the inherent narcissism in meta

“x game is incredibly meta,” someone says in a comment of praise. what about the concept of “meta” makes this so inherently praiseworthy, though? facets of self awareness, self referential content, it’s possible to think that the success of meta relies on the game’s ability to recognize its own content. however, then what role does the player take in being able to recognize this content as well? would it still count as meta were the player not able to recognize it?

in breaksout, the player is faced with the basic question of “how many versions of breakout can i present to you in a manner that overturns your expectations (and possibly mess with your gameplay), while still retaining enough resemblance to the original game so that you, the player, may recognize the original source?"

there is a sense of humor in this sort of undermining of expectations and standards a player has in the game. they’ve been, in a way, duped. the way breaksout makes some stages stupid hard to navigate or even win isn’t supposed to frustrate the player immensely - it’s supposed to act as a little trickster, a jester that goes “haha, i got you!” when the player realizes that normal methods of play will not work. the favicon for breaksout is even a pixelated clown emoji 🤡 and these acts of mischief are the true entertainment source, not the actual gameplay itself (as mentioned in lecture, who would sit there and finish an entire level of breakout i’ll never know).

this is an act of parody. does parody then count as meta? that’s not really what i’m focusing on here, but in a similar manner the full meaning and entertainment value, the “fun” in playing breaksout, is lost if the person doesn’t already have the background knowledge of what the game is playing off of. a facet of what makes this meta isn’t just that the game can recognize and make fun of itself and/or its origins, but also our ability as an audience to identify that and give ourselves a pat on the back for having figured it out.

sometimes there’s even an extra layer of this parody by adding references to other external sources of media (like in the ghost breakout, in which the chorus of unchained melody plays for that extra ghost effect.) even games that aren’t arguably heavy in meta content like to take advantage of this tactic, adding in references that if caught by the player (ace attorney's english translations are criminally underrated in my opinion), are considered part of the humor and fun. if the reference goes over the head of an unaware player, then a portion of that value is lost on them. the more widespread knowledge the player possesses, the more “fun” the game.

ddlc takes this further by completely overturning any expectations that experienced players already harbor about otome and dating sims in general. countless playthroughs online show people’s reactions and their jaws dropping when they find their game interface is completely wrecked, or they have to dive manually into the files to continue playing. it’s possible to look at this as simply well-received for being unconventional, but with further inspection there’s an inherent notion that this game is the most impacting to a connoisseur who’s already well-practiced in the ways of wooing digital characters.

okay, yes. there’s an initial level of shock for any of ddlc’s game-turning events, only amplified more by how well the player knows what otome are supposed to be like. but afterwards, isn’t that shock of “i know how this is supposed to go and that DEFINITELY wasn’t how it was supposed to go” an alternate sense of triumph for being able to pick that out the abnormality, for having known what the usual protocol is? it seems almost like a sense of pride and self-praise when people call something “meta,” since it means that they have confidence in their general knowledge of the game genre and this game was “smart” enough to outwit even their vast knowledge and experience.