| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more
PS3
XBOX
Wii
3DS
PSP
PC
Mobile
Move
Kinect

Reader Comments (22)

Posted: Feb 16th 2007 2:09PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think achievements should come more from the Single Player modes. Thinks like getting points for using the Vision camera is just a joke. I am not paying $50 for a camera that I won't ever use again just for gamer points. That sounds like a scam to sell more cameras. I also don't like the idea of having to play an entire game in split screen to get points like Rainbow Six Vegas.

Posted: Feb 16th 2007 2:23PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
As a vision camera owner (future father-in-law is a gamer and bought it for me for x-mas) I would rather them actually make it more useful.

More rulings and clarfications certainly help though.

Posted: Feb 16th 2007 2:29PM xderkax said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Maybe they do care...

Posted: Feb 16th 2007 2:32PM DjDATZ said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Bravo microsoft...a step in the right direction and a good way to listen to your customers.

Posted: Feb 16th 2007 2:32PM DjDATZ said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
*a good way to show that you are listening to your cutomers.

Posted: Feb 16th 2007 2:35PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I concur that these are two very good addendums to the current policy. I hate the massive amounts of multiplayer achievements in general and the dependence on Ranked games makes it worse. And why punish others when you can just let boosters do it together in the privacy of a "player match"?

Posted: Feb 16th 2007 2:35PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Vegas' achievements were actually some of the better ones I've seen.

A good chunk were available through the storyline and player matches. This should be the rule, not the exception.

As for the splitscreen one, that achievement is incorrectly worded (or programmed?). All that is required is that you beat the terrorist hunt missions in a single player game.

Posted: Feb 17th 2007 3:14PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm with #4.

Posted: Feb 16th 2007 2:38PM fuzzbee said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think moves like this are great. Its nice to know that Microsoft listens to the little people and is willing to make 'tweaks'. Achievements should be primarily single player, because despite how great Live is, majority of game players primarily play single player.

Posted: Feb 16th 2007 3:02PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think that the gamer should be given the option of choosing to go for gamerpoints online or offline. By this I mean the goal would still be 1000 points and say still 500 points in the offline game but then you should get to choose, either play on a harder setting offline for the other 500 or hit live and go against others players for the points that way. Then everyone would be happy. Some people hate playing online for points(I'm cool with both I'm just giving some feed back thats all.)

Posted: Feb 16th 2007 4:41PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
i agree one hundred percent. i think its frustrating for a competitive, ranked player such as myself--and others--to have to put up with acheivement whores in ranked games. i think that it should be more than microsoft's opinion though, and it should be enforced that all online achievements be earned in player matches where no one cares if someone cheats, boosts, or whatever.

so, if the ranked players really want points...we'll go to a player match to earn them, not like they matter for much anyway.

Posted: Feb 16th 2007 3:32PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"...any downloadable content that gives players an advantage must be free for download. Some EA games as well as Chromehounds are guilty of this..."

This is very good news. It was, at times, infuriating to know that in order to stay at your peak, you need to fork out for the Microsoft Points. Definitely not the way things should be.

Posted: Feb 16th 2007 3:47PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It's hard to please everyone with these unified gamerscores. Some people want more online achievements and others want more offline achievements. I think to make a system that really work, you probably need separate online and offline gamerscores. So a game has 1000 for offline achievements and 1000 for online achievements. You would have a online gamerscore and an offline gamerscore that would be different numbers. When people looked at your gamercard they would see both scores listed. If the game didn't have an online mode, then it would just list N/A for the online gamerscore. Then the people who want online achievements wouldn't be upset about the amount and score of the offline achievements. People couldn't complain that online achievements are because MS is trying to force you to buy Gold memberships. You would have an indication if the person played games online or offline more.

Posted: Feb 16th 2007 5:26PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I believe that what was said was that downloadable content that gives a player a competitive advantage must be free OR unlockable within the game itself.

Posted: Feb 16th 2007 5:43PM mietha said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Thank you god on the no more allowing EA to f'ing charge for cheat codes. That was getting annoying.

Posted: Feb 16th 2007 6:30PM Starcade said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I really liked Dead Rising's achievements, and to some extent, also Viva Pinata (with perhaps the exception of the 50 hours worth of gameplay-- which takes forever)

Multiplayer achievements I could totally do without. More often than not, I'm seeing people just going through the motions with that one. And some are a real pain, especially when the game is older, and you're attempting to find players. Wasn't there one recently that had something to do with 100,000 people online at the same time?! That's totally pointless.

I really wish XBLA games didn't have so many multiplayer achievements.

Posted: Feb 16th 2007 7:38PM wat tnb said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't like having to play online with complete strangers (most of whom are assholes) online to get points and would rather play for fun (and get rewarded with gamerpoints at the same time). This is the reason I haven't gone online with Gears yet.

This is also unfair for those without Gold memberships. I think the majority of achievements should be attained in the single player, as well as the multiplayer achievements (especially the "kill so many ---" ones) should be both online and offline, so you can choose to play split-screen with buddies (or those too poor to buy an Xbox 360) or play online (or both) and work towards your goals.

GRAW and Perfect Dark Zero are two examples of this excellent practice. (10, 000 kills is retarded, though)

Posted: Feb 16th 2007 8:45PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Alright. I may be wrong, but this little bit states that XBLM content that adds gamerscore points must be free, right? And wasn't it stated in a different post that the Shivering Isles content for Oblivion will add 250 points to your gamerscore? Well...wouldn't that mean that Shivering Isles would have to be free? I think it does. If I'm wrong, you've got to let me know. FREE OBLIVION EXPANSION!

Posted: Feb 16th 2007 8:49PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report

@17

Additional achievements for a game that does not already have a 1000 gamerscore must be free, but games adding on to an already existent and achievable 1000 gamerscore can charge for the extra content. So Oblivion can charge for the extra 250 under MS rules, but a game like Crackdown couldn't until they have added 100 points since the game only has 900.

Posted: Feb 16th 2007 9:42PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Awesome, the Gears of War online achievements suck. They are freaking hard to get because the people online are too good. Yes, it's easy to make a crack about those people playing too much, but it's true. If you can be that good, you are playing too much.

Posted: Feb 17th 2007 1:56AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
17 & 18 - you guys have it wrong. That rule states that DL content that gives players a competitive edge must be free, not content that adds points. So a bigger gun, or faster car... they'd have to be free so they didn't skew the rankings unfairly. That's what it says.

Posted: Feb 21st 2007 9:35PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
From http://www.gamespot.com/news/6165256.html ...

"The maximum number of achievement points a game can award has been raised to 1,250 from 1,000 for full retail releases. The extra 250 points can be included in downloadable content that becomes available on Xbox Live Marketplace. Xbox Live Arcade titles, which were previously capped at 200 points, can now add an extra 50 points through downloadable content.

Games can also now ship with less than 1,000 points, but must offer more points through free downloadable content that brings the total to 1,000. The cost of downloadable content that adds points beyond the original 1,000 is up to the discretion of the publisher."

That's the rule I was talking about, not this new one about giving players a competitive edge.

Featured Stories

Image

Exploring the patterns of Diablo 3

Posted on May 24th 2012 1:00PM

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW