Nintendo Belittles Achievements As "Mythical Rewards"

[KingKamor]

I never really pay attention to achievements. Hell, it seems that whenever I complete a big plot point in a game's story, I'm thrown right out of the experience saying, "Achievement! You just defeated the bad guy who wasn't really the bad guy! Congrats!" or something like that.

I just think that they're a little pointless unless you get points towards something more tangible than a gamer score.

 

[ManaAdvent]

I have to agree with Nintendo here. I seriously don't care about Achievements and only play a game for fun since some Achievements are pointless such as getting one after watching a cutscene or reaching a certain level and stating the obvious. Unless completing or obtaining an Achievement unlocks something within the game like an secret char or level, then it is fine since it nice to be rewarded after accomplishing something most of the time. If not, they're just tasks for replay value sakes, nothing more nothing less. Also, I don't care about getting high scores as well.

However, this makes me mad at DLC. Why? Because some major Achievements or accomplishments should reward you with more features like chars and extra levels and options such as beating the game. Problem is instead of unlocking those things when you play a game, it is now you have to pay DLC just to get them, and I don't do DLC or do online or have XBLA so it is unfair for me since I need to fork all my money to buy this and that just get a complete game.

 

[thedeathscythe]

I find it funny that they would so quickly decide that they're against the achievement/trophy system, when fans have shown such a strong attachment to them. How many times have you seen someone play a Disney movie tie in game just so they could get some easy trophies/achievements? I must admit, I'm even a fan of them. It gives you something to strive for. In Socom, I normally don't use a shotgun, but there's trophies for it, so I picked one up, and now, I friggin' love the shotgun. I only stuck to it because I needed to get X amount of kills and X amount of headshots and stuff, but after I stuck with it, I'm loving it. If I was left on my own, I may not have given it that long of a chance.

At the same time, some people do take it too far, and I would hate it if I only played a game to get some silly trophy, but sometimes, it makes you feel like you finally finished Uncharted 2, because you got all the trophies. Now you can play online because you did everything you can do in the single player, and I like that sense of completion you feel.

 

[warprincenataku]

Achievements is just another way of adding additional goals to a game whose main goal is just to beat it. For me achievements have added much replay value to games that I otherwise would have given up on.

 

[SilverUchiha]

Spoiler

Yay Nintendo! Achievements are fucking retarded and every time I hear someone talking about trying to get one I have to resist the urge to punch them.[footnote]Moderator Edit: Please be a little less confrontational in the way you post. You can express your opinion just fine without the need for language or attacks. Thanks![/footnote]

Is it just me or are we seeing Moderators editing posts A LOT more than usual lately? Dunno, just seems a bit odd to me.

OT: I'll add this to the list of stupid things Nintendo says/does for the year... actually, first thing of the year since we just turned over. I'm not saying that Achievements are a "must-have" but it seems like:

a) a missed opportunity
b) somewhat hypocritical when certain games do implement such a system anyway
c) Have they ever thought that those abstract goals that they call "mythical" actually improve the game in a number of ways? It increases replay value. Someone may take more time exploring their game. Is it just me, or does Nintendo have something against having abstract fun?

 

[MikailCaboose]

I can't believe people can be annoyed by achievements. They're completely optional, even more so than most in game challenges. How can it possibly be frustating to you that occasionally a little message will pop up and inform you you got an achievement? Heck, you can turn those messages off.

Does it anger you just to know that someone out there is enjoying them?

Never cared for achievements either. If I want to do something in a game, I'll do it how I want to.

Because achievements stop you doing that...

I never said they stopped me from doing that, I said I "never cared for achievements", since I ignore them anyways. I could care less whether or not I had them or not.

Fair enough, I seem to have misinterpreted your post.

Although I think you mean "I 'couldn't' care less".

...Oops! I usually catch that sort of thing too.

 

[RowdyRodimus]

yeah screw you other consoles, Achievements are about as lame as DVD playing functionality oh wait.

Hey man, I heard from someone who knows Iwata and he told me that Nintendo is working hard to integrate VHS functionality into the Wii 2. They'll be up to todays standards in 10-20 years time tops at this rate.

Remember "Nintendo does was others don't (want to)"

 

[nin_ninja]

I don't see why a game shouldn't have Achievements. The fact of the matter is, they don't detract anything from a game, and a lot of people like them (me included). They can add replay value, as well as letting you set goals for yourself in a game that you might not always think of.

