[keerthiko]

I'm really happy this is happening. Is the static nature of the playing field actually a good thing? Does a single game even need to survive more than 2 Olympics (I also don't think video games need to be incorporated into the Olympics)? The vast majority of skills in video gaming carry over just fine to the next generation of the same genre. Flash was the undisputed god of SC1, and he is fast rising to that spot in SC2 less than a year after switching.

I think the evolution of the playing field is actually a great thing, and something I wish conventional sports did more. A rule change in a physical sport happens so rarely.

The only reason conventional sports remain balanced and interesting to watch at all is because they are nearly 100% symmetrical (ex: 5 on 5, symmetric court/field, tip-off to start, etc). In my opinion, this actually leaves a lot of sports as pretty poorly designed "games" -- any activity that you can assign a score to can turn into a competitive sport under the existing physical sport paradigm. I don't want to pick on any particular sport, but I think a lot of popular sports just ride on past passion, nationalistic/regional pride (rooting for your team), and sponsorship marketing rather than the game itself being intrinsically interesting to watch. Which could be an endless cycle, with schools giving scholarships for those who perform in those sports, and the next generation having the same feelings for them.

More importantly than having a wider viewership for eSports (as a game designer and developer by trade, this is obviously exciting), I'm more excited about how this will affect physical sports, and force them to evolve into becoming more entertaining and fun experiences than they already are, instead of stagnating as they have been for nearly a century.