For something that has absolutely no impact on quality of Game, GameSpot sure seems to mention achievements in reviews a whole lot. Look what they said about Ninja Turtles The Good: Online co-op play for up to four players that's legitimately fun; all the original music and voice effects are here; solid achievements list; it's only $5. Solid achievement list? I believe that is code for, "Easy Gamerscore boost" Who cares? Honestly? We all know Gertsmann is in love with his Gamerscore to the point which he files a points report every week. Achievements aren't important to me GameSpot. and do not affect the game in any way. They should not be factored into your reviews.
For something that has absolutely no impact on quality of Game, GameSpot sure seems to mention achievements in reviews a whole lot. Look what they said about Ninja Turtles The Good: Online co-op play for up to four players that's legitimately fun; all the original music and voice effects are here; solid achievements list; it's only $5. Solid achievement list? I believe that is code for, "Easy Gamerscore boost" Who cares? Honestly? We all know Gertsmann is in love with his Gamerscore to the point which he files a points report every week. Achievements aren't important to me GameSpot.sdifjds
Well, it is to them, so they're going to write about it.
[QUOTE="sdifjds"]For something that has absolutely no impact on quality of Game, GameSpot sure seems to mention achievements in reviews a whole lot. Look what they said about Ninja Turtles The Good: Online co-op play for up to four players that's legitimately fun; all the original music and voice effects are here; solid achievements list; it's only $5. Solid achievement list? I believe that is code for, "Easy Gamerscore boost" Who cares? Honestly? We all know Gertsmann is in love with his Gamerscore to the point which he files a points report every week. Achievements aren't important to me GameSpot.Gamer556
Well, it is to them, so they're going to write about it.
Congratulations, you just got the high score for this thread! A WINNER IS YOU!
[QUOTE="sdifjds"]For something that has absolutely no impact on quality of Game, GameSpot sure seems to mention achievements in reviews a whole lot. Look what they said about Ninja Turtles The Good: Online co-op play for up to four players that's legitimately fun; all the original music and voice effects are here; solid achievements list; it's only $5. Solid achievement list? I believe that is code for, "Easy Gamerscore boost" Who cares? Honestly? We all know Gertsmann is in love with his Gamerscore to the point which he files a points report every week. Achievements aren't important to me GameSpot.Gamer556
Well, it is to them, so they're going to write about it.
Not only do they write about it, but it obviously factors into their scoring of a game.
[QUOTE="sdifjds"]For something that has absolutely no impact on quality of Game, GameSpot sure seems to mention achievements in reviews a whole lot. Look what they said about Ninja Turtles The Good: Online co-op play for up to four players that's legitimately fun; all the original music and voice effects are here; solid achievements list; it's only $5. Solid achievement list? I believe that is code for, "Easy Gamerscore boost" Who cares? Honestly? We all know Gertsmann is in love with his Gamerscore to the point which he files a points report every week. Achievements aren't important to me GameSpot.sdifjds
Well, it is to them, so they're going to write about it.
Not only do they write about it, but it obviously factors into their scoring of a game.
Yea achievements are kind of dumb, but I guess it could add to the experience, if you try to achieve the achievements, but not really, since if the games bad, achievements dont make it better.
To me achievements r pointless. All it does is say look I have less of a life. Dont take that in a wrong way but I just dont get the point in bragging about it
achievements add replay value and extend the life of the game. nuff said.MADVLAD123
That's really subjective. Achievements being factored into reviews should be a huge NO-NO for GameSpot. Factoring achievements into replay value is almost an artificial way of increasing scores. Replay value shouldn't be increased because, "Well I played through it a couple times, not because I actually wanted to, but because I wanted more points" Again, achievement points SHOULD NOT be factored into reviews.
