next »

[superflat]

Yes, I think that's how they should be used. Encourage creativity.

Even though there's no guideline for individual achievements, Microsoft state that a large percentage of the 'gamerscore' distribution has to be allocated to things the player will automatically do by playing the so-called 'golden path' (ie the minimum required to simply finish the game.)

This means a large percentage of the achievements have to be meaningless, hence the people who rent easy games just to higher their score.  I wouldn't mind if all achievements were creative, but most aren't allowed to be.

I just don't see why we need to layer meta-rewards on top of a game, when the game could provide its own.  There's nothing a creative achievement can add that a creative mechanic can't, apart from the public nature.  Then again if that's what people like about them, that they are public then I feel that the 'golden path achievements' should be dropped, as should the score.

[Tiderion]

I have no doubt that many achievements are designed out of laziness (ie. Congrats! You beat the game! Have 25g.). Even if it were not mandated that some of a game's achievement allotment are to be used on the mundane, I have no doubt that many games would not actually stray from that path.

Why?

Because it is hard to come up with achievements. Achievements work best when they challenge the player to try a strategy that is not in their skill set or take a path with more risk than reward. Achievements are an added incentive to play crazier than your more methodical play style.

Team Fortress 2 is the perfect example of how achievements can be used effectively. The achievements available for each character and specific weapon loadouts encourage players to play in ways they normally would not play. For example, I am a great support player. I play Spy, Medic, Scout, and Engineer extremely well. I had no desire to ever play Grenadier until Grenadier got its achievement set.

Now, the downside to achievements in Team Fortress 2 is that many achievements are not strategically viable. Why would you want to try to hit someone at maximum distance with the Scout's baseball in a real game? Add to this the fact that weapon upgrades were tied to the number of achievements gained and those weapon upgrades were very valuable in regular games. Thus, mapmakers ended up making maps specifically for the completion of all achievements for a specific character type. People harvested achievements in order to reap the rewards so they could continue being competitive in regular game play.

A good achievement is one that promotes play that would not normally be strategically recommended. The reward is the satisfaction of pulling it off and getting the title and no more. In the Xbox Live version of Ticket to Ride (the railroad building game), an achievement exists that encourages a player to play all of their trains in one long path rather than connecting railroads wherever cheapest or most easily attained. This will also gain the player a bonus to their score if their path is the longest but it is also is harder to accomplish. The achievement adds weight to trying out a strategy that is not immediately more valuable.

[thedaemon]

Might as well call it the "not a drooling baby who lacks fine motor skills" achievement.

Sorry I'm chiming in late, but I want this achievement!

[Muz]

Personally, I like achievements as a sort of guideline. It's nice, since I normally play open ended strategy games. Something like "become emperor of the holy roman empire" or "established a thriving colony". IMO, achievements are best as a sort of checklist.

[SirNiko]

The checklist achievements aren't too much different than games that give the player a percentage rating on their progress, or display the number of worlds left before you beat the game. From that perspective, they could also be used to guide the player's expectations on where they are in the game.

I know that when I played the original Golden Sun on the GBA the ending was rather sudden and unexpected, and I stopped playing for a while thinking I was only halfway through the game when I was actually on the final boss.

I'm a little intrigued that MS requires a percentage of achievements to be 'mandatory'. I'd noticed that PS3 trophies do the same, but thought it was just a trend, not a requirement. I'd love to have a chat with an MS representative who was in on the meeting that made that policy.

[snowyowl]

I would link this week's extra credits on www.escapistmagazine.com, but there's something weird going on with their site (Chrome keeps tellingme there's some weird malware on it or something).

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/2758-Achievements
They make some good points. The idea of an achievement should be to reward the player for trying a new and interesting way of playing the game. For instance:
Complete Level 1 without touching the ground (Burrito Bison)
Play the entire game while blindfolded (Nethack)
Play the entire game without getting the sword (Legend Of Zelda... you know, the first one)

In short, I think the best achievements reward the player for finding easter eggs and for trying new things. Oh, and not all of the above are "official" achievements either.

On the flipside, there's also the achievements which you get so you can boast to your friends. The really difficult ones that you only get so you can show off your l33t sk1llz. They also play a role, but mostly only if your achievements are visible to other players.

[Helmeted]

I'm not a completionist so I would never go out of my way for achievements, like by playing with only one gun or sending the gnome into space in Half Life 2. I kind of like achievements though, well sometimes, at least in theory. I won't play for achievements, but I do enjoy it when you get that little bit of artificial recognition, "Achievement: You did $thing," I'm like, Yeah, thanks for noticing! Quite Pavlovian.

I liked the way they did achievements in STALKER: Call of Pripyat. They weren't really achievements in the usual sense, and they had in-game effects. Get the Artifact Hunter achievement and hostile bandits will be attracted to you, if you get Detective stalkers will regularly leave medical supplies in your personal stash out of gratitude, etc… it's all to do with how you're seen in the world.

I'm thinking about using achievements or something like them for the different ways of losing a game, sort of anti-achievements.

[SirNiko]

I want to create a fancy version of the Tower of Hanoi on Steam and put an achievement for successfully completing the original 64 disc version.

I'm not sure whether folks would appreciate the joke.