the word METAGAME

On June 11 2010 04:46 0mgVitaminE wrote:
I still avoid using the word. I'm too afraid

On June 11 2010 04:44 avilo wrote:
Yah, some people treat "metagame" as a physical object or something, or misuse it like in the last few examples of your OP.

But metagame is really just one instance of a game. The theoretical best way to play the game at a point in time.

The last phrase in the last example you quoted is actually a correct way to use the term metagame though:

"I would wait for the metagame to develop more to learn other races, because the main benefit of it is understanding how they play and need to act, which changes with the metagame."

because the "metagame" does change over time. aka the best ways and most common/popular trends in the game change over time.

On June 11 2010 04:47 motbob wrote:
Tasteless uses the word in the way you say it shouldn't be used, so you must be wrong!

On June 11 2010 04:27 Metagame wrote:
Examples of metagaming:

Example of metagaming: Insulting your opponent's wife, mother, family, etc. to affect their mental state while playing a game.
Why is it metagaming? You are affecting your opponent's mental state, which will in turn have an affect on their capabilities to play the game. Most (video) games do not have explicate rules on insults, meaning they are outside of the ruleset of the game.
Example of non-metagaming: Often times, using vastly inferior units can affect an opponent's mental state; however, that insult is done within the ruleset of the game.

eh...this is not an example of "metagaming" (btw, saying "metagaming" is an incorrect use as well, you can't "metagame" someone, nor can you be "metagaming." You can be playing the game though.

Insulting your opponent's wife, etc. to mess up their mental state like that...it's called gamesmanship

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamesmanship
1 strike.

Example of metagaming: You cause laggy conditions which are favourable to your playstyle.
Why is this metagaming? Rules often make no comments on the state of your connection when you play. You are changing the outcome of the game by altering factors outside of the ruleset.
Example of non-metagaming: Using a unit composition that is agreed upon as being overpowered. Because the unit statistics are within the ruleset, it is not metagaming.

same here. another incorrect definition. Probably because you are confused about the definition yourself. But this is also a form of gamesmanship. Or you can even take it to the extreme and call it cheating, but really it is just gamesmanship.

metagame has to do with the gameplay and theoretical gameplay based off of inferences on current popular trends at top level within the game community, not things that occur outside the game. Doing something to cause lag or make internet drop has nothing to do with the concept of metagame, it does have to do with being unethical though or no morals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamesmanship

Example of metagaming: Players all agree that unit A is too strong. Many players are winning games by only making A. To react, opponents have been rushing for unit B, which is a counter to A. Knowing this, a player has developed a build which is weak against everything but a rush to B.
Why is this metagaming? The rules state the statistics of the units; however, they make no comment on which are overpowered or what should be the standard strategy. By taking information from outside the game, this player is affecting the outcome of the game with information from outside of the ruleset.
Example of non-metagaming: A player luckily scouts his opponent early and guesses from his buildings that he is making a large amount of X. From this he makes the decision to build only the direct counter to X. This isn't metagaming because all decisions and information were from within the game.

This is where you get back on track. Knowledge of changing game states does have to do with "metagame," as the theoretical best way to play the game always changes depending on what the best players are currently doing and what those trends are.

still, you can't "metagame" something. You can "know the metagame" though.

Example of metagaming: A game crashes. Citing information from previous instances, you are able to convince the administrator to rule in your favour.
Why is this metagaming? The rules often make no comment on how to handle technical problems. Convincing the administrator to rule favourably for you is a game outside of the ruleset.
Example of non-metagaming: A game crashes. An automated algorithm determines you are the winner and awards you points. This is not meta-gaming because the rules for determining the winner are standardized.

This is an example of making inferences based off of what the current metagame is to get a decision in your favor, by knowing the likilihood of the results of the game based off of current trends in the "metagame". In itself though, this is not "metagaming" (once again, you can't "metagame" something).


Hopefully you can see what metagaming actually is.

Here are some quick rebuttals to anticipated criticism:

* Metagaming can also mean the standardized strategy *
- No it can't. You are misusing the word.

* Metagaming has multiple meanings *
- No it doesn't. The meaning is broad to cover innumerable situations, but they are all captured under the single definition.

Understanding the real definition to metagame and metagaming, please understand why the following sentences are misusing the word:






Thank you.

On June 11 2010 04:56 DragoonPK wrote:
So is metagame an outside force not within the game itself which effects it?

Example of metagaming: A game crashes. Citing information from previous instances, you are able to convince the administrator to rule in your favour.

On June 11 2010 04:51 Senx wrote:
The metagame discussion makes me wanna puke. Its so disgusting in every way possible.

On June 11 2010 05:04 Chef wrote:

I don't think I'd call that meta-game. It's a little too separated from the events. Most of your other examples are okay, I guess.

When I think of meta-game, I just think of JulyZerg. That's pretty much foolproof.

