I never much cared about gamerscore. Achievements are cool because they A) Give you a small incentive to pursue side stuff you might not otherwise care about, like finishing off collectibles or whatever, thus extending the fun of a game and B) Serve as a nice reminder of the games that you have played and finished. Services like True Achievements and the PS4 also tell you how many players completed a given cheevo or trophy, which can be interesting. I have no problem with achievements.

But Gamerscore attempts to quantify achievements and it does so in a weird way, letting developers assign score (previously based on whether the game was retail or XBLA) regardless of difficulty or length of the game. It was always a dumb idea, since finishing some early 4 hour games would net you a thousand points while other achievements have ridiculous requirements. Microsoft, however, at least tried to compensate for this by assigning different numbers of cheevo points for downloadable games, which at the start of the 360 generation tended to be smaller in scope, if not always easier.

Downloadable games got a lot more complicated as the generation drew on (From 50 Megabyte maximum sizes to 2 gigs or over now, and from Geometry Wars to fully fledged story-based games like Shadow Complex.) Last year Microsoft lifted the points max of XBLA games from 200 to 400, which made sense for a game like CoJ: Gunslinger but maybe not for Brothers or Zuma's Revenge, and on the XBONE all games will just be games (Fair enough, since there's no reason Gunslinger is less of a full fledged 360 game than the old King Kong retail game) but rather than making tailor made achievement amounts (possibly too much work and too many politics) they will all have 1000 total points, which means that Peggle 2 has the same amount of gamerscore in it as Assassin's Creed 4.

This means that score is absolutely meaningless. Why keep it? Is it just a legacy product? Do they think they are still selling games to cheevo hunters? It just seems weird and stupid. Even weirder and stupider when you consider that MS gave away Killer Instinct and even XBONE systems to people with high gamerscore. So the score is meaningless and debased but you can get real world items up to $500 in value for having a high one?

I feel like this is really dumb and Microsoft hasn't caught enough flack for it.

Of all things relating to Microsoft these past couple of months, this is what you think they should catch some flack for?

Not JUST this obviously. I think everything else gets a decent amount of attention though.

Here are my feelings in picture form (message to mods, let me know if I need to take this pic down).

If I'm being honest while do have my issues with Microsoft (hence, the reason why I want a PS4) I find the idea of whining about the gamerscore system to be rather sad. Now had this been a complaint on the idea of achievements in general you might have had a argument but, only a very small one.

Edit: I do find the idea of ridiculous requirements achievements in games to be rather annoying and a potential problem in games. I also don't wish to come off as to insulting either. I just felt like typing in the same (or at least in similar) way as I normally talk and see if I do come off as a complete ass.

I will also point out as someone below me said; how would you want them to fix it or, at the very least what do you think is the core/source of the issue of it. Get rid of the gamerscore or modify the way they give players the achievement? Then they could possibly let people use their gamerscore to buy things (like a game or a Xbox live Gold).

I'm not sure what your point is? Downloadable games should be worth less points than retail? Based on what?

Not criticising, I just don't get your point, or how it devalues gamerscore, assuming it had a value in the first place.

I am not understanding your point as well. Avatar: The Last Airbender and King Kong and other games that gave achievements incredibly easy should be lampooned well before the fact that Xbox arcade games now get the same amount of gamerscore points. So I don't mind that they share the same total score. If they are just as hard to achieve, then what does it matter?

I understand that getting a 1000 points in certain games is a bigger accomplishment than others, I am sure that will apply here. Is it easy to "S" rank Peggle 2?

Gamerscore was completely devalued in 2008 by the PC version of Fallout 3. The advergames that showed up also didn't do much to make the system meaningful.

OCD is hard. Meds help.

The original idea was that XBLA games, which were 50 MBs at most, had less content and challenge than retail games so deserved less gamerscore (there was probably also an intent to add incentive to purchasing more expensive retail product.) Thus fewer points. Now there is huge variety across the spectrum, but it means that a standardized gamerscore is a meaningless and silly thing that Microsoft should either take seriously (by having some centralized scoring system for cheevos rather than leaving it up to developers) or abandon altogether (probably the better plan.)

The system has always been meaningless. Still, it gives me certain things to shoot for as I play or replay a game and I enjoy that.

