you know, after seeing the weekly sales for the 360 in Christmas 07, I don't think I even want to know what will happen with the Wii this Christmas.
It seems to me that most of the gamers who would buy either the 360 or the PS3 have already made their choice, though some may be waiting for a price drop. However, I doubt the price drop will create enough sales for the PS3 to even come close to passing the others.
I'm actually looking forward to Haze for the PS3. But I'll be honest I hardly ever turn my system on. I play the 360 about 8-10 hours a week, but I'm lucking if I turn the PS3 or Wii on once every other week...sad really!
For instance Portal. I would've played that a couple times and poked around a bit but the achievements made me WANT to figure out the challenges and things and resulted in me putting in a good 20-30 hours in my 4 day rental playing the crap out of that game. That's the value of the achievement system. It gives the developers a way to say "hey look at this" without taking away from the main action. Those that don't care can play the game through and resell it or whatever. Those that want a little more can look at the achievements and try some tricky maneuvers or try to find an area that you wouldn't notice on your average run through the game.
In other words, the game was not fun enough for you to play it another time. However, because you wanted to earn a "reward" (if you consider bits changing in a database a reward) you played a game that otherwise had nothing left to offer you. If the game would have been fun to play again, you could have just played it again without the achievements. If the game would not have been fun to play again, playing it again for an achievement means you are spending time doing something that is not fun. If somehow the reward of the achievement makes it fun, I think that's pretty sad that you find bits changing in a database that rewarding. Maybe you should just play WoW.
Early on I found myself playing games for achievements and then I was like "What the hell am I doing"? I think a lot of people fall into this trap and end up playing games they don't even like simply to boost their gamerscore. We have to get pass this and simply play for fun or our game playing becomes no different than a job.
The only positive I can see from this is that the achievements can provide some proof to backup your claims. For example, you can prove you finished a game based on the achivement...if that type of thing is important to you. Bragging rights I guess!
Games like HL2, Resident Evil, FEAR...I can play these again and again regardless of reward, it's all about the entertainment value.
For me, it's an easy choice: buy all multi-platform games for the PS3. I actually have the opposite thought when it comes to multi-platform games, which is get them for 360. But that is mostly, because I know a lot more people who have 360s. So if I want to play something multiplayer, my best chance to is going to be on the 360.
Yeah, I could buy the same game on PS3 with 100% less achievements and 100% less Xbox Live.... PASS.
PSN blows. Sony needs to get on that shit immediately.
Regarding achievements and Portal, I played that game through, did a couple puzzles and feel like a got a complete and fulfilling experience... I'll go back in a few months to do it again for sure.
Crackdown is a prime example of a game that I loved because of Achievements. I was pretty much done with it, but the ach. had some REALLY fun stuff that you'd probably try if you really got in to it, but Crackdown wasn't an incredible game, but the things you could do and be rewarded for were a blast and probably tripled the life of that game for me. I love achievements but I don't rent/buy games strictly for them. That they are there is a great reason to play the game a little more, or go that extra mile in the final level etc.
It seems pretty obvious from everybodies posts that Sony really killed any possible domination of the market due to a few factors -
1. Release date; the Xbox 360 was the first of this generation's consoles out, hence it also has the widest game selection and most of the time Sony is dueling with a company that releases the same games or the same type of games
2. Price Point; stupidly high for a console late to the scene and lackluster in game selection and multiplayer functionality / community
3. Forgot about Nintendo and were taken by complete surprise when the Wii's ingenuity picked up a lot of non gamers aswell as gamers
If somehow the reward of the achievement makes it fun, I think that's pretty sad that you find bits changing in a database that rewarding.
Bragging rights. And isn't that the same as playing a game to see the end? I mean, take Portal. Awesome game. But once you play through it once, the game is done. Yeah, you can play it again, but you already know how to do every puzzle, or at least remember most of the things. Now add an achievement. Play Portal and use as few portals as possible, or, use x portals for this level, or, finish this level in this amount of time, or, do these advanced, harder puzzles, or, do these advanced, harder puzzles with a total of x portals, or, etc...
Also, why would you go for an achievement if you didn't like the game? I agree that that's just stupid. "Yeah I wanted to get those bragging rights even though it's a crap game and I didn't enjoy a single second of it and thus just wasted my life to get those bragging rights. Yeah, I'm that hard core!" Bulls hit. Those achievements are nice, but only play them if you like the game, else you are just wasting your time whilst you could be playing a game you like.
