On Achievements

[finalark]

Link to original post: [drupal=2971]On Achievements[/drupal]



I know that it might be strange posting a blog about gaming now with a majority of the other blogs being about life. But my life is boring and this has been itching the back of my head for way to long and I need to get it off of my chest.

So before I began, I'm going to let you know right off the bat that I hate the Xbox 360. To me, the 360 is a *******ization of the console gaming world and represents everything that is wrong with the gaming industry and style these days. And it also let the frat boys and jocks into what was once previously a nerds-only party. Now for the topic of this blog: achievements.

I'm sure anybody who's been around a modern console gamer knows what Achievements are. You know, those annoying icons that appear on your screen whenever you've done something that's even only sightly impressive? Those are achievements, and while the idea of achievements doesn't sound too bad, they've become another reason why I point to the 360 for everything that's wrong with gaming these days.

I've here some people say "Achievements give me reasons to go back and play my games." And to this I say, "there was once a time when developers had to actually put effort into giving you reasons to go back and play your games. These days they don't even have to put in any side-quests or bonus content. Just toss in a few achievements and then 'bam!' Instant fake replay value." This is the first problem with Achievements, developers know that some people just can't live without those little icons on their screens. So they just put in the bare-minimum additional content (usually mutliplayer) and then just rely on achievements to carry it. For those of you who own a 360 or PS3, I want you to think about how much additional content are in your games, and then compare it to some of your older games. You may notice that older games had a lot more side-quests, additional content, and overall re-playability.

Now here's the second problem: some people will go out and buy a game that they know is bad just because the achievements in it are easy to get. For instance, and friend of mine went out and picked up the mediocre Golden Axe: Beast Rider simply because he heard that the achievements were really easy to get, and he could boost his score with it. Okay, am I the only one who knows how the industry works? Okay kids, it's time for a lesson in how the video game industry works. First, developers create a game, then they put it out on the market. Now, back in days days before the Xbox screwed everything up, if your game got poor reviews, then it probably was not going to sell. However, if the game did sell well despite the reviews that would give the reason for the developers to put out a sequel, usually with the same mediocre quality. But if the game didn't get good reviews and it didn't sell, then the developers will have learned from their mistakes and would try to fix them in their next game. And here's where we get back to the original problem. If you purchase a game that's mediocre in quality just for the achievements, then you are not teaching the developers anything. All you are teaching them is that people are willing to put forward money for a game that is of poor quality just so long as the achievements are easy to get.

tl;dr version: stop buying games that suck because they have achievements that are easy to get. You are not benefiting anyone except the crappy company that made said game.

It might just be because I hate the Xbox 360 and everything it stands for, but I feel absolutely no joy or satisfaction whenever I get a Trophy or an Achievement. To me, it's just an annoying icon on my screen that's distracting me from my game. Now while achievements themselves are an interesting idea, it's what they've become that is the problem. It's a staple in the industry that I'd like to see removed. But once a staple has been placed, it can be difficult to remove it.

 

[Firus]

I agree 100% with this blog.

Achievements are interesting, it's kind of nice to get something for completing certain tasks other than just completing the tasks, but Achievements can just be stupid sometimes. I know you actually get an Achievement in at least one of the Rock Band/Guitar Hero games for failing 10 times or something.

I picked up some random magazine once (I forget which one) and it was a special edition depicting the best ways to get Achievements. Games you can get easy achievements in, games that have large rewards for getting achievements, etc. just to raise your Gamerscore.
There was some point in time where I suddenly realized; wait, does Gamerscore do anything for you?

Nope. Bragging rights, maybe, but who really cares aside from the Xbox-Live-obsessed crowd that throws around "gay" and its synonyms like "the"?

An interesting thing to look at is the game Achievement Unlocked. It's a pretty fun flash game, really, and I'd recommend playing it, but it has a double-feature as a parody of the Achievement system.

 

[finalark]

An interesting thing to look at is the game Achievement Unlocked. It's a pretty fun flash game, really, and I'd recommend playing it, but it has a double-feature as a parody of the Achievement system.

A friend of mine showed me that games a few mouths ago, it was pretty entertaining. And I'll admit that I was having a hard time not having fun when I played it.

I know someone who used to be really into achievements, then he realized that they didn't do anything. Then he had a brillant idea: why not make it so that you can buy stuff from the Xbox Live Arcade with your score? I'm willing to bet that Microsoft would never do that, though.

 

[Firus]

A friend of mine showed me that games a few mouths ago, it was pretty entertaining. And I'll admit that I was having a hard time not having fun when I played it.

I know someone who used to be really into achievements, then he realized that they didn't do anything. Then he had a brillant idea: why not make it so that you can buy stuff from the Xbox Live Arcade with your score? I'm willing to bet that Microsoft would never do that, though.

Yeah, like earning 10 Microsoft Points for every 100 Gamerscore or something -- that wouldn't be a bad idea. But of course, I doubt Microsoft would ever do anything like that.

 

[XFadingNirvanaX]

Nice blog.

Trophys/Achievments are useless and make people feel like their **** don't stink. They're fun to get and to earn at times, but they make every game turn into treasure hunts for useless crap. They take away from the game.

"What do I have to do in this game? Let's ask the achievments."

Instead of exploring the game....we now use a checklist. This is why vgs shouldn't go mainstream.

 

[Poltergust]

Yeah, like earning 10 Microsoft Points for every 100 Gamerscore or something -- that wouldn't be a bad idea. But of course, I doubt Microsoft would ever do anything like that.

Ubisoft has done something like that with UPlay, actually. When I saw it, I was thinking how brilliant it is. I mean, the stuff you can unlock using this system is not amazing or anything, but it is something.

I agree with this blog, by the way.

 

[Hyper_Ridley]

Sometimes I'll use my PS3 trophies as a way to see if I actually completed a task or not in the game, like in Ratchet and Clank a Crack in Time there's nothing that tells you how many space missions you've completed, so I know I've done them all when I get the associated trophy.