So it's basically you against a whole legion of people who are glad XBLA games are finally worth 1000 points instead of 400. Guess who's happier in this context?

Listen kid, I didn't see you make this thread when $40 games where coming out and had 1000 points, so why start now? This is how games are now, notice how even GB got rid of the "best downloadable game" category in their GOTY? All games are created equal now, no more segregation.

@bigsocrates: They have gotten rid of XBLA on the xone, now every game on the system is a game. Also it's meaningless.

Doritos Crash Course is sick dawg.

@gtcknight:

Does that picture imply he's sporting a solid hard-on? Cause that's what I'm getting from it.

I remember getting those Fallout GFWL points. Felt sort of lame about it at the time. Was it really any worse than Airbender points, though?

It's clear that any individual game should only get 1000 points if we, as the internet, can unanimously agree that it can be defined as a "game". Let's discuss...

Dont get why "smaller" games should give you less points. Game is a game and on xbox360 the xbla achievements were often way harder than the giveaway stuff most retail titles was riddled with.

@trilogy: No it means I don't care.

As for context well just watch the show Kill la Kill.

I don't know, that's whatever. I'm more upset that you can get an achievement for fucking watching Kevin James movies.

I'm calling it, by the end of the generation you get achievements for putting on Old Spice in front of the Kinect 2.0.

I think it's for the same reason they stopped calling downloadable games arcade games. At the start of last generation early downloadable games like Geometry Wars were always smaller in scope than retail games. But towards the end of last generation we saw games like Telltale's The Walking Dead which could easily of passed as a retail game. There's no longer any need to distinguish between "real" games and "arcade" games. They're all just "games" now and as such get treated with the same standards. Achievement points and all.

I'm just learning about this Fallout 3 thing now, of course after GFWL has been cancelled ='[ And I really enjoyed some Advert Games, Doritos Crash Course was pretty fun, especially trying to get all the gold times.

Cheap games or downloadable-only titles are not going to be what ruins the sanctity of your gamerscore. I can guarantee you that there are achievements in Peggle 2 that are harder than what you would find in AC4. If it's the price point you're bothered with, this is also nonsense because someone can go to a bargain bin at GameStop and earn 10,000 points on garbage retail games.

If points were worth anything, there would be an independent group assigning point values to achievements based on how difficult it is to achieve. Crap like this would not happen:

Meh...achieves give many people a reason to replay games and see every bit of game content. Serves a purpose for game developers as well as gamers.They're there to add a bit of extra motivation and that's what they do. They also indicate how much someone played or perhaps really liked a certain game. I look at them to find common ground and opportunities to play with friends.

More points now for small games is a total non-issue for me.

Achievements for watching shows, movies, or using an app is a whole other story. But those don't add to Gamerscore at least as far as I know.

I stopped caring about achievements once I hit 50k. That was my goal and I hit and since then they do nothing for me.

I just noticed this year how there is no separate category for 'downloadable'/'download-only'/'you know what we mean' game. Which makes sense, the only game on my list that I purchased a disc for was GTA5. Is Rogue Legacy at 15 different from Enemy Within at 30 different from Dragon's Crown at 40 different from DmC at 60?

I hate to inform you of this good sir but gamerscore has always been meaningless. So im not sure what your even mad about.

Yeah I hate to say it but your title is right when it says "more meaningless than it already was" as in, it has always been meaningless. I know one dude with a massive gamer score who brags about it, why is his score so high? Cause he worked at a rental store, rented all the games free (even the shitty ones), got all the easy achievements that only took a couple hours, and sent the game back. Wooooooo massive envy bro! Dude hadn't even beaten 15% of the games on his played list.

@bigsocrates: ehhh I'm o.k. with it being left up to the developer. In most cross platform games the achievement system has remained the same most of the times, no matter it be for Xbox 360, PS3 or Steam. And yes it does seem the price of the game can sometimes dictate the amount of achievement points, that might not be totally right but at the same time can you really make this a fair thing. Sure you can judge it by the amount of hours a game can be completed, and that might be the most fair way of doing it, but in the end whos to say it is the most fair. Should harder type games be rewarded more points then?

The total score really isn't impressive its more of how many games you have 100% in my book at this point, maybe this needs to be a option on the gamerscore to really make certain people stand out, instead of it being a who bought more video games kinda thing.

