Back to the QUEST(ion)

3. Following Doug Church’s approach, try to extract the abstract design concepts that constitute the gameplay. Can these be transferred to a different type of game? Why/why not?

Intention: making an implementable plan of one's own creation in response to the current situation in the game world and one's understanding of the game play options.

What is examplified in Mario 64 can be said also in Maple Story. With its simple intuitive controls, players are very much connected to the game character. It is strange and thought provoking that games with simple controls actually make you feel more in control of things, while in real life you have 101 ways to interact with an object (eat, punch, push, pull etc). Yet the intention in maple story is pretty straightforward.. sometimes too straight forward. You have an enemy in front of you... would you, a) attack b) avoid or c) use a spell/special skill? Although all 3 are implementable plans, I find it too simple to be quantified as legitimate game design. But yes, these actions you undertake results in direct, visible feedback. (unless.. the game lags, which can happen in most MMORPG... you whack something and the thing doesn't die)

Perceivable consequences: It's an RPG at heart.. so most definitely it has this element. And one gripe I have is that it is toooooo linear! Because of X, it's almost definite Y would happen, not Z, not anything else.

Story: haha.. it's not called maple story without a reason. But what I think is a trend in MMORPGs is that players create their own 'story', their own 'narrative'. Say for example you're engage in a party quest. Everybody would have their own tale to tell in their experience. So hence everybody get to tell a different story each night as they meet different pple and monsters. The story hence is not a story written in advance by designers, but an experience to be made by the community in maple.