They were fun at first, weren't they? That little noise, the cheeky pop-up at the bottom of the screen - it added something new and unusual, an experience that felt unique to the Xbox 360.
Since then we've seen the PS3 and plenty of PC platforms like Steam introduce their own variations, but nothing else has been quite as compulsive. Anyone who's tried all three will agree: There's nothing quite as strong as the draw to become a Gamerscore whore.
During the first few years of the Xbox 360's lifespan, it seemed like these new non-existent points would benefit gaming as a whole - adding an optional level of extra challenge for fans to get their teeth into. Games like Crackdown and Viva Pinata wouldn't have worked without the inclusion of achievements: These open-ended games using the system's elusive 1000g as a guidance beacon - giving the otherwise thankless tasks of collecting orbs and breeding butterflies a sense of direction and purpose.
Whilst a few games since have embraced the idea of making achievements an integral part of the game's design, for most it still feels like a cheeky afterthought.
The problem lies with mainly with the assumption that gamers will be able to ignore them if they wish to do so; whilst some have the ability to play without thinking too much about these evil little unlocks, many like myself find it impossible to ignore the lure of having a quick look at the achievement list. This is when things go wrong.
Once you've seen an achievement which seems vaguely attainable, it's impossible to get it out of your head. 2008's Prince of Persia contained two absolute game-killers: Finish the game having fallen less than 100 times, and finish the game in under 12 hours.
The fact that these challenges weren't mandatory didn't matter - as soon as a tiny part of my brain thought these tasks were possible, my experience of playing the game changed: The bright and breezy take-it-easy nature of the game's entire design was shattered, leaving me rushing through the game and punishing myself mentally for every mistake that I'd made.
Mass Effect 2 is another good example of letting a game's achievements piss all over a developer's cornflakes: Offering a 75g carrot on a string for anyone able to finish the game without losing any of their crew creates a sense of direction that /entirely undermined/ the spirit of the game.
For a series based entirely on accepting the consequences of choices you'd made, Mass Effect 2's achievements openly encouraged you to do something different: Don't mourn the loss of an excellent team-mate - reload the game, and get it /right/. Achievements can't afford to ignore the agenda they push: From the eyes of a gamer, these always represent the way in which the developers /want/ you to play. If you're a developer shaking your head at this notion - you need to go back to the drawing board.
Have you ever got halfway through a game and then suddenly lost interest after realising all of the achievements are flipping impossible? I'm looking at you, Blue Dragon. Unless you're one of the lucky few who aren't effected by their mere presence within a game, it's clear that achievements have to be dealt with more responsibly. Developers need to be aware of the fact that these pointless little numbers will fundamentally change the way we play their game.
If Microsoft can't enforce some kind of guidelines about how this should be handled, then it's their responsibility to give players the chance to remove them entirely.
I haven't loved achievements for a long time now, but that doesn't stop me thinking about them far more often than I'd like to. Gaming wasn't boring before achievements came around, so I don't see any harm in waving goodbye to them now: If we can't find a way to make things work, I think it's probably for the best that we simply get rid of them.
Comments
100 comments so far...
StonecoldMC on 31 Oct '11 said:
Achievements dont even enter my mind when im playing a Game, the only Game that I tried to get all of them was Alan Wake and even then I got to 990 and for some reason have never bothered getting that final 10.
Ill be lucky if I get about 500 on each Game I play. Sometimes it can be Fun trying to get specific achievements once you've completed a Game but it certainly isnt something that i concern myself with too much.
Denther on 31 Oct '11 said:
Excellent article.
Perfectly sums up how I feel about achievemnets, I think they are a great idea but as you say I do feel I'm being forced to play a game like I normally would. Eg, Deus ex, don't kill anybody achievment,
TykerD3 on 31 Oct '11 said:
I love them. I never would of replayed DR2 and resuce all the survivors if they was not an acheivement for them.
groble on 31 Oct '11 said:
I'm sorry but I love achievements. I'm guilty of going back over a finished game to snag all the left over achivements, I'm even guilty of playing a game with a guide to help me get all the missing collectables (this is the thing I dislike most about achievements) and I regularly check the achivement hunting website while playing a game so I don't miss some event specific achievement. Sometimes I lament the way achievements have altered the way I play games, I no longer play them specifically for fun, sometimes they feel like a chore I need to finish quickly, which can ruin the game a bit. but I think they've added more than they've taken away
Flamestrike on 31 Oct '11 said:
Never paid them much mind after the initial novelty wore off. The writer is correct however, they can sometimes invade your experience of a game and turn it into a chore if you allow it.
Not a concern now though, being as I've sold my 360.
almanac2015 on 31 Oct '11 said:
I'm not a big fan of trophies / achievements myself. I see them as pointless. Though why get rid of them? Let the people who do like them have a little fun - my only real problems comes when they are seen as a type of replay value.
The argument that some people can't resist is a ridiculous one - it's as bad as blaming games (instead of the players) for addiction. Get some restraint, don't go for trophies and let those who enjoy them collect them.
Can't speak much for achievements but for trophies the only game I have got platinum on is LEGO Pirates of the Caribbean. Whilst most of the trophies were pointless, the majority I got by trying to 100% complete the game. Those I went out of my way to get were quite fun, and this is the advantage of trophies / achievements. Give me less "Complete Mission 1 of the game" trophies please and give me more interesting ones that let me play the game different and I might go for a few more.
MANYOO4EVA on 31 Oct '11 said:
I'm not an achievement hoarder per se, but I do think they give a game some more life once you've finished it.
Some of them though are way too hard to get, especially if you are only a casual gamer like me.
Each too their own I guess.
twistedfiend on 31 Oct '11 said:
I don't see the problem. Surely the point of achievements or trophies is to add longevity? I have plenty of games where the only trophies I have are the basics, the ones you can't fail to get just by playing through the game. I've never felt compelled to get a trophy, they're optional and nice additional little challenges for me once I've completed the game (as I would try to do anyway, regardless of extra carrots on sticks). I just see them as a progression of the old days, when finishing a game on the hardest difficulty would unlock a new mode or character or costume or weapon or whatever. Harmless fun for those who want it, an optional, ignorable, distraction for those who don't.
KieranTC on 31 Oct '11 said:
Is CVG really publishing articles by anyone nowadays? I mean seriously, getting rid of achievements?
For a start, the comment about achievements/gamer score being more addictive than getting trophies? Yeah, how does that work when they're exactly the same, other than a piece of fictitious metal being there in place of a number? If anything, trophies are better as getting 100% has it's reward with a Platinum trophy.
