MAKING A GAME META BUT NOT TOO META.

Posts

Pages: 1
So games like Undertale and Oneshot tend to be very meta, but is there a line? We all know the cliche 4th wall broke so hard the characters fight the creator of the game as the final boss and blah blah blah. But what would you consider too meta? I have an idea, the characters feel a strange presences throughout the entire game, and have been getting out of bad situations easily, then they realize there was someone controlling them called the player, they at first don't like this idea, but later realize the player is only there to help them. Is this too meta? If you were writing for a game that is tends to be very meta, were would you draw the line on how meta it gets?
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
One of the two of us doesn't know what the word "meta" actually means. I was 99% sure that calling something "meta" didn't make any sense. It has to be "meta-something." In general the prefix means a thing within or about another of the same type of thing. Like a meta-game is a when you play a game inside of another game that you're also playing. A meta-story is when you read a story within a story. Is this the sort of thing you're talking about? It doesn't seem like it is since your examples have nothing to do with that sort of thing.

I've heard the prefix used by itself as kind of a slang term in contexts where it was obvious what the second half of the word was supposed to be, but in this case I have no idea.

Also nobody cares about spoilers for games you're making. This is a forum of fellow designers, not potential players.
pianotm
The TM is for Totally Magical.
32347
@LockeZ Meta in this context is not a prefix. It means self-referential. Meta as a prefix would mean "referring to the subject of the suffix". For example, if you had a Ferret as your main character that constantly referred to the game in way in which broke the fourth wall, he would be a meta-ferret in your meta game.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Ah, OK. That makes sense.

If you want to make your work self-referential, then I don't think it's a matter of avoiding doing it "too much" but rather of avoiding doing it in a way that makes you look arrogant or self-important as a creator. I see that sort of thing in a lot of games and stories where it comes across as the author saying "Look at all the layers of my brilliant work, I am so very smart! Other stories are so shallow in comparison! Other authors can't come up with this sort of thing! Isn't your mind blown by my brilliance?"

Mostly that problem seems to happen in non-comedic stories, usually scifi, where the main point of the meta stuff is to try to blow the player's mind. Generally I'm just, like, "No, sorry, my mind is still in one piece, that wasn't really as incredible of an idea as you thought." Inception and The Matrix were written by way better scifi writers than anyone on this forum, and that's the only reason they work.

Another example of how to do it badly is to write a story about yourself writing the story you're writing. Or even a story that includes that as a minor side-plot. That's just sad. Nothing says "I ran out of ideas" more clearly.

When it works a lot better, IMO, is when the self-referential stuff is a tool used for some purpose the story, rather than being the purpose of the story. Guilded Age is a fantasy comic about characters who find out that they're part of an MMORPG, but it goes way farther than just "Holy shit, this MMORPG was linked to a real universe with witchcraft, that's craaaaaazy!" That's not the point. The point is that the main villain travels between the two worlds and believes he's a god. He's an extremely interesting character who needed that meta stuff to work, and so it all feels very justified.

Also, if you're just doing the whole meta thing for the sake of self-deprecating comedy, then you can never go wrong.
I agree with LockeZ, the problem is not in making a story too X, but about doing it wrong. Undertale, since you mention it, does the fourth wall breaking very well since it's a deconstruction of the RPG genre, and as such uses it to demonstrate things like how save scumming would be like for the people in-universe.

Your idea sounds perfectly fine, as long as it makes sense and is not just winking at the player and saying "Wow, look at how meta I am". For example, you could use it to talk about the themes of free will, predestination, or the nature of reality. Or use it to make bad jokes, I guess, but you should be careful not to make it your only punchline. Disgaea did a lot of fourth wall leaning with characters constantly referencing bosses with multiple forms, the heroes starting at level one and etcetera, but did it in between more regular kinds of humor so it didn't get tiring.

