Achievements in games. Some people don't care, others like to achieve every single one. However, I'm not worried about that. What I'm concerned about is what I see as the need for developers to inject achievements into their game regardless of breaking the game atmosphere. Take Bioshock Infinite for example, which I completed last week. An excellent game that oozes atmosphere. However, every now and then I would have a little pop up that informed me I had killed x amount of enemies with a pistol or whatever weapon I was using (for the record, I completed the majority of the game with the pistol and carbine - other weapons sucked). I was actually annoyed by this as it drew me out of the game and I really didn't care about how many enemies I had killed as it wasn't important to the story (okay, you can debate the last point a little). On the other hand, a game like Borderlands 2 is well suited to achievements as the story is secondary to blowing the crap out of everything with your fancy new gun you've plucked out of the gibbed remains of your last enemy. One more issue I have is with achievements that are pretty much unavoidable to attain. An example of this is a game that gives you an achievement for completing tutorial missions or for completing a chapter. What's the point of an achievement that can be completed simply by following the course of a game? Having said that, I think an achievement for completing a game is fine provided it pops up AFTER the ending credits (and any post credit bonuses). Anyways, what do my fellow Bit-Techers think?
I'm okay with achievements as long as they don't annoy the hell out of me by popping up at the worst moment with a massive graphic and an obnoxious sound effect (Hello Xbox 360!). Sony's mechanism on the PS3 is less offensive, with a small graphic in the corner of the screen, and can even be turned off if you so wish. In some ways chapter achievements let you know how fast you're going through a game, and specific/hidden ones let you know there is part of the game you haven't touched yet. However, I think some developers give them away too much, trying to get a certain type of player 'hooked' and getting achievements every 10 minutes to make themselves feel better. That's why I like Sony's platinum trophies, because they're so damn hard to get.
Depends on the game, like you said, some games are more suited, e.g. Dead Rising, that had some excellent achievements, especially as it was one of the early games that had them. With Mass Effect, I chose not to really pay attention to the achievements, I was playing that for the story. I also find they're good for giving you a little push to discover or play something you normally wouldn't. E.g Skyrim, I got all the achievements, and that meant I played some parts of the game that I might usually have not bothered with. I used to be a bit of an achievement junky, but now I have less time to play games, I don't usually go out of my way to get all the achievements. For example, I have LEGO Lord of the Rings, in the past I would have played that game a lot more to get all the achievements, now, I'm not really fussed I've only got 50%. I guess if you've got a lot more time on your hands for playing games, achievements are really great for adding some more challenges for you to complete. For people with less time on their hands, simply completing a game can be a struggle to find time for. I've got a list as long as my arm of games I want to complete but haven't got the time for I've got another list as long as my arm of games I have completed but am keeping to replay to get some more achievements. I know I would rather tick off games on that first list.
in co op games they can be a fun thing for you and your friends to work towards but single player ones like "you've taken a ****" or "killed 5 baddies" are pointless.
I like some achievements, I, personally, see them as challenges, such as "Little Space Gnome" from HL2:EP2, which I would never have attempted without the motivation of the achievement. That said; I feel some are a little stupid, "Well done! You shot someone!" or "Pressed start." for example - The usual "Completed story on [Insert Difficulty Here]" I don't hold too much of an issue against.
I don't like these achievements. I don't feel like I've achieved anything there really. I usually am more satisfied when I've achieved my own goals, like completing that very hard mission, or beating friends in a shooter etc. The biggest and most satisfying achievements I've ever had was the won battles in EvE Online, where we fought for territories over month, but there was no popup telling me about it. These achievements are nothing more than meta-content developers throw into their games to cover the fact, that there really isn't that much content to start with.
The only type of game I've found that lends itself to achievements is racing games. Everything else seems pointless to me.
Borderlands 2 achievements go to badass points which actually does something for your new characters and current one. The only achievements I ever earned in wow were the ones that rewarded stuff like mounts Ect. Never been a console gamer as such so never paid much attension to what it pops up on there.
I agree - I don't need a pop up telling me I've managed to beat a boss that I may have spent ten or more goes trying to kill. The problem is that it has seeped into PC gaming now. I'm pretty sure that consoles had achievements first anyway.
I know it is unfashionable to say so, but I quite like achievements! More specifically, I like exploration related achievements. There are a number of games in the last couple of years that have benefited from an extended life because I have spent a few more hours going for the achievements. Assassin's Creed is a good example of that, as is Fallout 3 and Just Cause 2. There are some achievements I don't like though. There was a game recently (and I can't remember which) which gave you an achievement for purchasing an in-game item using a real money micro-transaction. Now, that kind of achievement is not what I want to see in a game. I think that in some cases they can kill team based games as people go for achievements rather than the team objectives - BF3 suffered a lot from this. For this reason, I wouldn't want to see them in Arma 3 for example. Lastly, they have also proved to be a good social tool in other games. For example some of the people I joined up with on Burnout Paradise to complete some of the challenges (which although are technically not achievements, they amount to the same thing) are still friends now. In that sense they proved to be a great tool for forming lasting online friendships.
Depends on the game and the achievement itself. For instance Metro 2033 has achievements, and I think it's a good thing if anything, since it's probably more likely to make me go back and play the game again (or part of it) in a certain way etc to see if I can get them, even if I won't see it through, I'm far more likely to give it a go, do something I might not have otherwise
The only platform I see them on is Steam which seem you have to go to outside the game to see them it is fine, and I generally ignore them. Though sometimes I will take a look for anything that seems bizarre, and challenging and see if I can complete it. Just Cause 2 had some good ones like that and is the last game I remember specifically starting up to do those. For GFWL, I am unaware since I always prevent the entire thing from running or even being installed on my computer by using hacked xlive.dll files instead that simply allow the game to just work without that nuisance.
Most achievements are awarded for doing nothing other than playing the game for long enough. For example in what way is getting 25 kills in CS:S an achievement? If it was 25 kills within say 5 rounds then maybe. World of Tanks is a game where achievements actually have a negative effect on the game. The Scout medal rewards spotting more enemy tanks (at least 9) than anyone else but is only awarded if you are on the winning side. This only encourages noobs in fast light tanks to suicide rush the enemy team in hope that they meet the requirement of the award before being killed which usually is within the 1st minute. This tactic doesn't help the team in any way and just pisses people off.
+1 though I'm not too bugged by the "lower" end achivements. Pointless true, but meh. What I find more irritating is the "killed 5 billion" baddies achivements, put there just so that at least some people will play their game for longer than the basic 6 hours. All that proves is that you have OCD!
I don't think there's anything wrong with achievements provided they're used in the right way. I think some achievements can be detrimental to a game. For example, Mass Effect is one of my favourite games over the past few years but the achievements try to get me to play the game in a certain way (i.e. rewarding me for getting all the paragon/renegade points). Also any achievement rewarded for purchasing an in-game item is awful. On the other hand the best achievements I have seen were in Geometry Wars Evolved (Xbox360). They basically set you challenges within the game (dodging 8 waves of 'enemies' rather than shoot them for example)
Achievements are awesome! Gotta catch them all: On a side note: Is there any way to disable the annoying popup on Steam without disabling the Steam overlay? The achievements always broke the immersion of Bioshock Infinite for me but the chat function really is handy.
Nine times out of ten I ignore them, but I did enjoy unlocking the ones in Deus Ex:HR. It gives you a reason to play through the game without setting off any alarms, for example. Where as otherwise you would probably not bother. But largely I see them as a pointless addition that is put there because everyone else is doing it; whether it fits the game or not.
