In the past month, two friends have directly asked me about this topic and a third has discussed it in passing with me. I read the Golden Compass in High School years ago, and I am very excited about the new movie. Of course, I suppose I should have expected these questions and comments, since the news channels keep running idiotic stories about it. So, here is my answer to the question, "Is The Golden Compass anti-Christian?"
First, let me summarize the book. A young girl, Lyra Belaqua, lives in a world in which a religious organization, the Magesterium, concocts secret plots for power, in more ways than one. Their Oblation Board, overseen by Lyra's own mother, seeks out children they consider of low worth to abduct and conduct medical experiments on, experiments that ultimately lead to the childrens' deaths. When a friend of Lyra's is taken by the Oblation Board, she turns her back on the prospects of riches and power her parents could gain her to set out into the dangerous frozen north to rescue her friend. Along the way, she uncovers a plot by the Magesterium to gain control of the warrior nation of snow bears by holding the promise of "baptism" over the head of the leader, if he can prove that he is equal to the Human race (and does what the Magesterium wishes).
I suppose one's answer to the question at hand depends entirely on how you personally define Christianity. If you believe that Christianity is best exemplified by the actions of the Magesterium in this book, by deception, murder, kidnapping, and an insatiable lust for power and money, then you would be correct in saying that this film speaks out against such things. If you believe that Christianity is best defined by the courage to turn your back on money and power for a friend in need, by honesty, loyalty, courage, and kindness, then this movie honors Christianity.
Perhaps most ironic of all, is that those who stand on their soapboxes screaming about how this movie dishonors their religion are themselves saying that they belong to a religion that practices dishonesty, murder, and secret combinations, which are built up to get power, gain, and glory of the world. If their religion does practice such things, I would reply to them that they would be better off looking for the source of corruption within their organization, the reason that such secret combinations have hold upon them, than to criticize a movie or suggest that all religion is represented by the evil Magesterium of The Golden Compass.
~Quaggy
Monday, December 3, 2007
Saturday, November 3, 2007
A Fix For Maple Story's Shop System
I've had this in my head for months, so I finally decided to do up a post about it. Though I feel it unlikely this will be seen by anyone with the power to consider the idea, still I will do my best to convey the idea whether or not it is ever implemented (because I think it would greatly improve the experience of playing Maple Story). Above is an image I've drawn up to show the new addition to the Free Market that I'd love to see added to Maple Story Global someday.It would work something like this: players wishing to sell in the Super Market would stop at the NPC sitting behind the Front Desk to retrieve Sale Tags (a stackable item that would look somewhat like the rough image below). Those who cannot or will not buy NX would get 1 Sale Tag for free. Additional ones could be purchased for a certain amount, like 5,000 NX each. Once an item sold, the tag would return to the desk for the
user to retrieve (along with the mesos from the item(s) sold). To be absolutely clear here, these tags would be PERMANENT. The Cash Shop has enough temporary stuff in it already that too few people buy. The last thing we need is more temporary electronic items to pay real money for, especially when there is a whole game full of free items that last forever. But I digress, back to the point...Those who wish to buy from the Super Market would go right past the front desk to the 4 door portals, each marked with a sign over it saying (in order) "Eq.", "Use", "Set-up", and "Etc.". Depending on the type of item the user wishes to buy, they would choose a door. Items for sale would be displayed as if they were drops laying on a shelf (that no one can pick up). Below each item would be a crate (that players can't break), which sellers would click on to leave one of that item for sale at whatever price they feel is reasonable. Above the shelf would be a blackboard which buyers could click on to see a list of that item currently for sale on their server, in order by price. (If they want certain stats on Equipment items, they would still have to scroll down through the available items to find what they want.) Leaving an item or single stack of items would require 1 Sale Tag. When the item or stack is sold out, the Sale Tag returns to the desk to be claimed by the owner so they can sell something else.
While I realize that this would reduce the number of players using Owls of Minerva and Shop Elves, it would also improve the game (which should be the first concern of any game developer). So many players I know just NPC their unwanted items instead of trying to deal with the hassles of the Free Market (and some of them on slower connections can't even use the Free Market because they lag and then DC). Many buyers go to websites like Basil Street to deal in items or stand and spam the ch. 1 Free Market until they get what they want instead of trying to spend hours searching for the right item and price checking it. The Free Market is chaos, and I know I hate dealing with it. To make matters worse, players who have no NX often plant themselves in the Free Market and spam it like there is no tomorrow (because they have no other choice). Players with NX do anything they can to get a good spot to leave their character and computer on all night (or school day) in the hopes that someone who happens to want what they are selling might find them and buy from them. Not only does this add unnecessary drain to the Maple servers, but it causes unnecessary wear and tear to people's computers. My new system could be implemented without getting rid of the Free Market stalls, though if I were a betting person, I'd bet people would drop the Free Market stalls like a hot potato within a week of this being released.
The only downside to this idea that I can think of would be revenue. I'm not sure if the revenue from this idea would be more or less than is currently earned through the Maple Story shop system. It could be more profitable because people are always more willing to buy something permanent, especially in a game, than they are to buy temporary electronic items. On the other hand, the revenue could be slightly less because people aren't being scalped every which way to try and buy and sell in-game items. If the latter case happens, the lost revenue could easily be made up and exceeded (in my opinion) by simply offering some Cash Shop clothes that never expire (perhaps at slightly higher prices). Perhaps other types of items could be added too, like a $15 Water or Eternal Life for pets (so they never turn back into dolls). As Ive said, players always seem to be more willing to spend money in support of a game when the items they buy are permanent.
It's just an idea, but it's one that I think would greatly improve the experience of playing Maple Story.
~Quaggy
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Today's Featured Wiki Article
When the Wikipedia makes this article the day's featured article, I have to comment. I have very strong opinions on this issue and have spent countless hours researching the "debate" from both sides. As both a person who has had a passion for science from an early age and a person with a very strong belief in a Higher Being, two concepts that in a sane world would be in no way contradictory, this long running argument is an attack that seems directed at reason out of ignorance and fear. (And could prove quite dangerous if followed to it's obvious conclusions, but I'll come back to that.)
