Aimbots and wallhacks are not meta-gaming. They are cheating. I don't mean cheats as in using a debug command to get you through a rough patch in an SP game, they are actual violations of the rules of play, in that the game is designed for People to play, not bots, and the walls are supposed to be solid LOS/LOF blocking models and a Hack to negate that is an actual violation of the physics of the game inherent in it's design.
And I believe that rules and roles do dovetail most of the time. That said, I disagree that there's no such thing as a "spirit of the game" because there most certainly is a "spirit" in which things are intended as well as a letter of how things are written. The spirit of the game is as important to the rules as the game is to adhere to the letter of the rules. An exploit, in such an instance might be to get right up against a wall with a character, merging the collision meshes, and because of that, the character mesh 'wins' out and allows shooting through a wall. That would be an exploit. To specifically take advantage of that all the time and create a small bit of code that allows the character to simply shoot through any wall obstruction violates the letter and the spirit of the game.
It's important to remember that, no matter how abstract, every game that replicates aspects of either real world concepts or physics is a form of simulation. There is one other aspect that all games have in common. They are a set of rules as limitation, purposely set in place in such a way that, through the use of other rules applied to the overall game framework, should allow a player who masters the rules to adapt and overcome the limitations to some degree of success by achieving a stated objective. That, as well as I can generalize it, is a relatively complete description of any game people can play, no matter how abstract, complex, simple, rules heavy or light. It even applies to both zero-sum and non-zero-sum games.
Any attempt, effort or strategem that capitalizes on flaws in the rules, or rules that are not well known by others, or allows a combination of effects based from the using the rules to strategic effect could be considered metagaming in one sense. In the strictest sense, in most games it is up to the mental capabilities of each actual player, not their characters. This is why metagaming in most games beyond, say video games, is nearly impossible, and the ones where it is possible, it is generally wholly ineffective to do so as it will make no practical difference in the outcome.
On the other hand, gaming the game, by strictly and cleverly applying rules and flaws in the rules could be considered "gaming the game" and may, in fact, violate the spirit of the game, but, as it is in the rules, is still, in effect, part of the game.
It's like the rule in baseball that a runner can run into a baseman to get on base and if the baseman drops the ball, the player is safe (if there is no forced out in the first place) You can run into the baseman only if he's blocking the base, but oftentimes a runner will slam into the baseman purposely in the hopes that he will drop the ball from the force of the impact. It's legal, but it's questionable as to whether or not this is "within the spirit of the game" where sportsman-like conduct of fair play and honor and respect to the opposing players is also very important to the overall way the game is played.
On the other hand, rubbing some hair oil on the ball, or using a corked bat is not only in violation of the rules, it violates the spirit of the game when we're talking about fair play. Clearly these are acts of cheating and negate the entire concept of sportsman-like conduct.
In RPGs, the meta-gaming aspect is mitigated to a large degree when playing with a live DM. In cRPGs, that aspect is largely absent, even in MP gaming (think MMOs, where if there was even a Dm:Player ratio of 1:40 or so, things would be noteably more under control) there is a dearth of this interaction that might serve to at least limit the amount of player griefing (which only the griefer finds enjoyable) OOC actions and talking, and also being able to react dynamically to a group of people acting out an objective as their characters (one would hope, anyway.)
And I agree, aimbots and wall hacks would really ****** me off to the point where I would remember the players who did that and gank the connection the moment I saw them -- build up a team of fellow players to hunt their asses down and gank them at every opportunity above all other objectives. That might violate the "spirit" of the game on the whole, but it would feel very, very satisfying to put the kaibosh on such a person with a team of others who have had their fill of such players in the first place.
I have two mottoes I live by:
Live as well as you can, with as many others as you can, without stepping on anyone else's toes.
Don't motivate me to screw with you.
The second one is just as important as the first, though used a lot less frequently.
Meta-Gaming In NWN2: A General Modules Discussion
Débuté par
dunniteowl
, janv. 30 2011 03:45
Retour en haut
#52
Posté 09 février 2011 - 11:34
The Fred
-
- Members
- 2 516 messages
OK I came a bit late to this thread, so forgive me for not having read all of it (I'm actually about to go out, so I'm in a bit of a rush).
According to good old Wikipedia, "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."
Generally, I disagree with Out-of-Character (OoC) knowledge affecting the game, but this is inevitable to some extent. As someone said, that's what combat is all about. Why? Because if it were just my character vs that monster, whoever has the highest Strength score and hits hardest (OK, more accurately, whoever has the best stats overall) wins. How can we make combat tactical and interesting without testing the *player's* tactics, rather than the character's?
That said, I think a game should try to discourage meta-gaming. Personally, I like randomised elements which not only make re-playing less meta-gaming-based, but also more interesting. I'd get bored if the game was the same way every time. Things like traps (which are a whole topic in themselves) can be randomly placed, which makes sense given having a player stop before a completely indistinct piece of floor to turn of search mode is silly. That's just one example. Of course, all of this means more work for the builder.
According to good old Wikipedia, "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."
Generally, I disagree with Out-of-Character (OoC) knowledge affecting the game, but this is inevitable to some extent. As someone said, that's what combat is all about. Why? Because if it were just my character vs that monster, whoever has the highest Strength score and hits hardest (OK, more accurately, whoever has the best stats overall) wins. How can we make combat tactical and interesting without testing the *player's* tactics, rather than the character's?
That said, I think a game should try to discourage meta-gaming. Personally, I like randomised elements which not only make re-playing less meta-gaming-based, but also more interesting. I'd get bored if the game was the same way every time. Things like traps (which are a whole topic in themselves) can be randomly placed, which makes sense given having a player stop before a completely indistinct piece of floor to turn of search mode is silly. That's just one example. Of course, all of this means more work for the builder.
Modifié par The Fred, 09 février 2011 - 11:35 .
