Metagaming

[exogen]

First, does anyone disagree with the below argument I am presenting? Do you think my argument holds. If not please give examples.

 

Second, if you do or do not have an opinion on my argument or are just not interested, what are your personal game experiences with metagaming?

 

TM and I have clashed over the meaning of the term metagame. According to Wiki it means this.

 

Metagaming is a broad term usually used to define any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed rule set, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game. Another definition refers to the game universe outside of the game itself.

In simple terms, using out-of-game information, or resources, to affect one's in-game decisions.

 

The disagreement about the term comes over just where it applies. My argument is that it can only truly apply at the level where there is genuine ambiguity which are forced by the rules that create choice points. An example would be a mix-up in street fighter where one player is forced by the situation to pick a number of possible ways of dealing with the situation but no information from the game itself will help them make the decision that will be most beneficial for that player. If there is an option that can punish a given strategy than said strategy does not actually exist in the game. In other words true mixups only exist at expert level for which no knew knowledge about the game can be learned.

 

This is the point where the game switches to the metagame level in my view. You might object at this point and say that there can be "metagames" taking place even at lesser levels of skill. For example one person might be psychologically outwitting the other player because they have an intricate knowledge of that persons play style. But I would say to this that if it is the case that options exist to counter the strategies being applied on reaction or by default than those strategies cannot count as metagame. Therefore the rules of the game force certain strategic choices to be effective or not, which then forces the metagame.

 

In other words, my point is that the metagame only emerges at the level of complete or at very least practically complete application and knowledge of the rule set of a game.

[Pendragon]

Funny, I thought metagaming was just influencing how you played the game, like changing your diet to one that provides nutrients to your central nervous system, thus giving you better response to stimuli like in Starcraft 2.

 

That or sticking to a specific training regiment.

[exogen]

Those things would not be a strategy or method used in game that would transcend the games rule set.

[█␢█]

Wait exogen can you elaborate more on the second part of your argument about metagaming at lower skill levels not counting? Because at least from a Starcraft perspective, it seems to me that it's entirely possible to incorporate information about the person you're playing into your gameplay at the low levels.

[exogen]

@ NIJI,

 

yes I am aware that the second part of the argument seems a bit counter intuitive. To show you I know what you mean (or at least think I know what your getting at) let me give an example from Street Fighter (a game I am familiar with).

 

In Street Fighter I would be considered to be expert level. If I play a mid level player or am watching a mid level player they will use patterns and strategies that I know counters for already exist. For example they might be in the habit of blocking certain attacks when getting up off the floor or countering with a certain move, assuming they have energy to counter with. However I knowing more about the game then they do know that the whole situation can be avoided by simply backdashing when getting up once I see their attack. So I know that in reality the attack is unsafe and the person getting up off the ground is not in reality faced with a choice between countering (assuming they have meter) or blocking, but can simply react to the attack by backdashing and then punish with whatever move they want.

 

But this simple fact about backdashing is not something that is recognized generally at the lower levels of play due to a lack of knowledge. But just because no one knows about it does not mean it doesn't exist. The game actually disallows the strategy of attacking someone who is grounded in that circumstance as being something viable because it can be countered on reaction.

 

So, at the lower level there may be a fierce psychological battle going on. The "metagame" might be going from defense to offense. The lower level players, because they don't recognize that situation as having any other options are looking for factors outside of the game to make the decision about what is the best course of action. But that can all be countered if the expert player steps in and simply uses factors in the game, in this case backdashing, to shut down any psychological considerations indirectly.

 

Does this make sense?

Edited November 6, 2011 by exogen

[█␢█]

It's still not completely clear to me. So you're saying that it's only considered "metagame" if and only if there are no mechanical work-arounds for the situation that has two or more viable branching points?

[exogen]

Pretty much. If a strategy can be countered by appealing to the games rules than factors outside the game are irrelevant.

 

So let's say the guys at the lesser skill level are having a shifting metagame, due to the mind-game taking place at the metagame level, are suddenly up against a player of a higher skill level who knows more about the rule set. The more skilled player will be able to win primarily because he can counter things that the players of lesser skill don't even know exist. In the same way as the less skillful players evolve in their skill levels their understanding of the implications of the game's rule set increases, resulting in them getting closer to the metagame position.

 

Think about the argument this way.

