Reconsidering Achievements

[wadark]

I love achievements. There's a great satisfaction I feel from seeing my gamerscore hit 1000 or seeing that Platinum trophy pop up. But I'm beginning to wonder if achievements are starting to cause some problems.

Playing through Assassins Creed II, I was struck (as many people were) by how utterly pointless the money/villa-upgrading system was. Your money is only useful for buying armor (the best of which you get for free) and upgrading the villa (which in turn does nothing but pay you more money). Both Assassins Creed games have collection quests that serve no purpose (flags and feathers).

In the past, it seems, the side-quests and collection stuff had at least some point. In Banjo-Kazooie, for instance, you needed to collect notes and jigsaw pieces to progress. There were more to collect than you needed in order to finish, but if you're crazy like me and want to get "100%" then they functioned as a side quest. And if you didn't need/want 100% then they still served some purpose to the game.

There are a few other examples I could list, but it just seems as though there are a lot of side quests being put into games recently that seriously have no purpose whatsoever as far as the game and/or story is concerned. Side-quests who's only discernible function is to grant an achievement or two.

So my question: Is this becoming a problem? Can developers implement some quick and easy gameplay mechanic to pad out the game that doesn't really have anything to do with the game or story, but sort of "feels" like it does because it awards an achievement?

Or am I thinking about it too much?

 

[tlozoot]

I agree 100% with you.

Alot of developers now a days seem content to offer only gamerscore/trophies as an incentive to do stuff in the game. I want obligations which will affect the gameplay dammit!

 

[Gralian]

Achievements are a blessing and a curse. They provide real tangible goals for me as the player to work towards and i always strive for the full 100% of achievements in any game. It not only extends a game's life, it feels rewarding.

But then the problem with achievements are when i refuse to play a game i already have 1000G in for example because i already have all the achievements, no matter how much i loved that particular game. Bayonetta is one such ill-fated example. Another is avoiding games with impossible achievements (like "reach 1st place in the world leaderboard!") and so i restrict myself from playing a potentially awesome game because i don't want the shame of a game with 970G of which i will never ever attain the last 30G because of an impossible online achievement, or even worse, a game forever stuck at 200G because the rest of the achievements are impossible or for online. Not only that, i am incredibly frustrated by online achievements and it's made me show a lot of animosity towards online in general. I hate relying on other people for MY achievements. It should be a measure of skill, not how many times i can play capture the flag before i go insane. as i have a shoddy connection at the moment anyway (thanks a lot virgin media) this makes it even more difficult and even more restrictive when it comes to choosing games i know i can 100%. BlazBlue will likely forever stay at 800G because i always fail to connect to player matches, and that's incredibly depressing when you consider i have the NEVER AGAIN impossible achievements like "Leonidas".

 

[Vrach]

Yes, yes it is a problem. I agree with what you said about AC2 and frankly I've no love for that stuff. Even the side quests were relentlessly boring as they were essentially the same thing over and over again with just a bit of a different quest text. Shit wait a minute...
*insert Yahtzee doing a General Ackbar: "IT'S A MMORPUGER!"*

Fortunately, the main plot campaign was interesting enough on it's own and the whole "Truth" thing was fun to collect and finish (I enjoyed it, I know and can understand why a lot of people went "wtf" at the plot, but I thought it was clever, even if weird), but it did leave something to be wanted.

Back on topic though, WoW's done this as well. Have to love seeing a game where most people are bored to death with now that has a "Bored? Try completing some of the more unusual achievements" as a tip on the loading screen.

Don't get me wrong, I like achievements that are a part of the plot and show off what you did, it's cool for a bit of epeen value and keeping track of the things you did. I even don't mind a few achievements that are side-bollox for if you're amazingly bored (/hug 300 uniquely different squirrels sort of thing). What I don't like is developers trying to pass them off as content and it seems some games are turning that way.

Fortunately, PC seems less plagued by this than console games. Sadly, it's very slowly taking a turn for the worse and I can only hope they remain solely as an addition and not a replacement for actual content in games.

