Metagaming in adventure games - good or bad?

[WHAM]

Metagaming: player using knowlegde he/she posesses to succeed in a game, even when the player character has no way of having the necessary information yet.

Is this good or bad? Should metagaming be encouraged, or weeded out?

In my game design I have been keeping to a theme, where the main character cannot do something without a reason. For example, he will not pick up a tool he needs later in the game before he has SEEN the obstacle he needs the tool to overcome.

However, some of my testers have reported that this is annoying, especially when having to load an older save for any reason, as they would like to pick up the tool and proceed to the obstacle, without having to backtrack for 30-60 seconds to the previous room to get the item they need.

Opinions and discussion extremely welcome!

[Ali]

Metagaming is definitely a bad thing, but so is your solution to it in my eyes.

A player should always be able to pick up something useful - particularly a tool which the character could realistically choose to take with them without a specific purpose in mind. I think the challenge is to design your game so that players come across obstacles before they come across solutions. Ron Gilbert wrote an article about that, and the challenges it presents, I'd suggest you have a look at it.

[WHAM]

Metagaming is definitely a bad thing, but so is your solution to it in my eyes.

A player should always be able to pick up something useful - particularly a tool which the character could realistically choose to take with them without a specific purpose in mind. I think the challenge is to design your game so that players come across obstacles before they come across solutions. Ron Gilbert wrote an article about that, and the challenges it presents, I'd suggest you have a look at it.

So I should allow the player to carry around the crowbar, a "monkey" wrench, sidecutters, duct-tape, sixteen keycards and a fine leather jacket just because he MIGHT need them later on? Of course, there are potential solutions to be found to this issue by setting up the puzzles and items so that the player comes across the challenges and solutions in a certain order to reduce inventory clutter, but what about free-roaming games, where the player can solve puzzles in whatever order he sees fit?

[Ali]

Doesn't limiting the player's ability to pick up objects go against the spirit of a free-roaming game? Free-roaming games like Oblivion let the player pick up and drop almost anything they want. Maybe that is the solution!

[JimmyShelter]

It depends a bit on how big the game is.

I don't mind returning to a location to retrieve an item my character just learned he could use, if it is just one or two rooms back, but more than that, it gets annoying.
Sure, it's meta-gaming/out of character to just pick up everything, but one thing to realize is that most people still playing adventures, have certain expectations of how the game should work. As with everything, only 'break' rules if you have good reasons, and have solutions to offer your users.


Most free roaming games are RPGs, with weight management included. You can take everything you want, up to a certain weight.

[Anian]

Of course, there are potential solutions to be found to this issue by setting up the puzzles and items so that the player comes across the challenges and solutions in a certain order to reduce inventory clutter, but what about free-roaming games, where the player can solve puzzles in whatever order he sees fit?

Well it's not really free roam if you cannot go back to some room, now is it?

Making the player act a certain way but not letting him know he/she is manipulated is probably the hardest part. For example a soldier in a base full of zombies - what would he do first? Find ammo/weapons room or something similar. He won't be going exploring and opening random doors - you have to make sure of it, throw in a cinematic depicting attacks or even simpler "I better get some firepower before going out there" lines.
No game is truly free roam. Even in ie GTA, you have missions, yes there are multiple ways of achieving things or doing certain things in different order but you are guided by mission objectives.
If you want to allow the player to pick things when he needs them - either make sure all areas are accesible and/or make the tools available in some other form. In the example of a soldier - he might find a dead soldier on the floor and take his ammo, or find a locker or a box with ammo - that way you provided tools in another form.

In case of you not wanting the player to have a wrench or taking it before it's due:
- "I don't need it right now"
- make limited inventory "it's too heavy to carry around"
- instead of it being in engine room, a player finds a note saying that a maintence unit was sent to another room, player later finds that room and finds a tech with a tool kit (including the wrench, that way it's not a random thing, but part of the story that played out before the player came into picture

Of course, learn to limit your area, that's most important in any game - for example COMI - you get eaten by a snake and get lots of items from it's belly, but then you fall into the sandpit and it gets sucked out - through narrative your inventory gets edited and cleaned up and the player doesn't mind or maybe even notice that at that point he/she's logic and freedom is manipulated.
The soldier shoots a gun but sudenly it jams and you have to run or use a wrench to kill a zombie - you've limited a solution thus pointed the player into a direction you want the story to go. Or you try to open a door with a key and as you open it a key brakes - you now don't have that key in inventory, player knows it's not going to be used again and everybody is happy.

P.S. there's a rule - the longer the player play uninterupted, the better the immersion in the story/game, thus if I have to load a game because I forgot something - immersion gets broken - so the awnser would be "bad". Going 2-3 rooms back to get something, I don't mind, it's only realistic, just as long as it's not a pixel hunt - if you we're stuck on a locked door, you'd go back and look for a key or something in real life, so it's ok by me.

[blueskirt]

WHAM: I've seen this idea in action before, the game was Speculum Mortis, and it expected you to revisit every single locations in the game and interact with every objects anytime you solved or encountered a puzzle for the very reason that "nobody in their right mind would carry all that junk around/do all those seemingly useless actions unless they had a good reason". The result was horrendous.