For those who might be interested, I believe very strongly in a Higher Being (specifically, God the Eternal Father, his Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, three separate and distinct beings acting as one in purpose). I believe that He "created the Heavens and the Earth and all things that in them are", including the natural laws and order of our world. The God that I believe in is a God of order, and His glory is intelligence. I see no obvious contradiction between my religious beliefs and science (including evolution). I feel that the teaching of religion should be taught in homes and churches, but spiritual matters are and should be a personal choice. No one should be forced to believe in any religion or religious concept, and the purpose of school is to teach unbiased science, not some completely unscientific concoction made up to get a circle of televangelists more spending cash.
ID as a "debate" sounds a lot like this: Someone says that they believe a Carpenter made their wooden chair, and that the Master Carpenter is all powerful. Because of His power, He, of course, did not use a hammer to pound in the nails, because He has the power to make the nails go in without using a hammer, that's what it means to be all-powerful. (And, of course, one is not supposed to think about whether or not it denotes great intelligence to use a supernatural power to pound in nails when there is a hammer sitting there next to you.) Therefore, studying the hammer as a tool useful to create the chair is blasphemy, and one should only be concerned with the Carpenter not any tools or means used in the creation of the chair. However, refusing to study the hammer and blueprints for the chair will not bring the student any closer to being able to build a chair, nor will it bring them any closer to being a carpenter themselves. In short, just sitting there staring at the Master Carpenter without any concern for learning from Him is neither a wise use of time nor a fulfillment of the Carpenter's plans for His children. It serves no good purpose.
It's like when I was in high school and we would make up debates just before the history teacher got there so we could argue all class long and not have to go into comas listening to the ever-boring procession of historical dates, names, and places (none of which struck any of us as being important or useful). ID (as purported by placed like the Discovery Institute), in my opinion, is nothing more than an attempt to drudge up an argument to avoid learning that which they dislike or fear.
The fact that many religious people have a fantasy, fairy tale idea of Deity should not impede scientific knowledge. This isn't the Dark Ages. Just because God could theoretically make the animals pop out of the ground like popcorn, it doesn't mean that He did, especially when the fossil evidence supports the idea that He didn't. If one believes that God created the Earth, it seems reasonable to believe that they also acknowledge His creation of the laws that govern the Earth. If they believe in the laws that govern the Earth, it is also reasonable to believe that an intelligent God would use those laws He created to accomplish His designs. Once you reach this point, you realize that science is just a means of studying the physical manifestations of God's handiwork, and that the study of it is a good way of learning about this marvelous and beautiful world we've been given and how to be responsible in our stewardship over it.
As to those who go out on the opposite limb of the tree by saying that we are not that well designed, or that nature isn't perfect in their eyes, that strikes me as an extremely narrow minded and arrogant assertion. What are they using as a comparison? What other sentient beings have they been studying, since we are the only forms of "higher life" on the planet? What alterations would they make, and more importantly, how would it effect the nature and purpose of life? In short, they have no frame of reference for their criticism, nor any concept of the possible ramifications of their purposed alterations.
It's like people who ignorantly say they wish they could go back in time and eliminate Hitler before he came to power, without any concept of the good things that were born from such a horrible atrocity (new laws to govern wars and conflicts, Israel being reinstated, and countless moral lessons learned from stories told by survivors, to name a few). True, what Hitler did was terrible to the point of being incomprehensible, but as often happens in life, good can come from the bad. To eliminate the bad is to eliminate the good that comes from it. Not that we should seek to do bad things so good can come out of it, however, we do learn as much (if not more) from the bad as we do from the good. Besides, in the end, Hitler and his followers reaped what they had sewn. They sewed death and destruction, and reaped it in their own turn. They sought to destroy a nation, and were instead destroyed themselves.
Back to the point, the entire "religion should fight all science it does not approve of" concept seems to me to be more dangerous than the religious people realize. By making such a stance (and in the process showing a complete ignorance of or lack of respect for the scientific method), they paint all religious people as being ignorant and combative. We are beginning to see the harvest of their efforts, as more and more young people speak out against religion and, by association, many basic moral codes. By the actions of some religious people, thousands turn their back on religion, thinking that all religion is as ignorant and comical as Dr. Dino. I wonder how many more years it will take this "debate" to make the majority of Americans anti-religious. I wonder how many more years it will take for that movement away from religion to bring a movement against morality. In the end, I wonder if the televangelists realize, or care about, the inevitable consequences of their fear mongering. (As you can probably tell, my opinion of televangelism is so low it's subterranean. Money and preaching do not belong in the same sentence, and if people really think that the laborer being worthy of his hire means that preachers are entitled to Hagee's $250-$1200 an hour, or $1,000,000 a year, salary taken from his "non-profit" organization, I'd love for them to define the words "Humility" and "Charity" to me with a straight face and preferably an actual grain of logic.)
Why do people get so up at arms fighting over which of two sides of a coin is better than the other? They are both the same coin, so can we stop bickering about it and get on to doing something useful?
~Quaggy
For those who might be interested, I believe very strongly in a Higher Being (specifically, God the Eternal Father, his Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, three separate and distinct beings acting as one in purpose). I believe that He "created the Heavens and the Earth and all things that in them are", including the natural laws and order of our world. The God that I believe in is a God of order, and His glory is intelligence. I see no obvious contradiction between my religious beliefs and science (including evolution). I feel that the teaching of religion should be taught in homes and churches, but spiritual matters are and should be a personal choice. No one should be forced to believe in any religion or religious concept, and the purpose of school is to teach unbiased science, not some completely unscientific concoction made up to get a circle of televangelists more spending cash.
