I've seen lots of people get cranky over proper use of this term on TL. I want get a general sense of why this is and how I can avoid ticking people off. I'm not sure why this is such a sticky issue, but let me lay out why I'm confused just in case.
The first competitive gaming community I was active in was Magic: The Gathering. In this community, the standard, accepted use of the word "metagame" was, essentially, the probabilistic distribution of strategies you expect to face when sitting down across from a random opponent. This makes sense to me, as these are the factors that one has to consider when choosing a deck to play, or a decision to make in a game, that have nothing to do with the actual rules.
However here on TL, I've seen the word almost always used as a verb. What's more, sometime people get warned for using the word in a manner similar to what I was used to from my previous environment. Please help me out by sharing your thoughts on whether "metagame" applies to the following scenarios:
1: You are playing on a map where Nexus First is a commonly used build for protoss, and so decide to proxy gate/rax or 6pool. You claim this is a "metagame choice".
2: You say "there is a lot of hellion use in the current KR metagame."
3: You remind your opponent that the last time you played, you mopped the floor with his noob self. As this statement is outside the rules of Starcraft 2 as a game, but is intended to give you an advantage, it is "metagaming".
Inside, find how I would answer these questions from my experience as a Magic player. + Show Spoiler +
1. Yes. This is a metagame choice, or "metagaming" if you prefer.
2. Yes, this is a proper use of the word metagame.
3. No, this is not a proper use of the word metagame. These are psychological tactics which, rather than being a level above understanding game mechanics, are completely unrelated.
If you disagree with my definitions, please realize that there are gaming communities where they are the common use. The starcraft community did not invent the term "metagame", so if you feel the need to correct them to the standard local usage, please do so politely.
Your initial interpretation of the word basically matches up with mine. I wouldn't worry about it, as terms spread people misuse them and apply them to things that they shouldn't apply to, and thus the word changes. "Map control" and "all-in" are two more phrases that have been butchered beyond recognition.
I've seen multiple people refer to pressure + expand as "all in," especially if they lose to the pressure. Then we get into the paradox of the "semi all-in..."
I can't say much more than I agree with your usage of the word and that is how I use it myself - I do however get slightly agitated when someone says something along the lines of "BRO I JUST METAGAMED UR A$$!".
On TeamLiquid particularly though, I've mainly seen people use it in proper context. However, what you're describing may be tied to Starcraft 2, hence why you posted it in SC2 forums and not in the General forums?
On February 03 2012 03:56 sabas123 wrote: doesn't the word meta mean thinking ahead?? nice write up btw^^
Thanks!
In greek, the word meant beyond or adjacent. In English it is commonly used to indicate abstraction from the root word, or a conceptual layer above. It can also be used to refer to a self-referential quality, such as the haiku "There is a haiku / on the west wall of macy's / how did it get there?"
On February 03 2012 04:04 EquilasH wrote: On TeamLiquid particularly though, I've mainly seen people use it in proper context. However this may be tied to Starcraft 2 in, hence why you posted it in SC2 forums and not in the General forums?
I posted it in SC2 because that's the game I personally play, but I guess general may have been a better place. Perhaps the usage among BW players is different?
It's essentially anything that doesn't have to do with the game itself yet relates to its outcome.
You can meta game IRL by breaking your opponents hands in secret or by learning that they get really mad really easily so you spell out EZ with supply depots on the map and suddenly they lose focus and fuck up their micro hardcore when you go for a death push.
On February 03 2012 04:08 cydial wrote: It's essentially anything that doesn't have to do with the game itself yet relates to its outcome.
You can meta game IRL by breaking your opponents hands in secret or by learning that they get really mad really easily so you spell out EZ with supply depots on the map and suddenly they lose focus and fuck up their micro hardcore when you go for a death push.
etc etc...
This is what I was talking about. Perhaps this is technically metagaming by some definition, but I've never heard the word used that way, except as a theoretical example on TL.
meta means outside. Metagame can be translated as: the game outside of the game. everthing that have impact on the game but is not "real" part of the game.
Yeah it's really annoying when people use "metagame" when they mean to say "mindgame". No, you didn't metagame your opponent no matter how smart you think you sound when you say that. You predicted him. Or mindgamed him.
I think to say the "probabilistic distribution of strategies" is a little too specific though. In the SC community we don't have access to probability distributions like in Magic or other cardgames where you can map out the metagame with specific percentages for each deck type, but we can still do it by feel. I don't think anyone has stats about how often 2 rax is used instead of reactor hellions in TvZ, for example, but it's obvious that reactor hellions have become a bigger part of the metagame over time. On Smogon we use probabilistic distributions within each of the different metagames played, so the latter term is clearly quite different.
If you disagree with my definitions, please realize that there are gaming communities where they are the common use. The starcraft community did not invent the term "metagame", so if you feel the need to correct them to the standard local usage, please do so politely.
I'd replace the "please do so politely" with a "don't post at all".
Yes, I agree with your assessment of the word. Good write-up.
I disagree with the formative moment when "metagame" came to stand for these things as, in my opinion, something is meta when it is self-referential. The point when a conversation becomes about the conversation itself, it becomes "meta." But I've accepted it as having become the norm.
So the word has been twisted a bit: "Metagame" is routinely used to refer to what is current, conventional, and likely on the minds of players because of general trends. And I agree that you can't "metagame" a person for what they did the last time you faced off, you might be playing your own meta game by designing a strategy that anticipates what they did the last time. In other words, situation 3. does refer to a "meta" situation--but not one that jives with the way that "metagame" is conventionally used around TL.
I also find the verb "to metagame" a bit too awkward as, imo, it is impossible for a pro to be outside of the metagame. Even if the are doing something unconventional, they are doing this in contrast to, in subversion of, or in spite of the metagame. Everyone who knows standard play is always metagaming everyone else.
On February 03 2012 04:12 skeldark wrote: meta means outside. Metagame can be translated as: the game outside of the game. everthing that have impact on the game but is not "real" part of the game.
Meta doesn't mean outside. You might wanna check a greek vocabulary or two before stating facts. As someone before stated, it means beyond/after. Inb4 Chill.
On February 03 2012 04:04 EquilasH wrote: On TeamLiquid particularly though, I've mainly seen people use it in proper context. However this may be tied to Starcraft 2 in, hence why you posted it in SC2 forums and not in the General forums?
I posted it in SC2 because that's the game I personally play, but I guess general may have been a better place. Perhaps the usage among BW players is different?
It seems so, as I have seen very few people use the term wrongly in the BW scene. However, when I played LoL the majority of players would use it in any way imaginable. Sometimes people would use it in the correct context but most of time people would just say, "something something metagame" - and I'm guessing they think metgame is just a cool word, so why not use it?
On February 03 2012 04:04 EquilasH wrote: On TeamLiquid particularly though, I've mainly seen people use it in proper context. However this may be tied to Starcraft 2 in, hence why you posted it in SC2 forums and not in the General forums?
I posted it in SC2 because that's the game I personally play, but I guess general may have been a better place. Perhaps the usage among BW players is different?
It seems so, as I have seen very few people use the term wrongly in the BW scene. However, when I played LoL the majority of players would use it in any way imaginable. Sometimes people would use it in the correct context but most of time people would just say, "something something metagame" - and I'm guessing they think metgame is just a cool word, so why not use it?
I'm curious about what these wrong usages were. Were they something like "ChampionX is good in the solo lane metagame" (kind of an "I don't really know what you mean" moment) or "lol u just got metagamed nub u should uninstall" (this is a word I heard I could do to someone).
On February 03 2012 04:08 cydial wrote: It's essentially anything that doesn't have to do with the game itself yet relates to its outcome.
You can meta game IRL by breaking your opponents hands in secret or by learning that they get really mad really easily so you spell out EZ with supply depots on the map and suddenly they lose focus and fuck up their micro hardcore when you go for a death push.
etc etc...
This is the not the colloquial understanding of the word, although perhaps technically correct.
On February 03 2012 04:04 EquilasH wrote: On TeamLiquid particularly though, I've mainly seen people use it in proper context. However this may be tied to Starcraft 2 in, hence why you posted it in SC2 forums and not in the General forums?
I posted it in SC2 because that's the game I personally play, but I guess general may have been a better place. Perhaps the usage among BW players is different?
It seems so, as I have seen very few people use the term wrongly in the BW scene. However, when I played LoL the majority of players would use it in any way imaginable. Sometimes people would use it in the correct context but most of time people would just say, "something something metagame" - and I'm guessing they think metgame is just a cool word, so why not use it?
I'm curious about what these wrong usages were. Were they something like "ChampionX is good in the solo lane metagame" (kind of an "I don't really know what you mean" moment) or "lol u just got metagamed nub u should uninstall" (this is a word I heard I could do to someone).
Yes, a lot of the "u just got metagamed" and some of the stuff like this, "omg u just abuse the akali metagame".
Edit: And when I say that the latter statement is wrong, that's because, yes a specific champion can play a big role in how the metagame is developing, but when people say it like that it's like they don't know what point they're actually trying to make - instead it seems like they're just trying to include the word "metagame" for the hell of it.
There's times when the word metagame works but for the most part I think that when people say "metagame shift" what they actually mean is "people are getting better at this game". The metagame shifts because people learn new strategies and how defend specific attacks. That's my take on it, other people have different definitions of the word so we might just end up arguing semantics.
'Metagame' implicitly requires one to act outside of the rule set of a game. I propose that instead of a 'shift in the metagame' or 'metagame shift,' commentators should say 'paradigm shift.'
par·a·digm /ˈparəˌdīm/ Noun: A typical example or pattern of something; a model. A worldview underlying the theories and methodology of a particular scientific subject. Example: "The Bisu build represented a paradigm shift in Brood War strategy." or "What player X is doing right now really changes the paradigm of TvP!"
Lack of vocabulary is not a long-term excuse to go about making up words or using words incorrectly.
On June 11 2010 04:27 Metagame / Chill wrote: 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:
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 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.
On February 03 2012 03:54 pandaburn wrote: 1: You are playing on a map where Nexus First is a commonly used build for protoss, and so decide to proxy gate/rax or 6pool. You claim this is a "metagame choice".
2: You say "there is a lot of hellion use in the current KR metagame."
3: You remind your opponent that the last time you played, you mopped the floor with his noob self. As this statement is outside the rules of Starcraft 2 as a game, but is intended to give you an advantage, it is "metagaming".
This is what I believe: 1. The correct term for this is "playing against a trend". 2. This is a vague example and doesn't serve any clarifying purposes. I believe "meta" is a deeper strategy level beyond simple build orders, army compositions and timings. 3. The correct term this could be "playing your opponent psychologically" or "intimidation".
Aha, this thread caught my eye as recently i've gotten more into the competitive Pokemon-playing community, and specifically, smogon.
I won't pretend that I fully understand the proper use of the word "metagame", but i'm pretty sure that using it to describe anything even vaguely related to the current state of how things are in a certain tier, is incorrect. LOL.
As far as SC2 goes, though, I suppose it is rather abused, yeah. It seems that people find it appropriate to use whenever an opponent is being tricked in any sort of way, whatsoever.
I played MTG too so I can't help but use it in the same manner as you do. I agree with your usage and to all of the Starcraft people out there who think that I am using it wrong I suggest you look up the definition for 'set'.
Metagaming is using information outside the game to gain an advantage. It's more about knowledge than mind games though. It could be knowing the likelyhood of a strategy being used against you based on the current popular strategies - like your definition, but it could also be knowing specificially how your one oponent is likely to play and using that to your advantage.
If you watched some replays of your oponent and create a strategy to specifically do well against his playstyle and/or prefered strategy, you would be metagaming him.
Trying to decrease a players performance by reminding him you won the last game is slightly different I would say.
I agree that taunting your opponent into making mistakes etc is not metagame, but the difference between point 1 and point 3 might need to be clarified. If I know my opponent and know he likes to do a certain tactic, me blindly countering it would still be metagaming. It's connected to point 1 in that you know the trends and abuse them, but it's on an interpersonal level.
On February 03 2012 04:31 itsjustatank wrote: 'Metagame' implicitly requires one to act outside of the rule set of a game. I propose that instead of a 'shift in the metagame' or 'metagame shift,' commentators should say 'paradigm shift.'
par·a·digm /ˈparəˌdīm/ Noun: A typical example or pattern of something; a model. A worldview underlying the theories and methodology of a particular scientific subject. Example: "The Bisu build represented a paradigm shift in Brood War strategy." or "What player X is doing right now really changes the paradigm of TvP!"
Lack of vocabulary is not a long-term excuse to go about making up words or using words incorrectly.
On June 11 2010 04:27 Metagame / Chill wrote: 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:
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 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.
Thank you.
I've read the post in your spoiler. I just disagree with it. The word "metagame" was not made up by gamers, but it does have a standard gaming use, which I think is not the one you understand. Nothing about the word requires actions to be outside the game. You can also look at wikipedia for common uses of the word.
On February 03 2012 04:31 itsjustatank wrote: 'Metagame' implicitly requires one to act outside of the rule set of a game. I propose that instead of a 'shift in the metagame' or 'metagame shift,' commentators should say 'paradigm shift.'
par·a·digm /ˈparəˌdīm/ Noun: A typical example or pattern of something; a model. A worldview underlying the theories and methodology of a particular scientific subject. Example: "The Bisu build represented a paradigm shift in Brood War strategy." or "What player X is doing right now really changes the paradigm of TvP!"
Lack of vocabulary is not a long-term excuse to go about making up words or using words incorrectly.
On June 11 2010 04:27 Metagame / Chill wrote: 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:
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 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.
Thank you.
I've read the post in your spoiler. I just disagree with it. The word "metagame" was not made up by gamers, but it does have a standard gaming use, which I think is not the one you understand. Nothing about the word requires actions to be outside the game. You can also look at wikipedia for common uses of the word.
Read your own proposed definition before you attempt to answer mine:
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.
If competing interpretations should be the standard for this debate, I'll argue that you don't even present an alternative. My counter-interpretation of the linguistic phenomenon of using paradigm instead of metagame is uniquely better, here are a few reasons:
1. Grammar a. Paradigm is grammatically correct, and its use in this situation displays a command of the English language that is thus far lacking in current English ESPORTS broadcasts.
2. Education a. If an untrained viewer currently watches an ESPORTS broadcast and does not understand 'metagame' used incorrectly in our contexts and then looks it up in a dictionary, he or she will become only even more confused than they currently already are. Teaching something that is incorrect and acting as if it is correct necessarily destroys the integrity of ESPORTS as an effective educational tool.
3. Limits and Predictability a. Figuring out when to actually use 'metagame' will vastly benefit its use in appropriate contexts. As it is right now, the word metagame is greatly devalued.
And even if you win that 'implicitly outside of a rule set' isn't required, I'll win that paradigm is still the best vocabulary word to use. It is prerequisite to all other considerations.
Yes, I agree with the definition in the opening post and all of your examples. Coming from a background mathematics and statistics, I simply assumed that the word "metagame" was defined in the way you defined it, as this aligns well with the use of the prefix "meta" in statistical analysis. I was surprised to find that some people in this community disagreed with that definition and would even tell me that I was using the term incorrectly when I would use it with that meaning.
To use the definition "outside of the game" does not align with other modern uses of the prefix "meta".
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis: Combining the results from many studies into a single analysis. Similarly, metagame is a description of combining the anlaysis of many games into a single model or anaysis.
2. In general, meta-XXXXX means information about XXXXX. For example meta-memory is information about what is in your memory. And meta-data is information about what is in the data.
3. Meta-game is used to describe information about what is going on in the "game" where the "game" is actually the collection of all games recently played. Using a statistical analysis of these games is one way of describing the "meta-game" although most people rely on their imperfect heuristic interpretation of the likelihoods that can be derived from the games that they have seen or played.
On February 03 2012 04:31 itsjustatank wrote: 'Metagame' implicitly requires one to act outside of the rule set of a game. I propose that instead of a 'shift in the metagame' or 'metagame shift,' commentators should say 'paradigm shift.'
par·a·digm /ˈparəˌdīm/ Noun: A typical example or pattern of something; a model. A worldview underlying the theories and methodology of a particular scientific subject. Example: "The Bisu build represented a paradigm shift in Brood War strategy." or "What player X is doing right now really changes the paradigm of TvP!"
Lack of vocabulary is not a long-term excuse to go about making up words or using words incorrectly.
On June 11 2010 04:27 Metagame / Chill wrote: 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:
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 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.
Thank you.
I've read the post in your spoiler. I just disagree with it. The word "metagame" was not made up by gamers, but it does have a standard gaming use, which I think is not the one you understand. Nothing about the word requires actions to be outside the game. You can also look at wikipedia for common uses of the word.
Read your own proposed definition before you attempt to answer mine:
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.
On February 03 2012 04:31 itsjustatank wrote: 'Metagame' implicitly requires one to act outside of the rule set of a game. I propose that instead of a 'shift in the metagame' or 'metagame shift,' commentators should say 'paradigm shift.'
par·a·digm /ˈparəˌdīm/ Noun: A typical example or pattern of something; a model. A worldview underlying the theories and methodology of a particular scientific subject. Example: "The Bisu build represented a paradigm shift in Brood War strategy." or "What player X is doing right now really changes the paradigm of TvP!"
Lack of vocabulary is not a long-term excuse to go about making up words or using words incorrectly.
On June 11 2010 04:27 Metagame / Chill wrote: 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:
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 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.
Thank you.
I've read the post in your spoiler. I just disagree with it. The word "metagame" was not made up by gamers, but it does have a standard gaming use, which I think is not the one you understand. Nothing about the word requires actions to be outside the game. You can also look at wikipedia for common uses of the word.
Read your own proposed definition before you attempt to answer mine:
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.
On February 03 2012 04:31 itsjustatank wrote: 'Metagame' implicitly requires one to act outside of the rule set of a game. I propose that instead of a 'shift in the metagame' or 'metagame shift,' commentators should say 'paradigm shift.'
par·a·digm /ˈparəˌdīm/ Noun: A typical example or pattern of something; a model. A worldview underlying the theories and methodology of a particular scientific subject. Example: "The Bisu build represented a paradigm shift in Brood War strategy." or "What player X is doing right now really changes the paradigm of TvP!"
Lack of vocabulary is not a long-term excuse to go about making up words or using words incorrectly.
On June 11 2010 04:27 Metagame / Chill wrote: 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:
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 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.
Thank you.
I've read the post in your spoiler. I just disagree with it. The word "metagame" was not made up by gamers, but it does have a standard gaming use, which I think is not the one you understand. Nothing about the word requires actions to be outside the game. You can also look at wikipedia for common uses of the word.
Read your own proposed definition before you attempt to answer mine:
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.
On February 03 2012 04:31 itsjustatank wrote: 'Metagame' implicitly requires one to act outside of the rule set of a game. I propose that instead of a 'shift in the metagame' or 'metagame shift,' commentators should say 'paradigm shift.'
par·a·digm /ˈparəˌdīm/ Noun: A typical example or pattern of something; a model. A worldview underlying the theories and methodology of a particular scientific subject. Example: "The Bisu build represented a paradigm shift in Brood War strategy." or "What player X is doing right now really changes the paradigm of TvP!"
Lack of vocabulary is not a long-term excuse to go about making up words or using words incorrectly.
On June 11 2010 04:27 Metagame / Chill wrote: 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:
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 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.
Thank you.