But yeah, I agree with this blog. They're fun little things to collect but I'd never want them to become the primay focous of the game industry. Maybe if the achievements were for actual challenges such as doing a low% run on a Metroid game, then they could be used as proof that you did it.

 

[BlargCow]

people who complain about achievements suck at video games. that's why the wii doesnt have any because everyone who plays a wii probably isnt very good at games thats why they are playing a wii.

 

[Jimnymebob]

I don't mind getting Trophies on the PS3, but I've not really gone out of my way to collect them apart from on Sonic Unleashed (due to the fact I always go for full completion on Sonic games), and Noby Noby Boy, but that's mainly because there's not really a lot else to do anyway, and most of them just involve eating stuff and getting things to go onto your BOY's back lol.

But I agree with this blog, especially about buying games solely for their acheivements. I'm sure there was an Avatar game released ages ago for the 360 that had ridiculously easy achievements, so quite a few people bought it.

 

[Jim Morrison]

people who complain about achievements suck at video games. that's why the wii doesnt have any because everyone who plays a wii probably isnt very good at games thats why they are playing a wii.

trololololololol

no seriously get out.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

people who complain about achievements suck at video games. that's why the wii doesnt have any because everyone who plays a wii probably isnt very good at games thats why they are playing a wii.

Let me ask you something. Do you reread your posts over before you post them?

 

[altairian]

I know you actually get an Achievement in at least one of the Rock Band/Guitar Hero games for failing 10 times or something.

Yes, an achievement which rewards someone for being persistent and challenging themselves with a song that's more difficult than they're currently capable of passing (I got this achievement on expert Raining Blood, which btw I can now pass easily, anyone who knows GH3 understands) is a TERRIBLE idea.
(I understand you can just fail on purpose to get it, but I think intent is pretty important, in this particular case)

I'd like to agree with the OP but unfortunately I can't, because you're so blinded by bias it's shocking. The problem is NOT with the concept of achievements. They're actually a fantastic concept, which add to many games. The problem is with the way the GAME DEVELOPERS (not microsoft, my biased friend) have implemented them in to their games. I suppose some blame can be placed on microsoft for requiring every 360 game to have 1000 gamerscore worth of achievements. However, it's not microsoft's fault that game developers are taking the easy way out, and rather than including additional content, they're simply adding stupid/ridiculous achievements.

Now, here's some questions for the OP, in no particular order:
Why is it bad for the gaming industry for people to buy games they wouldn't normally buy, just for the achievements?
Why is it wrong for someone to enjoy getting achievements? Did playing video games suddenly stop being about having fun?
What makes you think that "jocks and frat boys" suddenly started playing video games because of the 360?

And I really take exception to the concept that you should be in some way REWARDED for getting achievements. That truly defeats the purpose of achievements (when they're done RIGHT). Lets take a pretty common example, the achievement Mile High Club in Call of Duty 4. Ask anyone who's gotten it (sadly I haven't =( ) how happy they were when they accomplished that feat. Ask them if they would have bothered if there wasn't an achievement for it. I'm willing to bet that a lot of people wouldn't have. But it's sure as **** some great bragging rights to have gotten that achievement, because it's hard as hell and takes a lot of patience and persistence.

People say that gamers nowadays are too lazy to challenge themselves. Achievements are putting some of the "challenge yourself" back in to video games. The system is far from perfect. But if you stop and get over your hatred of microsoft, you might see some of the pros instead of only the cons.

 

[Firus]

Yes, an achievement which rewards someone for being persistent and challenging themselves with a song that's more difficult than they're currently capable of passing (I got this achievement on expert Raining Blood, which btw I can now pass easily, anyone who knows GH3 understands) is a TERRIBLE idea.
(I understand you can just fail on purpose to get it, but I think intent is pretty important, in this particular case)

Wouldn't it be more logical to just reward people for actually COMPLETING the songs on a higher difficulty?

Why is it bad for the gaming industry for people to buy games they wouldn't normally buy, just for the achievements?

Because the idea of video games is to actually have fun? Because, as finalark said, game developers are getting rewarded for making crappy games just because they have cheap achievements?

Why is it wrong for someone to enjoy getting achievements? Did playing video games suddenly stop being about having fun?

The problem is that people don't ENJOY getting achievements, they go for achievements to get some arbitrary number as a Gamerscore.

And I really take exception to the concept that you should be in some way REWARDED for getting achievements. That truly defeats the purpose of achievements (when they're done RIGHT). Lets take a pretty common example, the achievement Mile High Club in Call of Duty 4. Ask anyone who's gotten it (sadly I haven't =( ) how happy they were when they accomplished that feat. Ask them if they would have bothered if there wasn't an achievement for it. I'm willing to bet that a lot of people wouldn't have. But it's sure as **** some great bragging rights to have gotten that achievement, because it's hard as hell and takes a lot of patience and persistence.

I'm not sure why you have a problem with that. If they're going to throw in some sort of arbitrary number like Gamerscore, then they should make it mean something.

It's not as if you're looking at people who just want to be rewarded for everything in video games. I speed run games and go for minimalist/special runs through them to add replay value and to be able to say that I did them. I just don't understand the arbitrary number that really means absolutely nothing since you could've gotten 1,000 Gamerscore from tackling the most difficult achievements of the most difficult games or 10,000 from buying a million different Avatar-esque games with a ton of easy achievements.

People say that gamers nowadays are too lazy to challenge themselves. Achievements are putting some of the "challenge yourself" back in to video games. The system is far from perfect. But if you stop and get over your hatred of microsoft, you might see some of the pros instead of only the cons.

