EPTthe word METAGAME - Page 8
| Blogs > Metagame |
|
Shikyo
Finland33997 Posts
| ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
On June 12 2010 07:52 Shikyo wrote: Chill said that saying "And the spire goes down" when it is destroyed is wrong, so I really wouldn't have his word hold any real significance when it comes to these things. That pretty much made him lose his credibility about vocabulary and word usage. Isn't this the definition of a logical fallacy? "X is wrong about Y. X said something about Z. Therefore, X is wrong about Z." | ||
|
tedster
984 Posts
The metagame has so much to do with player expectations and psychology that it can really be applied to far too many things to create hard blanket categories. If I know that void rays are good, and that people might make them, and I counter in advance, that is a metagame decision that justifies taking a risky action. It wasn't based off something that I saw in game and confirmed as 100% true: it's based on data from outside the game and player expectations. If I fake countering them, and my opponent responds, that is a metagame decision resulting from successfully anticipating his psychology and metagaming (he knows people fear voidrays, he sees/anticipates my response based on this, I capitalize off these expectations and pre-emptive responses since he only has partial information) If I spam chat accusing him of planning to void ray rush, that is metagaming (and may impact his decision to use void rays), but a far less common and useful form that has less to do with gameplay. The long and short is that whenever outside game knowledge, trending, OR psychology is brought into the equation, it's viable to discuss as metagaming, and you don't address this well at all in the OP. This knowledge can be acted on within the game, and it doesn't have to result from the kind of "outside influences" you tend to specify but can be as simple as responding to what a player is likely to do. If I am playing THE ROCK and I build my units to deal with 2-base Carrier, I'm metagaming successfully. If I refuse to play a straight-up macro game with IdrA, I'm metagaming properly. In your fervor to diminish the use of this word you're promoting a rigid and rather false definition. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
I have been using the term metagame for several years outside of Starcraft, primarily to talk about MTG, where it has a very solid meaning. It strikes me as exceedingly insular to write down compound word definitions and a quote from wikipedia as though on a stone tablet and expect everyone to see that this narrow interpretation from narrow sources is the correct one. I am wondering if you hold this view on the word metagame across all games, Chill, and have used it that way among them in the past, or if this argument is borne out of and relates primarily to the word metagame in the Starcraft community. Anyone who has put a little time into playing tournament MTG "knows" that metagame refers to the expected spread of viable decks, and in more precise cases a concept closer to trying to assign those decks percentages of the field. It's easy to grasp why the word means this, in the case of MTG. A single game of MTG is a trial unto itself, with its own structure and intricacy, twists and turns; initial game plans give way to strategic adaptation, and sometimes a single game is truly epic. But MTG has another layer entirely (let me not belabor it--I assume anyone reading has a passing familiarity with how MTG works), that is, you have to choose how to construct your deck out of a generally sprawling cardpool. Because of this, and the structure of a tournament, the competitive player has two main tasks ahead of him. He needs to design (or choose) a deck--what you might say is a strategy: to use a particular set of cards--that he feels will be successful against his opponents and their decks. He also needs to win the games he plays with his deck, each one being an engagement of some challenge, especially when his opponent's deck isn't particularly susceptible to his. In this environment, the metagame is choosing a deck, and figuring out what decks are good, and therefore popular; this is simple to most people because the game is what you do over and over with your deck. Of course, this doesn't fit a strict reading of the OP definition because in competitive MTG, the game rules govern what cards you can use, and consequently deck choices fall under game rules, are very much a part of the game. Nevertheless, there is a clear demarcation in the player experience between the activity of choosing a deck and practicing against the expected field versus the playing of any individual game. This is why a disagree with the hardlining you're doing. If the term is meant to mean "only outside the game", there are better words to describe that more precisely, like gamesmanship, as avilo has pointed out. And one could go down the tedious but perfectly vadid path wherein the limits of what is inside and outside the game are called into question, if the only tangible measure is whether one wins or not, inside the system of real life. I think this is where much of the problem comes from, in fact, when trying to use the word