|
there's no away to avoid sounding like anything other than a nitpicker, so i may as well embrace it. i'm a bit concerned with some of the loose usage of the word "metagame" that has continuously popped up in forums, streams, and the like. to be honest, i think its confusion is justified, as the definitions here are problematic.
first, the prefix meta-: in most contexts, meta-whatever indicates (per wikipedia) something "about (its own category)." metafiction is fiction about fiction, metafilms are films about films, so on and so on. however, since the english usage of the meta- prefix is a back-formation, its applications get hazy.
metagaming: again, per wikipedia: "using out-of-game information, or resources, to affect one's in-game decisions." this is not a straight application of the meta- prefix, as metagames are not specifically games about games in the way metafiction is fiction about fiction, but instead games that are being played externally from the original game that impact the game, which in almost every modern example means psychological games. here are some basic examples of metagame:
a friend of mine who was a poker player used to tell me that when he was playing in cardrooms with people he didn't know, he would open-fold (fold when his normal option is check/bet) once or twice when he first sat down. his justification: "open-fold for metagame value." by acting like a newbie, he impacted the out-of-game information (the perception of him as a player) so that it affected the in-game decision making of his opponents. (edit: now that i reflect on this, you could argue that this is or isn't metagame, as it is within the ruleset of the game, but you could definitely support that it "transcends the prescribed ruleset".)
in starcraft, this is all over the place, and i specifically disagree with wikipedia's "slang definition" interpretation, but we need to be clear about its application. when people say things like "the metagame is shifting from x to y," they seem to be simultaneously using it correctly and incorrectly. often, it seems to me that people mean to say, "the gameplay is shifting from x to y." to use metagame in this context, what you should be meaning to say is: since things have shifted from x to y, player a should be expecting to see y from player b. for example, if idra were to 6pool an opponent, that would be using metagame to his advantage, as it is not the expectation from all the out-of-game information surrounding idra's play style. however, if all you are meaning to say is that the current play style is a certain way or is becoming a certain way, it's loose usage of "metagame" there, as it is not specifically grounded in external expectations of an opponent.
i hope this isn't too pedantic, but it'd be great if people heed their words!
 
|
|
|
To me, metagame is a really imprecise term that just refers to the way people are playing the game.
But then.. who do we define as the people? Casual ladderers? Progamers?
What exact facets do we define as they "way they play?" Micromanagement techniques? Build orders?
How exactly do we define the game itself? Harass? Macromanagement?
Personally, I don't think it's worth getting too bothered about. Sometimes, it's better just to not think too much about it, and just stick to recognizing what people mean when they use the word.
EDIT:/ Whoa, I think this was my 600th post.
Cool.
|
Cool post. I think I agree with your point.
I'm not an expert on the subject, but just to add my 2 cents:
I see the prefix meta and think "outside of." I see meta as referring to a situation of nesting, where a context is nested within a larger context, the larger context being the "meta context."
But there is also a self-referential component... So it seems possible that what is "outside" is also "inside."
Our metagaming is all about our thinking/expectations/social context for the game, which heavily impacts how we play the game, but would not exist without the game itself... so it is simultaneously outside and inside the game. The game is the basis for our thinking of the game, and our thinking of the game impacts the game itself.
Kurt Vonnegut provides a good example of the meta novel... In his novels, he often mentions himself and tells real life anecdotes about himself, and also talks about his writing process and the revisions to his work in progress, such that while you read the novel, the fact that you are reading a novel is made explicit by Vonnegut's mentioning of "real life," yet Kurt Vonnegut's "real life" is part of what makes the novel in the first place.
It's kind of interesting in the sense that this can all lead one to question boundaries. We think the game and the metagame are kind of distinct, but really thinking about it makes you start to see that there is no boundary where the game ends and other things begin.
Metagaming can take many forms too. I'd argue that all questions of status related to BW are metagame issues. I see people resetting accounts on Iccup all the time so that they can get a better win ratio (a prettier record)... this is, I would think, a metagame issue. You see people dodging other people based on record, rank, or nationality, and this, too, is a metagame issue. Most of the anxiety, anger, frustration, etc, surrounding competitive games like Brood War must be due to metagame issues... Things like records, scores, prestige, feuds, etc, drive people to play, drive people away from playing, and affect HOW people play.
Of course, this last paragraph is referring to metagaming in a way that I think most people are not. Most people are referring specifically to expectations regarding "in game" strategy. "Techniques within BW have evolved such that Z is generally at a strong advantage versus a one base Terran, so we can expect that T is going to do some kind of fast expansion build."
And the difficulty for weaker players, including myself, is that we may see modern strategies, and even try to employ them ourselves, without understanding all the metagame steps that it took to reach those strategies.
InkMeister / Nick
|
Widening or generalization is a very common linguistic process. It happens to all sorts of words. The word "place" originally meant a broad street, but now just refers to any area. Metagame is currently undergoing or has already undergone generalization. It still keeps the old, more "correct" meaning of the game beyond the game, where you use outside knowledge or conditions to affect in-game play, but it's slowly acquired a newer, some would say "incorrect" meaning of the standard strategies or state of the game. It seems to me that fighting against this generalization is a losing battle, linguistically speaking. It would be better just to accept that it now has two definitions, a traditional one and a newer one. You can use it however you want personally, just like how we all have the choice whether or not to say "ain't", but just because you think "ain't" shouldn't be used doesn't mean everyone else will stop using it.
Just my thoughts as a linguistics major.
+ Show Spoiler +And I do think its usefulness as a word drops a little with the generalization. However, I can't think of any suitable single words to take its place for its newer meaning. How do you say standard strategies or state of the game in one word without using metagame? (I'm sure someone will probably be able to find a word to do it, knowing TL.) People value economy of expression, and the secondary meaning of metagame allows you to state a complex concept in a single word.
|
Meta means the X of the X.
Metaphysics: physics of the physics,
Metarule, rule which says how to relate to the rule;
Metabook, a book about other books;
Now, meta implies a dimension of exteriority and of trranscendance. If you take the example of a metabook: a study of Plato's symposium is NOT a metabook. An encyclopedic thesaurus index is a metabook. Meta-symphonic structure in music would be the structure of all the symphonies (and not one by one) taken together of a composer (meta in this case would refer to the word structure rather than the word symphonies: we have then the "structure of the structures" of the composer's symphonies).
Psychological aspect of the game is by no way the metagame, since it IS a part of the game. Especially with poker. Doesn't make any sense at all to call metagame the psychological part of poker. Now the other way people use metagame is wrong also because it is not "the game above/about the game", it's just the "current strategies", or the "evolution of current strategies".
I came to the conclusion that metagame is a bad neologism and that if you stick to what meta implies, metagame means NOTHING AT ALL and is always a misuse.
If you really like the word, the "current strategies" is a better use than what's outside the game, because then it is just complletely wrong.
|
"Example of metagaming: A game crashes. Citing information from previous instances, you are able to convince the administrator to rule in your favour."
If this blog was not completely wrong itself, it would also be better.
|
i really disagree that psychological aspects are part of the game itself. psychology is part of the player, there's nothing inherent to the game that demands expectation of player tendencies, mood, etc (see kasparov vs deep blue). if games are being played "above the game" that is being played, i'm not sure how this doesn't qualify as "metagaming", but it does depend on a strict definition of what the game is.
|
On November 28 2010 19:05 benjammin wrote:
i really disagree that psychological aspects are part of the game itself. psychology is part of the player, there's nothing inherent to the game that demands expectation of player tendencies, mood, etc (see kasparov vs deep blue). if games are being played "above the game" that is being played, i'm not sure how this doesn't qualify as "metagaming", but it does depend on a strict definition of what the game is.
Even if you consider it is "above", it does not relate to the game with the X of the X structure which characterizes serious uses of the word "meta".
Why saying the "metagame" of poker when you can say "psychology" of poker which is simpler and clearer? It just doesn't make any sense. I don't have problem with complicated neologism if they are different than the simple version of what they mean.
|
oh there's nothing wrong with saying specifically "psychology", but it falls under that umbrella of "metagame" for sure
to steal from the previous thread:
"The meaning is broad to cover innumerable situations, but they are all captured under the single definition."
i just picked psychology since those concerns are more applicable to its current usage, but there are certainly more instances of where the term applies
|
On November 28 2010 19:18 benjammin wrote:
oh there's nothing wrong with saying specifically "psychology", but it falls under that umbrella of "metagame" for sure
to steal from the previous thread:
"The meaning is broad to cover innumerable situations, but they are all captured under the single definition."
i just picked psychology since those concerns are more applicable to its current usage, but there are certainly more instances of where the term applies
That doesn't answer my main point which is that the metagame should be the "game of the game". Or something approaching.
