Against the Metagame

I've been mentioning my theory articles in here for a while now, but I haven't trying discussing them so far with you guys, so I thought I might try to do that now. I haven't yet published this one, I am just going to copy-paste to you a rough draft which everyone who joins my clan has to read (and agree to abide by).

I know that the ideas presented in this article are anathema to competitive players, and for good reasons. I am not trying to start flame wars. Just read what I have to say to hear a different perspective, and if you disagree with it, and feel like voicing your disagreement, by all means do so. But try to not flame me guys, if you can, please. There is no reason for nastiness and unpleasantness. Thank you.


--------------------

The essay is now up on my site, so I am replacing the text here with a link to it:

AGAINST THE METAGAME
http://culture.vg/features/art-theory/against-the-metagame.html

--------------------


Please note that the strong language is directed to my regular readers, not to you guys. I am not saying that YOU are forbidden to learn strategies from the internet -- only my teammates.

Let me repeat one last time my goal with this thread: to make my weird viewpoint known to a few more people. That's all. I am not trying to attack the fun you all are having. I am just trying to make my viewpoint known, and to defend and justify it. Thank you.

I can see why you would dislike a 'metagame', but doesn't having a strategy section lead to it's own metagame to begin with? On the most basic level, a metagame is mostly about learning to be as efficient as possible and the resulting dynamic when players try to use and combat these idea.

I already answer this in the article. Read the last four paragraphs again.

In short, yes there is a metagame BETWEEN MY TEAMMATES. But the loss of pleasure from sharing strategies between us is counterbalanced by the gain of pleasure from interacting as a team. However, by forbidding ourselves to read the strategies of outsiders, we do not allow this spoiling to spiral out of control. We minimize it, while maximizing the pleasure we gain from the team nature of the game.

um yea, thats why skillbased execution is always an important part of any game. Do you really think people read a FAQ on sc2 and then become korean gods? Kind of a huge difference between multiplayer RTS games and single player click and point adventure games.

Btw, the true definition of metagame is not a set of viable strategies. It's interaction between players that is totally separate from the game itself.

You're not going to stop people playing by strategies availabe on FAQs or discussion boards. That's pointless. Banning the discussion of such strategies on your clan's strategy board will most likely result in mock-discussions or inactivity. Also, if I'd have to agree to that before joining your clan I'd do a 180° turn and never look back.

And by the way: Almost noone will read that wall of text. If you're trying to get a point across, try to be concise. Berating readers to "read the last four paragraphs again" says more about your input than other folks' inability to read.

Reading FAQs, cheating, hacking, and every other method of playing a game in a non-standard manner doesn't automatically ruin the fun for everyone. Obviously you shouldn't be cheating or hacking but if a person simply reads FAQs, that doesn't mean the game is going to become a boring waste of time. Stop telling people they're "having fun wrong" because that's one of the stupidest things you can do.

But we are talking about strategy games. Execution is merely ONE of the skills they demand. The main skill is devising strategies, and if you take these from the internet you are demolishing that very important aspect of the game (its essential feature, even).

I only read these parts, because wall of text and these statements are enough.
Yeah it is TOTALLY cheating if you actually research of how to play the game?!!!
We should all just randomly do something! Any sort of learning from others should be completely forbidden!

Sorry but I completely disagree. One of the greatest things about RTS is that players constantly copy each other and improve play together.

If you have some free time at some point, I would suggest you give the full article a shot. temeter said he could understand my viewpoint. I am not an idiot. There is at least some truth in what I am saying. For me it is THE truth, but I believe that even opponents of this viewpoint should be able to see reason in it if they give it a shot. You don't have to agree, but maybe you could see why someone would think the way I do?

wow man. can you please proove us that you can make a non flame OP?

Not sharing strategies means that eventually, a small strategic-minded group will rule the game while the rest ragequits.

I would like to draw from Ender's game. In the book, Ender's the God-strategist so to speak. Everyone copies him. But he already knows how to beat the strategy, the very meta he created and so he's not beaten by others. Only those capable of creating their own strategies and understanding strategy to begin with can pose a threat to him.

So no, sharing strategies is not cheating, and it does not pose an unfair advantage. Those good at strategies can beat the crap out of meta. If done right, meta is a rotary thing that will change. When the old meta is beaten, the new meta is established until that too is beaten and replaced, ad infinitum.

Strategists will be strategists, tacticians will be tacticians and people messing about will remain people messing about. But by sharing strategies (it's not like people can't watch streams or use Chronocam anyway) you ensure there's no mile-high skillwall you need to pass. in stead, the tricks of the clever are transparent, ensuring there's a skill gap but not a skill wall.

Metagames that are not enjoyable are not a problem with people sharing and discussing strategies. they are a problem with the game itself (whichever game it may be).

This implies that games have infinite complexity. But they don't.

why'd you like my post @icycalm, wtf?

Star craft has been changing it's balance for dozens of patches. LOL changes it's champions and champion roster. Yes it does require a new influx of changes. But if uber wants to carry it's vision of a lengthy game platform, it means it has to invest in it.

Because I find it funny. But I can't explain why I find it funny without offending people.

Fair enough. The price a game has to pay to remain playable to metagamers is to keep changing itself (i.e. to keep becoming a different game). I also mentioned this in the article:

"The equivalent in single-player games would be if you are playing Monkey Island with a FAQ, for example, and the AI observes you doing this via Kinect, and then changes the puzzles in real-time lol, so that your FAQ will be useless."

But is this an argument for the metagame or against it?

www.tumblr.com