Anyone else tired of the "meta"?

[Jonathan Sensei]

Lately I've been noticing a lot new-ish video-games that has multiplayer or a multiplayer mode also has some form of "meta" behind it. If you don't play X or do X you're not following the meta. And because of that, you're purposely handicapping yourself while playing the game.

Or the other side of the coin, if you don't play with the most optimal set up, you can't play harder content because one or two things are so imbalanced it makes no sense to use anything else. Which raises the question why game devs would even bother with giving you the illusion of choice if that's how it ends up. Thoughts? Opinions? Friendly reminder that I should just "git gud"?

Edit: typos and grammar problems. Something else I need to "git gud" at.

[Pipe]

Originally posted by Coffinmaw:

Which begs the question why game devs would even bother with giving you the illusion of choice if that's how it ends up

I felt this line hard...

[tom tomorrow]

Do you not understand what a meta is?

Regardless of how devs try to balance things, there will always be a meta, because some things are simply more effective than others.

[Fake]

Fun Fact: Zuckerberg created Meta.

[Mina]

Developers could be unaware, it’s the community that looks for the best strategy.

Some releases might be broken and encourage time spent or to an influx of players, sometimes meta is intentional

[The Tunnel Ratencio]

Git gud n00b! skill issue.

Ok now that we got the gamer words out already, we can handle the topic at hand, i am tired of the meta in some competitive games so much that i just stopped playing them for the most part.

The only game in which i still play sometimes even when not using any "meta" characters is for honor and only cause i play it not too often and just a few matches, it is not impossible to win in this game when using a "bad" character against a "meta" character but the difference is that i would need to actually try to win harder than my enemy.


But i know "following the meta" is something needed in other type of games such as coop ones when playing in the maximum difficulty.

[76561199675426607]

Originally posted by Fake:

Fun Fact: Zuckerberg created Meta.

All the more reason to be tired of it

[Jonathan Sensei]

Originally posted by mf tom:

Do you not understand what a meta is?

Regardless of how devs try to balance things, there will always be a meta, because some things are simply more effective than others.

I'm fine with one thing being more effective than something else. But the threshold is getting bigger from where it used to be. Quake Three and Unreal Tournament 04 had a meta - but if you were good at the game it didn't matter because you could still compete. Now it feels like it's a roulette of luck to figure out what's good and clearly what isn't.

[tmwfte]

Originally posted by Coffinmaw:

Which begs the question...

No, it really doesn't.

Raises a question, maybe, but it does not beg the question.

[Jonathan Sensei]

Originally posted by tmwfte:

Originally posted by Coffinmaw:

Which begs the question...

No, it really doesn't.

Raises a question, maybe, but it does not beg the question.

And here I thought I could make a thread topic without a grammatical error.

[Swarmfly]

So called "meta fans" losing their minds when my griefing and "skill issue" has cost them the round (I was using a less effective gun because it had a cooler firing sound).

[tmwfte]

Originally posted by Coffinmaw:

And here I thought I could make a thread topic without a grammatical error.

That's not a grammatical error. It's using an increasingly common incorrect usage of a phrase to mean something it doesn't really mean. To the point where most people don't know the difference anymore.

Begging the question is actually a logic error. A fallacy where the premise assumes the conclusion. Basically in a form of circular reasoning.

[Jonathan Sensei]

Originally posted by Ratencio the comRat:

Git gud n00b! skill issue.

There it is.

Originally posted by Ratencio the comRat:

[...] I am tired of the meta in some competitive games so much that i just stopped playing them for the most part.

The only game in which i still play sometimes even when not using any "meta" characters is for honor and only cause i play it not too often and just a few matches, it is not impossible to win in this game when using a "bad" character against a "meta" character but the difference is that i would need to actually try to win harder than my enemy. But i know "following the meta" is something needed in other type of games such as coop ones when playing in the maximum difficulty.

As a former Shugoki main, I hear ya.

[tom tomorrow]

Originally posted by Coffinmaw:

Originally posted by mf tom:

Do you not understand what a meta is?

Regardless of how devs try to balance things, there will always be a meta, because some things are simply more effective than others.

I'm fine with one thing being more effective than something else. But the threshold is getting bigger from where it used to be. Quake Three and Unreal Tournament 04 had a meta - but if you were good at the game it didn't matter because you could still compete. Now it feels like it's a roulette of luck to figure out what's good and clearly what isn't.

That's because we live in the age of information. We have data miners now. We can look at hitboxes and analyze frame data. If that kind of thing were around back when quake was popular then the meta would have been just as strong and rigorous as they are now.

The point is that this is not a design issue, it's a natural and unavoidable reality of game balance. There's always going to be people who want to min/max. People are always going to look for more efficient ways to do things.

The only real alternatives are either having everything be on par with everything else to the point that variation becomes completely meaningless, or go the Dota/LoL route with constant balance patches to keep the meta from going stale. Neither are very good solutions.

[WraithTargundaMajarie]

Originally posted by Coffinmaw:

Lately I've been noticing a lot new-ish video-games that has multiplayer or a multiplayer mode also has some form of "meta" behind it. If you don't play X or do X you're not following the meta. And because of that, you're purposely handicapping yourself while playing the game.

Or the other side of the coin, if you don't play with the most optimal set up, you can't play harder content because one or two things are so imbalanced it makes no sense to use anything else. Which raises the question why game devs would even bother with giving you the illusion of choice if that's how it ends up. Thoughts? Opinions? Friendly reminder that I should just "git gud"?

Edit: typos and grammar problems. Something else I need to "git gud" at.

I don't know what your talkin about...

Meta this, Meta what, do x this, do x that??


I'm still having a blast playing Mortal Kombat Armageddon,
Halo 2, The Evil Within, & the New Tales Of Xillia Game...

Oh, wait that isn't New, ehhh, it's new to me... ^_-


I don't know what People are talking about,
Gaming is not Dead, Gaming is doing fantastic...

[TwisterCat]

Yeah, I hear that. What's even sadder is when you find a new meta, and everybody just bomblasts you with hatred for trying something "stupid", only to do the same thing a month later.

As an Alibi main, I was quite used to that for the longest of time.

My take is just to play the game wrong. Hate me if you want, you can't stop me. You cannot stop me from playing the game in the wrong way.

If I lose, AT LEAST I had fun.