Achievements are now a staple of gaming, they weren't created to make games exciting again, they were made to bring new experiences to the industry, and with achievement based community's thriving, they've done a damn good job at it.
So to summarise, getting rid of achievements? No. CVG, get rid of these trite articles instead.
dicky1993 on 31 Oct '11 said:
is this for real? they add so much to a game i don't force myself to get them but after completing a game i'll mop up a few extra hours getting secrets, extras or a hour getting all missable achievements, it makes my game have more time in the disc tray and i find cool things i never would have !
and as for prince of persia those 2 achievements i got at the end of the game were easy? how did you die over 100 times? and how the hell did it take you 12 hours +
G00N3R on 31 Oct '11 said:
I will agree that there are good and bad ways to make achievements. For me the best achievements are those that teach a player a new playing style (see TF2 Pyro) or encourage exploration without being excessively grindy (eg I'm not talking about the "collect 7 million flags" type achievements).
But this whole article just came across to me as one guy who needs to learn a bit of self control, rather than a genuine look at the pros and cons of the system. I personally don't look at an achievement list before I play a game, and I don't even find it hard to resist (possibly because I despise spoilers and often achievement names/descriptions will give away plot details). I play the game first, I'll pick up a bunch of achievements along the way by playing normally, and then after I've finished the main story I'll take a look at what I've missed. That method allows achievements to do for me what they should actually be supposed to do - to extend the life of a game. But even then, I'm not going to obsess over a specific achievement for too long if it seems out of reach.
"Have you ever got halfway through a game and then suddenly lost interest after realising all of the achievements are flipping impossible?" ... Actually no, I can honestly say that I've never even considered doing that. If the game is fun, I'll keep playing. If the game is not fun, well, I'll probably still keep playing (unless its really horrible), mainly because I paid for it so I might as well finish it.
gearyboy on 31 Oct '11 said:
Ooh this is a sticky debate...
Do I like them? Probably not as I feel they DO change the way I might play or approach some games (weak minded that I am).
Do I get a little stupid smile on my face when one pops up during play? You bet your hat I do.
There's nothing fundamentally wrong with achievements but I am finding that they tend to be wildly different in difficulty across games. Some games throw 20 GP at you just for opening a door whilst others require you to kill the 60ft Blob Demon in less than 10 hits with no damage received for the same amount.
In my humble opinion, no need to get rid of them (many gamers love them) but why isn't there an option to 'hide' the achievement pop ups whilst playing? That way, we're not doing away with achievements but gamers can decide whether they want the game telling them during play what they have achieved or whether they want to be left alone to just enjoy the game (can always have a gander at their score later or just ignore altogether)?
MrPirtniw on 31 Oct '11 said:
With the likes of story based games such as Mass Effect or Deus Ex I simply don't look at the achievement list until i've completed the game- in my own time and in my own way. After that I'll take a looksy at what I missed and see if I can unlock them in my second run through. Don't really see any problem. Good achievements can have you playing games in a totally different way, spike up the difficulty, add longevity and add a little extra satisfaction when they're unlocked. Plus they don't effect the game what-so-ever if you're not bothered about your gamerscore. You can even turn off the unlock pop up if you want to.
To quote the south park episode 'all about the mormons' this article is kind of "dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb".
AvatarIII on 31 Oct '11 said:
Achievements (or trophies in my case) i feel, make me a better gamer, I used to play games on normal, and not care too much if I got bored or distracted by another game before completing and never going back, these days I will nearly always play on hard, which makes games more challenging and interesting, and I will always play them to the end, they make me try new things, rather than find a way to do something, or a combo I like, and stick to it, they make me go off the beaten track and find new and interesting stuff.
I'm not the kind of guy who goes for platinums (i only have 2), I certainly would never buy a game I didn't want to play for the sake of trophies, and I don't go out of my way to get those really difficult to get trophies, but I like to try and get at least 80% in most games I play, and the "ting" when receiving a trophy is pretty damn satisfying, where doing something in a game might give you a moment of satisfaction, a trophy is there forever, I often skim through my trophy collection and reminisce about achieving them, and it feels good.
RustySpoon80 on 31 Oct '11 said:
Unfortunately, I'm one of those people who alters their way of playing trying to get those (in my case) Trophies. There was 1 in Duke Nukem where you had to keep your initial gun all the way through, so that meant I missed out on some of the better guns.
Fallout 3 where you had to play through as Evil, Good & Neutral, just reload before you level up and change your alignment. 3 playthroughs cut down to 1. So actually a loss of replayability.
I find games on other platforms pointless now as they dont add to my score.
dubplate240 on 31 Oct '11 said:
I prefer trophies myself as personally I like the noise they make.
But I agree that it's each to their own really when it comes to collecting achievements/trophies. Some are definitely fun to get but I wouldn't reply a game purely for an achievement.
I'm interested in seeing what will happen to these come next gen? Will all the gamerscores etc carry over or reset?
ensabahnur on 31 Oct '11 said:
Achievements, if done correctly, can give a game great replay value. Quite a few games i would have just tossed aside when complete but i've went back to try complete again. Also the odd achievement which forces you to try playing a different way also can open up a game more. Who didn't try rescuing Gnome Chompski from the carnival in L4D2? (ok the promise of a Depeche Mode t-shirt for your avatar may have also influenced that)
Its the lazy developers who put in simple achievements for just completing levels, like the Terminator 4 game, that make achievements boring or just a chore.
The Dead Rising games have had some of the best achievements like putting novelty hats on zombies or changing into every clothing item in the game. These sort of achievements are the best, something that you have to go out of your way to try.
photoboy on 31 Oct '11 said:
I sometimes like Achievements, it all depends on the game really. As a resolutely single player-only gamer I usually never manage to get all the Achievements in a game because they all usually have at least one Achievement that requires playing multi-player.
Like the article mentions, I've definitely had moments of frustration where I've looked at the Achievement list and seen tasks along the lines of "Die less than X times" or "Be spotted less than X times" and found it's somewhat spoiled my enjoyment of the game.
Generally I like the Achievements in XBLAh games the most as there are usually fewer of them so it doesn't take as long to get them all, so you can spend more time working on them. That said the sodding shooting gallery on RE4 HD took me ages the other day...