 

[InsomniacWolf]

It seems like they put in these rediculous side quests just so you can put a little more time into the game, which makes the developers happy. Ordinarily, developers would only be happy if people enjoyed playing their games over, and over again. Now achievements and worthless side quests are the only thing still tethering people ot games.

Half Life 2 did it right. It had achievements that made you stop along the quest and find interesting things to do, as well as give you weapons early on. (such as the targeted advertising achievement)

If I do a side quest I at least want something out of it.

 

[stiborge]

Well, there have been side quests and random things you could collect in games before achievements, like Spyro the Dragon, correct me if i'm wrong but I remember that game having a fair amount of useless collectibles. Also, not all side quests are worthless, like in Fallout 3, I had a lot of fun doing all of the side quests. I started out doing them for the achievements and ended up doing every one regardless of wheather it had an achievement connected or not. Now, I will achievement whore the shit out of my games so perhaps i'm not the best source on this and while I think they're really just proof of games doing what many of them were going to do anyways which is try to collect every little meaningless thing in the game. Plus, if it weren't for achievements I'm pretty sure Crackdown wouldn't exist at all.

 

[wadark]

Yes, yes it is a problem. I agree with what you said about AC2 and frankly I've no love for that stuff. Even the side quests were relentlessly boring as they were essentially the same thing over and over again with just a bit of a different quest text. Shit wait a minute...
*insert Yahtzee doing a General Ackbar: "IT'S A MMORPUGER!"*

Fortunately, the main plot campaign was interesting enough on it's own and the whole "Truth" thing was fun to collect and finish (I enjoyed it, I know and can understand why a lot of people went "wtf" at the plot, but I thought it was clever, even if weird), but it did leave something to be wanted.

Back on topic though, WoW's done this as well. Have to love seeing a game where most people are bored to death with now that has a "Bored? Try completing some of the more unusual achievements" as a tip on the loading screen.

Don't get me wrong, I like achievements that are a part of the plot and show off what you did, it's cool for a bit of epeen value and keeping track of the things you did. I even don't mind a few achievements that are side-bollox for if you're amazingly bored (/hug 300 uniquely different squirrels sort of thing). What I don't like is developers trying to pass them off as content and it seems some games are turning that way.

Fortunately, PC seems less plagued by this than console games. Sadly, it's very slowly taking a turn for the worse and I can only hope they remain solely as an addition and not a replacement for actual content in games.

It seems that, for the most part, MMOs are the only ones that have done Achievements right. The vast majority of WoW's achievements, for instance, are simply badges of honor for doing stuff you're normally doing anyway, or for doing what you were already doing slightly differently. And even the achievements that don't fit say, PvP or PvE specifically, like exploration or hugging squirrels, don't seem like much of a problem since the entire MMO model is kind of based around "faffing about" anyway.

It's when you have achievements like AC where most of the "side achievements" have no point to the story/main game. Collecting flags? What purpose does that serve Altair? Collecting feathers? Ok, that one sort of came up for 2 seconds at the beginning when you find out that Ezio's brother collects them, but what purpose does it serve after his brother dies? Even the "rewards" that the feather quests gives are pointless basically-flavor items (one of which is actually harmful to you, except wearing it gets you another pointless achievement).

Well, there have been side quests and random things you could collect in games before achievements, like Spyro the Dragon, correct me if i'm wrong but I remember that game having a fair amount of useless collectibles. Also, not all side quests are worthless, like in Fallout 3, I had a lot of fun doing all of the side quests. I started out doing them for the achievements and ended up doing every one regardless of wheather it had an achievement connected or not. Now, I will achievement whore the shit out of my games so perhaps i'm not the best source on this and while I think they're really just proof of games doing what many of them were going to do anyways which is try to collect every little meaningless thing in the game. Plus, if it weren't for achievements I'm pretty sure Crackdown wouldn't exist at all.

I haven't played Fallout 3 so I can't really comment, but I believe you are correct about Spyro. However, remember that games like that with useless collectibles at that point in time were few and far between. Most developers at that point realized that not many people were going to go out of there way for a useless collectible that has no gameplay function. And what you say about Crackdown is basically my point. Crackdown has a main story, but 90% of the achievements are side quests that have little to no bearing of effect on the main story.