metagame to describe the body of viable and consequently popular strategies (or to mean anything else) in Starcraft. The lines between tactics, strategies, and meta-strategies (like cheesing straight through a bo5) blur easily in the game of Starcraft. Having good blink micro in a focus-fire-and-disengage style of fight is a good tactical skill, but it can be used as part of a strategy where your build order delivers lots of stalkers, and which might be timed to reveal some sort of misinformation that would make your opponent's reaction susceptible to mass stalkers well micro'd. Do you see what I mean about blurring? (I'm asking genuinely.) In this environment, I can agree it's tempting to declare that meta- will mean anything outside of this, because how are you going to divvy it up? Is the metagame build orders? That's primarily how I use it, but that entails an implied body of strategies, which again entails an expectation of fighting against some of those strategies more often than others. (Otherwise, you couldn't expect anything so you wouldn't be analyzing it.) Although this meaning of metagame--which I take it you oppose--is admittedly fuzzy, I submit that it's more useful than addressing solely the category of unfun considerations including things like "I need to brush up on my shittalking so I can get easy wins against nervy players". Indeed, if metagame as you take it means "things outside the game", what does it have to do with Starcraft? If it does have to do with Starcraft, at times, then it has do with the game. I will be satisfied if you can point out why this isn't a revision of the "where to draw the line" problem. To briefly restate my two cents: I along with many other take metagame to mean "what you can expect from your opponents, and how to out-strategy them on that level". I think this is valid, and simply better, and less needlessly arcane, especially in light of available terminology like gamesmanship. Lastly, I love to root for the words nitpick, seriously, but I can't when pragmatism and pedigree are lacking. | ||
|
Gustav_Wind
United States646 Posts
On June 12 2010 18:06 EatThePath wrote: I have been using the term metagame for several years outside of Starcraft, primarily to talk about MTG, where it has a very solid meaning. ... I am wondering if you hold this view on the word metagame across all games, Chill, and have used it that way among them in the past, or if this argument is borne out of and relates primarily to the word metagame in the Starcraft community. In both the Smash and especially the MTG community the word metagame as a noun is unanimously used in the ways you call incorrect. That is, the expected set of strategies you expect the field to display. Nobody ever uses it in the ways that you say are the correct uses. So my questions are: 1). Is it possible for you to say jargon is being misused when literally everyone in a community uses it that way? Doesn't that make it right by definition? (I'm referring to the MTG community here, not the SC one) 2). if you allow that the MTG community's use is acceptable, then why is it flat-out wrong when used in the SC community, when the same concepts apply? Ambiguity isn't even an issue because the way you define it it's pretty much used as a verb, and the MTG usage is a noun. 3). What word do you like to use in sentences such as: "Flash's fast armory build advanced the Terran ________" | ||
|
Xifortis
Netherlands6 Posts
User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
Wonderballs
Canada253 Posts
| ||
Hot_Bid
Braavos36399 Posts
On June 12 2010 08:46 jalstar wrote: Isn't this the definition of a logical fallacy? "X is wrong about Y. X said something about Z. Therefore, X is wrong about Z." Yes, lol. | ||
|
Wohmfg
United Kingdom1292 Posts
No one can go into a game and simply play with knowledge of the units and the rules of Starcraft and be able to play well. A player will always be using knowledge gained outside of the game to play to his full potential. He will scout certain places for known drop routes, he will build units to counter his enemy without even knowing what his opponent is building, he will choose to wall in or not based on whatever the popular strategy is at the time, just like he would use a certain strategy based on his opponent's play style. OP's definition of metagame seems so broad, it includes everything apart from the rules of the game. It seems redundant to have this definition of metagame because almost every decision a player makes in the game is dictated by metagame. Or am I missing something fundamental here? | ||
|
Subversive
Australia2229 Posts
