In Platonic philosophy an archetype (or Form) is some intangible ideal exemplifying a trait or object that subsists outside of our perceptions of space and time. If you want me to pull out the Cave Allegory, anything and everything we perceive are mere shadows of the 'real' thing, it's essence. But fuck that noise, right? And not just because that creates a hell of a bloated ontology; you want to play a game... right? And not one that would take you out of your comfort zone design-wise or thematically, it's not like you want to play a game about an old man in a hospice or anything. Pokemon was cool, no? Gotta catch 'em fuckin all. And every nerd, self-respecting or otherwise, has played a TCG in his or her day. I sheepishly admit to being addicted to both when I was younger, and thankfully our pal Stephen 'increpare' Lavelle provides a double dose of both in the form of a Flash title. This is a game with meaning attached, but if you like rolling dice you'll have fun. I swear. And therein lies the message, but I'm getting ahead of myself.
You play as a Gary-doppelganger armed with a 1d6 who sets out to defeat all the patrons of a casino. Your starter die is a standard six-sider but your opponents have more esoteric combinations, say 1,4,4,4,4,4. Before you duke it out you can see what you're going up against or chat it up with them. The NPCs are all addicted to their games of chance, and the dialogue is sometimes funny and sometimes a little sad. The battles themselves are automated; the game rolls the dice, highest roller wins. First to twenty wins the bout, simple as that. If you defeat an opponent you win their die, which can be used in future battles. And so on.
Your initial impression is, "huh, pretty simple. Void of gameplay. Probably boring." But then after you win a couple matches you get hooked, running down new opponents to face and watching with anticipation as the computer rolls your fake dice. To tip the odds in your favor you begin to meta-game, choosing your die carefully to stack the odds before your fight. You gloat to yourself as your collection grows, and then you realize two things: You've done this countless times before in your TCG's, and you're not any different than the NPC's shackled to their casino. I have an addiction sub-theme in my reviews of Insomnia and Addicsjon and this is a game of addiction as well, although in meta-form. Who needs gameplay when you have luck and simple 'deck' construction? Give me the thrill of hoping for a land card on my next draw phase, let me gamble my money as I shred open another booster pack/box and pray for a card I can actually use.** Lavelle removes you from the cave and shows you the true nature of these games, revealing the Form if you're willing to see it.
But forget about all that. Roll your dice, have fun.
**Note that when you play you don't risk losing your own die. This allows you to act out your gambling impulses in a safe manner. Richard Garfield probably saw this gambling connection, given that early sets of Magic had an ante system where you gambled one of your cards each game. Prudish spoilsports removed this from later sets, however.
I'm more inclined to
I'm more inclined to investigate how the presence of fiction of any level prompts people to call using the mechanical system 'meta gaming', as if using the mechanics is not only somehow outside of the fiction, but isn't part of the game at all.
It's like the creative side of the mind, once activated, likes to get possesive.
~~~
Philosopher Gamer Blog
Meta-Gaming
I thought that sizing up your opponent's dice was tantamount to throwing in an artifact-destroying card in your deck when you know your opponent has a combo deck based around an artifact. Or, if you will, bringing a water-type to a fire Gym in p0kemanz. In simpler, less geeky terms it's throwing rock when you know your opponent will throw paper. It's thinking beyond the scope of game mechanics which gives you an unfair advantage -- that's meta gaming.
The in-game battles themselves could be seen as perfect-play between two players who know the in's and out's of the game. Take out that chance of human error and all you're left with is luck and meta-gaming. The same could be said of tournament-level Magic, I guess.
For full disclosure I've played TCG's since I was nine. I dropped over 200 hours on the Pokemon TCG for Gameboy when I was a lad, and that has really trivial gameplay. I currently play a weekly Magic game with a couple of buds; it's a great beer & pretzel/weed & pizza game but I never did get why the tournament scene sprung up around it.
It might be because the
It might be because the formal definition eludes me, but as far as common usage is concerned, I've always seen metagame referred to in a way that indicates (more or less) "strategies for winning." I've also seen it applied to games that have no fiction eg. chess, go, or bridge.
So from my take it is not so much that the "metagame" is separate from the game, but that metagame refers specifically to the strategy of the game.
Metagame
Garfield's formal definition of the metagame.
No, the metagame is the stuff around a game that increases interest in it, such as deck construction in Magic, the season in sports, or strategy analysis in Chess.
Magic and metagames
In simpler, less geeky terms it's throwing rock when you know your opponent will throw paper.
There's something wrong there, but I can't quite figure it out.
The split between tournament and casual Magic is certainly very interesting, and, I think it's fair to say, it's all the more amazing that the game works at both levels, which very, very few other games have managed to do. But the two levels rarely intersect, at least not satisfactorily.
And in Magic, the tournament meaning of the term "meta game" is very different from the casual meaning, which can cause a lot of confusion (kind of like the scientific vs common usage of the word "theory" which has resulted in so much grief over the last few decades.) In the first context, it's very much a strategic term whereas in the second it's more of a tactical term.
Ending was bleh
Man, I was really kind of into that, but I thought the ending would be clever or something. Instead I just get a gameover screen.
Wasted a few minutes getting al the dice, though. Neat.
I think the sticking point
I think the sticking point here (same for me as for the previous poster) is that, while in a traditional CCG the strategizing is properly outside the game activity, here the strategizing IS the game activity.
Despite the game's indictment of chance-games and their addictive properties, it's worth pointing out that the designer has created a set of interesting statistical puzzles. It's a wonderfully clear demonstration of how apparently "balanced" elements can be manipulated to advantage.
The "game" is the picking of dice, the roll between the agents is simply part of the result. That's why it's not proper to call it the metagame, any more than you would call troop movement and preparation a "metagame" in Advance Wars or any other tactical RPG.
Clarification
Thanks for linking to Garfield, that was an interesting read. His definition was pretty broad, what I took as the definition of "metagame" fit kind of into his first section. That is, "what you take into the game". When you build your deck you obviously have to take into account general threats, like can it handle a control deck, etc. What I was refering to was in tournament-level play where you could scour the results of prior tournaments to see what playstyles are most prevalent and tweaking your deck accordingly. That lies in a grey area outside of general strategy; it's like playing rock/paper/scissors and knowing your opponent throws rock 2/3's of the time. Deck construction normally is done under imperfect information, but metagaming in that fashion gives you an advantage. Whatever. I dig 'draft' play more at any rate.
And yeah, increpare is one bad mofo. If you want some games with some interesting endings I'll write up a combo review of four other games that Mr. Lavelle's made in the past five weeks.
EDIT: Facepalm on the "throwing rock against paper" thing up there. I should at least eat breakfast before I start rambling on about metagaming. =)
Hantonisse: This
Hantonisse: This deconstruction is similar to Upgrade Complete & Achievement Unlocked from a couple months back; they use a solitary mechanic as the crux instead of it being 'periphery' to the experience. I think deconstructions have to strip away everything else in order to highlight whatever point they're trying to get across.
"Your initial impression is,
"Your initial impression is, "huh, pretty simple. Void of gameplay. Probably boring.""
Exactly.
"But then after you win a couple matches you get hooked"
Absolutely not.