I'm not asking based on which you have - even if you like PS3 and play it more than 360 you still have a right to think that the Gamerscore system is better, and vice versa. Personally the Gamerscore system is much better, simply because there are many different values of achievements (say, 20 if you only consider achievements up to 100 G that are divisible by 5). PS3 trophies can be of only three values, bronze silver and gold. True, they are actual trophies and have more aesthetic meaning than just a number, but I find it kind of strange how the COD:WAW veteran achievements are only Bronze trophies on PS3.
To be fair, I've only had experience with Achievements/Gamerscore. However, I think Trophies and Achievements both add a lot more replay value to games. There is almost a psychological effect that Trophies/Achievements create that make you want to get those extra 50 Gamerscore points or that Gold trophy.
Both are fine but the problem with trophies is that there are so many ps3 games out there now without them while gamerscore is a standard thing across all xbox games.
Trophies show skill better (someone could have a better lever than you, but you could have more gold) while GS can be really high simply because you've played lots of games. Although, trophies just aren't in every game.
Both are fine but the problem with trophies is that there are so many ps3 games out there now without them while gamerscore is a standard thing across all xbox games.
StudySession
That is definitely a downside to it, I prefer trophies though as the platinums and golds are pretty hard to get, as opposed to gamerscore which rewards you for playing the most games?
Or am I misunderstanding how the gamer score works
I'd say Gamerscore points, simply because they're universal and apply to every game on the 360. If the Trophies were likewise on the PS3, then I'd call it pretty much even. Both add signficant replay value to games, and both make you get a warm, fuzzy feeling inside when you unlock 'em.
trophies are better with the whole platinum and level thing.
but achievements are implemented better, as in every game out there has them in it. for trophies, only the more recent titles have them unless the older ones were patched.
you can live with both. not going to kill you. also, trophies show rank better in that its easy to remember your level as opposed to your gamer score. but who cares anyway?
Both are fine but the problem with trophies is that there are so many ps3 games out there now without them while gamerscore is a standard thing across all xbox games.
StudySession
couldn't agree more, 50% of my ps3 games dont have trophies
Both are fine but the problem with trophies is that there are so many ps3 games out there now without them while gamerscore is a standard thing across all xbox games.
kate_jones
That is definitely a downside to it, I prefer trophies though as the platinums and golds are pretty hard to get, as opposed to gamerscore which rewards you for playing the most games?
Or am I misunderstanding how the gamer score works
Your right about gamerscore. Its more of a reflection of how many games you have played while trophies are more of a skill thing.
You can argue about it all you want but the plain and simple fact is that until every single game has trophies and it is integrated properly then achievements win. They are the same otherwise and so to argue for trophies is a little silly imo.
Trophies show skill better (someone could have a better lever than you, but you could have more gold) while GS can be really high simply because you've played lots of games. Although, trophies just aren't in every game.chapnzaba
No they don't. All one has to do is look at the persons individual achievements to see which ones they have. "Seriously 2.0" Would take me a year of continuous playing of Gears of War 2 to achieve. I don't see how anyone could have that one, unless all they do is play Gears.
[QUOTE="chapnzaba"]Trophies show skill better (someone could have a better lever than you, but you could have more gold) while GS can be really high simply because you've played lots of games. Although, trophies just aren't in every game.Vadamee
No they don't. All one has to do is look at the persons individual achievements to see which ones they have. "Seriously 2.0" Would take me a year of continuous playing of Gears of War 2 to achieve. I don't see how anyone could have that one, unless all they do is play Gears. This and most achievements arent really "skill" based. They are more effort based. It doesnt take skill to get a character in Fallout 3 to be good, bad and neutral, it just takes time. Has nothing to do with your skill level, but how much time you have on your hands to play the game.
Overall I think Trophies are more thought out than gamerscore. They really reward you for playing games and being good at them. Also the idea of leveling is really cool. 360 gamerscore is better in that all games were required from the start to have them
They both serve the same purpose. They both give a game more replay value. I don't see one as being better than the other. So, there should be a "Both" option in the poll.
Trophies show skill better (someone could have a better lever than you, but you could have more gold) while GS can be really high simply because you've played lots of games. Although, trophies just aren't in every game.chapnzaba
How can trophies show better skill, when they're the exact same thing as achievements? Both have different ways of going about it, but in the end, they serve the same exact purpose.
Trophies show skill better (someone could have a better lever than you, but you could have more gold) while GS can be really high simply because you've played lots of games. Although, trophies just aren't in every game.chapnzaba
Not really, Ive got some gold trophies that were extremely easy.
[QUOTE="chapnzaba"]Trophies show skill better (someone could have a better lever than you, but you could have more gold) while GS can be really high simply because you've played lots of games. Although, trophies just aren't in every game.-DrRobotnik-
Not really, Ive got some gold trophies that were extremely easy. Basically, it boils down to how many achievements or trophies you aim for. Some achievements are ridiculously dumb, and you would never do them within regular gameplay. I mean, if they had achievements like " Get 10 killtaculars in MP Halo 3" then OK that is skill based. But finding all the treasures in Uncharted, or finding every skull in Halo 3 doesnt take skill. It takes time.
wat gamerscore doesn't cost any more than trophies >_> unless you're talking about multiplayer achievements that can't be accessed without a gold account which i agree is stupid
wat gamerscore doesn't cost any more than trophies >_> unless you're talking about multiplayer achievements that can't be accessed without a gold account which i agree is stupid
That would be exactly what I mean. The gamerscore doesn't cost money but some of those achievments do require a Gold account which isn't free.
wat gamerscore doesn't cost any more than trophies >_> unless you're talking about multiplayer achievements that can't be accessed without a gold account which i agree is stupid
That would be exactly what I mean. The gamerscore doesn't cost money but some of those achievments do require a Gold account which isn't free.
