Nintendo Belittles Achievements As "Mythical Rewards"

Recommended Videos

maddawg IAJI

I prefer the term "Zomguard"
Feb 12, 2009
7,840
0
0
Sir John the Net Knight said:
Arrgh, Nintendo...must...defy...progress!!!

Seriously, again with Nintendo refusing to implement new features because they are so stuck on gaming being in the past. You know the past where Nintendo was the only game in town and had no real competition. Achievements aren't the wave of the future. It's 3D technology which was introduced in the 60s with stupid glasses and the Wiimote, which is basically the same as the power glove.

Dear Nintendo, the future is not in the past.
I'd prefer a system that actually improves gameplay or actually does something over achievements any day of the week. I'd much rather play a game that uses the Dual-Shock 3's motion controls then play through Alpha Protocol again for an achievement. I'd much rather play something and experience something new through 3-D then get a flashy 5 points for beating the tutorial. Achievements need to do something first before they can even be considered an evolution in gaming. All they do is buy some extra time to play the game and they can't even save some of the most mediocre of games.
 

sluggyfreelancer

New member
Apr 16, 2009
143
0
0
Garak73 said:
Onyx Oblivion said:
The fuck?

This coming from the people who ask you to get all the stats in Mario games and "Catch 'em All" for absolutely no good reason. Other than bragging rights.

Achievements are bragging rights with PROOF and a clear visible total of your brag-o-meter. Trophy levels, Gamerscore, etc.
Bragging rights aren't the only reason to get 120 Shines in Mario Sunshine. I did it but it wasn't to brag about it.
I get achievements and don't brag about them. Same if I got 120 stars. There isn't much difference.
 

jonnosferatu

New member
Mar 29, 2009
491
0
0
Assassin Xaero said:
I do agree with them, but at times I like achievements. With some games, they give it more value with more things to go for or different ways to do certain things (like Gravity Gun only through Ravenholm). Multiplayer ones are annoying though.
Off-topic, but Gravity Gun only through Ravenholm sounds like something dreamed up by a demon on a very painful and malevolent plane on the deepest circle of hell.
 

Kakashi on crack

New member
Aug 5, 2009
983
0
0
Never liked Achievements, it drags me away from the game and makes it seem less like an experience and more like a repetitive task...

So all I have to say is.. GO NINTENDO! Even though I'm not a big fan of nintendo after the gamecube.
 

F'Angus

New member
Nov 18, 2009
1,102
0
0
Thank you nintendo... Fed up with playing games with my mates who just want to do achievements... Think it ruins the fun
 

sluggyfreelancer

New member
Apr 16, 2009
143
0
0
Garak73 said:
sluggyfreelancer said:
Garak73 said:
Onyx Oblivion said:
The fuck?

This coming from the people who ask you to get all the stats in Mario games and "Catch 'em All" for absolutely no good reason. Other than bragging rights.

Achievements are bragging rights with PROOF and a clear visible total of your brag-o-meter. Trophy levels, Gamerscore, etc.
Bragging rights aren't the only reason to get 120 Shines in Mario Sunshine. I did it but it wasn't to brag about it.
I get achievements and don't brag about them. Same if I got 120 stars. There isn't much difference.
Everyone gets achievements and the gamerscore does the bragging. That doesn't mean you care about them. For example, I played a beat a few games on the 360 and the achievements were there, whether I cared about them or not. If it were are simple as that it would be fine but achievements come with a cost. To keep them honest you will see no Action Replay. I would prefer the option of an Action Replay to Achievements.
So you just wanna use cheats, right?
 

Flying-Emu

New member
Oct 30, 2008
5,367
0
0
mad825 said:
This is yet more evidence to the proof that the Wii (or Nintendo in general) are for causal gamers. Though many of you seem apathetic or disgusted by the sight of them, achievements do create a more competitive environment thus more 'hardcore' (or less casual) gaming.
You know, except for the fact that ninety percent of achievements are for things that you'd do anyways. Without trying. Giving points for "Derp derp you completed level one have a cookie!" are annoying, stupid, and don't promote 'competitive' play.

How in the world can you seriously argue that achievements make a game more or less casual? I sincerely want to know. I find someone who found every star in Super Mario 64 way more hardcore than some joker who has 3300 Gamerscore on Halo Reach.
 

sluggyfreelancer

New member
Apr 16, 2009
143
0
0
Garak73 said:
sluggyfreelancer said:
Garak73 said:
sluggyfreelancer said:
Garak73 said:
Onyx Oblivion said:
The fuck?

