Bulbasaur

TwilightHime wrote: »

You are wrong, and the fact that you're assuming a game is going to be superficial because it can be cleared within 24 hours or 2 hours tells me your criteria for "great game" is a lot shallower than I had originally thought. Maplestory is a perfect example of a simplistic one-dimensional game, with limited content, just arbitrarily made to last 3 years because of things like endless grinding sessions. There is no depth in its mechanics. You run around and kill things, using the same 3-4 main skills for the rest of the game. It could add more maps and more dungeons (theme dungeons, party quests, etc), but it's the same stuff in the end.

For modern Maple, that is correct. For old Maple, that is incorrect. The fact that you stated "You run around and kill things, using the same 3-4 main skills for the rest of the game" tells me that you completely overlook the subtle mechanics of a game, which is probably a big factor into why you prefer "fast paced" games.

Let's illustrate with a simple analogy. Suppose you play a character that has an active AOE attack that you can spam and kill everything in a second to gain exp quickly. Yes, in that context the game would have very superficial mechanics. Suppose the character did not have such AOE attacks and the monster's HP and stats are a bit higher. In that context, you have more leeway to implement your mechanics, including but not limited to

• Prioritizing a player's defense, accuracy, and other stats besides damage ("How much damage will I receive if I am X class with xxx physical defense?", "How much accuracy do I need to hit these mobs?", "Do I have the gear with the right stats to fight these?")
• Implementing mob attributes and attack style ("What attacks does this monster do?", "Does it have any specials or range attacks?", "Can I tank it? When do I dodge? How do I dodge? Can I dodge at all?")
• Encouraging party play ("Do I need a cleric?", "Do I need a thief to give me haste?", "Do I need a thief who can use dark sight?", "Will I have enough HP even with a spearman's hyper body?")
• Player movement and decisions ("When should I time my pot so I don't die?", "What platform do I need to be in and at what time to minimize my damage?", "When should I heal my party member?")

You throw ALL these factors out the window when you (1) implement an equipment progression scheme resulting in severe imbalances to the game, and (2) implement "easy", "fast paced" progression (e.g. whole map attacks that kill everything in 1-2 hits and ridiculous exp gains that allows one to breeze through content very quickly). You are correct when you say "you run around and kill things" - that's because you are looking at the game in a very superficial, end-result point of view and don't understand nor appreciate the mechanics that make a game great. Of course such a game is superficial if (1) and (2) were adopted.

Although far from "perfect", old Maple is merely closer to a game with in depth mechanics and a variety of factors (questions) and strategies, that one needs to consider while playing the game, than modern Maple. Modern Maple has next to no mechanics whatsoever because of (1) and (2).

TwilightHime wrote: »

It doesn't seem like you're understanding what people are telling you. You are only focused on this superficial idea of "slow equipment enhancing" and "slow leveling", and the idea that artificially increasing playtime makes for a "much better game" because, revenue?

I am not focused on "slow leveling" and "slow enhancing"; you completely misunderstood the dialogue. I am asking you why you prefer fast paced leveling (not the fact that I do or don't), specifically I am testing you to gauge your reasoning to understand the extent to why you prefer one to be fast or slow and which you prefer. One reason you stated why you prefer modern Maple is because there is pay-to-win to supplement slow paced equipment progression. The question I posed to you was if there was pay-to-win to supplement slow paced leveling progression, which would you prefer? So far, you have not answered this.

Artificially increasing the playtime itself does not make for a better game. What I enjoy about a game is its mechanics - how much role each stat plays in a combat setting, how much I need to strategize, and how many additional factors are at play. Fast paced games to the speed you indicate do not allow a player to experience much of that; it's akin to playing a movie in 4x speed, giving it a 10/10 and calling it a day. In contrast, you appear to hold the opposite view - that lowering the playtime makes for a better game. My opposition is that you hold a very extreme view in this regard. Let me test you once again, if you could press a button to reach level 250 and have all the endgame equips, cubes, and other enchanting items you needed, would the game be more enjoyable?

TwilightHime wrote: »

You certainly have no idea why I enjoy fast-paced games. A game is game. I have other priorities in life. Spending 3 months to level a character to 3rd job is a waste of time to me when I can probably play 200 games in that same amount of time and enjoy them fully. Spending 3 hours to unlock 3rd job, more acceptable.

If you are willing to devote time to 200 other games in substitute of the time you would have invested into one game, clearly time is not a factor. You are merely using the other games as a substitute because you find them to be more fulfilling than if one MMO were to be fleshed out. I am pointing out that a great MMORPG specifically would captivate most players for years; a few months minimum. You seem to be conflating an MMORPG with that of a cheap mobile game that one should be able to complete in a few days for "instant satisfaction". Obviously we have a different criteria in this regard; I'd rate an MMORPG differently than I would a mobile game. More specifically, it'd rate it based on the number of content it has, what type of content there is, what are the mechanics, and how captivating it is and how long it lures me in to name a few.

TwilightHime wrote: »

Levels in maplestory is purely designed to block access to content. That's all it is. It limits you on what skills you can use, what equips you can wear, what dungeons you can access, and what bosses you can fight. You might consider that to be milestones that produce satisfaction, but I really don't care about "working" towards the next milestone, I just want to play the content. You're right, leveling and clearing dungeons are not mutually exclusive; one simply prevents you from doing the other.

You are correct that levels are made to block content. That's the whole point of a leveling system - to balance content based on amount of progression.

TwilightHime wrote: »

And as far as "depth" is concerned, if you need to spend 3 months just to be able to experience the next 2 skills that you'll be using for another 8 months, what depth is there? That 8 months certainly doesn't make the game better. The amount of time you spend in that 8 months unlocking the next boss is purely a waste of time. You might see it as "hard work paying off, and only those that truly deserve it should get to experience it", but I wouldn't even play your game.

Th depth lies in the mechanics and how much of an immediate thrilling experience you get as you play the content, with the milestone being complementary only. Very high exp gains (coupled with one-hit-kill full screen AOE attacks) kills that experience very quickly. You are, once again, looking at the game with a very superficial, end-result oriented point of view.

Yet you are playing a game that, for most people, requires months of effort but shifted from a leveling focus to an equipment based focus. Let me ask you this, do you spend money on this game and how much do you spend in obtaining high end gear? If you don't spend, why do you play? If you do spend and if you were given a similar option for leveling instead of equipment enhancing, how do you go about evaluating the two scenarios in terms of enjoyment?