next »

[Christian223]

Why do achievements on games work?. Why people like them?.
What are the best types of achievements? what are the worst?.

[Kramlack]

Achievements on games work because it gives a sense of reward for accomplishments. A lot of people say "achievements are stupid" and yes, in reality, they are, but the false feeling of replayability is really eye catching to most developers I bet, as well as players. For example, I collected all the trophies in Dead Space, playing through the game probably 6+ times, which I can't imagine I would've had it not been for the trophies. Like I said, in reality it was a waste of time, but there's that sense that, yes, I beat this game completely. Go me!

I can't really say what the best types are, but the worst would be ones that add nothing to the game itself, 'collect x amount of useless items', compared to say 'collect x amount of super hidden power ups for your character'. Also, I hate achievements that require online competition, specifically in fighting games. 'Win 50 ranked matches', fuck that.

[SundownKid]

The best kinds of achievements reward the player for some kind of unconventional challenge or exploration that they would normally never attempt, or that requires a high level of skill rather than time. Something like "collect all orbs" isn't that much fun since it just takes a long time to complete, but HL2's "transport the gnome to the missile" or "just use the gravity gun" achievements are better because they are fun and need additional skill to complete that you wouldn't normally use in the regular game. This extends the playability of the game by having additional objectives that don't necessarily have to be tied into the game's story or completeable by everyone.

[Konidias]

The best kind of achievements: the kind where you actually have to earn it

The worst kind of achievements: the kind that are just handed to you for normal gameplay

I mean, what's the point of a "played the first level!" achievement?

To me that's like giving yourself a pat on the back for tying your shoelaces. Might as well call it the "not a drooling baby who lacks fine motor skills" achievement.

[s0]

Xbawks-style "achievements" don't work for me at all. I couldn't give a shit about my XBL gamerscore if I tried. I guess it's mostly because these scores don't actually measure anything except for how many games you own and how much time you've invested in them, and even that pretty vaguely because achievements tend to be pretty inconsistent across different games. Give me some real unlockables and we're talking.

[jotapeh]

The best kind of achievements: the kind where you actually have to earn it

The worst kind of achievements: the kind that are just handed to you for normal gameplay

I mean, what's the point of a "played the first level!" achievement?

To me that's like giving yourself a pat on the back for tying your shoelaces. Might as well call it the "not a drooling baby who lacks fine motor skills" achievement.

These achievements to me are less of a reward and more of getting the player to recognize that there ARE achievements to be had.

Also sometimes they can be used to bait people into trying the single player mode even if they mostly just wanted to play the multiplayer version. I mean if you spend a bunch of time making a single player campaign you want players to at least give it a try.

[Konidias]

Yeah I can kind of understand the whole idea of giving an easy achievement away so that players notice the achievements, but at the same time I just feel like it cheapens the achievements overall.

If it's possible to introduce achievements organically without resorting to giving one away, I think that would be the best road to take.

Also it's nice when achievements are "unlocks" which reveal more content or special features or whatever. If it's just earning an achievement to earn it, there is less incentive. But place an actual reward behind it, and now you're talking.

[Bree]

I have two dormmates who actively compete with each other for a higher metascore on their PSN profiles. For them, it adds an extra layer of challenge to a normal game: complete as many trophies as you can for bragging rights. I personally dislike achievements for two personal reasons-

a) I like games more as an experience than as a challenge to overcome.
b) I'm really bad at completing long/hard games.

That being said, even though I look down on it, it can be added fun for other players. To each their own, I say. At least when Heavy Rain implements trophies, it has the sense to not award them until the loading screen for the next segment.

[jwk5]

Disgaea 3 has some pretty hardcore achievements/trophies. This one is by far the craziest:
"The Ten Billion Damage Man: Do over 10,000,000,000 damage."

[SirNiko]

The worst achievements are one that take no effort but lots of time to acquire, like "Kill 100 Rats" or "Play for 100 hours".

The ones I love are additional challenges you normally would not attempt, like "Beat level one by only running backwards" or "Get a goomba to the top of the empire state building".

Achievements make for additional challenges you can complete strictly for the joy of completing them. If you are a low-skilled player you can simply skip them with the knowledge that you will not be penalized. For me, they spell out additional replay value as I attempt to accomplish an assortment of challenging and varied feats.

