Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
ARE ACHIEVEMENTS A POOR WAY TO INCREASE GAME LENGTH?
Posts
ricifidi
30
ricifidi
View playlists
CloseThanks for explaining in detail how they work RyaReisender. No wonder why i never payed them attention.
I can see how the evil "carrot on a stick" is being used in those examples.
I can see how the evil "carrot on a stick" is being used in those examples.
One thing I absolutely despise about some achievements is when you're looking at the list of possible achievements/trophies and it says "Hidden Trophy". What the hell does that even mean? There are some games that do it in a tiered process; earning one trophy for "Killing 500 Enemies" reveals the hidden trophy for "Killing 5000 Enemies". While pointless, at least you can justify it. If a player saw it before first killing those 500 enemies (10% of the 5000), they might feel intimidated. But now that they already have 10% of those kills, they will be more likely to go for it. The same goes for trophies revealed upon beating the game; they prevent possible spoilers, so they can be justified.
On the other side of the Hidden Trophy spectrum, there are some games in which I've earned the trophy without knowing it existed. That's the worst thing they could do with the hidden process. It's a pretty evil way to pad the length of the game. If a player has OCD or is a completionist, they will go out and play the game for possibly hundreds of hours to get the trophy. Or google it.
Another is forced playthroughs, like in the Fallout series. "Reach Level 30 as Good", "Reach Level 30 as Evil", "Reach Level 30 as Neutral" (Impossible unless you just want to kill unaligned scorpions for a few hours, or steal ten thousand items to offset your "Good" quest completion) are pretty cheap ways to make the player go through your 15-20 hour base game again (excluding optional quests and locations). Now, you could always save before setting off certain karma-shifting events and make it easy, but there's an achievement every few levels for each of the three karma paths, starting at some point between level 5 or 8. Now stick the "Earn All other Trophies/Achievements" in there, and you have yourself a few hundred hours of gameplay.
On the other side of the Hidden Trophy spectrum, there are some games in which I've earned the trophy without knowing it existed. That's the worst thing they could do with the hidden process. It's a pretty evil way to pad the length of the game. If a player has OCD or is a completionist, they will go out and play the game for possibly hundreds of hours to get the trophy. Or google it.
Another is forced playthroughs, like in the Fallout series. "Reach Level 30 as Good", "Reach Level 30 as Evil", "Reach Level 30 as Neutral" (Impossible unless you just want to kill unaligned scorpions for a few hours, or steal ten thousand items to offset your "Good" quest completion) are pretty cheap ways to make the player go through your 15-20 hour base game again (excluding optional quests and locations). Now, you could always save before setting off certain karma-shifting events and make it easy, but there's an achievement every few levels for each of the three karma paths, starting at some point between level 5 or 8. Now stick the "Earn All other Trophies/Achievements" in there, and you have yourself a few hundred hours of gameplay.
turkeyDawg
195
I'm not familiar with PS3 or Steam's achievements, but on Xbox, you can look at other people's achievements. So, achievements for things like beating a game on hard mode or whatever are cool, since it basically becomes bragging rights you can share with the whole world if you want to. I think they even let you post your achievements to Facebook. This also has the added benefit of letting people see what all kinds of games you play in general, and, to a certain extent, how much you play them.
Achievements are also dated, so as stupid as the "start the game" achievements are, they do let you remember when you first played a game.
So, with that said, I can't say I'd really see the point of that kind of system being in a standalone, offline executable. You'd be better off with the 5th and 6th gaming generation style of either providing in-game things for achievements, like FF9 giving you Excalibur II for speedrunning, or have the achievements unlock silly bonus stuff like art galleries or alternate costumes. That being said, even under this system you'd obviously want to avoid grindy, luck-based, or nigh-impossible achievements. I own an Action Replay and a Gameshark for a reason, and its not just for funny moon-jump codes.
Beyond that, I'd prioritize the depth and challenge of the game itself before worrying about this kind of stuff. I've played certain levels in various Sonic games a bajillion times just because I love the puzzle-solving and execution of exploiting the physics for MOAR SPEED. I've been playing Akai Katana for like, 9 months now and I still love bouncing bullets around and shooting swords at stuff for score. I also still haven't beat it yet...
Achievements are also dated, so as stupid as the "start the game" achievements are, they do let you remember when you first played a game.