I've read the post in your spoiler. I just disagree with it. The word "metagame" was not made up by gamers, but it does have a standard gaming use, which I think is not the one you understand. Nothing about the word requires actions to be outside the game. You can also look at wikipedia for common uses of the word.
Read your own proposed definition before you attempt to answer mine:
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.
The article on wikipedia you link is complete in agreement with the definition from the OP.
Yes it is, and if you look within the article you will see some specific uses in MTG that the OP was referring to.
That is beside the point. The argument is between the use of paradigm and the use of metagame. I argue that paradigm is more appropriate. At this point, it doesn't even matter as much what some community defines metagame to be because the definition for paradigm encompasses that extended and incorrect usage.
And mass incorrect usage of a word or phrase doesn't suddenly make it correct.
On February 03 2012 04:14 iamke55 wrote: Yeah it's really annoying when people use "metagame" when they mean to say "mindgame". No, you didn't metagame your opponent no matter how smart you think you sound when you say that. You predicted him. Or mindgamed him.
I blame this mainly on terrible casters who also thinks every attack before max is a "timing attack" or an "all-in."
I still don't fucking understand how to use this correctly TBH, but I would like to know. Can someone give the real answer instead of all this speculation bullshit. Examples and citations would help me understand this a lot, also a guide for dummies cause after hearing every now and then the past 2 years that metagame is commonly misused I haven't figured it out yet what the definition is and how to use it properly in SC2 point of view.
On February 03 2012 06:06 iamke55 wrote: I find it ironic that people who have no argument other than "the dictionary said so!" think we should say paradigm shift instead.
It might be situationally ironic yes, but it doesn't make it any less correct unless you want to defend the English language not having any stable meaning or grammar any more.
On February 03 2012 06:06 iamke55 wrote: I find it ironic that people who have no argument other than "the dictionary said so!" think we should say paradigm shift instead.
It might be situationally ironic yes, but it doesn't make it any less correct. Unless you want to defend the English language not having any stable meaning or grammar any more.
The whole nonsense about using metagame as a verb comes from the argument that "authority figures", such as the wikipedia page or a dictionary, are the only way to determine what a word means even if they blatantly contradict how people actually use the word. But the wikipedia page for paradigm shift should make it very clear why it makes no sense to use it ni place of metagame shift.
99% of the discussion: Metagame doesn't mean "the current state of strategy". You hear LoL players talking about "new meta" or "current meta". That's the wrong usage. That's just "current strategies", not "metagame".
On February 03 2012 06:06 iamke55 wrote: I find it ironic that people who have no argument other than "the dictionary said so!" think we should say paradigm shift instead.
It might be situationally ironic yes, but it doesn't make it any less correct. Unless you want to defend the English language not having any stable meaning or grammar any more.
The whole nonsense about using metagame as a verb comes from the argument that "authority figures", such as the wikipedia page or a dictionary, are the only way to determine what a word means even if they blatantly contradict how people actually use the word. But the wikipedia page for paradigm shift should make it very clear why it makes no sense to use it ni place of metagame shift.
And yet there are unique benefits to using 'paradigm' instead:
On February 03 2012 04:31 itsjustatank wrote: 1. Grammar a. Paradigm is grammatically correct, and its use in this situation displays a command of the English language that is thus far lacking in current English ESPORTS broadcasts.
2. Education a. If an untrained viewer currently watches an ESPORTS broadcast and does not understand 'metagame' used incorrectly in our contexts and then looks it up in a dictionary, he or she will become only even more confused than they currently already are. Teaching something that is incorrect and acting as if it is correct necessarily destroys the integrity of ESPORTS as an effective educational tool.
3. Limits and Predictability a. Figuring out when to actually use 'metagame' will vastly benefit its use in appropriate contexts. As it is right now, the word metagame is greatly devalued.
What net benefit does adopting the anarchic view that there should be no 'authority figures' give us?
On February 03 2012 06:07 deadmau wrote: I still don't fucking understand how to use this correctly TBH, but I would like to know. Can someone give the real answer instead of all this speculation bullshit. Examples and citations would help me understand this a lot, also a guide for dummies cause after hearing every now and then the past 2 years that metagame is commonly misused I haven't figured it out yet what the definition is and how to use it properly in SC2 point of view.
Think of it as trends. If you use knowledge outside of the actual knowledge in-game (such as how much dps a marine does, how much a greater spire costs, the time it takes to morph a Planetary fortress), but knowledge based on how the game is played, you're using the meta game.
It doesn't say ingame that terrans will use hellions early, but zergs know the metagame and early hellions are extremely common, so zergs almost always build an early spine or two at their natural. This is metagaming. Going hatch first against terran, however, isn't. It's part of the metagame to do it (it's a trend people can count on) but zergs do it because there's no viable aggression from terran which can stop it, you don't need to know how people are playing the game to know that it's safe to hatch first.
On February 03 2012 06:06 iamke55 wrote: I find it ironic that people who have no argument other than "the dictionary said so!" think we should say paradigm shift instead.
It might be situationally ironic yes, but it doesn't make it any less correct. Unless you want to defend the English language not having any stable meaning or grammar any more.
The whole nonsense about using metagame as a verb comes from the argument that "authority figures", such as the wikipedia page or a dictionary, are the only way to determine what a word means even if they blatantly contradict how people actually use the word. But the wikipedia page for paradigm shift should make it very clear why it makes no sense to use it ni place of metagame shift.
And yet there are unique benefits to using 'paradigm' instead:
On February 03 2012 04:31 itsjustatank wrote: 1. Grammar a. Paradigm is grammatically correct, and its use in this situation displays a command of the English language that is thus far lacking in current English ESPORTS broadcasts.
2. Education a. If an untrained viewer currently watches an ESPORTS broadcast and does not understand 'metagame' used incorrectly in our contexts and then looks it up in a dictionary, he or she will become only even more confused than they currently already are. Teaching something that is incorrect and acting as if it is correct necessarily destroys the integrity of ESPORTS as an effective educational tool.
3. Limits and Predictability a. Figuring out when to actually use 'metagame' will vastly benefit its use in appropriate contexts. As it is right now, the word metagame is greatly devalued.
What net benefit does adopting the anarchic view that there should be no 'authority figures' give us?
How is it correct to use paradigm? Starcraft is not a science. Note that this necessarily isn't what I think. I'm just pointing out the exact logic that makes you think we're using metagame wrong also rules out using paradigm in place of it.
On February 03 2012 06:06 iamke55 wrote: I find it ironic that people who have no argument other than "the dictionary said so!" think we should say paradigm shift instead.
It might be situationally ironic yes, but it doesn't make it any less correct. Unless you want to defend the English language not having any stable meaning or grammar any more.
The whole nonsense about using metagame as a verb comes from the argument that "authority figures", such as the wikipedia page or a dictionary, are the only way to determine what a word means even if they blatantly contradict how people actually use the word. But the wikipedia page for paradigm shift should make it very clear why it makes no sense to use it ni place of metagame shift.
And yet there are unique benefits to using 'paradigm' instead:
On February 03 2012 04:31 itsjustatank wrote: 1. Grammar a. Paradigm is grammatically correct, and its use in this situation displays a command of the English language that is thus far lacking in current English ESPORTS broadcasts.
2. Education a. If an untrained viewer currently watches an ESPORTS broadcast and does not understand 'metagame' used incorrectly in our contexts and then looks it up in a dictionary, he or she will become only even more confused than they currently already are. Teaching something that is incorrect and acting as if it is correct necessarily destroys the integrity of ESPORTS as an effective educational tool.
3. Limits and Predictability a. Figuring out when to actually use 'metagame' will vastly benefit its use in appropriate contexts. As it is right now, the word metagame is greatly devalued.
What net benefit does adopting the anarchic view that there should be no 'authority figures' give us?
How is it correct to use paradigm? Starcraft is not a science. Note that this necessarily isn't what I think. I'm just pointing out the exact logic that makes you think we're using metagame wrong also rules out using paradigm in place of it.
We are getting hung up on the scientific and philosophical use of 'paradigm shift.' Current Starcraft strategy as is popularly played and expected to be played is the 'paradigm' of play.
On February 03 2012 04:31 itsjustatank wrote: par·a·digm /'par??dim/ Noun: A typical example or pattern of something; a model. A worldview underlying the theories and methodology of a particular scientific subject.
Changes, radical or not, in the strategies used within the game are a shift in the paradigm of the game. Thus, paradigm shift.
Our community is misusing words and language simply because they don't know any better. There is no radical movement against any authority figures or the dictionary.
On February 03 2012 06:19 Chill wrote: 99% of the discussion: Metagame doesn't mean "the current state of strategy". You hear LoL players talking about "new meta" or "current meta". That's the wrong usage. That's just "current strategies", not "metagame".
Don't worry about the other 1%.
Absolutely correct. 'Paradigm shift' can easily be reduced to 'a shift in the current state of strategy.' Using 'paradigm,' though, can satisfy the community's need to have some sort of austere word to use instead of that simple idea while remaining correct in usage, in my opinion.
On February 03 2012 06:06 iamke55 wrote: I find it ironic that people who have no argument other than "the dictionary said so!" think we should say paradigm shift instead.
It might be situationally ironic yes, but it doesn't make it any less correct. Unless you want to defend the English language not having any stable meaning or grammar any more.
The whole nonsense about using metagame as a verb comes from the argument that "authority figures", such as the wikipedia page or a dictionary, are the only way to determine what a word means even if they blatantly contradict how people actually use the word. But the wikipedia page for paradigm shift should make it very clear why it makes no sense to use it ni place of metagame shift.
And yet there are unique benefits to using 'paradigm' instead:
On February 03 2012 04:31 itsjustatank wrote: 1. Grammar a. Paradigm is grammatically correct, and its use in this situation displays a command of the English language that is thus far lacking in current English ESPORTS broadcasts.
2. Education a. If an untrained viewer currently watches an ESPORTS broadcast and does not understand 'metagame' used incorrectly in our contexts and then looks it up in a dictionary, he or she will become only even more confused than they currently already are. Teaching something that is incorrect and acting as if it is correct necessarily destroys the integrity of ESPORTS as an effective educational tool.
3. Limits and Predictability a. Figuring out when to actually use 'metagame' will vastly benefit its use in appropriate contexts. As it is right now, the word metagame is greatly devalued.
What net benefit does adopting the anarchic view that there should be no 'authority figures' give us?
How is it correct to use paradigm? Starcraft is not a science. Note that this necessarily isn't what I think. I'm just pointing out the exact logic that makes you think we're using metagame wrong also rules out using paradigm in place of it.
We are getting hung up on the scientific and philosophical use of 'paradigm shift.' Current Starcraft strategy as is popularly played and expected to be played is the 'paradigm' of play. Changes, radical or not, in the strategies used within the game are a shift in the paradigm of the game. Thus, paradigm shift.
Our community is misusing words and language simply because they don't know any better. There is no radical movement against any authority figures or the dictionary.
I'm not talking about any radical movement. I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy in saying "paradigm shift". Your side of the argument about how to use the word metagame claims that the correct meaning of a word is determined solely by dictionaries/wikipedia. By the same logic, any usage of "paradigm shift" that doesn't relate to science is wrong because the wikipedia page gives that as the correct usage of the word. If you want paradigm shifts to apply to Starcraft, you would have to abandon the notion that wikipedia/dictionary definitions are the only way to determine how to use a word.
On February 03 2012 06:06 iamke55 wrote: I find it ironic that people who have no argument other than "the dictionary said so!" think we should say paradigm shift instead.
It might be situationally ironic yes, but it doesn't make it any less correct. Unless you want to defend the English language not having any stable meaning or grammar any more.
The whole nonsense about using metagame as a verb comes from the argument that "authority figures", such as the wikipedia page or a dictionary, are the only way to determine what a word means even if they blatantly contradict how people actually use the word. But the wikipedia page for paradigm shift should make it very clear why it makes no sense to use it ni place of metagame shift.
And yet there are unique benefits to using 'paradigm' instead:
On February 03 2012 04:31 itsjustatank wrote: 1. Grammar a. Paradigm is grammatically correct, and its use in this situation displays a command of the English language that is thus far lacking in current English ESPORTS broadcasts.
2. Education a. If an untrained viewer currently watches an ESPORTS broadcast and does not understand 'metagame' used incorrectly in our contexts and then looks it up in a dictionary, he or she will become only even more confused than they currently already are. Teaching something that is incorrect and acting as if it is correct necessarily destroys the integrity of ESPORTS as an effective educational tool.
3. Limits and Predictability a. Figuring out when to actually use 'metagame' will vastly benefit its use in appropriate contexts. As it is right now, the word metagame is greatly devalued.
What net benefit does adopting the anarchic view that there should be no 'authority figures' give us?
How is it correct to use paradigm? Starcraft is not a science. Note that this necessarily isn't what I think. I'm just pointing out the exact logic that makes you think we're using metagame wrong also rules out using paradigm in place of it.
We are getting hung up on the scientific and philosophical use of 'paradigm shift.' Current Starcraft strategy as is popularly played and expected to be played is the 'paradigm' of play. Changes, radical or not, in the strategies used within the game are a shift in the paradigm of the game. Thus, paradigm shift.
Our community is misusing words and language simply because they don't know any better. There is no radical movement against any authority figures or the dictionary.
I'm not talking about any radical movement. I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy in saying "paradigm shift". Your side of the argument about how to use the word metagame claims that the correct meaning of a word is determined solely by dictionaries/wikipedia. By the same logic, any usage of "paradigm shift" that doesn't relate to science is wrong because the wikipedia page gives that as the correct usage of the word. If you want paradigm shifts to apply to Starcraft, you would have to abandon the notion that wikipedia/dictionary definitions are the only way to determine how to use a word.
I don't see any hypocrisy in what I am advocating. Wikipedia and current dictionaries have been formed over time by learned and unlearned peoples, establishing a standard by which the English language is used. Perhaps in fifty years, metagaming will mean what you want it to mean, but for now it simply doesn't. Our argument is part of the dialectic struggle in determining whether or not it does. My previous posts on the matter describe why my position is potentially uniquely better than continuing to misuse metagame; and there has been little to no clash on the merits of those standards. Advocates of metagame have also failed to articulate any net benefits, other than remaining steadfast to the status quo, to continuing the use of that word.
If we want to be educational about what we are doing in our community to people who are not familiar with our jargon and specialized made-up words, conforming closely to how English is actually defined and used and taught in schools is best.
On February 03 2012 03:54 pandaburn wrote: I've seen lots of people get cranky over proper use of this term on TL. I want get a general sense of why this is and how I can avoid ticking people off. I'm not sure why this is such a sticky issue, but let me lay out why I'm confused just in case.
The first competitive gaming community I was active in was Magic: The Gathering. In this community, the standard, accepted use of the word "metagame" was, essentially, the probabilistic distribution of strategies you expect to face when sitting down across from a random opponent. This makes sense to me, as these are the factors that one has to consider when choosing a deck to play, or a decision to make in a game, that have nothing to do with the actual rules.
However here on TL, I've seen the word almost always used as a verb. What's more, sometime people get warned for using the word in a manner similar to what I was used to from my previous environment. Please help me out by sharing your thoughts on whether "metagame" applies to the following scenarios:
1: You are playing on a map where Nexus First is a commonly used build for protoss, and so decide to proxy gate/rax or 6pool. You claim this is a "metagame choice".
2: You say "there is a lot of hellion use in the current KR metagame."
3: You remind your opponent that the last time you played, you mopped the floor with his noob self. As this statement is outside the rules of Starcraft 2 as a game, but is intended to give you an advantage, it is "metagaming".
Inside, find how I would answer these questions from my experience as a Magic player. + Show Spoiler +
1. Yes. This is a metagame choice, or "metagaming" if you prefer.
2. Yes, this is a proper use of the word metagame.
3. No, this is not a proper use of the word metagame. These are psychological tactics which, rather than being a level above understanding game mechanics, are completely unrelated.
If you disagree with my definitions, please realize that there are gaming communities where they are the common use. The starcraft community did not invent the term "metagame", so if you feel the need to correct them to the standard local usage, please do so politely.
Even though it may not be invented by SC community, the term must have some concrete definition in order to be a functional and meaningful word.
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, it is the use of out-of-game information or resources to affect one's in-game decisions.
Having this in mind, the phrase "the current KR metagame" does not actually denote something. It is nonsensical and breaks the rules of communication via misuse of a term. Lots of people just say 'metagame' to feel that they're saying something sophisticated. In almost all of such cases, it is used as a synonym for strategy.
Thus you are incorrect about both example 2 and 3. # 2 is not a correct use of the term, while # 3 is a correct use.
The variation of the prefix 'meta' applied to the word metagame is as follows: "about" but not "on" (exactly its own category). For example, in linguistics a grammar is considered as being expressed in a metalanguage, or a sort of language for describing another language (and not itself).
On February 03 2012 04:12 skeldark wrote: meta means outside. Metagame can be translated as: the game outside of the game. everthing that have impact on the game but is not "real" part of the game.
Meta doesn't mean outside. You might wanna check a greek vocabulary or two before stating facts. As someone before stated, it means beyond/after. Inb4 Chill.
meta doesnt mean outside. it doesnt mean beyond/after. But this words help to understand what it means. In the word metagame it means: the game outside of the game.
On February 03 2012 04:14 iamke55 wrote: Yeah it's really annoying when people use "metagame" when they mean to say "mindgame". No, you didn't metagame your opponent no matter how smart you think you sound when you say that. You predicted him. Or mindgamed him.
I really enjoy Destiny's stream, but the way he uses the word metagame is nearly always entirely wrong. In almost any other game, the metagame refers to a trend of popular, effective strategies. If a new strategy is found that is good for ie. a character to use in a fighting game, or even an innovative opening in SC2, it will often become a part of the current metagame. This lasts until there is a response from the opposition. The reason why I dislike when someone says they are "metagaming" someone, is because more often than not, they are actually mindgaming them with a strategy that is not the current status quo, but rather something to throw them off balance, in other words, a mindgame.
On February 03 2012 07:34 Jedclark wrote: When people say, "Metagaming" - I must admit, I do die inside a bit.
My definition of the metagame would be = the current accepted, standard strategies used by the top, top, top level players.
"Your" definition is irrelevant. You're using the word wrongly.
My definition of the word "banana" might be a verb meaning "to jump". It makes no difference to the actual definition and correct usage of "banana" that I am confused about the meaning...
On February 03 2012 07:36 Salteador Neo wrote: It's been used in Magic: The Gathering for ages. It should be the % of chances of facing each build in a MU.
While common 'misuse' over time can eventually change the 'proper' definition of words, the Magic: The Gathering community and length of misuse is hardly sufficient to change the general meaning to something so different from the original definition of the root word and its prefix.
On February 03 2012 07:53 RedFury wrote: Metagame is the strategical state of the game in a certain moment. Conceptually, it is one layer above the strategy.
Read the thread please.
On February 03 2012 06:19 Chill wrote: 99% of the discussion: Metagame doesn't mean "the current state of strategy". You hear LoL players talking about "new meta" or "current meta". That's the wrong usage. That's just "current strategies", not "metagame".
First, there are people trying to control language, particularly English, which is dumb. People have tried to do it for centuries, and it doesn't work. Only in places like France, where the government controls the language, and it isn't spoken all that widely outside of the country anymore (yes, I know they speak in in parts of Canada and other places) does something like "controlling language" even begin to work.
