Achievement SO UNDERRATED

[QUOTE="batistafan99"]Achievements are for nerds who want to show their e-coolness. They add nothing new to a game, and are useless.project343

I agree with this person.  Whoever said achievements don't increase a game's length obviously hasn't tried to get the more interesting and challenging achievements in the games they own.  Personally I love trying to get a perfect 1,000 points on a game, it helps me to feel like I got my $60 worth out of the game.

[QUOTE="XaosII"]

[QUOTE="JPOBS"][QUOTE="XaosII"]For pro-achievement people, why do you think that metagames should be included into the game as a form of longevity instead of providing non-metagames for enjoyment on its own merits to provide longevity? The second one seems like a much better implentation.JPOBS

No, im asking why you feel that metagames are better, instead of providing the same kind incentive/satisfaction without a metagame.

I'm a bit surprised and at the same time not surprised about how people said they might not have replayed a certain title if it werent for achievements. The achievements give a "game within the game" (i.e. metagame) that adds longevity to the game. The game on its own didnt give enough of an incentive for you to replay it or continue playing. You needed something more than that, and achievements did it for you.

But, personally, that seems a bit flawed. Once you unlock all the achievements or the ones you feel you can reasonably do, you'll stop playing the game. Meanwhile, a game like Halo 2 (which is the most popular onlince console game with achievements) is still being played by alot of people - many of them without care for achievements or by people who already unlocked every multiplayer achievement. Why? Because Halo 2 stood on its own without a need for metagames.

Because achievements are succesfull at providing "short-tem longevity" to the game, it seems like some developers may not necessarily feel the need to provide longevity that stands on its own - which is what makes truly long-lasting games so great.

[QUOTE="JPOBS"][QUOTE="XaosII"]

[QUOTE="JPOBS"][QUOTE="XaosII"]For pro-achievement people, why do you think that metagames should be included into the game as a form of longevity instead of providing non-metagames for enjoyment on its own merits to provide longevity? The second one seems like a much better implentation.XaosII

No, im asking why you feel that metagames are better, instead of providing the same kind incentive/satisfaction without a metagame.

I'm a bit surprised and at the same time not surprised about how people said they might not have replayed a certain title if it werent for achievements. The achievements give a "game within the game" (i.e. metagame) that adds longevity to the game. The game on its own didnt give enough of an incentive for you to replay it or continue playing. You needed something more than that, and achievements did it for you.

But, personally, that seems a bit flawed. Once you unlock all the achievements or the ones you feel you can reasonably do, you'll stop playing the game. Meanwhile, a game like Halo 2 (which is the most popular onlince console game with achievements) is still being played by alot of people - many of them without care for achievements or by people who already unlocked every multiplayer achievement. Why? Because Halo 2 stood on its own without a need for metagames.

Because achievements are succesfull at providing "short-tem longevity" to the game, it seems like some developers may not necessarily feel the need to provide longevity that stands on its own - which is what makes truly long-lasting games so great.

exactly. thats what i meant by developers concentrating more on achievements than content 

[QUOTE="JPOBS"][QUOTE="XaosII"]

[QUOTE="JPOBS"][QUOTE="XaosII"]For pro-achievement people, why do you think that metagames should be included into the game as a form of longevity instead of providing non-metagames for enjoyment on its own merits to provide longevity? The second one seems like a much better implentation.XaosII

No, im asking why you feel that metagames are better, instead of providing the same kind incentive/satisfaction without a metagame.

I'm a bit surprised and at the same time not surprised about how people said they might not have replayed a certain title if it werent for achievements. The achievements give a "game within the game" (i.e. metagame) that adds longevity to the game. The game on its own didnt give enough of an incentive for you to replay it or continue playing. You needed something more than that, and achievements did it for you.

But, personally, that seems a bit flawed. Once you unlock all the achievements or the ones you feel you can reasonably do, you'll stop playing the game. Meanwhile, a game like Halo 2 (which is the most popular onlince console game with achievements) is still being played by alot of people - many of them without care for achievements or by people who already unlocked every multiplayer achievement. Why? Because Halo 2 stood on its own without a need for metagames.

