Game developers debate Xbox achievements
Lierop writes, "I have many friends who LOVE achievements. They love the bragging rights, they love being able to compare achievements they obtained to other people ... Personally, I dislike them...a lot. I find they are changing the way we play games, and the focus of the games we play, and make. I feel that games should be crafted to have enough intrinsic reward, that a secondary external reward system should not be required... was it really necessary for us to go back to the old 'High Score' system from the days of arcade games? I would have hoped that the gameplay and immersiveness of the 'next gen' gaming experience would have been enough reward, and that we wouldn't have had to fall back on cheap gimmicks."
Now before y'all go flippin' out, go and check out the thread first. Remember, it's an IGDA thread, so for the most part these are the guys who make the games the rest of us play. And please try to keep the comments on the topic of thoughts related to achievements. Have you found "achievements" to be actual achievements as part of regular gameplay or have you found them to be asinine randomness? Should you only hit the 20% mark in achievements for a game after you've beaten it? Should you get the easy level achievements automatically if you beat a higher level (that one's annoying as anything)? The achievement system is here to stay, what can developers do to tweak it so that there's some uniformity to the system and only a minor amount of absurdity?
[Via GameSetWatch]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Andrew Go @ Jun 1st 2007 10:54PM
If you don't like achievements, just ignore them. It's not like their presence ruins the game in any sense. Personally, I like them...a lot. They only add replay value and it's fun to see how you stack up to your friends.
severian00 @ Jun 1st 2007 10:55PM
I think you should always get the achievement for beating the easy difficulty if you beat the game on normal or hard. I thought that was great in Gears. I hate the games where you beat it on hard, then gotta play it on normal and easy just to get the achievements.
ChuckSteak0331 @ Jun 1st 2007 10:57PM
I've been saying this since day one. If anything, give us a option to completely turn off acheivements and gamerscore. I find myself playing more Wii and PS3 just because its gaming just to game!
Murry @ Jun 1st 2007 11:00PM
Its a bit wierd for me. I like acheivments, i like getting them and seeing all the icons, I like getting the points... but...
I really hate the things too. Because they definately have altered my playing habits and game decisions in a negative way. They've taken the sense of accomplishment away from the actual act of beating the game and divided it up into miniture milestones of oft times little importance. Its so bad that sometimes I almost pass on games that arnt on the 360 like Odin Sphere because it seems like a 'waste of time' to play a game that once I beat I have 'nothing to show for it'. Which is a very sad thing.
They add enjoyment to my game but... also take away from it and lessen the enjoyment of other games... overall i wish they had never been.
fwacce @ Jun 1st 2007 11:02PM
No offense to the 360, but this is a prime example of the type of player who plays that vs. the Wii or PS3. It's like someone who enjoys a FPS vs. someone who enjoys a JRPG, for example. Personally, I don't need to have some system jumping up and ruining my game telling me I just did something I already know I did. I prefer to play a game because the gameplay is great or it has a solid story that really draws you in. To each his/her own though.
Justin @ Jun 1st 2007 11:02PM
WOW, for someone who makes modern games that seems like such an uneducated position. Games have always been about accomplishments "high scores." The reward of gaming is based not on casual use, but perceived skill. Todays games have difficulty levels (legendary, hard, insane, etc.) that are more or less a statement of a high score. Beating a game on these levels provided bragging rights associated with the old high scores.
This only happened, because the gaming community moved out of the arcades, and to homes. A "high score" became a immeasurable ammount when it wasn't kept on a community machine. There wasn't a common/trustworthy way to measure a players skill.
Now that we have virtually moved out of seclusion, and back to a virtual arcade enviroment, the high score (achievements) has re-emerged. I don't think it takes away anything from a game, rather they add a level of dynamisim that enhances a game, and extendends its replayability.
//just my two cents
Retrofied @ Jun 1st 2007 11:04PM
"Achievements tend to encourage you to try ridiculous things, to explore behaviour in the game that you would normally never even contemplate."
That's a good thing in my book though, even if the things aren't ridiculous. I would have never completed CoD2 on Veteran because I didn't have time but found it very rewarding after doing so. And those were single player achievements, something I wish more games focused on and agree with Raph.
