Achievements are great, as they give you targets and challenges to complete within a game, and recognize that in a system external to the game, but they don't matter that much. They are a fun extra, I don't play games for achievements.
They do add something to the game, but it's only an add-on. The game proper is there for you to partake of and enjoy . It shouldn't get to the point where you have to look at small digital pats-on-the-back for doing something in a game you already bought. It may add some replay value after the the game is initially beaten though...but if I go into the game with thoughts of what I already have to do, it takes a bit away from the story the developers are trying to tell.
They add replayability. I don't give a flying fuck about my GS though (just look at my low number), but I like the idea of having incentive to continue playing a game. A lot of people like to equate their GS to the size of their peen, which is pretty retarded.
I think achievements add value, but that value is just an addition to the much larger value of the game. Achievements are best when they focus on one of two areas.
The first is simple progression. Its great to quickly compare your progress to a friends using achievements. I can at a glance see how far along someone is, even if they are not online to ask.
The second is when the game asks you to play the game differently. Making you think outside the box can often create whole new game play experiences. For example, beating Mirror's Edge without using guns. Or Mass Effects's use power "X" 75 times, which encourages you to try all the classes and all the powers. Achievements like these promote creativity and open mindedness.
But achievement design is not a deal breaker either. I happen to dislike multiplayer achievements, mostly because I don't much online multiplayer. But those do not really decrease the appeal of a game for me. I wouldn't chose game A over game B simply because of game B has multiplayer achievements. Achievement points are all bonus for me.
Game content is what matters although i will look for some if it makes me do something out of the box. Like resident evil 5 achievements (first battle with wesker). Tried playing through King Kong and just didnt like the game enough to go for the 1000
I'm in the middle. If I love a game and/or are bored I'll probably shoot for 1000/1000, but if there's some kind of incredibly tedious achievement, I will definitely ignore it.
I feel like achievements can sometimes take away replayability though. I played through Metroid Prime five times and RE4 ten, just for the heck of it, though I sometimes added self-imposed challenges to those runs. In the age of achievements I feel less inclined to, say, do a run with just the wrench and plasmids in BioShock for fun.
They don't mean anything to me, and I hate them to be perfectly honest. I see them as being nothing more than a pointless gimmick that take away valuable time and money during the development process of a game, which should be spent on other things like the game play, improving the script, and hiring better/real voice actors. I also hate them because I see them as a device that rewards the player for having fun and in my eyes having fun should be its own reward. You shouldn't need motivation, or to be rewarded for having fun, because fun is fun.
I will get retail games I want regardless of achievements, but budget games, second hand games, XBLA games etc I will still get if I really want the game, but if I don't particularly want the game, or am on the fence, achievements often puch the balance and tempt me to buy.
Shinobi for example, I have the cart and my Mega Drive is setup right next to me, but I got the 400 point XBLA version simply because it has achieves and I got a good 120 of them. And i'm about to get Phantasy Star 2 as well.
The actual game is obviously way more important, but the achievements can be fun if I like the game enough.
The actual concept of achievements is kind of cool, though I wish some of the achievements were somewhat more/less abstract. I think doing goofy things that you really shouldn't be able to do in the context of the game should be more achievement worthy, rather then "Kill 1000 Dudes" and you get 20 points. And I'm also sure there are lots of examples of what I just said, but what I've come across in games so far seems to be pretty standard and boring.
" I'm in the middle. If I love a game and/or are bored I'll probably shoot for 1000/1000, but if there's some kind of incredibly tedious achievement, I will definitely ignore it.
I sorta feel the same way. There are many achievements that are just to ridiculous for me to care about them.
I chose C. They certainly do matter to me, but I think it's silly to buy a bad game just for the achievements. Achievements give me reason to play games much longer than I normally would and I like that.
Achievements give me more incentive to finish games. A lot of the reason i barely touch my Wii is because it doesn't have anything like that.
I love racing to finish games with my friends. It also gives me incentive to do side missions and such in games where i normally wouldn't touch that stuff.
Its great to experience a game, but for me Trophies (or Achievements for others) just give me an incentive to continue exploring the game and doing everything I can possible within that game realm. Of course they're completely superfluous, but they do help to expand your experiences/ appreciation for a game and that is why I really like them. I don't care about my trophy level (none of my friends even own a PS3, I don't have anybody to boast to) so pursuing them for me is just a way of giving a tangible reward for spending my time doing something or trying to do something. Some people argue, "Oh, you shouldn't have to be rewarded for the game man, you should just, like, appreciate it anyway." But that's stupid. Why wouldn't I want to incentivize (word?) the game and be rewarded for spending time in there? As long as you're not playing a game solely for those rewards, its perfectly acceptable means of enjoying your playtime even more.