Why do you need achievements, though? There's nothing in any of the Metroid games that tells you "Try to get as few items as possible" -- in fact, the game's concept encourages you to get a HIGHER percentage of items. There's nothing in Zelda games that says "Try not to get any Heart Containers" -- people came up with that. Instead you've got achievements which just slap some sort of reward on a task you didn't need to have specifically designated. It's more fun to be creative and come up with challenges for yourself in a game than to have the game tell you to try something as a challenge, in my opinion.

(And I don't have anything against Microsoft, I just think achievements are pointless.)

 

[BlargCow]

Let me ask you something. Do you reread your posts over before you post them?

yes i do. no need to hurl insults at me

 

[Darkslash]

Please go play Killzone 2 before complaining about achievements. Alot of them are ACTUAL achievements. Not the "complete this level" kind. But the "Out score 500,000 people and be in the top 10% of the week" kind.

Doesn't hurt that the game is so ****ing hard as well.

 

[Espy Rose]

Please go play Killzone 2 before complaining about achievements. Alot of them are ACTUAL achievements. Not the "complete this level" kind. But the "Out score 500,000 people and be in the top 10% of the week" kind.

Doesn't hurt that the game is so ****ing hard as well.

One game that makes achievements difficult vs. dozens that make them easy to grab doesn't really help in that sense.

 

[Darkslash]

One game that makes achievements difficult vs. dozens that make them easy to grab doesn't really help in that sense.

Well yea that too

But I get a sense of accomplishment from KZ2 achievements. It could be the fact that the game is hard in a 8(?) GB disk, or the fact that "beating the game with out dying" might have something to do with it.

 

[MarthTrinity]

How can you say achievements are bad? Seriously?

If anything, this blog should be about people who ARE achievement/trophy whores, not the feature itself. For example, I consider myself a Trophy *****, I have about...700 or so PS3 Trophies. I have never -ONCE- bought a game thinking "Alright! Easy Trophies!" or have never passed up on a game because it doesn't have any. I have gotten ALL of my Trophies purely from games that I enjoy playing and I've enjoyed getting every Trophy I've ever gotten, sometimes just because of how challenging they were to get.

Having Trophies as replay value instead of quality? You must know some really bad achievement/trophy whores. I borrowed the game Mirror's Edge from my friend and could've probably gotten the Platinum for it with relative ease and a second play through. That game was so BAD in my opinion, the Trophies weren't worth it. They only extend replay value if you actually like the game. For example, I got the Platinum Trophy for Dead Space -AGES- ago. I love that game so much that I still go back and play it; I would've replayed it whether or not it had Trophies. Replay value isn't determined so much by features as it is by fun. We -ALL- know that Super Mario 64 had so much replayability because of how many different plot paths, hidden features and secret characters it had. Oh wait, it didn't have those. It had 120 stars that once you got, you were done. Why did I love that game and replay it so much? Oh yeah, it's FUN. Trophies =/= Replayability. Fun = Replayability

Also on the topic of people buying crappy games for the sake of Trophies/Achievements...it's their own money, if they want to waste it on a crappy game for some virtual backpats, so be it. I'll be buying -FUN- games with my money thanks. Also, Trophies/Achievements don't encourage people to make crappy games and slap on rewards for playing, that mentality has -ALWAYS- been there. Even before achievements/trophies were out, you saw games like Superman 64, Aquaman Battle For Atlantis, M&M's Shell-Shocked...you have -ALWAYS- had crappy games out there and people HAVE bought them, it's not like this is a new low standard or anything and it's not like Trophy/Achievement whores buying them will reduce the amount being made.

Think of this too; back waaaaaaaay back in the day, if you got a certain score on one of those old Atari games, you could snap a picture of your score at the end of the game, send it in to Atari and they'd send you a patch in the mail so you could gloat to your friend/s about how awesome you were at Breakout.

Rewards have always been there in games, achievements/trophies are a simple way of saying "You did good man!" A shiny gold Trophy popping up when I beat God of War's Challenge of the Gods was a nice reminder of "Thank God I did that! It was challenging but worth it!" and then I unlocked a cow costume for Kratos and it made me smile.

 

[urdailywater]

I never even found achievements that special on the games I've played on the Xbox.

I play it with a friend of mine a lot of the times, and he set me up an account on it.. and well I guess they're nice. But like, one time I got an achievement for completing a necessary part of the game. That's BS. I didn't achieve anything. I just played the game.

They felt ******** and I would probably turn them off if I had my own Xbox and knew how to. I don't even know what the points are for tbh. I don't even care, I only care for the Xbox because of the good amount of multiplayer fun it has.

 

[finalark]

I'd like to agree with the OP but unfortunately I can't, because you're so blinded by bias it's shocking. The problem is NOT with the concept of achievements.

Actually if you go back and read it I said that achievements themselves are not the problem, it's what's become of them.

They're actually a fantastic concept, which add to many games. The problem is with the way the GAME DEVELOPERS (not microsoft, my biased friend) have implemented them in to their games.

True. Achievements have been around for much longer than the Xbox. And no, I did not say that Microsoft as implemented them into games in a way that makes them bad. I said the the develpers did, and that Microsoft simply made achievements mainstream.

I suppose some blame can be placed on microsoft for requiring every 360 game to have 1000 gamerscore worth of achievements. However, it's not microsoft's fault that game developers are taking the easy way out, and rather than including additional content, they're simply adding stupid/ridiculous achievements.

Never said it was.

Now, here's some questions for the OP, in no particular order:
Why is it bad for the gaming industry for people to buy games they wouldn't normally buy, just for the achievements?

Did you read the OP, or did you just skim it again? I said why it's bad, just go back and read it.

Why is it wrong for someone to enjoy getting achievements? Did playing video games suddenly stop being about having fun?

Achievements are like anything else, it's okay when moderate. But when it becomes the focus of your game, then that's where things get bad. I know some people who don't give a **** if they're having fun or not, just so long as they can get that icon to appear on their screen.

What makes you think that "jocks and frat boys" suddenly started playing video games because of the 360?