So, with that said, I can't say I'd really see the point of that kind of system being in a standalone, offline executable. You'd be better off with the 5th and 6th gaming generation style of either providing in-game things for achievements, like FF9 giving you Excalibur II for speedrunning, or have the achievements unlock silly bonus stuff like art galleries or alternate costumes. That being said, even under this system you'd obviously want to avoid grindy, luck-based, or nigh-impossible achievements. I own an Action Replay and a Gameshark for a reason, and its not just for funny moon-jump codes.
Beyond that, I'd prioritize the depth and challenge of the game itself before worrying about this kind of stuff. I've played certain levels in various Sonic games a bajillion times just because I love the puzzle-solving and execution of exploiting the physics for MOAR SPEED. I've been playing Akai Katana for like, 9 months now and I still love bouncing bullets around and shooting swords at stuff for score. I also still haven't beat it yet...
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
I feel like if you're not required to put in achievements, you'd be better served using your brainpower and resources to actually add interesting content. Achievements themselves don't strike me as all that interesting or useful; most are either "you did a hard thing," "you did a weird thing," or "you passed a particular level and we're required to have X achievements in the game," none of which really require anything saying as much.
RyaReisender
200
Yeah, especially in RPG Maker / IndieRPG scene, how often do people really play through those twice? I think for those smaller projects it's better to just polish the game as much as possible rather than adding anything like replay value or stuff to stretch game time.
Milennin
2060
I like achievements that require a normal task to be completed under extreme conditions. Like defeating a boss with only starter equipment or something like that. But achievements that require grinding. **** that.
I also like achievements that teach you unique things that you might otherwise not have known about. Maybe some kind of obscure skill combo between multiple characters against certain enemies to exploit their weakness, or for some special effect.
I also like achievements that teach you unique things that you might otherwise not have known about. Maybe some kind of obscure skill combo between multiple characters against certain enemies to exploit their weakness, or for some special effect.
Housekeeping
3571
I think I'm stuck in the past--I don't have any new gen systems or a steam account, and the only last gen system I had was a wii, which doesn't have achievements. So, while I don't really have much personal experience with achievements, I've seen them from watching my roommate play games, and, on the whole, I don't really like them, mostly because they're so ubiquitous. As a completionist, having set things to complete is appealing to me, but I hate how every game is doing it, especially when it doesn't make sense for most games to include achievements, mainly because they threaten immersion. If I'm playing an rpg and then--BLOOP--a message pops up that reads "You just beat the first boss! 10 points," all of a sudden I'm aware that I'm playing a game instead of being immersed in it. If you were playing a game about games, this kind of achievement system could function in a smart way. Or, if you were playing a game with little or no story, then it makes more sense to have achievements, as these games are more aware that they're games, if that makes sense. It just seems that achievements aren't necessarily a bad thing, but they're being forced onto games that don't need them in order to maintain the status quo.
The reasoning behind achievements is a simple observation of human thought process unless you have Aspergers or something or are similarily socially incapable.
-It a reward system for a style of play, overcoming a challenge, or doing something otherwise remarkable. Achievements are fun because its external recognition and affirmation for doing something cool or challenging.
Regardless of what you say, everyone likes this. You liked getting a gold sticker from your teacher for getting an A+ on your spelling test. You like your parents going 'Great job, son/daughter!' for getting into that good college or landing that sweet job. You like your girlfriend telling you 'you smell good today'. Literally everyone appreciates some sort of external affirmation for doing something well or cool.
It's not necessary, no, but nobody ever bragged about giving themselves a literal pat on the back.
-Humans are social creatures. We like to make our achievements known to others and compare them against others. This is 'bragging'. It's also natural human social behavior and part of the reason why we went from smooshing rocks together to smart phones that tell us the weather in the span of 10,000+ years. Achievements are a way to enjoy even a single player game in a multiplayer context because it allows you to leverage your own accomplishments within that game alongside or against other players.
-It a reward system for a style of play, overcoming a challenge, or doing something otherwise remarkable. Achievements are fun because its external recognition and affirmation for doing something cool or challenging.
Regardless of what you say, everyone likes this. You liked getting a gold sticker from your teacher for getting an A+ on your spelling test. You like your parents going 'Great job, son/daughter!' for getting into that good college or landing that sweet job. You like your girlfriend telling you 'you smell good today'. Literally everyone appreciates some sort of external affirmation for doing something well or cool.
It's not necessary, no, but nobody ever bragged about giving themselves a literal pat on the back.