Second, people generally understand what is meant when casters/players say "metagame" within the context of the game. While it might not be the "correct" usage of the term in the strictest sense, there is a relatively well understood meaning affixed to the word. Sure, there is confusion on some level, or this thread and others like it wouldn't exist, but most people have an idea of that the person is referring to. Saying something like "no that's not what metagame means, you need to say current strategies of the game every time in order to get that idea across, because metagame doesn't really mean what everyone is understanding it to mean" makes you sound like an idiot. It is a faster way of getting an idea across, so people will use it. Regardless of the outcome of this thread, you will still hear metagame used over and over again, and most people will understand what it means, and others won't. That is language. Deal with it.
Finally, its all about context. My GF was listening to a SC2 cast last night, and she said it sounded like japanese to her. While the casters were speaking english, the cast was so jargon heavy and context sensitive, it didn't make sense to someone who didn't understand that context. The same thing applies here. Most people have a prescribed understanding of the term "metagame" when in the context of starcraft or starcraft 2.
On February 03 2012 08:13 HardlyNever wrote: This discussion is pretty pointless, tbh.
First, there are people trying to control language, particularly English, which is dumb. People have tried to do it for centuries, and it doesn't work. Only in places like France, where the government controls the language, and it isn't spoken all that widely outside of the country anymore (yes, I know they speak in in parts of Canada and other places) does something like "controlling language" even begin to work.
Perhaps we should throw away all English rules and grammar then?
fuzzy gumples blegh slowlyish towardsly da return.
My performative act outweighs your counter-retorts. It is the only pure discourse in this thread, all posts that adhere to traditional English rules and grammar are null and void because they are hegemonic acts of intellectual silencing.
Right? Defend a world where that nonsensical construction is okay, because it's yours and you advocated it and you should have to stick by it.
On February 03 2012 08:13 HardlyNever wrote: This discussion is pretty pointless, tbh.
First, there are people trying to control language, particularly English, which is dumb. People have tried to do it for centuries, and it doesn't work. Only in places like France, where the government controls the language, and it isn't spoken all that widely outside of the country anymore (yes, I know they speak in in parts of Canada and other places) does something like "controlling language" even begin to work.
Second, people generally understand what is meant when casters/players say "metagame" within the context of the game. While it might not be the "correct" usage of the term in the strictest sense, there is a relatively well understood meaning affixed to the word. Sure, there is confusion on some level, or this thread and others like it wouldn't exist, but most people have an idea of that the person is referring to. Saying something like "no that's not what metagame means, you need to say current strategies of the game every time in order to get that idea across, because metagame doesn't really mean what everyone is understanding it to mean" makes you sound like an idiot. It is a faster way of getting an idea across, so people will use it. Regardless of the outcome of this thread, you will still hear metagame used over and over again, and most people will understand what it means, and others won't. That is language. Deal with it.
Finally, its all about context. My GF was listening to a SC2 cast last night, and she said it sounded like japanese to her. While the casters were speaking english, the cast was so jargon heavy and context sensitive, it didn't make sense to someone who didn't understand that context. The same thing applies here. Most people have a prescribed understanding of the term "metagame" when in the context of starcraft or starcraft 2.
I think that's pretty much it. The gaming scene, be it LoL, GW, SC2 etc. has codified the term in their own ways, which led to confusion along those, who have a narrow understanding of the term (e.g. metagame only incorporating information outside the game) or a wider understanding of the term (I think many people mix up the term dominant strategy with metagame). But it's too late anyways to discuss about that, since everyone has his/her own definition by now...
Edit: I think dominant strategy is too strong, too. It should be sth. like currently dominating strategy...
"The current metagame" should be replaced with "the current trend". People say stuff like "X unit is not so viable in the current metagame, blablabla". In this instance, it means the current playstyle that people are copying from successful players.
They see SlayerS using a lot of BFH in TvZ, then they decide to copy it and they call it "The new metagame", but it's just a trend.
On February 03 2012 06:19 Chill wrote: 99% of the discussion: Metagame doesn't mean "the current state of strategy". You hear LoL players talking about "new meta" or "current meta". That's the wrong usage. That's just "current strategies", not "metagame".
Don't worry about the other 1%.
I read it And btw who said that this usage is wrong? "Meta" prefix pretty much means "something relate to" or "something that include other thing on a lower level" (e.g metascience). Maybe in English you use that prefix in another sense... Game's paradigms and metagame are related but different. Paradigms necessarily refers to something precise while metagame is more abstract and refers to the whole state of playing.
i love nothing more than laughing at the posters on TL that are so outspoken about what the "true" meaning of metagame is and how "people are using the word wrong" and how they "know the right way to use it"
well guess what, lol, who gives a dayum. its so funny watching these people care about stuff like this.
its the same feeling i get when i see two people argue on nascar forum and then one guy says "its you're not your" rofl..... wow i dunno why but i just laugh so hard at people who obsess over grammar or definition
hyperdimensional omnigame sounds cooler anyway imo. I try to avoid the metagame word, simply because so many people interpret it differently, just like cheese for example. So if yo use the word metagame or other words that lost their meaning a bit in sc2, you can be sure a portion of the readers will misinterpret your words.
In a few years those terms will hopefully have solidified again and you can use them safely again. Doubt it for metagame though, as its currently used instead of a collection of terms based around current strategies etc.
On February 03 2012 08:13 HardlyNever wrote: This discussion is pretty pointless, tbh.
First, there are people trying to control language, particularly English, which is dumb. People have tried to do it for centuries, and it doesn't work. Only in places like France, where the government controls the language, and it isn't spoken all that widely outside of the country anymore (yes, I know they speak in in parts of Canada and other places) does something like "controlling language" even begin to work.
Perhaps we should throw away all English rules and grammar then?
fuzzy gumples blegh slowlyish towardsly da return.
My performative act outweighs your counter-retorts. It is the only pure discourse in this thread, all posts that adhere to traditional English rules and grammar are null and void because they are hegemonic acts of intellectual silencing.
Right? Defend a world where that nonsensical construction is okay, because it's yours and you advocated it and you should have to stick by it.
Words don't have meaning except what any individual agent ascribes to them. This may be informed by popular usage or some kind of "authoritative" guidelines (not necessarily in popular usage), but the meaning is only ever personal. Most words have a large coincidence between what individuals take them to mean, because this is convenient and useful. You can't sanction the meaning of words, by definition (so to speak). This what HardlyNever means by pointless.
I'm all for arguing about what a suitable meaning of a word should be, but you are misguided at best if you think it needs to be written down in a table somewhere, never to be revised, as though a mathematical theorom. No two people ascribe the same meaning to a given word, both from an epistemological standpoint and a neuroscience and/or information-as-physical-quantity standpoint. Dictionaries are a socially mediated approximation to help cope with the overly vast quantity of things somebody might mean by using symbols.
If you would like to embark on a program to convince everyone to use your definition, please do. If so, it'd be best to include persuasive reasons why your meaning is better, instead of just telling people they're wrong because. Until then the rest of us will keep saying a useful word the way we always have (many of us from MtG), we'll know what we're referring to, and it'll make conversing simpler and more clear.
There will always be illiterates who use words improperly (according to the prior usage). You can't tell them they're wrong, they just put together a different meaning than what was intended by the original speakers. You might convince them to revise their understanding and speech, but it's usually a losing battle if you're already that up-in-arms about it. Segments of communities will have their own colloquial usage and there will be a greater complexity of intended meaning based on context. If you have any kind of brain and a little experience with the different common meanings and contexts, you can usually sort out what the speaker is intending to communicate.
Personally, I am used to the below-quoted and find it highly appropriate for talking about expected strategy choices in SC2 and any other game I happen to be playing.
On February 03 2012 07:36 Salteador Neo wrote: It's been used in Magic: The Gathering for ages. It should be the % of chances of facing each build in a MU.
If you can't make yourself comfortable with using the word this way, I would hazard to guess that you don't understand fully why it is used in other games (like MtG), and I would recommend trying to familiarize yourself with the process of deck choice and specifically sideboard card choices. This might help crystallize why it's important to have a word that specifically refers to (in the case of MtG) what decks will be showing up to how serious of a competitive tournament in what proportion, what caliber of players will be playing them, how the proportion will change throughout the deeper rounds of swiss play, what you'll need to beat to win, what you'll need to beat to top 8, and what your skill level and skill set will allow you to compete against given your own reactive/predictive choices.
Theorizing about the metagame in MtG involves lots of strategy / game theory-esque considerations in itself beyond any given card interactions, which is why people naturally separate it from play by calling it with its own word.
All i can say with confidence, is that metagame is and cant really be used as a verb.
As for its definition, there are many other better words that should be used. Words whos definitions are actually defined and wellknown such as 'paradigm' and 'trend' or even 'schools of thought.'
When people use the word metagaming, it just sounds pretty stupid to me because it makes me think they are saying something like, "metatheorizing" or another random word involving meta- and -ing.
The meaning of the prefix meta has been confused for a long time. Its just as cute for us to discuss its "proper" meaning, as it is for someone to use it incorrectly when trying to sound intelligent, or well read.
On February 03 2012 04:31 itsjustatank wrote: 'Metagame' implicitly requires one to act outside of the rule set of a game. I propose that instead of a 'shift in the metagame' or 'metagame shift,' commentators should say 'paradigm shift.'
par·a·digm /ˈparəˌdīm/ Noun: A typical example or pattern of something; a model. A worldview underlying the theories and methodology of a particular scientific subject. Example: "The Bisu build represented a paradigm shift in Brood War strategy." or "What player X is doing right now really changes the paradigm of TvP!"
Lack of vocabulary is not a long-term excuse to go about making up words or using words incorrectly.
On June 11 2010 04:27 Metagame / Chill wrote: 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:
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 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.
Thank you.
I've read the post in your spoiler. I just disagree with it. The word "metagame" was not made up by gamers, but it does have a standard gaming use, which I think is not the one you understand. Nothing about the word requires actions to be outside the game. You can also look at wikipedia for common uses of the word.
Read your own proposed definition before you attempt to answer mine:
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.
If competing interpretations should be the standard for this debate, I'll argue that you don't even present an alternative. My counter-interpretation of the linguistic phenomenon of using paradigm instead of metagame is uniquely better, here are a few reasons:
1. Grammar a. Paradigm is grammatically correct, and its use in this situation displays a command of the English language that is thus far lacking in current English ESPORTS broadcasts.
2. Education a. If an untrained viewer currently watches an ESPORTS broadcast and does not understand 'metagame' used incorrectly in our contexts and then looks it up in a dictionary, he or she will become only even more confused than they currently already are. Teaching something that is incorrect and acting as if it is correct necessarily destroys the integrity of ESPORTS as an effective educational tool.
3. Limits and Predictability a. Figuring out when to actually use 'metagame' will vastly benefit its use in appropriate contexts. As it is right now, the word metagame is greatly devalued.
And even if you win that 'implicitly outside of a rule set' isn't required, I'll win that paradigm is still the best vocabulary word to use. It is prerequisite to all other considerations.
After OPs post and yours, I think I can use your definition to explain OPs initial thought process.
The first competitive gaming community I was active in was Magic: The Gathering. In this community, the standard, accepted use of the word "metagame" was, essentially, the probabilistic distribution of strategies you expect to face when sitting down across from a random opponent. This makes sense to me, as these are the factors that one has to consider when choosing a deck to play, or a decision to make in a game, that have nothing to do with the actual rules.
I think here OP is incorrectly combining two ideas, the distribution of strategies and the choice one makes when taking this information into account. In Magic I assume one can list strategies/decks in order from most common to least. What you did, then, was take into account these strategies and consider the probability each of these will be used and came to a conclusion to which deck to use, and this process influences the game. In this example, actions that fall into the metagame (as defined to be strictly not part of the 'real game') are clearly ordering strategies and picking yours based on probabilities.
The "probabilistic distribution of strategies" is nothing more than an ordered list of strategies, or common strategies. I don't think you really need a new word for that, do you?
Now let's look at OPs examples under this lense.
1: You are playing on a map where Nexus First is a commonly used build for protoss, and so decide to proxy gate/rax or 6pool. You claim this is a "metagame choice".
2: You say "there is a lot of hellion use in the current KR metagame."
3: You remind your opponent that the last time you played, you mopped the floor with his noob self. As this statement is outside the rules of Starcraft 2 as a game, but is intended to give you an advantage, it is "metagaming".
1. Correct usage. Metagaming because the process was to look at common strategies and choose yours based on what fares best against those. 2. Incorrect, or perhaps incomplete. Hellion usage (in TvZ) perhaps came to light because Zergs were not preparing against Hellions (and why would they have to if they weren't common?). So what does a Terran player do? He makes Hellions because most Zergs do not prepare against Hellions, which is clearly a metagame choice. And now hellions are used a lot in Korean strategies. (Note: Perhaps before Hellions became rather standard in TvZ one could say that building Hellions was a metagaming move because the fact that Zerg didn't prepare for them was the reason one built Hellions, and in this way "building Hellions" was part of the Korean metagame) 3. Correct usage by definition.
The use of metagame is awesome. It's one of those empty signifiers that people throw just about everything into. I think basically people mean it as "the way people are playing right now." But it's just like words like democracy and leadership and love. You toss whatever meaning you want into them and hope that they stick.
On February 03 2012 08:13 HardlyNever wrote: This discussion is pretty pointless, tbh.
First, there are people trying to control language, particularly English, which is dumb. People have tried to do it for centuries, and it doesn't work. Only in places like France, where the government controls the language, and it isn't spoken all that widely outside of the country anymore (yes, I know they speak in in parts of Canada and other places) does something like "controlling language" even begin to work.
Perhaps we should throw away all English rules and grammar then?
fuzzy gumples blegh slowlyish towardsly da return.
My performative act outweighs your counter-retorts. It is the only pure discourse in this thread, all posts that adhere to traditional English rules and grammar are null and void because they are hegemonic acts of intellectual silencing.
Right? Defend a world where that nonsensical construction is okay, because it's yours and you advocated it and you should have to stick by it.
Words don't have meaning except what any individual agent ascribes to them. This may be informed by popular usage or some kind of "authoritative" guidelines (not necessarily in popular usage), but the meaning is only ever personal. Most words have a large coincidence between what individuals take them to mean, because this is convenient and useful. You can't sanction the meaning of words, by definition (so to speak). This what HardlyNever means by pointless.
I'm all for arguing about what a suitable meaning of a word should be, but you are misguided at best if you think it needs to be written down in a table somewhere, never to be revised, as though a mathematical theorom. No two people ascribe the same meaning to a given word, both from an epistemological standpoint and a neuroscience and/or information-as-physical-quantity standpoint. Dictionaries are a socially mediated approximation to help cope with the overly vast quantity of things somebody might mean by using symbols.
If you would like to embark on a program to convince everyone to use your definition, please do. If so, it'd be best to include persuasive reasons why your meaning is better, instead of just telling people they're wrong because. Until then the rest of us will keep saying a useful word the way we always have (many of us from MtG), we'll know what we're referring to, and it'll make conversing simpler and more clear.
There will always be illiterates who use words improperly (according to the prior usage). You can't tell them they're wrong, they just put together a different meaning than what was intended by the original speakers. You might convince them to revise their understanding and speech, but it's usually a losing battle if you're already that up-in-arms about it. Segments of communities will have their own colloquial usage and there will be a greater complexity of intended meaning based on context. If you have any kind of brain and a little experience with the different common meanings and contexts, you can usually sort out what the speaker is intending to communicate.
Wrong. Words have meaning as assigned by society and the people around you. If you go around speaking nonsense claiming it has some sort of intellectual merit, you will be rightly laughed out of consideration. You might have issues with authority, but authority has a fundamental role in defining language and discourse.
Otherwise, I can say that in my personal beliefs every sign and signifier you just used in your post doesn't mean anything, and I win by default. Conversely, you would be able to do the same to me. You are advocating the destruction of language and discourse, plain and simple.
Additionally, read my previous posts talking about education and its role in ESPORTS and why using the proper words really matter before you start saying stuff like this:
If so, it'd be best to include persuasive reasons why your meaning is better, instead of just telling people they're wrong because.
Your arguments about me not understanding MtG necessarily traps you. That's the entire point of my argument.
On February 03 2012 04:31 itsjustatank wrote: 2. Education a. If an untrained viewer currently watches an ESPORTS broadcast and does not understand 'metagame' used incorrectly in our contexts and then looks it up in a dictionary, he or she will become only even more confused than they currently already are. Teaching something that is incorrect and acting as if it is correct necessarily destroys the integrity of ESPORTS as an effective educational tool.
Someone who doesn't understand the jargon of a niche group is immediately put off or excluded from the discourse. Abiding by established English rules avoids this problem entirely, and that is why it is best. If our relatively small community is to be taken seriously by outsiders, it should avoid jargon as much as possible.
On February 03 2012 08:13 HardlyNever wrote: This discussion is pretty pointless, tbh.
people generally understand what is meant when casters/players say "metagame" within the context of the game. While it might not be the "correct" usage of the term in the strictest sense, there is a relatively well understood meaning affixed to the word. Sure, there is confusion on some level, or this thread and others like it wouldn't exist, but most people have an idea of that the person is referring to.
Sums up the current state of the usage of this term.
I think the majority of users (and even casters) uses it like how the OP uses it, despite it not being the correct usage according to TL.
But basically, we can just understand whether they mean it as "standard, current strategies, and trends", or "using external factors not within the game's ruleset to influence the game".
On February 03 2012 08:36 Hoon wrote: "The current metagame" should be replaced with "the current trend". People say stuff like "X unit is not so viable in the current metagame, blablabla". In this instance, it means the current playstyle that people are copying from successful players.
They see SlayerS using a lot of BFH in TvZ, then they decide to copy it and they call it "The new metagame", but it's just a trend.
Not really, no uses the word this way. As said before, "metagame" can mean an stablished probalystic distribution of strategies (it IS useful to have a word for such expression). A "trend" describes a recent shift in the metagame, but not necessarily the metagame itself.
Also coming from MTG, I always used the word in the exact same ways described by the author, since 1995 basically. But TL community has a tradition of using it to refer to "anything outside of the game that influences the result". I`ve seen poker players using it this way as well.
It would be easier if people just used "mindgames" for the later meaning, but oh well, the point is to understand all usages and not mindless hate/correct the other common meanings
people very often think a metagame is a trend in video games. it isn't. a trend is a common theme of playstyle, and abusing trends is called playing mindgames. none of them are metagames, or metagaming someone.
On February 03 2012 09:36 itsjustatank wrote:Wrong. Words have meaning as assigned by society and the people around you. If you go around speaking nonsense claiming it has some sort of intellectual merit, you will be rightly laughed of consideration. You might have issues with authority, but authority has a fundamental role in defining language and discourse.
Otherwise, I can say that in my personal beliefs every sign and signifier you just used in your post doesn't mean anything, and I win by default. Conversely, you would be able to do the same to me.
You're telling me I'm wrong and that you win. Are we talking about something or having a contest..?? I'd hope to change your mind, not just defend myself on the internet, so here's for optimism...
My view of words does not lead to:
advocating the destruction of language and discourse, plain and simple.
I'm merely pointing out that you can't control how people use language just by insisting one way or the other. We try to regulate our symbols because it help maintain continuity which is very important when you are communicating about scientific knowledge or the use of violent force or the state of an interpersonal relationship, but there's no such thing as the "wrong meaning" of a word. The best you could say is that someone took a different meaning than what the speaker intended. I brought this up because it relates to the style of your argument against the way most of us use "metagame"; I was trying to point out that waving your arms about the proper meaning doesn't really lead anywhere, regardless of whether it makes sense to use "metagame" one way or the other.
