Breaking the Meta, for Good

The meta: The pathway to success, the beginner's guide to how to play the "right way", and the absolute BANE of creativity in gaming. Nobody plays games to lose over and over, it's just not fun. Gamers have solved that issue. By running mass amounts of simulations and analyzing every byte of data they can find (honestly sounds like a fantastic weekend), the gaming community brings you the "best" way to play your favorite game. Why worry about the rest of the game? Get the best thing, go win. Why play Smash with items on, or on weird stages? Just play random battlefield with items off and then we get to witness the TRUE best characters. I was talking to a buddy of mine about Dungeons and Dragons. He had never played before, but he's a very curious mind. His question was "what's the best class?"

The over-reliance on the meta in gaming can stifle individuality and creativity among players. When the focus is on adhering to established strategies and character choices, it leaves little room for players to explore their own playstyles and preferences. This pressure to conform to the meta often results in a lack of diversity and experimentation in gameplay, as players feel compelled to stick to the established norms in order to be competitive.

By prioritizing the meta, players may miss out on the opportunity to develop their own unique approaches and strategies, which can ultimately hinder the growth of the gaming community as a whole. Instead of encouraging innovation and diversity, the fixation on the meta can lead to a homogenized and less dynamic gaming experience.

Understanding the 'Meta' in Gaming

The concept of "meta" in gaming refers to the most effective or popular strategies, tactics, and character choices within a particular game. It is the current dominant or most successful style of gameplay that has been analyzed and adopted by the majority of players. The meta can encompass everything from the best characters to use, the most powerful weapons or abilities, and the most effective tactics to win.

Meta strategies are formed through a combination of player experimentation, data analysis, and patch updates. As certain strategies prove to be the most successful, they become more widespread as players adopt and adapt to them. The prevalence of meta strategies can be seen in a wide variety of games, from competitive shooters like Call of Duty and Overwatch to strategic card games like Hearthstone and even in role-playing games like World of Warcraft.

Does that mean that the meta is inherently bad? No, of course not. See, something learned by the players of a game can't be bad, in my opinion. At the end of the day, the reason the meta exists in the first place is because there are gamers that are dedicated to XYZ game enough to analyze it to its fullest. That's honestly beautiful and I hope a player does that with one of my games, someday. The place where it becomes an issue is where the "best choice" isn't a specific player's definition of "fun."

While the meta can provide a clear roadmap to success, it also stifles individuality and creativity. Players may feel pressured to conform to the meta in order to remain competitive, leading to a lack of diversity in gameplay styles. Either that or worse, the player decides to stop playing. This not only limits personal expression but also hinders the potential for discovering new, innovative strategies that could enhance the overall gaming experience.

The Negative of Meta on Gameplay

Adhering to the meta can heavily impact the gameplay experience. If a player wants to be good or win the game, they have to play the good thing or else they get stomped. This can also lead to a stagnant and repetitive gaming experience. How many times do you play online only to lose to the same loadout over and over or, if you buy into the meta more, how many times do you play the mirror match?

In popular games such as League of Legends, Overwatch, and Fortnite, the meta heavily influences the way players approach the game. Certain characters, weapons, or strategies become dominant, and players who deviate from these norms are often seen as uncompetitive or even detrimental to their team. This creates a toxic environment where players are discouraged from experimenting with new and unique playstyles. Sorry Kai'Sa mains. 🤷‍♂️

The dominance of the meta can be stifling to creativity and innovation within the gaming community. Players are less likely to explore unconventional strategies or unique character combinations, leading to a lack of diversity in gameplay. This can ultimately limit the overall potential of the game and discourage players from expressing their individuality.

Furthermore, the content created by the studio gets shrunk, no matter how much was actually developed. It doesn't matter that there are 164 champions in League of Legends (currently) if only the top 25% of them ever see competitive play. I honestly find that to be really sad. There are some awesome champs that I always got flamed for playing, just because they weren't seen as good, even though the mechanics of those characters were the ones I was the best with. In team games, like League, that's a way to auto-lose.

Stifling Individuality and Creativity

While the meta can be helpful for understanding the current state of the game, it can also limit players' freedom to experiment and innovate. When players feel pressured to adhere to the meta, they may be less likely to try out new approaches and ideas, stifling their individuality and creativity. Those aspects are going to come up a lot in this article because I believe they are the most crucial elements of gaming. We play games to escape the world where there are "right answers" and "rules and guidelines." We get to become whatever/whoever we want and I think that's beautiful. But nobody wants to just be a loser, right? Well, that's where the meta can take some people. Doesn't matter how cool your character looks, how creative your combo is, or how intricate your character's personal backstory is. It's bad, and you will lose now.

This pressure to conform to the meta can have a psychological impact on players, leading to feelings of frustration, anxiety, and a sense of being stifled. Players may feel as though they are not able to fully express themselves within the game and may become disengaged as a result. Additionally, the emphasis on the meta can lead to a homogenization of playstyles, with players all using similar strategies and tactics. Doesn't that sound like fun?

In order to foster a more inclusive and creative gaming environment, it is important for players to feel empowered to break away from the constraints of the meta and to experiment with their own unique ideas and approaches. This can lead to a more diverse and dynamic gaming experience, where individuality and creativity are celebrated and valued.

