First, a quick definition, for those who aren't familiar with the term. A metagame is an aspect of a competitive multiplayer game where people are making decisions and/or taking actions outside of the actual gameplay. In video games, most of these decisions and actions happen prior to actual gameplay, with the opposing player(s) unable to directly react to them.
In competitive multiplayer, the ideal of the metagame is about optimizing those decisions to increase your chances of winning to be as high as possible. This covers everything from researching online to actual decisions in game mechanics. The point is, you are going outside the standard rules and nature of the game to improve your chances of success.
A couple of examples of a meta game include the multiplayer battles of the Pokémon series, where players choose their team of pocketed monsters in advance, and Hearthstone, where the card decks are assembled in a similar manner. While there are plenty of other examples across multiple genres, I think those two illustrate a couple of games that have metagaming built to a degree into their mechanics.
Well, so why would I bring this up?
The thorny issue is game balance and choice. In video games, you want players to be willing and able to explore the available choices. In single player games, this isn't a huge deal, since you can make it clear each choice has consequences and challenges attached to it.
In competitive multiplayer, however, the added burden is not to unduly punish a player for their choices by denying them the possibility of winning. As such, the ideal balance requires all available choices to be viable for winning. If certain choices are less optimal, this leads to a metagame scene where people are encouraged to play the optimal choices.
It seems like this wouldn't be a problem, since games can be patched. Unfortunately, that does nothing to stop the fanbase - the gamers - from continuing to play the metagame and seeking to optimize their odds of winning. It has honestly become too ingrained in gaming culture for it to stop any time soon. This means that even if the choices are mechanically balanced, in terms of how often people play them, they aren't practically balanced. People will still pick the choices they think are optimal, even if the amount is so small as to be insignificant.
Or in short, a competitive metagame is a sign that the game isn't actually balanced, and the fanbase will continue to ensure it never will be. Troubling, yes, but there's nothing that can be done until developers catch on to this basic fact.
No comments:
Post a Comment