In other words, the game was not fun enough for you to play it another time. However, because you wanted to earn a "reward" (if you consider bits changing in a database a reward) you played a game that otherwise had nothing left to offer you. If the game would have been fun to play again, you could have just played it again without the achievements. If the game would not have been fun to play again, playing it again for an achievement means you are spending time doing something that is not fun. If somehow the reward of the achievement makes it fun, I think that's pretty sad that you find bits changing in a database that rewarding. Maybe you should just play WoW.
I think that's overly harsh, Apreche. Attempting to unlock achievements, unless they are extremely difficult or tedious, allows a player to challenge himself beyond what the game already offers, which will actually make the game more fun to play. Playing a game specifically for the achievement points usually implies some social issues, but going slightly out of one's way for an additional challenge is a good thing.
I think that's overly harsh, Apreche. Attempting to unlock achievements, unless they are extremely difficult or tedious, allows a player to challenge himself beyond what the game already offers, which will actually make the game more fun to play. Playing a game specifically for the achievement points usually implies some social issues, but going slightly out of one's way for an additional challenge is a good thing.
My issue is not that people replay a game with a specific challenge in mind. There is nothing wrong with say, playing Mario 3 without using any whistles or p-wings. Or how about trying to beat Zelda 1 without using the sword. There are lots of challenges like this, and they can all be very fun. This has often been a way for people to get extra enjoyment out of old games they still love. Speed runs anyone?
My problem is the achievement system. People tout the achievement system as something that makes games better somehow. The way I see it, the achievement system does not actually add anything to a game. You can do challenges like this on your own, without the encouragement or the reward of the achievement system. The achievements are just a system of behavioral control. They attempt to coerce you into playing the games in a certain way, and people out there actually do care about the "rewards" they receive for doing so.
I have no problem with creating additional challenges within the context of existing video games. That is a time-honored video game tradition of awesomeness. What I have a problem with is that there is an enforced system to govern such activity, and that people tout this system as a good thing. If you are playing for achievements, you are effectively the same as a dog rolling over for a virtual milk bone. That is not something I can respect.
As they do nothing to add to a game for me, I care little for achievements for the purposes of my personal enjoyment.
As a marketing device, however, I'd have to tip my hat to the achievement system. To the masses, the system puts forth an illusion of superiority. "I'm already competing for bragging rights with my friends, so why not make it official?" It adds replay value to games (artificial as it may be), drives obsessive collectors to make a habit of purchasing 360 games, and it adds another reason to buy 360 multi-platform releases over PS3 releases. Frankly. people can tout the system as much as they want. As long as Microsoft is making big bucks, it's doing its job.
I don't know, running around for hours on end searching for orbs didn't seem to fun to me.
To hell with that one. I'm talking bowl dudes over with a globe, etc.
I never play games more than once and I (almost) never watch movies more than once.
Star Wars, Akira, The Departed... All movies I could never tire of.
That is a time-honored video game tradition of awesomeness. What I have a problem with is that there is an enforced system to govern such activity, and that people tout this system as a good thing. If you are playing for achievements, you are effectively the same as a dog rolling over for a virtual milk bone. That is not something I can respect.
I agree. Don't play for achievements, but if they're there, why not enjoy them? I bought NHL 08 and haven't got a single achievement in it, while Halo I will play more Lone Wolves than if I didn't have the incentive of "Oh man, it would be awesome to get a triple/quad kill in free for all" to keep me going and trying. I find I'm improving in games like Halo and especially Gears of War because I thought "If I just play a couple more games I can get that achievement" -- I am not playing the game for the achievements, but that they are there is a great touch.
Talk about Achievements on the next questions week or something I would love to hear more about it between both of you.
Edit: This one just popped in to my head. In Half Life 2 there is a hidden tunnel with a singing Vortigaunt. If you find it in the older PC version, you'll see a singing Vortigaunt, but in the new PC/360 version you get a little thing popping up saying "Hey! Cool, good find!" That's kind of nice while you're playing. How many times have you found cool shit in a game? How many games did you go back and get "100%" on and not really feel any satisfaction other than "Yeah. I did it..." It's a little extra to have that 'blip!' pop up with a bit of points. No there's no use, but it is fun to get achievements.