Because achievements are succesfull at providing "short-tem longevity" to the game, it seems like some developers may not necessarily feel the need to provide longevity that stands on its own - which is what makes truly long-lasting games so great.

also, yes some games some people play for the sole purpose of achievements. Other games like halo 2 have both. Is that so wrong?  

exactly. thats what i meant by developers concentrating more on achievements than content

batistafan99

what's so fun about collecting something virtual, that isn't real and doesn't do anything? how can you get any enjoyment from that?

batistafan99

I'll try one last comparison... compare achievements to Pokemon: you gotta catch 'em all. Correct? It's a similar mentality. Sure, you won't end up even using 98% of the Pokemon you catch, and they're basically worthless, but they're an underlaying goal set by the game - achievements are essentially the same thing. You go out of your way to catch 'em all for no reason other then self-satisfaction. Sure catching a Mew can be used for bragging purposes the same way that beating CoD2 Veteran can be used as bragging rights, but that's not the point. The point is that they're both a form of self-satisfaction, something which every human on this earth enjoys. Achievements are just a form of self-satisfaction.

If you still don't get it, then this is a hopeless argument.

[QUOTE="project343"][QUOTE="batistafan99"]Achievements are for nerds who want to show their e-coolness. They add nothing new to a game, and are useless.cheezisgoooood

I agree with this person.  Whoever said achievements don't increase a game's length obviously hasn't tried to get the more interesting and challenging achievements in the games they own.  Personally I love trying to get a perfect 1,000 points on a game, it helps me to feel like I got my $60 worth out of the game.

so let the jealous haters hate..

bu bu but teh achievements are usleless :cry::cry:

in other words:you could not get a certain achievement so it has to be pointless right? :roll:

Achievements are for nerds who want to show their e-coolness. They add nothing new to a game, and are useless.batistafan99

you may be right, but its wrong to say that they add nothing new to a game 

I've had some good experiences in my online games on the 360 hosting a room full of people who want the same achievement, it provides teamwork where you wouldn't normally get it.  If there was no achievement for completing the co op defend mode for 60 straight minutes on GRAW 2, instead of people switching places with each other and working out strategies for what to do to conserve ammo, people would just go out on their own and try to get the most kills before everyone else does.  This is why I love achievements.

[QUOTE="batistafan99"]

what's so fun about collecting something virtual, that isn't real and doesn't do anything? how can you get any enjoyment from that?

project343

I'll try one last comparison... compare achievements to Pokemon: you gotta catch 'em all. Correct? It's a similar mentality. Sure, you won't end up even using 98% of the Pokemon you catch, and they're basically worthless, but they're an underlaying goal set by the game - achievements are essentially the same thing. You go out of your way to catch 'em all for no reason other then self-satisfaction. Sure catching a Mew can be used for bragging purposes the same way that beating CoD2 Veteran can be used as bragging rights, but that's not the point. The point is that they're both a form of self-satisfaction, something which every human on this earth enjoys. Achievements are just a form of self-satisfaction.

If you still don't get it, then this is a hopeless argument.

all right, now i get it. if you had used this example in the beginning, the whole argument would have ended sooner. lol 

[QUOTE="batistafan99"]

exactly. thats what i meant by developers concentrating more on achievements than content

JPOBS

my point was that i don't need achievements to motivate me to play a game over and over. 

[QUOTE="JPOBS"][QUOTE="batistafan99"]

exactly. thats what i meant by developers concentrating more on achievements than content

batistafan99

my point was that i don't need achievements to motivate me to play a game over and over. 

but just because you dont enjoy achievements that doesnt mean others cant..lol

party pooper :P

all right, now i get it. if you had used this example in the beginning, the whole argument would have ended sooner. lol

batistafan99

my point was that i don't need achievements to motivate me to play a game over and over.

batistafan99

[QUOTE="JPOBS"][QUOTE="batistafan99"]

exactly. thats what i meant by developers concentrating more on achievements than content

batistafan99

my point was that i don't need achievements to motivate me to play a game over and over.

Thats something i probably wouldnt try on my own. But because im rewarded for it, i do it, and it is fun too boot.  

I highly doubt developers would opt not to make a game have its own longevity simply to put achievements in it.

also, yes some games some people play for the sole purpose of achievements. Other games like halo 2 have both. Is that so wrong?

JPOBS

I would honestly love to believe what you said, but im finding it harder and harder to do so as time goes on with new games.

Lets take Gears of War, a 12-15 hour long time. Who's to say that they didnt make the conscious decision to extend the game by relying on achievements instead of increasing it to 20 - 25 hours of gameplay? I dont think Epic is the type of company to do that, though. But we cant be certain for all the others.

People will still be playing GeoW online for years to come because epic made sure that the game is fun on its own and not because 100% of the people playing it online are just trying to aim for the achievements. You dont get people playing the game for 3 years (like Halo 2) on just achievements.