Apart from the argumentation against the popular meaning of metagame, you have been talking about propriety of discourse. I don't know why you assumed I didn't read your earlier posts. That's its own interesting topic but it was not germane to my point.
Believe it or not I also care about how words are used. (Why else would I post again in the latest metagame thread?) So I will give my thoughts on your bit about education and newbies.
If an untrained viewer currently watches an ESPORTS broadcast and does not understand 'metagame' used incorrectly in our contexts and then looks it up in a dictionary, he or she will become only even more confused than they currently already are. Teaching something that is incorrect and acting as if it is correct necessarily destroys the integrity of ESPORTS as an effective educational tool.
It's only incorrect according to you and a few other people, so this becomes the debate again about word choices and what they should mean. If the casters are saying it, and most people take their meaning, and chances are if a newbie asks what the word means, they'll hear approximately an accurate answer according to most people, then what's wrong? But in any case, I think the general idea quickly becomes clear if the viewer is at all genuinely interested in SC2. I'm not really worried about the upshot for ESPORTS.
Back to words and their meaning, looking things up in the dictionary is, like I said before, a way to see what was put in a dictionary. A lot of the time this is helpful in trying to figure out what a speaker meant, but not always, especially in niche cultures.
Someone who doesn't understand the jargon of a niche group is immediately put off or excluded from the discourse. Abiding by established English rules avoids this problem entirely, and that is why it is best. If our relatively small community is to be taken seriously by outsiders, it should avoid jargon as much as possible.
I disagree. Words are invented to describe novelty succinctly, and strange words with narrow meanings abound. Words are also turned to mean something particular in a given context apart from their everyday usage in the mainstream. Overcoming a lack of vocabulary is a barrier to entering any unfamiliar niche. Personally, I am intrigued by something that clearly has import but which is opaque before I've learned more, not put off. For example, I discovered watching Quake Live as an esport during SC2 downtime at IEM. There were tons of things in the commentary I didn't understand at first, including plain English being used to mean something specific to the game. I got the impression there were lots of interesting goings-on because of all the jargon, and got drawn in hoping to learn something of the game.
Again personally, I don't really care if we miss out on converts too dull to make it past a word they don't understand at first. If you're seeking mass induction to the church of esports then that's another thing entirely.
But I'd still argue over what metagame means either way.
On February 03 2012 09:36 itsjustatank wrote:Your arguments about me not understanding MtG necessarily traps you. That's the entire point of my argument.
Yes, you're relying on a referral. Ultimately we all make up our own minds and as I've stated I don't think it really matters what one source or another says if a large group of people eschew that usage.
My intent in bringing up the MtG usage was to illustrate the meaning in greater detail, and more precisely to point out that I don't think you really understand the meaning of metagame as you're arguing against. And since we're arguing over whether the meaning is agreeable or not, I don't see how you can properly disagree with something you don't fully understand. This isn't a cheap shot; I'm just bringing up the point that the naysayers might not be clear on what they're naysaying.
On the other hand, insisting on an outside definition doesn't care about this I suppose, but the rest of us don't really care what it says on wikipedia because we our communicating effectively regardless.
More broadly, there's no way to escape the degradation and dithering anyway, especially in our culture of memes. I think it's more effective to be a linguistic sheep dog than a linguistic fence builder, too.
On February 03 2012 03:54 pandaburn wrote: In this community, the standard, accepted use of the word "metagame" was, essentially, the probabilistic distribution of strategies you expect to face when sitting down across from a random opponent. This makes sense to me, as these are the factors that one has to consider when choosing a deck to play, or a decision to make in a game, that have nothing to do with the actual rules.
What you've described is just trends, or one step beyond trends. Trends are useful for one part of the metagame but they aren't the metagame.
For example, if the trend is for Protoss to fast expand PvT on Terminus, then a Terran would be playing the metagame by doing a blind proxy 2rax, or would be "metagaming him" by doing a blind proxy 2rax. Protoss going fast expand PvT on Terminus is not the metagame.
On February 03 2012 08:13 HardlyNever wrote: This discussion is pretty pointless, tbh.
First, there are people trying to control language, particularly English, which is dumb. People have tried to do it for centuries, and it doesn't work. Only in places like France, where the government controls the language, and it isn't spoken all that widely outside of the country anymore (yes, I know they speak in in parts of Canada and other places) does something like "controlling language" even begin to work.
Technical language can be controlled pretty well and sees more benefits from such control. Comparing the evolution of the meaning of metagame to the evolution of slang or idioms or language in general is not helpful.
Metagame: "Any strategy, movement, accion or method of/to play a game, that in principle, is/are not inside of the rules and are external factors that affect the game, setting it outside of the game limits"
Directly translated from spanish from me so sorry if its not that clear in english.
Metagame is anything that you do outside the game to gain an "advantage" in the game. That includes anything, from lucky charms, playing comfortably (sheth's lap keyboarding), to guessing the opponents strategy before the game, guessing the opponents state of mind during the game (fear, caution, recklessness, etc), risking/gambling by making a decision based on information outside the game, etc.
Obv, metagame in card games like yu-gi-oh and magic "seem" different, but are the same, by choosing a standarized set of cards, they are preparing theyre game plan based in other people experience, and not directly into the rules of the game.
On February 03 2012 03:54 pandaburn wrote: In this community, the standard, accepted use of the word "metagame" was, essentially, the probabilistic distribution of strategies you expect to face when sitting down across from a random opponent. This makes sense to me, as these are the factors that one has to consider when choosing a deck to play, or a decision to make in a game, that have nothing to do with the actual rules.
What you've described is just trends, or one step beyond trends. Trends are useful for one part of the metagame but they aren't the metagame.
For example, if the trend is for Protoss to fast expand PvT on Terminus, then a Terran would be playing the metagame by doing a blind proxy 2rax, or would be "metagaming him" by doing a blind proxy 2rax. Protoss going fast expand PvT on Terminus is not the metagame.
In MtG it's more complicated than just trends because of all the moving pieces and all the moving targets at any given point in time for competitive constructed formats. Essentially, yes, but at the highest levels the pros are making decisions based on what they think the other pros also know about the metagame, which involves both deck archetypes and some card choices. Sometimes the card choices are just a flavour to account for, or they can turn a matchup on its ear. (I don't know how much you know about the MtG scene but people call this "tech".) But you also have to consider the field at large, which may not be up to date and might not be optimal anyway due to player irrationality and card availability and whatnot. All in all it's enough to warrant its own term... which is why MtG people use metagame.
Of course trend suffices when you use an SC2 example like that; this is one of the honest complaints I see. It's a neat (if noncommittal) solution to use it as a verb so as to reference the idea without attributing all of the noun to simply opening build orders.
On February 03 2012 10:53 EatThePath wrote: On the other hand, insisting on an outside definition doesn't care about this I suppose, but the rest of us don't really care what it says on wikipedia because we our communicating effectively regardless.
Insisting on an outside, authoritative, definition is essential especially because the community is so small and exists in a space where there is a danger that what we mean say and how it is perceived from without can be significantly different. Accepting the least common denominator for communication as 'good enough' is a cop-out.
Equating the entirety of ESPORTS discourse to an individual's personal constructions of definitions of words and phrases, no matter how nonsensical, is fallacious. You fail to make any headway in answering my argument that it is society and authority, not the self, that defines language and it's effective and proper use by simply saying we aren't having and argument and wondering about having a conversation.
On February 03 2012 10:53 EatThePath wrote: I'm merely pointing out that you can't control how people use language just by insisting one way or the other. We try to regulate our symbols because it help maintain continuity which is very important when you are communicating about scientific knowledge or the use of violent force or the state of an interpersonal relationship, but there's no such thing as the "wrong meaning" of a word. The best you could say is that someone took a different meaning than what the speaker intended. I brought this up because it relates to the style of your argument against the way most of us use "metagame"; I was trying to point out that waving your arms about the proper meaning doesn't really lead anywhere, regardless of whether it makes sense to use "metagame" one way or the other.
You actually can control how people use language purely by insisting one way or the other. It is done through dominance in education and coercive power. States codify meaning in words and phrases through the establishment of laws, rules, and regulations. The education system exists to mold people with no understanding of language into effective, useful subjects that benefit the State as a whole. In less ominous contexts, insisting on definitions allows for clarity in contracts and discourse.
Speaking of discourse, you dismiss the idea entirely in favor of an elitist view that perhaps people are 'too dull' for ESPORTS and that's somehow okay.
Again personally, I don't really care if we miss out on converts too dull to make it past a word they don't understand at first. If you're seeking mass induction to the church of esports then that's another thing entirely.
I would hope that our community exists to be as welcoming as possible to all entrants; reducing the linguistic barriers of entry in this case is essential.
You criticize the established definitions as being formed by '[myself] and a few other people,' when really it is the weight of the entire world's educational and academic might bearing down upon your niche community construction of what metagame does or doesn't mean. This is the power of linguistic authority.
More broadly, there's no way to escape the degradation and dithering anyway, especially in our culture of memes. I think it's more effective to be a linguistic sheep dog than a linguistic fence builder, too.
Speak for yourself. In my case, I'd rather people communicate effectively and correctly moving forward. I do not believe that our language is inevitability doomed to 'degradation and dithering,' and everything I have said in this thread is in an attempt to prevent that from happening.
On February 03 2012 09:03 EatThePath wrote: There will always be illiterates who use words improperly (according to the prior usage). You can't tell them they're wrong, they just put together a different meaning than what was intended by the original speakers. You might convince them to revise their understanding and speech, but it's usually a losing battle if you're already that up-in-arms about it.
You can tell people they are wrong. That is the essence of education.
On February 03 2012 03:54 pandaburn wrote: In this community, the standard, accepted use of the word "metagame" was, essentially, the probabilistic distribution of strategies you expect to face when sitting down across from a random opponent. This makes sense to me, as these are the factors that one has to consider when choosing a deck to play, or a decision to make in a game, that have nothing to do with the actual rules.
What you've described is just trends, or one step beyond trends. Trends are useful for one part of the metagame but they aren't the metagame.
For example, if the trend is for Protoss to fast expand PvT on Terminus, then a Terran would be playing the metagame by doing a blind proxy 2rax, or would be "metagaming him" by doing a blind proxy 2rax. Protoss going fast expand PvT on Terminus is not the metagame.
Incas reputation of going sneaky builds (especially DTs) to catch the opponent unaware in the early game is well known. In a Bomber vs Inca game, Bomber prepared blindly for such attacks by placing early towers and very safe play and just prepared to enter the mid game without dying (probably thinking his mid-game and late-game will crush Inca without much effort). Inca did something unheard of and build double Nexus. Is this metagame or just mindgames from Inca because double Nexus is just another sneaky/cheesy strategy? I thought it was brilliant metagaming on Incas part, but perhaps this is another incorrect use of the word?
The technically correct use of metagaming is to use something outside of the game against your opponent. For example, kochujang's post above mine is a good example of metagaming.
However, metagame elitists should get over it! The word metagame is now used as a synonym for "strategic trends" and I feel that it's too late to curb its spread. Also, note that prominent figures in the community (e.g. Tastosis and Day9) also use the term "incorrectly" and hence it's not possible to "correct" people.
On February 03 2012 08:13 HardlyNever wrote: This discussion is pretty pointless, tbh.
First, there are people trying to control language, particularly English, which is dumb. People have tried to do it for centuries, and it doesn't work. Only in places like France, where the government controls the language, and it isn't spoken all that widely outside of the country anymore (yes, I know they speak in in parts of Canada and other places) does something like "controlling language" even begin to work.
Technical language can be controlled pretty well and sees more benefits from such control. Comparing the evolution of the meaning of metagame to the evolution of slang or idioms or language in general is not helpful.
How can it be controlled "pretty well?" Who is doing the controlling? Do you honestly believe this thread or even the TL community will change the way casters/players use the term "metagame?"
On February 03 2012 10:53 EatThePath wrote: On the other hand, insisting on an outside definition doesn't care about this I suppose, but the rest of us don't really care what it says on wikipedia because we our communicating effectively regardless.
Insisting on an outside, authoritative, definition is essential especially because the community is so small and exists in a space where there is a danger that what we mean say and how it is perceived from without can be significantly different. Accepting the least common denominator for communication as 'good enough' is a cop-out.
Equating the entirety of ESPORTS discourse to an individual's personal constructions of definitions of words and phrases, no matter how nonsensical, is fallacious. You fail to make any headway in answering my argument that it is society and authority, not the self, that defines language and it's effective and proper use by simply saying we aren't having and argument and wondering about having a conversation.
Do you know this guy artosis? He's rather self-assured. When he uses the word metagame the way I do in a GSL cast, I'm pretty sure it's because he likes to use the word that way, himself. Why doesn't he use it to mean what wikipedia says it means? More importantly, does it matter what wikipedia says? I still don't understand why you insist it does.
On February 03 2012 10:53 EatThePath wrote: I'm merely pointing out that you can't control how people use language just by insisting one way or the other. We try to regulate our symbols because it help maintain continuity which is very important when you are communicating about scientific knowledge or the use of violent force or the state of an interpersonal relationship, but there's no such thing as the "wrong meaning" of a word. The best you could say is that someone took a different meaning than what the speaker intended. I brought this up because it relates to the style of your argument against the way most of us use "metagame"; I was trying to point out that waving your arms about the proper meaning doesn't really lead anywhere, regardless of whether it makes sense to use "metagame" one way or the other.
You actually can control how people use language purely by insisting one way or the other. It is done through dominance in education and coercive power. States codify meaning in words and phrases through the establishment of laws, rules, and regulations. The education system exists to mold people with no understanding of language into effective, useful subjects that benefit the State as a whole. In less ominous contexts, insisting on definitions allows for clarity in contracts and discourse.
Language is like everything social, conform or suffer the consequences, there's nothing special about that. Words are codified to be unequivocal as a point of practicality, not to pin down the truth. Words don't contain meaning, they are sounds or letters. If I mean X1 when I say X, and everyone else means X2 when they say X, I may change my mind because it makes no sense to go about being uncommunicative, but no outside sanction will access the actual meaning in my mind. This seems to be where we are hung up, and it is usually construed as a philosophical distinction in a casual discussion. I guess you believe that words are more than just signifier?
On February 03 2012 11:33 itsjustatank wrote: Speaking of discourse, you dismiss the idea entirely in favor of an elitist view that perhaps people are 'too dull' for ESPORTS and that's somehow okay.
Again personally, I don't really care if we miss out on converts too dull to make it past a word they don't understand at first. If you're seeking mass induction to the church of esports then that's another thing entirely.
I would hope that our community exists to be as welcoming as possible to all entrants; reducing the linguistic barriers of entry in this case is essential.
I already said I don't consider idiosyncratic word usage undesirable or deleterious. Every sport worth watching is like this. I don't consider it relevant to this extent but for the sake of abstraction, if you alter your identity to accommodate others, have you gained more than you lost? Anyway I'm fine in my castle thank you. Everyone is invited if they have basic faculties like the ability to learn new words.
On February 03 2012 11:33 itsjustatank wrote: You criticize the established definitions as being formed by '[myself] and a few other people,' when really it is the weight of the entire world's educational and academic might bearing down upon your niche community construction of what metagame does or doesn't mean. This is the power of linguistic authority.
Do you invoke the power of linguistic authority against the misuse of words in hip-hop culture as well?
Jibes aside, how many a) non-SC2ers b) share your "mainstream" knowledge of the word metagame c) come to SC2 and d) are affronted by a different usage, as opposed to saying "oh they use it differently here, ok"? Is every niche community beholden to the mainstream in the way you propose we are, or are we special?
More broadly, there's no way to escape the degradation and dithering anyway, especially in our culture of memes. I think it's more effective to be a linguistic sheep dog than a linguistic fence builder, too.
Speak for yourself. In my case, I'd rather people communicate effectively and correctly moving forward. I do not believe that our language is inevitability doomed to 'degradation and dithering,' and everything I have said in this thread is in an attempt to prevent that from happening.
Language is constantly evolving in all spheres of life. What is it when the old words and usages (and even grammars) give way to new ones, but degradation of the old?
On February 03 2012 09:03 EatThePath wrote: There will always be illiterates who use words improperly (according to the prior usage). You can't tell them they're wrong, they just put together a different meaning than what was intended by the original speakers. You might convince them to revise their understanding and speech, but it's usually a losing battle if you're already that up-in-arms about it.
You can tell people they are wrong. That is the essence of education.
I think of education as teaching people new knowledge and new ways to think. Telling people what's wrong seems more like reform. But above I was speaking more about the idea that variations in meaning can't moralistically right or wrong, or even incorrect in a logical sense, because the meaning of words is not rational in a rigorously dependable way.
On the off chance, you might this post of mine from an earlier thread about this topic to be helpful in understanding my point of view.
On February 03 2012 13:10 FinestHour wrote: Should just make a stickied thread with the definition and then make it a warnable offense to use it wrong so people actually educate themselves...
What like this? lol I love that guy for that post and taking the hit.
On February 03 2012 03:54 pandaburn wrote: I've seen lots of people get cranky over proper use of this term on TL. I want get a general sense of why this is and how I can avoid ticking people off. I'm not sure why this is such a sticky issue, but let me lay out why I'm confused just in case.
The first competitive gaming community I was active in was Magic: The Gathering. In this community, the standard, accepted use of the word "metagame" was, essentially, the probabilistic distribution of strategies you expect to face when sitting down across from a random opponent. This makes sense to me, as these are the factors that one has to consider when choosing a deck to play, or a decision to make in a game, that have nothing to do with the actual rules.
However here on TL, I've seen the word almost always used as a verb. What's more, sometime people get warned for using the word in a manner similar to what I was used to from my previous environment. Please help me out by sharing your thoughts on whether "metagame" applies to the following scenarios:
1: You are playing on a map where Nexus First is a commonly used build for protoss, and so decide to proxy gate/rax or 6pool. You claim this is a "metagame choice".
2: You say "there is a lot of hellion use in the current KR metagame."
3: You remind your opponent that the last time you played, you mopped the floor with his noob self. As this statement is outside the rules of Starcraft 2 as a game, but is intended to give you an advantage, it is "metagaming".
Inside, find how I would answer these questions from my experience as a Magic player. + Show Spoiler +
1. Yes. This is a metagame choice, or "metagaming" if you prefer.
2. Yes, this is a proper use of the word metagame.
3. No, this is not a proper use of the word metagame. These are psychological tactics which, rather than being a level above understanding game mechanics, are completely unrelated.
If you disagree with my definitions, please realize that there are gaming communities where they are the common use. The starcraft community did not invent the term "metagame", so if you feel the need to correct them to the standard local usage, please do so politely.
If you want to bring up Magic: The Gathering and the term Metagame, please do so with an understanding on why that term is thrown around a lot in Magic: The Gathering.
You stand opposite, some guy.
He has a deck of 60 or more cards.
You have a deck of 60 or more cards.
The person who plays first either places down a land or plays a card that costs zero mana (although not necessarily "free")
That person then says go, passing the turn onto you.
In a card game, knowledge of the metagame was *essential* to knowing what the hell you were facing. What color? What color combination? Is it aggressive? Is it passive? Is it a combo deck?
Turn one, mountain, go--during Tempest block--what deck is he playing?
I would interpret that as the opponent is playing a CounterPhoenix variant and will save my Wastelands for when he lays down a glaciers.