[QUOTE="sdifjds"]For something that has absolutely no impact on quality of Game, GameSpot sure seems to mention achievements in reviews a whole lot. Look what they said about Ninja Turtles The Good: Online co-op play for up to four players that's legitimately fun; all the original music and voice effects are here; solid achievements list; it's only $5. Solid achievement list? I believe that is code for, "Easy Gamerscore boost" Who cares? Honestly? We all know Gertsmann is in love with his Gamerscore to the point which he files a points report every week. Achievements aren't important to me GameSpot.sdifjds
Well, it is to them, so they're going to write about it.
Not only do they write about it, but it obviously factors into their scoring of a game.
And it should. A lot of people like them, so I think it is important that Gamespot mentions them in their reviews.
To me achievements r pointless. All it does is say look I have less of a life. Dont take that in a wrong way but I just dont get the point in bragging about it mgszelda1
To me HOME for PS3 is pointless, isnt it awesome how we all have opinions.
Everyone gives too much praise to achievements. But still, it's a pretty good feature. I like it most, because I can see what games other people play and to what degree do they play them. My only complaint is that some people focus too much on achievements. For example, one of my friends asks me to play every mode with him on R6V just to get an achievement. It's sort of annoying when people go out of their way just for points. But, on the other hand it does give a bit more value to the game you've purchased.
Personally I think just about everyone over-rates achievements, mainly because I could care less about them. So what if I get 50 points added to some number that nobody ever sees? But some people just love stuff like that, I guess.
[QUOTE="MADVLAD123"]achievements add replay value and extend the life of the game. nuff said.sdifjds
That's really subjective. Achievements being factored into reviews should be a huge NO-NO for GameSpot. Factoring achievements into replay value is almost an artificial way of increasing scores. Replay value shouldn't be increased because, "Well I played through it a couple times, not because I actually wanted to, but because I wanted more points"
wanted more points=wanted to play more=replay value=better score=nuff said.
To me achievements r pointless. All it does is say look I have less of a life. Dont take that in a wrong way but I just dont get the point in bragging about it mgszelda1
Its like a mmo, O look im level 60, im so good!! Yea you also played for 1,000 hours. Most achievements arent skilled based, but how dedicated you are to the game.
To me achievements r pointless. All it does is say look I have less of a life. Dont take that in a wrong way but I just dont get the point in bragging about it mgszelda1
Please, don't start with the "I have a life" crap. You're posting on a video game forum. Brag about your social qualities somewhere else.
[QUOTE="MADVLAD123"]achievements add replay value and extend the life of the game. nuff said.sdifjds
That's really subjective. Achievements being factored into reviews should be a huge NO-NO for GameSpot. Factoring achievements into replay value is almost an artificial way of increasing scores. Replay value shouldn't be increased because, "Well I played through it a couple times, not because I actually wanted to, but because I wanted more points" So its only because they're replaying something because they want something in return?
[QUOTE="MADVLAD123"]achievements add replay value and extend the life of the game. nuff said.sdifjds
That's really subjective. Achievements being factored into reviews should be a huge NO-NO for GameSpot. Factoring achievements into replay value is almost an artificial way of increasing scores. Replay value shouldn't be increased because, "Well I played through it a couple times, not because I actually wanted to, but because I wanted more points"
Who says they dont factor it into the score in a fair way....like maybe before story made up 50 percent and multiplayer made up 50 percent of the replay value score now its story 40 percent multiplayer 40 percent and achievements 20 percent.
[QUOTE="mgszelda1"]To me achievements r pointless. All it does is say look I have less of a life. Dont take that in a wrong way but I just dont get the point in bragging about it -=XBoXDemon=-
To me HOME for PS3 is pointless, isnt it awesome how we all have opinions. Yea but he has a fact behind his. He says achievements dont show your skill, just that you play the game alot, which the majority do. Look at that GeOW achievement, its like get a ridiculously high number of kills, if it was skilled absed, it would be get a certain KD ratio.
Achievements should not be considered in review scores.
CelineDion
Why not? Its part of the game. It extends the life of some games. Gives some people goals beyond beating the game. Everytime I play gears someone is talking about getting an achievement.