[Theophilus]

I hate achievements, as far as xbox. As was said, achievements you unlock in typical, everyday play are terrible, because it's not really an achievement, but an ego boost from the developer to your gamerscore- it's just a reward for buying the game.

With that said, my favorite achievements are quirky ones. For instance... Run naked through a building with 100+ bystanders. No particular game I'm thinking of, just throwing out ideas. I don't strive to unlock all achievements, just the ones that I think would be fun to try and... achieve.

[Christian223]

Thanks a lot for the great replies, I learned very important things.

I remember than when I played Batman Arkham Asylum I replayed it just to collect all the hidden stuff to solve the mistery of Arkham spirit and also to defeat the Riddler (basically collect lots of things and after hours and hours of collecting you get a bit of story), those achievements where fun, but at the same time Games For windows Live gave me achievements and points, but those made no sense at all, I just played the game and suddenly a little pop up appears saying I achieved something, that type of achievement is nonsense to me, Dirt 2 suffers from the same I think, it just throws you achievements at your face.

[Theophilus]

Oh, another thing... It would be interesting to give story elements out when you unlock achievements... you know, playing little cutscenes and what not? Could be interesting, but might make achievements mandatory. I dunno.

[SundownKid]

Oh, another thing... It would be interesting to give story elements out when you unlock achievements... you know, playing little cutscenes and what not? Could be interesting, but might make achievements mandatory. I dunno.

I suppose that could count as an achievement if it is sufficiently unrelated to the gameplay and plot that it could count as bonus material. For example, in Trauma Team each achievement awards you an extra voice clip of a different character. The game could give you non-mandatory background plot information as a reward, such as universe or character data.

[Danmark]

One problem with "achievements" is that they aren't: nobody has ever achieved anything by playing a game.

It's not just that we use a misnomer for them. Achievements are cheap crutches that artificially extend replay time among some players, in lieu of hard work and/or serious innovation on the devs' part. They could make a game that's fundamentally more substantial and deep, or sell their work for a price appropriate to the actual replayability, or work to change the assumption that replayability is paramount in a game product's value, or something. If they were forward thinking and free from the influence of market forces, that is. Sadly, I think achievements are here to stay.

A game with achievements is, at best, like a double album where one disc contains only terribad remixes. This is only if the obnoxious and intrusive achievement notifications are easily disabled. Otherwise, the remixes are interspersed with the real tracks.

[Destral]

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). They say pretty much what I think about achievements:

Don't use them to keep the player progressing through the game. Don't give them out for completing things that the player needs to complete anyway to progress through the game.

Don't use them to reward the player when you can reward the player with something in-game. Getting an achievement for collecting all the missile power-ups is redundant: the power-up itself should be the more meaningful reward.

Do use them to encourage the player to explore the game space. If your game is about running, jumping and shooting, give an achievement for, say, overcoming a particular stage without shooting at all. Encourage the player to experience the game in different ways.

Do use them to reward the player for displaying and exerting their mastery of your systems. To use examples from Final Fantasy games, defeating bosses like Omega Weapon or Shinryu in FFV, or Ruby and Emerald weapon in FFVII, are worthy of achievements. Especially in FFV's case, where you were awarded with items that had no use in the actual game other than to prove you had beaten the two superbosses, achievements are suitable instead.

[Xion]

The worst achievements are one that take no effort but lots of time to acquire, like "Kill 100 Rats" or "Play for 100 hours".

The ones I love are additional challenges you normally would not attempt, like "Beat level one by only running backwards" or "Get a goomba to the top of the empire state building".

this, completely.

[s0]

Oh, another thing... It would be interesting to give story elements out when you unlock achievements... you know, playing little cutscenes and what not? Could be interesting, but might make achievements mandatory. I dunno.

A lot of games already do that, it's called "unlockables".

Everyone talks about these "achievements" as if they're some revolutionary new concept when they've been in games for decades. Worse yet, achievements are the lamest unlockables ever. Even the figurines in Super Smash Bros Melee are better than those little icons and arbitrary numbers.

[SundownKid]

You're missing the fact that achievements let your friends know you did "so and so", which was the whole point of all the other trinkets before online gaming was even there. If you just gain an unlockable, there is no value outside the virtual world. Now, obviously some people don't give a crap about that kind of stuff, but you can't deny that it's important to achievements' continued existence.

[s0]

There are unlockables that are challenging to unlock though, so they have the double benefit of getting new game content and bragging rights.