The Platinum Advantage

[Johnny Novgorod]

Damn dude 118!

What was the hardest one?

Probably PS3 Demon's Souls, in terms of time/skill/effort involved. I didn't savescum to the cloud so it also took me the maximum amount of playthroughs required to see and do everything. A lot of people say Bloodborne but honestly I found it cakewalk after Demon's Souls. A second might be Spec Ops: The Line because of having to beat the game on FUBAR but I'm apparently alone in remembering the game as insanely difficult.

In terms of rarity it's apparently either Fall Guys or LittleBigPlanet 3. Which, yes, FG took a while and LBP3 required some creativity, but I wouldn't describe either as hard. Just Cause 2 is apparently also 'ultra rare' but that's just grindy (and a lot of fun).

Hollow Knight and Celeste have some truly brutal trophies but a lot of people either glitch through the pantheons of HK or activate the 'assist' in Celeste so the Plats aren't as rare as the difficulty merits.

 

[Elvis Starburst]

Neither really excite me, but if I had to choose which I liked more I think I prefer the Gamerscore side of things. It puts all of your achievements into one large total, and having a high Gamerscore meant you played a lot of games and did a lot of things in them. For trophies though, I find generally most would only care about the platinum ones. Who cares how many bronze or silvers (and possibly golds) you got? They're a lot less of a big deal compared to the coveted platinum. You could play a ton of games on Playstation and end up with no platinum trophies, but on Xbox you could play a lot of games and end up with a high Gamercore.
I know there's similarities, like if you converted the bronze silver and gold trophies into an equivalent comparison for one's Gamerscore, but generally I find the overall Gamerscore a little more pleasing and satisfactory because every point matters to the total, not just the 100% achievements in each game

 

[hanselthecaretaker2]

I hated Elden Ring but it's by far the easiest game to platinum because it was easy to cheese. Though after all the nerfs I'm not sure that is still the case tbh.

Those certain ashes/spells still do good damage, but it’s been toned down a bit. With the right setup though (talismans, physiks, ashes, birds etc.) it’s still possible to delete bosse’s health bars even without leveling anything to 80 or something meta like that.

 

[hanselthecaretaker2]

Neither really excite me, but if I had to choose which I liked more I think I prefer the Gamerscore side of things. It puts all of your achievements into one large total, and having a high Gamerscore meant you played a lot of games and did a lot of things in them. For trophies though, I find generally most would only care about the platinum ones. Who cares how many bronze or silvers (and possibly golds) you got? They're a lot less of a big deal compared to the coveted platinum. You could play a ton of games on Playstation and end up with no platinum trophies, but on Xbox you could play a lot of games and end up with a high Gamercore.
I know there's similarities, like if you converted the bronze silver and gold trophies into an equivalent comparison for one's Gamerscore, but generally I find the overall Gamerscore a little more pleasing and satisfactory because every point matters to the total, not just the 100% achievements in each game

You can kinda do this with trophies though too, since it will track your total trophy count regardless of type. I made a point of my thousandth being for the Demon’s Souls plat. I counted how many I had left to hit it and it was like five or six more than I had left in the game, so I played some earlier GoW’s to make up the difference.

 

[Xprimentyl]

Neither really excite me, but if I had to choose which I liked more I think I prefer the Gamerscore side of things. It puts all of your achievements into one large total, and having a high Gamerscore meant you played a lot of games and did a lot of things in them. For trophies though, I find generally most would only care about the platinum ones. Who cares how many bronze or silvers (and possibly golds) you got? They're a lot less of a big deal compared to the coveted platinum. You could play a ton of games on Playstation and end up with no platinum trophies, but on Xbox you could play a lot of games and end up with a high Gamercore.
I know there's similarities, like if you converted the bronze silver and gold trophies into an equivalent comparison for one's Gamerscore, but generally I find the overall Gamerscore a little more pleasing and satisfactory because every point matters to the total, not just the 100% achievements in each game

^THIS. My sentiments exactly.

 

[Elvis Starburst]

You can kinda do this with trophies though too, since it will track your total trophy count regardless of type.

