We've all encountered it; begging foreigners on Xbox Live, crying to the rest of the lobby to help them unlock their multiplayer Achievements via suicide, game-breaking behavior and more, thus spoiling the fun for everyone else.
Thankfully, it looks like Gears of War 2 at least is going to fight against the whiney Achievement whores, by limiting the amount of accolades players can unlock in a single multiplayer game.
Speaking to CVG at Microsoft's media summit this afternoon, which you might've heard about already, Gears honcho Cliff Bleszinski said Epic was going to be "throttling" the amount of achievements players can unlock at any given point.
"If you're going for headshots," he gave as an example, "you get one headshot that counts and any other headshots won't count towards your Achievement, so players don't just play to get headshots the entire round just to get Achievements."
Cliffy B also revealed that players will be able to track the progress of their Achievements in Gears 2 (which is looking lovely, by the way):
"I don't want to get into too much of the multiplayer right now, but one thing I can confirm is that we are doing Achievement progress so that players will be able to essentially track how far they're getting with each Achievement in whichever mode."
Look for the full interview, and oh yes - Gears of War 2 eyes-on impressions, shortly.
Tracking achievements you say? What a great idea! I'd never really thought about it, but it would be nice knowing how close you were to getting toward an elusive achievement.
As for achievement whores... well all I'll say is anything that hampers that kind of irritating behaviour is good news if you ask me.
Thing is whoreing began when they set silly achievement targets. If there sensible with them (which GoW wasnt) they wouldn't need to do this in the 1st place.
If the achievements were way too easy, what would be the point in that?
This will provide a greater longevity to the multiplayer side of things, without the annoying assholes that just want to ruin games, by dictating who is the next person in line to get their 100 head shots, or whatever.
Good move by Epic, as long as they can pull it off successfully.
I'm not really into achievements in a big way. I like the 'pat on the back' feeling when those things pop up, but I'm not the kind of person who hunts them all down. Nor am I into multiplayer online gaming.
However I feel that the developers here might be missing a point. If I get this right, people are starting multiplayer games and saying stuff like "right, this round it's my turn to get 100 headshots ok?", and then everyone else walks passively up to said player to allow him/her to gain their achievement.
So whilst this isn't how the game should be 'played' isn't this a wonderful example of social and collaborative gaming? Isn't this an example of people working together to achieve an aim? Just because it's not "capture the flag" or "deathmatch" as defined by the developer's rules doesn't mean that it's a problem. Quite the contrary in fact.
It reminds me of the way we all explore sandbox games in different ways. Rather than throttling back on this kind of gameplay the developers should be encouraging it. Other examples of achievements that might only be achieved by all other players 'helping' a solo player - a long piggyback ride? Get to the centre of an arena without being shot or firing? Being a pacifist without dying and also being on the winning side? etc. etc.
I really cant be bothered to go for online achievements, waste of time for me, i rarely play online and doing sp just to get points seems a waste of time for me. Plus most of the time the achievements are stupidly hard ie kill 100,000,000 baddies etc. Yes thats probably a good thing but because of the sheer length involved i dont even bother with them.
I'm not really into achievements in a big way. I like the 'pat on the back' feeling when those things pop up, but I'm not the kind of person who hunts them all down. Nor am I into multiplayer online gaming.
However I feel that the developers here might be missing a point. If I get this right, people are starting multiplayer games and saying stuff like "right, this round it's my turn to get 100 headshots ok?", and then everyone else walks passively up to said player to allow him/her to gain their achievement.
So whilst this isn't how the game should be 'played' isn't this a wonderful example of social and collaborative gaming? Isn't this an example of people working together to achieve an aim? Just because it's not "capture the flag" or "deathmatch" as defined by the developer's rules doesn't mean that it's a problem. Quite the contrary in fact.
It reminds me of the way we all explore sandbox games in different ways. Rather than throttling back on this kind of gameplay the developers should be encouraging it. Other examples of achievements that might only be achieved by all other players 'helping' a solo player - a long piggyback ride? Get to the centre of an arena without being shot or firing? Being a pacifist without dying and also being on the winning side? etc. etc.
A valid point, but you're forgetting that these would be the minority of people and as such wrecks it for other people. Nothing worse than being thrown into a game of gimps who arent "playing".
To give an analogy, imagine playing a game of football and suddenly 4 of the players decide they want to play volleyball and pick up the ball. If there aren't constraints against that kind of behavior, that means the rest of the football players have to get up, leave the field, and find somewhere else to continue playing their game.
Here's an idea. Follow Infinity Ward's example and do away with online achievements altogether. If your game is good, people will play it online anyway.
Here's an idea. Follow Infinity Ward's example and do away with online achievements altogether. If your game is good, people will play it online anyway.
Here's an idea. Follow Infinity Ward's example and do away with online achievements altogether. If your game is good, people will play it online anyway.
I second that motion.
Third it.
Also agree with daedy. Most online ones are pointless anyway. 'Kill stupid amount of enemies/people' Wheres the skill in that? More of an endurance test for school kids who dont leave the house.
Also agree with daedy. Most online ones are pointless anyway. 'Kill stupid amount of enemies/people' Wheres the skill in that? More of an endurance test for school kids who dont leave the house.
I did the "1 Million credits" one in Forza 2 but that would probably only amount to 200 online races or so. Having said that, I'd probably not do it again.
Here's an idea. Follow Infinity Ward's example and do away with online achievements altogether. If your game is good, people will play it online anyway.
I second that motion.
Third it.
Also agree with daedy. Most online ones are pointless anyway. 'Kill stupid amount of enemies/people' Wheres the skill in that? More of an endurance test for school kids who dont leave the house.