ID as a "debate" sounds a lot like this: Someone says that they believe a Carpenter made their wooden chair, and that the Master Carpenter is all powerful. Because of His power, He, of course, did not use a hammer to pound in the nails, because He has the power to make the nails go in without using a hammer, that's what it means to be all-powerful. (And, of course, one is not supposed to think about whether or not it denotes great intelligence to use a supernatural power to pound in nails when there is a hammer sitting there next to you.) Therefore, studying the hammer as a tool useful to create the chair is blasphemy, and one should only be concerned with the Carpenter not any tools or means used in the creation of the chair. However, refusing to study the hammer and blueprints for the chair will not bring the student any closer to being able to build a chair, nor will it bring them any closer to being a carpenter themselves. In short, just sitting there staring at the Master Carpenter without any concern for learning from Him is neither a wise use of time nor a fulfillment of the Carpenter's plans for His children. It serves no good purpose.
It's like when I was in high school and we would make up debates just before the history teacher got there so we could argue all class long and not have to go into comas listening to the ever-boring procession of historical dates, names, and places (none of which struck any of us as being important or useful). ID (as purported by placed like the Discovery Institute), in my opinion, is nothing more than an attempt to drudge up an argument to avoid learning that which they dislike or fear.
The fact that many religious people have a fantasy, fairy tale idea of Deity should not impede scientific knowledge. This isn't the Dark Ages. Just because God could theoretically make the animals pop out of the ground like popcorn, it doesn't mean that He did, especially when the fossil evidence supports the idea that He didn't. If one believes that God created the Earth, it seems reasonable to believe that they also acknowledge His creation of the laws that govern the Earth. If they believe in the laws that govern the Earth, it is also reasonable to believe that an intelligent God would use those laws He created to accomplish His designs. Once you reach this point, you realize that science is just a means of studying the physical manifestations of God's handiwork, and that the study of it is a good way of learning about this marvelous and beautiful world we've been given and how to be responsible in our stewardship over it.
As to those who go out on the opposite limb of the tree by saying that we are not that well designed, or that nature isn't perfect in their eyes, that strikes me as an extremely narrow minded and arrogant assertion. What are they using as a comparison? What other sentient beings have they been studying, since we are the only forms of "higher life" on the planet? What alterations would they make, and more importantly, how would it effect the nature and purpose of life? In short, they have no frame of reference for their criticism, nor any concept of the possible ramifications of their purposed alterations.
It's like people who ignorantly say they wish they could go back in time and eliminate Hitler before he came to power, without any concept of the good things that were born from such a horrible atrocity (new laws to govern wars and conflicts, Israel being reinstated, and countless moral lessons learned from stories told by survivors, to name a few). True, what Hitler did was terrible to the point of being incomprehensible, but as often happens in life, good can come from the bad. To eliminate the bad is to eliminate the good that comes from it. Not that we should seek to do bad things so good can come out of it, however, we do learn as much (if not more) from the bad as we do from the good. Besides, in the end, Hitler and his followers reaped what they had sewn. They sewed death and destruction, and reaped it in their own turn. They sought to destroy a nation, and were instead destroyed themselves.
Back to the point, the entire "religion should fight all science it does not approve of" concept seems to me to be more dangerous than the religious people realize. By making such a stance (and in the process showing a complete ignorance of or lack of respect for the scientific method), they paint all religious people as being ignorant and combative. We are beginning to see the harvest of their efforts, as more and more young people speak out against religion and, by association, many basic moral codes. By the actions of some religious people, thousands turn their back on religion, thinking that all religion is as ignorant and comical as Dr. Dino. I wonder how many more years it will take this "debate" to make the majority of Americans anti-religious. I wonder how many more years it will take for that movement away from religion to bring a movement against morality. In the end, I wonder if the televangelists realize, or care about, the inevitable consequences of their fear mongering. (As you can probably tell, my opinion of televangelism is so low it's subterranean. Money and preaching do not belong in the same sentence, and if people really think that the laborer being worthy of his hire means that preachers are entitled to Hagee's $250-$1200 an hour, or $1,000,000 a year, salary taken from his "non-profit" organization, I'd love for them to define the words "Humility" and "Charity" to me with a straight face and preferably an actual grain of logic.)
Why do people get so up at arms fighting over which of two sides of a coin is better than the other? They are both the same coin, so can we stop bickering about it and get on to doing something useful?
~Quaggy
Monday, September 17, 2007
Review: Maplestory
Maplestory is an MMORPG from Korea, which features some of the best music I've ever heard in any RPG and some of the most beautiful backgrounds and artwork I've ever seen. It plays like a 2D sidescroller (think Mario with swords and magic), but has a lot of the gameplay elements of an action/adventure RPG (like the Legend of Zelda). Despite it's stunningly well-made art and music, the game play itself is lacking. Getting past lv 40 usually requires either wading through the cesspool of Party Quest limbo or grinding for endless hours, days, and weeks on the same monsters. The player shop system is one of the worst, if not the worst, I've ever seen. The Cash Shop underachieves, and has significant room for improvement. Hacking, formerly Maplestory's largest problem, seems to have died down a bit now.
My ratings of the game:
How I Would Improve The Game
Community
The first thing I would fix in the current community is KSing*, especially at high demand monsters like Mushmom. I wouldn't mind spending the required 45 minutes hunting the Iron Boars if I had some assurance that a lv 98 idiot won't wander by right when it spawns and kill it in two shots, leaving me 45 minutes of Boar-hunting to do all over again. I would fix this problem by making limited spawn monsters attackable by certain people first. For example: When Mushmom spawns, the amount of Boars taken out in the last 45 minutes determines how soon a monster is attackable. If you've been fighting the Boars alone for half an hour, you get, say, 2 minutes to fight Mushmom before anyone else can touch her. If there were 3 of you taking out Boars, and your counts are close to equal (or you are a party), then Mushmom would be attackable by the three of you for a period of time before that lv 98 KSing noob* can touch her.