Achievements have been around forever; they are not a new thing. Think of the obscure time requirements you had to meet to get the codes in Goldeneye, or the skill points in Ratchet and Clank. These days they just have an official system for them, both as a way of judging your completion against the standards of the developers, and just as a way of getting you to do something you might not have considered before.

Plus, I find it really damn satisfying when I go out of my way to do something difficult and get that little "beep boop". I do wish games had more focus on those kind of achievements rather than just getting them for playing the game, but I can't really complain.

If people don't like them, then ignore them. They don't take anything away and in some cases add to the experience. Also its nice to look back to remember certain goals you achieved in a game.

 

[RowdyRodimus]

Spoiler: Slightly petty flame-war

snip

Because cheating devices extend the life of a game, just like your precious achievements. When Nintendo was fighting Galoob over the Game Genie, Sega was doing the opposite and licensing the Game Genie for the Genesis. They knew that people would be more likely to continue buying games if they knew they could beat the game with cheats if they needed to. The other option is to stop buying games because they are too hard.

Yup, Sega's plan certainly worked. That is why they are still a relevant game company. I'm not saying that their demise is solely because of cheating devices, but it's clear that allowing cheating didn't do anything to extend the life of their games.

Nintendo is a very controlling company so it shouldn't surprise anyone that they want to force you to play a game their way. Of course, back in those days the games were alot harder too. I am glad that they lost to Galoob and I am not happy that now console makers are finding other ways to take away cheat devices.

Incorrect. Nintendo is against achievements because they DON'T want to force you play a certain way. They want you to play how you want without feeling herded in a certain direction by achievements.

I don't cheat often you see, but I reserve the right. Is that really so hard to understand? I had the Game Genie for the NES, SNES, Genesis. The Gameshark for the PS1 and PS2 and the Action Replay for the Gamecube and the DS. I hardly use them but they are there if I decide to. You want me to give that up so you can have a glorified high score table. Well, I can't take your argument seriously. Devs are not gods and sometimes they make bad design choices and cheat devices can be used to get around those. Besides, what kind of gamer doesn't like to look under the hood and do things you were meant to do?

What "right"? There is no right to cheat. You paid for a product, you received said product. Nowhere do you have the "right" to expect companies to allow you to cheat. This kind of consumer elitism (i.e. "Companies should bend over for me because I am the almighty consumer and deserve to get whatever I want from them.") is bullshit, and absolutely disgusts me. There is a line between what a company should be expected to provide, and what is simply greedy consumerism.

Yes, cheat devices can be nice. I have a couple cheating mods for Dragon Age that I love. But, I would also understand if they didn't allow it. I am in no way entitled to those mods, or the ability to cheat the game. If the devs feel that a game is better served by ensuring that achievements are gotten legitimately, that is their choice. It's their game, not yours.

Consumer elitism?

Let me see if I understand this.

You buy a car but you can only drive how, when and where the manufacturer says you can?

You buy dish soap but you can only use it in the sink. Never in the dishwasher, washing machine or on a scrub brush to clean carpets?

Do you approve of those examples? See in both of those cases you can use what you bought as you see fit so long as you break no laws.

Besides, Nintendo already lost this fight to Galoob a long time ago. That's why the Game Genie didn't go away after Nintendo sued them. Nintendo is not allowed to tell you what you can and cannot do with YOUR consoles and games. Get it!

Again, there is a difference. When I buy soap, I am buying a cleaning agent. When I buy a car, I am buying a means of personal transportation. These are straw man arguments that are not related to games or cheating in the slightest.

When you buy a game, you get the game. You get EXACTLY what was paid for: a piece of software that can be used when you want to play, in the location you want to play (with some caveats here about requiring the console/tv/etc, and possibly DRM requiring you to use it on only your console/PC). Cheats require (a) hacking by a third party; or (b) for the game company to invest the time and effort to program in those cheats.

In the case of the former, companies have the right to seek damages. Having their code hacked violates their intellectual property. In the latter, it is up to the developer to decide if it is warranted.

Some companies choose to allow you to cheat through the use of mods. Others choose not to. It is a choice that is up to the developer. They are under no obligation to make it possible for you to cheat.

