We don't need no stinking philosophers to find the answer to that last one -- of course they do. For everything else though, check out Prymus' article -- we guarantee it'll be the brainiest game-related essay you'll read all day.
We don't need no stinking philosophers to find the answer to that last one -- of course they do. For everything else though, check out Prymus' article -- we guarantee it'll be the brainiest game-related essay you'll read all day.
Reader Comments (45)
Posted: Aug 24th 2008 6:53PM burn1n9m4n said
Yes Kylie is a guy. Joystiq just has gender confusion issues.
Reply
Posted: Aug 24th 2008 6:45PM (Unverified) said
I think they definitely influence how we play modern games. I think Trophies and Achievements turn the act of playing games in general into one big experience that can be compared to an MMORPG.
You check your View Games list and see what kind of Achievements are within your reach. You are accepting a quest.
The act of collecting all the secret things or getting 100 kills with [weapon x] is the grind you go through, similar to killing 15 boars, or whatever you do in an MMORPG.
Then when you complete your quest you get the reward, that sweet sound accompanied by a little pop-up and another feather in your cap to show your mates.
I think Achievements have revolutionized gaming, as they can make one want to play more of a game that would otherwise collect dust on the shelf. And don't say that since Achievements don't do anything for you like buy things on the XBL Marketplace that they are worthless. If you really think about it, what does anything in a game do for you? Beating a game on PS2 before they had Achievements doesn't add to your wallet in any way, does it? So why should Achievements be any different? They are just for feeling the satisfaction of completing another quest in a neverending journey.
Reply
You check your View Games list and see what kind of Achievements are within your reach. You are accepting a quest.
The act of collecting all the secret things or getting 100 kills with [weapon x] is the grind you go through, similar to killing 15 boars, or whatever you do in an MMORPG.
Then when you complete your quest you get the reward, that sweet sound accompanied by a little pop-up and another feather in your cap to show your mates.
I think Achievements have revolutionized gaming, as they can make one want to play more of a game that would otherwise collect dust on the shelf. And don't say that since Achievements don't do anything for you like buy things on the XBL Marketplace that they are worthless. If you really think about it, what does anything in a game do for you? Beating a game on PS2 before they had Achievements doesn't add to your wallet in any way, does it? So why should Achievements be any different? They are just for feeling the satisfaction of completing another quest in a neverending journey.
Posted: Aug 25th 2008 7:14AM (Unverified) said
Well, call me old-fashioned, but I don't require something to tell me what I've just done. If there's something difficult to pull off in a computer game that I want to do to prove to myself I can do, then I'll do it; it shouldn't have to be quantified by a console, and it certainly should't be arbitrarily acruing towards a gamer score.
Valve's got the right idea, with achievments actually unlocking game content thereby neccessitating an explanation of what constitutes an achievement.
It's the gamerscore thing which irks me the most, to be honest. The other week my friend said that, while there were games on the Wii that interested him, he'd rather get a 360 game simply because he can add to his Live account's gamerscore. I was appalled simply by the suggestion, and there's many reasons why, not least because he may have decided not to get a game that deep-down he believed was better.
For a start, gamerscore quantities can sometimes be the same for achievements ranging drastically in difficulty and this means that the whole score is completely pointless, because if Richboy McRichy has his dad buy him 100 shitty games that require you to turn on the console to get an achievment for each one then he's just gained a whole bunch of gamer score and yet might be jhust terrible at gaming. Meanwhile there may be someone with less than half the games, clearly a better gamer, who might have unlocked the majority of achievments in the games he owns, and yet he's got less gamerscore. It's frequently misleading.
Then there's the people who brag about their gamerscore. Fuck off. I don't care about your arbitrary number. The fact is gamerscore is easier to get if you buy more games; this doesn't make you a better gamer, it just reveals that gamerscore and achievments are just marketing incentives.
Now, the corollary with bragging about gamescore is that people with low gamescore are shit gamers. Once again, fuck off if you think that because it's retarded; some people play a range of consoles instead of buying into what is obviously a system designed to keep you on one console, and in the event that you do, doesn't that just make you a gamer more in touch with the current generation of consoles instead of mindlessly building achievments/trophies?
