Nintendo needs to understand that the same thing that makes Pokemon popular makes Achievements popular - that feeling of "gotta catch 'em all!" It's a marketing trick made to sell more Pokemon games, and more Xbox games. Nintendo should know more than anyone how well this type of "manufactured addiction" works since they set the standard for its use. For them to dismiss it when they practically invented it is mindboggling.
Nintendo Belittles Achievements As "Mythical Rewards"
- Thread starter Tom Goldman
- Start date
Recommended Videos
You have to keep in mind that the skills of the gamer playing the game vary. They're not all like you. Maybe you would appreciate the badge of honor for beating the game on "ludicrous" but maybe there's some kid out there that was happily challenged just to make it through the first level and needs the encouragement to stick with it.Tom Goldman said:
I agree that there are games that ONLY do the entry level stuff. It just makes me feel like they don't care much about their game. Achievements are there to help aid in sales, and wimping out on them means you don't really care much how well your game sells. If someone said the words, "Aw, just do anything," do you really think they didn't say the same thing about the story, sound, gameplay, graphics, voice acting, cover system, HUD and everything else, too? If anybody said that in my studio, they should consider themselves very lucky if there's a job waiting for them the next day.
Speaking as someone who depending on the day of the week at times can be willing to try any new game with trophies available, I both get and don't get their logic. Achievements are the carrot that forces some rabid score-whores to break out of their safe-zones and try new genres. They're the reason to go back and try the game again even in today's light-speed move-on next-game mentality world. But they're also weird at times. Awkward, even, for some games, and you have to imagine that if they weren't mandatory, there's a few games that wouldn't- and perhaps shouldn't -have them. Still, I agree with a few other folks about the hypocracy of a company whose first-party games often have the equivalent of achievements, but subsequently belittle them and deny the ability to really show them off.
I'm a trophy hunter! In fact, I go to stupid lengths to get some trophies. xP But hey.. it's a collection sort of.. thing. I don't give a shite how close my count is to anyone else's. I just try to have as many as I can get. "Gotta catch 'em all!"
"Blah blah Nintendo hates hardcore gamers blah blah."
With that out of the way, this is a delightful stance to take. Achievements are primarily of two types:
(1) token achievements for doing things you HAVE TO DO IN A GAME (the games that give achievements for completing every mission), which seem more geared toward casual gamers to make them feel accomplished and special
and
(2) Achievements for doing things that should have been their own reward (kill five enemies with one grenade, et cetera).
The achievements in (1) are pointless and seem borderline lazy. The achievements in (2) are only really useful for games where there might be some ambiguity as to whether the action was completed (it's nice to know you killed 10 people if you can't tell that normally). Alternatively, you could make the game tell that normally either by showing it or some other way (thinking of the radio communications in MW2 for instance). Either way, they sort of ruin immersion for a lot of games.
And I will never understand why ANYONE cares about gamerscore.
Off the top of my head, the only games that make really compelling use of achievements are Valve games. The achievements are creative, fun, challenging, and usually have clever names.
With that out of the way, this is a delightful stance to take. Achievements are primarily of two types:
(1) token achievements for doing things you HAVE TO DO IN A GAME (the games that give achievements for completing every mission), which seem more geared toward casual gamers to make them feel accomplished and special
and
(2) Achievements for doing things that should have been their own reward (kill five enemies with one grenade, et cetera).
The achievements in (1) are pointless and seem borderline lazy. The achievements in (2) are only really useful for games where there might be some ambiguity as to whether the action was completed (it's nice to know you killed 10 people if you can't tell that normally). Alternatively, you could make the game tell that normally either by showing it or some other way (thinking of the radio communications in MW2 for instance). Either way, they sort of ruin immersion for a lot of games.
And I will never understand why ANYONE cares about gamerscore.
Off the top of my head, the only games that make really compelling use of achievements are Valve games. The achievements are creative, fun, challenging, and usually have clever names.
Ye same I wouldn't mind if they split achievements between mode like what is on Steam for CoD:BO. That would be acceptable in my books.Dfskelleton said:
Haha this is quite funny.Jaded Scribe said:
So before this console generation you never did any post-end content in games? Final Fantasy Uber Bosses? Megaman Battle Network Uber Bosses? Epilogue part in Lunar 2 Eternal Blue? Harder Difficulties like in the Devil May Cry, Zone of the Enders or Metal Gear Solid series? No?