If I don't like the achievements or the means of getting it, I just ignore it. It doesn't bother me.
megaStryke @ Jun 1st 2007 11:05PM
When people willingly play complete trash like King Kong or the latest THQ licensed crapfest just to earn a quick 1000 points, you know that there MIGHT just be something slightly wrong with the system.
L @ Jun 1st 2007 11:07PM
I really like them ..but i wish you could yurn off your turn off gamerscore on ur profile so others can,t see them... i only get them for myself. like its nice to get them for playing the game for so long ...... like GEARS alot of people keep playing it to get the 10,000 ....plus you unlock a gamerpic as well
NintendoFanbot @ Jun 1st 2007 11:09PM
I think the best part of any game is not getting 100% to fully enjoy it. But these players have the time so let them have it.
ChuckSteak0331 @ Jun 1st 2007 11:11PM
The sad part is though, is that half of these achievements are jokes. "finished tutorial" or "completed first act". In no way does that mean you have skill. So you see all these people with high gamer scores, only to find out they went out and rented the classic games like TMNT or that nba2k6. And bragging rights are out the window if your a gamer. I consider myself to be one, I have the ps3, psp, wii, ds, xbox360. But I have never went to another gamer or friend and said "dude, look at my gamerscore, or lets compare acheivements!" A gamer will tend to have more thoughtful conversations about what they liked and disliked, what could have been better and so on. Alright I'm done. Just once again MS, give us the option to turn off the gamerscore and acheivements!
kingofwale @ Jun 1st 2007 11:14PM
It's sad that I knew people who play horrible games (TMNT) JUST for those achievement points.
nagglerdamus @ Jun 1st 2007 11:17PM
bragging is for chumps, and its derived from pride, which is a sin, so xbox 360 promotes sinning, which is sexy. but still, although achievements make you feel a wee bit sexier, why would you want your video game machine telling you youre sexy? get over your bad self.
personally i like to get lost in my video games, and achievements, although few and far between, take you out of the game for that moment and breaks my suspension of disbelief. imagine playing bioshock with a score tally in the top right corner the entire time. ew.
Ryan @ Jun 1st 2007 11:26PM
I like achievements. They make me play games in ways I would have never though to, especially Crackdown. I don't feel the need to get every single one for all my games, but it's nice to see that you did something that wins you bragging rights.
XGamerX @ Jun 1st 2007 11:27PM
Personally I feel more people are for them then against them. But I agree allowing them to be switched off would appeal to everyone. Im not sure but I think PS3's home has somthing like a trophy room and unlockable things like that.
http://gamergeddon.com/
Ryan @ Jun 1st 2007 11:27PM
To add to my last post, I do believe that "no duh" achievements, like beat a certain level on EASY should be eliminated. Those just show no sense of creativity.
Jon-Angelo @ Jun 1st 2007 11:28PM
"so for the most part these are the guys who make the games the rest of us play"
Just because they make the games we play does not mean they know how we like to play, I think that's stupid. Movie directors and producers make the movies we watch, sure doesn't mean they know what we like and/or don't like to watch, same argument for pretty much anything people enjoy.
Personally, I like the achievment system, I've played so many games this generation that I wouldn't have even touched before. Achievements have opened and re-opened generes for me that I either neglected or irgnored. For example, I wouldn't even have tried Viva Pinata, but since I wanted those achievements I bought it and I loved it.
Don't tell me what I do or don't like, I'll decide if it's good for me or not and don't hide under the fact that you're a developer and in "the know" because I don't care. I'll just keep playing the games you make and if you stop then someone is bound to take your place.
(rant over)
SeNiLe @ Jun 1st 2007 11:33PM
Achievements have good and bad about them.
The Good: I play through a whole game sometimes more than once, I do things I would never think to do in a game just to get an achievement making the game worth a lot more to me. Xbox Reward Challenges!!!
The Bad: Some of my online friends have turned into achievement whores and now to busy getting achievements on games they would never play otherwise leaving us high and dry alone playing online games without them. They say other friends are getting to close there gamerscore so they need to whore it up. I myself find I am focused more on getting an achievement then the story of the game I am playing and not enjoying the game as much as I should be. My wii does not get any game play since there is no achievements to get.