Another fix I would make to the community is to create a system where people can hunt or train privately on certain boards, probably by purchasing some kind of privacy pass that when used, takes the user to a different "dimension" of the same board (like a different channel) where they can hunt for the duration of the time on their pass in complete privacy. That would reduce strain on over hunted boards. I'd also add some more hunting options, like the ability to build private hunting grounds (again, probably by purchasing Cash Shop items, this time permanent ones), probably as an extension of a player's custom-made house. The monsters attracted to the hunting grounds would depend on the furnishings the player places within and the location chosen. (More on this later.)
I would also fix the Party Quest system. Currently, getting into a Party Quest, involves going to ch. 1, waiting for someone to take you into their party (and hoping that they are at least near your level), and then going from channel to channel until you either find a "track" on someone inside a Party Quest at the moment or, by some amazingly rare twist of fate, find an empty room. I would fix this by making more than one Party Quest "room" per channel (designated by A, B, C, etc.) or, if that would simply make things too easy, I'd add a ticket system, where a Party had to take a ticket for a room, allowing them to be the next ones in if they have been waiting and enter within a certain amount of time, say 60 seconds. The act of "rushing" is not fair to other players (and yes, I've been in parties that rushed from one PQ into the next, but that still doesn't make it fair to those who've waited). I would also make a display board that showed the status of each channel's room and how many tickets are waiting to get in. Players who are in a party with a ticket would have a little PQ helper window (like the Quest Helper) that would show them the current status of their ticket. That way players could see how long their wait might be and plan accordingly. The last thing I would add is a bulletin board spanning all channels to post your desire to Party Quest so that parties might more easily find those who wish to play who are close to their level. That way, if a party had a good ticket and 1 or more stupid people who had wandered so far away that they were going to miss their chance, the party leader can kick the people who can't make it and quickly get someone else.
Gameplay
There are numerous ways that game play could be improved. The problem with the current system is that once you get to higher levels, there is nothing worthwhile to break the monotony of training. I think new areas of gameplay could be added to make training more fun.
First, a new ability system would add something if it were implemented. I'd love to see the ability to use skills from other job classes by "earning" them. By doing some kind of quest for each of the job class trainers one didn't choose, the player could earn access to an "Effort Skill Book" for that job class. The Effort Skills could be used just like the people of that job, however, they would have long cool down timers and could only be leveled by increasing one's Effort Skill Points in that skill. Effort Skill Points wouldn't be given based on a player's level, but would instead by given based on experience using the skill (number of times it's been used). The more Effort Skill Points, the shorter the cool down timer and the more powerful the skill becomes. Also, the requirements to earn access to higher skills would increase, and new requirements would be added in the "Effort Skill Books". For example, instead of having access to a Magician's Magic Claw with only 1 point on Energy Bolt, you might require 10 points in Energy Bolt with Energy Bolt. Passive skills would either not be included (if they wouldn't apply to other job classes, why include them?) or would gain Skill Experience Points much more slowly based on the levels of other Effort Skills in that same book. Once all of the skills in an Effort Skill Book were maxed out, the player could do another quest for the trainer who would normally give that job advance (provided their character's level exceeds the level normally required for the advance). Continued training with the Effort Skills in the maxed Effort Skill Book would shorten the cool down timers and lower the cost of casting those abilities (though no amount of training the Effort Skills would make them as good as actually being that job class).
I would also add single-player Adventure Quests (AQ). Each level of the AQ would have a timer, say 5 minutes, and only one person could be in any level on that channel at a certain time. When a player entered a level of the quest, they would be presented with a randomized puzzle or activity to complete. (Examples: breaking boxes to find a pass, standing on platforms until you find the right one, fighting monsters on a board, climbing through a vine maze that changes every time it's played, picking up items and dropping them on the right platforms, etc.). Once a player completes a level, they would be taken to a waiting room in between stages where they could talk to others going through the AQ at the same time who had finished their levels and were waiting to continue. Once the player ahead of each player in the waiting room either completes their level or runs out of time and is removed from the quest (having failed), the player in the waiting room is automatically taken to their next level. Completing the AQ would earn a prize for the player, as well as experience.
I would also add player houses, which they could gather items to furnish with the decor items found in places throughout Maplestory. For example: gathering 500 cotton, 250 stuffed pandas, and 100 snail shells, slime gels, or curse eye tails might produce 1 giant panda plushie, like the one at the foot of Big Ben in NLC. That giant panda could then be placed anywhere in a player's home or private hunting grounds, and if placed in the hunting grounds would attract certain kinds of monsters based on the terrain and other items on that hunting ground board. Additional room and hunting grounds space could be purchased in the Cash Shop. Perhaps one could also purchase in the Cash Shop portals for their home, allowing permanent transit to certain areas quickly. Since we are now getting into the Cash Shop, let's move on to that topic.
Cash Shop
The Cash Shop on Maplestory is the fiscal support structure for the game. It's where people can donate money to keep the game running and buy items to use in-game in return. Currently, many Maplestory players frown on Cash Shop clothes (clothes with no stat bonuses that a player can wear over their boring armor for 90 days after they purchase them). There is a prevailing opinion that only spoiled brats or people with more money than sense buy the clothes, and a lot of veteran players don't. I think this entire attitude could be reversed by merely removing the 90 day limit on the clothes. The revenues lost to the few people who rebuy their clothes would certainly be made up and greatly exceeded by the people who buy clothes when normally they would not because they expire in 90 days. Making them tradeable in-game would also help increase their desirability and sales, especially if some clothes were limited editions only sold for a few weeks to a month before being retired. This would make Cash Shop clothes collectible, and would probably change the overwhelming number of complaints when Cash Shop clothes are added into more neutral or I'm sure if Maplestory tested this theory by having a sale of permanent items, even if they were slightly higher in price, they would see my point about revenue. (And if they did, perhaps they could use the extra money to offset the loss of revenue from the next improvement.)
Economy (Player Shop System)
The current player shop system is basically like going to garage sales, except these garage sales are crammed 25 or so to a room, often with 8 or more rooms filled to capacity. Each garage sale only has 16-24 items, and there is no free way to search for whatever item you want or price check your items. In short, it's chaos with a few quick fixes slapped on it that require buying highly overpriced Cash Shop items to use. Though they would probably not make as much long-term revenue, changing the system would improve their game.
