34 réponses à ce sujet

[HTTP 404]

it doesn't ruin my first playthrough. but it can ruin subsequent playthroughs.

but by that point I had enjoyed the story already.

Modifié par HTTP 404, 29 novembre 2012 - 05:14 .

[mousestalker]

Metagaming can help with repeated playings. If a particular part of the story is bugged, knowledge of where the traps are can help with playing the story.

[Fast Jimmy]

cephasjames wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Metagaming is only possible after the first playthrough, unless one uses a walkthrough or something to get through the game for the first time. Any playthrough after that, and metagaming is unavoidable.

Yes and no. If people go into a playthrough with the idea that they are going to be such-in-such and act such-in-such then they can simply play through the story with that and only that in mind then the bold is incorrect. But if people go into a playthrough with the idea that they are going to make different choices simply because they haven't made certain other choices yet then the bold is correct.

But how is that bad? Wanting to know the outcome of other choices and enjoying a game and its story enough to try for those other outcomes are inherently good things, to me.

[Iosev]

While I try as much as I can to avoid meta-gaming during my first playthrough of a game, I purposely use meta-game knowledge on subsequent playthroughs, because in many ways, it can enhance role-playing.

For example, after playing through Skyrim with as little outside information as possible during my first playthrough, I decided that all of my subsequent characters would co-exist with each other.  Thus, only one character is the Dragonborn (as well as the Legate who puts down the Stormcloak rebellion).  The next character I made is not Dragonborn, and takes no part in the civil war; instead, she is an assassin and thief that interacts with the Dark Brotherhood and Thieves Guild.  To play like this, I heavily meta-game in order to keep each character from doing the same quests (with the exception of the initial Helgen portion and a few other instances).

With that said, meta-gaming unfortunately has the potential to ruin the experience that the developers are trying to create. For example, saving before a conversation and reloading to see all of the outcomes is not necessarily what I imagine the developers want players to do (at least during their initial playthrough), because it ultimately exposes the seams that are present in any game.

I personally try to utilize meta-gaming when it enhances my experience of a game, but avoid it when it harms the experience (e.g., initial playthroughs).

Modifié par arcelonious, 29 novembre 2012 - 06:19 .

[AlanC9]

PurebredCorn wrote...

... and? What is your point exactly. Ban metagaming? Remove storytelling? What?

Well, I guess there's adesign problem if the descriptions of achievements give out too much information about what's coming up.

Other than that, this is just telling players not to do something because they'll... have less fun if they do it? Yeah, I don't see the point either.

[zambingo]

The thread's title desperately needs the IMO tag.

[Maria Caliban]

FitScotGaymer wrote...

The you have missed the point of an RPG and should go play games of genre's that do not put quite as much emphasis on story.

I don't say this to be insult, but as a bare fact.

Yes, RPGs are all about story.

That's why Skrym tanked when it came out.

cephasjames wrote...

On a side note, achievements add to the idea of metagaming.

I'm not sure that this sentence conveys what you want it to. Achievements don't add to the *idea* of metagaming. They are a purely metagame element though, yes.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 29 novembre 2012 - 06:42 .

[LinksOcarina]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

cephasjames wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Metagaming is only possible after the first playthrough, unless one uses a walkthrough or something to get through the game for the first time. Any playthrough after that, and metagaming is unavoidable.

Yes and no. If people go into a playthrough with the idea that they are going to be such-in-such and act such-in-such then they can simply play through the story with that and only that in mind then the bold is incorrect. But if people go into a playthrough with the idea that they are going to make different choices simply because they haven't made certain other choices yet then the bold is correct.

But how is that bad? Wanting to know the outcome of other choices and enjoying a game and its story enough to try for those other outcomes are inherently good things, to me.

It's not bad at all.

the problem is that you are not role-playing at that point, which I think is the point of contention many have. After all, a major complaint is that people didn't feel like they were role-playing at all in Dragon Age II...this falls under the same category of hindering it no? 


But as I said before, its player knowledge vs character knowledge, in basic role-play parlance. 

[Thomas Andresen]

When I replay a game, and make choices on behalf of my character, I make them based on what I want my character to do, same as when I played the game the first time, and not based on consequences and outcomes. When I play Dragon Age II - and yes, I still do, even after ≈10 complete playthroughs - I know perfectly well the outcomes of every choice I make, but I still choose based on "who do I want my character to be?". The same is true for the entire ME series, every character I've played in SWtOR, DA:O, KotOR, etc..

I never make a choice because "I want this to happen" or "I want this plot arc to end this way". When I make choices that I haven't made before, it's because I'm playing a character with different motivations, opinions and preferences.

[Ninja Stan]

Not DA3 related. Metagaming (or not metagaming) is entirely up to the player.

End of line.