-Humans are social creatures. We like to make our achievements known to others and compare them against others. This is 'bragging'. It's also natural human social behavior and part of the reason why we went from smooshing rocks together to smart phones that tell us the weather in the span of 10,000+ years. Achievements are a way to enjoy even a single player game in a multiplayer context because it allows you to leverage your own accomplishments within that game alongside or against other players.
Desertopa
775
author=Feldschlacht IV
-It a reward system for a style of play, overcoming a challenge, or doing something otherwise remarkable. Achievements are fun because its external recognition and affirmation for doing something cool or challenging.
Regardless of what you say, everyone likes this. You liked getting a gold sticker from your teacher for getting an A+ on your spelling test. You like your parents going 'Great job, son/daughter!' for getting into that good college or landing that sweet job. You like your girlfriend telling you 'you smell good today'. Literally everyone appreciates some sort of external affirmation for doing something well or cool.
Like pretty much any functioning human being, I like getting external signs of achievement. I do not like Achievement systems in any form I've encountered.
People like external markers that reflect achievement on terms they themselves recognize. For some people, getting your body covered in tattoos is a sign of achievement; other people can look at them and see their personal style and reflect on how much pain they must have had to endure, how much time and money they must have had to sink in, to get their body to look like that. Other people don't care, or even think it looks crappy.
Suppose everyone were given a checklist of Cool Things To Accomplish, and everyone's list contained "Get covered with tattoos," as well as other checkpoints like "buy a Ferrari" and "get your work accepted into an art museum."
Not only will people disagree about which of these things actually sound interesting enough to be worth pursuing, those things already carry their own reward. Nobody needs a sticker certifying that they got a Ferrari, because they've already got the actual Ferrari.
Everyone except possibly crazy hermits wants to impress someone, but everyone also applies some discrimination with respect to who's worth impressing and on what terms they're interested in doing so.
author=Feldschlacht IV
-Humans are social creatures. We like to make our achievements known to others and compare them against others. This is 'bragging'. It's also natural human social behavior and part of the reason why we went from smooshing rocks together to smart phones that tell us the weather in the span of 10,000+ years. Achievements are a way to enjoy even a single player game in a multiplayer context because it allows you to leverage your own accomplishments within that game alongside or against other players.
The animal kingdom is full of social creatures, which compete all the time. Humans have gone from banging rocks together to making smartphones and launching rockets to the moon, but nearly all that progress in capability has occurred in the last few hundred years. The first couple thousand after the end of the Ice Age weren't even sufficient to get us agriculture or the wheel.
The reason that this is anything other than a pointless nitpick is that some forms of competition are simply pointless and don't lead us anywhere, and to the extent that competition has managed to get us somewhere it's because some people find more useful things to compete over. Yeah, the human urge to compete can be sublimated into Candy Crush or catching Pokemon or whatever, but that doesn't mean we have an obligation to encourage it.
hahah u smart u say smart things i reply now
The issue with this logic I think is that most of the achievements in video games is usually (with notable piss poor exceptions) objectively impressive shit. '100% Bestiary' or 'Defeat superboss with 10% HP remaining' or 'Parry all hits of Chun-Li's Houyoku Sen' are the kinds of things that most gamers will agree are pretty cool if you can pull it off. Of course not everyone will agree on some achievements, but developers usually put some thought into what sort of things deserve to be called an 'achievement'.
You sure about that homie? Yes, those things carry their own reward, but there's also a social reward in other people seeing it. How many people would covet Ferrari's if they had a spell put on them that made everyone who wasn't the owner see the car as a 1993 Geo Metro? Shit is cool because you did it, sure, but shit is also cool because other people know about it. Hence the timeless expression of "DUDE DID YOU SEE THAT!?"
spoiler alert: everything is arbitrary
author=Desertopa
People like external markers that reflect achievement on terms they themselves recognize. For some people, getting your body covered in tattoos is a sign of achievement; other people can look at them and see their personal style and reflect on how much pain they must have had to endure, how much time and money they must have had to sink in, to get their body to look like that. Other people don't care, or even think it looks crappy.
Suppose everyone were given a checklist of Cool Things To Accomplish, and everyone's list contained "Get covered with tattoos," as well as other checkpoints like "buy a Ferrari" and "get your work accepted into an art museum."
Not only will people disagree about which of these things actually sound interesting enough to be worth pursuing, those things already carry their own reward. Nobody needs a sticker certifying that they got a Ferrari, because they've already got the actual Ferrari.
Everyone except possibly crazy hermits wants to impress someone, but everyone also applies some discrimination with respect to who's worth impressing and on what terms they're interested in doing so.