If it were me, I'd change the Free Market into a Super Market with many floors and areas. When you walk in the door, you'd see a front desk where you could pick up money and retrieve "Sale Tags" from items that had been sold. Every player would get 1 free sale tag, entitling them to 1 "slot" of sale space (meaning they could sell 1 piece of armor or equipment, 200 of a drop item, 100-150 potions, etc.). Beyond the desk would be a series of doors marked for each of the inventory slots (Equip, Use, Set-up, Etc., Cash). Each door would then be further divided. Equip would divide by job class (Beginner, Warrior, Magician, Bowman, Thief), and then a long series of staircases leading to each "Level" (0-10, 11-20, 21-30, etc.) which would display mannequins wearing each piece of equipment. Above each mannequin would be a for sale board which, when clicked, would bring up a list of that item for sale, sorted with the lowest price first. Those who have a Sale Tag and wish to sell something would open the sale board and drag their item to the board, assigning a price for their item (much like shops work now). The game would then take their sale token and item, placing the item up for sale. When the item sells, their sale tag would be at the front desk waiting for the player with their mesos (in-game currency). Use, Set-up, and Etc. items would be sorted into groups, as well, and then shown in display cases over their sale board. Additional Sale Tags could be purchased in the Cash Shop for a set price and would allow an additional item to be sold permanently (kind of like upgrading one's inventory slots).
Not only would this system help alleviate the massive spamming of messages in the Free Market by people who can't buy Cash Shop items, the horrid overcrowding in the Free market stalls, and the highly frustrating process of spending hours searching for what you want only to find none of that item reasonably priced, but it would make it easier to be sure your items are reasonably priced and price check something you have. True, it probably wouldn't bring in the revenue the Robot/Bear/Elf shop stalls do, but it would be a much more fair system and much easier to use.
Overall
Maplestory has a lot going for it, and I hope they have some new and creative ideas on the horizon. Even if none of my ideas ever appear in Maplestory, I hope they will continue to advance and improve the game. It has a lot of untapped potential as a game, and I'd love to see where it could go!
Signed, Quag
*A Short Glossary of Terms:
Kill Stealing (KSing): The act of attacking a monster someone else is attacking in order to take it down more quickly and get the items it may drop.
Noob: A derogatory name for someone who is rude, immature, inconsiderate, or selfish. (Not to be confused with Newb: Someone who is new to a game.)
My ratings of the game:
- Graphics: 9.5 (The artwork is very nicely drawn, especially Aqua Road.)
- Music: 10 (What can I say? I love the music, especially Orbis Tower.)
- Gameplay: 5.5 (After lv. 40, gameplay becomes terribly repetitive. The quests are all "hunt this many", "hunt and find", or "go talk to this person" quests. Party Quests are overcrowded and full of a lot of rude people. There is a lot of room for improvement here.)
- Community: 1 (The community is low due to a high occurrence of greedy, disrespectful, immature players, and little in the game code to keep them in check.)
- Replay Value: 8 (Very few players have only 1 character, and playing different jobs helps stave off boredom.)
- Economy: N/A (Without a decent Player Shop System, this is impossible to rate.)
- Cash Support System: 6.5 (It is a decent system, despite it's great potential for improvement.)
- Overall: 7.5 (The game is very well made, and if you like the music and artwork, it makes up for the cruddy community and lack of gameplay at higher levels.)
How I Would Improve The Game
Community
The first thing I would fix in the current community is KSing*, especially at high demand monsters like Mushmom. I wouldn't mind spending the required 45 minutes hunting the Iron Boars if I had some assurance that a lv 98 idiot won't wander by right when it spawns and kill it in two shots, leaving me 45 minutes of Boar-hunting to do all over again. I would fix this problem by making limited spawn monsters attackable by certain people first. For example: When Mushmom spawns, the amount of Boars taken out in the last 45 minutes determines how soon a monster is attackable. If you've been fighting the Boars alone for half an hour, you get, say, 2 minutes to fight Mushmom before anyone else can touch her. If there were 3 of you taking out Boars, and your counts are close to equal (or you are a party), then Mushmom would be attackable by the three of you for a period of time before that lv 98 KSing noob* can touch her.
Another fix I would make to the community is to create a system where people can hunt or train privately on certain boards, probably by purchasing some kind of privacy pass that when used, takes the user to a different "dimension" of the same board (like a different channel) where they can hunt for the duration of the time on their pass in complete privacy. That would reduce strain on over hunted boards. I'd also add some more hunting options, like the ability to build private hunting grounds (again, probably by purchasing Cash Shop items, this time permanent ones), probably as an extension of a player's custom-made house. The monsters attracted to the hunting grounds would depend on the furnishings the player places within and the location chosen. (More on this later.)
I would also fix the Party Quest system. Currently, getting into a Party Quest, involves going to ch. 1, waiting for someone to take you into their party (and hoping that they are at least near your level), and then going from channel to channel until you either find a "track" on someone inside a Party Quest at the moment or, by some amazingly rare twist of fate, find an empty room. I would fix this by making more than one Party Quest "room" per channel (designated by A, B, C, etc.) or, if that would simply make things too easy, I'd add a ticket system, where a Party had to take a ticket for a room, allowing them to be the next ones in if they have been waiting and enter within a certain amount of time, say 60 seconds. The act of "rushing" is not fair to other players (and yes, I've been in parties that rushed from one PQ into the next, but that still doesn't make it fair to those who've waited). I would also make a display board that showed the status of each channel's room and how many tickets are waiting to get in. Players who are in a party with a ticket would have a little PQ helper window (like the Quest Helper) that would show them the current status of their ticket. That way players could see how long their wait might be and plan accordingly. The last thing I would add is a bulletin board spanning all channels to post your desire to Party Quest so that parties might more easily find those who wish to play who are close to their level. That way, if a party had a good ticket and 1 or more stupid people who had wandered so far away that they were going to miss their chance, the party leader can kick the people who can't make it and quickly get someone else.
Gameplay
There are numerous ways that game play could be improved. The problem with the current system is that once you get to higher levels, there is nothing worthwhile to break the monotony of training. I think new areas of gameplay could be added to make training more fun.
First, a new ability system would add something if it were implemented. I'd love to see the ability to use skills from other job classes by "earning" them. By doing some kind of quest for each of the job class trainers one didn't choose, the player could earn access to an "Effort Skill Book" for that job class. The Effort Skills could be used just like the people of that job, however, they would have long cool down timers and could only be leveled by increasing one's Effort Skill Points in that skill. Effort Skill Points wouldn't be given based on a player's level, but would instead by given based on experience using the skill (number of times it's been used). The more Effort Skill Points, the shorter the cool down timer and the more powerful the skill becomes. Also, the requirements to earn access to higher skills would increase, and new requirements would be added in the "Effort Skill Books". For example, instead of having access to a Magician's Magic Claw with only 1 point on Energy Bolt, you might require 10 points in Energy Bolt with Energy Bolt. Passive skills would either not be included (if they wouldn't apply to other job classes, why include them?) or would gain Skill Experience Points much more slowly based on the levels of other Effort Skills in that same book. Once all of the skills in an Effort Skill Book were maxed out, the player could do another quest for the trainer who would normally give that job advance (provided their character's level exceeds the level normally required for the advance). Continued training with the Effort Skills in the maxed Effort Skill Book would shorten the cool down timers and lower the cost of casting those abilities (though no amount of training the Effort Skills would make them as good as actually being that job class).
I would also add single-player Adventure Quests (AQ). Each level of the AQ would have a timer, say 5 minutes, and only one person could be in any level on that channel at a certain time. When a player entered a level of the quest, they would be presented with a randomized puzzle or activity to complete. (Examples: breaking boxes to find a pass, standing on platforms until you find the right one, fighting monsters on a board, climbing through a vine maze that changes every time it's played, picking up items and dropping them on the right platforms, etc.). Once a player completes a level, they would be taken to a waiting room in between stages where they could talk to others going through the AQ at the same time who had finished their levels and were waiting to continue. Once the player ahead of each player in the waiting room either completes their level or runs out of time and is removed from the quest (having failed), the player in the waiting room is automatically taken to their next level. Completing the AQ would earn a prize for the player, as well as experience.
I would also add player houses, which they could gather items to furnish with the decor items found in places throughout Maplestory. For example: gathering 500 cotton, 250 stuffed pandas, and 100 snail shells, slime gels, or curse eye tails might produce 1 giant panda plushie, like the one at the foot of Big Ben in NLC. That giant panda could then be placed anywhere in a player's home or private hunting grounds, and if placed in the hunting grounds would attract certain kinds of monsters based on the terrain and other items on that hunting ground board. Additional room and hunting grounds space could be purchased in the Cash Shop. Perhaps one could also purchase in the Cash Shop portals for their home, allowing permanent transit to certain areas quickly. Since we are now getting into the Cash Shop, let's move on to that topic.
Cash Shop
The Cash Shop on Maplestory is the fiscal support structure for the game. It's where people can donate money to keep the game running and buy items to use in-game in return. Currently, many Maplestory players frown on Cash Shop clothes (clothes with no stat bonuses that a player can wear over their boring armor for 90 days after they purchase them). There is a prevailing opinion that only spoiled brats or people with more money than sense buy the clothes, and a lot of veteran players don't. I think this entire attitude could be reversed by merely removing the 90 day limit on the clothes. The revenues lost to the few people who rebuy their clothes would certainly be made up and greatly exceeded by the people who buy clothes when normally they would not because they expire in 90 days. Making them tradeable in-game would also help increase their desirability and sales, especially if some clothes were limited editions only sold for a few weeks to a month before being retired. This would make Cash Shop clothes collectible, and would probably change the overwhelming number of complaints when Cash Shop clothes are added into more neutral or I'm sure if Maplestory tested this theory by having a sale of permanent items, even if they were slightly higher in price, they would see my point about revenue. (And if they did, perhaps they could use the extra money to offset the loss of revenue from the next improvement.)
Economy (Player Shop System)
The current player shop system is basically like going to garage sales, except these garage sales are crammed 25 or so to a room, often with 8 or more rooms filled to capacity. Each garage sale only has 16-24 items, and there is no free way to search for whatever item you want or price check your items. In short, it's chaos with a few quick fixes slapped on it that require buying highly overpriced Cash Shop items to use. Though they would probably not make as much long-term revenue, changing the system would improve their game.
If it were me, I'd change the Free Market into a Super Market with many floors and areas. When you walk in the door, you'd see a front desk where you could pick up money and retrieve "Sale Tags" from items that had been sold. Every player would get 1 free sale tag, entitling them to 1 "slot" of sale space (meaning they could sell 1 piece of armor or equipment, 200 of a drop item, 100-150 potions, etc.). Beyond the desk would be a series of doors marked for each of the inventory slots (Equip, Use, Set-up, Etc., Cash). Each door would then be further divided. Equip would divide by job class (Beginner, Warrior, Magician, Bowman, Thief), and then a long series of staircases leading to each "Level" (0-10, 11-20, 21-30, etc.) which would display mannequins wearing each piece of equipment. Above each mannequin would be a for sale board which, when clicked, would bring up a list of that item for sale, sorted with the lowest price first. Those who have a Sale Tag and wish to sell something would open the sale board and drag their item to the board, assigning a price for their item (much like shops work now). The game would then take their sale token and item, placing the item up for sale. When the item sells, their sale tag would be at the front desk waiting for the player with their mesos (in-game currency). Use, Set-up, and Etc. items would be sorted into groups, as well, and then shown in display cases over their sale board. Additional Sale Tags could be purchased in the Cash Shop for a set price and would allow an additional item to be sold permanently (kind of like upgrading one's inventory slots).