This coming from the people who ask you to get all the stats in Mario games and "Catch 'em All" for absolutely no good reason. Other than bragging rights.

Achievements are bragging rights with PROOF and a clear visible total of your brag-o-meter. Trophy levels, Gamerscore, etc.
Bragging rights aren't the only reason to get 120 Shines in Mario Sunshine. I did it but it wasn't to brag about it.
I get achievements and don't brag about them. Same if I got 120 stars. There isn't much difference.
Everyone gets achievements and the gamerscore does the bragging. That doesn't mean you care about them. For example, I played a beat a few games on the 360 and the achievements were there, whether I cared about them or not. If it were are simple as that it would be fine but achievements come with a cost. To keep them honest you will see no Action Replay. I would prefer the option of an Action Replay to Achievements.
So you just wanna use cheats, right?
I want the option.

I have AR for the DS that I never use, but it's available should I decide I want to play a game outside the rules.

Now, if the DS had a system based achievement system, the DS would also not have an AR. In short, the option of a Action Replay is worth more to me than a High Score table.
Where as I don't much care for cheats or AR and I like achievements soooo...

Agree to disagree.
 
May 5, 2010
4,831
0
0
Garak73 said:
Frozen Donkey Wheel2 said:
Garak73 said:
*MASSIVE SNIP*
OK, like I said, I'm not a PC gamer, but I still don't understand what all this stuff about Starcraft has anything to do with achievements.

And secondly, plenty of developers still incorperate cheats and achievements into their games. Hell, The Orange Box allows you to activate cheats and still earn acheivements, although this is admittedly rare. Most games that have cheats just disable achievements when you activate them. Problem solved. If you don't care about achievements, it shouldn't be a problem.
If you get banned for using a trainer because they added an achievement system then the problem isn't solved.

Oh and being forced to use built in cheats or none at all = controlling how you play.
OK, look. If you're playing Assassin's Creed, and you kill too many civilians, you have to restart. That's the developer's controlling how you play. ANY set of rules in a game, regardless of achievements or cheats, is the result of someone controlling how you play. That's why it's called a game. Because it has rules. They are there for a reason. Are you really saying that playing the game the way the developers intended is inherently a bad thing?
 

Vyress

New member
Jul 12, 2010
87
0
0
When you receive achievement points or trophies it really is like the developers are patting the gamer's head saying "Good boy!" *woof!* "Now fetch the next one!"

That said I don't get how some people come to the conclusion that these achievement systems make gaming any better or that they made it any more competitive at all (especially since games have gradually become easier lol).

I mean let's look at Devil May Cry 3 for example. Did some of you 'hardcore gamers' - well the ones that liked the game of course - NOT clear it on all difficulties? Did you NOT master all styles just because you didn't get any useless points?
I did all that. Because I had FUN with the game. I played the game on Dante Must Die multiple times for every single style there was because I could and not for some trophy or points. In fact, if there had been a trophies for that I don't think I would have done that for each style if at all since it would have been like a to-do list and that's more tedious than fun to me.

But you know what Devil May Cry 3 DID have? REWARDS. Something you can actually use and have fun with (infinite Devil Trigger anyone?). And that's also what Nintendo is giving their players. Look at Ocarina of Time: the golden skulltulas. Or the fairies in Majora's Mask. These are also tasks that you don't need to complete but well you can. And the best is you even get something useful for doing it. That's all we really need for 'achievement purposes'. It's been in games for ages now but apparently these days things have to be specifically named for gamers to realize what those things are. It's really rather ridiculous.
Arkley said:
Here's the deal, guys: Achievements/Trophies are one of the best additions to gaming that came with this generation. Why? Because, aside from adding an easily accessible list of a player's in-game accomplishments for all to see, they add tons of potential replay value for those that pursue them.
And so is this.

And to the people renting games - which they may not even like - for easy achievement points: don't you have anything better to do with your time and money? Sports? Going out with friends? Dating? No?
 

greatgreybeast

New member
Jul 9, 2008
25
0
0
Even though Trinen makes a strong point, it seems like Nintendo is ignoring what has become a major part of the current videogame generation. Certain gamers have been known to seek out, borrow, and rent titles they wouldn't otherwise play just to get a quick boost to their Gamerscore.
I'd call that not so much a criticism of Nintendo, as a criticism of the current videogame generation. And of the whole concept of gamerscores.