Plus, how would the game (and the player) know when the main character got a reason to pick up an item? Would they become pickable when you enter the room where the puzzle is located? Or would you have to look at every single puzzles you encounter? Or unsuccessfully interact with each of them?

Players complained at Dave Gilbert regarding the clue combination mechanic of his Blackwell games because they could figure out the answers to the questions in the games without combining the clues yet the game didn't let them progress because the main character couldn't figure the answers, no matter how obvious these answers were to the players. I don't think making a game where this problem applied to every actions you did would be a good idea.

Seriously, don't do that. It's just games after all, there's no need for this kind of realism.

[Radiant]

Metagaming: player using knowlegde he/she posesses to succeed in a game, even when the player character has no way of having the necessary information yet.

Is this good or bad? Should metagaming be encouraged, or weeded out?

Obligatory link...

[Nikolas]

And I was wondering when you would show up, Radiant! 

[Ryan Timothy B]

I personally dislike having to look at something or talk to someone first before you can pick up or do a certain action (in most cases).

I've played a couple AGS games that have done this, and I haven't enjoyed the linearity of it once.  I actually get quite angry.  Sure it's more realistic that you wouldn't go carrying around this large tool or object without a purpose, but it's annoying.

The only few examples I can think of why I would support a triggered moment before you can grab an item or do a specific action would be:

• The item looks dangerous.

Example: If a canister of radiated ooze was sitting on a shelf, I totally understand having to find out if the item is safe to pick up first before you can grab it.

• The action you're attempting doesn't make sense yet, or the action appears dangerous at the moment.

Example: Breaking the basement window before finding out the house door is locked, would be flawed in most cases. OR. Ingesting a medication before finding out what it is, or before finding out that you need to take it.

• Someone is stopping you from stealing or doing something.  In those cases you'd have to distract the person or come back when they aren't there anymore. But make sure the player knows that person wouldn't be there anymore, otherwise it would appear random and odd.
  

But always make it clear that just not a possibility at that moment.  And also make sure it's obvious that player would know that the trigger has been set, so they can now perform that certain action or grab that item.

For example, with the locked house door.
When you attempt to break the window before finding out the door is locked, instead of writing "Why would I break a window?", you should write "Try the door first." or "I wouldn't break a window unless I knew I needed to.", or something along those lines.  Also make sure it's obvious to the player that the door is locked and you need to find another way in.

Sometimes there are timed events where you're actually required to grab an item only when the owner of it is distracted for a brief moment or looking away.  Like in Ben's game Awakener.  A timed puzzle like that can be a little tricky with narration if you're caught picking up the item.  If you word it wrong, most players might think you can't pick up that item at all, or until the person leaves the room/area.  Obviously you don't want to write "Try grabbing it when he isn't looking at you.", cause that gives it away, but something like "Dang, he saw me." or "I'll have to make sure he's distracted first." are subtle enough without giving it away.

Anyway these are my opinions and the most common, but everyone has their own ideas of how a game should be (doesn't mean everyone will like it though).

And yes, I kinda strayed off subject.. I got carried away.

[LimpingFish]

I actually did something like this in Heartland Deluxe. The screwdriver in the box under the sink only becomes available after you've examined the locked wardrobe. I figured that I didn't want the player randomly holding a screwdriver, or, worse, triggering the wardrobe "puzzle" sequence before they even discovered that the wardrobe was locked in the first place!

An overuse of "Hmm. This might come in handy later..." is something I always disliked. Who carries an rubber ring, an onion, and some jumper cables on their person, in the hope that a spontaneous inventory puzzle breaks out?

Besides an adventure game character?

[Dualnames]

I was thinking I was the only one thinking about META..

Metagaming: player using knowlegde he/she posesses to succeed in a game, even when the player character has no way of having the necessary information yet.

Is this good or bad? Should metagaming be encouraged, or weeded out?

Obligatory link...

[Igor Hardy]

I was thinking I was the only one thinking about META..

Metagaming: player using knowlegde he/she posesses to succeed in a game, even when the player character has no way of having the necessary information yet.

Is this good or bad? Should metagaming be encouraged, or weeded out?

Obligatory link...

I was thinking about it too. I haven't played it yet, but still I seem unable to forget it.

[Mr Flibble]

I only like the "I don't need this" approach to items you haven't found the puzzle for yet when there's an obvious reason to not take it (and even then, it has to be prohibitive and not just preferential, eg. too large to carry or dangerous, but not just because your character doesn't want to) , or if you have a particularly realistic game world where you can't steal anything that isn't nailed down.

[LRH]

I think this works well in some cases. I'm working on a game, and at one point you're asked to get something from a cupboard, but it's not until you try to open it you realize it's locked. You then have to go back to the person who asked to find out about getting a key. This isn't simply to lengthen the game, but to throw in a second somewhat smaller puzzle to the game, AND it fits in well with my story, which may make no sense, but I don't want to give anything away.