On June 11 2010 04:56 DragoonPK wrote:
So is metagame an outside force not within the game itself which effects it?

Example of metagaming: Players all agree that unit A is too strong. Many players are winning games by only making A. To react, opponents have been rushing for unit B, which is a counter to A. Knowing this, a player has developed a build which is weak against everything but a rush to B.
Why is this metagaming? The rules state the statistics of the units; however, they make no comment on which are overpowered or what should be the standard strategy. By taking information from outside the game, this player is affecting the outcome of the game with information from outside of the ruleset.

On June 11 2010 04:59 UmmTheHobo wrote:
Technically couldn't a pre-planned strategy be considered part of the "metagame"?

But then why not just call it strategy.

On June 11 2010 05:04 Chef wrote:

I don't think I'd call that meta-game. It's a little too separated from the events. Most of your other examples are okay, I guess.

When I think of meta-game, I just think of JulyZerg. That's pretty much foolproof.

On June 11 2010 05:08 PokePill wrote:


By your own definition, metagame can still mean the "standard strategy" because it directly influences the metagame of each and every game played by directly influencing decision making each and every player makes from start to finish from "information outside of the game". People are just not using to refer to a specific game.

On June 11 2010 05:11 motbob wrote:
EDIT: whoops i totally misunderstood your OP! never mind, effort wasted.

On June 11 2010 05:07 Chill wrote:
Avilo I can't even comment on your criticism because I can't understand it and it's buried in a giant quote.

If you accept that someone can "be gaming" then surely you can accept someone can "be metagaming."

How is citing an article "gamesmanship" accomplishing anything? Gamesmanship is defined as "Pushing the rules to the limit", while my examples are not even contained within the rules.

On June 11 2010 05:07 Chill wrote:
Avilo I can't even comment on your criticism because I can't understand it and it's buried in a giant quote.

If you accept that someone can "be gaming" then surely you can accept someone can "be metagaming."

How is citing an article "gamesmanship" accomplishing anything? Gamesmanship is defined as "Pushing the rules to the limit", while my examples are not even contained within the rules.

On June 11 2010 05:14 SchOOl_VicTIm wrote:
I think if there really is an actual meaning to this word it's closer to what Nony describes here more than anything else

On June 11 2010 05:13 Chill wrote:

Okay

I don't get how people keep saying I contradicted myself.

Hard-countering an expected strategy based only on the expectation that it is coming is part of playing the metagame.

That does not imply that the expected strategy then somehow gets the label "metagame".

On June 11 2010 05:10 Chill wrote:

That's fair to say that the disconnect is too great; the point I was trying to make is that you can get more favorable conditions (through admins) by playing the metagame. The example I chose is not the best example of that.

On June 11 2010 05:11 Chill wrote:

No, actually it can't. I can't fathom how you arrived at this conclusion. Playing the metagame would be studying replays of a player, seeing what they do, and then making a strategy based on that. That has nothing to do with the standard strategy or that player's standard strategy being called the metagame.

On June 11 2010 05:14 avilo wrote:




Here is what was buried in the quotes:

you talk about insulting opponent's wife:


eh...this is not an example of "metagaming" (btw, saying "metagaming" is an incorrect use as well, you can't "metagame" someone, nor can you be "metagaming." You can be playing the game though.

Insulting your opponent's wife, etc. to mess up their mental state like that...it's called gamesmanship

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamesmanship


You talk about lagging the game purposely to fit a player's playstyle to gain an advantage:

same here. another incorrect definition. Probably because you are confused about the definition yourself. But this is also a form of gamesmanship. Or you can even take it to the extreme and call it cheating, but really it is just gamesmanship.

metagame has to do with the gameplay and theoretical gameplay based off of inferences on current popular trends at top level within the game community, not things that occur outside the game. Doing something to cause lag or make internet drop has nothing to do with the concept of metagame, it does have to do with being unethical though or no morals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamesmanship

Here you talk about countering strat a with strat b, etc, this is where you were spot on:

[b]
This is where you get back on track. Knowledge of changing game states does have to do with "metagame," as the theoretical best way to play the game always changes depending on what the best players are currently doing and what those trends are.

still, you can't "metagame" something. You can "know the metagame" though.

You talked about a lan situation where the game dropped or disced and a player is trying to convince a ref to give them the win based off of what happened during the game:

[b]This is an example of making inferences based off of what the current metagame is to get a decision in your favor, by knowing the likilihood of the results of the game based off of current trends in the "metagame". In itself though, this is not "metagaming" (once again, you can't "metagame" something).

that's what I had in the quotes for ya.

I cited the gamesmanship definition because you are mis-using the definition of metagame in many places where you are actually showing situations demonstrating gamesmanship by a player of the game they are playing.

And no, you cannot "metagame" something because "metagame" is a concept, not the actual game that a person is playing.

