You must log in or register to comment.
The kind of corrolary to this is that any game that is stagnating eventually becomes just a fashion show of cosmetic competition.
With MMOs, you can see that by the end stage of its lifecycle, no one is even really playing the game for the sake of playing the game, the community is probably insular and ossified, and is just literally competing in terms of style.
With MTX games full of cosmetics from day one?
Yep, the game is functionally dead on arrival, expect little to no meaningful free game updates, lots of stuff will just be broken and probably never really fixed…
…because the whole point of such a game is just to be a platform, a marketplace, for selling you ‘digital goods’, and it just uses the form of a game, and often all the dark patterns, to lure you in and keep you addicted to it.
EDIT:
Upon further reflection:
A Gacha game very much is, imo, a psuedogame, in the same way a pseudoscientist is fundamentally an impostor, only superficially behaving as the true thing behaves, which it fundamentally is not.
I think that’s only part of it. Take a game like any monster catching one. There is going to be a meta, a “tier list” that tells you that these monsters are the best of the best. And that’s fine. But the problem is when the game is poorly balanced so if you don’t play the meta, you can’t complete the game. If I can’t beat the game using what I like, the game is just telling me that I shouldn’t play it.
This is true as well.
I just tried to give a bit further, linguistic type breakdown for watson in another comment.
Yeah its… kinda hard to nail down precisely how this term truly, fully works in English, at the moment.
Which itself is extremely meta, in a different sense of the word meta.
wtf is “the meta”?
The best/optimal items.
That’s pretty much what I thought from context, but where did the term come from?
It comes from the word metagame, i.e. the game beyond the game. I think it originally comes from game theory (the field of mathematics), later it began to be used in both game development and game playing (with slightly different meanings).
Eureka! Now I’m definitely familiar with that concept as a part of game design theory, I just haven’t heard that term before.
This is exactly the answer I was looking for. Thank you.
Not sure, but it has been around for a long time (20+ years).
Not only have I been gaming for 40+ years, I’ve written a bunch of games. I’ve never heard this term.
But I’ll take your word for it ;)
I remember it from early StarCraft, where balance patches would often “shift the meta” making some build and strategies so good (or bad) that you basically had to use them (or couldn’t use them) if you wanted to be competitive. Popular viable builds would often be referred to as the “current meta”.
So, it was actually in the game? The term “Meta” in this context?
I’m curious about the origin of the term, so if it came from star craft, that would be the answer I’m looking for.
So, it was actually in the game? The term “Meta” in this context?
It’s more like knowing that “people online will do that, so I have to do this”. The mind game between the players. But I think you already got some better answers.
I don’t think it originated from StarCraft, that’s just where I recall first hearing it.
Been hearing this term for a long while. It’s specially prevalent in games where there’s a strong competitive scene or in games where you can practice min-maxxing. You won’t use the term (normally) in a game like The Sims or any other game where there is no “goal” to achieve; but if there is a goal (even just a boss fight) and there are multiple alternatives to tackle it, you will hear the term eventually.
The concept of “the meta” arises from the idea of players playing a metagame in which they’re picking strategies which work well against the strategies other players pick. The idea I think was that it wasn’t necessarily the best strategy, but it was one that reliably worked against those strategies others pick, so it highlights the possibility that there are unexplored strategies.
But because it identified popular strategies it became used just to mean that even in single player games where there is no metagame at all.
When I heard it used back in the days if collectible card games, it seemed like it was describing the abstract ‘game’ rather than a particular game between two players. So a particular card (or weapon or ship) can be good within a game, depending on your opponent or play style. But sometimes a card or strategy is found by the community to be highly effective so in the ‘metagame’ it comes to dominate.
New cards would come out and change the meta. Even if you don’t buy then or use them, knowing that they exist and are effective changes how other players build decks and so you might need to change your play style to adapt to the new metagame.
The meta in any given game is “the most effective tactic available” or just information acquired outside of the game to be efficient.
Like you could pick a class like warrior in some game and hours into playing realise that its the most difficult class to play, meanwhile the sorcerer is easy and good out the gate, so people would look up the best class/gear/shortcuts/exploits even before starting a game to be the most efficient, instead of just playing what they like.
While Million’s explanation is good, I’d like to try my own phrasing:
In this context, setting up your character’s armor by ‘the meta’ would basically mean picking the armor with the best stats, that maybe synergize with each other and/or the playstyle/class build that is the most overpowered, most broken.
You could maybe call that ‘optimizing the fun out of the game’.
What this person, OP, is saying is… nah, I’m just gonna pick the armor/clothes I think look the best, knowing that will make things harder for me than just choosing the ‘optimal’ armor, and I’ll either git gud at the game, or die trying.
Its… kind of like how DBZ characters wear weighted clothes.
Its an intentional, chosen handicap, in a gameplay mechanics sense, that makes things more difficult, so training / playing the game is harder… but if you can handle it, you’re probably going to be better at the game.
OK, see, I understand that. I think the disconnect comes from the fact that I avoid multiplayer games, and even when I played them, I never talk to anyone else who’s playing.
I’m certainly familiar with this concept as a part of game design theory, and certainly in all of the games I’ve played. I’ve just never heard the term, and I think it’s just because I don’t talk to a lot of other gamers.
Thanks for the explanation!
Yep!
Its mostly a thing with multiplayer rpg type games, but, the term ‘the meta’ most broadly, at this point, basically just means ‘best strategy’.
You could have a meta in a shooter game, for gun/armor loadouts that go well with certain tactics, maybe fast ninja with smgs and flash bangs always beats tanky bomb diffusal armor with a mini gun, for some reason.
You could have it with dark souls type games, a single player (basically) game with a bunch of possible skill tree builds and classes and weapons and such.
But, linguistically, its also kind of weird because ‘the meta’ can also refer to… all of those possible strategies, at once, within one game… or even a similar class or family of games!
Or ‘a meta’ or ‘the XYZ meta’ could also refer to a singular strategy within a game, or maybe a family of related strategies within a game.
… It makes more sense if you just regularly hear people using the term outloud.
As a longtime gamer, I’m definitely familiar with the concept. I had just never heard it referred to as “the Meta” before
Thanks!
I’ll never forget an old MTG article about the 3 different types of players. I’ve found that it applies to most games and a lot of life too. There are Spike, Timmy, and Johnny.
Spike players just want to win. They don’t care if the way they win isn’t fun or interesting. All they care about is the W.
Timmy players are all about style. They don’t care if they lose as long as they do something big, flashy, and cool.
Johnny players are in between. They want to win with style. They want the big flashy move to win them the game.
All three players are having fun but they define “fun” in their own ways. Games should try to have ways to satisfy all three types of players.
You forgot the funnest two, Melvin and Vorthos!
Melvin is the mechanics guy, he plays because he loves the complex interaction between different parts. This is the guy building fully automated redstone in Minecraft.
Vothos is the lore master. He might not even be good at the game but he can recite the history of Tamriel in elder scrolls verbatim.
You are forgetting about Steve. Steve doesn’t care about winning, Steve only wants you to suffer. He will play a mono blue deck (or red with tons of removal) full of counters and spells to bounce back permanents to your hand. He will have a single 1/1 flier to poke at you every turn while he stops you from playing the game completely. Go fuck yourself Steve. (also Teemo main in league)
Isn’t there like a Winston?
Winston is a filthy casual. Complicated rules, paragraphs on the card, any automation, doing too many things in a single turn are all reasons he doesn’t have fun. He isn’t very bright. He is the antithesis of Spike. He has fun by playing the game for a reasonable length of time.
Losing on turn 1 is the culmination of everything Winston hates.
Source: Am a Winston…
Right now Winston stops playing every CGC because of incessant power creep.
This is a great thread. I’ll add Jesse.
Jesse is there to hang out with his buddies and wants to just BS.
The game is just common ground for a Jesse or group of Jesse’s to shoot the shit for an hour or two at the end of a long day. Previous generation would find your Jesse hanging out at the bar, or sports ball games. Jesse’s really started appearing in games en masse during covid. They aren’t necessarily good at the game, often bad, but that doesn’t matter.
My gaming group are all Jesse’s.
You forgot the funnest two, Melvin and Vorthos!
Melvin is the mechanics guy, he plays because he loves the complex interaction between different parts. This is the guy building fully automated redstone in Minecraft.
Vothos is the lore master. He might not even be good at the game but he can recite the history of Tamriel in elder scrolls verbatim.
I am Vothos when it comes to Warhammer 40k. I don’t play the table top, I just like the minis and lore
Games shouldn’t satisfy people who just crave winning no matter what.
It’s as absurd as saying that some people want art to be beautiful, some want it to be meaningful, and some want it to just be boobs, and that you should satisfy all of them.
Games should have a point, and winning is not a point on its own. People who focus on winning are typically and almost exclusively the ones that make games become shittier and shittier. And not just games but anything that can remotely have a “win”.
Games should have a point, and winning is not a point on its own.
Why not? Is wanting to win not a valid motivator to play a game?
It is, but if it is your only motivator, the games shouldn’t cater to you.
Yes they should. Playing competitively and with a focus on winning is just as good as any other reason to play games.
Here’s an alternative perspective.
Yet somehow still end up as a Skyrim stealth archer.
Never happened to me, but I hate shooters.
Especially in RPGs, you shouldn’t want the most efficient build possible because those are boring. You should instead want something that is fun to play and fits your character.
I immensely enjoyed dual wielding swords and using the time stop shout. Its DPS was so high, they could kill an entire room of enemies before the time stop ended. making them all fall to the ground at the same time while you sheath your swords like a badass.
Or the time I played in VR a stealth conjuration/necromancer. I could just sit on the floor and nobody could find me. While my minions did all the fighting. If an enemy died, their corps would be raised and added to my army.
The humorous bit to me is I have never even been tempted to stealth arch. I just started flaming people to death from level one and never stop. Why, yes, I will kill alduin with double handed flames, thank you very much!
This is me in any game too. If the game offers you a bunch of alternatives but makes it impossible/insufferable to play outside the meta, then the game is not worth my time. I should play a game the way I want, not the way the developer decides to force even though they gave me other alternatives.
Play any MOBA with chat disabled.
What if the cutest gear IS the meta?! Never say never
That’s how I used to play World of Warcraft. Two-handed Shockadin forever!
We had a paladin with a thunderfury …
Did somebody say [Thunderfury, Blessed Blade of the Windseeker]?
Same but i pick the largest fattest slowest guy because i find it funny to kill the lightly armoured fast moving players with a fat slow guy.
she says condiii~