Right right, and I made note of that. But from my experience, the trophies typically of any actual note to people are the platinum ones. Since there's no platinum Gamerscore things the whole score total is important, no particular part of it stands out more than the rest.
It's a small difference but one that I feel changes the vibe quite a bit between the two

 

[hanselthecaretaker2]

Right right, and I made note of that. But from my experience, the trophies typically of any actual note to people are the platinum ones. Since there's no platinum Gamerscore things the whole score total is important, no particular part of it stands out more than the rest.
It's a small difference but one that I feel changes the vibe quite a bit between the two

I get it on one hand, but on the other isn't it then just about who "has the bigger number"? IE, is there anything distinguishing the player with the lesser number as being superior to one with the greater? I think that's where trophies generally show more of that nerd swagger factor, if you will. True, the Platinum is like a benchmark for each game, but it's still a unique marker for each game, even if was a certain silver, gold or whatever that might've been the one near-insurmountable obstacle to obtaining it.

 

[Elvis Starburst]

is there anything distinguishing the player with the lesser number as being superior to one with the greater?

There isn't, and that's in a way why I prefer it. Say if someone has the same Gamerscore as someone else at around 20,000, then that means they both likely played a good number of games to get to that point, and that's where it ends. Even if the balance was 15,000 vs 20,000 it's still a lot. But say someone on the Sony side has a ratio of 180/70/30/15 (bronze, silver, gold, platinum, in that order) and someone else has 300/150/60/2. The bias of superiority might lean towards the first person having more 100% achievement rates in their games despite playing less games overall than the second person.

I think that's where trophies generally show more of that nerd swagger factor, if you will. True, the Platinum is like a benchmark for each game, but it's still a unique marker for each game, even if was a certain silver, gold or whatever that might've been the one near-insurmountable obstacle to obtaining it.

That might be where preference comes into play the most. I like the idea of one's achievements being equal in measure (outside of a grander point total), rather than "oh you have a lot of achievements but mine are better because I got the special fancy 100% ones"

 

[hanselthecaretaker2]

There isn't, and that's in a way why I prefer it. Say if someone has the same Gamerscore as someone else at around 20,000, then that means they both likely played a good number of games to get to that point, and that's where it ends. Even if the balance was 15,000 vs 20,000 it's still a lot. But say someone on the Sony side has a ratio of 180/70/30/15 (bronze, silver, gold, platinum, in that order) and someone else has 300/150/60/2. The bias of superiority might lean towards the first person having more 100% achievement rates in their games despite playing less games overall than the second person.



That might be where preference comes into play the most. I like the idea of one's achievements being equal in measure (outside of a grander point total), rather than "oh you have a lot of achievements but mine are better because I got the special fancy 100% ones"

In a way it’s kinda nice there are two distinct ways about this, although I think both could wind up being something that the more obsessive mind would be “chasing”; whether it’s a general cumulative total or a tiered system. I couldn’t care less in either case what % I fall within the player base for either, and I think as a recovered (mostly) OCD freak that’s the most important part for my sanity’s sake lol.

 

[Xprimentyl]

Not to beat this dead horse further, but another difference that makes me prefer Gamerscore over trophies is you can look at any individual game, and get a "gist" of your completion of the game. With few exceptions, every Xbox game has a base 1000 GS allocated however the devs saw fit. At a glance, I can look at a 750/1000 GS and reasonably assume someone has completed 75% of assigned achievement tasks in that game, and their total Gamerscore of 35,000 tells me they've played at LEAST 35 games. But someone boasting 7 bronze, 4 silvers, and 1 gold trophies in one game only tells me someone has played the game; are there 13 total trophies or 30? How much have they done? And their total track record of 250 bronze, 90 silver, 25 gold, and 4 platinums... okay? Was that across 10 games or 100 games?

@Elvis Starburst, put it best: every point matters with Gamerscore, whereas gold, silver and bronze trophies only serve as a obligations to net a platinum trophy where "cred" is earned. You can brag about specific achievements, i.e.: a lot of golds is a lot of golds, but if you've got 250 golds and ZERO platinums... why would you even mention that?