Nony can be playing a game using his knowledge of the metagame to know what his opponent will be most likely to do, and then execute a build he think will net him an advantage, I guess this is just semantics, I say "use knowledge of the metagame," you just shorten it to "metagaming."

I personally don't like to say someone "metagamed" something because metagame is not something physical that you do to something lol. You can have knowledge of what the current metagame is though...but it always changes.

On June 11 2010 05:17 motbob wrote:

This is what I got confused about, I think. Say every zerg 4 pools every game, but your upcoming opponent in a tournament 3 hatch mutas every game. IMO make it more clear in your OP that 8 raxing and bunkering in-base because the opposing player is zerg is not metagaming, but that going 1 rax cc because your opponent is who he is IS metagaming.

EDIT: unless 8 raxing and bunkering in-base because the opposing player is zerg IS metagaming under your definition, in which case i need to make a post about why your definition contradicts itself.

On June 11 2010 05:20 Chill wrote:

Your final definition shows you do not understand what the metagame is. You look at it like a summary of strategy, which it decidedly is not. Unless you are actually implying that you can have knowledge of what things a player will do outside of the game (like bumping the table while you're playing poker to annoy you) and counter it? O_O;;;;;;;

Please stop referencing gamesmanship. It is pushing the rules to the limit. Metagaming is outside of the rules. There is no overlap and what I am talking about isn't within the rules of the game.

On June 11 2010 05:29 avilo wrote:


I am not the one missing the definition here. Metagame is not a summary of strategy.

Metagame is the theoretical best way to play the game at a given point in time in that gaming community. And that always changes as the game evolves and as playes evolve.

On June 11 2010 05:27 DragoonPK wrote:
So chill did I understand this correctly, is meta game an outside force that influences the game in whatever form?

Example of metagaming: Insulting your opponent's wife, mother, family, etc. to affect their mental state while playing a game.

Example of non-metagaming: Often times, using vastly inferior units can affect an opponent's mental state; however, that insult is done within the ruleset of the game.

Example of metagaming: You cause laggy conditions which are favourable to your playstyle.

Example of non-metagaming: Using a unit composition that is agreed upon as being overpowered. Because the unit statistics are within the ruleset, it is not metagaming.

Example of non-metagaming: A player luckily scouts his opponent early and guesses from his buildings that he is making a large amount of X. From this he makes the decision to build only the direct counter to X. This isn't metagaming because all decisions and information were from within the game.

Example of metagaming: A game crashes. Citing information from previous instances, you are able to convince the administrator to rule in your favour.

On June 11 2010 05:32 Failsafe wrote:
This OP is tilting the hell out of me. I'll assume it's an example of metagame being used properly, and is in fact a level designed to tilt everyone who knows what metagame is. Otherwise I have no idea what to say. I'll explain some instances of why the OP is wrong.



This is a bad way to kick off your discussion. Talk about metagame that is directly related to the game [SCBW / SC2]. I understand that you're trying to emphasize metagame as being outside the game, but that's a ridiculously vague criterion. If I come to your house and kill you, that's as much a part of the metagame as insulting your relatives (albeit murder is usually illegal).



This is completely wrong. Deliberately using units that your opponent perceives as weak in order to put your opponent on tilt is an excellent example metagame. You're doing something in game to affect your opponent outside of the game. Anything designed to affect your opponent (the person) rather than his in-game units is the metagame. Using Jigglypuff in Super Smash Brothers and then constantly using its annoying taunt is the pinnacle of metagame.



It is possible to metagame without being a douchebag or becoming a cheater. It would be nice if the first examples in your post displayed clean metagame without implying that it was necessary to be a tool in order to metagame.



Nope. The units' stats are not the metagame, but if you deliberately use units that your opponent perceives to be overpowered (a la Carriers or 12 Nexus; hi Artosis) then that is most definitely metagame. Distinction: using the units is not the metagame -- using the units to affect your opponent is the metagame.



This is not necessarily true. There's always the opportunity for your opponent to deviate from an apparently obvious strategy that you've uncovered. Recognizing that he will or won't deviate is part of the metagame. If you're blindly countering him (a feature SC2 encourages) then it's not metagame, but you can't say there's no metagame involved in counters.



Similar to my first explanations. The metagame [of sc2] should mainly be focused on in-game actions used to affect your opponent's decisions. Or the formation of your beliefs about what your opponent will do. Pretty much any thinking you do about what your opponent is thinking is the metagame. Metagame does not all take place outside of the game.

On June 11 2010 05:35 Failsafe wrote:
The best definition of metagame is

Metagame: Playing your opponent.

When you say something like "playing the game outside the game" you omit the fact that you can play the game outside the game from within the game.

On June 11 2010 05:36 Strayline wrote:
So what should we call what we are now calling the metagame?

I mean, the evolution of standard or expected play clearly happens and people have been happily calling this the "metagame." I suppose we could say "Well Dan, the standard game in ZvP has evolved a lot over the past year as have the other matchups" but I think there is a need to convey "expected gameflow" in a cool-sounding word that commentators can throw out there without thinking...