 

1. Metagame uses factors beyond the game to effect outcomes in the game.

2. Factors beyond the game will be translated into in-game strategies.

3. If these in-game strategies that are extensions of information beyond the game's rule set can be countered by the rule set of the game, these strategies do not actually exist according to the rule set of the game.

4. If they do not exist according to the rule set of the game then such strategies are impotent.

5. Any metagame strategies would have to be grounded in the rule set of a game in order for them to count because the game provides the very context for which the metagame strategies exist in the first place.

6. Any strategies that use information beyond the game that can be countered by the games rule set and are subsequently impotent would not be grounded the games rule set.

7. Therefore any strategy that uses information beyond the games rule set but is not grounded in that rule set cannot be metagame.

 

Edit: I want to elaborate on premise number five, particularly the second part of that premise. It is important that you understand that the games rule set as that actually exist independent of what any lesser player knows are the very thing that provide the basis for the metagame taking place to begin with. If this was not true than anyone could just dream up any strategy and make it win. Why do you think it is that "scrubs" get pissed when they lose and act like sore losers? The reason is because they want the game to behave like the way they think it should as opposed to accepting it the way it is because that would force them to admit that their skills are lacking, which being unable to swallow their pride, they are therefore unable to do.

Edited November 7, 2011 by exogen

[LCC]

Understanding that not everything is known can be considered metagaming. The metagame often indicates that knowledge isn't perfect, which is why different areas of the world play stuff like AC vastly differently due to different opinions on what is actually best, usually due to different skill levels. For fighters it's mainly just understanding what characters are used most often and using that to decide what characters to practice against the most. Even choosing an uncommon character is attacking the metagame because it's taking advantage of what isn't known are practiced against as often.

 

Say for example Rose has a j.lk double crossup setup in the corner. It can easily be blocked or focus dashed out of, but most people don't have rose experience, especially ones that can do the setup, so it still sees use. If you know in advance that they know how to beat it you won't use it. Having that knowledge in either direction is metagaming. If knowledge was truly 100% then it's simply nothing but skill and mindgames at that point. That's something you can only prepare for in advance by practicing.

 

Other games like starcraft involve understanding trends for what builds are popular. On different servers you see different strats more often. By understanding what is trending you can better prepare by playing a certain way or knowing what to scout for. Again why these differences exist is because of separate groups of people figuring out the game apart from each other which creates more than 1 metagame. Nobody can agree on what is best and skill levels differ.

[█␢█]

Oh okay then I guess it's just a difference if opinion then because to me, metagame is something that is always there at all skill levels and can't be designated by a certain skill pool.

[Shirtless Crackhead]

I'd disagree with that last sentence of your's LCC.

 

Armored Core Silent Line

 

YIV

RAY

EAS

HUESO

FLEET

WS/3

ROZ

SA44

DD/10

Solid Side Shields

LQ/15

--

MG800

SRFL70

 

OP-I

 

I don't have a builder handy to remember if this fits with DD/10 and/or current setup. I suppose you could argue that a Spine build with 008 core is on par/better.

[exogen]

Well there is an element of language here that makes the term a bit ambiguous. To say metagame is to talk about the game above the game.

 

what LCC said is good because it made me realize I need to make a distinction.

 

There is a difference between a strategy being dominant in context and dominant in reality. take the following example.

 

Suppose in a fighter you have communities A, B and C, all of which develop independent of one another and as a result develop different "metagames" in the sense LCC and NIJI are talking about. When these communities come together there will be a clash of metagames with either all of them being equal or some sort of ranking in terms of which has the dominant playstyle.

 

Now let us suppose that communities A, B and C are all based on imperfect knowledge of the games rule set and applications/implications of that rule set. In other words they have imperfect knowledge to at least some practical degree. As I note remember I am not arguing here that the knowledge must be 100% perfect, just perfect to a great extent to a point where the percentage not known makes no practical difference.

 

Now imagine that the three initial communities encounter community D, which let us say has perfect knowledge. If the three initial communities strategies, and hence metagames are all based on imperfect information that practically makes a difference in terms of strategy than those metagames (strategies that rely on information outside of the games rule set) will be trumped by community D's knowledge of the rule set.

 

That means communities A, B and C metagame's will be trumped by the ruleset of the game which is known by community D.

 

I say that means that communities A, B and C where never engaging in the metagame in reality even though they appeared to be.