Do you really think that people who are into football and gangster rap really want to play a game where you fight evil with your friends in an epic fantasy setting (Golden Axe)? Or how about a game where you slowly explore a massive and highly atmospheric planet in a Sci-fi universe (Super Metroid)? Or how about a game where you fight the undead while trapped in a mansion (Resident Evil)? Or how about a game where you fly around as a jester in a sereal and imaginatitive dream world (NiGHTS)? Long story short, until the 360 came around, most people like this either thought that video games were the lamest thing in the world (sans games like Madden) or were just indifferent toward them. And I'm speaking from experiance here, I know a number of people who are just like that.

And I really take exception to the concept that you should be in some way REWARDED for getting achievements. That truly defeats the purpose of achievements (when they're done RIGHT). Lets take a pretty common example, the achievement Mile High Club in Call of Duty 4. Ask anyone who's gotten it (sadly I haven't =( ) how happy they were when they accomplished that feat.

It might just be me, but I hate it when people use the "but you feel satified!" thing as an excuse. If something is difficult, then I want an actually reward for my efforts other than just bragging rights. For example, in the first Kingdom Hearts I was overjoyed when I finally beat Sephiroth for the first time. Then I realized that I didn't get anything for it, no keyblade, no abilites, nothing. After that I felt like that was a compleate waste of time, and I started to think about other games I could have been playing instead. This is why I love Mega Man, the robot masters might be difficult, but you're actually rewarded with a new, useful, ability after you beat them.

Ask them if they would have bothered if there wasn't an achievement for it. I'm willing to bet that a lot of people wouldn't have. But it's sure as **** some great bragging rights to have gotten that achievement, because it's hard as hell and takes a lot of patience and persistence.

Read above.

People say that gamers nowadays are too lazy to challenge themselves. Achievements are putting some of the "challenge yourself" back in to video games. The system is far from perfect. But if you stop and get over your hatred of microsoft, you might see some of the pros instead of only the cons.

I think that Firus more or less summed it up for me.

How can you say achievements are bad? Seriously?

Are achievments themselves bad? No. It's how they're being implemented.

If anything, this blog should be about people who ARE achievement/trophy whores, not the feature itself.

Actually the blog is about how achievements/trophies are missused and what they've become.

For example, I consider myself a Trophy *****, I have about...700 or so PS3 Trophies. I have never -ONCE- bought a game thinking "Alright! Easy Trophies!" or have never passed up on a game because it doesn't have any. I have gotten ALL of my Trophies purely from games that I enjoy playing and I've enjoyed getting every Trophy I've ever gotten, sometimes just because of how challenging they were to get.

Well good for you, I just don't feel anything whenver I get a trophy.

Having Trophies as replay value instead of quality? You must know some really bad achievement/trophy whores.

Oh yeah, I know some really bad ach/troph whores. Seriously, like this one guy downloaded "That one vampire game thing" (Castlevania: Symphony of the Night) on his Xbox just because he wanted to get the Achievements. Never mind the fact that he basically blew off one of my favorite games just so he could get his fix (seriously, he didn't even pay attention to the game. He really "needed" those achievements).

I borrowed the game Mirror's Edge from my friend and could've probably gotten the Platinum for it with relative ease and a second play through. That game was so BAD in my opinion, the Trophies weren't worth it. They only extend replay value if you actually like the game.

About ten other people I know more or less counter this based soley off of what they do.

For example, I got the Platinum Trophy for Dead Space -AGES- ago. I love that game so much that I still go back and play it; I would've replayed it whether or not it had Trophies. Replay value isn't determined so much by features as it is by fun.

Well yeah, you're not going to try and get all of the little extras (and this was even in the pre-achievement days) if you didn't think the game was fun. You know, unless you're like some of the people that I know.

We -ALL- know that Super Mario 64 had so much replayability because of how many different plot paths, hidden features and secret characters it had. Oh wait, it didn't have those. It had 120 stars that once you got, you were done. Why did I love that game and replay it so much? Oh yeah, it's FUN. Trophies =/= Replayability. Fun = Replayabilit

The game had 120 stars, and you will not get all of those your first time through. You'll probably go back to the game later to try and get them all if you seriously enjoyed the game. That's replaybility, and the fact that they had a number of hidden areas and stars in the castle helped add some of that too. And Trophes apparently do = replayability because people will go and play through a game (or revisit it) just so they can get all of them.

Also on the topic of people buying crappy games for the sake of Trophies/Achievements...it's their own money, if they want to waste it on a crappy game for some virtual backpats, so be it. I'll be buying -FUN- games with my money thanks.

Well it's very nice to see that you spend your money on games you like. You are not one of the hundreds of people will go out and buy a game for it's trophes, and thus your point is null and void.

Also, Trophies/Achievements don't encourage people to make crappy games and slap on rewards for playing, that mentality has -ALWAYS- been there. Even before achievements/trophies were out, you saw games like Superman 64, Aquaman Battle For Atlantis, M&M's Shell-Shocked...you have -ALWAYS- had crappy games out there and people HAVE bought them, it's not like this is a new low standard or anything and it's not like Trophy/Achievement whores buying them will reduce the amount being made.

And? How many people actually bought these games back in the pre-ach./troph. days? There will always be the insentive to go and make a crappy game for a quick buck, but these days more and more people buy these games for the achievements and trophies.

Think of this too; back waaaaaaaay back in the day, if you got a certain score on one of those old Atari games, you could snap a picture of your score at the end of the game, send it in to Atari and they'd send you a patch in the mail so you could gloat to your friend/s about how awesome you were at Breakout.

I think I mentioned ealier that achievements have been around for a long time.

Rewards have always been there in games, achievements/trophies are a simple way of saying "You did good man!" A shiny gold Trophy popping up when I beat God of War's Challenge of the Gods was a nice reminder of "Thank God I did that! It was challenging but worth it!" and then I unlocked a cow costume for Kratos and it made me smile.