I do like the achievements but wish people would not focus so much on them that they forget about the people they use to play with. The only time I really get focused on achievements is when they have the challenges like the Old Spice one where I got Fusion Frenzy 2 and other stuff for getting 1500 gamerscore. That is worth it to me, getting more than just a high gamerscore, can't wait until the next challenge.
ChuckSteak0331 @ Jun 1st 2007 11:35PM
@ 17, That is the reason why achievements are ruining gaming. People go out and buy crap games (not saying VP is), and then the devs see their product is "selling well", so they pump out another King kong because the first did so well, and us as gamers get the crap end of this stick. We keep getting fed crappy titles because they sell.
BTW, what ever happened to gamer zones? haha
Jess @ Jun 1st 2007 11:42PM
I don't know about 360 achievements and gamer points, but I feel that the levels system in halo 2 ruined the multi-player aspect of the game. I still played it, but I hated the competition it created and the attitudes it drew. Everything was about leveling up and super serious. I wish they would have used a hidden levels system with visible points or something that you get from kills or something, no leader boards, and the ability to hide your points. That alone would lower the asshole level of halo 2 by a factor of 10.
Jon-Angelo @ Jun 1st 2007 11:44PM
I think those crappy games would have sold regardless of the achievment system, every system has its POS pile and the people that buy them. Unless I'm mistaken I don't remember TMNT breaking any sales records, most likely people just went out and rented it.
But the same can be said for any game, great or not, due to the achievment system and the people who strive for a higher gamer score they'll end up picking up more games and playing different genres. I don't see how that's a bad thing.
There will always be people who buy games based on it's quality and there will be people who buy games because it's "easy", but in this case it's easy achievment points.
Matthew @ Jun 1st 2007 11:49PM
I think achievement points are a joke. There are people that purposely play games with easy points just so they can look special.
Also, I don't want that stuff popping up on the screen, it kills the immersion. Imagine playing something like a next gen Ico and all the sudden your screen is covered with an emblem that says "You just killed your 500th shadow monster!" Yeah, that is what games are about.
If you are going to have any sort of achievement system at all, it should be a single achievement, FOR BEATING THE GAME. That is the only achievement that should even matter. Who cares about anything else? This is what I'm hoping the PS3 trophy system is, just a series of trophies for games you have beat that can be admired or ignored by others as opposed to a big fat number that shows you played the hell out of crap like King Kong and TMNT.
AtomB @ Jun 1st 2007 11:54PM
Normally once i beat a game I would put it on the shelf and hardly every pull it back out. With achievements I'll go back and put much more time into a game.
SteveT @ Jun 2nd 2007 12:03AM
The "Achievement Unlocked" pop-up is just like a cell phone ringing in a movie theater--an annoyance that breaks immersion and should have been turned off.
severian00 @ Jun 2nd 2007 12:06AM
Chuck:
I've never bought a crap game once to get achievements, but I do rent the hell out of them on gamefly or from blockbuster. The devs will make crap games regardless of achievements and most achievement whores couldn't afford to be if we were all buying the games. NBA Live 06 takes an hour FTW!
Nyasara @ Jun 2nd 2007 12:07AM
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people"
"Achievements don't ruin games, people ruin games"
That about sums it up. Achievements are just a system. Individuals ruin or enhance it. They're just there, it's up to you what you do with it. I like achievements. For instance, when I was in Iraq. I couldn't really talk to friends much, but I did have an intermittent satellite Internet link, so I could briefly log in to Xbox Live. From there, I could see what my Friends list was doing, what they were playing, and what they were playing a lot. This helped me feel connected to my friends back home even when I couldn't talk to them often. Plus, the Gamercard helps you hook up with friends who you may not play with often. "Hey, Bob's getting achievements in this game, I didn't know he had that? I should try to hook up with him and play!" Get away from the score, and look at the social aspect, and they're not so bad.
Except, of course, that people make them bad. People who think their Gamerscore means anything. People who pay other people to raise their score, or sit their and focus on achievements. Of course they are stupid, but that's not the fault of achievements, that's the fault of idiots.