Turn one, plains, go, a month after Urza's Destiny came out--what deck is he playing?
Marcadian Masques has just come out, turn one plains go--what deck is he playing?
It's been three months since Marcadian Masques came out, turn one plains go--what deck is he playing?
Urza's Saga just came out, you're playing in Extended, he opens with swamp dark ritual--do you counter? A smart player would say that you wait for Dark Ritual to give him mana and counter whatever he uses that mana with.
Except he's actually playing a Memory Jar deck that just got the nuts hand and opened Dark Ritual into Duress swiping your Force of Will followed by you being decked an a Stroke of Genius for infinite.
In trading card games the "metagame" is all you have to know what your opponent is doing. You see 1-2 card out of 60 and are expected to be able to "predict" what the other 58-59 cards in the deck are. Metagaming was essential not to win--but to just play.
In Starcraft you already know what race your opponent is. And when you don't know--upon seeing their first scout/your first scout you see their race and instantly already know *everything* that they can do.
Because going back to my first example where I said
"Turn one, mountain, go--during Tempest block--what deck is he playing?"
And I replied to my own question with
"I would interpret that as the opponent is playing a CounterPhoenix variant and will save my Wastelands for when he lays down a glaciers."
In Magic the Gathering that opening of "turn one, mountain, go" could still be a rush deck with just a slow start. In Starcraft 2 you will never have to worry that scouting a terran in the first 2 minutes of a game suddenly turned out to be a protoss 6 minutes into the game.
As for my opinions about "metagaming," I personally like to keep it simple. Metagame based decisions are the ones I make that don't require me to scout. For example, I open Reactor Hellion Fast Expand in TvZ--because I know he's zerg. I don't need to "find out" that he's Zerg, the game opens with me already knowing that information. I go for an early expansion because I assume that the Zerg player will stop my Hellions from outright killing him. And so on and so forth.
Lots of decisions are made because of metagame knowledge. I build turrets blind in TvZ around 10ish minutes because I suspect that Mutalisks are coming around that time. People use other terms for this type of game sense. They use terms like "timings" or "starsense" or "reads" or even "game sense." No matter the terms used, it all ends up the same in the end. It's not necessarily builds or unit comps, its everything. I know for a fact that if my opponent is Zerg, that the only early game defenses he has against air are queens and spores. Which means that my Medivacs have free reign pre-lair. I don't need to scout him to know that, it's simply a given in the matchup.
People that take Metagame knowledge too far are destined to fail. You don't use metagame knowledge to predict your opponent, you use it to be slightly faster at what you're already doing.
On February 03 2012 14:57 Mohdoo wrote: It pains me to see people think they are better informed on the meaning of metagame than tyler SC2 community has brought us so many teenagers ;_;
Your statement is very wrong on many levels and ended with the implicit assumption that teenagers are the ones disagreeing (another wrong assumption).
Tyler's meaning of the metagame is probably the most technically correct one. However, the modern usage of the metagame, popularised by many popular casters and analysts (e.g. Tastosis and Day9) has evolved to mean "strategic trends" as well.
There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with pros when there is solid enough reason to do so.
On February 03 2012 03:54 pandaburn wrote: In this community, the standard, accepted use of the word "metagame" was, essentially, the probabilistic distribution of strategies you expect to face when sitting down across from a random opponent. This makes sense to me, as these are the factors that one has to consider when choosing a deck to play, or a decision to make in a game, that have nothing to do with the actual rules.
What you've described is just trends, or one step beyond trends. Trends are useful for one part of the metagame but they aren't the metagame.
For example, if the trend is for Protoss to fast expand PvT on Terminus, then a Terran would be playing the metagame by doing a blind proxy 2rax, or would be "metagaming him" by doing a blind proxy 2rax. Protoss going fast expand PvT on Terminus is not the metagame.
Just out of curiosity- would your definition imply a inherent recursion, since some trends are a specific response to previous ones?
I feel like this falls under a area with "cheese" and "allin" and "pressure-play"
If I hear another person call the 1/1/1 a cheese and not an allin, I MIGHT pull my eyes out... Or someone telling me that going 7gate allin or opening 4gate vs terran is just a "pressure play" and NOT an allin -.-
I feel like the only people who really understand the simple terminology in SC now'adays is old BW players, I find it hard to talk with someone who calls a 4gate or any form of allin a cheese.
Sorry for the rant/I agree with your statements on metagame.
I think people should just chill a little. Even if metagame might not be the correct word for how OP uses it most of us know what he means when using it so its not like it's a conversation breaking mistake.
And secondly I think it's not entirely wrong to.use the word like OP does as if I open safety roaches against a terran these days its not allways because I scouted it but because I anticipated it from the game trend in ZvT which is beyond the game itself and could therefore be called metagame... or 7 pooling against toss on Tal'darim because so many toss go for early expands. Now I still understand toss get angry when 7pooled but nonetheless one could say it is metagaming. Because how can I play a mindgame with an opponent that I cant see or havent played yet... Mindgaming seems to me would be saying stuff to misslead him into doing something that would be beneficial to me like saying 20 minute no attack and then 7 pool him for the win....that example is a bit exagerrated but yoh see were I am coming from ;-)
Thats my point of view and I accept other opinions but I have to say that this theme is not detrimental enough for me to be really feeling the need to consider changing my mind aka its just not important enough to grind on the word definitions ;-)
The word "metagame" has been butchered, altered, and disfigured so many times across so many games it's pointless to try and get a standard definition of it because people will continue to use it in whichever way they think it works.
I don't like the word because I can just picture some astute tryhard sitting behind his computer and slamming in the word "metagame" 30 times in a 500 word blog about how the "metagame" is shifting.
I don't care about the actual definition, because to everyone else it has a different meaning, whether that meaning is correct or not... don't really care. There are better, more universally defined terms you can use to articulate your thoughts on a subject.
On February 03 2012 15:53 NeMeSiS3 wrote: I feel like this falls under a area with "cheese" and "allin" and "pressure-play"
If I hear another person call the 1/1/1 a cheese and not an allin, I MIGHT pull my eyes out... Or someone telling me that going 7gate allin or opening 4gate vs terran is just a "pressure play" and NOT an allin -.-
I feel like the only people who really understand the simple terminology in SC now'adays is old BW players, I find it hard to talk with someone who calls a 4gate or any form of allin a cheese.
Sorry for the rant/I agree with your statements on metagame.
You haven't been on the SC2 forums much have you?
Cheese: When someone attacks me before I give them permission to.
All In: Is the only reason that attack killed me.
Any other definition would suggest that the player who has just been cheesed or all-inned lost because his opponent was better and not because his opponent was obviously cheating the game in some unfair way. That is not acceptable--there needs to be something to blame other than weaker mechanics, bad scout timings, lack of game sense and going on tilt.
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, it is the use of out-of-game information or resources to affect one's in-game decisions.
This is the definition wikipedia gives. Wikipedia also defines the prefix "meta" as:
Meta- (from Greek: μετά = "after", "beyond", "adjacent", "self"), is a prefix used in English (and other Greek-owing languages) to indicate a concept which is an abstraction from another concept, used to complete or add to the latter.
But since this is wikipedia, take these with a grain of salt.
The phrase "outside the game" is very general, as technically, all decisions made by a player are made outside the game (in their brain), and is as such, technically "metagame" if you choose to go by the definition that
'Metagame' implicitly requires one to act outside of the rule set of a game.
As such, any strategy that a player utilises is "metagame", as the ideas involved in it are not a part of the game itself, rather a conscious decision made in the player's mind. It also means that the set of strategies used commonly are "metagame" as they are unwritten rules in the players' minds as to what is "supposed" to happen in the game, while not being enforced by the game itself. The game merely gives them the tools to turn their ideas in to (virtual) reality.
In such a case, ALL the examples given in the OP are correct, however I would tend to skew the definition towards something related the game itself, and not just the mindgames between the players, such as attempting to psych out your opponent using words, and as such disqualify example 3.
As itsjustatank suggested on page 1 (from whom the above definition is quoted), the word Paradigm is a word the can replace the current common use of the word "metagame" in some situations, that is, when used as "the set of strategies in current common use", however, it would be strange to say (for example): "Leenock paradigmed MC by going for a 6-pool against his nexus first," where perhaps, metagamed would (if not more correct) at least sound better.
TL:DR - Metagaming means that you have done something beyond the game itself. This INCLUDES the decisions you have consciously made as well as the strategies you choose to employ, as they are not an inherent part of the game but rather a part of the player's mind, channeled in to the game.
Personally, since I came from FPS, I can say that I first heard the word metagaming in reference to spectators giving information to players in the game.
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, it is the use of out-of-game information or resources to affect one's in-game decisions.
This is the definition wikipedia gives. Wikipedia also defines the prefix "meta" as:
Meta- (from Greek: μετά = "after", "beyond", "adjacent", "self"), is a prefix used in English (and other Greek-owing languages) to indicate a concept which is an abstraction from another concept, used to complete or add to the latter.
But since this is wikipedia, take these with a grain of salt.
The phrase "outside the game" is very general, as technically, all decisions made by a player are made outside the game (in their brain), and is as such, technically "metagame" if you choose to go by the definition that
'Metagame' implicitly requires one to act outside of the rule set of a game.
As such, any strategy that a player utilises is "metagame", as the ideas involved in it are not a part of the game itself, rather a conscious decision made in the player's mind. It also means that the set of strategies used commonly are "metagame" as they are unwritten rules in the players' minds as to what is "supposed" to happen in the game, while not being enforced by the game itself. The game merely gives them the tools to turn their ideas in to (virtual) reality.
In such a case, ALL the examples given in the OP are correct, however I would tend to skew the definition towards something related the game itself, and not just the mindgames between the players, such as attempting to psych out your opponent using words, and as such disqualify example 3.
As itsjustatank suggested on page 1 (from whom the above definition is quoted), the word Paradigm is a word the can replace the current common use of the word "metagame" in some situations, that is, when used as "the set of strategies in current common use", however, it would be strange to say (for example): "Leenock paradigmed MC by going for a 6-pool against his nexus first," where perhaps, metagamed would (if not more correct) at least sound better.
TL:DR - Metagaming means that you have done something beyond the game itself. This INCLUDES the decisions you have consciously made as well as the strategies you choose to employ, as they are not an inherent part of the game but rather a part of the player's mind, channeled in to the game.
If we are using a wikipedia entry to validate our point in the first place, if you venture beyond the very first paragraph, the entry goes on to list some common examples of metagaming:
- 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.
- In the popular trading card game Magic: The Gathering players compete with decks they have created in advance and the "metagame" consists of the deck types that are currently popular and expected to show up in large numbers in a tournament. The knowledge of metagame trends can give the players an edge against other participants, while playing (quickly recognizing what kind of deck opponents have to guess their likely cards and moves) and more importantly in the deck building process, by selecting and adapting designs to do well against the popular deck types at the expense of performance against rarer ones. It's also possible to bluff opponents into expecting cards that aren't there, or to surprise the competition with novel decks that nobody is prepared for. The secondary market of cards is heavily influenced by metagame trends: cards become more valuable when they are popular, often to the point of scarcity.
- In fighting games such as Super Smash Bros. Brawl, metagaming may occur at the character select screen. The opposing character has various strengths that can be avoided and weaknesses that can be exploited more easily depending on the character you choose provided you are aware of those strengths and weaknesses (called a "match up"). For a basic example, a character with a projectile attack has the advantage over a grappler who must be close to the opponent to be effective. Match up metagaming is very important in tournament settings.
On February 03 2012 15:53 NeMeSiS3 wrote: I feel like this falls under a area with "cheese" and "allin" and "pressure-play"
If I hear another person call the 1/1/1 a cheese and not an allin, I MIGHT pull my eyes out... Or someone telling me that going 7gate allin or opening 4gate vs terran is just a "pressure play" and NOT an allin -.-
I feel like the only people who really understand the simple terminology in SC now'adays is old BW players, I find it hard to talk with someone who calls a 4gate or any form of allin a cheese.
Sorry for the rant/I agree with your statements on metagame.
My definitions for cheese and all-in are:
Cheese - Any strategy that purely relies on a denial of scouting in order for it to be effective/deal damage. This means that proxy strategies and hidden tech trees (DTs and banshees) are considered cheese.
Some other strategies like a 4-Collosi/gateway push though, are hard to distinguish whether it is considered cheese or not and largely depends on how the player plans to execute the strategy. If they are relying on purely catching a Terran off-guard and without Vikings, then it would be cheese, but if it was apart of a strong push that accounted for most way it would be stopped, then it wouldn't be.
All In - An strategy (or desperate decision) with the sole intent of overpowering your opponent's army by having a larger army force, due to having investing more into your army than your opponent.
Most all-ins can be considered cheese because they often rely on a lack of scouting and your opponent being unprepared, in order for it work (strategies like 3-gate proxy void-ray or 6-pool). But non-cheese all-ins are strategies that are hard to stop even if scouted, because your army is purely stronger than your opponents (like the 1-1-1).
I disagree with 3 because "wit" can be treated as a game, that qualifies it as a game about a game, so a metagame. We are playing "the game of wit" to see who gets the advantage in the "game of starcraft" that follows. distracting someone can be a strategy. It just normally isn't allowed (and isn't in bw pros lol)
The winner of the game of wit is the person who gets the OTHER person to go "well you know what, YOU SUCK" so they can respond "bring it on"
In magic, this would be like talking really loudly about how all OTK decks suck , but actually having one of those decks yourself. wait this obviously isn't witty but it prooves the same point. you're saying something completely unrelated to the game, but it clearly gives you the advantage.
On February 03 2012 17:25 TheNessman wrote: I disagree with 3 because "wit" can be treated as a game, that qualifies it as a game about a game, so a metagame. We are playing "the game of wit" to see who gets the advantage in the "game of starcraft" that follows. distracting someone can be a strategy. It just normally isn't allowed (and isn't in bw pros lol)
The winner of the game of wit is the person who gets the OTHER person to go "well you know what, YOU SUCK" so they can respond "bring it on"
In magic, this would be like talking really loudly about how all OTK decks suck , but actually having one of those decks yourself. wait this obviously isn't witty but it prooves the same point. you're saying something completely unrelated to the game, but it clearly gives you the advantage.
This is mindgames, not metagame. You can use the metagame to play mindgames, but that doesn't make them the same thing. The metagame is the assumptions of the game, mindgames try to alter those assumptions.
where X is one of very many words, metaX is "to X about X", or some variation meaning the same.
some examples: metathink, to think about thinking metametathink, to think about thinking about to think about thinking. metaplay, to play that you are playing metadimension, the dimension about dimensions metalight, the light which illuminates other light metahide, to hide from hiding metadata, data describing data metatext, a text about text metastarcraft, playing starcraft where you play starcraft (this can to date not be done, since there is no game called starcraft which can simulate the player playing itself, this is the reason there is talk about metagame but not about metastarcraft)
metafun, to have fun as a result of having fun.
metametafun, to have metafun as a result of having metafun = (to have (fun as a result of having fun) as a result of having (fun as a result of having fun))
I think Im having metametametafun right now.
using this meaning, then metagame would be "a game where you play a game"
so in other words, "to metagame" is simply short for "to play the metagame" which is further expanded to "to play the game where you play a game"
this can mean almost anything, as it does not even describe what game we are playing when we are playing the game.
in context of SC2, it would be "to play a game where you play SC2" in other words, metagame refers to the processes in your head when you try to win in <insert game>, which can encompasse anything remotely related to the game which will help you win in said game.
it includes, but is not limited to: knowledge about the game your opponents weaknesses your strengths your opponents preferred strategies past events popular actions information of the game acquired from outside the game (such as streamcheating or the response from a crowd of spectators) of course, information about the game acquired from inside the game (such as scouting) etc.
In the simplest form possible: Metagame is the current trend the game is taking. "Metagaming" is trying to exploit that trend. Anyone who says otherwise is insane.
For example: In early BW pro scene, cheese tactics like 4 pooling was just not viable. The metagame was formed with such cheese in mind. However; as time went on, mechanics became a bigger role. Thus, high risk, high econ builds became the norm. At this point, Cheeses such as 4pool became somewhat viable again. Why? Because, for example, terrans needed the edge of going FE to compete with the zerg 'metagame.' Zergs would occasionally throw in a 4pool to help balance out the equation and keep greedy terrans in check.
Overall, I think 'Metagame' is an awful word, imo. Whenever I see someone type metagame, I picture them as huge hipsters. I even jokingly asked an opponent what 'metagame' meant. his reply? "You wouldn't understand, so I'm not going to bother explaining.' Epitome of hipster.
Witty... not seen any ingame talk be witty so far besides the "Step on a lego" thingy. I liked the definition of cheese and all in that just recently got quoted... allthough the trend in certain leagues to "cheese" ones way up the ladder can be quiet annoying as zerg especially from my slightly biased way of seeing things ;-).
Thanks for the further wiki quote really goes to show we arent using the word in a wrong content...even if wiki may not be right it still shows that quiet a few people see it this way...
On February 03 2012 14:57 Mohdoo wrote: It pains me to see people think they are better informed on the meaning of metagame than tyler SC2 community has brought us so many teenagers ;_;
You mean like yourself? A teenager is usually one that can't stand a difference in opinion.
I don't understand the judgments in the OP, and the rest of the people saying that mindgaming someone is not part of the meta-game. Reminding someone that you killed them last time you played is certainly outside of the rules of SC2, right? And you use it to gain an advantage inside the next game of SC2 that you play? Then it is most certainly part of the metagame. I'm not sure exactly what metagame is supposed to mean as a verb, but the act of reminding someone that you killed them last time you played in order to gain an advantage inside the game is definitely part of the metagame. I also disagree with the OP's judgment on point 2. Saying "Hellions are used a lot in the korean metagame" makes no sense whatsoever, as hellions are in fact part of the game itself. That statement is consistent with the LoL/SC2 version of the word, which just means "that which is considered good right now." It might make sense if Koreans were using hellions for some reason that was outside of the game, like if they knew losing to hellions was particularly tilting, but presumably the primary reason Koreans use hellions a lot is related to their movement speed, attack rate, attack damage, build time, cost, etc. All of which is very much within the rules and parameters of the game, and thus has nothing to do with the metagame.
The term originates from the question of whether you take the comment seriously depending on the "level" you are thinking. In a game of poker, the levels of thinking are:
level 0 = thinking about the cards you're holding level 1 = thinking about the cards your opponent is holding level 2 = thinking about what your opponent thinks you are holding level 3 = thinking about what your opponent thinks you think he his holding
I really think the term "level" better fits the situations in which "metagame" is used.
I agree with the OP, and unless i recall incorrectly, many don't think that either 1 or both of those definitions count as a "proper" way to use the word "metagame". Which is strange cus I don't know what else it could mean other than #3, which is mindgaming, not "metagaming"
Isn't metagaming what Flash did vs Stork in 2008 Bacchus OSL? He said in final interview on stage the that he had prepared stratigies for his carriers ("lying" ofc) cause in the OSL before he got raped by Stork's carriers, but instead he ended the final within an hour with going bio in all 3 games?
On February 03 2012 17:54 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I agree with the OP, and unless i recall incorrectly, many don't think that either 1 or both of those definitions count as a "proper" way to use the word "metagame". Which is strange cus I don't know what else it could mean other than #3, which is mindgaming, not "metagaming"
Mindgaming is metagaming. Or rather, mindgames are part of the metagame, as I'm not quite sure what the verb forms of either of those words are supposed to mean.
