175 réponses à ce sujet

[ImperatorMortis]

Because its lame.

[naughty99]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

It is INCREDIBLY easy for players to become completely deranged over some bit of information that they extracted by excessive questioning but that the characters would automatically dismiss as trivial and ordinary, and thus unimportant.  So I use the meta-game knowledge to subtly direct my players attention toward what's actually relevant.

Some GM's don't like to do this--in fact, they have no problem with the game going off on a lengthy tangent about Syphrian weaving styles because their players have gotten fixated on the GM's description of a rug pattern.  They might even find it amusing to turn this into the actual focus of the game.  Some GM's (and some players) see this as an ad-libbing challenge, and it'll become a contest between the players asking ever more arcane questions and the GM struggling to be ever more wildly inventive.

I've encountered a similar situation before and just rolled with it, but it's not out of character information for the GM to qualify the description of the rug pattern as being something the player's character finds to be quite ordinary and commonplace.

I've never seen that sort of thing as a contest between players and the GM, because the players are genuinely interested and think something important is there. If players take too much interest in some small detail like that, I often just give them whatever experience they are hoping to find, improvise some sort of quest clue or puzzle, etc.

Modifié par naughty99, 11 novembre 2012 - 08:04 .

[TheJediSaint]

"Meta-gaming" as in a player using out of game knowledge in order to gain an advantage over the DM and other players in an RPG, I think only applies to tabletop RPGs.

I fully plan on playing through DA3 at least twice, like I do all Bioware games. The first playthrough being my "exploratory" playthrough were I discover the story wand what I can do. Then I play again for my "story" playthrough, where I use what I learned in my first play through to craft the story that I'm most satisfied with.

I don't know if that's really meta-gaming.

Modifié par TheJediSaint, 11 novembre 2012 - 08:06 .

[cindercatz]

Nilbog79 wrote...

Firstly, that's not really metagaming, that's just taking precautions agains technical mishaps. Second, you may still be able to recover your save, if you go to where your folder with the save games is, right-click on it, click 'Properties' and then 'Previous Versions' tab, there may be versions there before the save corruption that can be restored.
Sorry for the offtopic

Well, the metagaming was more in the situation I brought up with DA2. I try to avoid metagaming in a playthrough, but I also keep the extra save for technical reasons, yes, and when something like Bethany's potential death comes up, where my Hawke's whole motivation is to protect her, I may very well take than extra knowledge into account and change my decisions. So my extra save becomes a metagaming fallback tool, even if that wasn't my intention in keeping it. Sorry if I was unclear about it.

Also, thanks for the game save tip, but my X-COM was also on console (PS3), so I'm still stuck. :-/

Modifié par cindercatz, 11 novembre 2012 - 08:18 .

[Sejborg]

Hanz54321 wrote...

Sejborg wrote...

If the point was to show the abuse of power by a mage, I think it would have worked better if the mage used his power for a more relateable kind of power . . .

It was Hawke's mother?!  How much more relatable do you want?  A mage killed your (PC's) beloved mom.  People don't get upset at the prospect of someone killing mom and using her as a chatty cathy doll for kicks?!

You seem confused. My post was about being able to relate to a certain type of power. I can't really relate to the sense of power that comes from necrophilia. It might be easier for you or others I don't know. However I think it would work better (for me at least) if I were to relate or imagine the sense of power that comes from political power, or having a high social ranking. 

Perhaps if you read the entire post again you will understand. 

But since you brought it up, I did have a hard time relating to "mother". Hell. I couldn't even relate to Hawke. 

Modifié par Sejborg, 11 novembre 2012 - 09:27 .

[cindercatz]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

We don't "frown upon" meta-gaming. Meta-gaming is just something people will do. What we frown upon is when people make suggestions based on meta-gaming, as in things they do in-game which can only come about as a result of subsequent plays or by reading about the game before-hand... such as the "all companions are bisexual" complaint.

That's not how we make the game. We make it for your first playthrough, as if you're making decisions based on the moment. If that's not how you play the game, that's your call, but we're not going to make the game on the assumption that you're someone who's going to play the game repeatedly (in-game choices certainly help with repeated play, though I'll point out that's not really why we put them in there) or someone who's researched everything in the game prior to playing it.

But, again, if that's what you intend to do then knock yourself out. There are some folks who utterly panic at the idea they might play the game "wrong"... you'll see that evident before any game comes out, with people wanting spoilers and other information to make sure they have the most "perfect" playthrough possible, and why not if that's what's important to you? We are just not going to help you do it.

This actually a good thing I think.

I think they should actually consider replay more. This is BioWare, the one company making console games (at least) that I do find worth replaying at least once. So it's a brand indentifier. It's one of those things I'm actually looking for in a BioWare game. Ever since I played KoTOR, I've bought their games with the mindset that I'm going to replay those games and get at least a decent amount of plot branching and reactivity to different characters their games allow me to build. If I didn't care about replay, I'd just go buy and play another company's linear games, which I've got plenty of and enjoy each on their own merits. Replay is very important in a BioWare game.

To dovetail back on topic, I suppose a certain amount of metagaming is unavoidable at character creation, seeing as how I want all of my characters to be unique from each other and to naturally take different decisions. That requires comparison against earlier playthroughs. Origins was great about this because the origins themselves could then veer your character off in unexpected ways before you even get to the main story. So I know the devs don't take exception to metagaming for replay in that sense, but I hope that they take it into a bit stronger consideration than they have recently, I guess.

[TheJediSaint]

Trista Faux Hawke wrote...

I think the problem with meta-gaming is that the demands tied to it will affect the games of other players. Ergo, you're not just meta-gaming your own game, but meta-gaming everyone else's games too. If you demand a lesbian-only NPC because you're a lesbian and that's the option you want for a lesbian playthrough, then your intent to meta-game will affect players who want to play as a, say, straight male. Perhaps an option you'd never pick anyway. :::shrug:::

Devs feel that some stuff like that should be balanced out and fair for all players. But other stuff should definitely vary from playthrough to playthrough.

I'm not sure if asking for particular things from the devs really counts as "meta-gaming".  For one, it's completely up to the devs to decide what is and isn't in the game.   And there's no way of know what they do decide to put in until the game is launched.  

[Wulfram]

David Gaider wrote...

We don't "frown upon" meta-gaming. Meta-gaming is just something people will do. What we frown upon is when people make suggestions based on meta-gaming, as in things they do in-game which can only come about as a result of subsequent plays or by reading about the game before-hand... such as the "all companions are bisexual" complaint.

So they should stick to "all potential LIs are attracted to my PC, and 3/4 are bisexual"?  Since that's what can be observed in a single playthrough.

Seems needlessly pedantic.

Modifié par Wulfram, 11 novembre 2012 - 10:28 .

[Direwolf0294]

David Gaider wrote...

Apparently I posted without realizing this was a thread discussing what we did and didn't like about DA2's story. Which can really go in the DA2 forum. If this continues, I'll just close down this thread.

I think it's an unspoken rule that every single Dragon Age thread has to eventually lead to a discussion about what DA2 did right and what it did wrong.

So, keeping with the theme of the thread, I think the problem with the whole mage killing your mum thing from a story perspective to set up mages as having caused you harm is that a lot of people, from what I've observed, didn't blame the killer, and don't blame any mage's in general who commit evil acts, as a mage because they don't consider them mages first and foremost. It's, they're evil and just happen to be a mage, as opposed to, they're a mage and that makes them evil. If being a mage was a job as opposed to something you are born with, then I imagine people may blame mages for being mages, but it's not. It's very hard to get people to feel angry at someone for being born as something, infact that's something western society has made a point of fighting against and most of us have been raised believing that, so I don't think you'll ever be able to get people to hate mages as a whole.

Now that I've said that, ontopic with what the OP's originally talking about, I enjoy meta gaming, but only after I've finished the game at least once. When I go into an RPG I always try and go into it without knowing any spoilers about will happen and I base all my decisions on the now. One thing I really enjoy is completing an RPG and then heading to the forums or talking with friends and learning how everyone elses stories played out. Often times I learn about story elements that I had no idea were actually in the game because I never made the choices to learn about them. Once I actually know what the game's capable of, what it will and will not let me do, I'll replay it and either aim for a perfect playthrough or purposely make decisions that will lead to circumstances I read about but wish to experience for myself.

[JPR1964]

Personnaly, metagaming is the only thing that pushed me to play DA2 more than once...