Sony took the idea and made it a little better with their trophy tier system and leveling system. Platinums and golds are a huge hit with the addicts. Sucks that they aren't in every game , but it really doesn't matter much ... everyone is in the exact same boat.
I like trophies only with exclusives. The problem with trophies is that their "symbol" is caried over from achievements. I loved getting trophies in Resistance 2 because The trophies had symbols on them. A game like Mirror's Edge is a picture ripped off of the 360 acheivements. I like the sound the trophies make and the bar that comes up but this (and the idea of only having 3 kinds) really kills it for me.
[QUOTE="chapnzaba"]Trophies show skill better (someone could have a better lever than you, but you could have more gold) while GS can be really high simply because you've played lots of games. Although, trophies just aren't in every game.h575309
Not really, Ive got some gold trophies that were extremely easy. Basically, it boils down to how many achievements or trophies you aim for. Some achievements are ridiculously dumb, and you would never do them within regular gameplay. I mean, if they had achievements like " Get 10 killtaculars in MP Halo 3" then OK that is skill based. But finding all the treasures in Uncharted, or finding every skull in Halo 3 doesnt take skill. It takes time. Exactly. Neither systems are an indication of skill. They are just fun to collect, thats all.
Depends. When they are there to give you more to do its brilliant. For example in warhawk theres trophies for doing really crazy stuff and sometimes you spend ages trying to do it. I wish COD4 had trophies though. I spent ages doing the challange where you suicide kill someone with a grenade. That would have warranted a gold trophy :lol:
[QUOTE="Brownesque"]Neither, they're both wastes of time.NinjaMunkey01
Depends. When they are there to give you more to do its brilliant. For example in warhawk theres trophies for doing really crazy stuff and sometimes you spend ages trying to do it. I wish COD4 had trophies though. I spent ages doing the challange where you suicide kill someone with a grenade. That would have warranted a gold trophy :lol: You spent ages. I rest my case.
I wouldn't think Trophies would be available for multiplayer components of games since players will boost for them. That said Xbox 360 came up with the idea first and trophies weren't even around when PS3 first came out.
[QUOTE="NinjaMunkey01"][QUOTE="Brownesque"]Neither, they're both wastes of time.Brownesque
Depends. When they are there to give you more to do its brilliant. For example in warhawk theres trophies for doing really crazy stuff and sometimes you spend ages trying to do it. I wish COD4 had trophies though. I spent ages doing the challange where you suicide kill someone with a grenade. That would have warranted a gold trophy :lol: You spent ages. I rest my case. Well then maybe instead of saying "both are wastes of time" You should say, "for me both are wastes of time" Becuase the idea many could get from that post is that you are saying that both are wastes of time full stop, obviously the millions of gamers telling sony to put them in dont agree with you. And since sony put them in it seems all the guys working for playstation disagree with you to. And MS. I rest my case.
Once implemented in the real world, achievements win out. First, they're in ALL 360 retail and arcade games. No manual synching required. The data is available to any community developer that wants it. I can look at my friends list on the 360 and see everyone's gamerscore at a glance. On PS3, I have to click on each person.
They're pretty much the same. But it may be worth noting that the bleep bloop of achievements are practically iconic with the 360. Not saying it's necessarily better.
I love this, trophies are better than gamerscore now? Before trophies existed everyone said that achievements are stupid but then Sony completley copies Microsoft and now not only are they best thing since sliced bread but they are actually better than achievements.
What a joke, Sony could release a pile of crap and stamp it with a Playstation logo and most on this forum would love it and argue everything else is the real piece of crap. Oh wait they did do that, the PS3. Nevermind.
I was agreeing with you right up until your very last bit... The I realised it wasnt just someone talking completel sense. It was just another fanboy rant... You were SO CLOSE to making a very good post... but you just had to let the inner fanboy ruin it :P
I love this, trophies are better than gamerscore now? Before trophies existed everyone said that achievements are stupid but then Sony completley copies Microsoft and now not only are they best thing since sliced bread but they are actually better than achievements.
What a joke, Sony could release a pile of crap and stamp it with a Playstation logo and most on this forum would love it and argue everything else is the real piece of crap. Oh wait they did do that, the PS3. Nevermind.
NinjaMunkey01
I was agreeing with you right up until your very last bit... The I realised it wasnt just someone talking completel sense. It was just another fanboy rant... You were SO CLOSE to making a very good post... but you just had to let the inner fanboy ruin it :P
I own a PS3, there is a difference. I think it is a piece of crap unlike most people in here who have never seen a 360 or PS3 and talk crap about it. And point is still valid, all the PS3 fanboys talked **** about achievements until trophies came out. Whether I like my PS3 is irrelevant.
They're the same. When you completed everything you get an extra image, Platinum Trophy for the PS3, and now you get an extra image when you completed everything for the 360. Achievements are implemented better, more detailed and comparing them are faster.
Log in to comment