• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

On Achievements

Neherazade

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
359
Location
Gensokyo.
Personally, I've always loved achievements. having goals, however meaningless, helps to keep the game interesting. But there is a problem when it starts to deteriorate the value of the games. achievements telling you to fail, for instance just motivate people to boost their score, not to enjoy the game...

microsoft (along with many other companies) had the right idea, but terrible execution...
 

CRASHiC

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 27, 2008
Messages
7,267
Location
Haiti Gonna Hait
Achievements is the single most shallow game design element I've ever seen and to me is the perfect example of what's wrong with gaming this generation, especially since people think their expected and important, when in reality, the person who made the game probably put very little thought into them. I mean, I do 100 focus attacks in SF4 and I get an achievement? Why? The difference between achievements and in game achievements is that in game achievements comes with some sort of reward, and generally planed out by the game designers, such as the token's in Spider Man Ultimate or the million ester eggs in all of the Metal Gear Solid games. Achievements are just a way to avoid doing that with no real work on the game designers part.
 

altairian

Smash Lord
Joined
Jun 13, 2009
Messages
1,594
Location
Ballston Spa, NY
I think the fundamental flaw in all of the anti-achievement logic posted in this thread is the assumption that if the 360-style achievements did not exist, then the developers would make their games differently than they are.

They are not a "game design" element. They are a "console design" element. If they were a "game design" element, then you'd probably find them being utilized a lot better than they are. If I were a developer I know I'd be pretty **** annoyed being forced to come up with achievements for a game like, oh lets say street fighter 4, where achievements are pretty much ******** and what can you really do other than "beat arcade mode on hard" and "win matches online"?
 

StealthyGunnar

Smash Champion
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
2,137
Location
West St. Paul, MN
Although people do buy games just to get achievements, I couldn't care less. I think I'm speaking for a lot of people when I say that I don't play games for the achievements. I don't EVEN CARE about getting them!

I just got and Xbox 360 to play with friends, I couldn't give a sh*t about achievements.
 

Jimnymebob

Smash Champion
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
2,020
NNID
Jimnymebob
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.
Yes, I did read the OP thank you very much; and I commented on that on the first page of the thread. However, I was just trying to sway the conversation from being a case of "I like this and I'm right" followed by "No I like something else and that is better" that has been going on for a whole page by giving my opinion on the matter.
 

Sucumbio

Smash Chachacha
Moderator
Writing Team
Joined
Oct 7, 2008
Messages
8,447
Location
wahwahweewah
no ****. so the xbox 360 has a "gamerscore" which is added to by accomplishing "achievements" that are set forth by each game you buy. and the games themselves have a minimum of 1000 points worth. wooooow. I had no idea it was like that.

so how does the trophy thing work for PS3? do ps3 developers have a likewise minimum??

I can see the logic of the xbox 360's achievement system lending itself to an increase in shovelware, insofar as I can see the possiblity for a trend in XBOX live participants leading to droves of lame-*** kids all being "look at my high score!" when in fact their "high" scores were actually reached by playing "easy" games. But is that REALLY the case? I haven't checked out xbox live so I wouldn't know, but it sounds like it'd suck, lol. But, I suppose it is a matter of perspective.

I mean, I got no leaderboard recognition for maxing out the librarian's monster book in SOTN, or for getting the rocket launcher in RE, or for getting a Patch from activision for "beating" Pitfall (play the full 20 minutes and you had to have a certain minimum score that I can't remember I was like, 5 lol) and yet I did these things, for the sole knowledge that I did them, that I accomplished something that went above and beyond the typical gaming experience. Nerdy? Sure! And proud of it. But this is where perspective is key... GTA3. That game.... heh, yeah, I mean REAL thugs, playing that game, as devoted as I was to Pitfall. But the key difference, they weren't playing the actual game! They'd skip adventure mode and just roll around town jacking cars and shooting cops, lol. While in a bunch. Alone though, yeah all up in that adventure mode, uness it got too difficult, then it was back to jackin cars and rollin' prostitutes.

This of course way before 360. Before that? Killer Instinct for some reason... Jago man, pick Jago! I'm like, you don't even stand a chance but ok, you be Jago, I'll be everyone else, lol Cause I'd gone to gamefaqs (game what? Oh naw man I ain't got no internet) and learned everyone's ultra combos, learned how "connector" combos worked, to string two hyper through blaster together, or an awesome and 2 supers, endless fun.

Perspective. It's hard to find when you're in your gaming infancy but after **** near 30 years I can tell you there are the same types of gamers now as there have always been... casuals, wanna be's, pros, nerds, *****, cheap *****, button mashers, better than average, average, worse than average, newbs, the list is seemingly endless, but everyone sits somewhere on the list. If you really are buying cheap games just to get the easy gamerpoints, than you're a sad excuse for a gamer. The games themselves should NOT be any worse or better for it. You (I assume) can play the game completely oblivious to this point system, and so long as you're doing what you're supposed to do to beat the game, you will probably earn some points... I remember doing some crazy acrobatic kill in MP3: Corruption and an icon popped up "Stylish kill!!" or something and i was like, what. really tho? ha ok, thanks for telling me what I already know. But whatever...

I was afraid my OCD nature *I'm the gamer that HAS to get every last **** item in the game, completion *****, etc* would preclude my buying a 360 or PS3 now that I know this crap is involved, but I have thought about it more while writing this response, and I have decided I will still get one, or both. I want the xbox 360 for the xbox arcade titles, Prince of Persia looks awesome... and I want a PS3 for MGS4... VF online is 360 iirc ... yeah I want both, but right now can afford neither, lol. but this did shed some light on what the current gen has become, and it strikes me as just a little suspect, almost as if both companies thought that they needed to out-gimmick Nintendo and the Wii. I mean we may as well just call this the Gimmick Generation of gaming. Wii motes, gamerpoints, trophies. But I'm also one that thinks that guitar hero is a gimmick, that rock band is too, that DDR was, that the friggin' light zapper even was. I just want a joystick, and a firebutton and pitfall harry humping a scorpion. ok nah I just kiddin' I like the zapper, but I still hate rock band.
 

finalark

SNORLAX
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
7,829
Location
Tucson, Arizona
That was an interesting post, and I guess it it really is about perspective.

Also, I'm not sure if they have a minimum requirement for the amount of Trophies you have to have on PlayStation, but on PSN the more Trophies you have, the higher your level. Same basic idea as the gamer score on 360.

Also, Prince of Persia is on the PS3 as well as the 360. It was good, but it wasn't a super-awesome as some websites would have you think (and this is comming from a PoP fanboy).
 

Sucumbio

Smash Chachacha
Moderator
Writing Team
Joined
Oct 7, 2008
Messages
8,447
Location
wahwahweewah
really! ok, yeah, I'll admit my interest was generated by reading a ::gag:: IGN review, but what caught me was the fluidity. And speed... I was like wow, cause compared to like, the Mac game, or SNES game, PC, etc PoP was totally fluid, but the running was more realistic, in the vid I saw of the new one it's like he's on steroids or something... is it an exact level map to the original or is it new maps too? Remember PoP II: The Shadow and The Flame? That was tight! I still have it on mac, lol was just playing it recently... I did try one of the newer ones, PS2 game, but I couldn't get passed the style changes, it was like kinda like The Matrix in terms of gameplay, idk, just didn't -feel- like PoP. But I'm glad I'm not alone in thinking the PoP franchise is awesome. Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time looks tight, as far as movies go, and of course there should be a whole battery of games to follow, hopefully one w/Wii controls to maximize that coolness.
 
Top Bottom