The issue with this logic I think is that most of the achievements in video games is usually (with notable piss poor exceptions) objectively impressive shit. '100% Bestiary' or 'Defeat superboss with 10% HP remaining' or 'Parry all hits of Chun-Li's Houyoku Sen' are the kinds of things that most gamers will agree are pretty cool if you can pull it off. Of course not everyone will agree on some achievements, but developers usually put some thought into what sort of things deserve to be called an 'achievement'.
author=D
Not only will people disagree about which of these things actually sound interesting enough to be worth pursuing, those things already carry their own reward. Nobody needs a sticker certifying that they got a Ferrari, because they've already got the actual Ferrari.
You sure about that homie? Yes, those things carry their own reward, but there's also a social reward in other people seeing it. How many people would covet Ferrari's if they had a spell put on them that made everyone who wasn't the owner see the car as a 1993 Geo Metro? Shit is cool because you did it, sure, but shit is also cool because other people know about it. Hence the timeless expression of "DUDE DID YOU SEE THAT!?"
author=D
The reason that this is anything other than a pointless nitpick is that some forms of competition are simply pointless and don't lead us anywhere, and to the extent that competition has managed to get us somewhere it's because some people find more useful things to compete over. Yeah, the human urge to compete can be sublimated into Candy Crush or catching Pokemon or whatever, but that doesn't mean we have an obligation to encourage it.
spoiler alert: everything is arbitrary
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
If you really need other people to know that you did something in a video game, you probably need to get out more and get a more productive hobby.
author=Sooz
If you really need other people to know that you did something in a video game, you probably need to get out more and get a more productive hobby.
Nobody is arguing a need for achievements like bread and water or something.
Housekeeping
3571
I think the key concept here is that achievements aren't universally liked. This is evident from the mixed response they've gotten in this thread, unless you just assume that anyone who says they don't like them is actually lying for some reason. Here's what I'm taking from this topic:
-Most people like achievements for the reasons that Feldschlacht stated: a feeling of being told "you're good at this," a way to interact with other gamers, and basic human vanity.
-However, not everyone cares for these things; not every parent slaps the "My child is an honor student at Nobody Cares Elementary" on their cars because 1) it's not that big of an accomplishment, anyway, 2) the feeling of being a good student is its own reward (parents might reward their kids in other ways, but this doesn't really fit with my metaphor), and 3) those bumper stickers come off as bragging and no one on the road gives two shits about them.
So, I don't disagree with the idea that achievements work in some--or even most--games. However, I think we should naturally be skeptical of any game design idea that becomes basically mandatory. As I stated above, achievements seem like a good design choice for a lot of games, but in story-driven, immersive experiences, they don't make as much sense.
-Most people like achievements for the reasons that Feldschlacht stated: a feeling of being told "you're good at this," a way to interact with other gamers, and basic human vanity.
-However, not everyone cares for these things; not every parent slaps the "My child is an honor student at Nobody Cares Elementary" on their cars because 1) it's not that big of an accomplishment, anyway, 2) the feeling of being a good student is its own reward (parents might reward their kids in other ways, but this doesn't really fit with my metaphor), and 3) those bumper stickers come off as bragging and no one on the road gives two shits about them.
So, I don't disagree with the idea that achievements work in some--or even most--games. However, I think we should naturally be skeptical of any game design idea that becomes basically mandatory. As I stated above, achievements seem like a good design choice for a lot of games, but in story-driven, immersive experiences, they don't make as much sense.
Desertopa
775
author=Feldschlacht IV
The issue with this logic I think is that most of the achievements in video games is usually (with notable piss poor exceptions) objectively impressive shit. '100% Bestiary' or 'Defeat superboss with 10% HP remaining' or 'Parry all hits of Chun-Li's Houyoku Sen' are the kinds of things that most gamers will agree are pretty cool if you can pull it off. Of course not everyone will agree on some achievements, but developers usually put some thought into what sort of things deserve to be called an 'achievement'.
Of those three examples you gave, only one of them is something I would personally be interested in trying to accomplish in gameplay. It's fine if other people are interested in the others, different people have their own priorities... but then, being given a checklist of Things To Accomplish In The Game which has a whole bunch of things I don't actually want to do, it's just going to piss me off and make me have less fun.
author=Feldschlacht IV
You sure about that homie? Yes, those things carry their own reward, but there's also a social reward in other people seeing it. How many people would covet Ferrari's if they had a spell put on them that made everyone who wasn't the owner see the car as a 1993 Geo Metro? Shit is cool because you did it, sure, but shit is also cool because other people know about it. Hence the timeless expression of "DUDE DID YOU SEE THAT!?"