My one pet peeve with achievements is how lazy developers have become with some of them. I don't think achievements should be given just for finishing a level, especially on easier difficulty settings. I'm happy for them to award points for completing the game or finishing a level on the hardest difficulty, but I don't think just following the normal flow of the game should unlock any points. They should always be for doing something difficult, clever or unique, not for doing what you're supposed to.
sonicsimian on 31 Oct '11 said:
Personally I love achievements. They add a bit more to the game's life - I just dropped back into Just Cause 2 after a year away in order to finish the list and thoroughly enjoyed it again. Granted, some achievements are better than others (I love the Halo ones, Left 4 Dead etc) but some are a total waste of time (GTA4 - 100% completion - i just don't have the time/patience to shoot every pigeon or jump every stunt-jump). The more imaginative and less grindy the better.
metallicorphan on 31 Oct '11 said:
obviously this article is here so that we can have a debate
but seriously,if you don't like achievements,turn off the notices/pop ups and the achievement sound and play as though there are none
problem solved
I love achievements,and think they are one of the best additions to video games for a long time,they make me want to come back to some video games that usually i would never touch again,i will agree that i am not that bothered by achievement value,in other words,i couldn't give a monkeys what my gamerscore is,but i do love getting all the achievements in a game(which certainly doesn't happen that much)
but if you really don't like achievements,just don't go for them just because you feel the need to go for them,you think they should be got rid off?...yeah this is a dumb article,it really is
ginsin on 31 Oct '11 said:
I agree that some achievements aren't really well thought out, but I certainly wouldn't get rid of them because of a few dodgy achievements. The lifespan of a game has been extended thanks to me wanting to go for achievements, and often I'll get an immense satisfaction for completing a particular tough or challenging one.
zombiesinmyhead on 31 Oct '11 said:
I think you could actually argue that the article was more about the guys inability to ignore achivements, than the cheeky cheevos themselves.
For me it depends on the game. If I love it, like Gears, AC or RDR, I'll try to mop them all up as a visible indication of my love for the game. It adds longevity to something I enjoy, and can open up new areas of gameplay for you.
But sometimes people get it a bit wrong. I was talking to a guy at a party about Gears 3 before it came out, and he said he'd given up on the games on Gears one, because the SP only coughed up about 400 achivement points. Needless to say I threw my drink in his face and offered to continue the conversation outside, like men. I later learned that he's one of those who rents poo games to boost his score. Thats just a bit mental in my book.
bickle77 on 31 Oct '11 said:
Jeez, this is like saying we should turn off the internet so that we're not tempted to look for walk-throughs or cheats as they "fundamentally change the way we play" the game. Show some willpower and don't look at the achievement list.
Like one of the previous comments says the article has been published just to get a debate going. Some people dislike achievements some people think they're great. Disappointed C&VG, your articles are usually of decent journalistic quality.
WHERESMYMONKEY on 31 Oct '11 said:
Yes they can add a little bit of fun to game, but some guidelines really would help. A few games i've played recently have left me scratching my head a ilttle at the lack of achievos unlocked by the end of it. despite playing through most of a game or by getting almost all of them but somehow still having just over five hundred points.
Still i don't let them rule my gaming but i do find it fu to have a go and get a few out of the way ones from time to time. I probably wouldn't of bothered with any of the challenge modes in quite a few games if it wasn't for the added gamerscore they bring.
Solm on 31 Oct '11 said:
For me achievements/trophies are good and bad. Good when you reach 1K/Plat and bad when you look at your score for a game you just lost interest in and couldn't be bothered to try and finished (Yes I'm looking at you Naughty Bear)
Jecn on 31 Oct '11 said:
personally i like achievements..they def added life to games i would have stop playing after one playthrough...i have only 100% one game (mass effect 2) and i have played that game only like idk like 15 times through but i def dedicated one playthrough on getting the achievements...if you dont like em turn off the alert and just keep playing
nebno6 on 31 Oct '11 said:
Good article.
I feel that its the flexability that devs have that ruin tropies/achivements.
the price of persia example you gave was a good example.
GS should be achived for beating the game, fair enough, but not beating it in a certain way.
The game ive enjoyed most in recent years while earning GS is oblivion, the achivements are for completeing the game and the 4 guilds. No missable ones, no unattanable trophies EA SPORTS im looking at you.
The trick to beating the addiction is playing consoles without achivements etc, then you can understand what theyve become.
Ellscore on 31 Oct '11 said:
Most achievements are an afterthought and a chore (and a bore). Replay value (for me) does not constitute doing the same level 10 times or more just to perform a tiny variation of what you just did. I'll always check what trophies are available just to laugh at how OCD my contempories must be to get these so called achievements. Most platinum trophies need the mindset rain man.
vilvic on 31 Oct '11 said:
I think trophies do add extra playability to a game. Many games I've played 2-3 times to get all the trophies. I recently went back to play Killzone 2 and that has some insane trophies (finish in the top 1% on for XP for a week - something like that anyway - I don't have the time or will). Batman arkham asylum challenge rooms took me ages. I only played the game on hard and I think the challenge rooms required a higher score becuase of. I was sick of the game but couldn't put it down until I completed it - sad I know. My only gripe is that the trophies should be fun to achieve and not be a grind. Infamous - collecting all 300 blast shards was a monumental pain and took hours and there was no enjoyment in it at all. Call of duty black ops had a trophy for a crazy timed section you had to complete on veteran - however there was about 10 minutes of cut scenes and walking about before the timed section - if you failed you had to do it all again. However the tophies on God of War were great - some we difficult but not impossible and required me to get better at the game.
monty_79 on 31 Oct '11 said:
For some games, they are a massive plus point and can be used intelligently. The Orange box is a brilliant example, as Valve know that the 3 Half Life games on it will be played through more than once so achievements such as "Neighborhood Watch" and "The one free bullet" actually add a whole new challange to the game.
I am bored though of developers almost treating them with contempt and having them for stupid things like "finish level 1" = 15 GP. Even Battlefield 3, some of them are a bit suspect. Everyone will take someone else's dog tags at some point on multiplayer, so is it really worth rewarding it? Wouldn't it be better to instead reward someone getting say 4 sets on one match?
Down with robots on 31 Oct '11 said:
Achievements are an ingenious idea, and make games MORE FUN.
delmariachi on 31 Oct '11 said:
Bit of a mixed bag for me... I'm nearing 40,000 gamerscore, had an xbox 360 since launch, but have very rarely bothered to "try" that hard to get them (usually average 300-400 a game, although I inadvertently scored my only 1000 on the early Fight Night game). Saying that though, I do find myself looking at the cheevo list after playing a game for a while, just to see which, if any, will breathe a little extra life into my games.