You are right though, that they arent mutually exclusive. A great game that has achievements is still a great game no matter what. But are developers relying on the metagame aspect of achievements for longevity instead of implementing it the right way? I dont think anyone really knows the answer....but games are getting shorter and shorter with each release making achiements more appealing for players to get more life out of the game. Coincidence? Maybe.

[QUOTE="batistafan99"][QUOTE="JPOBS"][QUOTE="batistafan99"]

exactly. thats what i meant by developers concentrating more on achievements than content

JPOBS

my point was that i don't need achievements to motivate me to play a game over and over.

Thats something i probably wouldnt try on my own. But because im rewarded for it, i do it, and it is fun too boot.  

some achievements help you actually get better at the game...

but that doesnt matter here because here at system wars,achievements are useless  :roll:

if you ask me, achievements are just like performing a speed run.

pointless, difficult,  yet because its objective based, you want to do it, and when you done, you have self-satisfaction. 

[QUOTE="JPOBS"][QUOTE="batistafan99"]I don't need achievement points to motivate me to play a game on a harder difficulty. If the game is fun, then I will play it through again on a harder difficulty. Achievement points add nothingbatistafan99

i would still play it, no matter if it had achievements or not. they don't add anything to the game, they are there for bragging rights. i've heard lots of people brag about their gamerscore over xbox live and on internet forums.

dude all hes saying is like in gears of war clusterluck the achievement killing 5 dudes at once u would neva try to kill 5 dudes at once or think about it if it wasnt a achievement so it gives u a sense of awesome i just killed 5 guys at once and its not that hard 2 understand maybe youre not trying to understand and while u have heard people brag i have not but i have saw them try to strive for a achievement

[QUOTE="batistafan99"]

[QUOTE="JPOBS"][QUOTE="batistafan99"]I don't need achievement points to motivate me to play a game on a harder difficulty. If the game is fun, then I will play it through again on a harder difficulty. Achievement points add nothingtmb_JR

i would still play it, no matter if it had achievements or not. they don't add anything to the game, they are there for bragging rights. i've heard lots of people brag about their gamerscore over xbox live and on internet forums.

dude all hes saying is like in gears of war clusterluck the achievement killing 5 dudes at once u would neva try to kill 5 dudes at once or think about it if it wasnt a achievement so it gives u a sense of awesome i just killed 5 guys at once and its not that hard 2 understand maybe youre not trying to understand and while u have heard people brag i have not but i have saw them try to strive for a achievement

if you ask me, achievements are just like performing a speed run.

pointless, difficult,  yet because its objective based, you want to do it, and when you done, you have self-satisfaction. 

JPOBS

Speed runs have been done way before Achievements.

[QUOTE="JPOBS"]

if you ask me, achievements are just like performing a speed run.

pointless, difficult, yet because its objective based, you want to do it, and when you done, you have self-satisfaction.

Stabby2486

Speed runs have been done way before Achievements.

if you ask me, achievements are just like performing a speed run.

pointless, difficult, yet because its objective based, you want to do it, and when you done, you have self-satisfaction.

JPOBS

but games are getting shorter and shorter with each release making achiements more appealing for players to get more life out of the game. Coincidence? Maybe.

XaosII

Games are getting shorter due to the cost, and the limitations of the disk format for the Wii, and Xbox 360 (as well as the PS3, but to a lesser degree) don't help. I believe Microsoft saw this issue, and decided to use this new idea extend the life of their inevitably shortened games. There's also another bonus to using achievements: to achieve or not achieve - multiplat games offer achievements on one console, and no achievements on another. This will certainly lead to greater software sales for multiplat games on the Xbox 360, which would only attract developers to pay more attention to Microsoft's console.

[QUOTE="JPOBS"]

if you ask me, achievements are just like performing a speed run.

pointless, difficult, yet because its objective based, you want to do it, and when you done, you have self-satisfaction.

smokeydabear076

[QUOTE="XaosII"]

but games are getting shorter and shorter with each release making achiements more appealing for players to get more life out of the game. Coincidence? Maybe.

project343

Games are getting shorter due to the cost, and the limitations of the disk format for the Wii, and Xbox 360 (as well as the PS3, but to a lesser degree) don't help. I believe Microsoft saw this issue, and decided to use this new idea extend the life of their inevitably shortened games. There's also another bonus to using achievements: to achieve or not achieve - multiplat games offer achievements on one console, and no achievements on another. This will certainly lead to greater software sales for multiplat games on the Xbox 360, which would only attract developers to pay more attention to Microsoft's console.