One of the few games that I went back and played for almost all the achievements was "Dead Rising", not exactly just to get the achievements, but because I enjoy the game so much...it was almost like the achievements were instructions on what I could try next to test my abilities in a game I loved. I'm fine with those achievements, but only if you are playing an enjoyable game already and just want to get a little more out of it.
So, I will agree that achievements can play a nice role in a great game, but that don't really add anything to a poor or mediocre game. I guess overall I think we would all agree that we should play for fun and if achievements happen to be fun to get (like Mitchy said), then that just adds value to an already fun experience.
Jesus, since when was it fun to force yourself to play through parts of a game just to earn yourself an arbitrary point score? ... But looking back on it now, on all the time I wasted looking for green orbs, looking for skulls, unlocking cars in PGR I was never even going to drive...I feel like an ass. That was work, not fun, and with those "achievements" now gone I feel like a free man.
Ahum... YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG! Damned developers, and idiots going for dumb achievements. Achievements should add to the game, not make it annoying as hell. Searching for shit != fun as Scott has been saying. Finishing an extra hard specially designed level in x amount of minutes = really hard and awesome. You can't do the things in the advanced levels in Portal in the original levels, but beating them grants you an achievement, because it's really hard and you have truly accomplished something. Now if there's an achievement in Portal which states "Found all 100 tiles with symbol Y on it." screw that, and screw the idiots going for that achievement.
Damned developers, and idiots going for dumb achievements. Achievements should add to the game, not make it annoying as hell. Searching for shit != fun as Scott has been saying. Finishing an extra hard specially designed level in x amount of minutes = really hard and awesome. You can't do the things in the advanced levels in Portal in the original levels, but beating them grants you an achievement, because it's really hard and you have truly accomplished something. Now if there's an achievement in Portal which states "Found all 100 tiles with symbol Y on it." screw that, and screw the idiots going for that achievement.
My point is that why is it necessary to have the achievement? Just have the bonus level. No need to have the popup and the points.
Finish the game and you get game ending one. Finish the game in in under X minutes and you get ending two. Finish the game and acquire all items and you get ending three. Etc...
Those are true achievements because you will know if someone else did it based on if they even know the achievement exists. Well, unless they found the ending on youTube, but you get the point!
This is my pet peeve with golf games. You have to win tournaments to unlock new courses, buy new gear, etc. What the hell? Just let me play all the damn courses that I paid for. And for that matter, I don't care if I can afford a fancy new shirt for my character.
If there was a realistic simulation of a player progressing through the ranks, I could see it. But it's just pointless crap to get you to play the game for longer than you would otherwise.
This is my pet peeve with golf games. You have to win tournaments to unlock new courses, buy new gear, etc. What the hell? Just let me play all the damn courses that I paid for. And for that matter, I don't care if I can afford a fancy new shirt for my character.
If there was a realistic simulation of a player progressing through the ranks, I could see it. But it's just pointless crap to get you to play the game for longer than you would otherwise.
It's even worse on the XBox 360 where you have to pay additional real world cash money to get those extra courses on top of the price you paid for the game.
Yes, the whole "unlocking" shit is annoying. It's one thing when the unlocking is part of game play (Think finding suit upgrades in Metroid) and that is fine but it does bug me in a non-linear game.
I can understand in a game like GH3 where the harder songs are locked until you beat the easy ones but why lock up game boards in Mario Party?
It's a cred thing...the achievement proves you finished the game on super-awesome-hard-wicked-ultra mode. Bragging rights more or less. Not saying I care, just saying that this is the most likely reason other people care about them.
So far I personally haven't seen a huge upsurge of PS3 sales, in fact no sales is more like it. The average Gamestop is open for about 73 hours a week, At least here in Jersey. Thats 10am till 9pm every day except Sunday which is 11am - 6pm. Now of those 73 hours I work between 20-30. I've been doing so since mid July. In that time I've not sold a single ps3 and I'm from talking with co-workers they haven't sold many either. We actually see quite a few trade-in's for them though.
The people who have come in asking about it, as rare as that is, are actually quite turned off by the lack of backwards compatibility in the new models because they normally want to trade their old ps2 in towards the ps3.
