Achievements are the Best/Worst thing to Happen to Gaming

[USSR]

Some achievements are also important to the future development of games. You may not realise that, but those 10 or 20 gamer points you're getting from an unlocked achievement are hugely important.

Hoooow?

The achievements you get from beating a level. All unlocked achievements are documented on Xbox Live. Developers can then access these statistics to see which achievements are being unlocked, by the amount of people who've played their games.

This will allow developers to find out how many players have actually beaten a game, how many players have unlocked most of the content and so on.

With the level beaten achievements developers can then gauge just how hard their game is. Is the game too hard to the point that most of the players haven't beaten it? Check the statistics from Xbox Live.

These things then shape the development of future games, such as difficulty.

Note the fact Assassins Creed may not ask us to find those horrid flags again...

*cries from the memories*

From what I read I don't think that the developers are going into that same direction again.

Then again, I could be wrong.

..I hope you are right T.T

I highly recommend reading up on the Games(tm) magazines, they are excellent sources of information.

Or, if you're broke, you can get that same article that goes into depth about the game here: http://www.nowgamer.com/features/298/assassins-creed-2

It's good read, and I trust the source.

Thanks, I had a subscription on game informer but that ended a few months, and I keep forgetting to renew it =/

Is Game Informer good? I live in Ireland but I suppose that we'd be classified as the "UK" area. To be honest, I haven't seen the magazine. Is it console exclusive?

Oh no no, It is a very good magazine. Not console exclusive; it covers just about everything to be honest. All in very detailed articles, and amazing reviews.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

Acheivements suck balls.

They are simply a measure of how much money one has to spend on many games with which to facilitate achieving a high gamer score.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

Worst/Hardest would be Burnout Revenge. Seriously? An Achievement for having your clip be in the top 20 vids of all time? Ridiculous.

That's laughably unfair and impossible. Worst achievement I've ever heard of.

Worst apart from GTA4, kill a rockstar dev in an online match...

 

[Noone From Nowhere]

What's with the false dichotomy here? They are neither the best or worst thing to happen to gaming. They are a cute little extra that serves as a meta-game to the players and as free market research to the game makers.
Since they are one-time only, they aren't even that much of a distraction save for the first time through on any difficulty setting.
In the days before X-Box 360 Achievements and PS3 Trophies, I set these kinds of pointless goals for myself anyway just because I could, such as seeing how long I could juggle an enemy in Guardian Heroes or going through as much of Doom as I could using only Doom Guy's fists or beating Doctor Wily in Mega Man 2 without beat touched (recording it on videotape for posterity...until one of my brothers records over it with a rap video), but now, I get something to show for it to other gamers on X-Box Live who actually care about that sort of thing.

 

[high_castle]

On a game you like to play, achievements can be one more reason to keep playing. And I have to disagree with the OP, I thought Mass Effect did it right. The bottom line is that RPG fans will replay everything anyway. Only now we're being rewarded for replaying by unlocking weapons and skill talents, or getting more XP or money the next time through. Awesome. And if you play as a different class, or with a different background, and pick new companions each time through, you should find the dialogue changes quite a bit and missions can unfold quite differently. I've played through 7 times now and not bored yet.

Assassin's Creed annoyed me, though. The flag collection quests were boring, so I didn't bother attempting them. I only go after achievements if they're something I want to get anyway. And collecting a bunch of flags for no reason other than a few points I can't even redeem for anything...not something I much want to do.

 

[NeutralMunchHotel]

What's with the false dichotomy here? They are neither the best or worst thing to happen to gaming. They are a cute little extra that serves as a meta-game to the players and as free market research to the game makers.
Since they are one-time only, they aren't even that much of a distraction save for the first time through on any difficulty setting.
In the days before X-Box 360 Achievements and PS3 Trophies, I set these kinds of pointless goals for myself anyway just because I could, such as seeing how long I could juggle an enemy in Guardian Heroes or going through as much of Doom as I could using only Doom Guy's fists or beating Doctor Wily in Mega Man 2 without beat touched (recording it on videotape for posterity...until one of my brothers records over it with a rap video), but now, I get something to show for it to other gamers on X-Box Live who actually care about that sort of thing.

What I mean is it started out as an extra, but now it's become one of those things that has become so important to some people that it's become more important than the main game, or not being able to finish a game the way you'd like because if they become end a certain way they'd get an achievement for it.

 

[squid5580]

For me they are the best thing to happen to my experience. They have given me incentive to replay a game, try a new style of playing and get more bang for my buck. It has encouraged some healthy competition between friends and since games have stepped away from scores it has been a worthy replacement.

Although not all achievements are equal. Some are stupid and counterproductive. MP achievements have got to go (especially the play 1 million matches) with the play every map once and play every game mode once being exceptions.