I think the main issue is accessibility, If they are too tedious or need some online orientated shenanigans to get, (PGR 4 being a good example of some crazy online ones) I can't be a**ed!
Pointless ones as well, such as Forza 4's opening race with the "Welcome to Forza Motorsport" one, something which is gonna happen regardless seems like a fruitless effort, but then ya have tasks which on a personal front are good ones to aim for, such as Tiger Woods 12's "Broken Record" which has you being World No.1 for 281 weeks, It's something which could keep the gamer going, as by then you would most likely have dominated the game completely by the time ya reach your 3rd season.
There are those that use walkthru's (one mate in particular), and i just wonder why? Yet as far as i'm concerned I don't see any reason to remove them. They have become a standard feature of videogames, and do add an extra something for those that really care, whilst not getting in the way of those that don't care (like myself), without impeding the enjoyment we all get...
Besides Its extra ammo when ya best mate (aged 27) tells you he's got his platinum on hannah montana's singing game!!
AlienClown on 31 Oct '11 said:
I enjoyed this article though I don't support the idea to get rid of achievements. Most developers do tend to go with the obvious achievements. Even though, as is the case with the collectibles in Alan Wake, they're often contrary to the way the developer intended the game to be experienced. We shouldn't have to grind for an achievement. Instead they should be fun little rewards that improve the experience. If you're looking in every nook and cranny for a thermos or manuscript, you might miss the game's terrific atmosphere.
MysticR on 31 Oct '11 said:
Interesting article, but I disagree entirely.
I own both a 360 and a PS3. My 360 game collection consists of around 30 titles; my PS3 hoard, on the other hand, boasts just 4. The main reason for this, exclusives aside, is that I will always buy a multi-platform title on 360 - due largely to the fact that I can collect Achievements. Trophies are just a bit dull. I'm not a Gamerscore whore by any stretch of the imagination (27, 000 in six years is average, I'd say), but I do enjoy clocking them up. I do check out the achievement list when I start a game, and will go out of my way to try and collect some that aren't part of the regular game experience. However, it doesn't consume me and I don't dwell on a game if I'm not enjoying it. It's also quite fun comparing game completion with friends, checking out their score for a particular game and smiling that I have an additional 10G.
As has been said, Achievements extend a game's lifespan; I took great pleasure in playing Lego Harry Potter through to 1000G completion (only the second time I've attained the magic number) - without the allure of achievements I probably would have stopped playing many hours earlier, and consequently would have missed out on much that the game has to offer.
I do agree that Achievements can alter the way you play a game; Red Dead Redemption, for example, rewards you with some numbers for getting 500 kills with a particular weapon. This may mean that you go through the game completely ignoring certain guns just to get that magical popup. I don't feel that Achievements have ever had a detrimental impact on my enjoyment, however.
Long may they continue!
Down with robots on 31 Oct '11 said:
Well thought out achievements can make the game worth playing through again though (such as Dead Space single gun run through), and add value and longevity to games.
TheCrimsonFenix on 31 Oct '11 said:
I hate achievements and trophies, ultimately they're pointless. They compel you to do something even when you don't get anything out of it except a ping and a number added to your online identity. Mass Effect is a good example. You could be playing the game your way, let's say a goodie two shoes playthrough, and you happen to notice some trophy or achievement that basically says, "do something evil" and.. sometimes some people can feel compelled to do it not because they had the idea but just so they can do something that gives off this vibe of "incomplete". Achievements can make people do the most pointless things I have ever seen. Case in point, my brother. He got Batman Arkham City on PS3 at launch night. He played on it for hours and hours and completed it within two days. Once his first impression excitement wore off, his "OMG you can do this you can do that! It's the best game in the world!" attitude wore off, he was in a "Okay I now find this boring and repetitive" mood and said he was returning it to trade it in for something else. What do I find out that he has done? He's returned home with an Xbox 360 copy of the game, not for the "better controller" or any sort of reasoning like that, but because, "he wanted the achievements". There's only one thing worse than that that I can think of and that's those who buy absolutely s**tty ass games that have been mauled in reviews such as movie tie ins, for the purpose of getting achievements. Not for the fun, not for experiencing the game, but for adding a number to a pointless total number on their ID.
Achievements/trophies are absolutely pointless for anyone but point whores and completionists. Knowing you're having fun and have finished some little or major plot point in a game and remembering it, isn't good enough apparently. A pointless collection of 2D pixel trophies and numbers which serve no purpose however, apparently are. I don't even understand the argument for them which involves someone saying, "but it makes you feel like you've achieved a set goal!". Yeah, yeah, so does actually achieving the goal in the first place.
Skarfester on 31 Oct '11 said:
If you dont like them turn them off then.
Dimpee on 31 Oct '11 said:
'Anyone who's tried all three will agree: There's nothing quite as strong as the draw to become a Gamerscore whore.'
I've tried all 3 and I disagree. Now what?...
a.d on 31 Oct '11 said:
I love Acheivements/Trophies but if you don't like it just ignore it. What's the problem?
TheLastDodo on 31 Oct '11 said:
Until I get a proper reward for trophies/achievements for ex. skins, weapons, themes etc then trophies/achievements will always be an e-dick measuring contest to me.
nico1911 on 31 Oct '11 said:
I agree with the article. I'm tired with trophy system.
I got several platinum trophies and I don't think that they gave me a better game experience. If there was the option to turn off the trophies on my ps3 i would select it. To say it all collecting trophies ruins someway my game experience, why should I shoot every pigeon in GTA IV or spend all my time online in RDR? I know that developers worked hard to make games that are plenty of things to do. But is a like going in a restaurant: no one expect you to eat everything on the menu, why should I do everything in a game? Only to collect compelling trophies and get sick of the game???
iucidium on 31 Oct '11 said:
i like 'em, Im a parent, husband and 'part-time gamer'
Getting the ones my 'hardcore' friends cant get makes me want to touch myself.
a.d on 31 Oct '11 said:
Only a guy with a weiner would say that
Down with robots on 31 Oct '11 said:
I didn't know they were compulsory.
gmcb007 on 31 Oct '11 said:
I just think more devs should use the awards system that rewards players with avatar stuff. At least then you feel like you have a trophy to show off and not just some jpeg with a number.
However, I prefer the PS3 trophies because i'm not a fan if the gamerscore system. Makes you feel ashamed when you bypass 50k
runadumb on 31 Oct '11 said:
I almost completely ignore achievements. The only game that peaked my interest was super meat boy. I just take zero notice most of the time.