Also, I think your third example is where the confusion comes from. I do see the distinction but sometimes it's hard to unwind what falls out of the in-game rule set and what comes from outside.

For example, I think the fact that so many D level iCCUP games follow the korean pro-gamer "standard game" has more to do with stuff going on outside of the game (watching proleague) than what is the most effective in-game at that level of play. I would be interested to hear what you think about that example...

On June 11 2010 05:27 DragoonPK wrote:
So chill did I understand this correctly, is meta game an outside force that influences the game in whatever form?

On June 11 2010 05:40 Simplistik wrote:

No, an earthquake which kills your opponent in the middle of the game, causing you to win, is not part of the "meta game".

On June 11 2010 05:44 Chill wrote:

I think it's fairly obvious that you have to be the source of the force if you are playing the metagame.

If you caused the earthquake, it would, although a terrible example, be playing the metagame.

On June 11 2010 05:37 Chill wrote:

Now we're entering a territory where mindgames and metagame overlap that I don't agree with, unless you want to make the argument that mindgames are a subset of the metagame.

On June 11 2010 05:51 avilo wrote:


Your metagame definition is way off now if you think causing an earthquake is "playing the metagame." Once again, you can't even "play the metagame." It is a concept, you can't "play it." You can know what the metagame is though.

You can play the game, and use your knowledge of the metagame to gain an edge on likely trends and likely things your opponent will do. But no, causing an earthquake is not an example of "playing the metagame," let alone can you even play a metagame.

Metagame has nothing to do with "things outside the game." It is really the opposite...it has everything to do with the game and trends of the game and the community of players playing the game. Where are you getting your definition for things outside the game being the metagame?

On June 11 2010 05:52 Failsafe wrote:


Mind games are a subset of metagame, and mind games are the main, pure form of metagame. Whether mind games occur in game or outside of the game (e.g. bragging) is irrelevant. Other forms of metagame are usually pathological in that they suffer from being dishonorable or cheating.

Examples
Arguably, maphacking is metagame. But maphacking is also cheating.

Arguably, lagging is metagame, but intentionally lagging is cheating, or at least dishonorable.

Insults are metagame but they're also dishonorable.

Killing your opponent is metagaming but murder is also cheating, dishonorable, etc.

Convincing a tournament administrator to award you a win is metagaming but potentially dishonorable.

On June 11 2010 05:52 Failsafe wrote:


Mind games are a subset of metagame, and mind games are the main, pure form of metagame. Whether mind games occur in game or outside of the game (e.g. bragging) is irrelevant. Other forms of metagame are usually pathological in that they suffer from being dishonorable or cheating.

Examples
Arguably, maphacking is metagame. But maphacking is also cheating.

Arguably, lagging is metagame, but intentionally lagging is cheating, or at least dishonorable.

Insults are metagame but they're also dishonorable.

Killing your opponent is metagaming but murder is also cheating, dishonorable, etc.

Convincing a tournament administrator to award you a win is metagaming but potentially dishonorable.

On June 11 2010 05:55 Chill wrote:

I'm getting my definition from the definition. Where are you getting your definition?

On June 11 2010 05:56 avilo wrote:


None of those examples are examples of metagame.
Maphacking is cheating.

Lagging is usually unintentional, but if intentional it is cheating like you said.

Insults are not metagame. Doing that is unsportsmanlike and classified under gamesmanship.

Killing your opponent is not metagaming omg lol, that's murder. It has nothing to do with playing
Starcraft or the best way to play at a given time.

Convincing a tournament admin to award you a win based off of the situation in a game and what is likely to happen is not metagaming, unless in this instance you are using the term "metagaming" to refer to using knowledge of the metagame to infer what would be the likely result of the game had it continued.

ironically, this thread is going to end up with more people using the term incorrectly than had it not been made =/

On June 11 2010 05:56 Chill wrote:

Okay, I think we largely agree. I would like to summary be emphasizing that:

Metagame does not mean "the current standard strategy."

On June 11 2010 05:57 avilo wrote:


From common sense, gaming communities, and knowing that metagame is not equal to gamesmanship or things outside of the game.

Tasteless, in his casts, uses the word "metagame" more correct than you are here chill.

On June 11 2010 05:32 Chill wrote:

Yes, metagaming is affecting the outcome of a game with factors, forces and influences outside of the ruleset defined by the game.

Alternatively, it is "playing the game outside the game".

On June 11 2010 06:01 Chill wrote:

Well, unfortunately you are wrong. Tasteless used the word wrong. Your inference goes against the definition of the word and is wrong.

Again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagame
Metagaming is a broad term usually used to define any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, 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.

On June 11 2010 05:51 avilo wrote:


Your metagame definition is way off now if you think causing an earthquake is "playing the metagame." Once again, you can't even "play the metagame." It is a concept, you can't "play it." You can know what the metagame is though.