And people who argue otherwise are stupid. :0 Just kidding.
" They don't mean anything to me, and I hate them to be perfectly honest. I see them as being nothing more than a pointless gimmick that take away valuable time and money during the development process of a game, which should be spent on other things like the game play, improving the script, and hiring better/real voice actors. I also hate them because I see them as a device that rewards the player for having fun and in my eyes having fun should be its own reward. You shouldn't need motivation, or to be rewarded for having fun, because fun is fun. "
But what if you derive fun from the process of getting achievements?
Usually don't go for them. Like the trophy sound on the PS3; but over all meaningless to me. Typically don't go out of my way to get them. The only game I considered going for a platinum was infamous but haven't started a 2nd playthrough yet.
" They don't mean anything to me, and I hate them to be perfectly honest. I see them as being nothing more than a pointless gimmick that take away valuable time and money during the development process of a game, which should be spent on other things like the game play, improving the script, and hiring better/real voice actors. I also hate them because I see them as a device that rewards the player for having fun and in my eyes having fun should be its own reward. You shouldn't need motivation, or to be rewarded for having fun, because fun is fun. "
But what if you derive fun from the process of getting achievements?
ooooo...crazy existential crisis =p
"
Then you have a problem in my eyes. As I said, I feel when playing a game you should be playing it for the game and to have fun and that is all. I don't think anyone should be playing a game for some stupid virtual trophy, which contributes to a virtual pile of trophies that is nothing more than a virtual monument to how much time you've spent collecting meaningless virtual trophies. Seriously what are they going to do for you? Nothing. What are you gonna do? Tout how many you have to people? I can just see it now, "hey baby wanna come back to my place? I got a gamer score of over 50,000 and three dozen rare achievements. That makes me hardcore if you know what I mean..." *wink *wink. (BTW if anyone can bring a girl home with this line and prove it I will totally buy them a round, because man that would be impressive)
I don't mean to insult, or make fun of anyone, or anything, but really the achievement scenario is pretty laughable when you step back and think about it. Achievements are a sales gimmick. Their ultimate purpose is to sell more games and primarily to sell you games that you wouldn't normally buy. If you play games for achievements and that's fun for you then I think you really need to step back and assess your situation.
Everything in video games is a "waste of time" in the end. What matters is if you have fun doing it. If people have fun collecting meaningless things within a video game, then hey, they accomplished what they set out to do when they popped the game in. I personally wouldn't spend my time on money on achievements for games that I wouldn't play otherwise, but if other people consider that a worthwhile investment, hey, more power to them.
No one in their right mind will tout their gamerscore to people who don't play video games. They are meant to be a badge of honor among gamers, to show us that "I beat CoD4 on Veteran and all I got was this lousy achievement". They are a reminder of the journey and the challenge that comes with playing.
It may sound obvious, but I like acheivements that encourage me to try something different. For a recent example, there's one in Prototype for getting through a military based mission without raising an alarm. During the normal play of the game, this is probably something I wouldn't do. On the flip side, I don't like when they oppose one another. There are two achievements in Ghostbusters related to the amount of damage you do over the course of the game. One for doing very little, one for doing quite a lot. I don't suppose you need to play the game twice to get them both, but the amount of work involved seems foolish.
Achievements/trophies aren't important to me unless if it is something that rewards you in some kind of of way that adds content to a game to make it more fun. Added content like music, levels, and weapons. Achievements/Trophies that do not have a monetary value that can't help you in a game is a waste of time and effort in my opinion.
They mean little to me per say. I don't mind playing games without them, but I do try to get some of them. I will however never play a game I don't like for achievements. I will usually get a game on 360 instead of PS3 because of achievements, but if something makes the game better on PS3 (not sure that has happend yet?) I will get it there.
Trophies I couldn't care about in any way shape or form. Too little too late.
i don't care to much about them. it is nice if i do get them but i don't try and get them. the ones that seem easy are the ones that i try but other then that i don't like. some of the ones i don't like are beat this level/ beat the game on the hardest difficulty or get something kills in a row on multiplayer. those are the hard ones to get.
the difficulty ones are hard because a lot of games are cheap. cod4 they just throw grenades at u. multiplayer ones are hard because a lot of them are like get this amount of kills in a row. the only good multiplayer that are good are like get to this rank, unlock this.
Log in to comment