Again, it's not the trophies/achivements that are the problem. It's what's become of them.

 

[altairian]

I read the full OP before making my post. Here are some of my favorite quotes from it:

So before I began, I'm going to let you know right off the bat that I hate the Xbox 360.

Bias. Ugly, stinky bias.

And it also let the frat boys and jocks into what was once previously a nerds-only party.

Elitism! This is my favorite.

while the idea of achievements doesn't sound too bad, they've become another reason why I point to the 360 for everything that's wrong with gaming these days.

Nice. Everything that's wrong with gaming. Classy statement.

These days they don't even have to put in any side-quests or bonus content.

Could you point me to the side quests and bonus content in Contra? How about in Megaman? Just a couple examples for you to chew on. Games with little actual content are NOT new. Games with little to no replay value are NOT new.

some people will go out and buy a game that they know is bad just because the achievements in it are easy to get.

These people are idiots. Gamefly and Blockbuster exist for a reason.


OKAY now on to your reply.

Achievements are like anything else, it's okay when moderate. But when it becomes the focus of your game, then that's where things get bad. I know some people who don't give a **** if they're having fun or not, just so long as they can get that icon to appear on their screen.

So what? How is that a problem with the system? Some people gamble away their entire life savings, is it gambling's fault? Don't blame the problems of the individual on the whole.

Do you really think that people who are into football and gangster rap really want to play a game where you fight evil with your friends in an epic fantasy setting (Golden Axe)? Or how about a game where you slowly explore a massive and highly atmospheric planet in a Sci-fi universe (Super Metroid)? Or how about a game where you fight the undead while trapped in a mansion (Resident Evil)? Or how about a game where you fly around as a jester in a sereal and imaginatitive dream world (NiGHTS)? Long story short, until the 360 came around, most people like this either thought that video games were the lamest thing in the world (sans games like Madden) or were just indifferent toward them. And I'm speaking from experiance here, I know a number of people who are just like that.

Posted in big bold letters to hopefully, get it through your thick skull:
DO YOU REALLY, TRULY THINK THAT BECAUSE A PERSON LIKES FOOTBALL, OR RAP, THAT IT PRECLUDES THEM FROM ALSO BEING IN TO THOSE THINGS YOU LISTED?
If you seriously think that way, stop reading my post, and don't bother replying, because I have no interest in what some spoiled little brat has to say.


If you're still reading, could you please now slap yourself, and then realize that you should be embracing the fact that a bunch of people that are probably pretty cool and fun to be around are finding similar interests to yourself. I'm not saying they all are, because I know how much you'd love to nitpick against reasonable statements. There are douchebags in all walks of life, with interests of all kinds. But stop placing your stereotypes of said douchebags on people that have done nothing to deserve them.

It might just be me, blah blah nonsense about wanting rewards

It is just you. Open your eyes and realize that your preferences are not the only ones that matter.

I think that Firus more or less summed it up for me.

He did a fantastic job of taking my statement to one extreme, and replying to that.

@Firus, I never said achievements were NEEDED. But they are there. So I make the best of them when I want to, and ignore the ones I have no interest in. I don't let them dictate my play any more than "hey that sounds fun, I'll try for that".
Also in reply to your first statement, GH3 has an achievement for beating expert difficulty, an achievement for 5 starring every song on the expert career setlist, and an achievement for full combo'ing 20 songs on expert. Oh and an achievement for passing Through the Fire and Flames, and an achievement for getting 750k points on a song (which can only be accomplished with a near perfect run on Through the Fire and Flames, unless there's a DLC song I don't know about that you can also score that high on). So I think they pretty much covered the "reward you for playing well" achievements.

 

[BlargCow]

~own zone~

 

[Firus]

He did a fantastic job of taking my statement to one extreme, and replying to that.

I didn't do anything like that.

@Firus, I never said achievements were NEEDED.

No, but you implied that achievements allow for something that wasn't already there.

"Achievements are putting some of the "challenge yourself" back in to video games."

But they are there. So I make the best of them when I want to, and ignore the ones I have no interest in. I don't let them dictate my play any more than "hey that sounds fun, I'll try for that".

That's great for you, no one's accusing you of anything. Taking what YOU do and saying that there's nothing wrong with achievements just because you don't do anything like that is illogical. If I had a full arsenal of heavy machine guns I wouldn't run around mass-murdering people, but they're not readily available for everyone because some people would do just that.

(And yes, that's an extreme comparison, and it's purposefully so extreme to fully demonstrate my point. Obviously achievements are not realistically comparable to guns.)

Also in reply to your first statement, GH3 has an achievement for beating expert difficulty, an achievement for 5 starring every song on the expert career setlist, and an achievement for full combo'ing 20 songs on expert. Oh and an achievement for passing Through the Fire and Flames, and an achievement for getting 750k points on a song (which can only be accomplished with a near perfect run on Through the Fire and Flames, unless there's a DLC song I don't know about that you can also score that high on). So I think they pretty much covered the "reward you for playing well" achievements.

I know they have achievements like that. MY point is there's no need to even have a reward for failing at it.

~own zone~

...What? I can't tell if this is just a spam post or if I'm just missing the point.

 

[finalark]

Bias. Ugly, stinky bias.

Don't pretent like you're not.

Elitism! This is my favorite.

Yep. I sure am a raging eilist because I don't like being sworn at and being called gay when I'm just trying to enjoy an online game.

Nice. Everything that's wrong with gaming. Classy statement.

What? I'm just stating my thoughts.

Could you point me to the side quests and bonus content in Contra? How about in Megaman? Just a couple examples for you to chew on. Games with little actual content are NOT new. Games with little to no replay value are NOT new.

Actually there's quite a bit of hidden stuff in both of those games. Plus you could always go through Mega Man fighting bosses in a differant order than you did last time, or you could tackle Contra with a buddy the second time around.

These people are idiots. Gamefly and Blockbuster exist for a reason.