Sure, the overwhelming majority of the value in having a Ferrari is that other people can see that you have a Ferrari. And if you're playing an MMORPG or something, the value of having a super epic god-tier sword is not just that it lets you kill shit better, but that other players can see that you managed to get your hands on a super epic god-tier sword.
But that doesn't mean it's necessary, or even helpful, to have a big list of things which the player has and hasn't Achieved in the game. You don't need little trophy on a screen to tell you that catching all the pokemon is difficult and time consuming, and if you do it, there's nothing stopping you from going around and showing people "check it out, I caught all the pokemon!" If you want to turn your video game accomplishments into a competition or status symbol, you can always post screenshots or videos online.
There's no shortage of the things you could turn into a competition. You could read books to show off. Maybe get a badge for blowing through a 500+ page book in one day, get badges for finishing Finnegan's Wake, or A Brief History of Time, or Infinite Jest, or for finishing over 40 fantasy novels. Probably some people would like it. Some people already read for the sake of showing off. But a lot of people think of those people as twits, and a system like that would almost certainly ruin reading for a lot of people.
author=Feldschlacht IV
spoiler alert: everything is arbitrary
Yeah, so people can decide for themselves whether something is worth competing over. That's exactly why putting a great big sign reading "YOU SHOULD BE COMPETING OVER THIS!" stands to piss a lot of people off. If some things were just objectively worth competing over and other things weren't, and everyone could tell which was which, we'd never have to worry about conflicts like this.
TheNecromancer
3160
So, it seems like every reason why achievements are bad is a personal taste issue. I haven't seen a good reason that affects gameplay in any negative way(hint: there isn't one). It's all "I'm a completest and I don't like going after grindy things" or "OMG, there are words on the screen. I must not be playing a video game"
It's not elitism. It would be if a person thought they were better than someone else for getting achievements. Some people are elitist in everything they do, and might use game achievements just like they would anything they had to chance to. Achievements aren't inherently elitist but anything can be twisted that way.
It's about having a manifestation of your sense of accomplishment that you can carry with you after you've finished the game. I personally don't get achievements for others to look at, I get them for me to look at. It's the same reason I collect things and put them on display in my room.
I don't feel that it even classifies as game design, because it doesn't affect the game in any way. If you quit a game solely because it has achievements and then you start writing bad reviews of the game because of that, you are insane and should have all video game privileges revoked.
Bottom line is if an achievement is not required to beat a game, or obtain anything in game, then it can't possibly be bad design. It's an extra thing that can be totally ignored if you don't like it and you can still play the game as intended and beat it without issue. Nobody is forcing anything on you, you are forcing it on yourself. It's not the game devs fault and everyone else is enjoying themselves.
I would agree that adding dumb achievements is a poor way to increase game length(for the poor saps that are OCD), but really it's not increasing how long it takes for you to beat the game. It's only increasing the amount of time it takes for you to get 100% complete status. 2 completely different things. Some games you actually want to play for many hours after you beat them, Gears of War 3 and GTA for example. So you then don't play the game to get achievements, you keep paying it because you want to and eventually you hit the milestones.
There are plenty of people who don't care about getting 100% on games, and to remove achievements just for the people that do is BAD DESIGN. It's just like that topic about giving a bonus for not saving xD It's ok for you to not like them, but don't expect them to go away.
*edit:
achievements like steam and xbox that are there just to show people what you've done in the game and give the feeling of elitism. But I am curious why some people might think its a good game design.
It's not elitism. It would be if a person thought they were better than someone else for getting achievements. Some people are elitist in everything they do, and might use game achievements just like they would anything they had to chance to. Achievements aren't inherently elitist but anything can be twisted that way.
It's about having a manifestation of your sense of accomplishment that you can carry with you after you've finished the game. I personally don't get achievements for others to look at, I get them for me to look at. It's the same reason I collect things and put them on display in my room.
I don't feel that it even classifies as game design, because it doesn't affect the game in any way. If you quit a game solely because it has achievements and then you start writing bad reviews of the game because of that, you are insane and should have all video game privileges revoked.