ExMcloud @ Jun 2nd 2007 12:10AM
I feel that Achievements are a great addition to gaming I think it inspires developers to make games harder and more challenging when they have to give thought to what achievements they put in the game...Now I admit some developers contradict what I'm saying but...You guys gotta admit it makes games more fun when you have something to stride towards...
nick @ Jun 2nd 2007 12:27AM
I like achievements. Some games really aren't games without them. I know I suffered through Raving Rabbids only because of achievement possibilities, where without achievements I would have never played that game beyond an hour or so.
Other games become richer because of achievements. I know I went on side missions in Dead Rising because of achievements.
And in Crackdown, I tried things I might not have otherwise done in the game, plus that game also made me push myself into powering up.
Y @ Jun 2nd 2007 12:35AM
Personally I love achievments. It's great way to see what your friends are actually doing in-game. Like leaderboards, I think they're a fun way to gauge the differences between you and your friends. For exmple, I've gotten most of the single player achievments in Guitar Hero and none of the co-op ones, but a few of my friends are just the opposite. I think being able to compare your play style in ways like that are great.
On th eother hand, I generally dislike the idea of a gamerscore, at least on a global level. I'd love it if gamerscores were kept localized to each game, or just done away completely. A global gamerscore doesn't have any real value since the difficulty and dedication needed for achievments varies greatly from game to game. Not to mention the way different publishers hand out gamer points (in Dead Rising every achievment is worth 20 points, regardless of how easy or difficult it is. Fortunately, Capcom had the foresight to incentivize the more difficult ones by making them unlock secrets). As it is now gamerscores are little more than "XBox 360 loyalty points," but I'm sure that's exactly what Microsoft and most publishers want.
And, as a final note, I think a little disheartening to think that a video game developer thinks that 'high scores' are a bad thing. I mean, granted, when you're talking about things like global leaderboards where you're competing with people you'll never interact with directly simply for bragging rights it's a bad thing, but acing casual competition can only help a game's publicity. If people play your game and get bored with it after 2 weeks it's far less likely that they'll be interested in buying any sequels. But on the other hand when a game has a strong competitive multiplayer element people will buy the new interations SOLEY for the sake of the multiplayer. It's the reason Madden and Tony Hawk and tons of the other yearlies tend to sell so well (regardless of how much you may like it or not).
For some anecdotal evidence, I work at the mall and the Best Buy here has the full game of Guitar Hero 2 set up. Naturally being that it's a great game and free to play a lot of mall employees, including me, tend to go and play it on our breaks. We'd run into each other every now and then and have crossed paths enough that we know each other pretty well and began competing for the high scores to the point that it's almost like a little club. Of course, once the 360 version hit those of us with 360s picked it up and swapped gamertags for leaderboards and achievments that we could compare with each other. It's gotten to the point now that with the announcement of GH3 and Rock Band we've been trying to get everyone on the same page as to which versions to get so that we can all keep playing together online. If it weren't for the in-game high score list chances are most of us would've stopped playing GH2 on PS2 by now, or atleast slowed down. ANd if it weren't for the achievments and leaderboards most of u slikely would've held off on buying it for the 360.
dukemeiser @ Jun 2nd 2007 12:47AM
Don't buy crap games if you're just going to whore the points. Rent it instead. There is no need to encourage devs that their crap is selling well.
Words to live by.
poster @ Jun 2nd 2007 2:03AM
When I first got my 360, I could have cared less about achievements or my gamerscore. Then I had a buddy who was into them, so I started going for achievements. I now believe they are an incredible addition to every game, and can add possibly hundreds of hours of gameplay to a single game if done correctly. I think the best example of how to do them is how Gears of War did them.
A nice slew (300-400) of single player achievements, gotten through just playing through the game.
A nice slew of multiplayer achievements (300-400)
A nice mixture of random achievements that just took a bit of time to get.
Think about how much achievements can add to a game. I beat gears of war coop with a buddy on all 3 difficulties. After that, we mighta played the online together for a month or two.
But after seeing the achievements, they were somewhat difficult, but definitely attainable. Those are the best achievements, the one where the user can look at them, say "oh i can do that" but know it will take some time.