[QUOTE="mgszelda1"]To me achievements r pointless. All it does is say look I have less of a life. Dont take that in a wrong way but I just dont get the point in bragging about it Gamer556
Please, don't start with the "I have a life" crap. You're posting on a video game forum. Brag about your social qualities somewhere else.
Not just any videogame forum....lmao SYSTEM WARS....Put that on your resume lmao.
[QUOTE="sdifjds"]For something that has absolutely no impact on quality of Game, GameSpot sure seems to mention achievements in reviews a whole lot. Look what they said about Ninja Turtles The Good: Online co-op play for up to four players that's legitimately fun; all the original music and voice effects are here; solid achievements list; it's only $5. Solid achievement list? I believe that is code for, "Easy Gamerscore boost" Who cares? Honestly? We all know Gertsmann is in love with his Gamerscore to the point which he files a points report every week. Achievements aren't important to me GameSpot. What anime is that? Geez....
Personally I think just about everyone over-rates achievements, mainly because I could care less about them. So what if I get 50 points added to some number that nobody ever sees? But some people just love stuff like that, I guess. Teufelhuhn
I couldn't care less about points, I don't even have Live so nobody is going to see my gamerscore. But they're still something else to do. I wouldn't had played Dead Rising as much as I did without them.
[QUOTE="-=XBoXDemon=-"][QUOTE="mgszelda1"]To me achievements r pointless. All it does is say look I have less of a life. Dont take that in a wrong way but I just dont get the point in bragging about it coolguy1111
To me HOME for PS3 is pointless, isnt it awesome how we all have opinions. Yea but he has a fact behind his. He says achievements dont show your skill, just that you play the game alot, which the majority do. Look at that GeOW achievement, its like get a ridiculously high number of kills, if it was skilled absed, it would be get a certain KD ratio.
I think anyone who manages to get 10,000 kills can probably hold their own.
[QUOTE="-=XBoXDemon=-"][QUOTE="mgszelda1"]To me achievements r pointless. All it does is say look I have less of a life. Dont take that in a wrong way but I just dont get the point in bragging about it coolguy1111
To me HOME for PS3 is pointless, isnt it awesome how we all have opinions. Yea but he has a fact behind his. He says achievements dont show your skill, just that you play the game alot, which the majority do. Look at that GeOW achievement, its like get a ridiculously high number of kills, if it was skilled absed, it would be get a certain KD ratio.
Actual most of the Gears achievements do take skill, like get 100 headshots or 100 sniper kills or 100 Hamer of Dawn kills when everyones going for those weapons its really hard to get them and then you actually have to kil people if you get them, not just anyone can pick up those weapons and use them like its a shotgun.
They are big fanboys of achievements , yet they pretty much scoff at the idea of 3d trophies in a virtual space.I don't think they will knock any lack of achievements in Wii games but they will in ps3 games.
Everything I said is my opinion , which might be true.
[QUOTE="mgszelda1"]To me achievements r pointless. All it does is say look I have less of a life. Dont take that in a wrong way but I just dont get the point in bragging about it -=XBoXDemon=-
To me HOME for PS3 is pointless, isnt it awesome how we all have opinions. Yeah I dont really care for home other than the fact uniform online service and advertising. As far as ppl seeing how much time I spend on a game or what I did on the game I could care less. The only thing good about that is it gets the ppl who do care about that crap to look at a PS3
[QUOTE="sdifjds"] Solid achievement list? I believe that is code for, "Easy Gamerscore boost" .
Wrong. It means "cool list of achievements". See, some games have bad achievements - either impossible or too easy, or simply obtained through the course of normal gameplay (like King Kong).
A "Solid achievement list" involves a good mix of challenging, interesting and oddball achievements - like Dead Rising or Crackdown.
Oh, and achievements are nice. They can add nothing to a game (they cannot actually detract from a game), or they can add A LOT. See Crackdown or Dead Rising for a good example of how achievements can become a real asset to the game. Most people who haven't played games like these won't understand why others love the achievement system.
In the case of TMNT, achievements are very interesting (and some are hard), which adds a good extra challenge to the game: This is good for the game's longevity factor.
[QUOTE="coolguy1111"][QUOTE="-=XBoXDemon=-"][QUOTE="mgszelda1"]To me achievements r pointless. All it does is say look I have less of a life. Dont take that in a wrong way but I just dont get the point in bragging about it Gamer556
To me HOME for PS3 is pointless, isnt it awesome how we all have opinions. Yea but he has a fact behind his. He says achievements dont show your skill, just that you play the game alot, which the majority do. Look at that GeOW achievement, its like get a ridiculously high number of kills, if it was skilled absed, it would be get a certain KD ratio.
I think anyone who manages to get 10,000 kills can probably hold their own.
[QUOTE="sdifjds"]For something that has absolutely no impact on quality of Game, GameSpot sure seems to mention achievements in reviews a whole lot. Look what they said about Ninja Turtles The Good: Online co-op play for up to four players that's legitimately fun; all the original music and voice effects are here; solid achievements list; it's only $5. Solid achievement list? I believe that is code for, "Easy Gamerscore boost" Who cares? Honestly? We all know Gertsmann is in love with his Gamerscore to the point which he files a points report every week. Achievements aren't important to me GameSpot. and do not affect the game in any way. They should not be factored into your reviews.
The leaderboards on mygamercard.net says quite the opposite. Just because they do nothing for you doesn't mean they do nothing for the next person.
[QUOTE="sdifjds"]For something that has absolutely no impact on quality of Game, GameSpot sure seems to mention achievements in reviews a whole lot. Look what they said about Ninja Turtles The Good: Online co-op play for up to four players that's legitimately fun; all the original music and voice effects are here; solid achievements list; it's only $5. Solid achievement list? I believe that is code for, "Easy Gamerscore boost" Who cares? Honestly? We all know Gertsmann is in love with his Gamerscore to the point which he files a points report every week. Achievements aren't important to me GameSpot. and do not affect the game in any way. They should not be factored into your reviews.
Well then just take that into account when you read their reviews and scores. I don't get why people think reviews should have exactly the same opinion as they do. Reviews are just information for the consumer to make up their minds about a purchase without actually buying. They aren't substitutes for your opinion.Â
Achievements should not be considered in review scores.
Brooklyn2700
Why not? Its part of the game. It extends the life of some games. Gives some people goals beyond beating the game. Everytime I play gears someone is talking about getting an achievement.
It only extends the life of the game for people who actually give a damn about playing through a game more than once for more points (believe me, it's minority). If the game is only worth playing through once because it's not really a compelling game, the review should reflect this. Not because well, you can get an extra 500 points added to your gamerscore if you play it twice.
[QUOTE="coolguy1111"][QUOTE="-=XBoXDemon=-"][QUOTE="mgszelda1"]To me achievements r pointless. All it does is say look I have less of a life. Dont take that in a wrong way but I just dont get the point in bragging about it -=XBoXDemon=-
To me HOME for PS3 is pointless, isnt it awesome how we all have opinions. Yea but he has a fact behind his. He says achievements dont show your skill, just that you play the game alot, which the majority do. Look at that GeOW achievement, its like get a ridiculously high number of kills, if it was skilled absed, it would be get a certain KD ratio.
Actual most of the Gears achievements do take skill, like get 100 headshots or 100 sniper kills or 100 Hamer of Dawn kills when everyones going for those weapons its really hard to get them and then you actually have to kil people if you get them, not just anyone can pick up those weapons and use them like its a shotgun. True, but getting 100 kills doesnt always make you good. Ive never really played GeOW online so i cant say much, but in UT04, alot of noobs get lucky headshots, so if they play enough they could get it. And im assuming the ahmmer is like the impact hammer in UT99? If then, if you try hard enough, and run at enough people, theyll come. Sure, it can be done skilled..ly, but skilless people, if they spend enough time at, can get it too. Thats why I think it should be get a certain KD ratio, not number of kills. But 10,000 kills is hard, and your probably good after that many.