Still, I'm not totally opposed to achievements/trophies. I just don't see any reason for them to be global, and I don't see any reason for them to be in every game. Just the games that suit them from developers who are going to put enough thought into them.
 

Truth Cake

New member
Aug 27, 2010
205
0
0
LifeCharacter said:
almostgold said:
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.
Yes because having a different opinion than you is definitely deserving of violence.

Achievements take nothing away from the actual game and therefore have nothing wrong with them. Some add a challenge by having you limit what you can do, or making you take the indirect route, so what's the problem with them?
People overvalue them is the problem, now games have become just competitions on who can get more acheivements/trophies as opposed to HAVING FUN; although I suppose I can hardly blame that on the game developer's fault, other than that they shouldn't have even done it in the first place...

Boo playing for acheivements, yay playing for fun!
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
When regarding the three console makers, it's helpful to remember the role National Identity and Cultural Psyche likely plays.

Microsoft, fundamentally, is an American company. Sony, while originating in Japan, is an International company - which at this point basically means an American-style company that keeps a Pocket Guide to Local Ettiquette when it travels. And you can see that in their very American (or "Western," if you prefer) approach to tech and innovation: Risk/Reward as balanced-scales, aesthetic is consumer-maleable, "good enough" is sometimes acceptable (re: "we'll patch it down the road") if timing is a factor, etc.

The whole concept of Achievements, likewise, is thoroughly Western; and not only because Western gamers are more enamored of online gaming than their Japanese counterparts. The basic appeal of XBL-style Achievements is rooted in the sense that accomplishment only "counts" (or "counts MORE") if it's expressed as a quantifiable "thing" that you can show-off to others - and that sense is "native" to a Western/American sensibility.

Nintendo, while they might be technically "international," are fundamentally a Japanese company - NOA and NOE aren't part of the "brain," NOJ is the brain and the other branches are "hands." The Japanese "psyche" is on a different wavelength than the Western, and you can see it in the way Nintendo approaches it's products: Repetition-as-the-key-to-perfection, in a nutshell. You're never "finished" getting good at something, so do it over and over to the point of zen-like "fusion" between creator and act of creation. The trade-off is pretty steep: "Innovate" becomes a four-letter-word, but the payoff can be extraordinary: "Mario Galaxy 2" is as close to perfect as any game you'll ever see... and why wouldn't it be? They've been making it for 25 YEARS - They are really, REALLY good at it by now. Not judging either philosophy, just pointing out: They're different.

By the same token, Achievements as we know them from PSN/XBL are almost totally antithetical to the (traditional) Japanese psyche: "Replay value" means playing the game again and again until it's practically a reflex. Accomplishment is for personal contentment and growth, not something you want quantified for "bragging" rights - "bragging" itself is a social faux-pax for the most part in that culture. And while said culture may be changing on the "ground level" in those regards, you're not going to see a century-old company acknowledge or embrace it other than in increments so tiny that the change is as unnoticed and "painless" as possible. And make no mistake: Nintendo is superficially about "innovation" and wacky experimentation, especially at Western press events, but the above-described is pretty-much how they roll.
 

Dragonforce525

New member
Sep 13, 2009
338
0
0
Oh poor Nintendo, here's an idea for you, how about instead of bashing achievements you could focus on developing games, y'know games that don't include characters from the 80's and suck balls. Sounds to me like they're just upset over the fact that they haven't made a good game which didn't have mario or zelda crudely pasted onto the box art.
 

TheBoulder

New member
Nov 11, 2009
415
0
0
Garak73 said:
Achievements have been used to take away player freedoms. Look at what happened with SC2 and achievements, no cheating in single player allowed unless you use built in cheats. I would rather be able to cheat in single player games that have these mythical rewards. Can't cheat on the 360 in single player mode because that would affect Gamescore. To me, achievements instead of freedom to use cheat devices/codes is not a good trade off.
Well, you can either give up achievements or learn to play the game.

He reasoned that achievements are like a command from game designers that "tell you how to play their game
Achievements are completely optional, you don't have to play how the developers tell you to. Besides, achievements do indeed add re-playability. They make you think differently about how to go through the game. Take 'Test of Faith' from Mirror's Edge for example. You have to beat the game without shooting a police officer. When I did it, I had to find alternate routes throughout the level, rather than head straight in. Normally, I wouldn't have done this.