[monkey0506]

I haven't fully read everyone's posts but I feel that there's no single "right" or "wrong" when it comes to this. I think it has to be considered very contextually. For example, I think if you have an item that the player might consider for a use other than where it's intended to be used at then it would make sense to allow them to realize their line of thinking with an appropriate response. This I would consider as being generally in favor of meta-gaming.

However, if you have an item that can only ever be used for a single purpose and you cannot possibly fathom the player contriving of another use for it, then I would say allowing them to carry it around half the game only to get "That doesn't seem to work," messages until they finally discover the item's purpose..that would be very much a reasonable argument against it.

Preventing the player from picking up a specific item until its exact purpose has been realized by specific game events seems a bit obtuse to me as the player will likely have ideas of their own as to how the item could be used.

As Ryan said though, allowing the player to break into the basement before learning the door is locked is equally bad.

So for me it's all about the implementation.

[Khris]

I absolutely loathe not being able to pick up or operate things until my character has learned their purpose. This can make me quit even a game that's great otherwise because I consider it a serious design flaw.

There has to be a very good reason if I'm not allowed to do something. (E.g. it's perfectly fine to prevent the player from doing something that would kill them if done too early. "If you push the button now, the blast would kill you!")
Anything else but a realistic, obvious reason why something isn't possible feels like the game is lengthened by a lazy designer.

If I'd rather break into the window without checking the front door, why not let the player do that if they have a suitable tool? Or even using their fist. Maybe later on, another puzzle requires a more complicated solution because the hand is injured. Sure, it's more work, but the game will profit immensely.

[WHAM]

Good ideas and opinions so far.

Lets try this: In the demo of my next game I have a puzzle where this is relevant. (SPOILRES AHEAD!)

When you try to open a door, the door says that it requires a DNA identification of the person who locked it, or a password. As the main character has no idea what the passcode might be, the DNA is his best bet. The body of the person in question can be found in a morgue nearby. The puzzle: how to get a small piece of him for the DNA reader.

> The player must get a cutting tool and cut off a finger from the body.

There is a pair of sidecutters in a box in the very same morgue, and their presence is hinted at in an autopsy report that can be read on a computer in the adjacent room.

HOWEVER: if the player has not tried to interact with the door, and therefore does not know he needs the DNA, he will only say "There are small tools and junk in the box", when interacting with the box containing the sidecutters. After he knows that he needs the DNA, the character will say "A pair of sidecutters, I'll probably need these!" and get the item.

Is this a good way to proceed, and if you think not, how would you do the same puzzle? Would it be better to just allow the player to run around with the sidecutters as soon as he wants?

[Babar]

You should plan out the game so as to avoid such situations altogether.

Have something so that the player could not have seen/interacted with the door having the cutters BEFORE he sees the house with the DNA puzzle. Perhaps the player can only see the autopsy report after reading the person's name at their house? Perhaps looking at the DNA thing at the house triggers some event  (I know that some people hate random triggering of events, but still), that gives the player some dialog option or inventory item that the player can then use with some guard at the morgue which then allows them to look for the cutters.

[Anian]

When trying to use the cutters/interacting with a box - "No time to play doctor now" or "Not desperate enough to get into black market of organ transplants just yet."
But first of all the description should be something along "Some surgical equippment, probably used on that poor dead fellow on the table...I hope he started out dead, these don't look very sterile" or "Autopsy tools, scalpels, scissors and such."

Probably make sure there's info in the pc about who is the man on the table in the morgue and/or put a tag around his toe (don't know the resolution of the game, might have the toe tag be a separate object if it's visible) with info and when you look at corpse part of description reads "...cause of death seems to be that hole in his head. There's a tag on his toe, it reads subject 1024 (then you look up the file on pc for example) or colonel J. Smith"

Don't be upfront with saying that these tools might be used later, just that these are some tools that were used for specific purpose. After the player finds about the door, a bulb lights up and "oh, wait, I know where I can get some DNA." Telling the player a tool shall be useful later is only gonna make him/her try to take the tool and be disappointed or obssesed with taking it instead of following the story.

If the player tries to "take the body" or something else when close to the solution, then use something like "I'm not hogging dead bodies around the compound, I only need a sample/piece" (try not to make him sound like a cannibal on detox though ).

IMO try to avoid cliches like "grab stuff from a box", wrapping it up as "a tray with surgical tools" or similar instantly shows the purpose of that tool in usual circumstances and therefor it's properties like "sharp" and "used on bodies."

When in game there are 2 main things which help a lot in the options and interactivity problem
- game logic - you find out how the game functions and what is expected of the player and what can I do in this interactive limited world - for example you won't randomly jump even if you can in real life and you won't put everything you see into your pocket, even though you can
- story/atmosphere - if I am truly scared that ie zombies are after me I probably won't try turning on the tv or go to get a snack right then or even if I try I will understand that mentioned game logic might say "Snacks, NOW?! If I don't get out of here, I'm gonna be one." Story will point into a certain direction and basically all the exploring is just to help the imersivness (think RPGs - there are side quests but the main story will pull you towards moving in designed direction).