Or as Jerry Seinfeld might say (gold medal in this case being a platinum trophy: )

 

[hanselthecaretaker2]

Not to beat this dead horse further, but another difference that makes me prefer Gamerscore over trophies is you can look at any individual game, and get a "gist" of your completion of the game. With few exceptions, every Xbox game has a base 1000 GS allocated however the devs saw fit. At a glance, I can look at a 750/1000 GS and reasonably assume someone has completed 75% of assigned achievement tasks in that game, and their total Gamerscore of 35,000 tells me they've played at LEAST 35 games. But someone boasting 7 bronze, 4 silvers, and 1 gold trophies in one game only tells me someone has played the game; are there 13 total trophies or 30? How much have they done? And their total track record of 250 bronze, 90 silver, 25 gold, and 4 platinums... okay? Was that across 10 games or 100 games?

@Elvis Starburst, put it best: every point matters with Gamerscore, whereas gold, silver and bronze trophies only serve as a obligations to net a platinum trophy where "cred" is earned. You can brag about specific achievements, i.e.: a lot of golds is a lot of golds, but if you've got 250 golds and ZERO platinums... why would you even mention that?

Or as Jerry Seinfeld might say (gold medal in this case being a platinum trophy: )

It’s something that ultimately will always be a matter of preference, but I can see both implementations having equal merit in a way. The difference with trophies I guess would be the visibility factor in terms of being more recognizable, if nothing else. Like, the 35,000 GS total is still vague enough that it could mean anything beyond playing just 35 games to 100% (highly unlikely), whereas a Platinum count and for what games is instantly clear in terms of game completion rate. The PS account also tracks overall library completion % across every title owned, which in a way is like the % form of a Gamerscore I guess.

 

[CriticalGaming]

It’s something that ultimately will always be a matter of preference, but I can see both implementations having equal merit in a way. The difference with trophies I guess would be the visibility factor in terms of being more recognizable, if nothing else. Like, the 35,000 GS total is still vague enough that it could mean anything beyond playing just 35 games to 100% (highly unlikely), whereas a Platinum count and for what games is instantly clear in terms of game completion rate. The PS account also tracks overall library completion % across every title owned, which in a way is like the % form of a Gamerscore I guess.

Indeed.

Xbox started the achievement system but didn't do anything with it, Sony took that idea and made it better. While not everyone is a completionist and trophies aren't going to appeal to everyone, but for those people who really enjoy the system it's flat out better for those people.

 

[hanselthecaretaker2]

Indeed.

Xbox started the achievement system but didn't do anything with it, Sony took that idea and made it better. While not everyone is a completionist and trophies aren't going to appeal to everyone, but for those people who really enjoy the system it's flat out better for those people.

Put it this way if we want to get really down and nerdy; telling some chic you’ve got a dozen platinum trophies probably wouldn’t dry her up nearly as fast as saying you have a 12,000 Gamerscore.

 

[Xprimentyl]

It’s something that ultimately will always be a matter of preference, but I can see both implementations having equal merit in a way. The difference with trophies I guess would be the visibility factor in terms of being more recognizable, if nothing else. Like, the 35,000 GS total is still vague enough that it could mean anything beyond playing just 35 games to 100% (highly unlikely), whereas a Platinum count and for what games is instantly clear in terms of game completion rate. The PS account also tracks overall library completion % across every title owned, which in a way is like the % form of a Gamerscore I guess.

See, I didn't know (or "remember" perhaps; haven't touched a Playstation since the PS3) that your PS account tracks overall library completion; that's more like it. I'd honestly be more interested with THAT than individual number of trophies as the trophy delineation becomes even more arbitrary save for platinums which means little to anyone save for braggarts and the completionist community.

Indeed.

Xbox started the achievement system but didn't do anything with it, Sony took that idea and made it better. While not everyone is a completionist and trophies aren't going to appeal to everyone, but for those people who really enjoy the system it's flat out better for those people.

"Flat out better?" Curious, as you clearly prefer PS trophies, have you actively sought out a similar completionist/achievement enthusiast community for Xbox gamers, or are you simply observing PS must be objectively better because a similar Xbox subreddit hasn't found you? I mean, you can't really sit in a packed Olive Garden on a Friday night and use it as evidence to the decline of steakhouses.

