Metagaming

In the many different video game communities of modern gaming culture, the word metagame is a well-known and often used terminology to describe various forms of gameplay. While in particular game contexts the term is broadly used in a self-explanatory way, a precise definition and differentiation is still unclear. In the academic, this concept has been approached from several perspectives. This page intents to summarize at least some of these intertwining concepts, to give a brief overview about the ongoing development of a clearer academic understanding, about how one can define metagame in context of digital game studies and finally, how to differentiate the many aspects, that are blackboxed in this seemingly universal label.

Introduction

To set a starting point, it is useful to look at a short excerpt from an interview with Stephanie Boluk und Patrick LeMieux, the authors of the book Metagaming - Playing, Competing, Spectating, Cheating, Trading, Making, and Breaking Videogames (2017), which captures the core problem of the topic:

„[…] what do players mean when they say metagame? This word pops up again and again in live commentary and forum discussions around speedrunning, esports, competitive fighting games, massively multiplayer online games, and virtual economies as well as in conversations around collectible card games, tabletop role-playing games, and board games. So we started by wondering if metagame referred to a specific technique, a historical practice, a personal preference, a community culture, or just play in general? Does it mean the same thing across different gaming discourses or is it dependent on context? Is it a productive lens for thinking about videogames or does it pose a challenge to the ways we talk about technical media? And the answer is, as you might imagine, a bit of all the above.“

An Etymological Derivation & The Prefix Meta-

According to Boluk and LeMieux, even it is used this frequently, the word metagame has no appearance in any accessible dictionary. So, to get a first understanding, it makes sense to take a closer look to the etymology of the word itself.

Deriving from the ancient Greek, the word or preposition meta has several meanings. Defined as something behind, beyond, with, after or across etc., in its self-referential characteristic, the prefix meta- „signifies […] the term or concept it precedes“ in a proportion of X about X. For Example a Film about a Film, data about data or in this case, a game about a game. Like Boluk and LeMieux describe, as "a signifier for everything occurring before, after, between, and during games as well as everything located in, on, around, and beyond games, the metagame anchors the game in time and space.“

Main Part

Richard Garfield´s Definiton

Observing the academic discourse that covers research about metagame in the field of game studies, authors like the before mentioned Boluk and LeMieux almost always recur to the definition attempt in the 90es of the game designer and creator of the collectible card game Magic: The Gathering (1993) Richard Garfield.

Coming from a, in his own words, hopelessly idealistic perspective, to look at each played game as a sort of isolated conflict, he realized the huge impact that the surrounding structure has, in which a game is embedded and „how strongly that structure was backed by other people“.

His definition of metagame is: How a game interfaces with Life.

„A particular game, played with the exact same rules will mean different things to different people, and those differences are the metagame.“

He then presents his further differentiation, which ties in with the etymological background of the prefix meta-:

• 􏰁What you bring to a game. (e.g., equipment like Magic decks and tennis rackets but also personal abilities)

• 􏰁What you take away from a game. (e.g., prize pool, tournament rankings, or social status)

• What happens between games. (e.g., preparation, strategizing, storytelling)

• 􏰁What happens during a game, other than the game itself. (e.g., trash talking, time outs, and the environmental conditions of play)

To keep it as short as possible, Boluk’s and LeMieux’s analyses of Garfield’s definition culminates in the understanding, that the metagame - as how a game interfaces with life - is „[…] the only kind of game we play“ and „ […] not just how games interface with life: it is the environment within which games »live« in the first place. Like Mark Hansen’s […] definition of media as »an environment for life,« metagames are an environment for games.“

Alternate Histories of Play - Videogames as Equipment for Metagames

Following a more social-philosophical approach, in which metagaming is the process of human activity to play any kind of game, Boluk and LeMieux raise the question whether video games, as technological artifacts, could be considered not as games in the first place, but rather as equipment for making metagames instead.By stating that "from the position in front of the television, posture on the couch, and proprioception of the controller to the most elaborate player-created constraints, fan practices, and party games, metagames are the games created with videogames", the authors draw the metagame as a material trace emerging out of the "discontinuity between the phenomenal experience of play and the mechanics of digital games“. Its this, what they describe as alternate histories of play „and although everyone alive may be engaged in playing elaborate games, these games remain hidden from view. We don’t simply play games, but constantly (and unconsciously) make metagames.“