Skip to main content
Critical Video Game Studies

Is Being Meta Enough?

By November 12, 20222 Comments

There Is No Game: Wrong Dimension has a really unique story compared to other games I have played. Normally when I think of something being meta, I think of something being self-aware of itself in order to critique something that is similar but not self-aware. In There Is No Game: Wrong Dimension, the meta aspect mainly exists to enhance the gameplay through comedy. Without the meta narrator telling you there is no game, the game would be a simple point-and-click puzzle game without much to set it apart from other games. The narrator makes the simple tasks more enjoyable and also communicates small hints in a creative way that feels more like a part of the game than a handout that a player has to use if they cannot complete the game normally. Although I enjoyed the meta aspect of the game, I do not think it was enough to carry my enjoyment through the game. After a while, the self-aware narrator was not as interesting to me anymore. At this point, the game needed to rely on the actual gameplay to keep me entertained, and the gameplay did just that. The puzzles stayed extremely creative throughout the game. My only issue with the game is its replayability. As is the nature of many puzzle-solving games, there are aspects that attract players to replay them other than for the purpose of speedrunning. With only around five hours of gameplay, I do not think I could see myself buying this game for its $12.99 price point. Maybe part of why I feel this way is because I have been spoiled by free-to-play games that make money off of selling cosmetics and have large replay value. I wanted to know if anyone else felt that way about the replayability or felt that the meta aspect was interesting but eventually lost interest in it.

Of course, an argument can be made that the meta aspect of the game can make you rethink how games are played or ponder how you fit into the universe of this game. However, I really did not feel myself rethinking how games could be designed, other than thinking that some game mechanics were interesting. As with any fourth-wall-breaking content, one can always wonder whether there is some fourth wall for us to break. Maybe we are in a game and someone is playing as us. Personally, I am just not that interested in this kind of thought because if it is true then I would rather live in ignorance and believe my life has more meaning. Ultimately, There Is No Game: Wrong Dimension does not need some important message told through its meta narrator to be a good game. Its narrator makes players laugh which can be just as important as any message. I personally just do not think the meta aspect did enough for me to justify its price, but from its many good reviews, I’m sure it was enough for many people.

2 Comments

  • Justin Justin says:

    I agree with your analysis of the game. At first, the “There is no game” aspect of the design was entertaining and I found it funny to play against. However, once you start getting into the Squirrel OS stages, this aspect falls by the wayside, and I think it’s because the designers knew that the bit would eventually fall off. On a first run, the game is fun to play through even without this meta-aspect, but I definitely agree with you on the terms of lack of replayability in that its price point is higher than I would’ve expected.

  • volpe volpe says:

    I agree with your take on the power of the meta-narrative – with games like The Stanley Parable, the meta narrator adds greatly to my enjoyment of the game, being both entertaining and raising questions to the player about their role within the game. While I thought the meta narrator of There Is No Game was charming at first, it quickly wore off, and I found myself becoming increasingly annoyed by the narrator, especially when I got to the point-and-click Sherlock Holmes section and the flow of the game was greatly disrupted by his interjections. I think the main difference is that in the Stanley Parable, even if you disobeyed what the narrator said, it felt like the game was yes-anding the player – even though the narrator was upset by the player’s choices, the game continued on and even rewarded the player for getting creative and exploring. In There Is No Game, the extent of the meta-narration is the narrator going “no don’t do that” and “omg it’s so crazy that you did that”. While yes, I agree their hints were sometimes helpful, I began feeling like I had someone standing over my shoulder and backseating me, and I started to question why the narrator was even apart of the game in the first place.