Cheats are NOT illegal. Get that through your head.

Cheating devices are NOT illegal either.

Look, I get that so many people on this are so pro-gaming company (read anti-consumer) that it is beyond ridiculous but get this, you CAN run anything you want on your hardware so long as you are not breaking any laws. You wanna run mods for Dragon Age? It doesn't matter if BioWare approves you can do it!

You wanna run Action Replay on your Gamecube? It doesn't matter if Nintendo approves.

What is so hard to understand about this. The game industry is not special. They don't get special powers just because they want them. Your Wii and your TV are both consumer products that you BOUGHT, not rented and are yours to do with as you see fit!

A company does have rights too. I know you think that they have no rights, but they do. They are perfectly allowed to make their products unresponsive to thirdparty hacks/software/etc.

What you don't seem to understand, is that you are getting what you paid for. You want to scream and cry about how you should be able to do whatever you want with it, and yet you are getting what you paid for! Why is this hard to understand?

Oh forget it, you just keep getting achievements. They'll fade away soon just like High Score tables did.

You two knock it off, giving me a headache over here...

And no, highscores have not dissapeared at all. I mean just look at the time focus in games like Super Meat Boy, the points/ combos focus in games like Beyonetta or any number of beat 'em ups or hack 'n' slash. Highscore tables are still arround still have their place just like achivements will in the coming years. They are a useful, optional feature and i see no real case against them at all.

I go back day after day to see if I'm still in the top 500 on Pac-Man Championship DX. I have all 200 cheevos, but still play about a half hour a day to try and knock a few seconds off my times or raise my high score (which raises my ranking). It's not an achievement, but maybe if they had an ongoing leaderboard for them on your dashboard, maybe people would like them more and see them as what they are, just a number to see where you fall in terms of games played.

 

[SamElliot'sMustache]

Maybe so, although New Vegas is inherently a single player game while also the achievements that are implemented is straight forward as they are pretty much the same with FO3.

It also true that some individual achievements may be casual while some aren't. Its the collective amount that is really counted, calling a person with #,###,### (in accordance with different system ratios) achievement points a 'casual gamer' would be hard to justify even for me...unless s/he cheated.

I might be inclined to agree with you sir, but I have met a few tough hombres that might beg to differ with you like this cowpoke:
http://www.xbox360achievements.org/game/dead-rising/achievement/858-7-Day-Survivor.html

Or this desperado here:
http://www.xbox360achievements.org/game/ninja-gaiden-2/achievement/15877-Way-of-the-Master-Ninja.html

There are achievements out there that will reach for your head, say "Hey, buddy," and then promptly decapitate you if you failed to notice the hidden wrist blades so you could roll out of the way at the last second.

I stand corrected on my 'casual gamer' remark.

 

[yamitami]

.... How are achievements the future? They don't actually DO anything to gameplay; a game heavily laden with achievements would still play the same without them. Hell, if you want you can make your own, like the challenges people write up for open ended games like The Sims. They're completely optional and in no way are the future.

Yeah, it will play the same, but it will play longer.

People enjoy having goals and the sense of accomplishment is one a lot of us like to have.

You know why those guys that Nintendo is trying to "not follow" implemented achievements? Because a lot of people like them and the people who don't can easily ignore them.

It's a "win-win".

I think that the part they're trying to stray away from is all the crap you see on Xbox Live. If you have achievements as gamer status then all it amounts to is a bunch of idiots screaming at each other. If the achievements stay on one person's system, as they do with the Wii setup, then it's actually about personal accomplishment instead of proving they have the biggest dick by being one, constantly, over the mic.

 

[HentMas]

I actually like achievements when they are something fun or rewarding for something hard

but i like even more the "Ubisoft" way with the "U Play" system where doing certain things gives you points that you can use to add a little extra to the game, in "Assasins Creed Brotherhood" for the PS3 you can download skins to put in "Ezio" which is great when you get the secret armour, that way you can still wear it and not look like a twat that just killed a wolf and wanted to carry it in its shoulder (i hate how that armour looks)

that system is GREAT and i love the fact that the points are "exchangeable" between games if i get points in AC2 and dont like any add on in particular from that game, i can use those same points to buy stuff in RUSE or AC:B

i know this system is more "anti piracy DRM" than anything, but it actually works! and is better than having to be 24/7 connected to play your game, they are doing a great thing with their games those Ubisoft guys.

