Are achievements a good thing for games?

[Evonisia]

I'm wondering this since pretty much all boxed console releases (and their PC equivalents) have to have achievements. In some games it makes me want to replay them (like for doing obscure objective in Mission 7) whereas it turns me off others because I can't complete them all (like multiplayer achievements).

Things like "doing obscure objective in Mission 7" takes away time from polishing other things, doesn't it? I mean sure some games like Halo just put them things in as easter eggs anyway but for most games that's not the case.

Does it promote a "Catch 'em all" ideology? I know some of my friends all arrange to go on X game so they can farm achievements or progress towards them in a grind. Is that a good thing?

 

[Greg White]

I like it when games have achievements more more than just the sake of having them.

Vindictus, as an example, has some titles(earned by doing certain things) that are purely cosmetic, but some actually give you a slight stat bonus for doing them(usually those tied to killing bosses).

 

[TrevHead]

Yes and No, depending on what game it is and how the achievements are designed. I'd say achievements are a big reason why so many games have collectable filler crap in them as stated by that Eurogamer article published yesterday.

Personally I'd welcome devs to include game modes that remove all that filler leaving just the core game and have a more enjoyable first playthrough.

 

[WeepingAngels]

Every time I encounter a locked save file it is said to be locked because of fuckin achievements. I don't care about achievements but we ALL have to participate in the system and accept it's cons. Another con is that we no longer have cheat devices like Gameshark.

The sooner people stop caring about this global High Score table, the better.

 

[Strain42]

Like most things in the gaming world right now, I'd say they're neutral, and what makes them good or bad depends on how people handle them.

For example, a lot of achievements in a lot of games require playing online, I hate playing online (and in the case of my Xbox I can't because I refuse to pay an extra 15 bucks a month to use Netflix on a 6th device...) and so I can never get these.

Also people who act like their gamerscore or their trophy count somehow makes them better.

Achievements are fine. They're fun little things you can get to let you know you're doing well or maybe tried playing the game in a new and interesting way.

People are usually what make them bad.

 

[Pink Gregory]

I like the ones that give me an idea for a unique playthrough, or for a challenge (e.g. Brass Balls in Bioshock, the One Free Bullet in Half Life 2)

Just the completion awards, though? Pointless. Or if you must use them for metrics at least allow me to turn them off.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Speaking for Trophies (same thing right?) I don't mind them at all. I see them as a way of fostering replayability, offering checklist kind of challenges if you feel like them. Some of them also require you to replay the game over... and over... so it's nice to have an optional goal if you're replaying something again. But I don't beat myself a lot over them.

 

[Evonisia]

Speaking for Trophies (same thing right?) I don't mind them at all. I see them as a way of fostering replayability, offering checklist kind of challenges if you feel like them. Some of them also require you to replay the game over... and over... so it's nice to have an optional goal if you're replaying something again. But I don't beat myself a lot over them.

Yeah, same thing. I chose not to name drop Trophies since I didn't know all the names for achievements (Trophies, Awards, whatever the Wii U has).

Though I'd like to add something, some games actually restrict your ability to get achievements. Saints Row will prevent any achievements you get if you turn cheats on. In cases like that wouldn't achievements be like a restriction to your freedom in the game?

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Speaking for Trophies (same thing right?) I don't mind them at all. I see them as a way of fostering replayability, offering checklist kind of challenges if you feel like them. Some of them also require you to replay the game over... and over... so it's nice to have an optional goal if you're replaying something again. But I don't beat myself a lot over them.

Yeah, same thing. I chose not to name drop Trophies since I didn't know all the names for achievements (Trophies, Awards, whatever the Wii U has).

The Wii U doesn't have an achievement system so far. The 3DS has something called "Accomplishments" though so I guess if Nintendo ever decides to develop an achievement system for the Wii U, they'd probably call awards like that.

 

[Therumancer]

I'm wondering this since pretty much all boxed console releases (and their PC equivalents) have to have achievements. In some games it makes me want to replay them (like for doing obscure objective in Mission 7) whereas it turns me off others because I can't complete them all (like multiplayer achievements).