I love doing that after a first candid playthrough...

JPR out!

[BouncyFrag]

I only check out a wiki or guide on a second play through to make sure I didn't miss any sidequests/content. For instance, I'm going through Dishonored at the moment and I used to look stuff on my first time through, but I've found its more fun playing through a game blind for the surprises. It was pretty annoying knowing that the ME3 ending wasn't very good before I even played it. I stay away from the boards to keep the spoilers at bay, but in this regard it was impossible not to hear the hubbub in the wake of the ME3 ending debacle. In regards to meta-gaming, I don't see what the big deal is; Its a single player game and people can do what they like. Those arrogant threads where people tell others how they 'should be' playing a single player game always make me laugh.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

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 can't speak for the devs, but in RPGs metagaming is a bit like cheating. It's looking at other peoples' cards in a game of poker.

Imagine this scene in an RPG. Your character and three others are in a city. One of your companions is kidnapped. Your character doesn't see who did the deed, but you know because you get to see a scene with the kidnapped companion talking to his abductor.

Back in camp, your character and his two remaining friends gather to decide how to find the missing one. Your character says: "I know who did it and I know where they are." Without the least bit of investigation.

Your two companions stare at you, and their players facepalm.

It's less of an issue in a cRPG because you're not exactly annoying anyone. Except when you go into a forum and say your PC knew/did things on the basis of things he couldn't have known in advance. Generally bad form.

[Archyyy]

Theres nothing really wrong with it but I dont want to do it. Takes away impact from from what I do and say if I can just erase everything. If theres an occasion where I genuinely did something by accident I reload a previous save but if something I did had unintended consequences I have to live with it. Makes the story much more interesting.

[jennamarae]

I don't really think meta-gaming can be completely avoided after that first play-through. Even just creating a new character and deciding that the second play through will be different from the first involves a little bit of meta-gaming because you as the player already know what happens if you pick option A. Deciding that this character will take option B, even if you don't make that decision until the option is in front of you waiting to be clicked, because this character has a different personality or different motivations involves some level of meta-gaming. You can't really escape it completely when you start a new game.

It's possible to minimize it by not deciding ahead of time that character 2 will do the Rite of Annulment on the Circle, side with the werewolves, and put Bhelen on the throne since character 1 did none of those things and was the opposite of character 2. But avoid it completely? I don't believe it's possible. The player already knows the outcome of at least one option on every subsequent play-through. If those characters make the same choice for different reasons the player still knows what the outcome of that choice will be and has decided that it fits character 2's personality and goals.

In a single-player game, though, I don't really think it matters if you meta-game. The game doesn't know or care if you are. There's not really a right or wrong way to play a single-player RPG.

[Wulfram]

Really, some sorts of metagaming are kind of necessary to really enjoy RPGs. But they tend to come automatically.

Creating a character that is likely to be broadly appropriate to the style of the game, and would actually go on these ludicrously dangerous quests is arguably metagaming.
Picking up quests by talking to everyone with an actual name is metagaming
Doing sidequests rather than getting on with the (almost always) super urgent main quest is metagaming.
Letting random people join your party after a single conversation is probably metagaming.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Wulfram wrote...

So they should stick to "all potential LIs are attracted to my PC, and 3/4 are bisexual"?  Since that's what can be observed in a single playthrough.

Seems needlessly pedantic.

Even that they are "all potential LIs" itself relies on metagame knowledge.

From within a single playthrough, all you get is that there are up to 4 people who have a romantic interest in Hawke.  It's possible you'll observe bisexual behaviour in some of them, but since you have no reason to believe that they comprise the sum total of available love interests, the ratio shouldn't be particularly worrisome.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AmstradHero wrote...

I don't think that's meta-gaming at all.  If I saw a massive thing start spinning on the spot, I'd sure as heck run and hide.

It's the only AoE attack in all of Thedas (as far as we ever see within the games) that in constrained by environmental obstacles.  Every fireball you ever saw up to that point in either game should have trained you that hiding was pointless and would make no difference.  Inferno reached right through walls - so why wouldn't the Rock Wraith attack?

That said, I find a small amount of meta-gaming is practically unavoidable for seasoned gamers, especially those familiar with BioWare's style. The intelligent player knows when they are making a choice, just like the character knows that they are making a tough decision, and they know there will be consequences. So the player, as the character, picks the choice that they think will give them the outcome they desire.