[QUOTE="coolguy1111"][QUOTE="-=XBoXDemon=-"][QUOTE="mgszelda1"]To me achievements r pointless. All it does is say look I have less of a life. Dont take that in a wrong way but I just dont get the point in bragging about it coolguy1111
To me HOME for PS3 is pointless, isnt it awesome how we all have opinions. Yea but he has a fact behind his. He says achievements dont show your skill, just that you play the game alot, which the majority do. Look at that GeOW achievement, its like get a ridiculously high number of kills, if it was skilled absed, it would be get a certain KD ratio.
I think anyone who manages to get 10,000 kills can probably hold their own.
Yea but if they have 20,000 deaths, thats crap.
I dont think anyone who has 10k kills has 20k deaths I can almost back that up with a gaurentee b/c it takes so long to get a match going anyways in ranked so your point is mute.
Just like how people don't care about home either. it goes both ways. And achievement points add replay value, and have you playing games in ways you normally wouldn't.
[QUOTE="coolguy1111"][QUOTE="-=XBoXDemon=-"][QUOTE="mgszelda1"]To me achievements r pointless. All it does is say look I have less of a life. Dont take that in a wrong way but I just dont get the point in bragging about it -=XBoXDemon=-
To me HOME for PS3 is pointless, isnt it awesome how we all have opinions. Yea but he has a fact behind his. He says achievements dont show your skill, just that you play the game alot, which the majority do. Look at that GeOW achievement, its like get a ridiculously high number of kills, if it was skilled absed, it would be get a certain KD ratio.
I think anyone who manages to get 10,000 kills can probably hold their own.
Yea but if they have 20,000 deaths, thats crap.
I dont think anyone who has 10k kills has 20k deaths I can almost back that up with a gaurentee b/c it takes so long to get a match going anyways in ranked so your point is mute. Its possible, just die twice for every one kill you get.
For something that has absolutely no impact on quality of Game, GameSpot sure seems to mention achievements in reviews a whole lot. Look what they said about Ninja Turtles The Good: Online co-op play for up to four players that's legitimately fun; all the original music and voice effects are here; solid achievements list; it's only $5. Solid achievement list? I believe that is code for, "Easy Gamerscore boost" Who cares? Honestly? We all know Gertsmann is in love with his Gamerscore to the point which he files a points report every week. Achievements aren't important to me GameSpot. and do not affect the game in any way. They should not be factored into your reviews.sdifjds
just becuase you don't like something doesn't mean its overated. my friend used to play nothing but PC games, but the achievemets has him hooked on the 360. he bought oblivion for the 360 because of them. thats just one person out of 9-10 million people who owns a 360, but if that makes a difference to him, how many more feel the same way?
just get over it, achivements are here to stay. Sony will have Trophies, who knows maybe nintendo will do the same thing, maybe you can collect coins for the Wii or something.
They are big fanboys of achievements , yet they pretty much scoff at the idea of 3d trophies in a virtual space.I don't think they will knock any lack of achievements in Wii games but they will in ps3 games.
Everything I said is my opinion , which might be true.
Nike_Air
Everything said is your opinion and I agree with it 1000%. GameSpot will never even view PS3 trophies on the same level they do 360's achievements.
Honestly I think only the hard hardcore care about achievements b/c in a way achievements have been around forever, they were just called stats. And the majority of the gaming market never cared to kill 100 ppl in survival mode on a random game say DOA. U just played.
[QUOTE="sdifjds"]For something that has absolutely no impact on quality of Game, GameSpot sure seems to mention achievements in reviews a whole lot. Look what they said about Ninja Turtles The Good: Online co-op play for up to four players that's legitimately fun; all the original music and voice effects are here; solid achievements list; it's only $5. Solid achievement list? I believe that is code for, "Easy Gamerscore boost" Who cares? Honestly? We all know Gertsmann is in love with his Gamerscore to the point which he files a points report every week. Achievements aren't important to me GameSpot.MADVLAD123
Well, it is to them, so they're going to write about it.