You are so right, I felt an enormous sense of satisfaction when I completed the Call of Duty 2 tutorial and I unlocked that achievement. That event made my day.smokeydabear076

No wai!?!

The point is, games have been played under certain conditions before Achievements so they aren't needed.

[QUOTE="smokeydabear076"]You are so right, I felt an enormous sense of satisfaction when I completed the Call of Duty 2 tutorial and I unlocked that achievement. That event made my day.project343

No wai!?!Stabby2486

The point is, games have been played under certain conditions before Achievements so they aren't needed.

doing a speed run isnt needed either. but its still fun  

ok they arent needed. does that mean they take anything away from a game?

doing a speed run isnt needed either. but its still fun  

Did I say that?

I can see how it would "hook" other people into achievements, but it failed miserably with me.smokeydabear076

[QUOTE="smokeydabear076"]I can see how it would "hook" other people into achievements, but it failed miserably with me.project343

ok they arent needed. does that mean they take anything away from a game?

doing a speed run isnt needed either. but its still fun

Stabby2486

Did I say that?

No wai!?!Stabby2486

The point is, games have been played under certain conditions before Achievements so they aren't needed.

Horrible, horrible logic, even for this place. Its been done before so its not needed?

[QUOTE="Stabby2486"]

No wai!?!El_Fanboy

The point is, games have been played under certain conditions before Achievements so they aren't needed.

Horrible, horrible logic, even for this place. Its been done before so its not needed?

I'm renting Gun and Spiderman 3 this weekend for 2 reasons - achievements, and something to keep me busy...
project343

LMAO!

Anyways, its interesting to see fanboys downplay 360 acheivement points especially when they are looking forward to PSH that will offer some sort of rewards system for displaying "aheivements" I also fail to see how they hurt the experience unless your easily pursuaded by the hunt for acheivements rather than being interested in the game at all. Thats more of a personal problem than a global fact among people, especially those who own an X360. As for more content, I still don't see how having rewards prevent a game from having more content.. Gears of War, GRAW 1 & 2, Crackdown, ES4 are but a few games that offer extra content, thats a given not because of acheivement points but because people want extra content.

[QUOTE="XaosII"]

but games are getting shorter and shorter with each release making achiements more appealing for players to get more life out of the game. Coincidence? Maybe.

project343

Games are getting shorter due to the cost, and the limitations of the disk format for the Wii, and Xbox 360 (as well as the PS3, but to a lesser degree) don't help. I believe Microsoft saw this issue, and decided to use this new idea extend the life of their inevitably shortened games. There's also another bonus to using achievements: to achieve or not achieve - multiplat games offer achievements on one console, and no achievements on another. This will certainly lead to greater software sales for multiplat games on the Xbox 360, which would only attract developers to pay more attention to Microsoft's console.

Which is why achievements may not be a great thing all the time.

Costs are a definite big factor for why games are getting shorter and shorter, but can we really be sure that some developers arent just trying to get away with shorter games by relying on achievements to a certain extent? By the popularity of achievements, i think they can get away with it for atleast a little while. For multiplat titles from devs that do this is even worse, since they dont have that achievement reliance making the game seem shorter.

Lets take Diablo 2. I can bet you that there are some people still playing it to this day without going online. Why? Because Blizzard ensured longevity with randomized levels and content. Thats what i wish developers would do and say "Ok, lets make sure people will play our game for 5 or 6 years. After that, lets add in some achievements to give it more." Perfect. Great. I couldn't ask for anything more from a developer. You dont get people playing games for that long on just achievements.

Even Epic insured people would get a lot of GeoW due to a balanced, fun online with or without achievements, even though they have a short game. Could you say the same for other titles? for example, Kameo? 

so you're basically making irrelevent points. k.

I didn't say they take away from the game.

[QUOTE="project343"]I'm renting Gun and Spiderman 3 this weekend for 2 reasons - achievements, and something to keep me busy...
Pro_wrestler

LMAO!

Anyways, its interesting to see fanboys downplay 360 acheivement points especially when they are looking forward to PSH that will offer some sort of rewards system for displaying "aheivements" I also fail to see how they hurt the experience unless your easily pursuaded by the hunt for acheivements rather than being interested in the game at all. Thats more of a personal problem than a global fact among people, especially those who own an X360. As for more content, I still don't see how having rewards prevent a game from having more content.. Gears of War, GRAW 1 & 2, Crackdown, ES4 are but a few games that offer extra content, thats a given not because of acheivement points but because people want extra content.

