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

[silver wolf009]

Some one would play MW2 for fun?!!?
[/sarcasm]
Cant decide, i like games that have trophies or achivements that can be gotten in single player or multiplayer.

 

[Ascarus]

i am not a fan of this "new" trend of trophies and in-game achievements - esp. in single player modes. i find they are simply a generic way to manufacture content and length in games that would otherwise have zero replay value and/or minimal completion times.

i'm on the fence with respect to multi-player rewards. at some level i feel playing the game should be rewarding enough, such that additional rewards are unnecessary. on the other, if a player is going to spend that much time on the multi-player component, it's nice to be given additional motivators on top of the game.

 

[x0ny]

Nay, it's a false method of extending replay value. Counter Strike managed very well without achievements. I find it pointless to have multiplayer achievements if you can't see that players achievements on the fly. They also don't denote a good player, there was an indian guy playing L4D with me, who boasted how he's got nearly all the achievements but always got incapped during panic events.

 

[Koganesaga]

Nay, no more need be said, unless you so demand so.

I demand that more be said by you

Supply and demand, and so the world works.

The trophy's are effectively determined by your accomplishments with the game. To have someone buy a game and tell them to get say 10,000 kills in such and such game mode to get a trophy is stupid. The trophy's should be restricted to single player mode, with no Representative grind awards, as all these show is how much free-time someone has to waste on something stupid, but this is sort of bias as I hate the whole system of judging a person's skill in a game based on how many of these stupid things they're willing to collect. A good example is for demon's souls. There is an award for gathering all the legendary weapons, but your trying to develop a specific type of character. The skilled player decides that making sure his character has all the right stats and abilities instead of wasting his materials on a weapon he won't use. Then while running around trying to clear a world player A, he get invaded by player B. The end result, player A who used his time and items wisely is the victor, while player B, the trophy seeker is brutally slaughtered.

For those who thought "this is an invalid argument, player B can just earn the trophy's and make a new character and do this one right" this goes back to argument about wasting time, as this would set him back a least a few days, all for a few sticks that people won't likely notice or even care, unless they have some sort of weird ego clash of who has wasted the most of their life on a mediocre achievement. Then the educated person will now say "what does it matter? games are a way for humans to pass their time and therefore waste it anyway". This leads to an argument over fun factor. How many of you who farm trophy's can honestly say you had fun getting 1,000+ hour logged on a game for a stupid trophy? Not to mention the very fact that the system was added can stop gamers from having fun because they feel inclined to earn all of them, where if the system wasn't in play it would come back to them playing till they were content and happy with it and end the game. This point effectively boils down to a person's ego, but again it's my humble view that the whole system is in play to sate people's disgustingly grotesque ego's. Though I will say if it keeps people who feel proud of things like this off the streets, then thank god and thank you for keeping the crazies locked away from the rest of functional society.

P.S. If they must be in play, restrict them to games that live on online play ONLY, like warhawks and mag.

 

[ZeroDotZero]

Nay, I don't ever feel like going on multiplayer unless there are achievements. I'm not really a multiplayer person, and I need incentive. If they're all hard to obtain, then I won't bother.

 

[fd18e3d0-816e-11e4-b4a9-0800200c9a66]

I prefer games without multiplayer achievements. Because:
1) If the game isn't very popular on multiplayer i can still get all the achievements
2) You don't get people playing for the sake of getting a specific achievement and don't actually care about playing the game.

 

[soulasylum85]

the developers behind the cod series have said that their will never be multiplayer achievements in cod games because they feel that goin for achievements in multiplayer compromises the game, making people go for achievements instead of trying to win.

also i think multiplayer achievements are a bad idea in general. i am a big fan of online multiplayer in games but if you have multiplayer achievements, what happens if it fails and the servers are shut down, then you cant 100% the game.

 

[Sjakie]

ill keep it short:

NAY!

 

[jimduckie]

gee i always hate games that put online achievements and offline in the same pile , they should be separate , as for multiplayer achievements no , that would take away from game play plus not everyone plays online

 

[GideonB]

Do you remember the days when matches didn't matter on your rank or achievement bullshit and only on your skill? I don't. That's why I want this multiplayer achievement crap to go away. Stats I'm all for, infact BF2 and BF2142 got it right. Just not that whole crap that COD4 started. They can be debateable as the same... but I don't care. BF2142 got it right in my opinion.

