Well actually when I think of it; 'end-game' content is normally at the end of a game, not after it. In WoW the end-game content is still story related content. In WOTLK for example, you reach max level 80 before you actually make it to the end of ICC and face Arthas. ICC was end-game content but was still well within the story-arc. At the end of the day, 'end-game' for WoW is merely the final boss. (I'm not sure about Cataclysm, I've yet to play it.)
Diablo is structured differently than MMORPGs. In Diablo 2 you're able to beat Baal for the first time and conclude the story content waaaay before hitting max level. My views are based on the assumption that this will be possible for Diablo 3 as well. So 'Nightmare' and 'Hell' are outlets created to reach max level, since the game is already complete before you get to that point. I simply figured that recycling the 'Nightmare' and 'Hell' difficulties to have fresh content throughout would be better than playing the exact same thing 3 times in a row with a 'new-content' dump at the end of it all.
Now if you're able to hit max level before beating the final boss like in a MMORPG, It'd be a different story, but since you're going to have to play the game 3 times over to reach max level, why not embed the new content within each difficulty level instead? The game would literally evolve at each difficulty level. For example; in 'Nightmare': (environments would become more threatening in appearance, some completely new dungeons, new mobs, new bosses, etc.) The 'end-game' from a MMORPG perspective would simply be the suped-up final boss with some added flavor at 'Hell' difficulty. They could get 3-times the game without actually making the game 3-times longer.
Maybe i'm stepping out of line to say this, but I think the community as a whole may be a tad' bit confused about which genre of game Diablo actually is. "End game" content is a term typically applied to MMORPG's; a genre that the Diablo franchise has never actually been a part of. Technically, there never was an infrastructure setup for end game content in Diablo 1 or 2, because they weren't MMORPGs. People simply chose to stick around because they enjoyed the game that much; even though in reality, they were actually playing through the same content in circles (Wanna' grind Baal for the millionth time, anyone?)Historically, Diablo is actually a standard RPG with a multiplayer component. Because of the high user retention, Diablo gets treated by the community as an MMORPG, even though it isn't.
Now, that doesn't mean Blizzard should just ignore the thriving multiplayer community and make the game as static as Diablo 1 or 2. Blizzard should certainly try and get people to play this next title for just as long, or if not, longer than people played Diablo 2. They can emulate the "end game" experience rather than actually forcing it into a different genre. This kind of RPG is supposed to entertain you as you play through it, after-all. Playing through the Acts' is what was intended to be the meat of the game in the older Diablos. That was what you were supposed to enjoy; the play-through. (It wasn't meant to be a grind.)
In place of an "end game" content dump after the final boss, I propose using a combination of optional side quests and a dynamic act structure that changes depending on the difficulty mode. Basically remove the "end game" from the end and spread it throughout to make a bulkier game instead. For instance, playing through Act 1 on "Nightmare" will mean more than just a higher difficulty. You'll arrive into new mandatory dungeons and environments in "Nightmare" peppered throughout the act with new mobs and bosses. The same would be done for "Hell" so that you build up and up into newer content. When you hit max lvl there would be new optional side-quests for max lvl players only.
Punishment doesn't directly relate to difficulty. A game could theoretically be extremely easy with harsh punishments for any (unlikely) mistakes. Game difficulty refers more strongly to the amount of skill it takes to complete in-game objectives, rather than the decided punishment for failing those objectives. Basically punishment is just an implemented incentive for not wanting to die/fail.
I don't wanna' sound like a know-it-all but developers and fans looking toward punishment as a medium for setting game difficulty are "doing it wrong." Also, after seeing the barbarian being ripped in half with his blood spraying out of his body in the boss event YEARS ago, why are people bugging out about whether this game gets an M rating? DOA Xtreme beach volleyball got an M, lol, don't worry.
0
Diablo is structured differently than MMORPGs. In Diablo 2 you're able to beat Baal for the first time and conclude the story content waaaay before hitting max level. My views are based on the assumption that this will be possible for Diablo 3 as well. So 'Nightmare' and 'Hell' are outlets created to reach max level, since the game is already complete before you get to that point. I simply figured that recycling the 'Nightmare' and 'Hell' difficulties to have fresh content throughout would be better than playing the exact same thing 3 times in a row with a 'new-content' dump at the end of it all.
Now if you're able to hit max level before beating the final boss like in a MMORPG, It'd be a different story, but since you're going to have to play the game 3 times over to reach max level, why not embed the new content within each difficulty level instead? The game would literally evolve at each difficulty level. For example; in 'Nightmare': (environments would become more threatening in appearance, some completely new dungeons, new mobs, new bosses, etc.) The 'end-game' from a MMORPG perspective would simply be the suped-up final boss with some added flavor at 'Hell' difficulty. They could get 3-times the game without actually making the game 3-times longer.
0
Now, that doesn't mean Blizzard should just ignore the thriving multiplayer community and make the game as static as Diablo 1 or 2. Blizzard should certainly try and get people to play this next title for just as long, or if not, longer than people played Diablo 2. They can emulate the "end game" experience rather than actually forcing it into a different genre. This kind of RPG is supposed to entertain you as you play through it, after-all. Playing through the Acts' is what was intended to be the meat of the game in the older Diablos. That was what you were supposed to enjoy; the play-through. (It wasn't meant to be a grind.)
In place of an "end game" content dump after the final boss, I propose using a combination of optional side quests and a dynamic act structure that changes depending on the difficulty mode. Basically remove the "end game" from the end and spread it throughout to make a bulkier game instead. For instance, playing through Act 1 on "Nightmare" will mean more than just a higher difficulty. You'll arrive into new mandatory dungeons and environments in "Nightmare" peppered throughout the act with new mobs and bosses. The same would be done for "Hell" so that you build up and up into newer content. When you hit max lvl there would be new optional side-quests for max lvl players only.
0
I don't wanna' sound like a know-it-all but developers and fans looking toward punishment as a medium for setting game difficulty are "doing it wrong." Also, after seeing the barbarian being ripped in half with his blood spraying out of his body in the boss event YEARS ago, why are people bugging out about whether this game gets an M rating? DOA Xtreme beach volleyball got an M, lol, don't worry.