Here's an idea. Follow Infinity Ward's example and do away with online achievements altogether. If your game is good, people will play it online anyway.
I second that motion.
Third it.
Also agree with daedy. Most online ones are pointless anyway. 'Kill stupid amount of enemies/people' Wheres the skill in that? More of an endurance test for school kids who dont leave the house.
Here's an idea. Follow Infinity Ward's example and do away with online achievements altogether. If your game is good, people will play it online anyway.
I second that motion.
Third it.
Also agree with daedy. Most online ones are pointless anyway. 'Kill stupid amount of enemies/people' Wheres the skill in that? More of an endurance test for school kids who dont leave the house.
I'm not really into achievements in a big way. I like the 'pat on the back' feeling when those things pop up, but I'm not the kind of person who hunts them all down. Nor am I into multiplayer online gaming.
However I feel that the developers here might be missing a point. If I get this right, people are starting multiplayer games and saying stuff like "right, this round it's my turn to get 100 headshots ok?", and then everyone else walks passively up to said player to allow him/her to gain their achievement.
So whilst this isn't how the game should be 'played' isn't this a wonderful example of social and collaborative gaming? Isn't this an example of people working together to achieve an aim? Just because it's not "capture the flag" or "deathmatch" as defined by the developer's rules doesn't mean that it's a problem. Quite the contrary in fact.
It reminds me of the way we all explore sandbox games in different ways. Rather than throttling back on this kind of gameplay the developers should be encouraging it. Other examples of achievements that might only be achieved by all other players 'helping' a solo player - a long piggyback ride? Get to the centre of an arena without being shot or firing? Being a pacifist without dying and also being on the winning side? etc. etc.
A valid point, but you're forgetting that these would be the minority of people and as such wrecks it for other people. Nothing worse than being thrown into a game of gimps who arent "playing".
To give an analogy, imagine playing a game of football and suddenly 4 of the players decide they want to play volleyball and pick up the ball. If there aren't constraints against that kind of behavior, that means the rest of the football players have to get up, leave the field, and find somewhere else to continue playing their game.
Yes, can't disagree with that. From my limited experience of online gaming it's usually fairly clear what you're letting yourself in for. I see the point the developers are making now. Still, I maintain my point that allowing people to find new ways to play is a good thing. It just shouldn't be done at the expense of others' enjoyment.
I'll jump on this bandwagon too - they should go the CoD4 way if anything, and have 'targets' to reach, but not achievements.
One of the major issues with online achievements is, how do you get them if no one is online? I was playing Stuntman: Ignition the other day, which is kinda fun, but there are a s**t stack of online achievements to pick up. I went on line and there is NO-ONE playing it. Basically means 500 points+ are unobtainable.
Thing is whoreing began when they set silly achievement targets. If there sensible with them (which GoW wasnt) they wouldn't need to do this in the 1st place.
kill 10000 people being a prime example or kill 100 people with weapon x... its stupid and more to the point BORING
seriously gears of war was quite possibly the worst culprit - it actually put me off playing the online multiplayer on that game as they were all ridiculous!
gears should be shamed and COD4 should be praised - as COD got it spot on 1000 for the game and perks for those who wished to play the mp
Here's an idea. Follow Infinity Ward's example and do away with online achievements altogether. If your game is good, people will play it online anyway.
I'll jump on this bandwagon too - they should go the CoD4 way if anything, and have 'targets' to reach, but not achievements.
One of the major issues with online achievements is, how do you get them if no one is online? I was playing Stuntman: Ignition the other day, which is kinda fun, but there are a s**t stack of online achievements to pick up. I went on line and there is NO-ONE playing it. Basically means 500 points+ are unobtainable.
Exactly, we pretty much all seem to agree that Call of Duty 4 got it right. Lets hope other developers start to take notice. I doubt they will though.
I agree with your second point too. There are a few games in my collection that won't ever get fully finished because nobody plays them online. Pretty stupid really.
There are others like Quake 4 where you can't get the achievements for them because of bugs or glitches. The leaderboards on that game are so glitched, no one can get the achievements.
Exactly, we pretty much all seem to agree that Call of Duty 4 got it right. Lets hope other developers start to take notice. I doubt they will though.
I think that the problem is that many developers are not as confident of the quality of their online modes as Infinity Ward were. Quite a few 360 games have online modes that feel very 'tacked on' and its clear that developers included online achievements on these games to try and entice people to try them online.
Good. I'm glad they're doing something about the cheaters and keeping the system fair for everyone. I still say though acheivements are not a true reflection of how good you are at games, merly the time you have had to play them. That said I'm still quite proud of my genuine score.
dont mean to pick holes, but cod4 has its own in-game achevements so......people still try and cheat with the whole 'help get headshots' thing, cuz they wanna lvl up and reach the top rank, then lvl up again to get the max weapons and stuff.....sorry ^_^
cliffy missed the f**king point... online achievements are absolutely retarded and people will still do the same thing, even if they have to start up a thousand games.
i wouldn't scrap online achievements all together. maybe just limit them to ranking up or overall wins. i think the achievements for online GTA4 are pretty acceptable. so many race wins, rank up, 5 kills in one game and 20 pistol kills. ok it'll maybe take a while to kill a rockstar team member. GOW's achievements are what started this trend of noobing points. 100 grenade kills was the only online achievement i got in that game. mostly cause i got bored with it and it's habit of favouring the host with a 1 shot kill shotgun. but online achievements can be good if done properly like playing so many games, playing each map or track, playing each game type. not by setting ridiculious targets.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
the Achievements in gow1 are to hard had the game since launch only unlocked the easy one remember your 1st kill.