 

[roguetrooper96]

Yay, definitely. Mainly because of the fact that it makes the game much tougher to platinum for people who have games that no-one else plays on like guitar hero metallica (ghostbusters the video game is a good example for me because I have all of the single player trophies but about 2 or 3 of the online trophies) the way I see it is, multiplayer is for fun and socializing between friends and other players from around the world and if you don't have the internet then you cant even platinum the game because you have to do something you cant do at all (although finding someone who doesn't have the internet these days is like trying to kick yourself in the spine)

I liked most of MW2 because of the fact that most of the trophies aren't online (but trying to find another player to go on the 2 player spec ops missions was hard so thats why I haven't played or unlocked half of them)

 

[Big Max]

Nay, they tend to just cause boosting.

 

[squid5580]

Yay and Nay. There is only one set of MP achievements that should be in any game. They are

Play a match
Play on every map
get a kill
play every type of game once

That is it. End the play a gazillion hours or get a billion points. They just lead to boosting and anyone that may have enjoyed the MP experience won't want to play because they get kicked or can't find a match that isn't all boosters. Hell put an end to artificially lengthening games by achievements in general (FF13 this one is for you). Make achievements a part of the game not a separate entity.

 

[Superfly CJ]

Hell put an end to artificially lengthening games by achievements in general (FF13 this one is for you). Make achievements a part of the game not a separate entity.

Many people would disagree with you. Achievements like '7 Day Survivor' in Dead Rising really do give you the inclination to play for a few hours more. If achievements were 'part of the game', every achievement list would read like King Kong, and that would be no fun.

'Achievement' wise, in the truest sense of the word- the 'big' multiplayer achievements rank among some of the most coveted.
Getting a legitimate Rank 100 in Gears of War 2 is definitely an achievement, you can't deny that.

That said, games like Timeshift and Stranglehold are proof enough that some games shouldn't have multiplayer, let alone multiplayer achievements. I think multiplayer achievements are welcome, but should be saved for DLC- just to give the developer time to see how active the multi is and adjust accordingly. Case in point, those remaining two achievements stopping me from getting 1000 in MOH: Airborne.

I do, however, think that some people think that they deserve 100% Gamerscore in a game merely because they complete it on all difficulties. 100% completion is supposed to be a badge of honour, a way of showing that you have understood and handled all aspects of a game. Removing multiplayer achievements escapes this purpose. Of all my 1000's, the ones with multiplayer achievements included are probably the ones i'm most proud of.

 

[Alex909]

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.

I think that (just as an example off the top of my head) Uncharted 2 has a total of 2 multiplayer trophies. They're both just playing a full game of each mode.

I very much like this since I try for the easy Trophies/Achievements. They also help introduce players to the multiplayer components of a game.

So, I guess it's a double-edged sword really.

EDIT: I didn't even take into account the "I have no multiplayer/online" option

Definite Yay!

The recent Uncharted 2 DLC had some new MP trophies for completing co-op missions in hard,get a certain number of special type of kills, winning game modes and getting 2500 kills.

If they're not ridiculously hard then I don't mind. Bad Company 2's are tough and Destruction 2.0 is a ***** of a trophy to get.

 

[Wolfram23]

For me it all depends, I like multiplayer in most games so having multiplayer trophies is fun. On the other hand, I think multiplayer is mostly just for fun so when an achievement requires the highest online level or something like that, it's annoying. But when it's just "win in every map" or "spend 15 minutes online" it's alright. I actually find it surprising there aren't any for MW2, and yet BioShock 2 has them and even requires getting to lvl 40. BF:BC2 has them as well but they're more reasonable, the hardest probably being either getting lvl 22 or unlocking 4 weapons for each class.

 

[Zarokima]

As a misanthropic completionist, I bloody despise the things.

 

[superdance14]

Yay yay yay. Trophies/Achievements are supposed to reflect your accomplishments. Having a random jackass screw it up is not pleasant.

 

[ThePostalGamer]

My vote goes to yay, but if they are easy to get, then MAYBE throwing a few of them in wouldn't be too bad (as long as it can be done split screen or something).

Armored Core: For Answer has achievements for 1,000 kills/wins online, 2,000 kills/wins online, etc. in increments of 1,000 up to 5,000, then 7,500, then 10,000. Not only is that insane to achieve even if the game's online wasn't deserted, but those achievements are just far too demanding even under normal circumstances.

However, Vampire Rain had easy multiplayer achievements, the most difficult one requiring the player to kill three people in thirty seconds as a Nightwalker, which even then isn't too hard to get as long as you pick a small level and your friend can distinguish left from right (Yes. This was a problem when I was helping two friends with it. I wish I was joking).

As a whole, though, I say yay. Enduring the idiots of Xbox Live isn't worth 20 gamerscore for shooting down an AC-130 with a frisbee or whatever.

 

[Velocity Eleven]

yay, multiplayer bores me