Gears had great multiplayer achievements to get 100 headshots, 100 pistol kills, 100 head stomps etc. Even hosting 50 games. All of these weren't difficult to do, just took some time to do them. Having a nice mixture of achievements can add hours of gameplay to a single game. What more can you ask?
I'm not one of those nuts who will buy games just for achievements. But I will look at all the achievements in a game, and spend extra time if I know I can get it.
bigbrew @ Jun 2nd 2007 2:28AM
I love achievements -- it makes me want to try parts of a game I might not otherwise. I have gotten more hours of gameplay out of each game this generation. This is coming from someone that only has a 6000 gamerscore.
sirk @ Jun 2nd 2007 2:54AM
I agree that some achievements are good i.e the ones that get me to do things I wouldn't normally do. However if you compare 2 games like Oblivion and Morrowind I felt as though Morrowind was the deeper game even though there are no achievements. It left you free to explore the world and find different story lines and random quests. If you started the game again from scratch you could almost guarantee a different experience and not even touch the main storyline.
Oblivion on the other hand has everything all laid out for you and pretty much tells you how far up the ladder you are in a certain guild or faction and what parts of the main story line you have completed. It takes away the mystery of the game and doesn't seem nearly as immersive.
If it adds to the game and gets you to try something outside of your normal style of playing then that is excellent. If it just gets you to grind (10000 kills anyone?) then it is an achievement I am not interested in and would not like to see in future games. If it tells you the plot of the game and how many missions you have left to 'finish' the game then I would rather not play. Going back to Oblivion, there are a number of powerful artifacts that you can find and I think finding those would have encouraged more exploration of the game world rather than having purely mission based achievements.
I wish there was a backwards compatibility patch for Morrowind.
Ed @ Jun 2nd 2007 2:56AM
I remember beating the 2nd quest of the original Zelda. I was so excited, I expected Link to jump out of the screen and shake my hand. Maybe the game would give me Shiggy's home phone number and he'd have a special red phone that only rang when someone actually put that much time and energy into his game.
What did I get though? Nothing!
Get all Rainbow V's in Viewtiful Joe and I didn't get a V-watch or some screen that says, "Damn your good." Nothing again!
Achievements are the slap on the back the screen never gave you.
Its like when you were 7 and you told your best friend that you could beat Ninja Gaiden without ever dying. At first he didn't believe you, so you went over his house after school and proved it.
Getting an achievement can be like wiping the smile off his face by taking out Jaquio with one bar of health left, priceless.
OTAM @ Jun 2nd 2007 3:41AM
I love achievement points. That's why I gamesave! *thumbs up*
Mad @ Jun 2nd 2007 4:40AM
I wish they'd just give us an option to hide the gamerscore.
Fester @ Jun 2nd 2007 4:53AM
Man, how wrong could the guy in the article be? It's easy to assume that achievements are there to mask failings in a game but how much BS is this?
So riddle me this: When an EXACT same game is relased on PS3 and XBox360 they have the same gameplay buy 360 also has Achievements, how does that make the 360 "lacking intrinsic fun or addiction". It has ALL of the same fun that it does on any other format PLUS the ADDED BONUS of achievements if you are bothered.
I really can't believe the crap that has been spouted by this guy (and some of the comments on here), it's obvious most are ps3 fanboys without a clue how achievements actually compliment not ruin a game.
God, anyone would think that somehow games on Wii or PS3 are somehow intrinisically more fun just because they don't have achievements (even if they play/reward exactly the same otherwise). Shows a real lack of knowledge on the subject and a complete flaw in thinking.
The guy in the article (and any other devs who say this about achievements) do not understand their purpose and use, and are probably just bitter cos they lack the imagination to use them well.
Even used poorly/randomly it's no hardship to have a small info box pop up with a nice sound every 3 hours of play to tell you you've just done something good.
COMPLETE NON ISSUE. Only if a crappy dev uses achievements for a Xbox360 only title to MASK the lack of gameplay could you start to question Achievements validity and even then it's nothing intrinsic to the achievements system it's just a crap game that would still be a crap game on any system. If a user gets off on grabbing achievements on a crap game just for gamerscore then that's his right. That majority WON'T buy and play total rubbish just for that so the crap game filter still works as on any other format.