You can play the game, and use your knowledge of the metagame to gain an edge on likely trends and likely things your opponent will do. But no, causing an earthquake is not an example of "playing the metagame," let alone can you even play a metagame.

Metagame has nothing to do with "things outside the game." It is really the opposite...it has everything to do with the game and trends of the game and the community of players playing the game. Where are you getting your definition for things outside the game being the metagame?

On June 11 2010 06:03 numLoCK wrote:
Wouldn't metagaming be like, knowing that 5 hatch hydra is really popular at higher levels and deciding to use a very specific counter to that build based on that fact?
And in stuff like MTG the metagame is basically the most prominent deck strategies at the tournament or within the ruleset that you are playing.
Stuff like insulting people or lagging doesn't seem like it fits in really.

Metagame does not mean "the current standard strategy."

On June 11 2010 05:56 avilo wrote:


None of those examples are examples of metagame.
Maphacking is cheating.

Lagging is usually unintentional, but if intentional it is cheating like you said.

Insults are not metagame. Doing that is unsportsmanlike and classified under gamesmanship.

Killing your opponent is not metagaming omg lol, that's murder. It has nothing to do with playing
Starcraft or the best way to play at a given time.

Convincing a tournament admin to award you a win based off of the situation in a game and what is likely to happen is not metagaming, unless in this instance you are using the term "metagaming" to refer to using knowledge of the metagame to infer what would be the likely result of the game had it continued.

ironically, this thread is going to end up with more people using the term incorrectly than had it not been made =/

On June 11 2010 06:07 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I think you're underestimating the power of slang

it is so powerful it can create new words, or create new meanings for a word

you must continue this fight if you wish to restore the purity to the word "metagame", else it will fall into darkness forever as it adopts it's new form

On June 11 2010 06:13 Senx wrote:
I do feel like this is a case where the wikipedia page simply is made/edited by someone missinformed.

On June 11 2010 06:01 rei wrote:

By your definition, Savior's match fixing is just part of his metagame.
By your definition, metagame does not neccessary need to respect the idea of fair play.
By your definition, Cheating is part of the metagame.

Chill you need to put a boundary/limit on kind of "outside force that influence the game" so that the term metagame being use is still relevent and in context to the game (sc or sc2 in our case) in question.

Chill you need a better definition for metagame to be used in context of sc1 and sc2 strategies.
Nony's post is in context of sc2 strategies. Your definition contents contexts that is outside of sc2 strategy.

Nony defined metagame in starcraft strategy better than You did.

On June 11 2010 06:13 Failsafe wrote:


Chill is completely right. The new uses of metagame suck. Metagame has ceased to be a useful word because it has come to mean a bunch of things that we already have other words for. Now we have nothing that only refers to what we called "metagame." It's like stupidity and the internet have coalesced to create 1984.

For further explanation:

I could use "banana" to mean any and everything but that wouldn't mean that my new banana language is a language worth having. Every sentence reads

"banana banana banana banana banana." How much information did you get from that sentence?

On June 11 2010 05:55 Chill wrote:

I'm getting my definition from the definition. Where are you getting your definition?

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.

I'm not sure whether you started the rampant misuse of the word "cute" like Tasteless did with "metagame" but your original TSL casts definitely made the word misused more, and it continues to this day. Even day[9] misuses it regularly now in his own casts.

I just wanted to bring this to light and see your thoughts are on this. Maybe it's a cultural thing where "cute" isn't used to mean attractive especially by means of smallness or prettiness or quaintness but no other gaming community misuses the word "cute" like the Starcraft community.

On June 11 2010 05:35 Failsafe wrote:
The best definition of metagame is

Metagame: Playing your opponent.

When you say something like "playing the game outside the game" you omit the fact that you can play the game outside the game from within the game.

On June 11 2010 06:38 Chef wrote:
Cute has been used that way for at least a few decades.

On June 11 2010 06:42 Aberu wrote:
Seriously, the English language is so free form, why are you guys going into semantics about this? You can apply context to change the definition within a sentence in the English language.

Metagame to me, and many other competitive gamers (using that as context for the sake of discussion), MEANS the development process of strategies, counter-strategies, and utilizing exploits or things once thought useless and making them useful... etc... You KNOW how were are using it and why, but you decide to insult a large number of people by attempting to claim we are uneducated, when you are uneducated as to the effects of context on the English language, and how new definitions are added to dictionaries quite often.

On June 11 2010 06:24 Chill wrote:
Why did you capitalize You? I'm not a God.

On June 11 2010 06:42 Aberu wrote:
Seriously, the English language is so free form, why are you guys going into semantics about this? You can apply context to change the definition within a sentence in the English language.

Metagame to me, and many other competitive gamers (using that as context for the sake of discussion), MEANS the development process of strategies, counter-strategies, and utilizing exploits or things once thought useless and making them useful... etc... You KNOW how were are using it and why, but you decide to insult a large number of people by attempting to claim we are uneducated, when you are uneducated as to the effects of context on the English language, and how new definitions are added to dictionaries quite often.

On June 11 2010 06:41 PokePill wrote:


In what way? I never heard it outside of Starcraft used like that

In NBA if you did some ridiculous dribble move and crazy pass would the announcers call it cute?
In the NFL if you made a 1 handed grab that was boggled and caught between your legs would they call it cute?
Etc.

They would use the word Amazing, Incredible, Sensational, or something else that is not demeaning to what just happened.

If you see a cat lick a dog or something that would be cute.

On June 11 2010 06:54 Aberu wrote:


But that's an unreasonable analogy. I mean if you go so literally with semantics like that, saying get raped, or got owned, or get fucked up, or any of that gamer-slang is stupid. Meta as a prefix could either mean above or change. In the way competitive gamers slang the usage of metagame, it's more like change. It's more like we created our own word using the same prefix. Metagame is the development of strategies.

"The current state of the metagame has gone from roach hydra mass to nydus worms and drops combined with ultralisk play and infestors"

Is an example. Doesn't the word "meta" being used as game-changing make sense now?




From a historical perspective of the English language and the evolution of the dictionaries collection of definitions and words ever-changing, doesn't it seem rather short-sighted and ignorant to pass off the competitive gamers' definition of Metagame as mere ignorance?

On June 11 2010 06:56 Chef wrote:

Cute and sly have been interchangeable in a lot of contexts. Like when someone pulls a trick on you, an appropriate response is "ah, very cute," in a slightly sarcastic tone. So when a player pulls a trick on their opponent, doing something unexpected (excessive or showy micro counts), it is pretty normal to call it cute.

The word cute isn't demeaning. Girls and guys use it to describe each other, and it usually has connotations of innocence and frivolity, than feebleness or inferiority. Showy micro shows innocence and frivolity, because it shows that the player isn't taking the game stone faced.

If there were a find function I could use on all of my books, I would try to get you examples with publication dates but... There's not. I'm just gonna have to hope you've been outside long enough to have heard it used this way. The best thing you can do is ask your parents, or your grand parents if they think cute can be used in this way, since it will show you there's no generational gap.

On June 11 2010 07:01 Aberu wrote:
And as I demonstrated, meta can mean Above (which is the way it is used in the example you all have been citing for the definition of metagame) and it can mean Change (which is the way many competitive gamers commonly use it). So this isn't some "dumb" change that should be limited, if it's been so quickly adopted and has actually expanded strategical discussion in the context of competitive gaming quite a bit.

I think this is just yet another transparent attempt at people trying to claim superiority over a majority base, once again. Such is the plight of the nerd core gaming audience.

On June 11 2010 08:19 Shatter wrote:
If wikipedia is your only citation for the definition of metagame...

Even straight Protoss or Terran players might have noticed that theres something slightly wrong with the Zerg design or metagame.

Oov was, until now, the player with greatest win percentage ever. And his active manipulations of the metagame brought an entirely new dynamic to Starcraft.

I would wait for the metagame standard strategies to develop more to learn other races, because the main benefit of it is understanding how they play and need to act, which changes with the metagame current favored strategies.

On June 11 2010 08:45 cursor wrote:
The Posts where the member "metagame" posted- had me rofl.
I mean... I love the responses he got to. Pure comedy.

On June 11 2010 08:38 Chill wrote:

It's not a real word so what else would you like me to cite outside of the etymology?

On June 11 2010 08:51 alexpnd wrote:
2) Meta-game tactics: Using the game in ways not designed. A marine was design to kill something. A supply depot to have supply (at least in SC1). When a supply depot is used to wall off enemies I consider it a meta game tactic. Muta stacking is another classic tactic that I consider meta-game. Gas steal, etc.

No one has to agree with me, but this is the way I see it.

On June 11 2010 08:57 Shatter wrote:
So my friends and I start using the word "xyz (some made up word)" as a substitute for the word "gigantic." But then some other group of people overhear us and start using "xyz" to mean "anything larger than average." I perfectly understand them when they use the word "xyz" and a lot of people are using the word "xyz" as "anything larger than average" instead of "gigantic." Can I really claim the authority to say that this way is right, you guys aren't using it correctly?

Without any standardized definition, I don't think you can override popular use. Even if the basic definition at one point or another meant something slightly different, there is no official definition for the word. The OP gave some "correct" definitions of the word "metagame" that I would not use the word for but I can't definitively say it is wrong, just not a way I would use the word.

I say use the word in accordance to what you think it means. People will understand what you mean when you use the word, even if it's "wrong" according to the OP.

