General Discussion

The content of the end-game should to be the first goal.

The leveling phase should to be a appetizer only. After this... Conquests, Assaults, Events and a good good PvP content.

Events? yes, events:

World of Warcraft example - Air elementals invade Ironforge without previous notice. Many elementals, greats elementals. goes to Ironforge for defend it. Some elementals can drop valious items or not... 

2 hours more later: Assault pushed back, victory, FUN and some lucky player with a new and powerful item as souvenir of a great battle.

Too difficult? Why?. I don't understand.

The fact is that we're going to continue to have the endgame mudflation until a great game comes out and implements a working perma-death system.

IMO, an MMO should be about living and dying in a persistant world..

Skill Gains should be fast, but Life should be short.

The endgame shouldn't be to lvl up the treadmill to God-Like Status.. But instead to exist in a ever-changing world, build a house, and *hopefully* die of old age.

I really like Age of Mourning's bloodline system.. It makes perfect sense for an MMO.

It may be something as simple as the original design document not containing explicit information concerning the direction the "end-game" (which I still prefer to call the "high-level" game) should go.

One example is DAoC where the end-game content was carefully thought out.  First would be primarily a PvE experience (this has been changed so that leveling up can be done through PvP BGs now) to reach max level 50 -- at which time the primary focus would become a second "ladder" of progression to acquire Realm Ranks.  This was excellent in that it gave meaning and direction to the end-game.

I believe the eventual failure of DAoC's end-game was due to the fact that they expanded the PvE and RPG portions of the game immensely while not expanding (however, they did one "consolidation" of the Frontiers) the high-level, end-game RvR aspects to include 1) a higher max level cap for players 2) expanding the "frontiers" into entirely new areas and 3) the ultimate end-game of allowing the frontier gates to be broken and hordes of enemies allowed to enter the realms (interestingly enough, Warhammer Online -- which I like to call DAoC 2 -- will, in fact, allow realm pillaging).

Then, when you take an immensely popular but ultimately disappointing game like WoW and see that its greatest flaw (aside from cartoony artwork) is that catering to the "casual" player simply makes for an incredibly dull MMORPG-on-training-wheels concept that holds your hand every step of the way to a very anti-climactic "Ding!" of level 60 -- beyond which stretches a boring wasteland of repetitious dungeon raids and meaningless PvP.  Even early beta tester comments noted that WoW had NO end-game, a fact which has not changed since it seems there was no end-game in the original design documents (except for a vague "we will do expansions at some point" philosophy).

(And, since we all know that eventually all games come to their creative ends, imagine that someday MMORPGs that wish to spin off a sequel will actually destroy their old games with something similar to an "End-of-Beta-type Catastrophe and World Destruction" event to coincide with the opening of the sequel with longevity/loyalty bonuses for players carrying their accounts over to the new game, which would start a brand-new storyline -- NOT of course that any game developer would ever pull the plug on its cash-cow until that cow is milked dry.)

The idea of 'end game content' is a load of bollocks imo.
The whole game should be 'end game' technically. Instead devs know that it will be sub par, so they stick a million obsticles in the players way to prolong the inevitable.
But that's just me being a little old fashioned by thinking PvP is the only true nature of games. Anything else and it may as well be an offline game.

It all depends on if you're a role player or a PvPer, role players aint gonna mind what kind of play mechanics the game employs or how things work. So long as they can play a role in a virtual world by simulating travel, exploration, economy, and 'fights' with npcs or mobs then all that matters is the production values and how much new content the devs add.

PvPers however have to troll through loads of levels and make sure they have the very best and rarest loot just to get to 'the good stuff'. In the end the fighting itself is pretty restricting with auto targeting and dice role damage, so success usually depends on which side has the biggest zerg.
Adding content is fine, but when it's done purely to keep you from the actual 'higher tier' fighting, the whole thing just becomes tedious.

Make a game with proper skill based combat, where everyone is on a level playing field. Where all weapons, armours and items are easy to get from crafters via a player driven economy. Make the pvp have a point, like the control of land, control of resources, battle ranks, kill counts, guild standing. Just make a game based on those grounds and you wont need 'end game content' because what you see is what you get and the players can make their own rules. Then you can use updates and patches to add more features and maps instead of more rare items that are required to win.

wurmonline would be a good referance for most of the peps here if you wanna make a game

basically there is basically no end game.  if only it was more fun. :(

Zzzz

Both options are not acceptable IMO.

Nice story and everything, why get nice story only at the END?  I mean, if there was no story up to that point, do you believe the player suddenly awaken in a need of a story?  I like stories, but from the start, not after a point.

The other debater is happy to enforce a new gameplay on players who reach a point by playing another game, which is plainly mistaken.

End Games should be similar to what bring you there, putting a completely different game and denying players of the "end" unless they adapt to this completely new game is not only rude, it is unfair, harsh and demotivating.

PvP and Raiding should start from level 1 to the end game or never be part of the design.  PvP or Raiding at level 50+ only is mistaken.  I am sick of the "reach that point and then start a new game".  Start that new game right away or be done with it, if it cannot evolves on it own, it mean that players don't want it.

Having a End Game which is similar to the game you play is fine, having PvP or Raiding at the end of a PvE solo/grouping is plainly lame.

Garrett is narrow minded if he thinks there must be competition or an end-game in an mmo. Garrett used many generalizations that were not a product of an expert writer, which one should be if your going to write columns and such.

I am not part of the everyone or everybody that he was referring to when he said we want competition in all its forms in an MMO. There doesn't need to be an end-game. All you need is constant content patches and level increases to keep the game going.

So...what about the hardcore gamers who play all the time? Well if all MMO's adopted the constant content and level increase patches then people would be forced to have a life and to get off the computer. So you win both ways. You get a healthier lifestyle, since you won't be glued to your computer 24 hours a day and you get a game that has a constant story and levels.

If you have to have an end, you could always make characters retire at age/level 100. You could add them to a special board on the games website to give them special recognition. Then you could reroll or find another game.

When I think of the term end-game I think back to The X-Files many season finalies and ultimately the series finaliem where mostly all episodic content was explained and the viewer was rewarded with the ultimate charracter development - Mulder and Scully.  With that being said, end-game refers to the big-picture, the ul