I have also begun working on a theory. Ach quality vs game quality. It seems to me that every game that has super easy achs (beat the game have a 1000 or Avatar's mash B for 5 minutes to get 1000) is usually a terrible game. Some examples of this would include CSI, King Kong and Terminator Salvation to name a few. Like they know they made a crap game so they will encourage people to buy them by offering an easy 1000 points.

 

[NeutralMunchHotel]

For me they are the best thing to happen to my experience. They have given me incentive to replay a game, try a new style of playing and get more bang for my buck. It has encouraged some healthy competition between friends and since games have stepped away from scores it has been a worthy replacement.

Although not all achievements are equal. Some are stupid and counterproductive. MP achievements have got to go (especially the play 1 million matches) with the play every map once and play every game mode once being exceptions.

I have also begun working on a theory. Ach quality vs game quality. It seems to me that every game that has super easy achs (beat the game have a 1000 or Avatar's mash B for 5 minutes to get 1000) is usually a terrible game. Some examples of this would include CSI, King Kong and Terminator Salvation to name a few. Like they know they made a crap game so they will encourage people to buy them by offering an easy 1000 points.

Surely that would be opposite? If it was a really easy 1000 I'd want to rent it, but if it took longer I'd want to buy it because it takes longer to get all of them.

 

[squid5580]

For me they are the best thing to happen to my experience. They have given me incentive to replay a game, try a new style of playing and get more bang for my buck. It has encouraged some healthy competition between friends and since games have stepped away from scores it has been a worthy replacement.

Although not all achievements are equal. Some are stupid and counterproductive. MP achievements have got to go (especially the play 1 million matches) with the play every map once and play every game mode once being exceptions.

I have also begun working on a theory. Ach quality vs game quality. It seems to me that every game that has super easy achs (beat the game have a 1000 or Avatar's mash B for 5 minutes to get 1000) is usually a terrible game. Some examples of this would include CSI, King Kong and Terminator Salvation to name a few. Like they know they made a crap game so they will encourage people to buy them by offering an easy 1000 points.

Surely that would be opposite? If it was a really easy 1000 I'd want to rent it, but if it took longer I'd want to buy it because it takes longer to get all of them.

That would be a consumer perspective though, not a marketing one. From thier side they gotta know they made a crap game and gotta try to boost sales somehow. Why delay and improve it when you can slap on some easy achs and tell all the achwhores all over the web (and believe me there is lots) that they can boost thier scores with minimum effort. And don't forget that not every rental store may pick up said titles. Some may be either forced to buy or go without.

 

[Barky13]

They're great when they give out just the right amount of points at the right time to make you want to keep playing while adding some more so that there's more replay value.

 

[NeutralMunchHotel]

For me they are the best thing to happen to my experience. They have given me incentive to replay a game, try a new style of playing and get more bang for my buck. It has encouraged some healthy competition between friends and since games have stepped away from scores it has been a worthy replacement.

Although not all achievements are equal. Some are stupid and counterproductive. MP achievements have got to go (especially the play 1 million matches) with the play every map once and play every game mode once being exceptions.

I have also begun working on a theory. Ach quality vs game quality. It seems to me that every game that has super easy achs (beat the game have a 1000 or Avatar's mash B for 5 minutes to get 1000) is usually a terrible game. Some examples of this would include CSI, King Kong and Terminator Salvation to name a few. Like they know they made a crap game so they will encourage people to buy them by offering an easy 1000 points.

Surely that would be opposite? If it was a really easy 1000 I'd want to rent it, but if it took longer I'd want to buy it because it takes longer to get all of them.

That would be a consumer perspective though, not a marketing one. From thier side they gotta know they made a crap game and gotta try to boost sales somehow. Why delay and improve it when you can slap on some easy achs and tell all the achwhores all over the web (and believe me there is lots) that they can boost thier scores with minimum effort. And don't forget that not every rental store may pick up said titles. Some may be either forced to buy or go without.

Maybe so, but would you pay £60 for a game that you'll play for 5 minutes for a 1000 gamerpoints? And even when the rental stores pick them up, the companies make a lot less money - perhaps King Kong wouldn't have done so badly? Well...

 

[squid5580]

For me they are the best thing to happen to my experience. They have given me incentive to replay a game, try a new style of playing and get more bang for my buck. It has encouraged some healthy competition between friends and since games have stepped away from scores it has been a worthy replacement.

Although not all achievements are equal. Some are stupid and counterproductive. MP achievements have got to go (especially the play 1 million matches) with the play every map once and play every game mode once being exceptions.

I have also begun working on a theory. Ach quality vs game quality. It seems to me that every game that has super easy achs (beat the game have a 1000 or Avatar's mash B for 5 minutes to get 1000) is usually a terrible game. Some examples of this would include CSI, King Kong and Terminator Salvation to name a few. Like they know they made a crap game so they will encourage people to buy them by offering an easy 1000 points.

Surely that would be opposite? If it was a really easy 1000 I'd want to rent it, but if it took longer I'd want to buy it because it takes longer to get all of them.