A couple little unrelated side quests aren't bad, but these days it seems like a larger and larger percentage of a game's content is made up of these.

 

[Vrach]

It seems that, for the most part, MMOs are the only ones that have done Achievements right. The vast majority of WoW's achievements, for instance, are simply badges of honor for doing stuff you're normally doing anyway, or for doing what you were already doing slightly differently. And even the achievements that don't fit say, PvP or PvE specifically, like exploration or hugging squirrels, don't seem like much of a problem since the entire MMO model is kind of based around "faffing about" anyway.

It's when you have achievements like AC where most of the "side achievements" have no point to the story/main game. Collecting flags? What purpose does that serve Altair? Collecting feathers? Ok, that one sort of came up for 2 seconds at the beginning when you find out that Ezio's brother collects them, but what purpose does it serve after his brother dies? Even the "rewards" that the feather quests gives are pointless basically-flavor items (one of which is actually harmful to you, except wearing it gets you another pointless achievement).

Indeed, completely agreed, MMO is about screwing around, AC2 about the story and running around collecting flags like you're playing Sonic is just plain stupid. I still do hate the fact WoW uses them as an excuse for content though, they should just be there as a bonus, it's not like they're hard to come up with/implement.

 

[Last Bullet]

I've totally got to agree with you. But I know people who actually went and got all the feathers (without help) in AC2, and was quite happy with it, so I guess it's not completely pointless. But I thought it was strange that something that was supposed to have some serious emotional attachment was just... useless.

I personally am not a big fan of achievements that you basically "have" to get. You just progress through the a linear story like you're supposed to, and you get a bunch of trophies (looking at FFXIII). I can understand one at the end, for beating the game. And I can understand something like Hard Rain did, where you choose how it plays out, and you get a trophy for alternate results. But it's not really an achievement (in my eyes) if you HAVE to do it to continue.

 

[PurpleLeafRave]

In Saints Row 2, none of the side missions are related to the story. They are still amazing though.

I think unrelated achievements are ok in RPG's and Sandbox games, but not in linear games. The laptops in modern warfare are not needed, but a Sandbox/RPG is all about exploring and discovering things.

 

[wadark]

Indeed, completely agreed, MMO is about screwing around, AC2 about the story and running around collecting flags like you're playing Sonic is just plain stupid. I still do hate the fact WoW uses them as an excuse for content though, they should just be there as a bonus, it's not like they're hard to come up with/implement.

Not many of WoW's achievements are used as an excuse for content. You could make that case for some of them, but only a very small number. Most are based on PvP or Raid content that people were already doing long before achievements were introduced.

 

[migo]

I think they can be a problem. On the one hand you have achievements that make a whole lot of sense - Boom Boom Rocket for instance, you'd likely want to hit some of them anyway, and 100% completion actually covers far more than the achievements do. Geometry Wars also has some cool ones that add to the gameplay or are tricks you might try yourself. The flip side is that achievements make games that would otherwise have little replay value actually good. This of course means that mediocre games are more fun, but it also means that devs can just throw achievements in to add to them. It's too easy for them. You also have devs that throw in dead easy achievements so that people who just want to pad their gamerscore will pick them up, even if they otherwise suck.

 

[Haunted Serenity]

I like achievements that make you do a chalenge not a side mission or starting the game. Like annual in halo 3.

 

[Vrach]

Not many of WoW's achievements are used as an excuse for content. You could make that case for some of them, but only a very small number. Most are based on PvP or Raid content that people were already doing long before achievements were introduced.

You misunderstand me mate. WoW's achievements are fine, they're great and an example of how achievements should be done. What's not fine is that WoW sometimes says "look at our awesome achievements, how can you be bored with so many squirrels to hug?".

 

[monkey_man]

I agree 100% with you.

Alot of developers now a days seem content to offer only gamerscore/trophies as an incentive to do stuff in the game. I want obligations which will affect the gameplay dammit!

amen

 

[wadark]

You misunderstand me mate. WoW's achievements are fine, they're great and an example of how achievements should be done. What's not fine is that WoW sometimes says "look at our awesome achievements, how can you be bored with so many squirrels to hug?".

Either way, I don't really think WoW, or any MMO really applies to what I mean to discuss here because MMOs are basically just "make your own adventure" games anyway, so adding in achievements there really just add a badge of honor to things that people are already doing, and maybe give them an odd job or two to occasionally do.

But then you have a story-driven experience like AC2, where you play Ezio on a specific mission to discover the conspiracy behind his father's death, there's an awful lot of "gameplay" that has no bearing or relevance to this story.

Collecting feathers: Useless except for a couple equally-useless items.
Making money: Useless because the best armor is free and the best weapon is cheap enough to afford in the course of the main missions.
Upgrading the villa: Useless because all that does is pay you more money for the things you don't need to buy.

And all of these things add up to probably a good 6 hours of gameplay (if you aren't using a guide).

What these things all have in common is that they are totally irrelevant to Ezio's mission, and that they all award achievements. This gives me the impression that they were all put in the game in order to pad out the "X hours of gameplay" number for the box-art blurb.

 

[Vrach]

Either way, I don't really think WoW, or any MMO really applies to what I mean to discuss here because MMOs are basically just "make your own adventure" games anyway, so adding in achievements there really just add a badge of honor to things that people are already doing, and maybe give them an odd job or two to occasionally do.

snip

Again, I completely agree and have given you my own take/approval on that view in previous posts, WoW was just "another example" to broaden my post from "achievements in AC2 are stupid" to "a take on achievements in general"

As I said, I don't mind any achievements as long as they make sense. In a screwing around game (MMOs, GTA/Prototype/JustCause2-like sandboxes etc.), yeah, make however many you like, as long as you don't use it as excuse for, as you said "x hours of gameplay with a significant amount of x being the pointless achievements".

My view is - make a good game with a significant amount of content, that is the cake and what we'll actually enjoy. Then, put some achievements as the whipped cream over the top.

In another view, don't take a tube of whipped cream in a bottle, empty it into a huge pot, throw in a cupcake and call it a cake. Also, don't spray whipped cream over every single thing you pull out of the oven, my fish does not need bloody whipped cream, it's fine as it is, save it for the dishes it belongs on.

 

[Proco123]

I agree with many of you.
I think Achievements should be added on top of the gameplay
For example in some GTA game, you get all the hidden packages and get an achievement, as well a big beastly tank outside of your house.
I just don't like achievements when you literally only get gamescore and no in-game bonus

 

[Airsoftslayer93]

People are saying about spending gameplay doing useless sidequests, but are they really useless if you enjoy them? or if you feel happy and triumphant for overcoming the obstacles?

 

[wadark]

People are saying about spending gameplay doing useless sidequests, but are they really useless if you enjoy them? or if you feel happy and triumphant for overcoming the obstacles?

No, as I said, I myself am a total completionist, I was long before achievements were thought of. But the problem is that these days it seems like there are gameplay devices being put in simply to award an achievement, rather than putting in achievements on top of the existing gameplay. And in this era of gamers having to be very cognizant of how they spend their money, the amount of enjoyment they get out of the game is a big factor in choosing games. And you see this manifest in marketing blurbs that say "Contains X hours of gameplay." Not everyone likes side quests, and for someone who doesn't, if they see that a game contains, say, 20 hours of gameplay, but then they play it and realize that 7 or 8 of those 20 hours consisted of side quests that had no effect on their character or on the story, then that person might feel very cheated.

For example, I would say I probably put in about 15 hours of gameplay in AC2 (completing all of the side quests) and I'd estimate that about 5-6 of those were spent on the 3 side quests I mentioned before (feathers, money, and villa upgrading). That's means that roughly 1/3-1/2 of the time I spent in the game was on side quests that had no relevance to the story or effect on my character. Now, PERSONALLY, that isn't a problem, but some people might feel cheated to know that such a large portion of the gameplay in the game has no relevance to the main game.