If achievements are the only thing to get you to do any of the bonus stuff in games it tells a lot about you as a gamer then. And don't start with achievements like killing 72000 zombies in Dead Rising 2 or whatever. That isn't an achievement. That's just downright stupid lol. And what exactly is the replay >VALUE< in that?
I always thought people play games because they have fun with them. And when they have fun with them it's only natural that they'd unlock/clear every part possible in that game; because they have fun with it and not for some to-do list aka achievement points/trophies.
Achievements are quite funny. They are like a drug that makes 'casual gamers' call themselves hardcore and gets them addicted to games - good and bad ones.
That doesn't make any sense. By your logic, if the achievement system keeps you to play a particular game for a long time, how does that boost sales at all? I mean that way it'd be less likely for you to buy another game for quite some time, right? It only makes sense if people start buying games that they normally wouldn't only because that way they get more achievements (lol). And THAT would be stupid.Blair Bennett said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQZuidKexBQ&feature=related
I really miss stuff like this... beating that boss, now THAT was an achievement.
i gotta say, i like achievements. i like having something to work towards, and it definitely helps extend gameplay time because i like to at least try to get them all. it forces me to try some new ways of playing the game, and as a result helps show me all different ways to enjoy it. however i don't like trophies that are just 'complete chapter 1', a trophy for the whole game maybe, but each chapter seems trivial
I love trophies/achievements.
But I hate games that;
a)Put in a trophy for everything (a-la Burnout Paradise, when you activate and receive 7 trophies for winning one race. Your game has too many trophies)
and/or
b)Multiplayer trophies! Unless they are very restrictive and DON'T rely on levelling up to get them.
Seriously, I would be happy if a game only contained the Gold trophies (or whatever the XBox equivalent of a Gold trophy is). As the criteria for getting most Gold trophies is the kind of thing that a game makes you work for. For example, playing a game on 'Ridiculous' difficulty or finishing story mode using only one weapon and grenades. Things that require skill to get and not blind faith that opening a door or walking 50 feet will unlock you something.
But I hate games that;
a)Put in a trophy for everything (a-la Burnout Paradise, when you activate and receive 7 trophies for winning one race. Your game has too many trophies)
and/or
b)Multiplayer trophies! Unless they are very restrictive and DON'T rely on levelling up to get them.
Seriously, I would be happy if a game only contained the Gold trophies (or whatever the XBox equivalent of a Gold trophy is). As the criteria for getting most Gold trophies is the kind of thing that a game makes you work for. For example, playing a game on 'Ridiculous' difficulty or finishing story mode using only one weapon and grenades. Things that require skill to get and not blind faith that opening a door or walking 50 feet will unlock you something.
I agree with this, Nintendo has often been conservative towards changing forces to the games industry, and not always is this a bad idea. Sometimes, we really do have to stop, look again, and think about whether what's being done is right for everyone. In the case of achievements, I believe that the benefits have become too standardised, numerous (i.e. controlling of the way we play the game since it's more likely to be socially wrong if we don't get the achievements) and artificial.
It seems to me that Nintendo prefers designing games from the ground up to reward players internally rather than giving named trophies at 30-40 points in a single game. I think that, like when you've gone without food the whole morning a big lunch tastes all the better, a proper trophy at the end of the game, without all the little sparks beforehand, can be more surprising and rewarding. Or at the very least, not every game should have the same damn concept applied to its achievements. How much more boring could it get?
The trouble is, Nintendo's design philosophy is hardly a consistent thing in their games. Especially since the Wii and the DS have become very kiddy in the kind of games that they're turning out (even compared to the Gamecube's games, and that's saying a great deal), I would describe very few of them as more than mini-games. How can we consider mini-games rewarding in a long term kind of way? Sure, the argument remains valid but gamers should be careful to note who's selling it too.
I'd say we should see more big, fat adventure games packed full of secret Easter Eggs that require not just the player, but the DESIGNER, to think, create, earn and enjoy. And so far, no company has put their money where their mouth is when it comes to this. The industry seems to be more content with making us hungry for more games than with providing games that truly satisfy us, and this should be a cause for outrage.