Put it this way if we want to get really down and nerdy; telling some chic you’ve got a dozen platinum trophies probably wouldn’t dry her up nearly as fast as saying you have a 12,000 Gamerscore.

Let's be fair to both systems, if you're using your trophy OR Gamerscore totals to impress a chick, you're probably banking that she's as desperate as you.

 

[CriticalGaming]

"Flat out better?" Curious, as you clearly prefer PS trophies, have you actively sought out a similar completionist/achievement enthusiast community for Xbox gamers, or are you simply observing PS must be objectively better because a similar Xbox subreddit hasn't found you? I mean, you can't really sit in a packed Olive Garden on a Friday night and use it as evidence to the decline of steakhouses.

I have, and it's just not as vibrant or active. But what I mean by "flat out better" is that the system itself is better. Gamerscore tells people nothing, but a platinum signifies completion on a given game. 10,000 Gamerscore means you got a random number of points on a handful of games, nothing says you completed a notoriously hard game or got notoriously hard achievements.

For Example the first Modern Warfare has a goddamn fucked achievement/trophy called Mile High Club where you have to beat a bullshit mission on legendary in like two minutes or something stupid. Everyone who hunts achievements rates it as one of the hardest fucking achievements in any game to get. If someone has 700/1000 GS from that game, maybe they have it, maybe they don't you can't tell unless you dig into their profile. However if someone has the platinum then you KNOW they got that bullshit trophy without having to question or look for it, they have it by the virtue of the platinum for the game.

So Trophies are a better system be sheer accessibility and readability for everyone.

 

[Xprimentyl]

I have, and it's just not as vibrant or active. But what I mean by "flat out better" is that the system itself is better. Gamerscore tells people nothing, but a platinum signifies completion on a given game. 10,000 Gamerscore means you got a random number of points on a handful of games, nothing says you completed a notoriously hard game or got notoriously hard achievements.

For Example the first Modern Warfare has a goddamn fucked achievement/trophy called Mile High Club where you have to beat a bullshit mission on legendary in like two minutes or something stupid. Everyone who hunts achievements rates it as one of the hardest fucking achievements in any game to get. If someone has 700/1000 GS from that game, maybe they have it, maybe they don't you can't tell unless you dig into their profile. However if someone has the platinum then you KNOW they got that bullshit trophy without having to question or look for it, they have it by the virtue of the platinum for the game.

So Trophies are a better system be sheer accessibility and readability for everyone.

So you're saying that ONLY platinums, ONLY 100%'ing a game, is what matters? And in the same breath, you're admitting that trophies are not much different than Gamerscore. Someone with a lot of trophies or a big Gamerscore are effectively the same, but adding platinums make the PS system "flat out better."

So, let me ask, when you see a fellow platinum chaser and go to admire the details of their achievements, what do you do?

dig into their profile.

Same as I would when I see a fellow gamer has significant Gamerscore in a game I'm interested in. "A lot of platinums" and "a big Gamerscore" are both dick measuring and doesn't tell you anything about how well a person fucks. At the end of the day, both systems require some level of profile digging if anyone cares enough to be bothered. So, let's back off "flat out better," and agree on "has a different feature." There's no argument to be made here except personal preference.

(Oh, and I got "Mile High Club" in CoD4, btw; don't remind me.)

 

[Gordon_4]

See, I didn't know (or "remember" perhaps; haven't touched a Playstation since the PS3) that your PS account tracks overall library completion; that's more like it. I'd honestly be more interested with THAT than individual number of trophies as the trophy delineation becomes even more arbitrary save for platinums which means little to anyone save for braggarts and the completionist community.



"Flat out better?" Curious, as you clearly prefer PS trophies, have you actively sought out a similar completionist/achievement enthusiast community for Xbox gamers, or are you simply observing PS must be objectively better because a similar Xbox subreddit hasn't found you? I mean, you can't really sit in a packed Olive Garden on a Friday night and use it as evidence to the decline of steakhouses.



Let's be fair to both systems, if you're using your trophy OR Gamerscore totals to impress a chick, you're probably banking that she's as desperate as you.

Gamerscore outs itself pretty hard from the get go. Saying you have 30 platinum trophies might bamboozle your chosen partner into thinking they’re athletics, martial arts, hell even arts awards.