Not only would this system help alleviate the massive spamming of messages in the Free Market by people who can't buy Cash Shop items, the horrid overcrowding in the Free market stalls, and the highly frustrating process of spending hours searching for what you want only to find none of that item reasonably priced, but it would make it easier to be sure your items are reasonably priced and price check something you have. True, it probably wouldn't bring in the revenue the Robot/Bear/Elf shop stalls do, but it would be a much more fair system and much easier to use.
Overall
Maplestory has a lot going for it, and I hope they have some new and creative ideas on the horizon. Even if none of my ideas ever appear in Maplestory, I hope they will continue to advance and improve the game. It has a lot of untapped potential as a game, and I'd love to see where it could go!
Signed, Quag
*A Short Glossary of Terms:
Kill Stealing (KSing): The act of attacking a monster someone else is attacking in order to take it down more quickly and get the items it may drop.
Noob: A derogatory name for someone who is rude, immature, inconsiderate, or selfish. (Not to be confused with Newb: Someone who is new to a game.)
Friday, September 14, 2007
The Cardinal Rules of Game Design
After many years spent studying games and what makes people like or dislike them, I've found several general rules that seem to draw mass amounts of players to a game (and when absent, seem to drive players away). These rules are the measuring stick whereby I analyze the games I play. Put briefly (or as briefly as possible for me), they are:
1. The primary purpose of the game should include some kind of permanent gain to the player's personal account or character. Players like to see some reward for the hours spent playing games, and permanent increases to their character(s), increases in the amount of money or useful items they have, and/or advancements of storyline or exploration ability are usually decent enough incentives to keep gamers playing. Good Example: Chrono Trigger (SNES) allowed players to start a new game and retain all of the equipment left over from the last time they beat the game, thus allowing the game to be replayed without losing ones accumulated progress. Bad Example: Arcade games like Adventure Island (SNES) forced the player to start over every time they died with no benefit for previous progress, hence their replay value died as soon as they (or a friend) beat the game. (More on this with Rule #5.)
2. Progress should not take so long to acquire that many players give up from boredom, and on the other side, if a game is too easy, beating it takes too little time and effort and the game is quickly forgotten. A well-made game must achieve a good balance of these two extremes. If it takes 10 hours of game play to gain a level, many players will grow bored before they level. If the player is gaining levels every few minutes, it becomes tedious and lacks meaning to the player (because it basically took no effort). A well-designed game must balance the boredom of "grinding", usually by adding other game play elements, with the lackluster feeling of gaining something too easily (usually only a problem in the initial stages of a new character or game, and rarely, if ever, a problem throughout the course of an entire game). Good example: Golden Sun 1 & 2 both used a battle system which allowed the player to level rather quickly while also gaining decent drops from the monsters defeated. Bad Example: Maple Story may be easy to level in during the first stages of the game, but once a player reaches lv. 40 and up, they soon grow bored with grinding, repetitive quests, and the long hours of playing between leveling up.
3. The economic support for the game should not unbalance the game play for non-paying players (where applicable), but it also should not cost so much that a large number of players can't afford it or won't spend that kind of money on a game. Also, items that people pay real money for should be better in most or all ways than their free counterparts in-game. Mostly relating to Free-To-Play MMORPGs, this rule generally covers the game's Donation Shop and how things are priced within it. Donation Shops allow MMORPGs to pay for servers and staff, however, many companies overprice items or make them temporary (which many players seem to dislike), lowering their profits since players often do not buy what they do not like. Example: Maple Story is both a good and bad example in this case because it's Cash Shop has both sides of this rule. They have Cash Shop clothes which, unlike their free in-game counterparts, decay after 90 days and have a very low popularity with many players. Additionally, wearing Cash Shop clothes may earn a player insults and bad reputation in-game from other players who are either envious or assume that their purchasing Cash Shop clothes means they are "just another dumb noob". The Maple Story Cash Shop also has many very reasonably priced permanent items, most notably Gachupon, hair/face/eye changes, and Inventory slot upgrades, which are normally popular among veteran players.
4. Game designers should always consider the audience their game appeals to, and update accordingly. An action game usually appeals to those who like pushing sequences of buttons and reacting quickly. An RPG usually appeals to players who like character depth and storyline. A cute and beautiful MMORPG normally appeals to younger players and their parents, while a dark and violent MMORPG typically appeals to teens and young adults (typically male). Adding content that encourages violence and rude behavior to a cute and beautiful MMORPG typically drives away players, just as restricting language in dark and violent MMORPGs typically drives away their prime demographic of players.
5. A well-made game has a high "replay value" (which means players who have played and/or beaten the game wish to do so again). The best classic games are normally games with high replay value, either for nostalgic reasons unique to the individual player or due to generally good game design incorporating many game paths, endings, characters, etc. Good Example: Pokemon games (such as Diamond, Emerald, LeafGreen, and so on) all have a high replay value due to the large number of Pokemon creatures to capture, raise, breed, and train. Each time you play the game, you can do so with any number of Pokemon, and there is a great diversity in types, teams, strategies, and favorites typically called out by any individual player. Bad Example: Arcade games like Contra 3 and Super Ghouls and Ghosts featured very linear game progression and single characters who started over in the game once all lives were expended. The only replay value was in mastering the controls fully enough to win the game. Once completed, the game was frequently forgotten and replayed only to show off gaming skill to a player's friends.
6. A well-made game incorporates varied playing styles and personalities into the game without favoring one style over another. Well-designed game series have varied titles that all appeal to their target audience but offer unique and interesting game play changes in each title. Players like to personalize everything. Benevolent people often like to heal others, and "tough guys" often like to be strong and independent. Players like to wear their favorite colors, and play the game their own way (as a merchant, warrior, mage, cook, or whatever else a game allows). Good Example: Runescape allows for an extreme variety of players, from craftsmen who make armour, projectiles, potions, and food, to warriors, who can bring down the strongest "baddies" in the game. Any path is a viable option for playing and enjoying the game. Bad Example: Puzzle Pirates allows for very little variability in playing style. One can be a merchant or run a shop, but everyone will tell you (especially on the Free servers) that pillaging is really the only way to get rich. If a player grows tired of pillaging, there is little else they can do to earn a decent income, and unfortunately most other styles of game play (such as shops) require large and continuous amounts of both real and in-game currency.