 

[Krantos]

Or... you can see them as flavor. I certainly don't buy/play games for the achievements, but many of them are rather fun to acquire (think the Italian plumber one from Borderlands).

 

[Ericb]

At the same time, when I'm awarded an achievement for beating the first level of a game, it makes me feel like an adult being complimented for putting on his pants properly.

This beautifully describes my feelings towards this strange Pavlovian gimmick.

And I'm not only talking about silly conquests. I'm also critical of its use in actual hard-earned victories in two major points.

The first one is that it is very invasive of the game's core visual design, often conflicting with the feel of such and such game, as was the case when I saw this crop-up in the middle of a Limbo gameplay. No reward makes up for breaking that game's somber atmosphere for me.

The second one is that instead of building in-game customized stimulus (as a proper item/ability or alternate storyline progression), it simply relies on a virtual medal. That'

 

[captaincabbage]

Lol I do completely agree with them, but I find something rewarding in that little 'ding' every time I get a trophy on my PS3.

 

[fletch_talon]

From the sounds of things they simply don't want to create one format for it like PS3's "trophies" and Xbox's "achievements".
As has been said, individual games by Nintendo have had achievement-like features so they can't be totally against them.

Not having a console based system however means that game devs have the freedom to decide how they implement such features, if they add them at all.
I think this is a great idea, it leads to more innovation using the idea of achievements. Rather than having them be worth arbitrary "points" tied to your online account, they could be actually relevant to the game. Like Smash Bros Brawl's unlock screen which gave the player new stages/characters/music and more.

 

[Ericb]

At the same time, when I'm awarded an achievement for beating the first level of a game, it makes me feel like an adult being complimented for putting on his pants properly.

This beautifully describes my feelings towards this strange Pavlovian gimmick.

If people don't like them, then ignore them. They don't take anything away and in some cases add to the experience.

I wouldn't like some patronizing virtual symbol cropping up in the middle of a game as it rarely is designed to fit that game's particular audiovisual style and atmosphere.

Having an option of them not showing in the middle of gameplay, no problem.

 

[ChupathingyX]

Achievement/trophies would be so much better if they actually rewarded you with something like a bonus unlock or something.

Insomniac Games have been putting skill points(which are kinda like achievement/trophies) in their game since Spyro 2. And ever since they have always unlocked bonus material, costumes and cheats.

 

[PinkiePyro]

i am glad Nintendo isn't doing achievements

as for my exact option on this subject this flash cartoon sums it up
(please note it has adult stuff in it near the end it so itis probably NSFW)
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/489815

 

[Jaded Scribe]

snip

I never said that a company HAS TO support hacking/modding/cheating but they also shouldn't make it impossible or use punitive measures if you do. I did give a reason why companies should, it's good business to give people more reasons to buy games instead of less. Sega, for example, licensed the Game Genie seeing it as a benefit to game sales. After all, how could cheating on Sonic possibly hurt Sega's sales?

It's a kin to Nintendo coming to my house and taking away any DS game that I used an Action Replay on.

You seem to be arguing that if BioWare told you stop using mods, you would do so because the devs should be able to tell you what you can and can't do with a game.

It is my argument that when you buy a product you can do anything you like with it within the bounds of the law. Not the bounds of the devs, the law. I don't buy this "you are only buying a license" crap. When I rent for $3.50 then I am getting a license but when I buy I getting a product. The game industry is not special and they don't get special rules just because they make a product with 0's and 1's.

What special rules? When you buy a disk, it gives you no rights over the content. None. Zero. Zilch. You can do whatever you want with the disk. You can do whatever you want with the case. You can use the disk whenever you want.

You are buying a plastic disk. You are NOT buying any kind rights to the contents of said disk, outside of being able to use it in an approved device. DVDs/Blu-Rays have limitations in how they are used, and they have preventive measures to protect the contents of the disk. CDs do as well.

Video games aren't doing anything different than these guys. They just manage to piss off more people with the same limitations.

And as far as licensing, it's not as much of a bullshit case as you think. Considering they must actively support and maintain access to online multiplayer content, they HAVE to be able to set boundaries on how their software is manipulated, for the safety and enjoyment of their playerbase.