Just as the internal rewards fail, the current achievements system as we see on 360 and PS3 is rising, and how does it look really? Too safe, too easy, and too bite sized. We should note that the points in the Live system have become as irrelevant and worthless and imbalanced as the ranking system with PS3 trophies. Why do they even exist? To make money. To create another addiction factor in the games. I feel that in taking this approach and standing against artificially addicting motifs in game design, Nintendo is taking a stance full of integrity (which is rare for them).
If Nintendo does the consumer a favour, we really should applaud them for it. It's not like they do this enough, but you start small with this sort of thing and respond the right way, and you might find a real healthy change for the games industry in the future.
It seems to me that Nintendo prefers designing games from the ground up to reward players internally rather than giving named trophies at 30-40 points in a single game. I think that, like when you've gone without food the whole morning a big lunch tastes all the better, a proper trophy at the end of the game, without all the little sparks beforehand, can be more surprising and rewarding. Or at the very least, not every game should have the same damn concept applied to its achievements. How much more boring could it get?
The trouble is, Nintendo's design philosophy is hardly a consistent thing in their games. Especially since the Wii and the DS have become very kiddy in the kind of games that they're turning out (even compared to the Gamecube's games, and that's saying a great deal), I would describe very few of them as more than mini-games. How can we consider mini-games rewarding in a long term kind of way? Sure, the argument remains valid but gamers should be careful to note who's selling it too.
I'd say we should see more big, fat adventure games packed full of secret Easter Eggs that require not just the player, but the DESIGNER, to think, create, earn and enjoy. And so far, no company has put their money where their mouth is when it comes to this. The industry seems to be more content with making us hungry for more games than with providing games that truly satisfy us, and this should be a cause for outrage.
Just as the internal rewards fail, the current achievements system as we see on 360 and PS3 is rising, and how does it look really? Too safe, too easy, and too bite sized. We should note that the points in the Live system have become as irrelevant and worthless and imbalanced as the ranking system with PS3 trophies. Why do they even exist? To make money. To create another addiction factor in the games. I feel that in taking this approach and standing against artificially addicting motifs in game design, Nintendo is taking a stance full of integrity (which is rare for them).
If Nintendo does the consumer a favour, we really should applaud them for it. It's not like they do this enough, but you start small with this sort of thing and respond the right way, and you might find a real healthy change for the games industry in the future.
[blockquote]He reasoned that achievements are like a command from game designers that "tell you how to play their game in order to achieve some kind of mythical reward."[/blockquote]
In defense of achievements, I'd like to say that achievements helped to get a lot more mileage from every single game that I played. Assassin's Creed II springs eagerly to mind. However, I do agree with what Trinen is saying because I've seen games where it becomes a series of guidelines on how to play the game in an intended way, and as a result, it impedes the natural ebb and flow of fun that the game is supposed to evoke. Dead Space and Fallout 3 are guilty of this, so I can see from what angle he's talking about when it comes to Achievements.
Then again, his definition of "Mythical" is a bit vague. What? A point denomination to show how many of these achievements I got? Well, there are Avatar Awards, so those achievements do help for something, but they are specific. And look at Halo 3 and the Vid-Masters. Does the Recon Armor count as Mythical? What wouldn't count as "Mythical" for Trinen? Using your gamerscore to buy stuff?
[blockquote]Nintendo did include stamps that are similar to achievements in Wii Sports Resort, and an achievement-like reward system in Super Smash Bros. Brawl, but these types of mechanics are likely to be constrained to individual games based on Trinen's comments.[/blockquote]
There's a reason why the Achievements were successful, because the online community helped to strengthen the late 80's era "High-Score" mentality that grew with arcade games such as Double Dragon or Galaga or any 2-D side-scrolling shoot-em-up you care to name. It wasn't only that, however. It was that whole "Water-Cooler" thing where you'd gather with friends and talk about how you killed that dragon at level five or some shit. That's what made Achievements so popular and at the same time, so infamous.
So what exactly is my point? Well, Nintendo can continue keep creating Meta-Game Achievements like the Stamps in Brawl, but in the next Nintendo console, it's gonna need a much much MUCH stronger online focus for future games than the jumbled mess that is Nintendo WFC.
In defense of achievements, I'd like to say that achievements helped to get a lot more mileage from every single game that I played. Assassin's Creed II springs eagerly to mind. However, I do agree with what Trinen is saying because I've seen games where it becomes a series of guidelines on how to play the game in an intended way, and as a result, it impedes the natural ebb and flow of fun that the game is supposed to evoke. Dead Space and Fallout 3 are guilty of this, so I can see from what angle he's talking about when it comes to Achievements.