 

I am talking about what LCC means when he says at a certain point it is all just skill and mind games.

 

It seams we have two senses though of the term. Let's call them

 

Relative/virtual Metagame: "using out of game information, or resources, to effect one's in game decision" (LCC and NIJI) this definition can happen at any skill level or is relative to any community or situation.

 

Absolute Metagame: "any strategy, action or method that transcends the games rule set" (the notion I hold)

 

What I am arguing is not that relative metagaming does not exist in reality, but that ultimately it is trumped by absolute metagaming, which is a true statement. But that means that relative metagaming is not in trully going above the game.

 

Yes it is in the sense that one is performing the act, but the act is predicated on a false appearance of the game or even on the knowledge of imperfect information, but ultimately all of that is trumped by the greater reality of the games rule set (either imperfect or not) which is the very context in which the metagame emerges. To actually go beyond the game one must have a real understanding of the rules because it is the rules that allow for the game and metagame to take place.

 

Edit: another way to state my postion is light of the vocabulary distinctions above is to say that relative metagames ultimately give way to absolute metagaming in the final analysis.

Edited November 7, 2011 by exogen

[Shirtless Crackhead]

Meta-gaming can basically be described how the game works on the multiplayer level.

[Mom]

You don't know bout me metagaming those AI. Edited November 7, 2011 by TMRaven

[Shirtless Crackhead]

Yeah I do.

 

[Mom]

That's powergaming, son!

 

However, not moving my lockbox at all. That is indeed metagaming at its finest.

Edited November 7, 2011 by TMRaven

[Shirtless Crackhead]

You gotta show that AI who's boss hoss round here, ya know?

[YUNG MASTERLESS GLENCOUR]

Yeah otherwise it'll put you in a vat and turn you into a battery.

[Shirtless Crackhead]

Then it'll be metagaming on you.

[Ataraxis]

Metagaming: The game beyond the game.

[Shirtless Crackhead]

Metagaming: Your Mom

[Ataraxis]

In the game of life, Your Mom is definitely an element of the metagame. Good example, Raor.

[Shirtless Crackhead]

I think that would definitely quality it as one of the most terrifying gaming experiences ever.

[exogen]

Ok I thought of something to add to what I said before that might help drive the point I am trying to make home.

 

I know where some of you guys are coming from in regards to what I have daubed "relative metagaming." When you use information beyond the game to win or when communities develop separate meta-level strategies within the context of that community, there is something going on there that is metagame-like.

 

But I don't think this is a true, or final application of the term. Here is the argument more condensed. The important idea here is that the rule set is the very thing that provides the context of the metagame to emerge, without which, the metagame would be impossible. That is a central claim of mine. I think as long as this idea is true, the rest of the argument follows logically.

 

Metagaming is to use a strategy that goes beyond the rules of the game.

In order to go beyond the rules of the game one must at first have specified rules to transcend.

A rule set is therefore a necessary condition for any metagame.

 

Strategies in general can either transcend the rule set of a game or not.

If the rule set of a game can be used to counter a certain strategy than that strategy cannot be said to have transcended that rule set.

Therefore that strategy cannot be metagame.

 

The conclusion is that any strategy that can be countered from within the rule set without need of additional information cannot be said to be transcending the rules of the game and hence cannot be said to be metagame.

 

The key there is also strategies that cannot be countered without the need to additional information not provided by the rule set. It think that this might be a sloppy way to put it but what I am talking about is strategies that have as their basis information outside the confines of the rules.

 

So what I am saying is that "relative metagaming" appears to be metagaming when it actually isn't. Again that does not mean that all of the outside psychological and other critical factors do not exist, but that they are not metagame in reality, although they may appear as such.

 

Edit:

 

Only those strategies which result after all possible applications of the rule set by itself have been exhausted and the player is forced by the rules to transcend the rule set can that strategy be considered metagame.

Edited November 9, 2011 by exogen

[Nomrah]

Metagaming is the guessing game that goes on within the the game, sort of like a dream within a dream.

[exogen]

Metagaming is the guessing game that goes on within the the game, sort of like a dream within a dream.

 

Right,

 

but if you can just trump the other dudes "dream" without using your own "dream" to do it, then its not metagame. At least that's what I am saying.

 

In other words, some strategy is only metagame if no information taken from the game can counter it i.e. punishes on reaction in fighters.