Games With No Multiplayer Trophies/Achievements: Yay or Nay?

[Leon's Hell]

I agree with Pocotron, Uncharted 2 was a good example of the way to do multiplayer trophies. Encourage those who don't play online multiplayer games (my self included) to try it out and see if they like it. But overall I don't want to play three hundred matches or kill fifty thousand people to get achievements and trophies.

 

[Romblen]

Yay and nay.

Yay, it's fun to try to achieve something. For example, Day of Defeat Source has an achievement for getting 5000 kills as an American soldier. That was fun even though it served no purpose other than just accomplishing something.

Nay, when it's actually worth something. I hate how TF2 wants you to get a achievements just so you can try the new weapons.

 

[zungerman090]

Yay. I prefer to play games alone. I really don't like missing out on GP/Trophies though.

 

[The Unskilled78]

CoD 5 has an achivement for reverting back to level 1, it is worth 0 GS and is secret (IIRC). That or something like Uncharted 2 are the best kind.

 

[jboking]

Multiplayer Achievements are fine, but don't make them excessive. The Multiplayer Achievements that require you waste months of your life are insane and unnecessary.

 

[KiruTheMant]

Yay,Because thats how trolls are born,Saying I HAS THIS AND THAT TROPHY HUR MUR YOU FAILURE CUZ YOU NOT HAVE ANY TRROOOPYS
I have every trophy,I actually play for fun,and do good.
HUR DUR NO LIUFER WIT EVARY TROPY
^
This is why games die.

 

[Heeman89]

wow the perfect thread for a poll and there isn't one

I'm going yay here mainly do too the fact that I usually get games well after their release and everyone else has moved onto some other multiplayer in some other game.

 

[Da Joz]

Who needs achievements and trophies in general? I know this is going to make me sound old but my friends and I used to play games for hours with absolutely nothing to show for it (back in the SNES and genesis era), but we knew we had a good time and didn't need a virtual trophy to raise our self esteem.

 

[bassdrum]

Dislike multiplayer achievements, since I usually try to get 100% completion on the games I play but am not interested by most games' online offerings. If it's just something like "play your first online match" or "win your first online match", it's fine. If it's like what Bioshock 2 has, it is not fine.

Wait... what? Bioshock 2 only has things like 'get you first kill' or 'get to this rank'. In my opinion, that's pretty minimal. The problem is when games are more like Halo and require the player to complete really specific things, some of which are next to impossible or are detrimental to the enjoyment of the game.

OT: I certainly approve of IW's decision to leave out multiplayer Trophies/Achievements, as they can screw up the gameplay. Granted, the in-game challenges screw up the game enough as it is, but leaving out the external rewards is a good start.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

I prefer having all single player achievements. When playing multi-player, I prefer to just focus on the game rather than the achievements I want.

 

[TyroSe7en]

Ummm... Yay, if your going to play multiplayer it should be for the social aspect, not getting achievments. If it is for the sake of becoming a better player at that particular game then your really wasting your time! Unless you really are that hardcore and play for money I really wouldn't bother with MPAs. Though single player achievments can give you some ideas to kill some time, but in multiplayer there's no need.

 

[Artanith]

I generally dislike them, but go for them anyway. There have been a few that are just ridiculous, though. Killzone 2 and Warhawk are GREAT examples of how NOT to do online trophies.

 

[HolidayBrick]

multiplayer achievements are almost always a bad idea. First, they assume that the game is successful enough to actually have an online community. They also assume that everyone will or can play online.

There are many games that either have no community, or have had their multiplayer servers taken down (I'm looking at you EA) making some or most of their achievements impossible.

 

[TheRocketeer]

I can definitely understand if a game with a large multiplayer focus has a lot of its achievements reserved for that area, and I think MW2 would actually have been well justified in having even a great portion of its achievements allocated to the multiplayer side of things.

On the other hand, a lot of games that have multiplayer just for its own sake often have a great number of useless achievements locked down for it. Condemned 2, anybody? What the hell?

Another issue they tend to present is that achievements for multiplayer aspects of a game are often much, much harder, time-consuming or, worst, just plain luck-based than their single-player counterparts.

I don't think it matters all that much in the end, though. On one hand, if you enjoy multiplayer, then you probably won't mind, in any case. But on the other hand, if you don't play multiplayer.... then why do you care if random people on the Internet see that you got all the achievements for a given game? And if it isn't for them, then who? Yourself? Is the actual fun you get from games less important to you than the gamerscore you get from them?

I don't go for multiplayer achievements, because nabbing all the achievements for a game isn't important in and of itself and I'm not going to slog through something I don't want to for their sake. On the other hand, I have cleared out the achievements on a few games because the achievements gave me extra things to work towards in an experience I already found fun and enjoyable. In NO case have I ever cared about gamerscore.

And I think a lot of people feel the same way about it as I do, and play accordingly.

 

[Pyode]

I think it depends on the game. A primarily single player game with MP tagged on, like Bioshock, doesn't really need MP achievements.

My main thing though is what the achievements are. Something like "Win your first Match" or "Kill 50 people with gun x" are fine, I just hate it when it's something like "Win 100,000 Matches" or "Play 50 hours Online." That shit is ridiculous and unnecessary.

 

[Dr. Gorgenflex]

If you don't accept games without multiplayer and trophies/achievements, you are not a gamer.

Edit: Reread your post, and multiplayer doesn't need achievements.

 

[Blanks]

yay, that's why i love early PS3 games ...but then again I'm not for regular achievements/throphies either

 

[Gigaguy64]

ehh it dosent really matter to me.

If a game have them i wouldn't care but, if it does then its a plus.
Some games dont really need achievements for multiplayer.
To me it would just depend on how heavily the game relies on its multiplayer.

 

[TxMxRonin]

ehh it dosent really matter to me.

If a game have them i wouldn't care but, if it does then its a plus.
Some games dont really need achievements for multiplayer.
To me it would just depend on how heavily the game relies on its multiplayer.

Nobody cares, Scott. You and your almost 2000 posts.

OT: I HATE when the majority of trophies/achievements are for multiplayer. I usually buy multiple games at a time so I have no real desire to keep playing one game when I have more unplayed.