Counter-Culture: Breaking Away from the Meta

Gamers will always be competitive, there's nothing wrong with that. At any given point, there's bound to be a build, tactic, or strategy that has a higher potential or an easier path to success. Let me set the record straight: I'm all about competition. I love pitting myself against others in whatever battle we decide upon. The place where I get lost is when I'm pitting myself against whatever someone else said was good, as opposed to pitting myself against my actual opponent. I used to play Yugioh and Magic: the Gathering a lot with my best friend. He's a meta-gamer and I am not (I know, you're shocked). I didn't win very much because he always played whatever the meta stated was the best and I wanted to play the thing that was more "like me." Certainly this sounds like I'm just mad that I wasn't winning, but it's more than that. I don't really feel like he and I ever necessarily played together, but rather that I was pitting myself against a deck. There's nothing wrong with this, I've got a lot of great memories with my friend and some crazy inside jokes, but I feel like there could've been so much more.

There have been numerous instances where deviating from the meta has led to success and more enjoyable gameplay. The main theme, however, is building against what is currently good. If you know the main weakness of a major meta build, you build counter to that and now, all the sudden, you can win... against that one meta pick. It sounds like poetic justice but, if I'm being totally honest, it doesn't let me be me in-game. It's more like "meta V2" wherein it's still a pick just for the win and there's not as much creativity in the playstyle.

Encouraging gamers to "play their way" can lead to a more dynamic and diverse gaming community, but how do we do that? I mean... certainly we can't just say, "hey all you competitive gamers, I know this character literally lets you hit 1one button and win all the time, but why not try not doing that instead?!" The feeling of winning is nice, ya know? The way to encourage something, in gaming, is by rewarding it. You win the game: you get the "YOU WIN" screen. You beat the most people in a tournament: You get top of the leaderboard and everyone notices you. You beat the boss: You get the cool new sword. We should be encouraging people to want to win, that's the point of the game. Can any of that help? I guess so, but it's inherently flawed to think about it like that. If a reward is shown for playing a certain way and a player doesn't want to play that way, it's a punishment. The concept of being against punishing a player for playing their way is the point of this article, we can't do that either. So what do we do?

Role of Game Developers

The role of game developers is crucial in shaping the meta within gaming. Game design can either encourage or discourage a rigid meta by how they balance the in-game mechanics. When game developers prioritize a few overpowered strategies, they inadvertently limit the diversity of viable playstyles, leading to a strict meta where players feel pressured to conform to the established "best" tactics. I've never spoken to these devs, so I'm not here to say that this is done on purpose. I point no fingers, I make no accusations. Certainly none of this is easy.

The problem is comes in, however, exactly as I said before: We can't punish someone for doing well. If a developer finds that a specific build or strategy is doing far better than the rest, nerfing it is a punishment.  If we simply update the game with nerfs of good characters, then someone who worked hard to build the character they like gets punished. If we just make the lesser used characters stronger, those "good" ones still get punished.

Let's examine the concept of punishment and reward with some game theory. Imagine this scenario: two college students have a test tomorrow, first thing in the morning, but there is a party happening tonight. One student goes to the party, stays out until 4am, probably drinks, then sleeps through the alarm, wakes up hungover at 1pm. That student missed the test. The other student studies for the test until 9pm, goes to bed early, wakes up early, eats breakfast, and goes to class. That student made it to the test. One student got to have a good time but will get a bad grade, the other student didn't get to have a good time but will get a good grade. In hindsight, and in the long run, the second student is better off. Now let's change the rules. The first student goes into that professor's office and BEGS to get a chance to make up the test. The professor agrees. This affects the balance of the game. The first student now got to have a good time and can get a good grade, while the second student (who by the standards of the school did everything right) still only got one of those two things. This isn't "giving a chance" to the one that made poor decisions, this is punishing the one that made good decisions. Any advantage that that student had is now gone, and he missed the party.

The point of that story is this: balance is fickle. Bringing up someone who doesn't try as hard actively hurts the one who tries. I want you to try hard at my game, that's why I made the game. My negative feelings have nothing to do with losing. I've lost quite a few games that I still had fun with because the game was good and I felt accomplished, just outplayed. My negative feelings come from the fact that a game might place an invisible limitation on a strategy that otherwise would be completely valid. That's what the devs are here to do. 

The Future: Beyond the Meta

So what does all of this mean? "There's been a lot of whining, but not a lot of solutions, Zac!" Maybe my philosophy is odd, but here's what I think: competitive games shouldn't be built balanced, they should be built as basically as possible. What I mean is that I disagree with the concept of developing with a strategy in mind. Strengths and weaknesses? Sure, let's stay informed about our product, but strategy is not to be developed, it's to be discovered. I believe that we should be creating worlds for our players to explore and developing the physics of said world for our players to work with. Battle Royale games do this by removing some build control. While there may be a "meta" you still have to work with whatever you find. PUBG and COD: Warzone are the most primal versions. Everyone is the same and you have to figure it out on your own. I prefer games like Apex Legends and Spellbreak (RIP Spellbreak) that allow the player to have some customization in their gameplay, even if it means the randomness makes them take a hit while playing.

Albert Einstein was quoted saying: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler" and I think that's a fantastic philosophy for game development. We should be starting at the baseline of what is necessary and only expanding when it's time to. That's why you start game theory with two players contemplating two options. There are only four outcomes. Bravo, that's simple. When we start creating multiplayer games under the assumption of a "correct" or "best" strategy, we lose the simplicity of the world. Furthermore, it's a waste of effort. Why write code for something that is literally obsolete? Congrats, you paid a developer $100,000 a year to create a dagger that literally has no use except for a player to find it and say "darn" before moving on. Like I said, I don't think devs actively develop based on a meta, but I think the way we allow for creativity in creative games is by creating basic building blocks for the player to piece together where it makes the most sense. Sure, some players will still find ways to build their characters to make that big sword deal the most damage as possible in one hit, but maybe someone else, out there, will find a way to not get hit in the first place. Now there's freedom in choice.