Ah, and one last thing: Do not, under any circumstance, make "Everything was a videogame and the characters realised!" the final plot twist. That is the meta story equivalent to "It was all a dream".
CashmereCat
Self-proclaimed Puzzle Snob
11638
Another example of how to do it badly is to write a story about yourself writing the story you're writing. Or even a story that includes that as a minor side-plot. That's just sad. Nothing says "I ran out of ideas" more clearly.

Hahahaha I made a game exactly like that called Project1 and it's probably the game I'm most proud of. I guess it's to each their own.

"Look at all the layers of my brilliant work, I am so very smart! Other stories are so shallow in comparison! Other authors can't come up with this sort of thing! Isn't your mind blown by my brilliance?"

Except the reason why I think it worked (and I will hold onto the idea that it worked) was neither because I was a good writer (because it is really really likely I am not) nor because I was trying to lord my supposed "intelligence" over others (I am not an intelligent man, I am incredibly hamfisted in all my approach), but because I think that the way I was doing it was a uniquely original expression of my creativity. Or at least close to a uniquely original expression.

It is my (humble and maybe-wrong) opinion that any idea, if executed with the fullness of a person's inward creativity realized, is something beautiful, and not worthy to be scoffed at. So it's good to like every game at its core, even if you "hate" it per se.

The reason I employed meta was because I thought it fit the story and fit the game. I thought of a fun idea where I only had 2 days left for a game and I didn't have the time to make an actual game so I thought I'd do a deconstruction kind of like The Stanley Parable or The Beginner's Guide. These games strove to make a point about games through the means of fourth-wall breaking, but not for the mere purpose of fourth-wall breaking itself, but because it was the best means of demonstrating, and the best means of telling the story that they had to tell.

Nevertheless, it's not everyone's cup of tea, so... people are allowed to like what they like, and lump what they wanna lump.

But if a gameplay mechanic is included in a game because it best demonstrates the idea that that gameplay mechanic implies, then it's a best fit scenario. It's my opinion that the selection of mechanics to create a universe in which the audience can interact, is an artist's way modelling the universe of constructs that are used to convey their art form from artist to audience, and this goes in any medium.

So if you're going to use meta - it's a case of finding what best fits. Innovators realize that synergy occurs when elements are juxtaposed in a way that elevates rather than hinders the message of the thing they're trying to create. So when you want to create a synergy of elements, use those elements that'll best fit the thing you're creating.

Edit: Wow I'm really really bad at articulating myself. Please take my passive-aggressive response with a grain of salt. There is something I'm trying to say, I'm just not the greatest at doing that thing where mind meets mouth.
unity
You're magical to me.
12540
author=CashmereCat
Another example of how to do it badly is to write a story about yourself writing the story you're writing. Or even a story that includes that as a minor side-plot. That's just sad. Nothing says "I ran out of ideas" more clearly.
Hahahaha I made a game exactly like that called Project1 and it's probably the game I'm most proud of. I guess it's to each their own.

"Look at all the layers of my brilliant work, I am so very smart! Other stories are so shallow in comparison! Other authors can't come up with this sort of thing! Isn't your mind blown by my brilliance?"


Except the reason why I think it worked (and I will hold onto the idea that it worked) was neither because I was a good writer (because it is really really likely I am not) nor because I was trying to lord my supposed "intelligence" over others (I am not an intelligent man, I am incredibly hamfisted in all my approach), but because I think that the way I was doing it was a uniquely original expression of my creativity. Or at least close to a uniquely original expression.

It is my (humble and maybe-wrong) opinion that any idea, if executed with the fullness of a person's inward creativity realized, is something beautiful, and not worthy to be scoffed at. So it's good to like every game at its core, even if you "hate" it per se.

The reason I employed meta was because I thought it fit the story and fit the game. I thought of a fun idea where I only had 2 days left for a game and I didn't have the time to make an actual game so I thought I'd do a deconstruction kind of like The Stanley Parable or The Beginner's Guide. These games strove to make a point about games through the means of fourth-wall breaking, but not for the mere purpose of fourth-wall breaking itself, but because it was the best means of demonstrating, and the best means of telling the story that they had to tell.