So in closing, achievments aren't always a bad thing, but gamerscore is absolutely, unequivocally, mind-numbingly retarded.
Reply
Valve's got the right idea, with achievments actually unlocking game content thereby neccessitating an explanation of what constitutes an achievement.
It's the gamerscore thing which irks me the most, to be honest. The other week my friend said that, while there were games on the Wii that interested him, he'd rather get a 360 game simply because he can add to his Live account's gamerscore. I was appalled simply by the suggestion, and there's many reasons why, not least because he may have decided not to get a game that deep-down he believed was better.
For a start, gamerscore quantities can sometimes be the same for achievements ranging drastically in difficulty and this means that the whole score is completely pointless, because if Richboy McRichy has his dad buy him 100 shitty games that require you to turn on the console to get an achievment for each one then he's just gained a whole bunch of gamer score and yet might be jhust terrible at gaming. Meanwhile there may be someone with less than half the games, clearly a better gamer, who might have unlocked the majority of achievments in the games he owns, and yet he's got less gamerscore. It's frequently misleading.
Then there's the people who brag about their gamerscore. Fuck off. I don't care about your arbitrary number. The fact is gamerscore is easier to get if you buy more games; this doesn't make you a better gamer, it just reveals that gamerscore and achievments are just marketing incentives.
Now, the corollary with bragging about gamescore is that people with low gamescore are shit gamers. Once again, fuck off if you think that because it's retarded; some people play a range of consoles instead of buying into what is obviously a system designed to keep you on one console, and in the event that you do, doesn't that just make you a gamer more in touch with the current generation of consoles instead of mindlessly building achievments/trophies?
So in closing, achievments aren't always a bad thing, but gamerscore is absolutely, unequivocally, mind-numbingly retarded.
Posted: Aug 25th 2008 9:58AM Knight Marquise said
@ a pissed off English Gamer:
WOW! I tried reading the wall of text, but all that kept coming through was "I have a low gamerscore, I have a low gamerscore, I have a low gamerscore".
Just Kidding....how low is your gamerscore? :)
Reply
WOW! I tried reading the wall of text, but all that kept coming through was "I have a low gamerscore, I have a low gamerscore, I have a low gamerscore".
Just Kidding....how low is your gamerscore? :)
Posted: Aug 25th 2008 10:25AM (Unverified) said
Spike's comments are spot on.
Gamerscore at face value is useless. You can only see that somebody plays a lot of games. While some achievements are easy or mundane, others are hardcore and can extend a game's life. The act of unlocking is a game in itself that can't be ridiculed. It's just another objective, much like a high score or collecting hidden items in games ages ago, so why complain? They are no different and they are optional. If that means people play B-list games for them, isn't that smart on the part of developers then?
Reply
Gamerscore at face value is useless. You can only see that somebody plays a lot of games. While some achievements are easy or mundane, others are hardcore and can extend a game's life. The act of unlocking is a game in itself that can't be ridiculed. It's just another objective, much like a high score or collecting hidden items in games ages ago, so why complain? They are no different and they are optional. If that means people play B-list games for them, isn't that smart on the part of developers then?
Posted: Aug 25th 2008 10:44AM DanielSW said
You're right about some things, and just completely and belligerently wrong in others.
Yes, the achievement system is rather lopsided. I could pop in Avatar: TLA and get 1000 points in about a minute, or churn at a game GTA 4 for days and only amass a couple hundred. That's just the nature of the beast. Some companies have it right, and some don't. But you bring up Valve as some shining example of doing achievements right. I've played the Orange Box, and their achievement seem to be fairly arbitrary.
"Congratulations on walking past that sign, here's an achievement!" And they don't do anything for your either. No unlockable gun or costume. Dead Rising on the other hand. "Wow, you killed enough zombies to equal the amount of people in the town we set the story in! Here's some gamerscore and Mega Man's Mega Buster to blast nearly any zombie away in one hit. Have Fun!"
Sure, some games are easier to unlock their achievements, but that's why you can look at people's game list and see how they got it. Someone's bragging about their score to you? A quick glance may reveal that they only play Cars, Kung Fu Panda and the like to get that score, while others might reveal a quite varied list of games to support a tag that's only 84 points away from 30k.
And so what if your friend doesn't want to grab the latest Wii title and instead tries out some other 360 game for the achievements. You're both trying new things, so get over it. Once he realizes his game sucks, he might try yours. I still haven't played Super Mario Galaxy, of course I also haven't played Bioshock. My backlog is not very console specific.
Really, all you need to do is stop being some pissed off gamer and start using that folded fleshy mass inside your skull. Gamerscore isn't bad ... YOU just don't care about it.
Reply
Yes, the achievement system is rather lopsided. I could pop in Avatar: TLA and get 1000 points in about a minute, or churn at a game GTA 4 for days and only amass a couple hundred. That's just the nature of the beast. Some companies have it right, and some don't. But you bring up Valve as some shining example of doing achievements right. I've played the Orange Box, and their achievement seem to be fairly arbitrary.
"Congratulations on walking past that sign, here's an achievement!" And they don't do anything for your either. No unlockable gun or costume. Dead Rising on the other hand. "Wow, you killed enough zombies to equal the amount of people in the town we set the story in! Here's some gamerscore and Mega Man's Mega Buster to blast nearly any zombie away in one hit. Have Fun!"
Sure, some games are easier to unlock their achievements, but that's why you can look at people's game list and see how they got it. Someone's bragging about their score to you? A quick glance may reveal that they only play Cars, Kung Fu Panda and the like to get that score, while others might reveal a quite varied list of games to support a tag that's only 84 points away from 30k.
And so what if your friend doesn't want to grab the latest Wii title and instead tries out some other 360 game for the achievements. You're both trying new things, so get over it. Once he realizes his game sucks, he might try yours. I still haven't played Super Mario Galaxy, of course I also haven't played Bioshock. My backlog is not very console specific.
Really, all you need to do is stop being some pissed off gamer and start using that folded fleshy mass inside your skull. Gamerscore isn't bad ... YOU just don't care about it.
Posted: Aug 27th 2008 8:37AM (Unverified) said
It's the fact that there is a gamescore system that just confuses me. you said it yourself, that different developers may put different amounts of achievments in with huge variances on the difficulty of said achievments and the gamerscore awarded; it may as well just make all gamerscore moot, and while you can check just what achievments they consist of, that's just agreeing with me, really: gamerscore is pointless.
In, say, TF2 you can unlock achievments to work towards getting the new weapons on the Pyro, the Heavy or the Medic. A crazed difference in difficulty within those achievments isn't so much a problem because (and I'm talking bout the PC here, of course) A: there is no gamerscore accrued; people looking at your achievments aren't immediately drawn to the arbitrary number of gamerscore. And B: They all need to be done if you intend to unlock those weapons.
Also, yes, I have no gamerscore because I don't own a 360. Unless you count the several achievments I helped friends unlock. I tend to play the 360 with my friends quite a lot, and while I don't mind when they wanna get some achievments I can't stand it when one of them starts going on about his gamerscore.
It's much better, i think, to look at achievments on a game-by-game basis; you can't compare unlocking an achievment on, say, Dynasty Warriors 6 to shooting every damn pidgeon in GTA4. They are each achievments but the fact that they take a completely dispraportionate amount of time and effort means that they shouldn't both accrue to the same pool of gamerscore; what would be wrong with just a list of achievments with no score?
Reply
In, say, TF2 you can unlock achievments to work towards getting the new weapons on the Pyro, the Heavy or the Medic. A crazed difference in difficulty within those achievments isn't so much a problem because (and I'm talking bout the PC here, of course) A: there is no gamerscore accrued; people looking at your achievments aren't immediately drawn to the arbitrary number of gamerscore. And B: They all need to be done if you intend to unlock those weapons.
Also, yes, I have no gamerscore because I don't own a 360. Unless you count the several achievments I helped friends unlock. I tend to play the 360 with my friends quite a lot, and while I don't mind when they wanna get some achievments I can't stand it when one of them starts going on about his gamerscore.
It's much better, i think, to look at achievments on a game-by-game basis; you can't compare unlocking an achievment on, say, Dynasty Warriors 6 to shooting every damn pidgeon in GTA4. They are each achievments but the fact that they take a completely dispraportionate amount of time and effort means that they shouldn't both accrue to the same pool of gamerscore; what would be wrong with just a list of achievments with no score?
Posted: Aug 24th 2008 6:54PM zuburi said
Pretentious reading =/= "brainy." Once you get past the first-year philosophy vocabulary, there's nothing there that hasn't been said before. If you cut out the fluff from these articles, they'd be trimmed down to a paragraph.
The "Law of the Game" articles are excellent in that they make for intelligent reading without coming off as pretentious and having no substance; and as such, they're something I consistently look forward to.
Reply
The "Law of the Game" articles are excellent in that they make for intelligent reading without coming off as pretentious and having no substance; and as such, they're something I consistently look forward to.
Posted: Aug 24th 2008 7:02PM (Unverified) said
Difference is that Kylie's colum has only been on for about 2 months, while the guys at Law of the Game have been for much longer, not only that, they have had even more experience with previous columns...
Give the dude some more time
Reply
Give the dude some more time
Posted: Aug 25th 2008 8:56AM (Unverified) said
You know what is pretentious? this =/= bullshit.
Reply
Posted: Aug 24th 2008 7:19PM Spunky Monkey 190906 said
Lol, I still don't bother with trophies or my XBL achievements. I personally never see how it benefits me to complete every game I play 100% and accomplish annoying tasks. I play the game, I get bored of it, I move on, simple as that. Thats the way it was for me and the way it will remain. I never have and never will waste cash on mediocre titles for anything. Nor do I want to 'show off' how many pictures of trophies I have on my console to any outside human being while keeping a serious face.
But it doen't change the fact that it is a nifty option for people who like the challenge and in a sense it does benefit gameplay and gamers who care. And I guess it does help push the sales of otherwise failing or failed games such as Haze and Lair for PS3.
Reply
But it doen't change the fact that it is a nifty option for people who like the challenge and in a sense it does benefit gameplay and gamers who care. And I guess it does help push the sales of otherwise failing or failed games such as Haze and Lair for PS3.
Posted: Aug 24th 2008 7:20PM Ninegauger said
He's late to the party... we already know the answers to all of these questions.
Reply
Posted: Aug 24th 2008 7:25PM Nigeria said
I don't think I'll ever get my head around these achievements. Like, obviously, I understand it. I've got the beep after unlocking 10 points on Hexic or the Darkness, but I don't get the thrill that others do – or say they do.
It seems a little childish. As if you, the player, require an authority figure to mollycoddle some goals for you. I don't really need that. The goals I wish to 'achieve' are pretty clear from game to game; I can set them myself, as absurd as that may sound.
I don't think it's a bad thing – I don't think anything of it, but I do feel a twinge of regret when I see a friend confess they chose a particular version of a video game due to achievements. It just rings a little hollow.
Reply
It seems a little childish. As if you, the player, require an authority figure to mollycoddle some goals for you. I don't really need that. The goals I wish to 'achieve' are pretty clear from game to game; I can set them myself, as absurd as that may sound.
I don't think it's a bad thing – I don't think anything of it, but I do feel a twinge of regret when I see a friend confess they chose a particular version of a video game due to achievements. It just rings a little hollow.
Posted: Aug 24th 2008 7:29PM (Unverified) said
It's the same reason people grind in MMORPG's i think is the need to show off their wealth
I remember my first MMO Asheron's Call and how i was oblivious to levels or there meaning, i was more focused on exploring, finding out why this was here and just getting immersed into the world THEN...
THEN i found out my character was gimped and i needed to work on stats and i got hooked into the other world of grinding for levels and loot and it's a lot less fun to play for those reasons but people will play like that with others because others are involved and it becomes a competitive meaningless race
Reply
I remember my first MMO Asheron's Call and how i was oblivious to levels or there meaning, i was more focused on exploring, finding out why this was here and just getting immersed into the world THEN...
THEN i found out my character was gimped and i needed to work on stats and i got hooked into the other world of grinding for levels and loot and it's a lot less fun to play for those reasons but people will play like that with others because others are involved and it becomes a competitive meaningless race
Posted: Aug 24th 2008 7:35PM Spunky Monkey 190906 said
Isn't completing a game at all an achievement in itself? Why do I need to now shoot 100 cats so get a bronze award or whatnot.
Games already have tasks, no matter how free they are, without a goal, a game wouldn't exist. Why do they need to be more linear and specific then they already are. I think it becomes less fun and more of some kind of coursework or exam.
Reply
Games already have tasks, no matter how free they are, without a goal, a game wouldn't exist. Why do they need to be more linear and specific then they already are. I think it becomes less fun and more of some kind of coursework or exam.
Posted: Aug 24th 2008 8:57PM snarfoogle said
Yes, that's why you get the "You Win" achievement.
Reply
Posted: Aug 24th 2008 8:05PM Omega Aero said
I love how everyone saying that achievements were shit and ruined games vanished as soon as trophies came out.
Reply
Posted: Aug 24th 2008 8:18PM Spunky Monkey 190906 said
Dunno, maybe you're reading wrong, from what I see here, people are still on that bandwagon. Although, I personally always thought a gamerscore was the biggest waste of time, achievements not as much.
Reply
Posted: Aug 24th 2008 10:12PM Eugimon said
achievements ARE shit and ruin games, marriages, cause autism and childhood leukemia.
Trophies, on the other hand, are brilliantly innovative, add depth and replayability to games, cures AIDS, feeds the poor and homeless and will bring peace to the middle east.
Reply
Trophies, on the other hand, are brilliantly innovative, add depth and replayability to games, cures AIDS, feeds the poor and homeless and will bring peace to the middle east.
Posted: Aug 24th 2008 11:10PM spin cycle said
Gamerscore is shit.
Achievements aren't good either, but aren't nearly as bad.
Trophies aren't good and again are not nearly as bad as gamerscore.
Reply
Achievements aren't good either, but aren't nearly as bad.
Trophies aren't good and again are not nearly as bad as gamerscore.
Posted: Aug 25th 2008 12:36AM Vidikron said
I think that most of the people feel the same about trophies as they did about achievements. I haven't seen any major shift.
Also, IMO, I fail to see how anyone could view either one as bad. Well, maybe a few of the multiplayer ones because sometimes they result in people playing in a way that may be adverse to their teammates, but overall they either add to you a game's replayability or they don't effect you at all. In other words, if you don't care about them then you can safely ignore them. End of story. So how could they possibly be viewed as bad?
Reply
Also, IMO, I fail to see how anyone could view either one as bad. Well, maybe a few of the multiplayer ones because sometimes they result in people playing in a way that may be adverse to their teammates, but overall they either add to you a game's replayability or they don't effect you at all. In other words, if you don't care about them then you can safely ignore them. End of story. So how could they possibly be viewed as bad?
Posted: Aug 24th 2008 8:09PM (Unverified) said
My achievement score is around 32k but most of the time i just do the ones that i think are fun, and have only recently started whoring out for them. That said im real excited for how Fable 2 is going to replace "Kill XX guys with X gun" with "Get X kids from X different wives"
Reply
Posted: Aug 24th 2008 8:13PM (Unverified) said
i dont care for the repetitive collection ones, looking at a map on gamefaqs or wasting endless hours dicking around to find some stupid bird. I'm looking at you GTA IV!!
Reply
Posted: Aug 24th 2008 8:14PM Ninegauger said
That's true... I probably never would've done the Assassin's Guild or Thieves Guild quests in Oblivion were there not achievements for it... plus they made Geometry Wars a better experience... some concrete thresh holds beyond just the score.
Reply
Posted: Aug 24th 2008 8:26PM (Unverified) said
I never check mine and I certainly don't compare them. The less I see the the better. I hate the idea.
Reply
Posted: Aug 24th 2008 8:31PM (Unverified) said
"Do easily unlocked Trophies and Achievements influence the sales success of mediocre titles? "
Rentals? Yes. Sales? LOL.
Reply
Rentals? Yes. Sales? LOL.
Posted: Aug 24th 2008 8:38PM (Unverified) said
I find it really sad that people need a link to Wikipedia to know how Descartes is...
Reply
Posted: Aug 24th 2008 8:42PM (Unverified) said
I visit xbox360achievements.com a lot, and some of the guys there have scores in the 100k area, i just can't understand how they do it. A lot of them seem to have slogged through countless movie games that I just couldnt bear to play. But the biggest obstacle I find that keeps me from getting scores like theirs is games with most of their achievements in multiplayer, only they arent popular so it takes half an hour to find a single match and there's an achievement for 300 matches. HOW DO THEY DO IT?! I dont have that kind of time, patience, or even money to buy all the games they do
Reply
Posted: Aug 24th 2008 10:36PM (Unverified) said
I have yet to get a Trophy for my PS3 yet, but once it fully picks up and more games support it, I will turn into an anal gamer and get every trophy for each game I own, but I would never buy a game just to get them.
Reply
Posted: Aug 25th 2008 3:06AM Gaming 4 Jesus said
I like achievements. Gives games more replayability; adds additional depth and challenge; produces a measurable result from time investments; and forces me to try things I would never have otherwise.
And the best part: They're optional. It's all win and no loss.
Reply
And the best part: They're optional. It's all win and no loss.
Posted: Aug 25th 2008 7:00AM (Unverified) said
I don't care about useless trophies, I just want to play my damn game.
Reply
Posted: Aug 25th 2008 7:43AM (Unverified) said
The main difference for me is that Trophies can be more complex if you want to compare between your friends. So....My friend could be level 6 and have many gold and silver and bronze trophies but I could still have more Platinum Trophies.
But yea...I like those two parts of the Trophy system, the level and the trophies. And if you want to boil it to something else it can be a competition of how much more gold you have. Kind of like having certain areas you are better in like a MGO TDM/DM.
To me this has been better than nameless points.
Ehh...And Sony said there are going to be rewards for those who get to higher levels like 10. So there is a point for me to be playing for em!
Reply
But yea...I like those two parts of the Trophy system, the level and the trophies. And if you want to boil it to something else it can be a competition of how much more gold you have. Kind of like having certain areas you are better in like a MGO TDM/DM.
To me this has been better than nameless points.
Ehh...And Sony said there are going to be rewards for those who get to higher levels like 10. So there is a point for me to be playing for em!
Posted: Aug 25th 2008 8:35AM TRTX said
I've found that achievements can be a great motivator. I don't think I would've ever gotten as good at RB or GH had it not been for the fact that I was just a few songs short in Hard difficulty in GH3 and on song short in Expert on RB.
It also encourages me to use many characters, equipment, and strategy that I wouldn't otherwise consider, leading to me becoming better all around at fighting games and RPGs.
What I don't like is the trend of replacing unlockables with Achivements. Beat the game with every character? Normally you'd get something pretty cool for pulling that off.
Nowadays? *BLOOP* You get 50 GS and you're done. You want something new? You'll have to go buy it.
Achievements and DLC are fun, but the problem is they're replacing unlockable content with DLC and trying to sate the masses with 'chieves.
But there is DEFINATELY some truth to the "easy score" leading to boosts in play. Scanning profiles on any given day...I can't begin to count all the people who have full 1000 on games like Cars, King Kong, and TMNT.
Reply
It also encourages me to use many characters, equipment, and strategy that I wouldn't otherwise consider, leading to me becoming better all around at fighting games and RPGs.
What I don't like is the trend of replacing unlockables with Achivements. Beat the game with every character? Normally you'd get something pretty cool for pulling that off.
Nowadays? *BLOOP* You get 50 GS and you're done. You want something new? You'll have to go buy it.
Achievements and DLC are fun, but the problem is they're replacing unlockable content with DLC and trying to sate the masses with 'chieves.
But there is DEFINATELY some truth to the "easy score" leading to boosts in play. Scanning profiles on any given day...I can't begin to count all the people who have full 1000 on games like Cars, King Kong, and TMNT.
Posted: Aug 25th 2008 10:14AM Vcize said
A little late to the party here.
I don't get why people hate achievements. If you don't care about them, ignore them. Big deal. They're something EXTRA that can add replay value to games, if you don't like the EXTRA thing then you're no worse off then if it wasn't there at all. Meanwhile, lots of people like them.
I probably would've played Army of Two for about 7 hours without achievements. With them, I've put in a good 20+ and have had a blast doing so. Went through the game again on professional for that achievement, killed the boss several different ways, and even the "kill x people with y weapon" were good because it made me use other weapons that I would normally not have thought to use much, and actually ended up being quite fun and kept things fresher.
Then, at the end going back and getting some of the ones we missed like beating down 30 people with the riot shield (hilarious fun) was fun too. Some, (power overkill one) were just a grind so I ignored those. But all in all, it added a lot of replay value to a game that otherwise probably would've been too short.
Crackdown is an even better example. The achievements to that one add dozens of hours of pure fun and hilarity. I probably never would have thought to climb the agency tower and dive into the bay without an achievement both telling me it was possible and encouraging me to do it, and getting to the top of that tower and jumping off still stands as one of my favorite videogame moments.
Reply
I don't get why people hate achievements. If you don't care about them, ignore them. Big deal. They're something EXTRA that can add replay value to games, if you don't like the EXTRA thing then you're no worse off then if it wasn't there at all. Meanwhile, lots of people like them.
I probably would've played Army of Two for about 7 hours without achievements. With them, I've put in a good 20+ and have had a blast doing so. Went through the game again on professional for that achievement, killed the boss several different ways, and even the "kill x people with y weapon" were good because it made me use other weapons that I would normally not have thought to use much, and actually ended up being quite fun and kept things fresher.
Then, at the end going back and getting some of the ones we missed like beating down 30 people with the riot shield (hilarious fun) was fun too. Some, (power overkill one) were just a grind so I ignored those. But all in all, it added a lot of replay value to a game that otherwise probably would've been too short.
Crackdown is an even better example. The achievements to that one add dozens of hours of pure fun and hilarity. I probably never would have thought to climb the agency tower and dive into the bay without an achievement both telling me it was possible and encouraging me to do it, and getting to the top of that tower and jumping off still stands as one of my favorite videogame moments.
Posted: Aug 25th 2008 10:33AM (Unverified) said
Crackdown is a great example. The power-up orbs were fun to try and reach and collect since they leveled up your skills. Normally I can't be bothered to find all collectibles (like the flags in Assassin's Creed) so this was refreshing. The Tower jump (and the vertigo-inducing fall) was incredible. It was like rock climbing to try and find your way up, and then base-jumping to the bottom!
Reply
Posted: Aug 25th 2008 5:50PM (Unverified) said
Anyone know what game the trophies being displayed in the image on the main page are from?
Reply
Posted: Aug 25th 2008 2:24PM Franklin Gothic said
I totally misunderstood what Xbl achievement points did (as i didn't own the system) -- I thought they were the same as xbl $, and as you gained them, you could spend them to download for-pay content.
That kind of system made a lot of sense to me: I'd be motivated to purchase games I was less interested in fully owning, or renting them for longer, if only to be rewarded with money to buy all the content EA should have put in its games from day one.
Having learned that they are just for bragging rights though, I don't really have much interest. Who cares if I can grind for 8 hours to unlock a medal? If the medal doesn't get you something (in game, as with Drake's fortune OR money to spend on more content) it doesn't have any significance.
Maybe I'm just too old for this stuff (baldy me at 28!)
Reply
That kind of system made a lot of sense to me: I'd be motivated to purchase games I was less interested in fully owning, or renting them for longer, if only to be rewarded with money to buy all the content EA should have put in its games from day one.
Having learned that they are just for bragging rights though, I don't really have much interest. Who cares if I can grind for 8 hours to unlock a medal? If the medal doesn't get you something (in game, as with Drake's fortune OR money to spend on more content) it doesn't have any significance.
Maybe I'm just too old for this stuff (baldy me at 28!)
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.
Featured Stories
The most popular posts
in the last 7 days
- Vita 'UMD Passport' won't be offered in US 220 comments
- Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning review: A tempting fate 153 comments
- David Jaffe leaves Eat Sleep Play, layoffs hit developer [Update] 107 comments
- Don't call it a remake: Final Fantasy X is a 'remaster,' to be clear 95 comments
- Battleship movie adapted into FPS by Double Helix 93 comments