On February 03 2012 17:54 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I agree with the OP, and unless i recall incorrectly, many don't think that either 1 or both of those definitions count as a "proper" way to use the word "metagame". Which is strange cus I don't know what else it could mean other than #3, which is mindgaming, not "metagaming"
Mindgaming is metagaming. Or rather, mindgames are part of the metagame, as I'm not quite sure what the verb forms of either of those words are supposed to mean.
Oh, nevermind then, I agree with you
metagaming:
the use of out-of-game information or resources to affect one's in-game decisions.
The term originates from the question of whether you take the comment seriously depending on the "level" you are thinking. In a game of poker, the levels of thinking are:
level 0 = thinking about the cards you're holding level 1 = thinking about the cards your opponent is holding level 2 = thinking about what your opponent thinks you are holding level 3 = thinking about what your opponent thinks you think he his holding
I really think the term "level" better fits the situations in which "metagame" is used.
in that case, see the following timeline:
day 1, SC2 was released today, noone have any idea what anyone is doing, everyone is thinking in level 0
day 2, people start to figure out what others are doing, and they are trying to counter it, they are thinking in level 1
day 3, people are starting to anticipate what the others are doing...
Metagaming is simply using anything outside of the game you're playing to help you win that game.
1: You are playing on a map where Nexus First is a commonly used build for protoss, and so decide to proxy gate/rax or 6pool. You claim this is a "metagame choice".
It's just matagaming, because you're using your knowledge about trends and probability of your enemy strategy as scouting information, without acquiring it in the game.
2: You say "there is a lot of hellion use in the current KR metagame."
This is incorrect, and most SC2 comentators use it this way ;(. Those are just trends, and similarities in gameplay. But they happen in game, and have nothing to do with the metagame. Using this knowledge about current trends in your games is metagaming, but the trends themselves are not.
3: You remind your opponent that the last time you played, you mopped the floor with his noob self. As this statement is outside the rules of Starcraft 2 as a game, but is intended to give you an advantage, it is "metagaming".
This is pure metagaming. You're using something outside of the game (words that can influence your oppononts psychology and decission making) instead of your in-game tools such as units or buildings.
The term originates from the question of whether you take the comment seriously depending on the "level" you are thinking. In a game of poker, the levels of thinking are:
level 0 = thinking about the cards you're holding level 1 = thinking about the cards your opponent is holding level 2 = thinking about what your opponent thinks you are holding level 3 = thinking about what your opponent thinks you think he his holding
I really think the term "level" better fits the situations in which "metagame" is used.
in that case, see the following timeline:
day 1, SC2 was released today, noone have any idea what anyone is doing, everyone is thinking in level 0
day 2, people start to figure out what others are doing, and they are trying to counter it, they are thinking in level 1
day 3, people are starting to anticipate what the others are doing...
day n, people are thinking in level n-1
Actually....
SC2 "levels" would be
Level 0 = Composition --You are aware that having units that good at fighting your opponent's units is a good thing.
Level 1 = Micro --You are aware that with good control, you can outmaneuver your opponent's army
Level 2 = Macro --You are aware that an RTS is not simply a game about moving your army around the map.
Level 4 = Timings --You are aware that at certain times your army is can be stronger or weaker than you're opponents and that you can take advantage of that knowledge.
example.
"Man, he had roaches I should have made maruaders"
"Man, I had marauders but he had a concave"
"Man, I finally got into good position--but he just had so many roaches"
"His roaches got to my base when my Barracks were still making tech labs!"
TLDR
As you get better at SC2 you stare less at the damage modifiers of your units and stare more at the Minimap/Resource/Supply Counts
On February 03 2012 18:35 Dariusz wrote: This is incorrect, and most SC2 comentators use it this way ;(. Those are just trends, and similarities in gameplay. But they happen in game, and have nothing to do with the metagame. Using this knowledge about current trends in your games is metagaming, but the trends themselves are not.
Disagreed. These are trends, sure. But those trends are there for a reason: They work against what others are using, they are viable because of the metagame. When you pick a tactic to use, unless you made it yourself from scratch knowing nothing about the game, you are already metagaming, you know that tons of toss do X, so your tactic relies on doing Y. As new tactics come up, people realize new viable ways to play, which forces others to change their builds in kind. This is all metagaming, you're not just playing the game, you're looking at what is common trends and adapt to it, further creating trends.
A friend who frequents this website directed me to this thread, since it's active and we recently argued about the term metagame when he used the word in a text message, and I screamed at him for uttering nonsense. The subject, and the game in question, are both interesting to me, and I thought I might take this opportunity to set the record straight once and for all.
I will preface this by saying that I am more educated on this subject than every single person on this forum. I will treat the subject from every angle I can think of. Bear with me, because these concepts will by the end of this post become quite relevant to StarCraft -- far more than anything that's been said so far.
Yes, "meta" does mean outside/beyond/above/etc., even though in Greek it means adjacent. This is because when Aristotle wrote Metaphysics, it was so named because it came right after Physics, and was therefore adjacent. But the subject matter was (mis)understood to be "above" or "beyond" physics, so the prefix evolved to mean beyond/outside. And now it DOES mean that, as far as anyone needs to be concerned, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. This is English now, not Greek anymore, and we have our own relationships between words unique to our language.
It was brought up in this thread that the sounds that make up words do not have intrinsic meaning but are merely signifiers. This is technically correct, but in practice you are employing this principle to reach a false conclusion. Words in practice DO have intrinsic meaning because they do in our minds. The word red in our minds will always be tied to the image, and when enough of these images are related to sounds, we are able to write dictionaries where words actually do mean something. So our experiences CREATE intrinsic meaning in words (not in the strict logical sense, but psychologically)... and then, those words in turn create new experiences in our minds. I'll get to that later.
And now I will have to completely change direction and attack the nature of a game. The word "game" is undefined (philosophically), but what's known is that games have rules, and rules by definition cannot be broken. Laws, in contrast, can. You might be thinking, "What about the laws of the universe?!" The word "laws" belongs in the context of humanity. You can break the law -- by stealing, etc. The universe is a Game (the only game), and physics is an approximation and an abstraction of the rules of that game. Those rules cannot be broken because they follow as absolute necessities from cause and effect -- that is a deep philosophical subject, however, and one that you will just have to trust me on. Rules cannot be broken.
Further, it is impossible to draw a line and saw that this is where the rules of one game end and where the rules of another game begin. The reason, for example, that you can't travel faster than light in a videogame is because you can't travel faster than light in the universe (according to Einstein's theory, that is). BUT WHAT?! WHAT ABOUT GAMES WHERE YOU GO INTO HYPERSPACE? -- Those are just randomly colored pixels on a screen, moron. Images and words creating the illusion of hyperspace travel is not identical to hyperspace travel. Even if a computer simulation were developed with the intention of simulating faster-than-light travel, it would be impossible for that simulation to actually be able to simulate faster-than-light travel, because that would require... metaprogramming! It would only ever be able to simulate an illusion of faster-than-light travel. (Again, assuming Einstein was right.)
Now before we can reach the final point, we have to make a distinction between electronic games/board games/card games/etc. and games in real life. It is truly impossible to break a game's rules, no matter what kind of game it is. When you do "break" a game's rules, what's MEANT by this expression is that you started playing your own game. So if you break a "rule" in a tournament (a tournament is a real life game), in my language that would mean you broke a (human) law, which actually means that you stopped playing the game (the tournament) everyone else was playing and started playing your own version of the game (your own tournament with its own rules).
So a tournament, as such, being a game, consists of rules that can never, therefore, be laws, but in practice they are laws because people break them. If you remind someone before a match that you beat them last time (in order to mess with their head), is there some code that executes in the electronic game (or some rule that magically appears in the rulebook) to delete that comment and erase it from their memory? If not, then it is within the rules of the game because you were ABLE TO DO IT. Now you might have broken a tournament's rules (laws, because they're breakable), at which point you aren't playing their game anymore, since a game is defined as something with rules. Or you may have stopped playing some weird board game that forbids you from talking or whatever, and started playing your own version of the game that does permit you.
So now we come to StarCraft and its use of the word "metagame". This word essentially refers to a game's morality. Morality is a set of conventions, mores, TRENDS, etc. A game like Go is very simple in its ruleset (it's like 3-5 rules, depending on how you count them I guess), so it's assumed and expected that you're going to play mindgames in some way shape or form. It's assumed that you're going to know how people are playing the game today. It's assumed you're going to know contemporary joseki, and it would be surprising to a modern Go player if they saw you using some really old joseki. But it's all part of the game.
StarCraft, on the other hand, is a videogame and therefore is the product of thousands of years of art/game development. It has a shitload of rules. So psychological warfare and the like aren't immediately considered even as primary tactics, morally speaking. People who use the word "metagame" a lot are basically saying that there is a MINIGAME within StarCraft with its own rules (which, in practice are laws because this minigame is a social contract as it is in tournaments) and anyone who incorporates knowledge from outside that minigame is "metagaming". The problem with this is that it would be physically impossible for StarCraft to exist without bringing in externalities, because if you couldn't bring you and your experiences to the game you wouldn't be able to play it, and if you wouldn't be able to play it, it wouldn't exist. It would just be 1s and 0s on a disc.
In other words, by telling people that they are bringing their selves and their experiences into the "game", the "metagaming" people have turned the act of playing a game, such as StarCraft, Magic, etc., into a metagame by introducing their own games that exist within the electronic, board, or card games. There is simply no way a person can divorce their StarCraft life from everything else. The breakfast you ate on a particular morning will influence how well you play to some small degree, and knowledge of the trends will ALWAYS influence how you play whether you want it to or not. Even if you were to deliberately try avoiding acting on that knowledge, you would simply be acting on it anyway -- by avoiding it, because you might have done something else if you had remained completely ignorant.
By using this word "metagame" you (as well as MTG players, etc.), have allowed it TO INVADE YOUR PSYCHOLOGY (which is what words do), creating a fictional layer of morality (a minigame) within the unbreakable ruleset of StarCraft. The correct way to say "the metagame has changed a lot" is "the game has changed a lot" (if we're talking about patches) or otherwise "the strategies have shifted". It's fucking clear and simple, lol, no more dumb threads about it. And then, "she wanted to cheese him, so he metagamed her" is certainly not "she wanted to cheese him, so he 'PARADIGMED' her" or whatever lolol. You say "he gamed her", meaning he fully exploited the game's possibility-space to win using all the means at his disposal, including his brain without which he wouldn't be playing at all. Duh. Problem solved, everyone can be happy now except losers who fear change.
Holy shit so many long and complicated posts I will never read Oo' Can someone post the exact, short and clear cut definition of the word so we can call it a day?
I was pretty sure the "meta" defines the % of chances of playing against a race, deck, build order... Depending on the game it's used on. If it's not, well tell me then, but make it easy please because I already woke up with a headache
People use metagame incorrectly to mean 'strategy'. If people are using hellions a lot, that is the current popular strategy. Metagame is the "game of the game." Mindgames ARE metagame: they are not directly the game, or strategies and reactions to strategies used, but beyond and outside of the game, a game about the game.
A friend who frequents this website directed me to this thread, since it's active and we recently argued about the term metagame when he used the word in a text message, and I screamed at him for uttering nonsense. The subject, and the game in question, are both interesting to me, and I thought I might take this opportunity to set the record straight once and for all.
I will preface this by saying that I am more educated on this subject than every single person on this forum. I will treat the subject from every angle I can think of. Bear with me, because these concepts will by the end of this post become quite relevant to StarCraft -- far more than anything that's been said so far.
Yes, "meta" does mean outside/beyond/above/etc., even though in Greek it means adjacent. This is because when Aristotle wrote Metaphysics, it was so named because it came right after Physics, and was therefore adjacent. But the subject matter was (mis)understood to be "above" or "beyond" physics, so the prefix evolved to mean beyond/outside. And now it DOES mean that, as far as anyone needs to be concerned, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. This is English now, not Greek anymore, and we have our own relationships between words unique to our language.
It was brought up in this thread that the sounds that make up words do not have intrinsic meaning but are merely signifiers. This is technically correct, but in practice you are employing this principle to reach a false conclusion. Words in practice DO have intrinsic meaning because they do in our minds. The word red in our minds will always be tied to the image, and when enough of these images are related to sounds, we are able to write dictionaries where words actually do mean something. So our experiences CREATE intrinsic meaning in words (not in the strict logical sense, but psychologically)... and then, those words in turn create new experiences in our minds. I'll get to that later.
And now I will have to completely change direction and attack the nature of a game. The word "game" is undefined (philosophically), but what's known is that games have rules, and rules by definition cannot be broken. Laws, in contrast, can. You might be thinking, "What about the laws of the universe?!" The word "laws" belongs in the context of humanity. You can break the law -- by stealing, etc. The universe is a Game (the only game), and physics is an approximation and an abstraction of the rules of that game. Those rules cannot be broken because they follow as absolute necessities from cause and effect -- that is a deep philosophical subject, however, and one that you will just have to trust me on. Rules cannot be broken.
Further, it is impossible to draw a line and saw that this is where the rules of one game end and where the rules of another game begin. The reason, for example, that you can't travel faster than light in a videogame is because you can't travel faster than light in the universe (according to Einstein's theory, that is). BUT WHAT?! WHAT ABOUT GAMES WHERE YOU GO INTO HYPERSPACE? -- Those are just randomly colored pixels on a screen, moron. Images and words creating the illusion of hyperspace travel is not identical to hyperspace travel. Even if a computer simulation were developed with the intention of simulating faster-than-light travel, it would be impossible for that simulation to actually be able to simulate faster-than-light travel, because that would require... metaprogramming! It would only ever be able to simulate an illusion of faster-than-light travel. (Again, assuming Einstein was right.)
Now before we can reach the final point, we have to make a distinction between electronic games/board games/card games/etc. and games in real life. It is truly impossible to break a game's rules, no matter what kind of game it is. When you do "break" a game's rules, what's MEANT by this expression is that you started playing your own game. So if you break a "rule" in a tournament (a tournament is a real life game), in my language that would mean you broke a (human) law, which actually means that you stopped playing the game (the tournament) everyone else was playing and started playing your own version of the game (your own tournament with its own rules).
So a tournament, as such, being a game, consists of rules that can never, therefore, be laws, but in practice they are laws because people break them. If you remind someone before a match that you beat them last time (in order to mess with their head), is there some code that executes in the electronic game (or some rule that magically appears in the rulebook) to delete that comment and erase it from their memory? If not, then it is within the rules of the game because you were ABLE TO DO IT. Now you might have broken a tournament's rules (laws, because they're breakable), at which point you aren't playing their game anymore, since a game is defined as something with rules. Or you may have stopped playing some weird board game that forbids you from talking or whatever, and started playing your own version of the game that does permit you.
So now we come to StarCraft and its use of the word "metagame". This word essentially refers to a game's morality. Morality is a set of conventions, mores, TRENDS, etc. A game like Go is very simple in its ruleset (it's like 3-5 rules, depending on how you count them I guess), so it's assumed and expected that you're going to play mindgames in some way shape or form. It's assumed that you're going to know how people are playing the game today. It's assumed you're going to know contemporary joseki, and it would be surprising to a modern Go player if they saw you using some really old joseki. But it's all part of the game.
StarCraft, on the other hand, is a videogame and therefore is the product of thousands of years of art/game development. It has a shitload of rules. So psychological warfare and the like aren't immediately considered even as primary tactics, morally speaking. People who use the word "metagame" a lot are basically saying that there is a MINIGAME within StarCraft with its own rules (which, in practice are laws because this minigame is a social contract as it is in tournaments) and anyone who incorporates knowledge from outside that minigame is "metagaming". The problem with this is that it would be physically impossible for StarCraft to exist without bringing in externalities, because if you couldn't bring you and your experiences to the game you wouldn't be able to play it, and if you wouldn't be able to play it, it wouldn't exist. It would just be 1s and 0s on a disc.
In other words, by telling people that they are bringing their selves and their experiences into the "game", the "metagaming" people have turned the act of playing a game, such as StarCraft, Magic, etc., into a metagame by introducing their own games that exist within the electronic, board, or card games. There is simply no way a person can divorce their StarCraft life from everything else. The breakfast you ate on a particular morning will influence how well you play to some small degree, and knowledge of the trends will ALWAYS influence how you play whether you want it to or not. Even if you were to deliberately try avoiding acting on that knowledge, you would simply be acting on it anyway -- by avoiding it, because you might have done something else if you had remained completely ignorant.
By using this word "metagame" you (as well as MTG players, etc.), have allowed it TO INVADE YOUR PSYCHOLOGY (which is what words do), creating a fictional layer of morality (a minigame) within the unbreakable ruleset of StarCraft. The correct way to say "the metagame has changed a lot" is "the game has changed a lot" (if we're talking about patches) or otherwise "the strategies have shifted". It's fucking clear and simple, lol, no more dumb threads about it. And then, "she wanted to cheese him, so he metagamed her" is certainly not "she wanted to cheese him, so he 'PARADIGMED' her" or whatever lolol. You say "he gamed her", meaning he fully exploited the game's possibility-space to win using all the means at his disposal, including his brain without which he wouldn't be playing at all. Duh. Problem solved, everyone can be happy now except losers who fear change.
Look, I'm totally with you. Your post sums up why I think it's silly to insist on an arcane and technical meaning having something to do with "outside the rules" for exactly the line of reasoning you delineated. I don't think most people here can handle it so, that was fun I hope it doesn't go completely by the wayside.
Now, lol why are you qualified beyond compare? I don't mind such an outlandish claim but it is ridiculous to say so and then offer no clarification. o.O
Needless to say I take issue with the linkages you use to get from words don't have meaning to words have meaning, but that argument's for a different thread. In any case the line of your post doesn't revolve around this so functionally granted in order to carry on.
Your subtextual culmination is that games don't have boundaries so the word metagame can't possibly mean anything exactly. I'm glad someone else signed up for that too. Then your actual conclusion is that no one should ever use the word metagame. But... that doesn't follow. Why can't you just use metagame as a useful word all the same??? Moreover, for example, "the strategies have shifted" is not the same as "the metagame has shifted". If you disagree, it's out of willful orneriness or a lack of understanding. Those two statements deal with similar content but convey different meanings. Perhaps it is subtle. I'm perfectly willing to argue this point of minutia to death because it illuminates the whole argument.
Anyway, all words suffer from necessary inexactness and ambiguity. That doesn't stop them from letting people communicate, I don't see why this is a special case.
On February 03 2012 21:00 forelmashi wrote: People use metagame incorrectly to mean 'strategy'. If people are using hellions a lot, that is the current popular strategy. Metagame is the "game of the game." Mindgames ARE metagame: they are not directly the game, or strategies and reactions to strategies used, but beyond and outside of the game, a game about the game.
There's no such thing as "current strategy". There's strategy, and there's a trend in what strategies are used, the metagame. Why do terrans open hellions? Because it's good. Would they still do it if zerg 90% of the time opened with early roaches? No, because it would suck. It's the "current strategy" because of the metagame.
On February 03 2012 21:00 forelmashi wrote: People use metagame incorrectly to mean 'strategy'. If people are using hellions a lot, that is the current popular strategy. Metagame is the "game of the game." Mindgames ARE metagame: they are not directly the game, or strategies and reactions to strategies used, but beyond and outside of the game, a game about the game.
There's no such thing as "current strategy". There's strategy, and there's a trend in what strategies are used, the metagame. Why do terrans open hellions? Because it's good. Would they still do it if zerg 90% of the time opened with early roaches? No, because it would suck. It's the "current strategy" because of the metagame.