Bottom line is if an achievement is not required to beat a game, or obtain anything in game, then it can't possibly be bad design. It's an extra thing that can be totally ignored if you don't like it and you can still play the game as intended and beat it without issue. Nobody is forcing anything on you, you are forcing it on yourself. It's not the game devs fault and everyone else is enjoying themselves.
I would agree that adding dumb achievements is a poor way to increase game length(for the poor saps that are OCD), but really it's not increasing how long it takes for you to beat the game. It's only increasing the amount of time it takes for you to get 100% complete status. 2 completely different things. Some games you actually want to play for many hours after you beat them, Gears of War 3 and GTA for example. So you then don't play the game to get achievements, you keep paying it because you want to and eventually you hit the milestones.
There are plenty of people who don't care about getting 100% on games, and to remove achievements just for the people that do is BAD DESIGN. It's just like that topic about giving a bonus for not saving xD It's ok for you to not like them, but don't expect them to go away.
*edit:
being given a checklist of Things To Accomplish In The Game which has a whole bunch of things I don't actually want to do, it's just going to piss me off and make me have less fun.Everyone has a different set of things they want to do. Suggesting that there should be no list, rather than to see one that you don't approve of, is very selfish. And if such a minor thing would cause you to have less fun, then...well...I feel sorry for you.
That's exactly why putting a great big sign reading "YOU SHOULD BE COMPETING OVER THIS!" stands to piss a lot of people off.There is no such sign. The competition comes from individuals turning it into a competition. Everything that exists on the planet will have individuals turning it into a competition. That is not a valid reason to scrap the whole concept.
I'm seeing a lot of "Achievements Show You Did Something Cool/Hard", but maybe 10% to 20% of achievements in nearly every game with achievements that I've played are actually like that. Most games, such as Fallout and Call of Duty, have achievements like "Reached Level X" or "Completed Mission/Quest X". Those are things that nearly everybody does and often don't matter. I sometimes feel like the game designers think I'm stupid when I get an achievement that says "Beat Level One" on my profile, since not only does everybody have it, but it requires little to no effort or skill. In addition to that, many games have an achievement for every difficulty of every mission, although many exclude Very Easy/Easy from the system. I understand something like Fallout: New Vegas's "Beat The Game on Hardcore" achievement, or Tales of Graces f's "Beat The Rockgagong", since those actually require effort and not everybody has done it. But when a game has 52 achievements, and I have about 65% of them just from playing through the game normally, then the reward system is either being abused or is just too easy.
Some casual gamers might prefer this, since they can feel a sense of achievement despite not playing through the game or only playing rarely, and the achievements might keep them going, but as somebody who was once a hardcore gamer, I feel like most achievements are kind of worthless now. And even worse are the "You Started the DLC!" achievements. You're basically buying your next achievement. There was one Call of Duty game where you could get three or four achievements in the main menu alone. And with Resonance of Fate, there was an achievement for completing every story chapter. To be fair, the game wasn't exactly easy, but when I'm rewarded for completing the tutorial with something besides, y'know, being able to play the game, I think it's time to reflect on what the industry has become.
Some casual gamers might prefer this, since they can feel a sense of achievement despite not playing through the game or only playing rarely, and the achievements might keep them going, but as somebody who was once a hardcore gamer, I feel like most achievements are kind of worthless now. And even worse are the "You Started the DLC!" achievements. You're basically buying your next achievement. There was one Call of Duty game where you could get three or four achievements in the main menu alone. And with Resonance of Fate, there was an achievement for completing every story chapter. To be fair, the game wasn't exactly easy, but when I'm rewarded for completing the tutorial with something besides, y'know, being able to play the game, I think it's time to reflect on what the industry has become.
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
author=Link_2112
There is no such sign. The competition comes from individuals turning it into a competition. Everything that exists on the planet will have individuals turning it into a competition. That is not a valid reason to scrap the whole concept.
So, what reason is there to implement achievements in the first place, if not competition?
author=Soozauthor=Link_2112So, what reason is there to implement achievements in the first place, if not competition?
There is no such sign. The competition comes from individuals turning it into a competition. Everything that exists on the planet will have individuals turning it into a competition. That is not a valid reason to scrap the whole concept.
Affirmation of an accomplishment.
Jess24
0
I personally like achievements that lead me to hidden content in the game; or which give me something USEFUL inside the game. What I don't like is the kind of achievement that are "Kill Y enemy X times", if that specific type of enemy is ridiculously hard to find AND out of the way of the main quest, because that is just disguised grinding and a way to cheaply increase the length of the game.