On June 11 2010 08:51 alexpnd wrote:
To me meta-game can mean two things:

1) Meta-game Strategy: Human strategy, beyond the hardcoded possibilities of the game itself. This is something like Nony was describing in his post, on choosing particular builds considering the psychological state of the opponent, even if technically it may be unsound considering a different (moderate) psychological state. eg. Exacerbate the opponent through chat, "dirty play", etc.

2) Meta-game tactics: Using the game in ways not designed. A marine was design to kill something. A supply depot to have supply (at least in SC1). When a supply depot is used to wall off enemies I consider it a meta game tactic.

Muta stacking is another classic tactic that I consider meta-game.

Gas steal, etc.

No one has to agree with me, but this is the way I see it.

There is a special set of moves in chess which allows a player to win in four moves. Competitor A has been watching Competitor B play chess, and the past five games in a row Competitor B has attempted to use this four-move win. When Competitor A sits down to play against Competitor B, Competitor A will be metagaming if he/she plays in a way that will easily thwart the four-move checkmate before Competitor B makes it obvious that this is what he/she is doing. A more complex version of this was used by Derren Brown in episode 4 of "Trick of the Mind", where he simultaneously 'beat' a selection of grand masters by acting as a proxy, playing them against each other.

On June 11 2010 09:04 Chill wrote:
It's a compound word from two defined words, meaning the definition is clear.

Edit: Excuse me, a prefix and a word.

Oov was, until now, the player with greatest win percentage ever. And his active manipulations of the metagame brought an entirely new dynamic to Starcraft.

On June 11 2010 09:08 beetlelisk wrote:

I just imagined green humanoid with long teeth and spiky ears.


That's abusing game's engine.


Cheesing.


No one will understamd what you post too, in my opinion.

On June 11 2010 10:26 Divinek wrote:



it's for people like this that this thread needed to be created!

It's like oh im just going to apply random events to some concept and that's how i want to use the word i dont care if you agree with me, i dont get how people can go through life being so ignorant about something in which they are so obviously wrong.

I mean you understood it for the very first example why did a good thing have to be ruined
(here im obviously talking to the original quote not the quoter)

On June 11 2010 12:22 endy wrote:
I studied game theory in math, where for each player, various strategies are available, and where obviously some strategies would counter some opponents strategies, and some others would be countered. Most of the time you can find an equilibrium (the famous Nash equilibrium), that defines how to mix your strategies to be the most efficient as possible (pool 5 once in a while can be great, but if you pool 5 everygame it clearly sucks. on a side note, only horang2 can cheese every pvp and still win haha. his last in base proxy gate was briliant). The equilibrium for a PvP could be 10% of the games fast dt, 30% 1gate FE, 10% proxy 2 gates, and 40% 2 gates reaver, and 10% 4gates goon all-in (just an example) Because each of these strategies can counter each other, but some are more viable, that's why they have 40%. But if you ALWAYS use the same strategy, even if its viable, the opponent will choose the best counter. To make it simple, we often have A > B > C > D > A, if you always choose C, your opponent will choose B. So if recently you used C a lot, it would be smart to use A.
This is what I could call the metagame. It's not very easy to explain, I think some people here who have studied game theory, or even poker players know exactly what I am talking about.


For example, in PvZ, the "Nony build" (FE 2 gates zeal push then double stargate), would not be viable during the period every zerg would 2 hatch mutad since you dont cannon much with this build, and your stargates are built too late to defend 2 hatch mutas. But because it was during a period a lost of zergs would go 3 hatch spire into 5 hatch hydra, this made Nony's build extremely powerful.
I would call it metagame, since this strategy is not the most efficient PvZ, but is very powerful, within the context it was used.

Yeah playing according the context could be a good way to summarize what I call metagame, and here what I call context is the period that covered at least the last few months. Effort made great ZvT games with 3hatch before pool. Everyone would have found it totally retarded if we were in 2001. What I mean is a lot of people who hate the word metagame, would just say it was adaptation according to the opponent, but in my opinion it is not, it is adaption to the last 6 months in its entirety.

Edit :I totally disagree with OP defining metagame as using bugs, or lag, or insults. I mean it could be semantially correct, but when we talk about Starcraft, the metagame we are talking about is a lot more like the metagame in chess or poker.

On June 11 2010 19:44 InRaged wrote:
Speaking of words' definitions, this thread is the definition of the irony. We have people, who use word macro to describe process of microing your base, complaining about misuse of some term ;PPP

On June 11 2010 19:44 InRaged wrote:
Speaking of words' definitions, this thread is the definition of the irony. We have people, who use word macro to describe process of microing your base, complaining about misuse of some term ;PPP

On June 11 2010 09:04 Chill wrote:

It's a compound word from two defined words, meaning the definition is clear.

Edit: Excuse me, a prefix and a word.

On June 11 2010 08:34 zulu_nation8 wrote:
I've always thought of metagame as something like, if in a game of rock paper scissors, I threw rock two times in a row and won, whether or not my opponent thinks I will throw rock the third time as well. A synonym would be "leveling." I've never though of metagame as any of the stuff about lag or things outside of standard gameplay. I just call those things extraneous factors.