Rod Oracheski @ Jun 2nd 2007 5:43AM
Like someone else said, games have always been about beating someone else, doing something new or lasting longer than you did the last time - and that predates even the most basic electronic games.
It's pretty telling that most people who complain about Achievements also complain that they typically 'finish' with a game without getting very many Achievements.
Doesn't that really make the point that the 'meaningless accomplishment' has meaning after all?
Many (not all, but a good deal) of the complaints seem to just be sour grapes from people without the time or skill to get the full 1,000 on the games they buy.
I don't understand. They say they don't want or need Achievements, and that games should be desired for the storyline or gameplay...yet they also complain that they aren't getting all the Achievements from the games they play?
Gerald @ Jun 2nd 2007 6:10AM
Personally, after following the link, I found the members of IGDA's forum views to all be quite relevant.
There are a variety of points on both sides though I believe the main issues to be in regards to point distribution (as was mentioned on the IGDA's thread).
And, as another poster had mentioned, the implementation of achievements and whether they come off as well-thought or tacked on is in the hands of the game developers
HOWEVER
There are those games that could seemingly be ruined by an achievements based system.
For instance, could you imagine playing either Ico or Shadow of the Colossus for a higher gamerscore?
I've played the latter through and through, for fruit, additional weapons and to explore the vast expanses of the game. This wasn't for bragging rights but moreso because the game itself was so enthusing, I felt the necessity to every last inch of its virtual landscapes.
Honestly though, I don't believe any of us can expand upon it any better than it's been done on the IGDA forum.
For those of you who didn't follow the link, that is unfortunate considering the discussion brings about valid points for both sides.
As for an unbalanced distribution of points, I have noticed the number of points related to XBL play. As has already been demonstrated with developers attempting to provide free content via Xbox Live, Microsoft is out to make money. Achievements that are only available by playing online (with Gold memberships) are fine and dandy, but not when the player who enjoys a solo experience is left to feel inferior due to being bashful and/or anxious about jumping into the online experience.
I do enjoy the achievements system though ramifications can, and should, be made.
Still can not understand MS decision to only distribute 1000 points across the Half Life 2: Orange Box Edition. Half-Life 2, Half-Life 2: Episode 1, Half-Life 2: Episode 2, Team Fortress 2, & Portal with only 1000 points to distribute over all those titles?
Come on, MS!
Garulon @ Jun 2nd 2007 6:24AM
"From there, I could see what my Friends list was doing, what they were playing, and what they were playing a lot."
That's really what Achievements bring to the table - you can see what your friends are playing. A whole bunch of your friends racking up Cheevements in Crackdown tells you more than most review scores would. GamerScore just really tells you how experienced someone is - someone with a
Dirk Dorkelson @ Jun 2nd 2007 7:46AM
"No offense to the 360, but this is a prime example of the type of player who plays that vs. the Wii or PS3. It's like someone who enjoys a FPS vs. someone who enjoys a JRPG, for example. Personally, I don't need to have some system jumping up and ruining my game telling me I just did something I already know I did. I prefer to play a game because the gameplay is great or it has a solid story that really draws you in. To each his/her own though."
Just wow. "No offense to the 360, but anyone who plays one is a tool because they care more about achievements than fun." That's basically what you're saying. I like JRPGs and games with great gameplay/story and I like the 360. In some cases (Dead Rising, for example) some of those interests even overlap. I bet that blew your tiny little fanboy mind.
Don't pigeonhole, please. It makes you look like an ass and helps no one. Also, I believe you can turn off the achievement alerts, so nothing comes on screen to ruin your game, as you say.
Also, what's with all the hate for King Kong? Yeah, it had no replay value at all and the last level was hideous, but up until that last level it was a pretty fun game. It's certainly worth a rental and you could do far worse as far as games that give a cheap 1,000 points. With that game, I feel like its easy achievement points (and the type of gamer they came to symbolize) masked what was a halfway decent game.
peterbarrett25 @ Jun 2nd 2007 8:16AM
I love the Achievements system. For me it's a little extra motivation to spend more time completing a game in full, and some... okay, one achievement... helps you improve your skill (Pacifist - Geometry Wars). People ARE taking it too seriously, whoring themselves to the number on their gamertag, but that's THEIR choice.
