{"id":664,"date":"2008-03-04T13:03:55","date_gmt":"2008-03-04T11:03:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/leapfrog.nl\/blog\/archives\/2008\/03\/04\/metagames-as-viral-loops\/"},"modified":"2008-03-04T17:24:04","modified_gmt":"2008-03-04T15:24:04","slug":"metagames-as-viral-loops","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/leapfrog.nl\/blog\/archives\/2008\/03\/04\/metagames-as-viral-loops\/","title":{"rendered":"Metagames as viral loops"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"MtG:<\/a><\/p>\n

‘Metagames’<\/a>—<\/ins>Richard Garfield’s presentation for the 2000 Game Developers Conference—<\/ins>is in today’s links<\/a>, but I think it deserves a bit more attention than that. Here are some quotes from the document that stood out for me.1<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

What a metagame is:<\/p>\n

\n

“My definition of metagame is broad. It is how a game interfaces with life.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

In other words, metagame design is contextual. It forces you to think about when, where, how and by who your game will be played.<\/p>\n

Why metagame design has not been getting as much attention as game design itself:<\/p>\n

\n

“\u2026the majority of a game’s metagame is probably unalterable by game designer or publisher.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

So, metagame design is a second order design problem<\/em>. Designers can only indirectly influence how metagames play out. They facilitate it, but do not direct it.<\/p>\n

Garfield divides metagames in four broad categories:<\/p>\n