Glad we can agree on something.

So what? How is that a problem with the system?

Um... it isn't. I never said it was. You're taking my dislike for the Xbox and seriously blowing it out of perportion.

Some people gamble away their entire life savings, is it gambling's fault?

Nope, it's the addiction to gambling that's the problem. Just like the addiction to achievements.

Don't blame the problems of the individual on the whole.

Good advice, I'll keep it in mind.

Posted in big bold letters to hopefully, get it through your thick skull:
DO YOU REALLY, TRULY THINK THAT BECAUSE A PERSON LIKES FOOTBALL, OR RAP, THAT IT PRECLUDES THEM FROM ALSO BEING IN TO THOSE THINGS YOU LISTED?
If you seriously think that way, stop reading my post, and don't bother replying, because I have no interest in what some spoiled little brat has to say.

BEING INTO FOOTBALL AND RAP DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY CAN'T LIKE VIDEO GAMES. IN MY EXPERIANCE, PEOPLE WHO ARE GENERALLY ASSOCIATED WITH THESE THINGS HAVE NO INTEREST IN VIDEO GAMES. I WAS SIMPLY TRYING TO GENERALIZE SO THAT WAY I DIDN'T HAVE TO WRITE A PARAGRAPH THAT LISTS EVERY SINGLE GROUP THAT MOST MEMBERS OF PROBABLY DIDN'T CARE FOR VIDEO GAMES BEFORE THE XBOX.
No, use that head of yours and think. Of course I don't think like that, that would be stupid and ignorant. So stop getting on my *** for not being politically correct.

If you're still reading, could you please now slap yourself, and then realize that you should be embracing the fact that a bunch of people that are probably pretty cool and fun to be aroundare finding similar interests to yourself.

Somebody here clearly didn't have the same childhood as I did....

I'm not saying they all are, because I know how much you'd love to nitpick against reasonable statements. There are douchebags in all walks of life, with interests of all kinds. But stop placing your stereotypes of said douchebags on people that have done nothing to deserve them.

I'm sure that many of these people are nice and fun to be around. It's just that I've never met them.

Spoiler

/sarcasim on the last sentice

Now look, I know it's unfair to judge people based off of what they're into. I'm willing to bet that one of these days I will meet someone like this and s/he might just end up become a good friend.

It is just you. Open your eyes and realize that your preferences are not the only ones that matter.

You too.[/QUOTE]

 

[altairian]

Yep. I sure am a raging eilist because I don't like being sworn at and being called gay when I'm just trying to enjoy an online game.

lol. You think nerds don't swear and call people gay? What the **** world do you live in?

Actually there's quite a bit of hidden stuff in both of those games. Plus you could always go through Mega Man fighting bosses in a differant order than you did last time, or you could tackle Contra with a buddy the second time around.

And clearly, recent games that fall under your category of "bad" don't incorporate such INNOVATIVE IDEAS as killing things in a different order, or multiplayer!

Somebody here clearly didn't have the same childhood as I did....

Maybe I did, maybe I didn't. I got made fun of as a kid just like anyone else. The difference is I realize that I was being made fun of by CHILDREN. And I became friends with some of those same people in high school. Because *gasp* we happened to have similar interests (smash being high on that list! ). And some of them were "fratboy" types.

Next time you go to a smash tournament, take a second and actually LOOK at the people around you. You're gonna see a pretty broad spectrum of people that appear to fit various stereotypes just at a glance. Step two is actually talk to them! It sounds crazy I know, but that guy who's talking **** while he beats some nerdy looking dude probably isn't a huge douchebag, that's just how he's used to interacting with people while he's competing. Talk to him outside of the game and you'll probably find him to be a perfectly nice fellow.

You too.

er, what? At what point did I say that you were wrong for the way that you enjoy games? Or anyone else?

 

[finalark]

lol. You think nerds don't swear and call people gay? What the **** world do you live in?

Yeah, nerds do such things. However, I noticed it's not very often (when it comes to myself and other nerds I know anyway).

And clearly, recent games that fall under your category of "bad" don't incorporate such INNOVATIVE IDEAS as killing things in a different order, or multiplayer!

Stop puting words in my mouth. I never said that a game is bad if it doesn't have good replay value. I also never said anything about innovation, so stop making stuff up.

Maybe I did, maybe I didn't. I got made fun of as a kid just like anyone else. The difference is I realize that I was being made fun of by CHILDREN. And I became friends with some of those same people in high school. Because *gasp* we happened to have similar interests (smash being high on that list! ). And some of them were "fratboy" types.

Different experiances, once I got into High School I decided that a lot of those people had grown up and might even be into the same things I'm into.

Most of them haven't mentally matured past the age of eleven, and the other few have no interest in anything I like.

Next time you go to a smash tournament, take a second and actually LOOK at the people around you. You're gonna see a pretty broad spectrum of people that appear to fit various stereotypes just at a glance. Step two is actually talk to them! It sounds crazy I know, but that guy who's talking **** while he beats some nerdy looking dude probably isn't a huge douchebag, that's just how he's used to interacting with people while he's competing. Talk to him outside of the game and you'll probably find him to be a perfectly nice fellow.

Whenever I got to a competition for anything, I usually try to get to know the people I'm going to be playing with. In most cases, the guy who seems like he's a jerk really is even outside of when he's playing. Although I'd be lieing if I said that I haven't been suprised in the past.

er, what? At what point did I say that you were wrong for the way that you enjoy games? Or anyone else?

I'll leave that up to you.

 

[altairian]

I never said that a game is bad if it doesn't have good replay value. I also never said anything about innovation, so stop making stuff up.

You really failed to follow the train of thought on this one. You said people buy "bad games" for achievements. And that games are using achievements as a substitute for side quests and extra content. I then pointed out contra and megaman as games that have very little actual content. And you said "hey, kill order, multiplayer". And then I got all crazy and went back to what we were originally talking about, the achievement era "bad games" that you claim have so little content, and pointed out that they can (and most llikely do) incorporate crazy elements such as multiplayer as well! Do you see what I'm driving at here?

