Reconsidering Achievements

[FieryTrainwreck]

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.

I don't identify with any of this.

To me, an achievement is something that covers part of the screen when I'm trying to watch a cut scene. That's it.

 

[wadark]

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.

I don't identify with any of this.

To me, an achievement is something that covers part of the screen when I'm trying to watch a cut scene. That's it.

This type of person is what I'm really talking about. If achievements are meaningless to you, and you see a game that touts its "20 hours of gameplay" or whatever, only to find that half of those hours involve doing tasks that gain you no benefit except an achievement (which you don't care about), wouldn't you be pissed?

 

[Dark Knifer]

I don't mind ones that are challenging, because those are usually fun, but the scavenger ones need to be thought out and given a purpose to do them beside achivements. Even if it's just what crackdown did with them and gives you xp. That's a better reason then most.

 

[migo]

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.

I don't identify with any of this.

To me, an achievement is something that covers part of the screen when I'm trying to watch a cut scene. That's it.

This type of person is what I'm really talking about. If achievements are meaningless to you, and you see a game that touts its "20 hours of gameplay" or whatever, only to find that half of those hours involve doing tasks that gain you no benefit except an achievement (which you don't care about), wouldn't you be pissed?

I think it depends on the game. High score based, single gameplay element games really do well with achievements. Actual plot based games achievements get in the way.

 

[blarghblarghhhhh]

I personally hate achievments and have never gone out of my way to get any of them except for pacifism in geometry wars. I see them as a way to tack on additional playtime without the developers actually having to do anything.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

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.

I don't identify with any of this.

To me, an achievement is something that covers part of the screen when I'm trying to watch a cut scene. That's it.

This type of person is what I'm really talking about. If achievements are meaningless to you, and you see a game that touts its "20 hours of gameplay" or whatever, only to find that half of those hours involve doing tasks that gain you no benefit except an achievement (which you don't care about), wouldn't you be pissed?

I read reviews before I buy anything, and the phrases I'm looking for are "a little short" and "a little easy". I'm not interested in spending $60 on a 4-6 hour experience that doesn't challenge me in the slightest - not unless the game is truly outstanding.

 

[Archemetis]

It's not so much 'padding out the game'...
Well it IS.
But it's also catering to the achievement whore audience.

We all know they exist, the games are made now days to cater to a variety of audiences, and achievement whores are an audience now.

I personally, don't care for achievements, unless I unlock them via the blissful means of what I like to call.

Dicking around©

The first achievement in 'Splosion Man? Received for killing 10 scientists, most people with an itchy 'sploding finger will get this one, but then it's followed by 'amassing 1000 pieces of steak' which I think is clever, you do it without even realising.


So yeah, achievements, in my book.
They're ok.

As long as you don't realise you're achieving them.

 

[imaloony]

The feathers sort of served a purpose. Getting 50 of them unlocked a new Warhammer, and getting all 100 unlocked a cape that made the game a lot harder (Although truthfully, it would have been better if getting all 100 feathers unlocked the cape across all playthroughs, because by the time you've gotten through enough of the game to be able to get all the feathers, the game's mostly over already).

But I agree that the money in AC2 needed to be thought out better. It did give me a sense of satisfaction to upgrade the villa and watch it come to life due to my actions, but it served little purpose outside of that. Ubisoft promises to expand on the villa upgrade system in Brotherhood, however.

I liked the side quests in Fallout 3. While they all did have achievements hanging over them, they also had great rewards. Completing Agatha's Song fully granted you a new radio station and the Blackhawk. Doing Riley's Rangers netted you the best non-power armor in the game, plus a new safe house and some other goodies. Doing Stealing Independence got you a great ammo vender (Sydney) and the schematics to the Railway Rifle.

I suppose my point is, games can do sidequests right so that they have great rewards and stuff, but most don't, and I guess the achievements are allowing designers to get away with that a bit more easily now.

 

[Mockingjay]

I agree with you in some respects, but I love achievements, they often provide entertainment after the end game and something fun to banter about with your mates. Many games get it wrong though. I see no point in achievements that you aquire from playing a main story in a game and some have the worst design in history. I got an achievement in Skate 2 before I even started playing for creating a female character.