Then again, his definition of "Mythical" is a bit vague. What? A point denomination to show how many of these achievements I got? Well, there are Avatar Awards, so those achievements do help for something, but they are specific. And look at Halo 3 and the Vid-Masters. Does the Recon Armor count as Mythical? What wouldn't count as "Mythical" for Trinen? Using your gamerscore to buy stuff?
[blockquote]Nintendo did include stamps that are similar to achievements in Wii Sports Resort, and an achievement-like reward system in Super Smash Bros. Brawl, but these types of mechanics are likely to be constrained to individual games based on Trinen's comments.[/blockquote]
There's a reason why the Achievements were successful, because the online community helped to strengthen the late 80's era "High-Score" mentality that grew with arcade games such as Double Dragon or Galaga or any 2-D side-scrolling shoot-em-up you care to name. It wasn't only that, however. It was that whole "Water-Cooler" thing where you'd gather with friends and talk about how you killed that dragon at level five or some shit. That's what made Achievements so popular and at the same time, so infamous.
So what exactly is my point? Well, Nintendo can continue keep creating Meta-Game Achievements like the Stamps in Brawl, but in the next Nintendo console, it's gonna need a much much MUCH stronger online focus for future games than the jumbled mess that is Nintendo WFC.
Of course I did. I couldn't afford a lot of games growing up, and several I never beat. But I got all the secrets in Mario 64, Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask, Shadows of the Empire, etc etc etc.Vyress said:
But, I have not bothered finding all the flags in Assassin's Creed. Or all the templars.
It also encourages me to try playing in ways I don't usually. Trophies in RPGs that reward you for taking the "evil" path have gotten me out of my habit of always being the ultimate good guy.
You may say that I'm somehow not a "real" gamer because I don't spend all of my time digging for every secret item without the prompting of trophies. But, I have a library of over 50 games that I'm still trying to work through. So yes, games with achievement support get a bigger cut of my time.
There are two kinds of achievements, Those that do nothing, and those that reward you with items, experience, gold etc. The xbox achievement points, wow achievement points, the achievments in borderlands that don't do anything are pointless other than to waste time for both consumers and designers. Whereas in a game if they give you experience, items, a new dashboard avatar, etc, are worthwhile activities that add to the game experience
I'm sorry, I didn't really I didn't really touch on that enough to explain it in my previous comment, but it appears that you've pretty much fixed that for me. I live on the border of a pretty wealthy area, so a lot of the people I go to school with have a great deal of money to spend on video games. This wouldn't be a bad thing if they did it for the games, however, I know far too many people who buy games that they know are objectively terrible, and they do it solely for the achievements.Vyress said:
I like the sound of when you get a trophy from a game on the PS3. It feels rewarding, but at the same time theres just to many god damn Bronze trophies. Trophies and any other form of the achievement system should probably only be awarded if you do something amazing in the game, like play for 50 hours, or kill 1000 enemies, or go out of your way to avoid combat. Blowing up 5 enemies just doesnt sound something that deserves a achievement in the video game world.
In real life though that probably merits a medal or something
In real life though that probably merits a medal or something
I kindaof agree.
Microsoft should have given you 10% of the gamerscore you get from an acivement in MS points, they would have been useful then, and cause people to buy more.
Microsoft should have given you 10% of the gamerscore you get from an acivement in MS points, they would have been useful then, and cause people to buy more.
Only time I care about achievements:
When they're funny.
But a joke-only achievement system just wouldn't stand. And therefore, there's no way to have an achievement system unless you turkey-baste massive amounts of bullshit.
Achievements seem to be targeted towards those players that want to get 99 of every item in Final Fantasy 7. Which really worries me. In any case, gaming should be an experience that the player alone should be able to discover without the developer looking over your shoulder and telling you to do a backflip every once in a while.
When they're funny.
But a joke-only achievement system just wouldn't stand. And therefore, there's no way to have an achievement system unless you turkey-baste massive amounts of bullshit.
Achievements seem to be targeted towards those players that want to get 99 of every item in Final Fantasy 7. Which really worries me. In any case, gaming should be an experience that the player alone should be able to discover without the developer looking over your shoulder and telling you to do a backflip every once in a while.
Hahahaha no.Sh0ckFyre said: