Print

Add to Reputation:  

What do you think of this post?

I agree I disagree  
Comment:

[Jeron [SharpSh00tah]]

DIRECTLY QUOTED FROM
http://www.gamernode.com/columns/75-tyler-cameron/8709-do-achievements-ruin-videogames/index.html

I feel it's safe to assume most gamers would agree that Achievements have been a good thing for gaming. For many, Achievement collecting has become just another layer of their addictions to videogames.

I am one of those people who collect Achievements (and to a lesser extent, Trophies). I have spent countless hours toiling away in front of my TV, striving for nothing more than the telltale indicator to pop up, letting me know that at long last my work has paid off and that I have added another meaningless milestone to my Gamerscore -- currently at 51,488 -- a score that literally means nothing. And it is totally addictive and fun, which is the problem.

It's not really a new concept, but I am here to say that Achievements have ruined gaming for me on a personal level because I find it very difficult to ever play games that don't have them. My initial thought when deciding which game to play is, "Why play a game that won't reward me in a way that the 360 ones will? It's the main reason why I never went back and played all four Metal Gear Solid games in canon order. It's the reason why I haven't really gotten into my Virtual Console games on the Wii, and the reason why I haven't gone back and replayed countless other games that I loved the first time around.

It's been a slow realization of what a horrible way to approach gaming that is. To only play the games that reward me with a meaningless point value is so narrow-minded, yet I can't seem to bring myself to ignore the effect Achievements have on me. Why?

For me, Achievements add a sense of completion to games, encourage competition, and in many cases persuade me to play videogames I might not have ever played. Achievements will even get me to continue playing a game longer than normal just for the sake of grabbing a few extra points.

But often they can have an adverse effect, and just ruin a game forever.

For instance, I can never play Left 4 Dead again because of my fevered attempts at trying to get a few of the game's hardest Achievements. Never has a game filled me with such white-hot rage as L4D. I'm talking heart-pumping, spit-flying-because-I'm-screaming, adrenaline-filled rage because some of the Achievements are so hard to unlock. It even engendered a fight between my girlfriend and I that lasted a week, and is still embarrassingly brought up during heated moments. How's that for Achievements ruining a game? At least I can say I learned my lesson not to take things so seriously in L4D2.

Online Achievements have also ruined many a game for me, or least hurt my experience playing them. There's nothing like being kicked out of a game lobby because I wouldn't let the other team win or kill me for Achievements.

There's also nothing like having a game where it is seriously impossible to get the online Achievements simply because no one is f*cking playing them.

The Darkness? Prey? Shadowrun? Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter? The Chronicles of Riddick: Assault on Dark Athena? Condemned 2? They are either too old, or have poorly implemented multiplayer, or both -- and whatever fanbase these games did have has moved on to greener pastures, leaving dozens of unobtainable Achievements that I nor anyone else will ever acquire.

Speaking of Achievements no one will ever get, let's take a moment to laugh and then feel bad for anyone who still owns a copy of NBA Live 07.

If we still need further proof that Achievements have affected gaming in a negative way, then here's a little anecdote that some of you might be able to relate to:

Back in late 2006 I played a lot of Gears of War. I'll never forget this one little kid playing on the other team, who politely asked if my team would stand still for the entirety of the match so he could snipe us in the head, working toward the Achievement of getting 100 kills with the sniper rifle and 100 head shots at the same time.

We declined his request with all possible variations on the word "no."

Listening to the boy whine and chirp, his high-pitched voice becoming more and more desperate, I started to see a problem with Achievements because in a way, I felt his grief. Or, I did until he resorted to rage-quitting and leaving his team short-handed. These sorts of things probably happen on a day-to-day basis on Xbox Live just because people are assholes and will do asinine things to get Achievements at the detriment of other players.

Still, I feel there's no hope for me in getting over my addiction to Achievements, even having said all this; they're just too important to my sense of completion and my competitive nature with my friends on XBL.

Unfortunately, realizing and identifying the problem is only half the battle. I guess the only thing I can ask is if there's anyone out there who can relate in any way. Anyone?


