My personal take on achievements are that they should require you to...well...achieve something. I got an achievement for watching the opening scene of Modern Warfare 3. Granted it was only 5 points, but still. There are plenty of games that you can S-rank without much problem. I've done 4 in my career, and I'm not that big of an achievement hunter. I like the fun and interesting ones. Also some games (like Oblivion) you'll just S-rank by playing it. I was going to do all of that shit with or without the achievements."Mile High Club" is an achievement (for most of us. I know some jackass is going to say "LOL TAT WUZ EZ 4 ME").Pretty much when I see someone with over 100k points I immediately think that they have games like "King Kong" on their list. They always do. It's not about achieving anything. It's not like a High Score on an arcade. It's simply about putting time in. Donkey Kong got harder as you played it. Galaga gets harder as you play it. If you can get 3/4 of the easy points on a game and then switch to a new title with more easy points, avoiding the hard ones what's the difference?A chimpanzee could play Backyard Football. You don't seem any more of an elite badass for having played it for the points. Games should have far less achievements. One for beating the game. One for beating it on hard. One for not taking any damage vs the end boss, etc. Depending on the game, of course. Things that actually mark an achievement in your game playing. It's too far gone now. As it currently stands, nobody looks at your individual achievements. They look at the number, and assume that you also did the hard ones. Some people have. Many have not.*EDIT*Let me add that, in reality, who gives a fuck if you achieve anything. I'm just saying that worshiping the number does no good when those numbers don't represent anything other than time spent.