These rules generally define my criteria for game analysis. Most games I play excel in at least one of these rules but almost always fail in one or more of the others. By studying what does and does not work in games that have already been made, we can learn to make better games in the future.
1. The primary purpose of the game should include some kind of permanent gain to the player's personal account or character. Players like to see some reward for the hours spent playing games, and permanent increases to their character(s), increases in the amount of money or useful items they have, and/or advancements of storyline or exploration ability are usually decent enough incentives to keep gamers playing. Good Example: Chrono Trigger (SNES) allowed players to start a new game and retain all of the equipment left over from the last time they beat the game, thus allowing the game to be replayed without losing ones accumulated progress. Bad Example: Arcade games like Adventure Island (SNES) forced the player to start over every time they died with no benefit for previous progress, hence their replay value died as soon as they (or a friend) beat the game. (More on this with Rule #5.)
2. Progress should not take so long to acquire that many players give up from boredom, and on the other side, if a game is too easy, beating it takes too little time and effort and the game is quickly forgotten. A well-made game must achieve a good balance of these two extremes. If it takes 10 hours of game play to gain a level, many players will grow bored before they level. If the player is gaining levels every few minutes, it becomes tedious and lacks meaning to the player (because it basically took no effort). A well-designed game must balance the boredom of "grinding", usually by adding other game play elements, with the lackluster feeling of gaining something too easily (usually only a problem in the initial stages of a new character or game, and rarely, if ever, a problem throughout the course of an entire game). Good example: Golden Sun 1 & 2 both used a battle system which allowed the player to level rather quickly while also gaining decent drops from the monsters defeated. Bad Example: Maple Story may be easy to level in during the first stages of the game, but once a player reaches lv. 40 and up, they soon grow bored with grinding, repetitive quests, and the long hours of playing between leveling up.
3. The economic support for the game should not unbalance the game play for non-paying players (where applicable), but it also should not cost so much that a large number of players can't afford it or won't spend that kind of money on a game. Also, items that people pay real money for should be better in most or all ways than their free counterparts in-game. Mostly relating to Free-To-Play MMORPGs, this rule generally covers the game's Donation Shop and how things are priced within it. Donation Shops allow MMORPGs to pay for servers and staff, however, many companies overprice items or make them temporary (which many players seem to dislike), lowering their profits since players often do not buy what they do not like. Example: Maple Story is both a good and bad example in this case because it's Cash Shop has both sides of this rule. They have Cash Shop clothes which, unlike their free in-game counterparts, decay after 90 days and have a very low popularity with many players. Additionally, wearing Cash Shop clothes may earn a player insults and bad reputation in-game from other players who are either envious or assume that their purchasing Cash Shop clothes means they are "just another dumb noob". The Maple Story Cash Shop also has many very reasonably priced permanent items, most notably Gachupon, hair/face/eye changes, and Inventory slot upgrades, which are normally popular among veteran players.
4. Game designers should always consider the audience their game appeals to, and update accordingly. An action game usually appeals to those who like pushing sequences of buttons and reacting quickly. An RPG usually appeals to players who like character depth and storyline. A cute and beautiful MMORPG normally appeals to younger players and their parents, while a dark and violent MMORPG typically appeals to teens and young adults (typically male). Adding content that encourages violence and rude behavior to a cute and beautiful MMORPG typically drives away players, just as restricting language in dark and violent MMORPGs typically drives away their prime demographic of players.
5. A well-made game has a high "replay value" (which means players who have played and/or beaten the game wish to do so again). The best classic games are normally games with high replay value, either for nostalgic reasons unique to the individual player or due to generally good game design incorporating many game paths, endings, characters, etc. Good Example: Pokemon games (such as Diamond, Emerald, LeafGreen, and so on) all have a high replay value due to the large number of Pokemon creatures to capture, raise, breed, and train. Each time you play the game, you can do so with any number of Pokemon, and there is a great diversity in types, teams, strategies, and favorites typically called out by any individual player. Bad Example: Arcade games like Contra 3 and Super Ghouls and Ghosts featured very linear game progression and single characters who started over in the game once all lives were expended. The only replay value was in mastering the controls fully enough to win the game. Once completed, the game was frequently forgotten and replayed only to show off gaming skill to a player's friends.
6. A well-made game incorporates varied playing styles and personalities into the game without favoring one style over another. Well-designed game series have varied titles that all appeal to their target audience but offer unique and interesting game play changes in each title. Players like to personalize everything. Benevolent people often like to heal others, and "tough guys" often like to be strong and independent. Players like to wear their favorite colors, and play the game their own way (as a merchant, warrior, mage, cook, or whatever else a game allows). Good Example: Runescape allows for an extreme variety of players, from craftsmen who make armour, projectiles, potions, and food, to warriors, who can bring down the strongest "baddies" in the game. Any path is a viable option for playing and enjoying the game. Bad Example: Puzzle Pirates allows for very little variability in playing style. One can be a merchant or run a shop, but everyone will tell you (especially on the Free servers) that pillaging is really the only way to get rich. If a player grows tired of pillaging, there is little else they can do to earn a decent income, and unfortunately most other styles of game play (such as shops) require large and continuous amounts of both real and in-game currency.
These rules generally define my criteria for game analysis. Most games I play excel in at least one of these rules but almost always fail in one or more of the others. By studying what does and does not work in games that have already been made, we can learn to make better games in the future.
Greetings!
After reading several blogs regularly, I finally decided to make an attempt at creating my own place to dump ideas and ruminations, mostly on games and deep thoughts, my two favorite topics. To whomever might have stubbled across this, welcome, and may you find my random thoughts interesting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