I think if anyone gets so pissed at video games that they start screaming AND also, if they do nothing except play the videogame only to leave the laire to use the bathroom, should'nt be playing the game in the first place.

IMO, I think that achievements give another element of game play. It makes you want to play the game longer than you would if you just finished the SP mode. Especially if the achievements unlock guns and/or characters, maps and etc.

[kraid]

It really depends on the implementation.
I saw games giving you achivements for rediculess things like watching the intro movie.

IMO the companies should decide how many achivements they put into their game instead of M$ forcing them to put in a certain points value.

Games like Oblivion can handle a lot more achivements then a straight FPS with a playtime of 5 hours.
I'm also more a Fan of the old Unlockables method.

In the end Gamerpoints are just another e-penis thing.

[Enzo.Matrix]

I linked KM a flash game a while back.  It was basically an example of what NOT to do...  you would get achievements for each menu you opened, playing the game for 3,5,10,15 min...  executing a basic player move.

It was just retarded and a total disregard to what achieving something actually means.

[Konrad Beerbaum]

Wasn't that the point of that game? To be so ridiculous to make a point...

[Mangley]

It depends on their implementation and overall purpose.

Many games just use achievements in multiplayer purely to get people to play for longer. It's a devious tactic and it does work very effectively because at heart almost everyone is a completionist.

There are a lot of examples of good and bad implementation of achievements.

Good implementation usually involves the achievements reinforcing gameplay by rewarding the player for playing well and doing what they're supposed to be doing, and also encouraging the player to use different techniques of gameplay. TF2 is a good example, despite it having a hell of a lot of achievements most are fairly straight-forward and many you will unlock just by playing normally, there are only a small handful of grinding achievements. Also you are rewarded with milestone weapons for them.

In contrast Day of Defeat: Source has bad implementation of achievements for multiplayer, the vast majority of them are simply X kills with a certain weapon or class. They're not too much of a grind but they do require considerable time investment.

Achievements should never be stupidly easy like 'complete the first mission' and only a very small number should be incredibly hard. Hundreds of achievements is not a good thing.

At the end of the day they're meaningless, I don't take them seriously, though I have to admit I do purposely work towards them, using specific weapons etc and I do invest more time generally into playing than I would if there were no achievements.

[Wake[of]theBunT]

I think achievements in our game is 500% win. Simply because ge64 could never do it in this sense. We have a blank and epic canvas for this implementation. I still get a better buzz from the "awards" because they are good fun and throw at you positive and negative sides of the award. Which is a better lesson.

As for retail games, I dont play any really that have achievements. And I see this debate in the article is mostly dealing with XBL gaming. Which i never got into

[killermonkey]

I don't give two shits about achievements. I would rather have a game that is fun to play then one with 500 achievements. It gets annoying after a while, trolling through TF2's achievement list is laughable and sad at the same time.

I think, biased opinion here, we have struck a good balance between fun achievements and hard achievements with GES. As a mod we take what we like and hate about retail games and strike that middle line. That is essentially the power of modding, being able to take from all other games and make the uber game.

Achievements haven't ruined gaming, people who obsess about achievements have ruined gaming (no offense Jeron). Achievement farming is despicable and counter to the nature of gaming itself. Playing GE64 the achievement was being able to punch your friend for armor camping....

[Konrad Beerbaum]

Personally, I don't really care about achievements, if I complete them it is because they are fun to do, or unlock something meaningful like new game modes and stuff like that. Otherwise I ignore them.   

One of the benefits of achievements as a game developer is that you can use them to encourage experimentation with certain types of gameplay that players might not otherwise discover. 

[Jeron [SharpSh00tah]]

(no offense Jeron).

Lmfao, we are on the same page lol I already said one who is obsessed about the game should not be playing in the first place.

[killermonkey]

Oh, I missed the point of this post lol. I didn't realize the first part was a quote from the website.....

[Mangley]

Modern console gaming is really setting some bad trends, particularly with regards to multiplayer.