I don't really care if they are there or not except when they pop up too often. I play on PS3 and PC so maybe it isn't as bad there as xbox.
TheCrimsonFenix on 31 Oct '11 said:
I didn't know I said they were.
BADcloud on 31 Oct '11 said:
I tried really hard to not get sucked into playing just for them. But when you suddenly get one randomly you start falling into the trap of just having a quick look what it was for, then look at the others (and like the article says) you think "I can get that one, and that one." A friend of mine wasn't bothered about them at all until he got his first Platinum trophy, and now one of his first questions about a game is "Easy Plat?".
It'd be ok if you could stop them popping up at the wrong times. For example, you're in the middle of cut scene after duking it out for 10mins with a tough boss, then suddenly you hear a *ting* telling you that you've gotten a trophy for beating him. It spoils the flow of the scene. Heavy Rain got it right where the trophies only came up during the loading of the next section.
If you could turn the notifications off completely and just check them later on to see what you got, I'd be happy. I don't mind them being there for people that want to use them as a barometer of how much they've done in a game, but I miss just playing a game for what it is without a voice in the back of my mind saying "only 20 more headshots for your Sharpshooter trophy".
Very_Silver_Ownz on 31 Oct '11 said:
I used to be a huge trophy hunter until one day I thought '' what am I getting out of this ? ''.
After that I never go out of my way to hunt for trophies as its just bragging rights.
Gaming is for fun and in fact trophies actually make me enjoy a game less now as I keep saying to myself that I need 100%.
I think it would be good thing for everyone if they were removed as gamers would just want to have fun not collecting digital points that don't add anything.
Gaming survived before trophies and achievements existed. I'm sure we can cope if it was removed.
Imaduck on 31 Oct '11 said:
Um what the f**k?
Personally I think they're great. In itself it provides even more little challenges, incentive to do everything, try different ways of play. I honestly can't see a single problem with the system. There have been some s**tty made achievements which could be better, but then, it's all optional so .... ?
Down with robots on 31 Oct '11 said:
Now avatars really ARE a pointless waste of (disk) space.
Sleepaphobic on 31 Oct '11 said:
They should scrap all these pointless systems just so we can see how all the idiots who invested so much time into them react.
LordVonPS3 on 31 Oct '11 said:
FIFA '09 Duo Hedgeidecimal and EA I hate you.
Creating game achievements / trophies that become impossible after any given amount of time ought to bloody well be illegal. Either developers literally stop supporting games online or gamers do. It's the worst kind of achievement / trophy and should be a MS / Sony quality control check.
KK-Headcharge78 on 31 Oct '11 said:
This.
I think people who go hoarding all achievements are pretty sad, even sadder though are those who go out of their way to criticise them.
Sammy_bham on 31 Oct '11 said:
I loved trophies / achievements when they first appeared, i tried my best to get as many as possible...
but then after about 6 months... i realised.
wow, these trophies mean F### all. They get me nothing, nobody cares and trying to get them gets me more annoyed then actually enjoying the game...
if you have no comittments, no child, or dont work, or all of them... then yeah maybe, you can complete a game in hardcore, or complete a game agan just to make sure youve completed it in every class etc..
but seriously, i buy a game to experience it. for what it is. i want to enjoy every second and take the most i can from it.
Trophies/achievements dont get me themes, dont get me bonus dlc or anything of the sort. not of my mates care, my mom doesnt rng me to tell me well done... ie there is no point to them, for me.
since realising this obvious point, i have began to enjoy them.
IF you could get unlockables for getting the platinum trophy. then yeah, this = incentive.
but otherwise... nah.
AlienClown on 31 Oct '11 said:
lol I rented L4D2, thought it was OK and sent it back without really getting the most out of it. When I realised afterwards that you could unlock a Depeche Mode T-shirt I was bloody gutted. My avatar refuses to talk to me now.
dicky1993 on 31 Oct '11 said:
you have to admit it's satisfying getting one accidentally
oh and btw i LOVE your avatar, clap trap right? i just completed borderlands
The_KFD_Case on 31 Oct '11 said:
"The problem lies with mainly with the assumption that gamers will be able to ignore them if they wish to do so; whilst some have the ability to play without thinking too much about these evil little unlocks, many like myself find it impossible to ignore the lure of having a quick look at the achievement list. This is when things go wrong.
Once you've seen an achievement which seems vaguely attainable, it's impossible to get it out of your head.
....... Developers need to be aware of the fact that these pointless little numbers will fundamentally change the way we play their game."
This. I couldn't have stated it better myself and I am in complete agreement with John Dean on this matter.
TheLastDodo on 31 Oct '11 said:
Yep it's Clap trap, check him out he's dancing he's dancing
As for trophies, I really don't care, if I could trade them all I would in a heartbeat.
Eriatha on 31 Oct '11 said:
I think it adds an element of replayability. I love achievements personally and I feel that 360 games would be worse for the lack of them.
TheCrimsonFenix on 31 Oct '11 said:
I knew the whole "replayability" angle would come into play. I see a lot are saying that it gives you incentive to play through something again but you don't need a number or a fake trophy to get you to play through a game again. I certainly didn't need a trophy to get me to do collect all packages in a GTA game because I knew that the game itself was going to reward me in its own way. If a trophy or gamer point score are the only thing making you try out a game again, and not the game's merits, something is wrong. Nowadays you get nothing but a digital picture or number saying you "did such a thing". If trophies or gamerscores could be used to discount purchases or to collect on some nice rewards like a theme, gamerpic, avatar or some other in game feature, I would certainly see the point in them but for now and since the day they were cooked up, they mean nothing to me. I sure as hell don't need a pointless trinket to coerce me into going on a game for something.
As for it being satisfying when you accidentally unlock one, when do you ever NOT unlock one? The majority of trophies/achievements are just as-you-go obligatory ones. "Do mission 3!", "Beat the boss!". They're hardly screaming, "OK OK OK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT NOBODY ELSE IN THE WORLD HAS DONE! DO YOU HAVE WHAT IT TAKES?!", more like "PRESS START!". Whenever one does pop up for me, it's akin to the feeling of heart burn. You try to ignore it when it comes up but you're ultimately relieved when it passes.
Multiplayerking on 1 Nov '11 said:
I've got several platinums, so now I can just happily ignore them and play the game. Of course, to get a bit more out a game, I'll go for some trophies if I want.
How could you feel compelled to get them? Just ignore them if you don't like them. I mean, they're meaningless and you earn nothing from them. Their main point is to add a challenge or make you see more of the game that you might not otherwise have seen.