Psychology is not the game of the game.
You see? The word is useless AND wrong.
|
On a side note, the way people use metagame as the evolution of the way the game is played would be more correct if the word was instead "metastrategy", as a broader way of seing the "strategic evolution of strategies". If that makes any sense...
Opening 4 pool is a strategy, but changing the way we approach the game such as IloveOov did would be a change in the metastrategy (which affected all the strategies).
You have your relation of exteriority, your X of the X (strategy of the strategies), and your transcendant dimension, and you don't get banned using it, hopefully.
|
I believe that because of the wide misconception of the word, it has become more or less useless. In order to communicate well, you either have to explain which definition you are using or you should not use the term at all. The alternative is to risk being misunderstood by a significant chunk of the listeners/readers.
If you really want to battle the incorrect definition of the word, you need to get authority figures in the community to explain the correct meaning of the word everytime they use it and also weed out all the incorrect usage of the word among the authorities.
|
Here we go again!
I never get tired of this thread :D
|
People have been going over this word forever on TL and no-one is ever going to learn. At the end of the day 90% of people who use the word "metagame" are noobs who want to sound knowledgeable.
|
Atleast 90% of time people use the word in a way that it doesn't even make sense.
Maybe they just throw it in to sound clever.
If you really want to get your point through it's better to dodge using the word.
|
You are theoretically correct, but don't forget, words evolve all the time with new meanings attached to it. Thus, if the community accepts the "metagame" as "current strategy", I think it's worth using.
|
On November 28 2010 21:26 TheAntZ wrote:
Here we go again!
I never get tired of this thread :D
HEEREEEE WEEEEEEEEEEEE GOOOOOOOOOO
|
On November 28 2010 19:00 Biff The Understudy wrote:"Example of metagaming: A game crashes. Citing information from previous instances, you are able to convince the administrator to rule in your favour."If this blog was not completely wrong itself, it would also be better.
I always thought it was meant as a joke.
I kinda think it's a word that should be left to evolve on its own. If people use it to refer to trends in build orders let them. It's not like anyone is confused.
There are a bunch of related (but not identical) concepts that come up in different games. For example if you're playing Mafia with the same set of people a lot you want to play in a way that allows you to win with any role. This might even mean making a "mistake" in the context of a single game, in order to avoid getting into an impossible situation in a later game. This is called metagaming by some people.
But you can't just define metagaming as actions that don't treat the current game in isolation. In poker metagame used to refer to betting frequencies as well as a set of beliefs about the game held by the playing population that could be used to predict the play of an unknown opponent. Very much like trends. There's a type of "metagaming" that's similar to the Mafia example. It's when you let a whale win to get more action later. But noone would call that metagaming. They just call it hustling.
|
On November 29 2010 02:19 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2010 19:00 Biff The Understudy wrote:"Example of metagaming: A game crashes. Citing information from previous instances, you are able to convince the administrator to rule in your favour."If this blog was not completely wrong itself, it would also be better. I always thought it was meant as a joke. I kinda think it's a word that should be left to evolve on its own. If people use it to refer to trends in build orders let them. It's not like anyone is confused. There are a bunch of related (but not identical) concepts that come up in different games. For example if you're playing Mafia with the same set of people a lot you want to play in a way that allows you to win with any role. This might even mean making a "mistake" in the context of a single game, in order to avoid getting into an impossible situation in a later game. This is called metagaming by some people. But you can't just define metagaming as actions that don't treat the current game in isolation. In poker metagame used to refer to betting frequencies as well as a set of beliefs about the game held by the playing population that could be used to predict the play of an unknown opponent. Very much like trends. There's a type of "metagaming" that's similar to the Mafia example. It's when you let a whale win to get more action later. But noone would call that metagaming. They just call it hustling.
I'll tell you the core of the problem.
Metagame sounds cool. That's basically why this word which is at best a bad semantic choice, at worst a useless and pointless neologism is around a bit everywhere.
Since the internet in general speaks very poorly english (me the first, I have to say), I don't think it harms anybody that such word is used if it's widely understood and accepted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