Look at Modern Warfare 2, GTA IV and Aliens vs Predator... the multiplayer lobby/matching system takes away control from server owners and players alike in favour of a 'console-friendly' dummed down system.

[coolDisguise]

Well, I'd like to quote all of you, but that wouldn't make sense, would it?

So... here's what I think. Like Kraid I liked that old unlockables method and I often come to think of achievements as an approach to make games more casual friendly, so casual gamers will get everything in the game without doing anything/much and providing a challenge for hardcore gamers at the same time.
The sad thing about this: a mere score+ (Windows Live, XBox Live)or a viewable status on some community page (Steam) isn't as encouraging as EXCLUSIVE unlockables.
Nevertheless I also have to agree with Jeron, it indeed adds a sense of completion to games and with everyone being a little of an completionist (like Mangly said) this really extends your playing time. When it comes to good and bad achievements there are some points in which I have to disagree with Mangley and Wake.
When you're seeing achievements as kind of a 'completion list' it's only natural to have some unlock autmatically as you progress in the game (following an eventual storyline if there is one) and so there would definitely be some "too easy to get"-achievements along with that. But I wouldn't say "too easy" qualifies for "bad" in every case.
For me, achievements should be both: rational and fun to get, so I'd say a bad achievement would be something that involves pure grinding and that's the point where I come to diasagree with Wake: unfortunately there are many 750 kills achievements (weapon achievements agent - 00 agent) in GE: S which are just grinding and sometimes can lead to behaviour of ignoring the game mode because the loadout finally gave you the weapons you still need to farm kills with in order to "work" torwards the achievement. :- (
But at least the other non-farming achievements make up for that.
Well, just 3 weapons to go, so I'll do them anyway sooner or later. ^^
In general I think the design goal for achievements is/should be: introducing the player to game modes he/she wouldn't have played (Last Agent Standing), showing advanced mechanics to player (Ufo-owning), having the player showing some skill (Scaramanga's Pride, Russian Roulette, Shaken but not disturbed).
The difference in difficulty between achievements could either be expressed in granting more completion percentage or (like Microsoft does) having scores. Still I agree with km saying "it's not achievements making the game but the gameplay".

[Rodney 1.666]

And what's the YouTube embedding tag 'round here?

[Jonathon [SSL]]

Achievements don't really bother me.

I don't play games as much as I used to anymore (making them is more fun), but when I do play, I play because I feel like enjoying the game experience. If a little popup comes up that says I got some achievement, I think "oh cool, I got something!" instead of "NOW I GOTTA GET THE NEXT ONE!". After reading the article Jeron posted I find it kind of sad that the guy gets into a fight with his girlfriend over Left 4 Dead achievements, which I got half of all of them from just playing the game every few days for the first year I owned it. I think achievements should be reasonable and fun, not a chore to the player.

This is why I really like our achievement implementation, simply playing the game without even thinking about them gets you those satisfying achievement progress and achievement earned sound effects on a regular basis.

Playing GE64 the achievement was being able to punch your friend for armor camping....

lol, this is how my friends and I used to play all the time, if someone was RCP90 spamming or something we'd quickly smack their controller out of their hand, with laughs all around. Gone are those good old days.

[Gabbo]

I don't like or actively seek out achievements in games (2 or three games aside, oddly all related to Valve). When achievements stopped offering a valid reason to get them, like unlockables in the original GE64, I stopped caring. I don't do a lot of multiplayer gaming and none on consoles that isn't local/split screen so I really don't care about gamer scores or pimping my epeen online to 12 year olds

Going to jump on the 'implementation' bandwagon I guess. If a dev makes them cheeky and you earn them for your own attempts at emergent gameplay (what happens if I go there? That X looks like it goes with Y), then by all means add them. But if they're added simply to pad a game's playtime or cover up some bad design decision, then I'd rather not play the game (catch 22, I have to play in order to come to this realization).

I don't think they're ruining gaming, but they shouldn't ever be a main focus until the core game is up to snuff