Yes the fact is rules can be applied to make it a more fair system.... And yea I'm pissed my 40000 points didn't net me a new Xbox One I mean shit I've got just shy of more then 200 games in my achievement collection score, and no Xbox One at my home.

Peculiar how something like this is popping up. Usually have to deal with the annoyance of 'No Plat no buy' from a Trophy site I go to. Gamerscore always had the issue of not being able to tell how many base games a person had completed without digging super deep. Someone could have a Gamerscore of 100,000 but only finished a couple games. Just picking up the super easy ones.

Uplay points are more important than your gamerscore because at least you get stuff. It's always been a meaningless number that only matters if you have a specific friend to compete against.

Oh noes.

I literally cannot believe that in the year of our lord two thousand and thirteen that people still care about gamer scores and trophies. I also couldn't believe the hubbub surrounding them when Fallout 3 let people cheat for them on PC for XBL accounts.

I'll care when they let me use the gamerscore as a currency to buy things. Until then, no fucks will be given. Also trophies are better.

@bigjeffrey: Crash Course and Dash of Destruction were alright. Yaris can eat a dick, though.

Hard to say. I actually had to play some of Avatar to get those points. I didn't need to actually playany of F3

I sort of agree, their l lack of distinction between arcade titles and retail releases is pretty bad in general. Games are games, that however does not mean that there should not be a way to make make a price distinction easily.

You're talking bad about Dash of Destruction. Thems fightin' words. That game was fucking rad.

This

Spoiler: Gamerscore has always been meaningless.

Personally I think it's a great change that doesn't really do anything at all to the "value" of gamer score. Gamer score is more of an aggregate "usage" metric than anything else. There is no direct correlation to hours played or games completed or gamer "skill" or anything of that sort... but in aggregate a higher number is indicative of higher use. To that end, it makes sense for MS to do the random giveaways and such to their biggest fans as those people will often tend to be "taste makers" within their circles of friends. I personally don't have a high gamer score as I don't always have much time for gaming and split my free time among a lot of interests, but I can certainly see why MS would be interested in "incentivizing" gamer score and I wouldn't begrudge the winners of these giveaways their marketing freebies...

I'm not any kind of achievement hunter, but I really like the way achievements, trophies, and that sort of thing gives designers the ability to easily add fun twists to their games and encourage a more complete experience of what the game can offer. Things like the Pacifism achievement in Geometry Wars was terrific and almost added a new mode to the game with a single "try it this way" sort of achievement. The "kills with X type of weapon" can encourage players to change up their play style. I'm really liking some of the achievements in Dead Rising that offer little in game digital "trophy" items. And then there's silly stuff that is just fun... like the various president mask achievements in Payday 2.. "place doctor bags wearing an Obama mask"... that kind of thing... it has no value but does add some fun or some humor and wouldn't have been something I necessarily thought of doing without the little +X point achievement listed in the achievements list.

I think it's great that the downloadable and indie games will have the same points to work with as any other title particularly since it seems like some of the most creative and fun achievements came from the downloadable games. The points serve the exact same (and completely imprecise) purpose they always have.

I don't understand any of this, thou god knows I tried.

Just wait until games have trophies/achievements that unlock when you spend real cash in-game to buy some microtransaction bullshit.

GS is just an indication of how many games you played overall at a glance.

I hit the 175k mark this week and I never understood why people get butt hurt over it. The whole achievement system is really just a fun way of archiving your gaming history and comparing with people.

I never cared about the point value, per se. I still care about game completion if I care about the game. I really miss Giant Bomb's stat tracking.

I just got annoyed when my points weren't divisible by 5. That's the only thing.

I have no problem with it. I like getting achievements for everything I do. If you have a high gamers core you do a lot on the system.

this might be the dumbest thing to whine about it, WOW. Since i'm here i guess i'll contribute. I personally think that if MS added that rare system that Sony has but also apply it to total GS. So let's say you are at 5,000GS and below you would be a common and however the numbers bare-out you would be placed accordingly. They don't need some massive overhaul just take a page out of Sony's book, Hell take the book back that you and Sony switched somewhere along the way!

Yeah I don't have a vested interest in raising my GS in a competitive manner. To me achievements are really about scores for individual games. It's a tracker for 100% of a game, GS is just a catalogue where the scores for games collectively live.