Nevertheless, it's not everyone's cup of tea, so... people are allowed to like what they like, and lump what they wanna lump.

But if a gameplay mechanic is included in a game because it best demonstrates the idea that that gameplay mechanic implies, then it's a best fit scenario. It's my opinion that the selection of mechanics to create a universe in which the audience can interact, is an artist's way modelling the universe of constructs that are used to convey their art form from artist to audience, and this goes in any medium.

So if you're going to use meta - it's a case of finding what best fits. Innovators realize that synergy occurs when elements are juxtaposed in a way that elevates rather than hinders the message of the thing they're trying to create. So when you want to create a synergy of elements, use those elements that'll best fit the thing you're creating.

Edit: Wow I'm really really bad at articulating myself. Please take my passive-aggressive response with a grain of salt. There is something I'm trying to say, I'm just not the greatest at doing that thing where mind meets mouth.


Yeah, I feel like its ultimately about how the meta is done and the ultimate feeling the player is left with, after they play.

Normally I'd agree with the statement "don't write a story about yourself writing the story you're writing," but I happen to really love what Cash did with Project1. It just goes to show that some people can break the rules but in such a way that you get a fun and neat game out of it ^_^
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7874
Pretty sure Chrono Trigger did this with the Entity that wants the heroes to see certain parts of history.

author=CashmereCat
It is my (humble and maybe-wrong) opinion that any idea, if executed with the fullness of a person's inward creativity realized, is something beautiful, and not worthy to be scoffed at. So it's good to like every game at its core, even if you "hate" it per se.

I had a moment of reflection like this last night concerning cave drawings.
Cap_H
DIGITAL IDENTITY CRISIS
6625
I think that it should either tell something about you or your audience. The Beginner's Guide is the best example I know in this regard. It tells a lot about players and people in general. The Stanley Parable is about its creators as you can watch here. It's full of meta jokes, but doesn't bring any real reflection.
There are silly ways to break the fourth wall, but what matters is execution. You can fight creator becuz 'I'm out of ideas. Die.' It tells us nothing if not well placed. The battle isn't more than a louse and probably rushed boss fight. In a different game the same battle can be a desperate call.

Edit: There's nothing like too much meta. You can't overdose with it. Watch The Holy Mountain, Holy Motors or some Dziga Vertov.
NeverSilent
Got any Dexreth amulets?
6280
author=LockeZ
When it works a lot better, IMO, is when the self-referential stuff is a tool used for some purpose in the story, rather than being the purpose of the story.

I also think that this sentence sums up the most important part about self-referential fiction in games to a pretty good degree. Personally, I tend to very much enjoy games that mess with the distinction between "our world" and "the game world," but it's also one of those storytelling devices that can go wrong very easily and very badly.

I wouldn't even go so far as to say that the meta aspect can't be the main selling point of your game. But you should always make sure that it fits and enhances the setting/world/atmosphere you are trying to create. If you employ meta techniques in a project, it should ideally be done in a way that feels significant in relation to the rest of its content and makes the player reconsider their position and relation to the game world - or you have to use it in a way that is consistently funny and interesting enough that the player remains willing to suspend their disbelief and doesn't completely lose all sense of immersion.

Oh, and if you want to take a look at some games on RMN that employ self-reference or fourth-wall-breaking in interesting ways, I'd recommend trying out the demo for Numina, and also The End.
author=lonestarluigi
I have an idea, the characters feel a strange presences throughout the entire game, and have been getting out of bad situations easily, then they realize there was someone controlling them called the player, they at first don't like this idea, but later realize the player is only there to help them. Is this too meta?
When the sword hitboxes no longer comply with the normal rules of attack priority... wait, no, not that kind of meta

Serious answer: I don't know of any formula for determining exactly how "meta" something is, so no comment on whether or not your idea is "too meta", but I will say it sounds kind of lame to spend an entire game building up to. From the way you're describing it, all it is is "hey ur a player and ur controlling a character and they kno it isn't that quaint?"