Anyways, to sum up everything I've been saying in a neat little cliche: don't rain on other people's parade. You don't like it? nobody's forcing you to do it.

 

[MarthTrinity]

Again, it's not the trophies/achivements that are the problem. It's what's become of them.

Oh. Alrighty then. Thanks for taking the time to read my comment =)

 

[MarKO X]

speed runs, perfect runs, alternate ending, and the like don't mean **** anymore.

that achievements unlocked game is awesome.

edit: contra and mega man have more content that tons of games out now.
believe it.

edit #2: rappers have always been into video games.

"Super Nintendo, Sega Genesis.
When I was dead broke, man I couldn't picture this."

- Biggie.

he even had a Street Fighter game in the video.

 

[altairian]

edit: contra and mega man have more content that tons of games out now.
believe it.

Examples? And you have played contra right? The entire game can be played in about 10 or 15 minutes.

 

[Man of Popsicle]

Someone mentioned recieving items of monetary value for the accumulation of gamer score. This would be counter productive for developers though, giving people stuff would cause the consumer to, most likely, spend their time actually finishing their old games instead of buying new ones, and would make games more of a chore than a fun activity. Two things I'm sure they don't want.

 

[MarKO X]

Examples? And you have played contra right? The entire game can be played in about 10 or 15 minutes.

If you define content as "length of the game + extra bonuses that probably don't mean ****" then yeah, Contra has minimal content.

However, the design of Contra is brilliant. The game is hard as hell, if not harder, so there's no way in hell your first play through of Contra was 10 to 15 minutes. On your first play, you died. Too much. And got Game Over. And burnt up all your continues to get that ultimate Game Over that you don't even see in today's games anymore because nearly every game, including the "hardcore" games, are a ****ing cakewalk.

****. Now you gotta start all over. Learning patterns. Knowing that this comes out here. Knowing that comes out there. Boom. You've finally finished that first level.

Now we got the second one.

Et cetera.

Fast forward, you finally beat the game. You feel this sense of... achievement.

Omg, is that... yes it is, another difficulty. Same levels, but nearly completely changes the way you gotta play the game because everything that can kill you is coming out faster and harder than it did before. You're not doing this in 10 to 15 minutes of your first try either.

The process of the dedicated player to a difficult game as such repeats itself.

Fast forward. You finally beat the game on its hardest difficulty. You once again feel this sense of... Achievement.

But look, now there are soooo many different ways to try and play this game now. Maybe you don't wanna use continues. Maybe you wanna do it faster. Maybe you want to make sure you don't use a certain weapon. Maybe you only wanna use the default machine gun. All of these possible "achievements" without them being spoonfed to you by Microsoft. Ahhh... the good ol' days.

So yeah, 10 to 15 minutes of gameplay just turned into a wealth of replay value out of nowhere... of course, that's if you're that dedicated to the game. hell, I wouldn't even play Contra with just the default machine gun, **** that. but it's there. Achievements already exist in the good, old school videos games if you were willing to look for stuff to do, as opposed to today, where achievements are spoon fed to the player because, well, the game just ain't worth being replayed to begin with.

 

[altairian]

Great post. Except not only did you fail to give an example of a CURRENT GAME that has LESS content than the games I listed...you also failed to understand the fundamental difference between "difficulty" and "content".

You know that flash helicopter game where you hold the mouse button down to go up, and release it to go down? That game's pretty **** hard. But there's basically no "content" to it. Just an unforgiving design with a few minutes of gameplay that you play over and over.

There are plenty of challenging games out there, people just fail to recognize that fact because clearly a game having an "easy" setting means the game isn't difficult. Stop being so elitist as to think that everyone should get their enjoyment out of bashign their heads against difficult games. It's a game, it's made for fun. Some people like, for example, just shooting baddies without having to worry about dying. There's nothing wrong with that.

 

[MarKO X]

I never said that difficulty and content were one and the same.
I also never said that a game has to be hard to be good.
Contra had an easy setting, so having and easy setting means nothing.

It's about the quality of the games, the genius of a game's design. Contra is hard. It was designed to be hard. And through that difficulty comes the replay value. You'll want to replay that game because the game was good. It wasn't difficult because the controls were wonky or because you couldn't see anything. It was difficult because it was difficult. Despite the difficulty, you would go back and play that game again. Why? Because it was a good game.

The same can be said about Mega Man 2, Super Mario *insert end of title here*, Sonic the Hedgehog 1-3&K, Chrono Trigger, F-Zero, etc. All of those games have varying difficulties, and even F-Zero has an "easy" setting. :/ But it's not about difficulty. It's about whether or not a game is fun to the point where after you played it and beat it, you're still going back for more.

You talk about content? Well, how about some questions:

1) You have game A that takes you 14 minutes to beat (on whatever difficulty setting you like), but you end up playing it for hours every time you pop it in, and you have game B that takes you 14 hours to beat, but once you've beaten it, you're practically ready for the sequel. Which game has more content?
2) You earlier state that Achievements were Needed. Why do you think that is so?
3) Do cutscenes count as content? (I'm just throwing that one out there because I have my own opinion about cutscenes...)
4) Why does everyone with an opinion that puts down one thing and glorifies another have to be elitist? 4b) Is someone who says that American Football is garbage compare to World Football elitist?

 

[BlargCow]

1) You have game A that takes you 14 minutes to beat (on whatever difficulty setting you like), but you end up playing it for hours every time you pop it in, and you have game B that takes you 14 hours to beat, but once you've beaten it, you're practically ready for the sequel. Which game has more content?
2) You earlier state that Achievements were Needed. Why do you think that is so?
3) Do cutscenes count as content? (I'm just throwing that one out there because I have my own opinion about cutscenes...)
4) Why does everyone with an opinion that puts down one thing and glorifies another have to be elitist? 4b) Is someone who says that American Football is garbage compare to World Football elitist?

