"Are we just going to turn this into a giant "no u" contest now? Because it's obvious none of us can. "
It's not a "no u" contest until I start hiding behind a wall of "It's not out yet so it's not provable!" I have multiple comments from various sources on my side, and you have a hunch that you're passing off as irrefutable fact.
"No. My argument is not singularly "avatars are retarded" or anything like that. My assertion is that they're lying. You're using a PR guy saying what people want to hear as some kind of evidence. My assertion that they are *lying* still has legs.
"Not much other than identification, yes- but people have payed for them. Nobody (especially a recent customer) wants to be told they just invested in something that was rendered completely worthless the next week/month/day/whatever.
Edit: How in hell is my argument broken? I'm not trolling or flaming. You're the one who trolled in this thread. "
It's broken because you don't know that the Avatars are Mandatory, infact the only thing we've been told was from Major Nelson who specifically stated that they were not mandatory and that we could still use our gamerpics. I'll find a link if you don't believe me. "
Oh I believe you. I just don't believe Major Nelson.
That's only one part of my argument anyway- and this entire thread is speculation until the date we all get the dashboard. You don't know they're NOT mandatory, and like I said- it's not like Microsoft would tell everybody they were scrapping gamerpictures earlier then they would have to. So the argument still stands. "
No, it doesn't, really. Your argument was, essentially, "Yeah it's not out yet but they're lying about avatars being optional." Now you're trying to say that "It's not out, so you may or may not be wrong, HA HA!" is the same argument?
Regardless, if I'm not going to receive any points for submissions, perhaps I just shouldn't bother submitting. I want to help make the site better, but I'm just going to get shit on for it..."
That just seems like an odd mentality to have to me, since all these points give you are bragging rights and new and faster ways to edit the site. It's not like you can trade them in for GB merch or anything (not yet anyway, but hey, if you'd like that, try the suggestions topic :P). WIkipedia doesn't even have a points system, and it seems to survive just fine. "
What is strange is how combative some of you mods are in regards to simple questions and concerns. If you don't have anything helpful to say, don't say anything at all."
What is strange is that your willingness to submit information to the site is predicated on you receiving a reward. The point Axersia is trying to make is that Wikipedia gets people to edit articles WITHOUT any sort of reward system.
Crackdown had a bunch of crazy cool achievements. My favorite was trying to figure out how to throw an object 500 meters, or however long it was... but since I was bored, I decided to try to figure it out by throwing a car that had my buddy in it. And we took turns. That made it pretty hilarious as we kept killing each other waiting for the stupid achievement to ding.
"I don't like Achievements. I don't like Achievements because they're basically just a gigantic road of grinding for no reason.
I'm wondering how on earth someone can have over 10,000 achievement points.
Trophies I think are a little more fun because they aren't in every game and not everybody has trophies, plus they give you expierience which boosts you up levels which isn't as pointless as 20 GAZILLION achievement points.
Have you actually looked at a list of achievements before? A sizable portion of achivements have nothing to do with grinding. They either reward a feat of exceptional skill or provide you with incentive to finish, say, an entire RPG from start to finish.
If you're wondering how someone can have over 10,000 points, you're looking at the wrong games. There are multiple games out there that are incredibly easy 1000 points, and simply by getting a large selection of 360 games (which, since it's been out for 3 years, isn't the "Wow dude you have no life spend money on something else" type of moneyspending that you might think) and playing them halfway, you have 10,000 points.
So, I'm confused by the third point. You think that getting 20 GAZILLION achievement points is pointless, but getting trophies and trying to get to level 20 GAZILLION isn't pointless? And while we're on the subject of your inability to see the similarities between the PS3 and 360's systems, are you implying that there are no trophies that require a "grind" for PS3 games?
Achievements are a great way to add incentive to features of a game that would otherwise get used very little, or promote ways of playing the game that people wouldn't think of. The perennial example is the first Geometry Wars: How many people would've played the game without firing their gun if there wasn't an achievement to give them the incentive to do it?
Log in to comment