Personally, my feathers were a bit ruffled when playing Guitar Hero II. I completed most of Expert, but got stuck at Psychobilly Freakout; so went to the Hard difficulty and completed it. I expected that Harmonix would realise that if I can complete Hard then obviously I could complete Easy & Normal. But having to go through each difficulty to gain 'Achievements'... they were anything but. Yawn the whole way through every song as I strum... wait.... strum... wait... The lower difficulty levels' achievements should most definatelty be unlocked if you if you attain the higher difficulty achievements. No question. I sincerely hope when I try to play Halo 3 for the first time, I can play Legendary and not have too put myself through the lower difficulties, falsely increasing longevity. Though, a lot of people here have commented on King Kong. It is sort of fun.. but despite borrowing it off a mate four months ago, I still haven't finished it. So dull. Anyway.. I should get back to my games...
Achievement Unlocked: Blabbermouth
50G - You posted your opinion on Joystiq.com
Roger @ Jun 2nd 2007 8:44AM
only thing that keeps me playing nowadays. anyone want my special achivement "yay" cookies i made? their right out of the oven and their keen
[im not kidding, their preety damn keen]
Evan @ Jun 2nd 2007 9:02AM
@Dirk Dorkelson
Everyone who plays the 360 isn't a tool, but the system seems to coddle them. Xbox’s online games are full of griefers and powergamers. The gamerscore seems like just another way for immature assholes to brag and feel big.
fragglefart @ Jun 2nd 2007 9:20AM
I love achievements, and I love high scores.
The return of hi-score tables to games is an awesome thing.
FCOL @ Jun 2nd 2007 9:23AM
I think achievements are one of the best inventions for home consoles in quite a while. PS3 will soon be implementing them in their own way too as they recognize the value as MS had.
I tend to lose interest in a game when I no longer have anything to go for. Meaning I would normally beat a game on normal once and be done with it. I figured I beat it and saw all there was to see and thus was done. With achievements I have been given me reasons to play a game multiple times and on multiple difficulty levels. My interest in "searching" for the secrets of the game have been greatly increased.
That being said its not the gamerscore that interest me as much as the virtual pat on the back and just the feeling that I accomplished something in my hours of gameplay (even if video games achievements mean nothing). I do not buy games I don’t want to play just for achievements and when I get tired of a game no amount of remaining achievements will make me continue to play. I normally don’t get 1000 on most of my games but I am happy for the 1000 I got in COD2 and I do like getting all the single player achievements in most of my games. I also, do like the "proof" for myself and my friends that I was able to beat a game on its hardest setting.
Oh and #39 all companies are out to make money. Also MS has achievement guidelines to keep developers from just packing their game full to sell more and I think MS recommendations for achievements indicates developers should minimize the online achievements and focus more on single player. Been a while since I read the rules but I believe that is what it said. The half-life thing is a good point though, since it is multiple games, but again if every one of those games had a 1000 points then that would be a lot of points for about $60 and would be a bit unfair to other developers.
Roger @ Jun 2nd 2007 9:44AM
achivements opened my eyes to some fun games. without achivements i would still think GOW sucked.
James @ Jun 2nd 2007 10:01AM
A couple people used the History card, claiming that videogames have always been about high scores.
I'd like to note that, achievements take the artistic merit out of a video game. It is something supposed to be casually viewed, its an artistic form of entertainment that could even create serious social commentary if handled properly. But if a gamer is too wrapped into his own competition, it doesn't become about playing the game as a game.
The game loses its steam as its just about getting the higher score, or the most achievements.
However, this is also technically seen with unlockable characters and stages, the only difference here, the unlockable content is generally usable.
LordMinogue @ Jun 2nd 2007 10:35AM
I use them as guidelines for when I have / have not completed a game. Emphasis on guidelines.
Dale @ Jun 2nd 2007 10:53AM
I got the picture achievement forever ago: I quite often come home to find my wife playing Viva Piñata, Guitar Hero II or a DS/GBA game of some description (last night it was my copy of Legend Of Zelda: The Minish Cap).