Talk:Metagaming
Current Definition
What's meant by "perspective"? --Feanor512 08:03, 24 Nov 2005 (GMT)
- Is a word that implies "point of view", the whole concept of role playing revolves around it. By playing a role you view the situations from the character's perspective rather than your own. It requires imagination to ascertain what that would be like. --Matthew-Stewart 05:03, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
- Actually this whole entry makes little sense. --Feanor512 08:06, 24 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Err, correct me if i'm wrong, but playing the game in a way the developer did not intend is cheating, not metagaming. I'm not so sure I agree with this definition. --Raelin 23:20, 24 Oct 2005 (BST)
- I was just summarising the Wikipedia article that was linked to, that you've put back in. ("If, for example, one took advantage of a bug in the game to gain some advantage, that would be metagaming.") There's a grey area between metagaming and cheating - I think I'd define metagaming as an exploit that was obviously unintended, but that feels fair to use when you work it out. Noticing the 4294965895XP Bug and quickly headshotting your characters so that they can all get to level 30 would be "cheating", but noticing the Free Running bug and using it to spy on buildings in a way you can justify in-character seems more like metagaming.
- I'd disagree that talking on forums is "metagaming", if anything - that the developer presumably did expect this to happen. --Spiro 23:37, 24 Oct 2005 (BST)
- Indeed, but reading further into the article, under the Role-Playing Games heading, this is the definition mentioned:
- "Such behavior on the player's part defeats the namesake of the game, however, as the player is no longer performing from the character's perspective and intentions, but from his own perspective and intentions. He is no longer playing a role; He is just playing a game."
- I believe that's the more common usage in reference to this game, and why using a forum to coordinate is often called metagaming. --Raelin 00:02, 25 Oct 2005 (BST)
This article definitely needs work. Taking advantage of information that your character shouldn't know ranges from reading the manual, to strategy guides, to using the map. In fact, using this wiki to find, say, the odds to find a syringe, is metagaming. It is nowhere near bug exploitation, which is obviously cheating. --LouisB3 17:03, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
qwako, I shall leave your ridiculous quotation, as it serves as an example (albeit a confusing one.)--Milo 05:40, 11 Sep 2005 (BST)
qwako, I shall not leave your ridiculous quotation as you are an egotistical, self-absorbed little man who cannot go around quoting himself on something he thinks is wise but is, in fact, anything but. You are not special. You are not important. You are just vain and stupid. --Katthew 05:57, 11 Sep 2005 (BST)
Yeah. A zombie might be able to take down a safehouse without metagaming if they have Memories of Life and manage to convey the general idea to surrounding zombies. But this being difficult isn't "sad", it's "stopping thousands of random zombies from being able to overwhelm safehouses", that only a very few zombies coordinate themselves on the lists or forums. --Spiro 09:27, 11 Sep 2005 (BST)
"Within non-MMORPGs it is synonymous with cheating..." Not just overly broad, but absurd and even offensive. The statement condemns clan organization in forums and IRC, voice communication, strategy guides, and numerous other things no one in his right mind would consider cheating. Reading the manual arguably falls under this definition. If I ask friends how to design a single-player RPG character so that the game is more challenging, the article calls *that* cheating. Ridiculous. Also, there have also been numerous cases where developers embraced bug exploits and revelled in the unexpected use of a game's "quirks." Rocket-jumping in Quake, skiing in Tribes, countless elements of Subspace, etc. A definition of exploiting needs to discuss developer reaction, common acceptance, and spirit of the game. --einexile 18:20, 1 March 2006 (GMT)
- I agree, so I've toned down the parts in the article about cheating. --Toejam 22:02, 31 May 2007 (BST)
- Could perhaps the ?rise tactic be included as an example an unintended "quirk"? Kevan changed the way barricades were put up, so that it didn't use the same url each time (to counter barricade bots), but hasn't done the same for rising. IMO, this points to developer adoption of the ?rise-url tactic - and it shouldn't be considered cheating. 'arm. 16:07, 12 September 2007 (BST)