That would be a consumer perspective though, not a marketing one. From thier side they gotta know they made a crap game and gotta try to boost sales somehow. Why delay and improve it when you can slap on some easy achs and tell all the achwhores all over the web (and believe me there is lots) that they can boost thier scores with minimum effort. And don't forget that not every rental store may pick up said titles. Some may be either forced to buy or go without.

Maybe so, but would you pay £60 for a game that you'll play for 5 minutes for a 1000 gamerpoints? And even when the rental stores pick them up, the companies make a lot less money - perhaps King Kong wouldn't have done so badly? Well...

Me?? No I try and keep myself well informed on what is going on with games and have unlimited rentals at Blockbuster a few blocks away for $30 a month. I am a curious fellow and will rent a "bad" game just to see how bad it is. But someone somewhere is buying these games. Otherwise Gamestop (or reasonable facimiles) wouldn't have used copies on thier shelves. I would like to think these people are buying these games because they are rich achwhores because the alternative is quite worse.

 

[NeutralMunchHotel]

Me?? No I try and keep myself well informed on what is going on with games and have unlimited rentals at Blockbuster a few blocks away for $30 a month. I am a curious fellow and will rent a "bad" game just to see how bad it is. But someone somewhere is buying these games. Otherwise Gamestop (or reasonable facimiles) wouldn't have used copies on thier shelves. I would like to think these people are buying these games because they are rich achwhores because the alternative is quite worse.

Worse. And true. Which is why the Wii is so successful.

 

[Nam Yensa]

I Love Achievements they give incentives to do hard things. on that note stupid achievements annoy me. like "congratulations you went where you needed to go" or "yay! you got promoted".

 

[Kiutu]

I would liked it better if they were more uniform. I will never get Bring down the Sky for Mass Effect since my 1000g looks much nicer than 1050. (Yes, I played through the game 5 times and got all of em)and do NOT even get me started on the bs that is Halo 3's achievements.
Achievements would be nicer if they were mostly more like Dead Rising, which aside from the 5/7 day survivor ones, were fun and clever while being rewarding too.

Achievement follies though I feel include:
Non-stacking difficulties. If I beat it on hard, it should unlock the easy and normal mode ones too.

Leaderboard. Being number 1 on the world leaderboard is an achievement in itself, dont make us whores have to boost like mad for it so we can get those 20 points (stupid GRAW)

Online achievements for online wastelands. More for arcade, but some games people just do nto play online. How I got all the achievements in Prey I do not know. Had I waited a week longer, it may never had happened.

Drainingly tedious achievements: Think a certain Gears of War achievement. Assassin's Creed is also guilty of this.

 

[NeutralMunchHotel]

I would liked it better if they were more uniform. I will never get Bring down the Sky for Mass Effect since my 1000g looks much nicer than 1050.

...I think that's what's wrong with achievements.

 

[squid5580]

Me?? No I try and keep myself well informed on what is going on with games and have unlimited rentals at Blockbuster a few blocks away for $30 a month. I am a curious fellow and will rent a "bad" game just to see how bad it is. But someone somewhere is buying these games. Otherwise Gamestop (or reasonable facimiles) wouldn't have used copies on thier shelves. I would like to think these people are buying these games because they are rich achwhores because the alternative is quite worse.

Worse. And true. Which is why the Wii is so successful.

I dunno about that. I picture the majority of Wii only owners like gamers were back in the nes/snes days. Back when we didn't have things like a septillion reviews and other assorted information and bought our games based soley on word of mouth or how cool the box covers looked. Hell I remember buying Dragon Warrior because it had the word Dragon in the title. I was clueless on what I was getting into. I loved it but I had no idea before I bought it

 

[squid5580]

I would liked it better if they were more uniform. I will never get Bring down the Sky for Mass Effect since my 1000g looks much nicer than 1050.

...I think that's what's wrong with achievements.

Yes there should be a way to seperate DLC achs from the main game achs. My Oblivion score is 1000 out of 1250 when I never bought the expansions. That ain't right!

 

[NeutralMunchHotel]

Me?? No I try and keep myself well informed on what is going on with games and have unlimited rentals at Blockbuster a few blocks away for $30 a month. I am a curious fellow and will rent a "bad" game just to see how bad it is. But someone somewhere is buying these games. Otherwise Gamestop (or reasonable facimiles) wouldn't have used copies on thier shelves. I would like to think these people are buying these games because they are rich achwhores because the alternative is quite worse.

Worse. And true. Which is why the Wii is so successful.

I dunno about that. I picture the majority of Wii only owners like gamers were back in the nes/snes days. Back when we didn't have things like a septillion reviews and other assorted information and bought our games based soley on word of mouth or how cool the box covers looked. Hell I remember buying Dragon Warrior because it had the word Dragon in the title. I was clueless on what I was getting into. I loved it but I had no idea before I bought it

Yes, but how many bad games did you buy? And, the sad fact is, that the Wii is successful in the shitty games department. I mean Carnival Games, 1 million?