[QUOTE="drsports1980"]I don't understand the point of achievements. It is just giving you points for winning the game. Doesn't really make the game better, and doesn't increase the games length. Most achievements are annyoing, and almost impossible to get. I must be the only one who thinks this because almost everyone else is screaming that achievements are godly.FrenziedRaldo24

Perhaps if a fraction of these achievments translated over to MS Points, they would be worth bragging about. But as it stands, theyre worthless.

There was a stupid acticle on a 360 fan forum when some guy made up an article saying MS was gonna start allowing people to trade in Gamerpoints for real world prizes, like HDTVs and surroud sound systems and stuff. And so many people believed them. But I do think if they turned a small percentage of them into MS points(like 5%) it would be a great idea. That would be like all my TDU car packs bought from geting 100% achievment points in all my games, which would be a great result in my opinion.

I don't understand the point of achievements. It is just giving you points for winning the game. Doesn't really make the game better, and doesn't increase the games length. Most achievements are annyoing, and almost impossible to get. I must be the only one who thinks this because almost everyone else is screaming that achievements are godly.drsports1980

Achievements for some people encourage them to play a game more and get even more achievements.  Aiming for difficult achievements can extend the longevitiy of a game.  They can be used for bragging rights to that annoying friend who says "You're full of ****, you didn't accomplish that!" Then you can just own him by showing him the achievement.  Also, in 5-10 years...you can go back and look at what was accomplished in the games you played...just in case it is somewhat forgotten. 

Which is why achievements may not be a great thing all the time.

Costs are a definite big factor for why games are getting shorter and shorter, but can we really be sure that some developers arent just trying to get away with shorter games by relying on achievements to a certain extent? By the popularity of achievements, i think they can get away with it for atleast a little while. For multiplat titles from devs that do this is even worse, since they dont have that achievement reliance making the game seem shorter.

Lets take Diablo 2. I can bet you that there are some people still playing it to this day without going online. Why? Because Blizzard ensured longevity with randomized levels and content. Thats what i wish developers would do and say "Ok, lets make sure people will play our game for 5 or 6 years. After that, lets add in some achievements to give it more." Perfect. Great. I couldn't ask for anything more from a developer. You dont get people playing games for that long on just achievements.

Even Epic insured people would get a lot of GeoW due to a balanced, fun online with or without achievements, even though they have a short game. Could you say the same for other titles? for example, Kameo?

XaosII

We'll never know. We do know that achievements offer a cheap way for developers to ensure that their title is worth the money, something which I wouldn't turn down. People will continue to demand for long games reguardless of achievement points, so I highly doubt that they'll affect the industry as a whole. 

[QUOTE="drsports1980"]I don't understand the point of achievements. It is just giving you points for winning the game. Doesn't really make the game better, and doesn't increase the games length. Most achievements are annyoing, and almost impossible to get. I must be the only one who thinks this because almost everyone else is screaming that achievements are godly.AvIdGaMeR444

Achievements for some people encourage them to play a game more and get even more achievements.  Aiming for difficult achievements can extend the longevitiy of a game.  They can be used for bragging rights to that annoying friend who says "You're full of ****, you didn't accomplish that!" Then you can just own him by showing him the achievement.  Also, in 5-10 years...you can go back and look at what was accomplished in the games you played...just in case it is somewhat forgotten. 

I can understand why some people don't like achievements themselves, but there is no way you can convince me that they are a bad thing. Just because you can see the value in them doesn't mean others don't get more enjoyment because of them.

Its funny watching some of you trying to say achievements are teh suxxor, mods are better. That may be true but that doesn't mean achievements are bad. I also laugh when they say "its just to show how much time you waste in video games" and they have their computer specs in their sig. Isn't that the same thing if not worse?

 Anyway MS is giving away free games with increases in Gamerscore like in the Old Spice Challenge yet some of you still say they are bad.

I can understand why some people don't like achievements themselves, but there is no way you can convince me that they are a bad thing. Just because you can see the value in them doesn't mean others don't get more enjoyment because of them.

Its funny watching some of you trying to say achievements are teh suxxor, mods are better. That may be true but that doesn't mean achievements are bad. I also laugh when they say "its just to show how much time you waste in video games" and they have their computer specs in their sig. Isn't that the same thing if not worse?

 Anyway MS is giving away free games with increases in Gamerscore like in the Old Spice Challenge yet some of you still say they are bad.

TheBigDrat