On June 11 2010 07:03 PokePill wrote: Yes I don't disagree with what you just said, but it is not used in video games or sports like this because it carriers a connotation of insignificance with it, which is why I describe it as demeaning. I agree with Chef. I have used and have heard cute used the way he suggests. Also, cute isn't demeaning to women specifically because it can easily be applied to men. Lastly, cute can be used similarly to sly as Chef suggests and this isn't new. I understand where you're coming from, but perhaps Chef is right and you simply haven't heard it used in this way before outside of Starcraft? It's not demeaning to women or trivialising. At times the apparent sarcasm can make it sound negative but it doesn't necessarily carry that connotation. And just because other sports casters don't say a particular word isn't a good reason why the Starcraft community shouldn't use it  On June 11 2010 06:32 PokePill wrote: Chill, Since there is a relevant subject and I've put off bringing it up for a very long time: You seem to really not like the use of the word metagame, but I strongly dislike your use of the word "cute." You use it to describe almost any form of micro or any time an interesting trick done in Starcraft. Not only is this demeaning, it has a negative female connotation or certain level of unimportance to it when a "cute" trick can be game breaking at times. I would have made a thread about this but you are a moderator and I do not want to anger you. This just sounds like passive aggression. While I agree that angering anyone in a position of authority is best avoided if possible, you're not going to win Chill or anyone elses respect by remaining silent - nor will you be banned for a simple criticism. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8067 Posts
When people start to understand that words in general and especially neologisms don't have a meaning set in stone, and that their meaning is basically what they are used for, we will have made a great step against stupidity. If someone could come and say "Men you are all wrong, lol means something else than laughing out loud, it means you are hungry" and was right, it wouldn't change anything as everybody uses it for signifying they are laughing. That applies to bonjwa. Asking if Flash is or not a bonjwa doesn't have any sense because Bonjwa doesn't mean anything at all except the meaning you want to give it. So asking the question "Is Flash is or not a bonjwa" is asking the question what do we hear by Bonjwa. Which is the least interesting question in the universe. Metagame is largely used by the community to talk about the development of how the game is played at the moment. I don't see anything wrong with it and I don't give a fuck that it was not the initial meaning. Plus the interpretation of the definition given by wikipedia is very largely arguable. Anyway. Amazing discussion. | ||
|
OhGee
United States46 Posts
Is this incorrect? (in your opinion?) I heard this term before BW. Just sayin | ||
|
Avidkeystamper
United States8556 Posts
I pretty much agree with this. Why are so many people against just adapting the new, popular meaning? It's a easy way to refer to how the game is played at the minute. | ||
|
Hykns
United States6 Posts
Metacognition is defined as "cognition about cognition", or "knowing about knowing." It can take many forms; it includes knowledge about when and where to use particular strategies for learning or for problem solving. "Metacognition refers to one’s knowledge concerning one’s own cognitive processes or anything related to them, e.g., the learning-relevant properties of information or data. For example, I am engaging in metacognition if I notice that I am having more trouble learning A than B; if it strikes me that I should double check C before accepting it as fact." — J. H. Flavell (1976, p. 232) So by that analogous definition of metagaming should be "gaming about gaming" and metagame should be "a game about a game". One way this can be taken is the game of knowing how others are playing the game. I would see questions like, "list all the builds that counter X", or design a new build to counter "Y" as begin metagaming, because you are not actually playing the game itself, but thinking about different ways to play the game. | ||
|
Highways
Australia6106 Posts
TeamLiquid has always been referring to metagame as the current stable strategy at a particular point in time. Everybody understands the meaning of it, so leave it as it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metastability | ||
|
InRaged
1047 Posts
On June 12 2010 02:43 floor exercise wrote: Yeah you're gonna have to explain what you think is 'microing your base' and why it's not correct to refer to that as macro so that we can fully appreciate this lesson in irony BW community uses macro to refer exclusively to the unit production and as a synonym to the economy. But army composition, army positioning, army upgrades, map control, map/opponent awareness through scouting and some other things like spreading creep in SC2 are part of the macromanagment too. You'll never see a commentator saying "this player has awful macromanagment" about a guy who kept turtling in his base never bothered to scout opponent and as a result totally fucked up composition of his forces, because this usage is totally foreign to the BW players despite being proper usage. Now I'm not saying that's bad, cause unit production/worker maynarding aspect of the SC is so important, it requires it's own term and I'm perfectly fine with "macro" being this term, cause it's close enough to the required meaning. What I'm saying is that same true for the "metagame" term. Current trends in strategy and whatnot is important aspect for the RTS community and since "meta" means something beyond and abstract from the game itself, term "metagame" is perfectly fine for this role. Chill and guys who support him need to realize that people skew meaning of the words a bit to fit better their need all the time. That happened to macro term long time ago and everybody get used to it. Same happened with the "metagame" word couple years ago. There's no use to rant about that. | ||