Things like "doing obscure objective in Mission 7" takes away time from polishing other things, doesn't it? I mean sure some games like Halo just put them things in as easter eggs anyway but for most games that's not the case.

Does it promote a "Catch 'em all" ideology? I know some of my friends all arrange to go on X game so they can farm achievements or progress towards them in a grind. Is that a good thing?

Some people like them, others don't care. Personally I only put a half hearted attempt into them since I have this odd tendency of finishing certain games on other people's machines (don't ask why) so I never get full credit for games I defeat on my profile anyway. For me it's about the game itself, and typically I only pursue an achievement if it seems like something fun or is designed to lead to otherwise hidden content (Achievements can act as a hint of what to look for in the game).

For example I just beat "South Park" I did a couple of the "defeat boss X dressed like X" achievements to see if there was any special dialogue or scenes for it (there didn't seem to be). On the other hand I didn't even bother to do things like trying to get Kenny killed 10x because I just didn't think Kenny complimented my play style very well, ditto for another easy one which would be having Cartman take out a bunch of enemies with his anal flame throwing. Maybe in an eventual replay, but you know... in general I just don't care that much. More power to those who like to chase them though, I tend not to be very critical of how other people find their entertainment when it comes to things like this.

 

[SilverLion]

No, but mostly because of how mandatory they are. In order to get a game released for Xbox 360 (and presumably XB1; I haven't got one myself) said game needed to have a maximum 1000 gamerscore worth of achievements. Now in order to fill that quota, most game devs just give you achievements for getting to a certain part of the story, reaching a certain rank in multiplayer, and beating a boss. Now the trouble is, those things may count as an "achievement" strictly speaking, but you're guaranteed to do those things at one point or another; you're eventually going to beat that boss, reach the end of the story and reach Colonel II or whatever. An achievement should be for something out of the ordinary, impressive and most of all, you could get through the whole game without getting it because it requires skill to get. Like kill 5 enemies with one grenade, or beating the boss without taking any damage and in less than 2 minute 30. THAT is an achievement, because it shows that you are sufficiently skilled at the game, and that is cause for celebration. With all these "mandatory" achievements, whenever I actually achieve something good like beating Duke Nukem Forever with the controller embedded in icy water I don't feel like I really accomplished anything because when someone is holding your hand and throwing the darts for you, when you actually manage toh it the bullseye by yourself it feels less special because I've already done it plenty of times before; what makes this one any more special than the others?

 

[Something Amyss]

I like it when games have achievements more more than just the sake of having them.

Vindictus, as an example, has some titles(earned by doing certain things) that are purely cosmetic, but some actually give you a slight stat bonus for doing them(usually those tied to killing bosses).

Those used to just be rewards.

OT: I like them, but they're mostly meaningless. And I understand they're meaningless despite enjoying them. Theyreally don't add or remove anything except perhaps an illusion of progression.

 

[flying_whimsy]

I hate achievements because to include them most games took out cheats. I don't care if they are disabled when cheating (skyrim and hl2 did that), but the fact that EVERY game has to have them has hurt more than helped. It means more limits within the game itself so that people can't cheat their way to an achievement (exploits, etc), and all for a meaningless social aspect that has only added to the elitist attitude commonly associated with gamers.

There is exactly one achievement I genuinely like: "Signal Received" in the first Portal game; that thing was essentially rethinking every puzzle and finding new ways of thinking with portals. It wasn't a meaningless merit badge or bragging token; it was a way to get the player to completely change how they played the game.

 

[Souplex]

I never would have done certain things in games that I ended up thoroughly enjoying doing if not for Achievements.
Some of them have been slogs though.

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

I'm wondering this since pretty much all boxed console releases (and their PC equivalents) have to have achievements. In some games it makes me want to replay them (like for doing obscure objective in Mission 7) whereas it turns me off others because I can't complete them all (like multiplayer achievements).

Things like "doing obscure objective in Mission 7" takes away time from polishing other things, doesn't it? I mean sure some games like Halo just put them things in as easter eggs anyway but for most games that's not the case.