Nailed it. I would say though, more precisely, you should clarify that you're saying "if it were a viable strategy to open early roaches blind, opening hellions would suck" (dealing with available strategies) versus "if zergs start opening early roaches blind, hellions are a bad choice" (metagame tit for tat).
The meta game means "meta" which is basically beyond or above, and game which is the game you are playing. To say it another way, the meta game refer to the society of gamers and its history.
On February 03 2012 03:54 pandaburn wrote: In this community, the standard, accepted use of the word "metagame" was, essentially, the probabilistic distribution of strategies you expect to face when sitting down across from a random opponent. This makes sense to me, as these are the factors that one has to consider when choosing a deck to play, or a decision to make in a game, that have nothing to do with the actual rules.
What you've described is just trends, or one step beyond trends. Trends are useful for one part of the metagame but they aren't the metagame.
For example, if the trend is for Protoss to fast expand PvT on Terminus, then a Terran would be playing the metagame by doing a blind proxy 2rax, or would be "metagaming him" by doing a blind proxy 2rax. Protoss going fast expand PvT on Terminus is not the metagame.
Incas reputation of going sneaky builds (especially DTs) to catch the opponent unaware in the early game is well known. In a Bomber vs Inca game, Bomber prepared blindly for such attacks by placing early towers and very safe play and just prepared to enter the mid game without dying (probably thinking his mid-game and late-game will crush Inca without much effort). Inca did something unheard of and build double Nexus. Is this metagame or just mindgames from Inca because double Nexus is just another sneaky/cheesy strategy? I thought it was brilliant metagaming on Incas part, but perhaps this is another incorrect use of the word?
Anyone care to answer this guy? I have the same questions about it.
Meta- (from Greek: μετά = "after", "beyond", "adjacent", "self"), is a prefix used in English (and other Greek-owing languages) to indicate a concept which is an abstraction from another concept, used to complete or add to the latter.
Yeah... So basicly it's what lays "above", "around" or "outside" the game itself. Metagaming as a verb could easilly be cheesing someone you expect to do an eco-cheese (15nex/15CC). Metagame as a noun can easilly be how things are commonly played in the current state of the game.
On February 03 2012 21:00 forelmashi wrote: People use metagame incorrectly to mean 'strategy'. If people are using hellions a lot, that is the current popular strategy. Metagame is the "game of the game." Mindgames ARE metagame: they are not directly the game, or strategies and reactions to strategies used, but beyond and outside of the game, a game about the game.
There's no such thing as "current strategy". There's strategy, and there's a trend in what strategies are used, the metagame. Why do terrans open hellions? Because it's good. Would they still do it if zerg 90% of the time opened with early roaches? No, because it would suck. It's the "current strategy" because of the metagame.
For one, if you say strategies trend, then there are current and past strategies...
Strategies are the game directly, it is the strategies/game that change. Metagame is the way you think about the game. If one day zergs open 90% of the time with roaches, it is their strategy that changed, and terrans will use a different strategy. If however, a player thinks, "this zerg probably gonna go roaches 80% of the time," and thus chooses his strategy, then this is the metagame.
metagame is a good word to use when you talk to dumb people and wanna sound smart. and its a good word when you talk to smart people and wanna sound dumb
just insert it here and there when your talking about maps, balance or general strategy and youll feel pretty smart among the lesser
example: in the current medigame we see alot of metagaming lately in the metagame, but after players start catch onto the metagame we will probably see the metagame metagame to medigame and people will start medigaming the metagame
if you still dont understand just read in this thread and youll see alot of more examples like this
Bear in mind, I haven't looked at the last 6 pages. And that my viewpoint is going to be coming from waaaay outside the videogame scene. But, way back when, I played actual role playing games. Y'know, the kind with pens, paper, and dice. (And in a few instances, cards or rock-paper-scissors.) So, my understanding of the word "metagame" comes from that background. Metagame, like "metadata" (I have a library sciences friend), is "the game about the game" or a game outside the game. This means using information that is not developed from within the game, and applied as a verb, would mean using information you could not have from within the game (in RP parlance, "out of character knowledge") to have an influence in the actual gameplay itself. (Which, in RP games, is a big no-no - but still happens with depressing regularity. The most interesting logical curliques I have heard are involved with people explaining how their character could somehow know and use information that the player knows but the character has at best a tenous acquaintance.)
So, in the OP, in that regard, is absolutely correct. The first two instances are using knowledge about outside events to direct play in the current match, while the third is psychological warfare that edges close to but is not itself metagaming. The general trends for builds and strategies are more environmental - I can't see using that as "the metagame" in any sense. They are exactly trends... aggregating them all together as a way of saying generalized things about PvZ, TvZ, PvP, etc, is not "meta" - it's generalization.
But then English is a mutating language, so who knows what it could really mean or wind up meaning? To me, the metagame aspects of an MLG or GSL might be more along the lines of... "Hmm. Last night at the hotel I saw (insert player name) stumbling drunk back to his/her room. And this morning they are looking hung over. I bet I can do multiprong drops to capitalize on his/her inability to react quickly to them all while driving a thrust straight through his natural at his main." Whether or not I use reactored hellions or 1-1-1 would only be "metagame" is if I know that the player I'm playing has a specific weakness against that kind of play.
Edited to add: Derfuhrer has a mountain of words about words, which contain an excellent bit of logical dancing, but I think misses the point in the first sentence of the previous paragraph. English is an agglomerative language and one which does not have a strict nor "rule" (in his sense) based definition. It is like any other human institution or construct malleable, and one which changes frequently in both subjective and objective ways. I am interested in the use of game theory however in the analysis he makes.
1: You are playing on a map where Nexus First is a commonly used build for protoss, and so decide to proxy gate/rax or 6pool. You claim this is a "metagame choice".
2: You say "there is a lot of hellion use in the current KR metagame."
3: You remind your opponent that the last time you played, you mopped the floor with his noob self. As this statement is outside the rules of Starcraft 2 as a game, but is intended to give you an advantage, it is "metagaming".
1. Mind game
2. Trend, state, paradigm, strategy
3. ?
Metagame I would refer to as the thinking done in-between games such as in a Bo5, or adjusting your play so that its different to what stats players are likely to have on you or your observations on another player which has an in-direct correlation to the game.
"I am a low apm player, but my opponent seems to be wearing a mask on, he must have a cold. I will utilize heavy harass play to make use off his inability to react effectively". But lets say he was wearing a mask, just to make his opponent play a style that wasn't suitable for him, thus creating a mind-game counter to his mind-game counter, resulting in metagaming.
Usually metagaming occurs when you get high-level intellectual battles, when you are trying to think -> what they are thinking -> you are thinking.
On February 03 2012 03:54 pandaburn wrote: In this community, the standard, accepted use of the word "metagame" was, essentially, the probabilistic distribution of strategies you expect to face when sitting down across from a random opponent. This makes sense to me, as these are the factors that one has to consider when choosing a deck to play, or a decision to make in a game, that have nothing to do with the actual rules.
What you've described is just trends, or one step beyond trends. Trends are useful for one part of the metagame but they aren't the metagame.
For example, if the trend is for Protoss to fast expand PvT on Terminus, then a Terran would be playing the metagame by doing a blind proxy 2rax, or would be "metagaming him" by doing a blind proxy 2rax. Protoss going fast expand PvT on Terminus is not the metagame.
Incas reputation of going sneaky builds (especially DTs) to catch the opponent unaware in the early game is well known. In a Bomber vs Inca game, Bomber prepared blindly for such attacks by placing early towers and very safe play and just prepared to enter the mid game without dying (probably thinking his mid-game and late-game will crush Inca without much effort). Inca did something unheard of and build double Nexus. Is this metagame or just mindgames from Inca because double Nexus is just another sneaky/cheesy strategy? I thought it was brilliant metagaming on Incas part, but perhaps this is another incorrect use of the word?
Anyone care to answer this guy? I have the same questions about it.
I would say that's mind-gaming, being unpredictable or long-term strategy. It would be borderline metagame, if lets say P opened double gas, T does a counter to DT rush, then P blindly does a counter to the counter of the DT rush.
Basically T think that if P goes double gas he is going to DT rush, P knows that T will do a certain build thinking P will DT rush, so P has a specially designed build to counter the reaction to the DT rush.
What Inca did is metagame. If you double gas, fake shrine and cancel it, or something, that is merely a mind game, but what Inca did is something _outside_ the game, a game of the game.
On February 03 2012 21:00 forelmashi wrote: People use metagame incorrectly to mean 'strategy'. If people are using hellions a lot, that is the current popular strategy. Metagame is the "game of the game." Mindgames ARE metagame: they are not directly the game, or strategies and reactions to strategies used, but beyond and outside of the game, a game about the game.
There's no such thing as "current strategy". There's strategy, and there's a trend in what strategies are used, the metagame. Why do terrans open hellions? Because it's good. Would they still do it if zerg 90% of the time opened with early roaches? No, because it would suck. It's the "current strategy" because of the metagame.
For one, if you say strategies trend, then there are current and past strategies...
Strategies are the game directly, it is the strategies/game that change. Metagame is the way you think about the game. If one day zergs open 90% of the time with roaches, it is their strategy that changed, and terrans will use a different strategy. If however, a player thinks, "this zerg probably gonna go roaches 80% of the time," and thus chooses his strategy, then this is the metagame.
You're talking about the exact same concept, just on an individual basis. "This zerg probably gonna go roaches 80% of the time" = "Zergs will probably go roaches 80% of the time". There are tons of strategies used, when you decide to use one dependant on what the trend is, you're obviously metagaming. If you go gate->core->twilight council immediately to rush blink just because you like blink, you're just gaming. It works to do in the game. If you think about how your opponents will likely play and pick a strategy viable against it, BOOM. Metagame.
On February 03 2012 21:00 forelmashi wrote: People use metagame incorrectly to mean 'strategy'. If people are using hellions a lot, that is the current popular strategy. Metagame is the "game of the game." Mindgames ARE metagame: they are not directly the game, or strategies and reactions to strategies used, but beyond and outside of the game, a game about the game.
There's no such thing as "current strategy". There's strategy, and there's a trend in what strategies are used, the metagame. Why do terrans open hellions? Because it's good. Would they still do it if zerg 90% of the time opened with early roaches? No, because it would suck. It's the "current strategy" because of the metagame.
For one, if you say strategies trend, then there are current and past strategies...
Strategies are the game directly, it is the strategies/game that change. Metagame is the way you think about the game. If one day zergs open 90% of the time with roaches, it is their strategy that changed, and terrans will use a different strategy. If however, a player thinks, "this zerg probably gonna go roaches 80% of the time," and thus chooses his strategy, then this is the metagame.
You're talking about the exact same concept, just on an individual basis. "This zerg probably gonna go roaches 80% of the time" = "Zergs will probably go roaches 80% of the time". There are tons of strategies used, when you decide to use one dependant on what the trend is, you're obviously metagaming. If you go gate->core->twilight council immediately to rush blink just because you like blink, you're just gaming. It works to do in the game. If you think about how your opponents will likely play and pick a strategy viable against it, BOOM. Metagame.
Okay, but semantically, it is the strategy/game which changes, NOT the "metagame" which changes, the latter being a frequently used incorrect usage.
On February 03 2012 21:00 forelmashi wrote: People use metagame incorrectly to mean 'strategy'. If people are using hellions a lot, that is the current popular strategy. Metagame is the "game of the game." Mindgames ARE metagame: they are not directly the game, or strategies and reactions to strategies used, but beyond and outside of the game, a game about the game.
There's no such thing as "current strategy". There's strategy, and there's a trend in what strategies are used, the metagame. Why do terrans open hellions? Because it's good. Would they still do it if zerg 90% of the time opened with early roaches? No, because it would suck. It's the "current strategy" because of the metagame.
For one, if you say strategies trend, then there are current and past strategies...
Strategies are the game directly, it is the strategies/game that change. Metagame is the way you think about the game. If one day zergs open 90% of the time with roaches, it is their strategy that changed, and terrans will use a different strategy. If however, a player thinks, "this zerg probably gonna go roaches 80% of the time," and thus chooses his strategy, then this is the metagame.
You're talking about the exact same concept, just on an individual basis. "This zerg probably gonna go roaches 80% of the time" = "Zergs will probably go roaches 80% of the time". There are tons of strategies used, when you decide to use one dependant on what the trend is, you're obviously metagaming. If you go gate->core->twilight council immediately to rush blink just because you like blink, you're just gaming. It works to do in the game. If you think about how your opponents will likely play and pick a strategy viable against it, BOOM. Metagame.
Okay, but semantically, it is the strategy/game which changes, NOT the "metagame" which changes, the latter being a frequently used incorrect usage.
The game nor the strategy changes, just your decision on what to use. The game only changes when the game is patched, the strategy only changes because you devise a new one.
On February 03 2012 22:21 forelmashi wrote: What Inca did is metagame. If you double gas, fake shrine and cancel it, or something, that is merely a mind game, but what Inca did is something _outside_ the game, a game of the game.
I wouldn't say its metagaming, and merely just being unpredictable. I believe metagaming has to have a predictable outcome, for example Inca's past actions didn't willfully cause Bomber to make those turrets, sure Bomber is making those turrets to stay safe sure, but Inca wouldn't have known that before the game. Otherwise it's not really metagame, you are just flipping coins.
It would be different however, if Inca knew he could make Bomber to make those Turrets by mimicing what he did before but then do a timing attack of which turrets can't defend against at all. Or even lets say Bomber makes less than optimal turrets this time knowing that it will cause Inca to do a timing push, and then do a counter to that timing push.
Metagaming should cause predictable outcomes in players which you can exploit.
(1) as the a priori (i.e. before actually playing the game) knowledge about your opponent's strategy. Metagame can apply to a player : against someone I know well, who always make a timing push, I'll prepare for it. But it can apply to the community as a whole: for instance, on Shakuras ZvP, I can expect protoss to forge fast expand.
(2) Metagaming, as a consequence would be adapting your strategy to this knowledge called metagame. (either cutting corners when you know there is no danger, or all-ining when you know your opponent will be exposed).
Then I think the big question would be: is metagame (as the a priori knowledge about the game) the description of what someone can do (in absolute), or what someone is used to doing ? and as a consequence, when metagaming, are you rationnally anticipating all possibilities, or are you just betting on some habits of your opponent?
Then, to say it differently, if we restrict the meaning of metagaming to that of (3) betting on habits (against rational anticipation), there is the following question: can you game without metagaming? what is at stake here is luck: because if you are betting on habits of your opponent, then your opponent may want to bet on your bet, or metagame your metagame habits and and so on, logically ad infinitum, to the point where strategies are luck based (because in the real world you randomly stop at some point of the regression).
To tell it differently, is sc2 luck based or not? is there a way to play that will not bet to get a superior position? That would be the question My impression being that all other things being equal (like execution capacities, and so on) it may well be the case.
From the dawn of all time (starcraft 1 release) to this moment, word "metagame" was used to describe current tredns in choosing an opening strategy, how to counter opponent's opening. It also describes current ways of choosing certain unit compositions, rate of expanding etc. It's a set of rules that govern most players to play the game in this particular way, because they think it's currently the best way to play.
It's important to point out that metagame constantly shifts. Metagame changes everytime when certain strategy/tactic is being discovered/perfected, so more players start to use it. In order to counter the new strategy, other races need to figure out strategies that counter/defend it. That's why we constantly see small fluctuations in win rates of each race as the time passes.
What is very curious though, Metagame can be different in the same time period. For example between servers (NA, EU, KR). On one server, players tend to all-in more, on another we can observe fast expands almost all the time.
On February 03 2012 22:33 5ukkub wrote: From the dawn of all time (starcraft 1 release) to this moment, word "metagame" was used to describe current tredns in choosing an opening strategy, how to counter opponent's opening. It also describes current ways of choosing certain unit compositions, rate of expanding etc. It's a set of rules that govern most players to play the game in this particular way, because they think it's currently the best way to play.
It's important to point out that metagame constantly shifts. Metagame changes everytime when certain strategy/tactic is being discovered/perfected, so more players start to use it. In order to counter the new strategy, other races need to figure out strategies that counter/defend it. That's why we constantly see small fluctuations in win rates of each race as the time passes.
What is very curious though, Metagame can be different in the same time period. For example between servers (NA, EU, KR). On one server, players tend to all-in more, on another we can observe fast expands almost all the time.
On February 03 2012 22:33 5ukkub wrote: From the dawn of all time (starcraft 1 release) to this moment, word "metagame" was used to describe current tredns in choosing an opening strategy, how to counter opponent's opening. It also describes current ways of choosing certain unit compositions, rate of expanding etc. It's a set of rules that govern most players to play the game in this particular way, because they think it's currently the best way to play.
It's important to point out that metagame constantly shifts. Metagame changes everytime when certain strategy/tactic is being discovered/perfected, so more players start to use it. In order to counter the new strategy, other races need to figure out strategies that counter/defend it. That's why we constantly see small fluctuations in win rates of each race as the time passes.
What is very curious though, Metagame can be different in the same time period. For example between servers (NA, EU, KR). On one server, players tend to all-in more, on another we can observe fast expands almost all the time.
Having played M:TG A long while ago. I remember when it was meta-game to main deck splinter vs tinker.
Then again, what you did in your deck to kill Masticore + Tinker + Metalworker.... and grim monoliths.
Or, when bargain first hit..... Hell I had a Spellbomb deck that beat most everything was hillarious and yes, that was metagame.
Currently? The term has changed for SC2 and it does somewhat fit by making a choice that is not the normal of play which is what metagame to me means. anyway.
On February 03 2012 06:19 Chill wrote: 99% of the discussion: Metagame doesn't mean "the current state of strategy". You hear LoL players talking about "new meta" or "current meta". That's the wrong usage. That's just "current strategies", not "metagame".
A word means what people make it mean, like history has shown thousands of times. Whatever metagame first meant, I like the meaning it has adopted. The 'state of currently popular/dominant strategies' is metagame. The fact stands that there's a need for a word to fill this meaning, whether you use metagame or some other word - and good luck introducing a completely new word.
I'd rather use metagame 'wrongly', than have to use 'the current popular strategies' all the time.
On the other hand, your version of the meaning of "metagame" is perfectly covered by the term 'mind games', is it not?
----- Also, "current strategies" doesn't mean anything. A strategy can't be not-current. A strategy is a strategy. A brick is a brick. A certain way of laying bricks is not popular in the current state of architectural knowledge. Just like a certain strategy isn't popular in the current metagame.
On February 03 2012 23:28 NekoFlandre wrote: Having played M:TG A long while ago. I remember when it was meta-game to main deck splinter vs tinker.
Then again, what you did in your deck to kill Masticore + Tinker + Metalworker.... and grim monoliths.
Or, when bargain first hit..... Hell I had a Spellbomb deck that beat most everything was hillarious and yes, that was metagame.
Currently? The term has changed for SC2 and it does somewhat fit by making a choice that is not the normal of play which is what metagame to me means. anyway.
Wait, so the definition of the word metagame shifts depending on the game?
I think a lot of people were pissed that others were missusing the term so they just wanted to get rid of it altogether. But that leaves us with an important concept (the prevailing strategies and the reasoning behind them) with no label.
