Talk:Metagame

message: There is a new game studies paper which investigates the emic usages of the term metagame. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2282338.2282346&coll=DL&dl=GUIDE. Perhaps worth involving. 128.250.26.20 (talk) 03:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "Playing with the rules instead of playing the game" is NOT metagaming. A "rules lawyer" (someone who obsesses about the rules or tries to exploit loopholes) is still playing the game. Metagaming is about doing something *beyond* the rules as written. The andf (talk) 23:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

text: In response to the above edit -- yes, that is true. Its a definition commonly used in reference to SSBM. -- The M.P. 03:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That seems a really simplistic definition of metagame since that seems to be largely part of the primary game mechanics.  It's often the case in fighting games that there are easier to use characters and harder to use characters with more potential.  How is that considered beyond the normal gameplay mechanic?
64.233.51.146 21:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments with no heading 

message: move. -- Kjkolb 05:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: This article begins by defining metagaming as things done outside of the intended rules of the game, but several of the examples and much of the body text in the article define metagaming as simply advanced strategy within the intended rules of a game. Ideally, someone should find a reliable source on what metagaming is, cite it, and rewrite the article to match it. In the worst case, this article should be nominated for deletion as original research until someone can find a clear definition. Luvcraft 15:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is, with terms like these, they are simply terms emerged into (relatively) common usage by the gaming community. There will be no "official source" with a definition save for one maybe discussed here and reach a common consensus of. Nor will there be one single definition for this term, as it is too broadly used for various different situations. The issue here is not finding one definition, rather, it's to rewrite a more general introduction and break down each individual common usages. Allan Lee 16:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is very much a postmodernist idea (come to think, anything with the word "meta-" in it is bound to have some element of postmodernism in it, unless it's referring to metastasis).  It's very difficult, as a result, to define it without getting it wrong or something.Brokenwit 07:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see the contradictions: what are they explicitly ? --195.137.93.171 02:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  contradiction 

message: Definations and opinions I am adding are more to the RP and RPG sphere of the defination, I do hope it aids to
in clairifying at least part of the contradiction.  It is based strictly on administrative works and ovservations within various enviroments.
In the RP enviroments there are many factors that would constitue "meta-gaming".  In its most basic form it would be "the useage of information, knowledge or skills that would not be normally known to the character in question to gain advantage over another character, situation/scenaro."  This does include willingly useing information.  Say, planning to meet up with a foe to give other players a show of a battle, useing biographies to know a players past AS a player and so forth.
This would extend into spotting an in game exploit or farming areas for items of experience in the eyes of many.  To me these are different factors that I address from a different angle as an administrator and not metagaming per-say.
The part of the article covering this sphere seems to be pretty close to the mark.
Korbin Deathstalker 23:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few clairifications?? 

message: In my opinion, this article is confusing to many people because it co-incides with their definition of "strategy". Aren't most strategies a form of metagaming? Also, in any game that does not force the rules upon you (as a computer game would), but requires you to know the rules (for example, a card game), you are "metagaming" when you play, no? [edited for clarity] 
69.65.232.61 (talk) 06:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strategy 

message: How would one reference the use of in-game elements such as pop-up chat boxes or other mechanics, that are still in-game, but would alter the outcome of a play?  I will cite two examples from the MMO EVE Online.
* 1.) One could normally not shoot another neutral player in "empire" space without having his ship destroyed by "CONCORD" as a penalty.  However, if the player (typically a griefer) were to invite the victim to a fleet and the request is accepted, the griefer could attack without penalty.  This would be (is) considered "abuse of a game mechanic."  
* 2.) While engaging in one-on-one PvP, Player A repeatedly sends chat requests to Player B, resulting in numerous chat request pop-ups appearing on Player B's screen.  This poses a significant distraction to Player B, and gives Player A an unfair advantage.
I think these instances would fall under the category of metagaming because it involves the use of an in-game function outside the scope of the given game world.
Stovetopcookies (talk) 05:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misuse of Auxillary Game Mechanics 

message: XBOX 360 and Playstation 3 have an achievement system and a trophy system respectively. This introduces a meta element to the game play as in addtion to the completion of the game being played users compete in the meta game which is to get as many gamer points as possible across all games.
I have frequently heard achievment whoring (which involves purchasing a game with the sole purpose of getting the maximum achievements out of it) referred to as metagaming.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.144.200 (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Achievements and Trophies 

message: This article contains many examples and illustrations of metagaming, but not much discussion of them.  It also suffers from the very broad range of activity covered by metagaming: from picking a DOTA team; through optimising a role-playing character build; to researching the habits of future chess opponents; and even politics!  I wonder if, rather than a long list of examples, it might be better to have sections for computer, role-playing and conventional games and move selected examples to the discussion of each?  Servalo (talk) 14:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Added Kate the mochii (talk) 05:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could use some pruning 

message: Etymology (/ˌɛtɪˈmɒlədʒi/)[1] is the study of the history of words.[1] By extension, the etymology of a word means its origin and development throughout history.
So there is section named Etymology but it's not pointing to the greek word 'meta' ? I suggest two changes:
1. Rename the section since its content is rather something else.
2. Include the pointer to 'meta' anyway for completeness and to carry the explanation.
But whatever - calling the section 'Etymology' and not providing any ... well. JB. --92.193.233.158 (talk) 17:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Added Kate the mochii (talk) 05:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology ??? 

message: @Zxcvbnm Thanks for your recent work on the merge. I've taken a pass on the article. I tried to remove some of the severely unreliable sources. I also made sure the lead is more verifiable, given that the article may not be (when we get this to a better state we can move the citations out of the lead). I removed some unverifiable claims (I did not add the single RS we had with the passing mention of the backronym for now, I just removed the topic as it was UNDUE in the lead anyways. I'm not opposed to adding it back if DUE weight can be given with the RS). —siroχo 20:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrary new topic heading