In conclusion, this guy is teh noobz.
Mikez90z on 1 Nov '11 said:
I think achievements add great replay value.
I usually playthrough a game, beat it, and then the achievements give that incentive to go back and do things i wouldn't have. It really depends on how you think about it. Some people feel like they have to get all their achievements as quickly as possible or on their first playthrough, so in the process it ruins the experience.
liveswired on 1 Nov '11 said:
I wish Sony would dump trophies as well. If the games good - it's good - it doesn't need trophies or achievements.
shogunreaper on 1 Nov '11 said:
Only someone without a life cares about some number that means absolutely nothing more than to show how much time you've wasted on a game.
TallPaul1878 on 1 Nov '11 said:
Yeah, they suck big time. It encourages behaviour that belongs in World of Warcraft. Online achievements destroys all the fun in the game particularly. When I swapped my Xbox for a PS3 I didn't miss them, they were a distraction. Then for some unknown reason they brought trophies in. I have one platinum trophy for MW2. I don't care for it on jot. They do'nt prove that you are particularly good at games, they just show you have sat their and shot someone in the head 1000 times with a pistol. Well I don't buy games to do that and developers shouldn't encourage that kind of gaming.
Sure rewards for beating the game on the toughest difficulty but not for grinding. Grinding isn't fun and isn't worth a reward.
Soviet1918 on 1 Nov '11 said:
I dont mind Achievements/Trophies its not like they get in the way of the game i mean how much can a ping get in the way.
PlanesOutcast on 1 Nov '11 said:
I play all my Steam games off line -just to mess with Valve's head - the egotistical bastards!
Very_Silver_Ownz on 1 Nov '11 said:
I don't agree with this at all. If trophies and achievements are your way to get replayability then the game has failed you.
MJF V1 on 1 Nov '11 said:
I'm with others here, the achievement system has brought us a new reason to revisit games, it gives us more incentive to play through games again. At the same time they are all optional, you don't NEED to get them & that's the thought process I use from now on. Unless I know I can fully complete a game I won't usually bother much with them. It's all optional & nowhere does it say you MUST get as many achievements as you can.
Mikez90z on 1 Nov '11 said:
Whoa there chief, i didn't mean I don't get any replay value at all with out achievements, they just give options of things to do when I come back to replay a game. For example, beating a level in a set time, whereas without the achievement i wouldn't have in most cases.
Achievements are meant to support the game and add that extra challenge.
Gamerwhore69 on 1 Nov '11 said:
Reading this article has made me quite angry, but I suppose that’s the best way to inspire debate these days. I’ve actually put down a cup of tea to reply to this, if it goes cold in this short interval then all hell will break lose.
I love achievements; they still provide endless hours of entertainment to what would otherwise be a very stagnant gaming experience. How many of us would return to a single player campaign without the lure of those allusive G’s. Answer, none. If you’re the type of person who enjoys replaying a game with the difficulty cranked up from ‘easy’ to ‘medium’ then I really pity your social life.
A few years ago none of your friends would have believed you when you boasted of scoring a bicycle kick on Fifa. But now with these beautiful trophies the proof is up there in lights on your profile, plus you can probably upload the footage on Facebook and watch as the ‘likes’ roll in.
I think I take most offence to your opinion that ‘Gaming wasn't boring before achievements came around, so I don't see any harm in waving goodbye to them now’. You seem to want to completely ignore the progress people have achieved in improving our gaming experience. People still have fun play Pong but that doesn’t mean every tennis simulation should consist of three measly pixels against a black background.
If you can’t handle that enjoyable pursuit of obtaining those pesky objectives or shiny medals then put down your pad, turn off the tv and read a book. May I suggest the dictionary? Look up the word challenge.
If you don’t like achievements then buy a wii, enjoy a range of fantastic (if a little childish) array of games and bask in the knowledge that bugger all will pop up telling you ‘well done’ or ‘at a boy’.
To quote Bob Kelso “nothing worth having comes easy”. Now dry those tears and fire up Blue Dragon, you gotta catch em all…or something.
Don’t p**s on my parade or my cornflakes for that matter. Rant over.
capsule_toy on 2 Nov '11 said:
I dislike achievements. They do, too often, set you tasks which are impossible to do, or they spoil the game by putting you under pressure to do something you wouldn't have done otherwise.
I'd rather play through GTA IV at my own (and REALISTIC) pace instead of rushing through the game to finish it within 30 hours. I'd rather play a game and enjoy it, rather than play it then head straight to online to...
a. kill 100 people in a killstreak in 10 mins
b. perform difficult combos against 12 people in a row.
Achievements do TAKE the fun out of gaming for many people.
They also provoke people into buying s**t games just to get easy achievements. I can't tell you how many people I have on my PSN who seemed to be 'proper gamers' only to find the trophy info for Hannah Montana on their list..
The ONLY purpose achievements/trophies should do is mark points through the game naturally encountered by completing the game. Trophies and the like should be hidden on the list (to avoid spoilers) and just automatically unlock as you finish the game itself. Nothing else.
Down with robots on 2 Nov '11 said:
Solution: Don't look through the achievements list then. Jeez, the way some people moan about achievements and trophies, you'd think they were compulsory.
modern_epic on 2 Nov '11 said:
Even managed to get a fanboy comment in there too. Surely a shinnier trophy is only really of value to the owner and would be buried deep within the profile of that user. On XBL you merely have to scan over a persons profile and see the value of all achievements they have attained, their Gamerscore if you will. For instance two friends of mine have worked extremely hard to reach 100,000 G, but once they done this they lost interest in playing games as their sole mission had been finished. On the plus side now he plays Battlefield 3 with us alot more now whereas before he couldnt play it for thinking more of a certain achievement which was next on his list etc. I say leave them where they are, they hold no hinderence for fans or opposers of them. Cause no harm to anyone.
Alex Atkin UK on 2 Nov '11 said:
There are some valid points made here, but I absolutely disagree that we should all lose the achievements functionality just because some people cannot alter the mindset to avoid annoying achievements.
What I do (and am forced to, as some games I own have online achievements and nobody playing them) is use achievements to compare my gaming to my friends. Getting them all is fine, but its more important to compete with friends to go "ooh, they got that one so I'm going to try for it".
I am primarily an offline gamer so achievements add an essential competitive element especially for games where leaderboards is not applicable. I would never want to lose the achievements functionality, it would completely kill my motivation for playing many games.