Not only do they write about it, but it obviously factors into their scoring of a game.
of course. It adds to the value of the game.
No it doesnt..... What do the points even do? My friend told me they were just there to be there i told them that would be to retarded....They're not just there to be there are they?
Achievements should not be considered in review scores.
CelineDion
Why not? They had longevity to a game and make players go that extra step to truly beat a game. What's wrong with that? It's not like they're giving games AAA scores based off achievements points, is it? I dont see the problem with them simply mentioning how fun/varied/challenging a game's achievements are.
[QUOTE="coolguy1111"][QUOTE="-=XBoXDemon=-"][QUOTE="mgszelda1"]To me achievements r pointless. All it does is say look I have less of a life. Dont take that in a wrong way but I just dont get the point in bragging about it coolguy1111
To me HOME for PS3 is pointless, isnt it awesome how we all have opinions. Yea but he has a fact behind his. He says achievements dont show your skill, just that you play the game alot, which the majority do. Look at that GeOW achievement, its like get a ridiculously high number of kills, if it was skilled absed, it would be get a certain KD ratio.
I think anyone who manages to get 10,000 kills can probably hold their own.
Yea but if they have 20,000 deaths, thats crap.
True, but that's what the actual leaderboards are for. People look at those for the best player in the world, not Gamerscores.
I personally have no problems with achievements like Gears of War's "Seriously...". It's a lot better than what Ubisoft did with the original GRAW achievements. There was an achievement where you had to reach the number one ranking in the world.
For something that has absolutely no impact on quality of Game, GameSpot sure seems to mention achievements in reviews a whole lot. Look what they said about Ninja Turtles The Good: Online co-op play for up to four players that's legitimately fun; all the original music and voice effects are here; solid achievements list; it's only $5. Solid achievement list? I believe that is code for, "Easy Gamerscore boost" Who cares? Honestly? We all know Gertsmann is in love with his Gamerscore to the point which he files a points report every week. Achievements aren't important to me GameSpot. and do not affect the game in any way. They should not be factored into your reviews.sdifjds
lol, Next year all we will hear about is how overrated trophys are, the cycle will be complete and the universe will be in balance once again.
Achievements should not be considered in review scores.
Ninja-Vox
Why not? They had longevity to a game and make players go that extra step to truly beat a game. What's wrong with that? It's not like they're giving games AAA scores based off achievements points, is it? I dont see the problem with them simply mentioning how fun/varied/challenging a game's achievements are. It only extends the life of the game for people who actually give a damn about playing through a game more than once for more points (minority). If the game is only worth playing through once because it's not really a compelling game, the review should reflect this. Not because well, you can get an extra 500 points added to your gamerscore if you play it twice.
[QUOTE="coolguy1111"][QUOTE="-=XBoXDemon=-"][QUOTE="mgszelda1"]To me achievements r pointless. All it does is say look I have less of a life. Dont take that in a wrong way but I just dont get the point in bragging about it coolguy1111
To me HOME for PS3 is pointless, isnt it awesome how we all have opinions. Yea but he has a fact behind his. He says achievements dont show your skill, just that you play the game alot, which the majority do. Look at that GeOW achievement, its like get a ridiculously high number of kills, if it was skilled absed, it would be get a certain KD ratio.
I think anyone who manages to get 10,000 kills can probably hold their own.
Yea but if they have 20,000 deaths, thats crap.
I dont think anyone who has 10k kills has 20k deaths I can almost back that up with a gaurentee b/c it takes so long to get a match going anyways in ranked so your point is mute. Its possible, just die twice for every one kill you get.
If you played this game online you would know what I mean by it takes along time to get all those kills in ranked b/c you can only play 1 ranked match at a time then have to search for another one and wait for it to fill up, you can tjust continue to play with the same people after the match is over it puts you back to the main menu so for someone to have that many deaths trust me it would take a VERY LONG TIME.
Log in to comment