Does it promote a "Catch 'em all" ideology? I know some of my friends all arrange to go on X game so they can farm achievements or progress towards them in a grind. Is that a good thing?

A hundred times no, for me. I just want to play the game. (I'll make an exception for the "click five times" achievement in "The Stanley Parable". That'was straight-up awesome, and the best example I can think of of how to integrate something like "achievements" into your game.)

However, I can understand the reasons people DO have for liking them, so I'm not opposed to them on principle.

When they can't be turned off without turning off OTHER stuff - or just not turned off at all - then I tend to get a bit cranky. Steam has been guilty of this in the past. When TF2 had its first "drops" that were related to achievements, for example, it meant that on pretty much every server you'd find "medic farmers" who spoilt the game for those who just wanted to, y'know, PLAY it. That was a horrible, horrible idea; and thank goodness the game's creators quickly realised it and changed it.

 

[ProtosOmega]

I personally like them. I used to be an achievement hunter, determining a game was garbage for not having good achievements, but I have a very different opinion on how I like them now.

Originally I wanted to 100% everything on the game just for achievements, but now I like them to show that I did something within the game.

 

[Fsyco]

Maybe this is just me, but I find achievements/trophies tend to break immersion. God of War is a particularly big offender, since you run around as an angry, somewhat serious man doing angry, gritty things, and then a silly pun comes up after you beat a boss. I know that's happened elsewhere, too, where I get absorbed into something and then suddenly a little notification reminds me I'm playing a game. Personally I wish there was a switch to turn them off and on at my leisure.

 

[KisaiTenshi]

I'm wondering this since pretty much all boxed console releases (and their PC equivalents) have to have achievements. In some games it makes me want to replay them (like for doing obscure objective in Mission 7) whereas it turns me off others because I can't complete them all (like multiplayer achievements).

Things like "doing obscure objective in Mission 7" takes away time from polishing other things, doesn't it? I mean sure some games like Halo just put them things in as easter eggs anyway but for most games that's not the case.

Does it promote a "Catch 'em all" ideology? I know some of my friends all arrange to go on X game so they can farm achievements or progress towards them in a grind. Is that a good thing?

Depends.

If you played any Sierra games from the 80's you'd remember that there were points, you didn't have to complete the game and get the maximum points, but that was the first incarnation of "achievements" that I can recall in a game. (Prior to this there were high scores in arcade machines, but there was no direct correlation between game progress and score, and the next power outage meant they were gone.)

It wasn't until Xbox Live really became a thing that the achievements meant something. It's kinda like an offline multiplayer competition for some people. You "huehue I won the game", friend "haha, but I also got the X,Y and Z achivements, beat that sucka!"

However the achievements often only mean something to completionists, and you can tell how much certain developers loathe them, as they put the bar high enough that a few can only be had through cheating or spending excessive amounts of time on the game. I'm not sure if there is an actual term for this, but it's usually a cheat check, where if someone has it, and it doesn't correlate with the amount of time they actually spent in the game, they're a cheat and you shouldn't play with them.

Over in Nintendo land, and various games that predate Xbox Live, there were always unlockables in fighting games, and in some cases (like Sonic the Hedgehog) you can't get the true ending without unlocking and completing every stage.

As for cheating in general, one should not be able to get achievements while cheats are enabled or while the hardware or software has been compromised. This mainly applies to MMO types of games where players will run programs on their system out of some misguided need to win at all costs.

Replayability is kinda destroyed when some achievements can only be gained by replaying the game in a state that you don't want to. While others (Saints Row III/IV) increase replayability because they just raise the bar enough to keep playing the game casually after it's completed. But be aware of collect-em-all achievements that are tied to one-time easter eggs related to the game progress. These kinds of things kinda piss off players if they "missed them the first time and have to spend hours replaying the game again" One example of this is GTAIV http://www.xboxachievements.com/game/grand-theft-auto-iv/achievement/14638-Liberty-City-Minute.html , where it's only unlocked by completing the complete storyline in 30 hours. If you were not aware of this achievement before playing, you'll never get it the first time through, and likely will spend a lot of time rebooting the game so the timer doesn't tick down.