Jensonjet on 2 Nov '11 said:
I hate achievements, trophies and whatever else the industry cares to name them. At best I see them as pointless carrotts to entice gamers to an extra score. A petty one at that. At worst I see them as ruining some elements of gaming.
I accept the argument that they can be ignored, and for those of us who dislike them we do. But what no one can ignore is when we're teamed up online with people changing the way they play, or only playing to achieve a pointless achievements and trophies.
An example of how achievements have changed online gaming for the worst is Left4Dead. I loved playing the first one, it was a great co-op game. Like many games it awarded achievements for finishing each of the chapters on the hardest difficulty. What this promoted was gamers playing on a difficulty they weren't skilled for.
On one occasion a gamer, knowing I'd gained these achievements asked "So why do you continue playing". I was amazed. I replied "Because I enjoy playing the game!". He was there purely to earn those difficult achievements. And he wasn't alone. I met many who played only to get those achievements, and once they had, they stopped playing. You could argue that I benefitted from having more people to game with on a difficulty I prefer. And ultimately made more friends because I was seen as someone to help them get the achievements, if no other reason than I was happy to stick around. I come from a background of online PC gaming. A time when people played purely for fun and the joy of beating the opposition. Gamers didn't need achievements for shooting an enemy with a shotgun a hundred times or whatever. Gamers shouldn't need an achievement for completing a game. I think it adds stress to gaming, turns it into a chore for some, and can be a reason people get frustrated or angry. Seriously, if gamers want an achievement, open up a box of f*cking chocolates and eat one every time you finished a level or whatever.
However as a marketing tool (which is actually what achievements and trophies are) they were a clever idea. If I were making a game I'd offer a ton of gamerscore just for playing the first level of a game.
I wouldn't have quite so much of a problem with achievements and trophies if they had a worthwhile benefit. One idea could have been to allow gamers who had put in the time to earn them an option to use them as online currency for purchasing map packs or extras, whatever. Or better still a discount on the inevitable sequel to the game. Instead they've become an utterly pointless score and an immature bragging right. They don't represent skill. What they actually show is who is spending more money on gaming than the rest and who the obsessive gamers are.
I hope Sony and Microsoft's next consoles reset these scores and start over again. I think that would highlight to some trophy and achievement chasers just how utterly pointless they are and what a waste of time they've been.
IncrediBurch on 2 Nov '11 said:
I'm not a fan of achievements because they are hollow accolades more often than not.
The gamerscore does nothing to truly entice me or properly represent my gaming prowess. At first, I thought gamerscore was going to lead to me earning extra Microsoft points or something. Sometimes unlockable features in a game are connected to achievements, even some Avatar items have been included. This is not the common practice.
Some players need bragging right, and achievements are just a more prestigious form of stat-tracking. You get a digital badge for having a stat reach a certain value. Those are worthless achievements. Completing a chapter is not an achievement because it doesn't require effort above and beyond what is expected of the player.
In discussion with my friends, they remind me that the achievements take nothing away from the game. For that reason, I don't think they need to be removed. The system should be changed.
gamingassassin on 2 Nov '11 said:
I like gamerscore/trophies.
I don't really let them affect the way I play a game but I will often go back to a game to try and get them all, thus adding a bit of extra longevity to the game. why else would you bother getting all the collectibles in a game?
Also it sometimes adds a bit of competition with your friends and siblings. Just don't go around bragging about them like an arrogant dick.
At the end of the day if you don't like them then just ignore them, that's all my girlfriend does..
I do agree though that you should get something a little extra like avatar awards as well!
Gooner Rhyle on 2 Nov '11 said:
Troll article has successfully trolled!
Complaining about achievements is like complaining about bad TV - yes, you may be compelled to watch some of it in spite of yourself, but going all Mary Whitehouse and asking for achievements to be removed WHEN THERE ARE PLENTY OF PEOPLE WHO ENJOY THE CHALLENGES THEY REPRESENT is selfish - and more than a little ignorant. Your incapacity for ignoring certain achievements (and your capacity for masochistic achievement whoring) is your problem, not gaming's. We all acknowledge that gamerscore is a pretty meaningless number, but there are certain achievements that carry with them a cache which gamers (casual or hardcore...) respect. At the end of the day, it's down to you, you're in charge of the experience. You're the only one who dictates how the game is played, not the achievement list. To blame achievements for your inability to either play the game on face value, accept your fate as a cheevo slut or, bottom line, go and read a book / run in a field instead is pretty childish.
PS3Tard on 2 Nov '11 said:
While I'll admit to having played some shockers when I got too obsessed with building up this pointless score they have made me replay some games I'd have binned off after one play before.
Generally I'll play a game through normally first time around, and then go hunting the more obscure stuff on the second attempt... it's opened up areas of games that I wouldn't have seen otherwise which can only be a good thing.
If this spoiler monkey doesn't like them why not just turn off the notification alert when he gets one, then as far as he's concerned they don't exist anymore, they don't intrude on the game, he doesn't have to go searching them out if he doesn't want to.
rkpaterson on 2 Nov '11 said:
I pay less than zero attention to any achievements. I don't even really understand what they are or how they work.
And I don't care!!
I've no objection to them at all - I'm sure they are important to some gamer's experiences, and give added motivation to play a game again.
However, I don't like a challenge - I always set my games to the easiest difficulty and if I find them too hard they get traded in without a second thought. I play for the graphics and the immersiveness of the storyline. I can't bear difficult end-of-level-bosses, games where you have to die repeatedly just to work out how to kill a baddie, or the pressure of having to complete something within a certain timeframe. The thought of having to try to complete a game in 12 hours just to get an achievement fills me with horror!
horngreen on 2 Nov '11 said:
I'm shocked these developers do anything that would lengthen a games lifespan. The longer you play one game because of LIVE or achievements the less games you'll purchase.
verynaughtyboy on 2 Nov '11 said:
Since then we've seen the PS3 and plenty of PC platforms like Steam introduce their own variations, but nothing else has been quite as compulsive. Anyone who's tried all three will agree: There's nothing quite as strong as the draw to become a Gamerscore whore.
First off I have to disagree with the above statement. I prefer Trophies for the reason that I can look at a persons profile and see the amount of bronze, silver, gold and platinum trophies they have attained. It tells me a bit more I feel.