The problem is that metagame is used in different games often with similar but not exactly identical meanings. Poker is ok, because metagame means pretty much the same (or at least it did, when it was in common use, the commenting metagame has shifted since 2008). But in Mafia playing the metagame used to mean planning your play ahead between games, playing in a way that allowed you to win with any role. More closely related to mindgames, style and balancing in poker or starcraft. And the metagame was just the unending series of games played by a community who had a shared knowledge of the players' preferred posting styles.
On February 03 2012 08:13 HardlyNever wrote: This discussion is pretty pointless, tbh.
First, there are people trying to control language, particularly English, which is dumb. People have tried to do it for centuries, and it doesn't work. Only in places like France, where the government controls the language, and it isn't spoken all that widely outside of the country anymore (yes, I know they speak in in parts of Canada and other places) does something like "controlling language" even begin to work.
Technical language can be controlled pretty well and sees more benefits from such control. Comparing the evolution of the meaning of metagame to the evolution of slang or idioms or language in general is not helpful.
How can it be controlled "pretty well?" Who is doing the controlling? Do you honestly believe this thread or even the TL community will change the way casters/players use the term "metagame?"
By controlling pretty well I mean that the correct and most useful definition of a term stays consistent. I don't believe that the TL community will change anything because the TL community already has changed it. Casters and players have been using the term well for years due to efforts by the TL community.
On February 03 2012 08:13 HardlyNever wrote: This discussion is pretty pointless, tbh.
First, there are people trying to control language, particularly English, which is dumb. People have tried to do it for centuries, and it doesn't work. Only in places like France, where the government controls the language, and it isn't spoken all that widely outside of the country anymore (yes, I know they speak in in parts of Canada and other places) does something like "controlling language" even begin to work.
Technical language can be controlled pretty well and sees more benefits from such control. Comparing the evolution of the meaning of metagame to the evolution of slang or idioms or language in general is not helpful.
How can it be controlled "pretty well?" Who is doing the controlling? Do you honestly believe this thread or even the TL community will change the way casters/players use the term "metagame?"
By controlling pretty well I mean that the correct and most useful definition of a term stays consistent. I don't believe that the TL community will change anything because the TL community already has changed it. Casters and players have been using the term well for years due to efforts by the TL community.
Ok, I'm honestly a little confused. I was lead to believe(by this thread) that the way the community (i.e. casters/players) have been using the word metagame to describe the current set of strategies in any given matchup was "incorrect" by the "true definition" of the word.
My argument was that, in general, the community had been using the word fairly consistently, even if it doesn't match up exactly with the "definition" of the word, and most people understood what each other meant by the term "metagame" within the context of starcraft.
Whether this has been a result of any effort by TL or any other community is, frankly, impossible to measure, but that isn't that important.
Are you saying that the word has been consistently used "incorrectly" (i.e. the current strategies usage), or that is has been use "correctly" consistently?
On February 03 2012 04:14 iamke55 wrote: Yeah it's really annoying when people use "metagame" when they mean to say "mindgame". No, you didn't metagame your opponent no matter how smart you think you sound when you say that. You predicted him. Or mindgamed him.
I think to say the "probabilistic distribution of strategies" is a little too specific though. In the SC community we don't have access to probability distributions like in Magic or other cardgames where you can map out the metagame with specific percentages for each deck type, but we can still do it by feel. I don't think anyone has stats about how often 2 rax is used instead of reactor hellions in TvZ, for example, but it's obvious that reactor hellions have become a bigger part of the metagame over time. On Smogon we use probabilistic distributions within each of the different metagames played, so the latter term is clearly quite different.
If you disagree with my definitions, please realize that there are gaming communities where they are the common use. The starcraft community did not invent the term "metagame", so if you feel the need to correct them to the standard local usage, please do so politely.
I'd replace the "please do so politely" with a "don't post at all".
On February 03 2012 03:54 pandaburn wrote: In this community, the standard, accepted use of the word "metagame" was, essentially, the probabilistic distribution of strategies you expect to face when sitting down across from a random opponent. This makes sense to me, as these are the factors that one has to consider when choosing a deck to play, or a decision to make in a game, that have nothing to do with the actual rules.
What you've described is just trends, or one step beyond trends. Trends are useful for one part of the metagame but they aren't the metagame.
For example, if the trend is for Protoss to fast expand PvT on Terminus, then a Terran would be playing the metagame by doing a blind proxy 2rax, or would be "metagaming him" by doing a blind proxy 2rax. Protoss going fast expand PvT on Terminus is not the metagame.
Maybe we should release a Starcraft dictionary, the misuage and misconclusions drive me a little bit insane from time to time.
So I'll admit I didn't read through every post on this thread, but I was wondering if this example would conform to most people's definition of the word:
Current strategies are not the metagame, they are simply current popular strategies.
Using your knowledge of current strategies (knowledge that extends past the current game you're in) to gain an in-game advantage without any actual in-game knowledge (ie scouting) would be considered metagaming.
Does this look right to people? It's about the use of the outside knowledge you have, rather than the actual knowledge itself.
On February 03 2012 19:42 derfuhrer wrote: A friend who frequents this website directed me to this thread, since it's active and we recently argued about the term metagame when he used the word in a text message, and I screamed at him for uttering nonsense. The subject, and the game in question, are both interesting to me, and I thought I might take this opportunity to set the record straight once and for all.
I will preface this by saying that I am more educated on this subject than every single person on this forum. I will treat the subject from every angle I can think of. Bear with me, because these concepts will by the end of this post become quite relevant to StarCraft -- far more than anything that's been said so far.
Yes, "meta" does mean outside/beyond/above/etc., even though in Greek it means adjacent. This is because when Aristotle wrote Metaphysics, it was so named because it came right after Physics, and was therefore adjacent. But the subject matter was (mis)understood to be "above" or "beyond" physics, so the prefix evolved to mean beyond/outside. And now it DOES mean that, as far as anyone needs to be concerned, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. This is English now, not Greek anymore, and we have our own relationships between words unique to our language.
It was brought up in this thread that the sounds that make up words do not have intrinsic meaning but are merely signifiers. This is technically correct, but in practice you are employing this principle to reach a false conclusion. Words in practice DO have intrinsic meaning because they do in our minds. The word red in our minds will always be tied to the image, and when enough of these images are related to sounds, we are able to write dictionaries where words actually do mean something. So our experiences CREATE intrinsic meaning in words (not in the strict logical sense, but psychologically)... and then, those words in turn create new experiences in our minds. I'll get to that later.
And now I will have to completely change direction and attack the nature of a game. The word "game" is undefined (philosophically), but what's known is that games have rules, and rules by definition cannot be broken. Laws, in contrast, can. You might be thinking, "What about the laws of the universe?!" The word "laws" belongs in the context of humanity. You can break the law -- by stealing, etc. The universe is a Game (the only game), and physics is an approximation and an abstraction of the rules of that game. Those rules cannot be broken because they follow as absolute necessities from cause and effect -- that is a deep philosophical subject, however, and one that you will just have to trust me on. Rules cannot be broken.
Further, it is impossible to draw a line and saw that this is where the rules of one game end and where the rules of another game begin. The reason, for example, that you can't travel faster than light in a videogame is because you can't travel faster than light in the universe (according to Einstein's theory, that is). BUT WHAT?! WHAT ABOUT GAMES WHERE YOU GO INTO HYPERSPACE? -- Those are just randomly colored pixels on a screen, moron. Images and words creating the illusion of hyperspace travel is not identical to hyperspace travel. Even if a computer simulation were developed with the intention of simulating faster-than-light travel, it would be impossible for that simulation to actually be able to simulate faster-than-light travel, because that would require... metaprogramming! It would only ever be able to simulate an illusion of faster-than-light travel. (Again, assuming Einstein was right.)
Now before we can reach the final point, we have to make a distinction between electronic games/board games/card games/etc. and games in real life. It is truly impossible to break a game's rules, no matter what kind of game it is. When you do "break" a game's rules, what's MEANT by this expression is that you started playing your own game. So if you break a "rule" in a tournament (a tournament is a real life game), in my language that would mean you broke a (human) law, which actually means that you stopped playing the game (the tournament) everyone else was playing and started playing your own version of the game (your own tournament with its own rules).
So a tournament, as such, being a game, consists of rules that can never, therefore, be laws, but in practice they are laws because people break them. If you remind someone before a match that you beat them last time (in order to mess with their head), is there some code that executes in the electronic game (or some rule that magically appears in the rulebook) to delete that comment and erase it from their memory? If not, then it is within the rules of the game because you were ABLE TO DO IT. Now you might have broken a tournament's rules (laws, because they're breakable), at which point you aren't playing their game anymore, since a game is defined as something with rules. Or you may have stopped playing some weird board game that forbids you from talking or whatever, and started playing your own version of the game that does permit you.
So now we come to StarCraft and its use of the word "metagame". This word essentially refers to a game's morality. Morality is a set of conventions, mores, TRENDS, etc. A game like Go is very simple in its ruleset (it's like 3-5 rules, depending on how you count them I guess), so it's assumed and expected that you're going to play mindgames in some way shape or form. It's assumed that you're going to know how people are playing the game today. It's assumed you're going to know contemporary joseki, and it would be surprising to a modern Go player if they saw you using some really old joseki. But it's all part of the game.
StarCraft, on the other hand, is a videogame and therefore is the product of thousands of years of art/game development. It has a shitload of rules. So psychological warfare and the like aren't immediately considered even as primary tactics, morally speaking. People who use the word "metagame" a lot are basically saying that there is a MINIGAME within StarCraft with its own rules (which, in practice are laws because this minigame is a social contract as it is in tournaments) and anyone who incorporates knowledge from outside that minigame is "metagaming". The problem with this is that it would be physically impossible for StarCraft to exist without bringing in externalities, because if you couldn't bring you and your experiences to the game you wouldn't be able to play it, and if you wouldn't be able to play it, it wouldn't exist. It would just be 1s and 0s on a disc.
In other words, by telling people that they are bringing their selves and their experiences into the "game", the "metagaming" people have turned the act of playing a game, such as StarCraft, Magic, etc., into a metagame by introducing their own games that exist within the electronic, board, or card games. There is simply no way a person can divorce their StarCraft life from everything else. The breakfast you ate on a particular morning will influence how well you play to some small degree, and knowledge of the trends will ALWAYS influence how you play whether you want it to or not. Even if you were to deliberately try avoiding acting on that knowledge, you would simply be acting on it anyway -- by avoiding it, because you might have done something else if you had remained completely ignorant.
By using this word "metagame" you (as well as MTG players, etc.), have allowed it TO INVADE YOUR PSYCHOLOGY (which is what words do), creating a fictional layer of morality (a minigame) within the unbreakable ruleset of StarCraft. The correct way to say "the metagame has changed a lot" is "the game has changed a lot" (if we're talking about patches) or otherwise "the strategies have shifted". It's fucking clear and simple, lol, no more dumb threads about it. And then, "she wanted to cheese him, so he metagamed her" is certainly not "she wanted to cheese him, so he 'PARADIGMED' her" or whatever lolol. You say "he gamed her", meaning he fully exploited the game's possibility-space to win using all the means at his disposal, including his brain without which he wouldn't be playing at all. Duh. Problem solved, everyone can be happy now except losers who fear change.
It really surprises me how some people can talk so much without saying anything.
On February 04 2012 08:39 TrickyGilligan wrote: So I'll admit I didn't read through every post on this thread, but I was wondering if this example would conform to most people's definition of the word:
Current strategies are not the metagame, they are simply current popular strategies.
Using your knowledge of current strategies (knowledge that extends past the current game you're in) to gain an in-game advantage without any actual in-game knowledge (ie scouting) would be considered metagaming.
Does this look right to people? It's about the use of the outside knowledge you have, rather than the actual knowledge itself.
On February 04 2012 08:39 TrickyGilligan wrote: So I'll admit I didn't read through every post on this thread, but I was wondering if this example would conform to most people's definition of the word:
Current strategies are not the metagame, they are simply current popular strategies.
Using your knowledge of current strategies (knowledge that extends past the current game you're in) to gain an in-game advantage without any actual in-game knowledge (ie scouting) would be considered metagaming.
Does this look right to people? It's about the use of the outside knowledge you have, rather than the actual knowledge itself.
On February 03 2012 11:33 itsjustatank wrote: Speak for yourself. In my case, I'd rather people communicate effectively and correctly moving forward. I do not believe that our language is inevitability doomed to 'degradation and dithering,' and everything I have said in this thread is in an attempt to prevent that from happening. .
It is absolutely doomed to "degradation and dithering." It has been for centuries. This isn't something to bemoan though; rather, it is the beautiful fluidity and vitality of a language that allows its meanings, constructions and uses to fit the experiences of new generations.
I agree with some of your post and we obviously cannot effectively communicate in a world where we make meaningless sounds and signs, but meaning is changed, obscured, amplified and annihilated over time, without stopping. Words and meaning are never, ever static. I'm sure you know just as many examples as I do.
On February 03 2012 08:13 HardlyNever wrote: This discussion is pretty pointless, tbh.
First, there are people trying to control language, particularly English, which is dumb. People have tried to do it for centuries, and it doesn't work. Only in places like France, where the government controls the language, and it isn't spoken all that widely outside of the country anymore (yes, I know they speak in in parts of Canada and other places) does something like "controlling language" even begin to work.
Technical language can be controlled pretty well and sees more benefits from such control. Comparing the evolution of the meaning of metagame to the evolution of slang or idioms or language in general is not helpful.
How can it be controlled "pretty well?" Who is doing the controlling? Do you honestly believe this thread or even the TL community will change the way casters/players use the term "metagame?"
By controlling pretty well I mean that the correct and most useful definition of a term stays consistent. I don't believe that the TL community will change anything because the TL community already has changed it. Casters and players have been using the term well for years due to efforts by the TL community.
Thanks to Tyler/Chill for pointing out the correct usage, as well as the stubborn individuals that have atrociously butchered the term...I now know after 1 year on TL the correct usage of metagame. Now that I understand that it doesn't mean "current trends/popular strategies" as I thought it was, I feel relieved cause it bugged the crap outta me that people kept bitching back and forth about it's this, and it's not that but I never knew who was right. Now that it's clear, everyone should man the fuck up and use the proper term (actually don't even need to 'man up' just do it not that hard). All I hear is people being lazy, "wahh wahh I don't wanna use it correctly because I was always too lazy to figure out the proper usage." Yes that is basically what many of you are saying. I admit I too didn't know it's real meaning before, but now that I do I'm glad I can use it correctly.
Quit being lazy. Is it that difficult to use it correctly now that you guys have been shown the correct way?
It's like when you think you're right, but then later you find out you were wrong all along. On this thread people think they were right, then find out they're wrong, but still want to be wrong "just because"...you guys make no sense.
Just as a note about the term 'paradigm shift'. I would argue this is an even bigger change than the current one being discussed (ie. paradigm and meta are not synonymous). A paradigm shift would be an entire new approach to the way a race and matchup is being thought out (a new way of thinking essentially), one which it has been argued for a long time that Protoss players need to utilise.
The Bisu Build was a paradigm shift as it was such a new and inspirational way of thinking about the matchup (the key word here is thinking, not playing).
To put it even more simply, discovering a potential cure for cancer would require a meta~ shift (where do we go from here?). Discovering particles which can travel faster than light requires a paradigm shift (how do we approach this differently?)
Why can't we use both meanings? From dictionary.com Homonym - a word the same as another in sound and spelling but different in meaning, as chase “to pursue” and chase “to ornament metal.”
Metagaming would be acquiring knowledge of a certain opponent ahead of time and using that knowledge to make a decision in game that may have not been made otherwise. I am 100% certain this is correct. Saying the current metagame of terran is X or saying that you metagame opponents without knowing anything about them and with out ever having playing them before is simply incorrect. there is no "new" evolved meaning. That is that. and if you want to use it improperly, go ahead. Thats like defending your use of the word 'faggot' by saying the meaning has evolved and that it isn't meant as a put down towards gay, cut the bullshit.
On February 04 2012 08:39 TrickyGilligan wrote: So I'll admit I didn't read through every post on this thread, but I was wondering if this example would conform to most people's definition of the word:
Current strategies are not the metagame, they are simply current popular strategies.
Using your knowledge of current strategies (knowledge that extends past the current game you're in) to gain an in-game advantage without any actual in-game knowledge (ie scouting) would be considered metagaming.
Does this look right to people? It's about the use of the outside knowledge you have, rather than the actual knowledge itself.
Partially right, however this "outside knowledge" only consists of current most succesfull openings, unit compositions, tactics etc. Metagaming would be to use this knowledge to determine the best way to play the game in order to get ahead of your opponent. That means using current safest builds or strongest all-ins plus your own new ideas how to get ahead using game mechanics.
Mindgame however is to use the knowledge about the opponent and the enviroment. It's an attempt to distract your opponent, drive him out of focus, make him feel nervous, weak etc. It can be done in many ways, for example by intimidation, misinformation, drawing attention and pressure of spectators/fans. etc. Even simply by not responding to "gg gl hf" you're mindgaming your opponent. A very complex and interesting mindgame is during a long (BO 5-7-9) match, when by simply going to toilet, having technical issues, talking to teammates, can heavly influence your opponent.
There is one specific area of mindgame that can be misred as metagame. It is using the game itself to mindgame your opponent. You can choose a specific map, opening, tactic etc. not based on it's strengths, but to use them as a tool to make your opponent feel uncomfortable. "I know he can be easly tilted by cheese, so i'll cheese him" "I've already lost on this map, but i'll try to wear my opponent down, since i know he's already tired plus i'll choose a macro map and strategy next game to use it agains him"
'Meta' is a prefix meaning 'beyond.' 'Metagaming is then 'beyond the game,' which refers to tactics within the game that exploit factors outside of the game, or external factors influencing decisions within the game.
Correct usage is as subtle as correct usage of 'irony,' which is why people get so annoyed by it.
Statements like 'the zerg player is going roaches because the current metagame is for terran to go reactored hellions,' are just horribly incorrect. That is not a metagame decision, that is just a game decision, it is the nature of the game that makes hellions a strong opening, and similarly it is the nature of the game that makes early roaches a good response. Nothing 'beyond' the game is taking place in anyway.
Something like 'I am playing Flash, he will probably go 14 CC, so I will proxy rax him,' is a metagame decision. You're using information of the circumstances 'beyond' the game to influence your decision within the game.
Furthermore, doing things like dropping multiple locations simultaneously to stress an opponents multitasking, or 6 pooling in the first game of a set, not for an outright win, but to throw an opponent off his mindset are metagame tactics. You're doing something within the game that exploits the situation 'beyond' the game.
Nazgul's blink stalker build vs Idra is a metagame build, the strategy was crafted to exploit a specific player's playstyle.
I must say, I am definitely one of the people that feels sick whenever I hear statements like 'the current TvZ metagame.' There's nothing 'beyond' the game about it,
On February 04 2012 22:47 RedFury wrote: Metagame is not a verb, why people still continue using that way =(
Well with all words whether or not they are meant to be used as nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc their definitions change over time as more and more people agree on their usage as otherwise.
9 pages. Not a single incidence of the word 'sweet.' Disappointed.
Anyway, it's just jargon. Would it make the remotest bit of sense to anyone not familiar with its use? Probably not. Yet it has become effective shorthand, as a verb, to refer to playing mindgames with one's opponent in using an otherwise vulnerable build order without being punished. Personally, I'm fine with 'metagame' expressing the specificity of that, though it may not be denotationally correct.
EPT
nice write up btw^^
SC2 community has brought us so many teenagers ;_;