I dunno, I feel like something referencing the player specifically has show some kind of insight into the player's state of mind, if it's going to be anything other than a throwaway one-liner/gag. For example, in Earthbound, you have to use the Pray command to beat the final boss, otherwise you'll just be wailing at him forever. I didn't know this when I first played the game, so I just kept attacking him until I was out of items and MP and everyone except Paula (who has the Pray command) was dead. So the message you eventually get about the player praying to beat Giygas was funny to me because at that point I actually was just praying to beat him.

Another good one is Raiden's character in Metal Gear Solid 2. He's initially rather cocky about his readiness for the mission based on his military VR training, which is, no shit, actually playing Metal Gear Solid 1 and the bonus VR missions (or seperate VR Missions game, depending on your region). This is a pretty good joke on how a lot of gamers seem to think that their gaming experience can actually translate into irl situations (he even brags about the missions he beats and refers to them by number similarly to a stereotypical gamer), and also a comment about the reality of gamers sometimes actually entering the military because of it (recruiters even specifically try targeting them at times, though I don't know how prevalent that was back in 2001). Or, at least, I think that's what they were going for

Also, I feel that meta-humor loses its appeal faster than most other kinds of jokes when you see them more than once.
CashmereCat
Self-proclaimed Puzzle Snob
11638
NeverSilent expressed it way better than I could. Simply stellar. Thanks for that wonderful explanation.

But I'll try to give a reply the following question with a different approach to how turkeydawg so knowledgably and deftly answered:

author=lonestarluigi
I have an idea, the characters feel a strange presences throughout the entire game, and have been getting out of bad situations easily, then they realize there was someone controlling them called the player, they at first don't like this idea, but later realize the player is only there to help them. Is this too meta?

In my opinion, it's not too meta, and nothing can be too meta in and of itself. However, from the way you presented it, it seems to run the risk of presenting this kind of idea as wholly original, and if you try to present it as original, you run the risk of being overexcited at thinking you're the innovator of something that has been explored graciously by others. My advice would be to recognize that this is a familiar trope, and since it seems that it's central to the lifeblood of your story, to try to turn it on its head and try something new. Maybe once your characters discover the player, they have long conversations with the player where the player must provide excuses for choices they made in the game, and the characters get to decide based on these answers whether they think the player is basically good, or inexcusably evil. Or perhaps they try to devise ways to trick the player and use gaming tropes to "kill the player's game", so to speak, like introducing glitches that mess with the player. I think that if you found ways to innovate the player character relationship beyond that which is usually explored, it would be effective. But it requires first realizing that the idea has been explored gratuitously, and then recognizing that you either have to find new ways to innovate on the concept, or employ a tone that ensures you aren't doing anything new, and thus avoid appearing like you're pretentious. Either way, I think it is best when breaking the fourth wall, that this is a tradition that dates back centuries, where fictional characters in novels and plays became aware of their fictional nature. Realizing what's been done before is the first step to understanding how to forge ahead.
InfectionFiles
the world ends in whatever my makerscore currently is
4622
Also, is this a straight comedic game? Or are you looking for seriousness alongside the meta gimmick?
Oh no I know this idea was used over and over in other games, lol Its just an idea that I may build upon, I love all the ideas you all gave and reading everything you all said, I never thought such a dumb question can actually spark a little discussion. And @InfectionFiles its a comedic game but with a little mix of seriousness.
I feel like if I see another metanarrative explain to me I'm the REAL monster for killing all the digital mooks one more time I'm going to roll my eyes into a bowling alley. I think MGS2 was the only one that really pulled it off well but idk, all I ask for is nuanced messaging in the story telling. I don't want to be talked down to, I don't need to feel outsmarted, I just want a good story that's meaningful.

