next »

[starsrift]

I was just thinking about this.
Would having an achievement system ( a la XBox, Steam, etc) and then making some of the achievements lost-forevers - so that you only have one chance to do it - be hard trolling the achievement/completionist whores or put up some challenge to them?

[Zulaan]

I would hate that and im sure alot of other people would be pissed too.

[s0]

Sounds like a terrible idea.

[vinheim3]

The only way anyone would like it is if you allowed New Game+

[Rumrusher]

it be hard Trolling the completionists if getting this would lead to the real ending, always be a challenge though it would be place under the category DICK MOVE for the intentions.

[Filth]

The only way anyone would like it is if you allowed New Game+

The only way anyone would like having achievements with only one chance to do them is allowing more than one chance to do them? 

[Nystre]

I thought the point of achievements was to add replay value?

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

a lot of achievements already are this way. i think this is true more often than not of achievements in rpgs.

[JoGribbs]

One of the functions of achievements is to get people to play your game longer than they would have otherwise. I've certainly played through games again that I might not have done otherwise just to get achievements. If there were achievements that I knew I couldn't get then that function is null and void.

I guess it might be good as a kind of trophy for people who play the game at a high level: they can show off that they got the achievement. However, you want to incentivise people to get better at the game, and locking players out of achievements for not being good enough is not a great way to do that.

I think it's a bad idea but there are always exceptions to these things.

[SirNiko]

It would be dumb if the achievement was something you could easily miss completely, such as an achievement to look behind you oh shit you missed it gone forever. I hate that kind of stuff that you miss without even knowing its there.

It might be cool to have a game where the game is up front about the achievement, such as "Beat the game in one credit" and you can activate it when you want to take your chance. If you succeed, achievement unlocked. If you fail, you are resigned to ignominy and do not get another try. Just make sure you minimize the damage by making it worth 1 or 0 gamer points and don't attach any extra unlockable content to it. It exists simply for the achievement, nothing else.

I suspect either way it would be met with an equal amount of intense hatred and intense excitement, as those few worthy players who succeed would be immortalized for all eternity.

I'd rather make an achievement for completing the Tower of Hanoi with all 64 discs, which is only impossible due to the tremendous length of time it would take to perform.

[starsrift]

tbh I really don't understand achievements, I am not competitive or completionist, so this feedback helps me a lot. So, "hard trolling", okies.


In the same vein, instead of lost-forever achievements, what about mutable ones? To sketch a basic illustration of what I mean, say that you got an achievement for the first enemy you killed in a game, but the achievement was different depending on what weapon you used?

In the vein of "adding replay value", would a lost-forever achievement of "Do X on your 3rd (or whatever) playthrough" be a dick move? You know it's coming, you have a chance, and you're also raping the hell out of any replayability you have?

[vinheim3]

In the same vein, instead of lost-forever achievements, what about mutable ones? To sketch a basic illustration of what I mean, say that you got an achievement for the first enemy you killed in a game, but the achievement was different depending on what weapon you used?

Coming from a hardcore completist, this sounds ok. For example, if that achievement was "__ murderer" and I got the achievement using a chainsaw so I had "chainsaw murderer", I wouldn't be concerned about not getting other named achievements if the achievement's name didn't affect gameplay elsewhere. If it affected even something small like speech, I would probably be concerned cause I know there may be other interesting variations of the speech had my only-nameable-once achievement been named something else.

In the vein of "adding replay value", would a lost-forever achievement of "Do X on your 3rd (or whatever) playthrough" be a dick move? You know it's coming, you have a chance, and you're also raping the hell out of any replayability you have?

This would add replay value because players will play up to their 3rd playthrough to do something, but it wouldn't be a good kind of replay value. They're forcing themselves to play more to get 1 achievement which is only acceptable if the game itself is good. The level of dickishness is dependent on a number of factors such as how hard the achievement is to get/how long it takes to get to that playthrough/how fun the game is/how beneficial the achievement is, etc, but since you know it's coming, it will be less dickish.

I knew a game like this, and the achievement was acceptable because you know it's coming and the game was fun and you knew how much you had to prepare yourself beforehand.