Poll: Achievements corrupting gaming?

[Bonkekook]

I have to say, I don't buy this whole "Achievements are horrible" argument. The problem isn't achievements, it's how the developers use them. I could really go into a 5 page description of what I think about achievements, what ones should go into each games, etc, but I'm far too lazy with college being done for the year.

So I'll sum up parts of what I've already said before. Achievements that get you to do new things, try new modes, explore different areas, and even harpoon five bodies to the same vehicle are the ones that I enjoy. The only achievements I think are ridiculous are online ones and collection achievements. 500 Green Orbs? Seriously, Crackdown?(It should be noted that Crackdown also has the Harpoon 5 People to a Vehicle achievement, so it almost balances out).

 

[King of the Sandbox]

My whole outlook on Achievements/Trophies? Meh. I can take 'em or leave 'em.

It's kinda cool to get them, but I don't go out of my way until I've truly beaten the game. And honestly, I get the majority of them from just playing normally, without actually setting out to get them, so they're (more often than not) a pleasant surprise.

I do appreciate the added drive to 100% games though, and they've helped me convince myself some older games were worth replaying once again, just to see what Achievements I may have missed were.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I have only developed a fondness for Live achievemnts, likely because that was the first system that offered them. While I realize they are utterly meaningless (like that happy face sticker when you did particularly well on an assignment in grade school) they still make me happy when I get them.

I will also admit that the existance of achiements is what made me purchase Fallout 3 for PC (I had played it on console of course when it occured to me that such games are generally better on PC). Much to my surprise, it counts as a different game than the 360 version, so if one looks at my live account they'll note two instances of the game. I was tempted to do the same with oblivion but it turns out it doesn't use GFWL (something I'm sure everyone else is thrilled about).

 

[foodmaniac]

Well as long as you don't have the whiny 12 year olds that QQ when you try and win the game.

 

[Akihiko]

I think they're alright. Some people end up caring about them too much. Like you see people buying games, just to get their gamerscore higher, or for some trophys. Which is pathetic. I'll only bother to do achievements/trophies if I enjoy getting them. Otherwise I don't bother. Play games for fun, after all, not to show off.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Achievements add absolutely nothing to the value of a game. On the other hand, they don't really detract either.

Chalk me up for the 'couldn't give a flying shit' bracket.

Yea same here.
On the one hand it's good for the devs to gauge how many people appreciated a particular aspect of one of their games: like if they see everyone got the achievement-trophy for a particular side mission, they'll be sure to include it or something like it in the sequel. That's the only reason we have them really. Otherwise I think MS, Sony, & Devs would be better off putting those resources into something else.

The only time I hate trophies is if I would otherwise be getting a cool in-game reward. Like in GTA4, after collecting all the cars for my d-bag contacts,I expected to have them available (like in gta3) or at least have some sort of collection of respawning cars (like in other gtas) but all I got was a useless achievement-trophy. That's not going to get me across Liberty City. That's just lame.

 

[Jamieson 90]

I think they are corrupting gaming but not for the reason specified. Back in the day people used to play games because they were fun, the gameplay was fun. These days games must have ranks and achievements etc, It becomes more about reaching the next rank or getting the next achievment than having fun which is a real shame.

For that reason I' am against achievements.

 

[blindmind]

They are just a numerical representation of how awesome you are.

Also a good way of measuring your self worth as a person.

hahaha

 

[mad825]

I would have to say..No

Achievements is that little feature that us little pirates cannot really experience, in fact that would be one of the few prices we they have to pay.

Achievements are really for causalsocial gamers however hermits like me never really need Achievements because like me they deal with enough smug little arses in real life

 

[Shanannara]

I'm more of the mind that they shouldn't be for things you HAVE to do to complete the game, though they can be for completing the game as well. They should either be something that is above and beyond, or something unusual you do. I don't want to get an achievement for beating the tutorial level, since even a blind retarded monkey could do that in most games, but giving an achievement for killing a tank with a frying pan (L4D2; ok, it was any melee weapon) is a fun and hilarious achievement. I also like ones that are a good trick to learn anyway: punching a hunter as he pounces and killing a witch with one shot are good examples of useful skills turned into achievements (L4D).

What he said.

 

[Palademon]

Achievements to me add purpose, making me want to do specific things and do things I hadnt thought of to really experience all the game has to offer. I especially like the silly ones like tossing a cow into a volcano in Banjo Kazooie.

This is why I might not enjoy Monster Hunter Tri as much as I would on 360 or ps3

 

[CK76]

90% of trophies I've earned I would have anyways by playing games as I did in the past. Other 10% I bother with. This generally gets me to 50-60% of trophies a game offers. I'm not bothered I'll never get a platinum.

 

[Dannyboy1186]

I think your right in saying that playng a game with none achievements might not be as enjoyable than those with. But achievements are nice since they add replay value.

Does anyone remeber the skillpoint system in spyro? I enjoyed them for the same reason. Xbox's system just made it really popular and the fact they have do it alot better.

 

[temporalcrux]

Achievements should be like Secret Bosses. You do them when you have nothing else to do, but don't remind me every 50 battles that I've won 50 more battles.

 

[Brandon237]

Corrupting gamers, definitely. Not much, but it does, I like them when they mean something but people don't put too much weight on them. Otherwise it gets irritating.

 

[Crimson_Dragoon]

I'll still play a game even if it doesn't have achievements, but I do feel they can add a little extra fun and replayability to a game by adding extra goals.

 

[jaammiie]

I would have played so many more games if it wasn't for achievements, there would have not been any reason to play COD 4/MW2 Spec ops on veteran if it wasn't for them. God; I would have days of my life back.

 

[blindmind]

I'm more of the mind that they shouldn't be for things you HAVE to do to complete the game, though they can be for completing the game as well. They should either be something that is above and beyond, or something unusual you do. I don't want to get an achievement for beating the tutorial level, since even a blind retarded monkey could do that in most games, but giving an achievement for killing a tank with a frying pan (L4D2; ok, it was any melee weapon) is a fun and hilarious achievement. I also like ones that are a good trick to learn anyway: punching a hunter as he pounces and killing a witch with one shot are good examples of useful skills turned into achievements (L4D).

What he said.

Indeed.

 

[Wolfgurl]

Here's my view on achievements, this is just going by my Valve achievements. It used to have an affect on the way people gamed and such, but things have changed a lot.