s CGI costs so much- you’re paying for the skill. Also, creating CGI teaches you about composition, lighting, dynamics, etc, etc.
Thirdly, while a professional animator might not be able to pick up a brush and paint the roof of the Sistine chapel, I’d like to see a painter trying to recreate said roof on a computer.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/28 09:21:43


See that stuff above? Completely true. All of it, every single word. Stands to reason. 
   
Made in gb
Assassin with Black Lotus Poison





Bristol

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I for one consider something ostensibly kinda cute actually being a surprisingly vicious killer far creepier than 'oh noes, must be evil because evil face'.


Reminds me of the Fuzzles from Munch's Oddyssey



The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.

Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
 
   
Made in gb
Junior Officer with Laspistol




Manchester, UK

 DalekCheese wrote:
I would disagree with you there. People can- and have- created beautiful art with computers.


I'm going to use the opportunity to plug the Astartes animation series, which was recently restored after the whole "channel stolen" fiasco. Made by one person, you can see the insane levels of skill that can go into some CGI.

I wish that we got actual series from GW that were this quality.

The Tvashtan 422nd "Fire Leopards" - Updated 19/03/11

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor 
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





Yeah, this whole "only physical art is TRUE artistry" mindset is incredibly reductive.


They/them

 
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut





You can definitely produce great art with computers. Detailed, gritty grimdark.

I just don't think much of the current GW stuff reaches that. It's mass produced and far more clinical, with very particular corporate outcomes in mind.

There's a stronger 'catalogue' vibe with the modern stuff.



IMO though, despite the divisiveness of his style, I don't think any GW artist evoked the 40k atmosphere, vibe, feel, je ne sais quoi better than John blanche.

I loved mark Gibbons' illustrations of Jes Goodwin's designs, but whenever I think of the essence of 40k, it's the distorted weirdness and excess of blanche that I think of. I would show people Gibbons work to show how cool it was, but show them Blanche's work to show them '40k'.

He was channelling slannesh I think....

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/02/28 11:26:41


   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Yeah, this whole "only physical art is TRUE artistry" mindset is incredibly reductive.


I ain't sure about that, because it is followed by claims like people playing League of Legends being sports men, and stuff like that. If my grand dad made an error durning scultping it could be 3 months of work down the drain. Someone working on digitial just clicks undo. They are not the same thing, but I don't doubt that people who do digital or e-sports love to think that they are doing the real thing.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in ca
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant




Vancouver, BC

Karol wrote:
I ain't sure about that, because it is followed by claims like people playing League of Legends being sports men, and stuff like that. If my grand dad made an error durning scultping it could be 3 months of work down the drain. Someone working on digitial just clicks undo. They are not the same thing, but I don't doubt that people who do digital or e-sports love to think that they are doing the real thing.


Coming from somebody who played both soccer and hockey and who follows League of Legends as an e-sport just wow at the level of smug traditionalism in your post. E-sports are at least as much of a sport as golf is given the hours of training, risk of RSIs, and the impact of making precise physical movements under tight time pressure goes.
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




tell me in which of the e sports, can you get an injury that ends your career on the spot, and maybe ends up with you ending crippled or dead? Because I do wrestling, that is a real sport, which to train I go to a sports school. e-sports, even with their training, teams etc don't come even close.

As I said, my grandfather worked as a restaurator of churchs. If he or someone on his team did an error, this could mean 2-3 months of work down the drain, or sometimes a priceless artefact being for ever destroyed. It is uncomperable to someone being able to fix an error with an undo button.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in gb
Assassin with Black Lotus Poison





Bristol

Karol wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Yeah, this whole "only physical art is TRUE artistry" mindset is incredibly reductive.


I ain't sure about that, because it is followed by claims like people playing League of Legends being sports men, and stuff like that. If my grand dad made an error durning scultping it could be 3 months of work down the drain. Someone working on digitial just clicks undo. They are not the same thing, but I don't doubt that people who do digital or e-sports love to think that they are doing the real thing.


What does ease of correcting mistakes have to do with whether something is art?

If a painter gets a bit of colour on the wrong part of their painting they can easily go over it. So does that mean that painting is "lesser" art compared to sculpture because it is easier to correct mistakes? Is music less of an art form because you can just do another take if someone messes up during recording? Or cinema?

Is diamond cutting now the pinnacle of art since not only can you not correct mistakes but you also cannot start again if you are working with a gemstone of extreme rarity (such as a massive natural diamond of very high purity and clarity)?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/02/28 12:16:58


The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.

Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
 
   
Made in ca
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant




Vancouver, BC

Karol wrote:
tell me in which of the e sports, can you get an injury that ends your career on the spot, and maybe ends up with you ending crippled or dead? Because I do wrestling, that is a real sport, which to train I go to a sports school. e-sports, even with their training, teams etc don't come even close.

As I said, my grandfather worked as a restaurator of churchs. If he or someone on his team did an error, this could mean 2-3 months of work down the drain, or sometimes a priceless artefact being for ever destroyed. It is uncomperable to someone being able to fix an error with an undo button.

In any e-sport where you use your hands carpal tunnel can literally end your career in an instant. Obviously they aren't contact sports like wrestling but neither are golf, darts, pool, archery, or shooting and those are still considered a sport.

You are also aware that people still do have to produce physical parts to make repairs. Using CAD software to plan everything in detail and 3D printing/milling machines to craft the planned part is also just smart. There's no advantage to losing months of work over a simple mistake when you have the tools to avoid it.
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




So they are different. Just like playing fight and real MMA matchs or bare knuckle fighting for money is. I don't like how everything suddenly become just like other things. e-sports are not sports, there is no where near the same level injury. And carpal tunnel can be fixed with surgery. If I blow my knee cap, or break my disk, then it is game over, no amout of surgery can save me. Plus they can drug themselfs out of the wazzo, to get calm and focused as much as they like. If I over do it with supplements, I can get kicked out of school, and it is always going to be my foult, no matter that get good marks each semester you have to show the trainers the recip efor the supplements he tells you to take. And I do wrestling it is no where near the stuff, people that do cycling or tennis have to go through.



I don't know in what kind of c ountry does golf or darts count as a sport, or pool also. No school runs it here. I mean may as well claim chess and poker is a sport too.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in gb
Assassin with Black Lotus Poison





Bristol

Karol wrote:
...or break my disk, then it is game over, no amout of surgery can save me.


Not true. Kurt Angle won gold at the 1996 Olympics with 2 fractured vertebrae and 2 herniated discs in his neck. He was also going to try out for the 2012 Olympic team but couldn't due to a knee injury.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote:

I don't know in what kind of c ountry does golf or darts count as a sport, or pool also.


With regards to Golf, that would be the IOC. Golf was added as a sport to the 2016 Olympics.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2020/02/28 13:35:18


The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.

Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




UK

Because "sports events" are attached to huge marketing and advertising profits the term has become a bit of a catch all for "competitive events". Hence the evolution of terms like "esports" and such.


It's harmless though. It's just showing that the event has a competitive end to things and that there's a formal or semi-formal competing system being setup.



Also Darts, Pool, Golf, Tennis, Badminton, Table Tennis, they are ALL sporting events that are regularly shown on UK television on various channels.

A Blog in Miniature

3D Printing, hobbying and model fun! 
   
Made in us
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker





Somewhere over the rainbow, way up high

Remember folks. There is no darkness without light.
A glimmer of hope here and there makes the struggle seem worth fighting. Its still absolute hell. But each faction has some spark of hope worth fighting for.


Bedouin Dynasty: 10000 pts
The Silver Lances: 4000 pts
The Custodes Winter Watch 4000 pts

MajorStoffer wrote:
...
Sternguard though, those guys are all about kicking ass. They'd chew bubble gum as well, but bubble gum is heretical. Only tau chew gum. 
   
Made in gb
Stubborn White Lion




Cripes, I agree with Karol again. When it comes to sports definition anyway.
   
Made in ca
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant




Vancouver, BC

Karol wrote:
So they are different. Just like playing fight and real MMA matchs or bare knuckle fighting for money is. I don't like how everything suddenly become just like other things. e-sports are not sports, there is no where near the same level injury. And carpal tunnel can be fixed with surgery. If I blow my knee cap, or break my disk, then it is game over, no amout of surgery can save me. Plus they can drug themselfs out of the wazzo, to get calm and focused as much as they like. If I over do it with supplements, I can get kicked out of school, and it is always going to be my foult, no matter that get good marks each semester you have to show the trainers the recip efor the supplements he tells you to take. And I do wrestling it is no where near the stuff, people that do cycling or tennis have to go through.



I don't know in what kind of c ountry does golf or darts count as a sport, or pool also. No school runs it here. I mean may as well claim chess and poker is a sport too.

Please source your claim for drug use in e-sports.

Also, golf is literally an Olympic sport as is ice dancing and target shooting. Poland does participate in the Olympics does it not? Or do the Olympics contain non-sporting events now?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/02/28 12:48:41


 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




UK

Dai wrote:
Cripes, I agree with Karol again. When it comes to sports definition anyway.


I'd agree, but not for the logic that the difference is that you can get "more hurt" with "sports" than non sports. Although its an interesting metric to consider, though it would probably put something like horse eventing WAY ahead of a lot of regular sports.

A Blog in Miniature

3D Printing, hobbying and model fun! 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: