175 réponses à ce sujet

[JasonPogo]

I'm just wondering why devs and writers seem so hell bent on using this term as a negative.  Like In DA2 supposedly you were supposed to be able to save your mom but because all the play testers just reset to an early save if she died they took the option out.  So what if people meta-game?  I for onr always play that way in games like this.  Like I know when I start a playthrough this time I will romance Merrill side with the Templars and be a jerk to everyone.  So knowing this I will meta-game to reach those ends and get my "perfect" save. If thats how someone wants to play it more power to them.  I just don't get the hate....

[FaWa]

I never metagame. I purposely didn't care what I chose in ME2 because I wanted people to die, just for the sake of the story. Metagaming is just not a fun experience, ESPECIALLY on the first play through, where I like to have everything be unpredictable

Modifié par FaWa, 11 novembre 2012 - 01:05 .

[MichaelStuart]

I see nothing wrong with meta-gaming.
If people want to play like that, I say let them. Who are they hurting?

[xAmilli0n]

For a first play through, I'm am totally against meta-gaming. But afterwards? Go for it, create the story you wanted to tell.

As for why the devs use it negatively...I'm assuming it has to due with judging the story. When you meta-game, you pretty much break down the game into specific events, rather than judge the story as it happens as a continuous tale...I guess...maybe.

[Welsh Inferno]

It is a negative. You shouldn't make decisions on information the protagonist doesn't have. For your first play-through anyway. After that its impossible not to know whats coming. But that said, the devs shouldn't make a game trying to stop people meta-gaming. People always will regardless, its a pointless move. So yeah, you should have been able to save Hawke's mother. But only if you managed to do certain things right.(Which she would then probably die in most peoples games first time. Oh, until y'all meta-game her back to life )

I try to never meta-game. Just try to make decisions that best fit the character I am are playing.

Modifié par Welsh Inferno, 11 novembre 2012 - 01:17 .

[FaWa]

To add to this:

As long as we have as many choices/potential outcomes as possible, I really don't care.

[naughty99]

JasonPogo wrote...

I'm just wondering why devs and writers seem so hell bent on using this term as a negative.  Like In DA2 supposedly you were supposed to be able to save your mom but because all the play testers just reset to an early save if she died they took the option out.  So what if people meta-game?  I for onr always play that way in games like this.  Like I know when I start a playthrough this time I will romance Merrill side with the Templars and be a jerk to everyone.  So knowing this I will meta-game to reach those ends and get my "perfect" save. If thats how someone wants to play it more power to them.  I just don't get the hate....

I consider meta-gaming to be something slightly different.

Meta-gaming for me is when a game is does not allow you to play a character the way you would like to, or railroads you into playing your character a certain way, and some players might try to ignore certain aspects of the gameplay or "pretend" they happened differently so as to feel more believable according to their character concept.   

For example, perhaps you play a blood mage, and none of the NPCs in the game react, but you might pretend otherwise and never use your blood magic spells in view of the townsfolk.

Or in Mass Effect 2, you practically had to choose 100% Renegade or 100% Paragon dialogue responses in order to unlock important dialogue options later in the game and even companion characters like Morinth. Some players felt always choosing the "rude" or "pushover" options did not fit with their Shepard character concept, but chose to "meta-game" or pretend they had responded differently.

Or for some of those folks who were really heartbroken about not being able to save Hawke's mom, they might have "meta-gamed" and pretended they did save her, or pretended that there had been some way to save her and they failed.

In role playing games in particular, meta-gaming is akin to a sort of mental gymnastics some people feel obligated to perform when a game lacks options for playing the role you imagined when coming up with your character concept, or when you feel railroaded into playing a character in an unbelievable way.

In my view, the act of meta-gaming is not really frowned upon itself, what is frowned upon is quest design choices and gameplay systems that make players feel that they must meta-game in order for the narrative of their player's story to be logical.

Modifié par naughty99, 11 novembre 2012 - 01:34 .

[Bullets McDeath]

That's headcanon, not meta-gaming.

[Mummy22kids]

I agree with what has been said above. I, personally, wouldn't meta-game the first playthrough. The first time I played DA:O, even though I was a Female Noble I didn't tell Alistair I would rule beside him (he was my LI) and he dumped me. Not the outcome I expected but it made the game more interesting to me.

[Fast Jimmy]

I suppose it could be that writers and developers put just as much work (if possibly not more) on creating less-than-perfect outcomes, but knowing players are purposefully avoiding or not seeing content they put a lot of effort into creating could be viewed as negative very easily.

Not only is their work not appreciated, but it becomes harder to justify to the budget committees of the corporate world why a choice/content is if no one is going to take it. So it's a matter of if they are going to make content, they would prefer if players aren't using ways to easily identify the 'best' path possible the first time through and the vast majority miss the (oftentimes good) content of the outcomes that may not be the rosiest, but are still really good scenes (attacking Connor and seeing Isolde's reaction, using the murder knife herself to finish the job is sub-optimal, but really heart wrenching).

So that's why they (legitimately) try to avoid making it easy for players to meta-game and gravitate toward the 'happy' endings.

[highcastle]

Meta-gaming is frowned upon because it's the exact opposite of role-playing. Which is kind of the point of a role playing gaming.

Meta-gaming uses outside knowledge to get you through the end of the game. It takes you out of the character you're playing and the world you're experiencing. Role-playing immerses you in a created character. You don't make decisions based on your own knowledge or emotions, but what the character would know and feel. It's a more naturalistic experience.

Obviously, it's hard to completely tune out meta knowledge. Some things will always niggle at certain people, especially when the opportunity to save everyone comes up. Instead of going with your gut, a lot of players tend to think up reasons why their character would take a certain action. I'm thinking of the Redcliffe quest in DAO, for instance. Once a player knows they can save everyone, it's harder for a lot of players to take an action that would end in someone's death, even if that action would be more in keeping with their character's personality and such.

[Dave of Canada]

Because meta-gaming is a construct which leaves storytelling in games and actual legitimate debate about many of the game's themes/choices/consequences in the dark ages. The whole idea that gamers should be able to turn a tragedy into a hero being triumphant on a second playthrough is pathetic, it's no longer role-playing at all but making the story "gamey" to satisfy some weird urge.

Look at the rabid fandom which attacks anyone who does the "bad" decision, I've recieved death threats.

When I'm writing, I'm not writing for those types of people--there's plenty of room for self gratification in everything else in this era of entertainment.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 11 novembre 2012 - 02:01 .

[xAmilli0n]

highcastle wrote...

Meta-gaming is frowned upon because it's the exact opposite of role-playing.

I disagree.  One can easily role play a character, while still having specific goals for minor things (such as one's romance sub plot).  Because of the nature of the Friendship/Rivalry system, some meta gaming may be required.  I'm speaking from a strickly mechanics point of view.

Or maybe I'm a bit too lenient with my RPs lol.

[Mary Kirby]

JasonPogo wrote...

Like In DA2 supposedly you were supposed to be able to save your mom but because all the play testers just reset to an early save if she died they took the option out.  

This is actually a misconception. There was never, at any time in development, an ending to the quest All That Remains that allowed Leandra to survive. 

We considered adding an alternate ending because of our QA feedback. But we decided against it because the purpose the quest serves in the story is to give Hawke (regardless of their own class) a personal reason to fear the misuse of magic.

And actually, we never seriously considered any ending where Leandra survived. The ending we might have chosen to add would have been a blood magic sacrifice to keep Leandra around as an undead.

Modifié par Mary Kirby, 11 novembre 2012 - 02:05 .

[AntiChri5]

That would have been hilarious.

Does that say something terrrible about my character?

[Leonia]

Think of the trend Zombie Leandra would have set. Implications unpleasant.

[naughty99]

outlaworacle wrote...

That's headcanon, not meta-gaming.

I see. If you're referring to reloading old saves to avoid some problem, if that's the type of gameplay someone enjoys, who cares?

In my case, I die and reload all the time. However, if I'm playing a thief for example, who gets caught pickpocketing and thrown in jail, or I make a certain choice in a quest and a particular NPC dies as a result, this is part of the fun of role playing a character that makes those kinds of choices. 

Reloading for those reasons would be boring in my view, and reduce the replay value. I'd rather replay the entire game and play a different sort of character the next time, who makes different choices.

Modifié par naughty99, 11 novembre 2012 - 02:11 .

[Solmanian]

metagaming breaks immersion. Unfortunately it's pretty unavoidable after your first playthrough (and that's best case scenario). If bioware games were made differently, not with a linear, predictable story line... But that won't happen, because even though bioware SL's are pretty linear, it's a side effect of how rich they are. you just can't have that with a story line that branches every five minutes.

Look at skyrim - for all it's good features, story wasn't one of them. it had shallow, ankle deep story that was litarely disposable. And it's worked for it, since bethesda relied on you abandoning it at the earliest oppportunity (probably 15 minutes in). Bioware games are the exact opposite, making the stories matter, and with charecters you want to get to know; not companions that you kill for the lulz when you're bored.

Remember, you can't have trains without railroads.

[Fast Jimmy]

naughty99 wrote...

outlaworacle wrote...

That's headcanon, not meta-gaming.

I see. If you're referring to reloading old saves to avoid some problem, if that's the type of gameplay someone enjoys, who cares?

In my case, I die and reload all the time. However, if I'm playing a thief for example, who gets caught pickpocketing and thrown in jail, or I make a certain choice in a quest and a particular NPC dies as a result, this is part of the fun of role playing a character that makes those kinds of choices. 

Reloading for those reasons would be boring in my view, and reduce the replay value. I'd rather replay the entire game and play a different sort of character the next time, who makes different choices.

Your second set of examples is exactly what people are talking about in this thread when they mention meta-gaming. Not just reloading if you die in combat.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 11 novembre 2012 - 02:16 .

[Fast Jimmy]

^

You would need to have done her loyalty quest in order for her to survive. Did you go the Migrant Fleet with her and go through her trial and her mission with her father?

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

Mary Kirby wrote...

And actually, we never seriously considered any ending where Leandra survived. The ending we might have chosen to add would have been a blood magic sacrifice to keep Leandra around as an undead.

And this is why you're all awesome.

[Masha Potato]

oh my god

[Plaintiff]

I meta-game. I meta-game the **** out of games.

I don't like missing out on content, so I check the wiki for any game that has one, to make sure I get every quest and every piece of equipment, and if a particular quest has different outcomes, I figure out which one I want beforehand, so I can take the choices that will lead me to it.

If people don't like the way I play, I say nuts to them.