1. Technically Game B has more content. Can't any game have infinite replayability?
3. yes
4.a you were acting like games today aren't worth playing because they aren't rewarding which isn't true.
b. yes

 

[Firus]

Okay, I don't mean to sound obnoxious, but why do you guys have to be so hostile towards each other? It seems like everyone is just going back and forth trying to point out gaping maws of bias and elitism in each others' arguments because they disagree with each other. Can't we have a civil debate on what's wrong/right with an Achievements system?

If everyone just keeps in mind that everyone has their own opinion and that no one is inherently right in one way or another, I think this would be a lot more successful. Some people in this thread prefer short games that are more difficult and find less difficult ones to be less rewarding, and others find longer games with less difficulty but more content to be more rewarding and fun. Neither group is right, you've all got your own opinion.

 

[altairian]

1) You have game A that takes you 14 minutes to beat (on whatever difficulty setting you like), but you end up playing it for hours every time you pop it in, and you have game B that takes you 14 hours to beat, but once you've beaten it, you're practically ready for the sequel. Which game has more content?
2) You earlier state that Achievements were Needed. Why do you think that is so?
3) Do cutscenes count as content? (I'm just throwing that one out there because I have my own opinion about cutscenes...)
4) Why does everyone with an opinion that puts down one thing and glorifies another have to be elitist? 4b) Is someone who says that American Football is garbage compare to World Football elitist?

1. Most likely game B. Unless it's Asassin's Creed. Fun game but...definitely severely lacking in anything other than stabbing people in the throat for fun. Doing the same section of a game over and over doesn't make the game have more content, just means it has stuff that you want to/are forced to play over and over. For example: Guitar Hero 3 had more content (songs) than Guitar Hero 2. If I play GH2 more than GH3 that doesn't change the amount of content each game has, just the amount of time I've played each game. Also, I'm not blindly saying more content = better game, I'm just arguing against the generalization about current games lacking content in favor of achievements, when really there have been games with very little content throughout all of gaming history.

2. I'm amazed that this is the second time that I have to say that I never said achievements are needed. I said that they help people to challenge themselves when they otherwise might have just put a game down and moved on.

3. I consider story to be "content". Some games totally overdo it on cutscenes, but in general I'd say yeah.

4. It's not about putting down THINGS, it's about putting down people. Such as people that like playing for gamerscore. Or people that play games for story rather than difficulty (not saying that was done specifically in this thread, but it's something I've seen happen).

 

[Jimnymebob]

Achievements and Trophies are good ideas, and they are implemented into most games well. All they serve for is to give you some optional things to do once you have finished the game, GTA IV being a great example of this. Once you have finished the story, you can screw around, which'll probably get you some Trophies, or play multiplayer, which'll probably get some trophies. However, you don't really need to go out of the way to get them, such as one for getting 180 in darts- that's simple enough, and you'll probably get that during the story mode, or whilst playing darts as it'll probably put you in the lead.

No one is forcing anyone to go out of their way for trophies. I recently downloaded Worms for the PS3, and there's a trophy for getting however many thousands worth of damage. Will I sit down and play until I get it; no, because there's no point- I'll probably get it over the many different times I play the game, or not at all. It makes no difference whether you get it, because I'm a fan of the Worms games but I'm probably never going to play on it that often.

So yeah, achievements and trophies aren't a bad thing, and it's up to you whether you want to go out of your way to get them or not. It's similar to getting all the stars on Mario 64, or all the Chaos Emeralds on Sonic 3; if you want to get them it's up to you, and you probably will try if you enjoy the game, but ultimately you won't gain anything other than satisfaction of doing it, and spending some more time on a game that you like.

 

[Requiem]

I just got my ps3 a few months ago and am finally enjoying being able to say "Hey I can actually go out and play that game when it comes out" after I've read a review/ heard all my idort friends talking about the game. I've known about achievements since they where there ofcourse, and always have, and still do share your opinion.

They however, CAN be fun, if they are put in as an extra. I tend to think that that's also how they where meant to be viewed as. For instance things like titles you could get in WAR, you would get them for doing stuff like jumping off a cliff 10 times, or walking around naked (without any equipment) for 15 minutes. They CAN be alot of fun. All I guess I can say is that the new gaming generation (the jocks, and other people, that used to make fun of gamers) that started playing since "GAMING" has become mainstream, ruined the whole idea on them.

 

[Firus]

Achievements and Trophies are good ideas, and they are implemented into most games well. All they serve for is to give you some optional things to do once you have finished the game, GTA IV being a great example of this. Once you have finished the story, you can screw around, which'll probably get you some Trophies, or play multiplayer, which'll probably get some trophies. However, you don't really need to go out of the way to get them, such as one for getting 180 in darts- that's simple enough, and you'll probably get that during the story mode, or whilst playing darts as it'll probably put you in the lead.

No one is forcing anyone to go out of their way for trophies. I recently downloaded Worms for the PS3, and there's a trophy for getting however many thousands worth of damage. Will I sit down and play until I get it; no, because there's no point- I'll probably get it over the many different times I play the game, or not at all. It makes no difference whether you get it, because I'm a fan of the Worms games but I'm probably never going to play on it that often.

So yeah, achievements and trophies aren't a bad thing, and it's up to you whether you want to go out of your way to get them or not. It's similar to getting all the stars on Mario 64, or all the Chaos Emeralds on Sonic 3; if you want to get them it's up to you, and you probably will try if you enjoy the game, but ultimately you won't gain anything other than satisfaction of doing it, and spending some more time on a game that you like.

Did you read the OP...? His problem with Achievements wasn't that there are extras to do...people who "go out of their way to get them" are those who buy crappy games only so they can get tons of Achievements, not people who just enjoy going for full completion of a game.