It's entirely possible to ignore that information when making in-character decisions.  I find it valuable to formalise my character's reasoning so that I can see exactly what conclusions they might reach and which they can't.

[Maria Caliban]

The more familiar you are with BioWare games and their style of storytelling and combat, the more effort you need to put into not meta-gaming.

The same is true for most RPGs and cRPGs. An intelligent, experienced player learns to anticipate the developer's or game master's structure.

[RosaAquafire]

I metagame in some circumstances. I'm planning a DA2 playthrough right now and I'm already tthinking about how companions' approval works to try and figure out which ones I'll have a good relationship with based on the personality I've decided I'm rolling with for this character. It's pretty inevitable to do some of it on a replay, and like Maria says, it's also pretty hard not to do it when you're just a long time Bioware fan.

I personally hate trying to maximize my relationship points and stuff because to me that ruins roleplay, and roleplay is the reason I play Bioware games. My character will say what they would ICly say and the consequences of that are what I play out. That's sort of the point of how I personally play Bioware games. But it doesn't bother me when people do it another way even though it's not my way and it sounds like the opposite of fun to me. Doesn't matter to me either way.

What I DO hate, and hate a lot, is when there are clear win and lose scenarios in the game. Balancing plot decisions is as important as balancing combat to me, and there should never be one inarguably good outcome and one inarguably bad one. Redcliffe is the most egregious example of this. The choice between whether to kill Connor or to kill Isolde is a serious one and it's very affecting personally. But adding in a third option where everybody lives and nothing bad happens cheapens the whole decision and "unbalances" the plot. Or the suicide mission in ME2. Having to decide which one of your party will die is an intensely emotional decision. Adding in an option to have everybody live is dumb because now having someone die is the "wrong" way to play. Why take a penalty you don't have to?

ESPECIALLY in Dragon Age, which is billed about being about making hard choices, I don't want there to be a version of events where it's possible to meta-game and get an objectively "best" outcome. The same way that classes are unbalanced that you're playing "wrong" if you don't stack up on one over the others, the plot is unbalanced if you do it "wrong" by having something bad happen as opposed to something good happen, and when BW PUTS that option in, even people who don't like those options feel obligated to seek them out.

Was All That Remains a flawed quest? Yes. Too on the rails, not enough variation. But the way to fix that is NOT to make a path where you can save Leandra and everything turns out good, which is the option that I believe BW took out, and rightly so. Adding in, for example, a way to keep zombie Leandra alive and constantly in pain but still herself, that would have been a good idea. Do you mercy kill her or not? Or maybe you can save Leandra, but only if you sacrifice something in a blood magic ritual that gives some negative story or combat effect.As long as the story is balanced so that you actually have to think about what you would do and/or what your character would do in that circumstance, it's all good.

Choices are good but you should never be able to win or lose a story event. You should either be able to win or win, or to lose or lose. Doing anything else makes the choice have less meaning.

[RosaAquafire]

Tancred Of The Chantry wrote...
Ultimately, any resolution that is happy, as opposed to bittersweet, sad, imperfect, or outright bad, will be seen as the "correct" resolution. So long as Paragon choices will always be rewarded with happy results, and thus seen as always the "best" option, players will argue that to do anything else is playing the game "wrong."

Exactly. And that's why I think that we should have to choose between two separate happy endings, or two separate bittersweet endings, etc., etc. No matter how roleplay focused you are, it's extremely difficult if you empathize with fictional characters to have something bad happen to them when it could be avoided with no personal cost.

You mention that there's no real gameplay cost for having Connor or Isolde die, and you're right. But if you emotionally plug into the scenario, there's a genuine moral conumdrum that's interesting to think about both from OOC and IC perspectives. Adding an everybody lives option takes away the moral conundrum. Do you kill a guilty child who doesn't know what they're doing but will likely reoffend, an innocent parent who offers themself freely, or ... oh, wait, neither! Well, I pick neither, then.

Also your point about Paragon vs. Renegade is one of the main reasons that I can't get into the ME series nearly as much as I can the DA series. The clearly marked GOOD GUY/ANTIHERO dichotomy is super buzzkilling for me.