On the other flipside of the definiton of meta. I really like .hack for pretending to be an MMO. There's so much potential it could have reached, but it actually got a few things right surprisingly for a game made in 2002. It's set in 2010 where the copies sold actually lines up with WoW's subscriber count, and it has VR stuff which rougghlyyyyy lines up with the VR fad lately although I don't think MMOs really use them. Some of the mispelt gaia/deviantart speak is still in 2002 levels but hey, the belief that you're playing an MMO really works.
NeverSilent
Got any Dexreth amulets?
6280
I mean, considering how ingrained in our general conception of video games the idea of violence as the only option or even as an everyday matter of course still is, I don't think poking holes in that mould has already become obsolate or a mere mould in itself yet. Though, at this point, maybe we should ask ourselves if it isn't time for this to become more of a meta-meta-issue aiming at game developers and the mindset that battle systems and the like are obligatory or should be the norm a game has to be built around to begin with.

Either way, I think this is only tangentially related to the kind of self-reflective storytelling or gameplay that this topic is about to begin with. Just because a game touches the meta level, that doesn't necessarily mean it automatically questions or satirises common tropes or assumptions in video games, and vice versa. It's perfectly possible to deconstruct a genre or archetype without employing meta techniques, or to put heavy dents in the fourth wall in a project that plays and works like any other game of the same type.
author=Darken
I feel like if I see another metanarrative explain to me I'm the REAL monster for killing all the digital mooks one more time I'm going to roll my eyes into a bowling alley. I think MGS2 was the only one that really pulled it off well but idk, all I ask for is nuanced messaging in the story telling. I don't want to be talked down to, I don't need to feel outsmarted, I just want a good story that's meaningful.


I think there is a problem a lot of metanarratives or deconstructions have, which is engaging in the very same behaviour they are critizing. For example, Spec Ops: The Line is a deconstruction of the military shooter genre, but at the same time engages in most tropes associated with them. So it tries to show that killing is bad and that white american male soldiers aren't superheroes that can do no wrong, but at the same time it gives no other option than to press forward and keep killing. Bioshock had the same problem, in the plot twist where it is revealed that you were being mind-controlled all along, and that was why you did everything you were asked to without questions. It tries to deconstruct choice in games, but because Bioshock is a linear shooter, that is a willing suspension of disbelief you have to make to play, making the reveal the videogame equivalent of "whoever that reads this is dumb".
Yeah I really felt like Spec Ops: The Line was a little overrated in that there wasn't really much else than its Heart of Darkness adaptationess. I think people go into a Shooter shocked that it bothered tackling themes well above what a genre will forever be shackled to, but it doesn't have much else other than to confront itself and it's like wooooo gold star for making u feel bad after telling you to do the bad thing I guess.

One thing I thought was cool was that you were fighting American Soldiers, the bit where you have no idea what's going on was kind of mysterious and underpinning. but alas it got caught up in a lot of annoying inner-psychological tropes later on, and it disappointed me.

I kind of like how Drakengard did the "your protagonist is bad" thing but there's really no drawback or subtext to any of it, it just keeps getting worse and worse. Not really a meta example but from the screeching metalic violins to the repetitive killing combat really hammers in what it isn't ashamed of to be, and I think Yoko Taro kind of let the insanity speak for itself in that regard.
The meta line stands where you, the designer, draw it. Depending on your needs the line can be:

1. no meta
2. a few jokes about the charterer being a game avatar
3. talk to the player about the meaning of the in-game actions he/she took
4. makes the player perform small actions outside the game like read an external file for a clue or swap the controller port
5. makes the player perform more demanding actions outside the game like moving to other locations while being GPS tracked.

I'm ok with meta up to 4. But 5 is definitely too much. I would also avoid using personal information from the player. Oneshot using OS account name is acceptable but nothing more.
Pages: 1