I also feel that achievements / trophies help me to get more out of a game. Some games I have played through a second time to get more achievements / trophies and so it has improved the value for money I get from a game. Sure I find myself doing things in games just to get trophies and it might mean that I'm thinking too much of the game mechanics rather than the experience, but I find that ultimately they enhance things overall and they are very satisfying.
u1travi01et on 3 Nov '11 said:
more secrets and unlocks, and less pointless achievements please
davelk on 3 Nov '11 said:
Maybe its time to get rid of John Dean, How are f**king apes like him in a job, lucky he writes crap instead of company policy for a major games corp.
While i dont lose sleep over achievements, they do add alot of replay value to games.
evilhippo on 3 Nov '11 said:
I have never... ever... actually taken notice of in-game 'achievements'. As I play all my games on a PC, achievements just seem like some weird console bleed-through that serve no purpose whatsoever
evilhippo on 3 Nov '11 said:
This
sepewrath on 3 Nov '11 said:
I personally don't care about them and my reason for not liking them, do not match with this article. Simply put, I don't like that they serve as a replacement for in game rewards. Instead of unlocking a costume in Spider-Man, you get 10 meaningless points and the costume is DLC. Extra content in games is being ripped apart these days and trophies/achievements only compound that. Also toss in MP ones, where people are playing for points instead of playing the game for fun.
jtthegame on 4 Nov '11 said:
Achievements are fun. cvg just like to hit out on anything xbox. why get rid of them? i mean they are not somthing you have to bother with if you don't want they are just a bit of fun for enyone who does want to go for them. cvg stop being so baised to ps 3 plrase. if you remember your beloved ps 3 copied achievement with trophys. i have both xbox and ps 3. both good consoles bit i hate all the bais you show towards ps 3 cvg there is no need for it.
TheCrimsonFenix on 4 Nov '11 said:
If everybody got a penny for every time CVG was called biased towards the PS3, we'd all be stupidly rich.
If everybody got a penny for every time CVG was called biased towards the 360, we'd all be stupidly rich.
If everybody got a penny for every time one of CVG's articles got people riled up to the point they were called out to be one of the first two, they'd be laughing their heads off even more than they do now.
Jensonjet on 4 Nov '11 said:
I wish I was rich!
Do you think I'd get some Gamerscore for that?
I know I'd get a trophy (wife).
BOYD1981 on 4 Nov '11 said:
I preferred it when achieving something in a game (GTA for example) would actually reward you with something other than an immersion breaking popup and some stupid points.
It's not that I hate them, I would just like a return to the days where finding 100 hidden items would increase your max health by 50% or give you unlimited ammo or some kind of special item, but developers it seems would rather sell those things to you rather than saying "Thanks for playing our game, have this".
ensabahnur on 4 Nov '11 said:
Ba dum dam tish.
He's here all week, try the veal.
TheCrimsonFenix on 4 Nov '11 said:
http://achievements.schrankmonster.de/Achievement.aspx?text=You%20got%20to%20third%20base.
CalumB90 on 5 Nov '11 said:
This article does bring up some good points, however with developers now voicing there concerns about people trading in games and the retailers selling them on for themselfs, achievments are a must.
Achievments, trophys etc give a game more playability .I'm not an "achievment whore" however on several occasions after completing a game on its normal difficulty, I have gone on to tackle the games hardest mode, not only to enjoy the game once again but with now the added incentive of getting that achievment.
olijoy on 5 Nov '11 said:
As with so many things in life, I think the experience of collecting achievements is whatever you make it.
I basically play two types of games of games - single player titles with a heavy emphasis on story or titles that are geared almost entirely towards multiplayer. With the former I won't even look at the achievements until after I've finished the story - as has been repeated here several times, it can undermine the whole point / experience of the game. With multiplayer games I will look at them right from the start and begin work on them, usually with my friends. I think this is the best way of keeping both experiences in the spirit in which they were intended.
I treat gaming like a hobby and I think this approach genuinely makes it a meaningful experience - like finishing a good book or finishing a painting after days or weeks of effort. Considering I used to p**s my time away on whatever the title of the week was on whatever system I owned at the time, I have to give Microsoft a lot of credit for turning my gaming time into something more wholesome. I now buy maybe five or six titles a year and milk those in the above manner, and I find it to be a pretty satisfying approach to gaming.
If you're one of these people who crimps out every last achievement point then fair dos. Likewise if you just want to game and ignore them, then that's fair enough too. I would suggest that the majority of quality titles still see achievements as an addition rather than something to base a game around anyway, which ultimately frees you up to approach them however you want.
But to get rid of a blatantly popular and generally positive development in gaming just because some developers stick some poorly thought-out achievements in their games or because some gamers are simply too weak to not look at the achievement list, is frankly a silly suggestion. I find it a bizarre admission by the author that he finds it 'impossible' (a ridiculous pronouncement - it's hardly heroin or someone holding a gun to your head) to not have a look at the achievements prior to playing, despite having had it undermine his experience previously. Surely that admission undermines the bulk of your point?
I think there was probably a decent piece of gaming journalism in there somewhere but to suggest getting rid of achievements partly on the basis of a admitted personal weakness on the part of the author is daft.
Balladeer on 5 Nov '11 said:
A couple of games that I've played have had such systems, and what the article says is dead right. If an achievement is there I'll feel pushed to get it, and lousy if I don't. I've forced myself to complete quests because the game won't let me go back and complete them after a certain point. And although it can encourage one to explore all of a beautiful world, it can also make a game infinitely more tedious.
Frankly, I think games should get rid of them altogether. If a game's great, one should want to explore the entire world and do everything with or without a score counter. Otherwise, achievements should not offer an "easy way out".
Gazw1 on 7 Nov '11 said:
I totally agree I've hated achievements since MS first brought them to the 360. They subconsciously make you feel like you havent finished or played the game properly, and at times have had me abandoning having fun enjoying the game to chase after an achievement I don't need and getting frustrated in the process. For me these days there is zero satisfaction involved in unlocking them. Now I just play the games however I want and ignore them entirely. I miss the days games used to be for fun, seems developers think we are all obsessed with stat tracking which for me is ruining online games as you can't play a game and enjoy the experience without your performance being recorded and displayed for everyone to see, and feeling like you have to reflect how skilled you are in your stats. Down with achievements!
Barca Azul on 7 Nov '11 said:
I like them to an extent, but think they need to evolve better into levels.
Take a game like RDR, Single player should have its own Achievement/Trophy list, then multiplayer, then DLC. If you complete a game to 100%, it should be the same on the Achievement or Trophy list.
Some online ones are in fact ridiculous and to the point where you say, oh well, ill never have the platinum and therefore makes them worthless. PES 2011 is a prime example.