Example of non-metagaming: Using a unit composition that is agreed upon as being overpowered. Because the unit statistics are within the ruleset, it is not metagaming.

Example of metagaming: Players all agree that unit A is too strong. Many players are winning games by only making A. To react, opponents have been rushing for unit B, which is a counter to A. Knowing this, a player has developed a build which is weak against everything but a rush to B.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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)

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

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.

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.

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.

On June 16 2010 16:24 pedduck wrote:
I agree with OP that there is some misusing the word. However, giving the exact definition of a word in a language that is not dead is going to be hard. We should be little bit open-mind on this issue.

For example, Is it correct to use the word "Expo"? as the meaning of this word (in Wiki) has nothing to do with base expansion. What about the word "Gosu". For me, Nony is gosu, but if you ask KT coach, Nony is probably not isn't he?

I think the answer is as long as people in the community understand it in the same manner, it is correct to use it.

On June 16 2010 16:24 pedduck wrote:
I agree with OP that there is some misusing the word. However, giving the exact definition of a word in a language that is not dead is going to be hard. We should be little bit open-mind on this issue.

On June 12 2010 19:37 Gustav_Wind wrote:
In case you guys didn't want to read EatThePath's excellent post because it was long, I'll quote the part that I feel needs to be answered.



In both the Smash and especially the MTG community the word metagame as a noun is unanimously used in the ways you call incorrect.

On June 18 2010 07:03 mg wrote:
I have a question then.

For example, with region-locked battle.net servers, the way SC2 is going to be played is going to be slightly different between each server. Based upon these games, future strategies are going to react and change to the current strategies on the each server and will evolve differently.

I see this in fighting games a lot where there's a different style of play based upon location. For example, east coast players tend to be more turtle-y because that's the way the game there evolved.

What's the word for that?

On June 14 2010 22:09 Subversive wrote:
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.

On June 18 2010 09:53 c.Deadly wrote:


I think you answered your own question - I would call that "evolution".

On June 18 2010 09:53 c.Deadly wrote:
As for "meta-game", I agree with Chill. I first heard the word from trading card games such as Magic: The Gathering, and it has grown to have a much looser definition there, where it is also widely misinterpreted. In the case of trading card games, the "meta-game" is not the pool of popular deck builds but rather how you react to those builds while creating your own deck.

On June 18 2010 09:53 c.Deadly wrote:
As for "meta-game", I agree with Chill. I first heard the word from trading card games such as Magic: The Gathering, and it has grown to have a much looser definition there, where it is also widely misinterpreted. In the case of trading card games, the "meta-game" is not the pool of popular deck builds but rather how you react to those builds while creating your own deck.

On June 18 2010 12:55 Pyrthas wrote:

He's not asking for a word to describe the process. He's asking for a word to describe the current state of the game.

On June 18 2010 12:55 Pyrthas wrote:
I want to emphasize this: I'm not trying to say that one use of the word is better or more sensible than the other. But it is wrong to think that the usage in the article above is incorrect in the sense that "Her walks the store" is incorrect as a sentence of English; again, this would be like complaining that using "hype" as an adjective is incorrect in the fighting game community. It's not. That's just how the word is used. "This is so hype" is a perfectly good sentence there (but don't go writing it anywhere else; people will look at you funny).

Of course, you might not like it. You might try to fight its adoption in this community on pragmatic grounds, such as that it's a confusing use, or that there are better ways to say the same thing, or that it sounds stupid, or whatever. You might try to get people in that community to stop using the word the way they use it. But those issues are all different from how the term is actually, currently used, which is simply a lexicographical matter

On June 18 2010 02:38 CatZ.root wrote:
lol you're all hillarious, i got a good idea, don't use the word, no need to be fancy to play a game boys, it won't make you a better player or anything of that sort, if you're a caster and you're trying to get everyone to understand what you mean to say at a given instance by applying the word, cool!... otherwise i dont see the point of this thread other than people trying to show off their dictionary skillz by correcting other people and telling them they're dumb for not knowing how to properly use this term, you're not being smart fellas, you lookin mad silly and by silly i mean Meta-Silly.

I wouldn't mind if there was a correct definition for metagame, just arguing over a term that someone came up with not long ago seems useless.

On April 28 2011 22:25 nast3rrr wrote:
good read

On July 20 2011 14:47 Cassel_Castle wrote:
I've always seen it as two words, a noun meaning "the current builds expected to be used" and a verb meaning "using outside information or tactics to win". The OP says the second is a word and the first isn't? So it's never ok to use metagame as a noun?

Example of metagaming: Players all agree that unit A is too strong. Many players are winning games by only making A. To react, opponents have been rushing for unit B, which is a counter to A. Knowing this, a player has developed a build which is weak against everything but a rush to B.