Chill
Calgary25998 Posts
On June 12 2010 07:52 Shikyo wrote: Chill said that saying "And the spire goes down" when it is destroyed is wrong, so I really wouldn't have his word hold any real significance when it comes to these things. That pretty much made him lose his credibility about vocabulary and word usage. Citation needed. If you are searching for this, then you will see that I didn't say it's wrong: Goes Down Why? What does this even mean? I can understand using it to signify creating buildings ("With the Stargate complete we now see that the Fleet Beacon goes down, signifying Carriers"), but why things dying? There's so many better descriptive words to use other than "goes down", but still you hear it used about 100 times a commentary, and often in rapid succession. Actually I hate myself for using this term, and every time I feel myself about to say it I consciously hold it back because it's just bad. | ||
|
shinigami
Canada423 Posts
You've effectively placed a growth cap on the misuse of the word :D | ||
|
Kyo Yuy
United States1286 Posts
The American Heritage Medical Dictionary suggests all the possible meanings for the prefix meta: 1. Later in time: metestrus. 2. At a later stage of development: metanephros. 3. Situated behind: metacarpus. 4. Change; transformation: metachromatism. 5. Alternation: metagenesis. 6. Beyond; transcending; more comprehensive: metapsychology. 7. At a higher state of development: metazoan. 8. Having undergone metamorphosis: metamyelocyte. 9. Derivative or related chemical substance: metaprotein. 10. Abbr. m- Of or relating to one of three possible isomers of a benzene ring with two attached chemical groups, in which the carbon atoms with attached groups are separated by one unsubstituted carbon atom. Usually used in italic: meta- dibromobenzene. When people think of the word "meta," some people think a transformation or change, as in the case of metamorphosis, metastasis, and similar words. Most words involving the prefix "meta" actually imply something outside and beyond, but since metamorphosis is such a common word, people often associate meta with "change." Thus, a lot of people, including Tasteless, believe that metagame means "the changing game," as opposed to "the game outside the game," and such people use metagame to talk about how strategies are constantly changing, with new builds coming in and old builds going out. Since Starcraft is a game where strategies are constantly changing, people want to use a short word for convenience and thus the word "metagame" ended up being used in such a manner. However, meanings of words can and have changed over time. These neologisms often occur as a result of changes in academia or technological advances. When we say that the market is undergoing inflation, we're not saying that a physical location where goods are sold is being filled with helium. Likewise economic depression does not mean that money is actually emotionally depressed. And there are words that bore new definitions as a result of the Internet, such as spam, forums, threads, etc. Basically what I'm saying is, a lot of people are misusing the word now, but if enough people misuse the word then the misuse COULD become an actual definition of the word. I think, when it comes down to it, people just want a word that can summarize the rapid changes in strategy that comes with a game like Starcraft, instead of saying "Let's analyze the current Starcraft strategical trends/standardized builds/unit compositions" every time. Perhaps if such a word were to be created, people would stop using metagame incorrectly? | ||
|
Gulf
Scotland213 Posts
For example being a zerg player, in ZvT, with how popular terran mech got, you pretty much always expected a 4 helion push to come at you, and a lot of zerg players will have incorporated this expectation into their build orders in ZvT. I'd be willing to bet all the zerg players getting advice on these forums how to deal with terran mech, have played games using a style based on that advice. So the development of new strategies, borrows quite heavily from current popular strategies, which makes sense as you design a build order/strategy to win as often as possible, not to defend from some really weird build you saw once 4 months ago, you make it so you can successfully defend during all the likely timing windows, without over spending to do so(ie taking calculated risk, which is in itself metagaming). And thats how the metagaming process is ever changing, as the new builds become more popular, new strategies to 'beat' them are developed, and peoples expectations in certain matchups change. Which is why the phrase 'the current state of the metagame' includes things like current popular strategy, current popular counters, methods of harassment, because all of these things are developed by knowledge gained from outside of the current match | ||
| ||