Comments
It seems to me that most of the gamers who would buy either the 360 or the PS3 have already made their choice, though some may be waiting for a price drop. However, I doubt the price drop will create enough sales for the PS3 to even come close to passing the others.
The only positive I can see from this is that the achievements can provide some proof to backup your claims. For example, you can prove you finished a game based on the achivement...if that type of thing is important to you. Bragging rights I guess!
Games like HL2, Resident Evil, FEAR...I can play these again and again regardless of reward, it's all about the entertainment value.
Yeah, I could buy the same game on PS3 with 100% less achievements and 100% less Xbox Live.... PASS.
PSN blows. Sony needs to get on that shit immediately.
Regarding achievements and Portal, I played that game through, did a couple puzzles and feel like a got a complete and fulfilling experience... I'll go back in a few months to do it again for sure.
Crackdown is a prime example of a game that I loved because of Achievements. I was pretty much done with it, but the ach. had some REALLY fun stuff that you'd probably try if you really got in to it, but Crackdown wasn't an incredible game, but the things you could do and be rewarded for were a blast and probably tripled the life of that game for me. I love achievements but I don't rent/buy games strictly for them. That they are there is a great reason to play the game a little more, or go that extra mile in the final level etc.
1. Release date; the Xbox 360 was the first of this generation's consoles out, hence it also has the widest game selection and most of the time Sony is dueling with a company that releases the same games or the same type of games
2. Price Point; stupidly high for a console late to the scene and lackluster in game selection and multiplayer functionality / community
3. Forgot about Nintendo and were taken by complete surprise when the Wii's ingenuity picked up a lot of non gamers aswell as gamers
PS3 is essentially screwed.
"No."
Also, why would you go for an achievement if you didn't like the game? I agree that that's just stupid. "Yeah I wanted to get those bragging rights even though it's a crap game and I didn't enjoy a single second of it and thus just wasted my life to get those bragging rights. Yeah, I'm that hard core!" Bulls hit. Those achievements are nice, but only play them if you like the game, else you are just wasting your time whilst you could be playing a game you like.
My problem is the achievement system. People tout the achievement system as something that makes games better somehow. The way I see it, the achievement system does not actually add anything to a game. You can do challenges like this on your own, without the encouragement or the reward of the achievement system. The achievements are just a system of behavioral control. They attempt to coerce you into playing the games in a certain way, and people out there actually do care about the "rewards" they receive for doing so.
I have no problem with creating additional challenges within the context of existing video games. That is a time-honored video game tradition of awesomeness. What I have a problem with is that there is an enforced system to govern such activity, and that people tout this system as a good thing. If you are playing for achievements, you are effectively the same as a dog rolling over for a virtual milk bone. That is not something I can respect.
As a marketing device, however, I'd have to tip my hat to the achievement system. To the masses, the system puts forth an illusion of superiority. "I'm already competing for bragging rights with my friends, so why not make it official?" It adds replay value to games (artificial as it may be), drives obsessive collectors to make a habit of purchasing 360 games, and it adds another reason to buy 360 multi-platform releases over PS3 releases. Frankly. people can tout the system as much as they want. As long as Microsoft is making big bucks, it's doing its job.
I don't know, running around for hours on end searching for orbs didn't seem to fun to me.
To hell with that one. I'm talking bowl dudes over with a globe, etc.
I never play games more than once and I (almost) never watch movies more than once.
Star Wars, Akira, The Departed... All movies I could never tire of.
That is a time-honored video game tradition of awesomeness. What I have a problem with is that there is an enforced system to govern such activity, and that people tout this system as a good thing. If you are playing for achievements, you are effectively the same as a dog rolling over for a virtual milk bone. That is not something I can respect.
I agree. Don't play for achievements, but if they're there, why not enjoy them? I bought NHL 08 and haven't got a single achievement in it, while Halo I will play more Lone Wolves than if I didn't have the incentive of "Oh man, it would be awesome to get a triple/quad kill in free for all" to keep me going and trying. I find I'm improving in games like Halo and especially Gears of War because I thought "If I just play a couple more games I can get that achievement" -- I am not playing the game for the achievements, but that they are there is a great touch.
Talk about Achievements on the next questions week or something I would love to hear more about it between both of you.
Edit: This one just popped in to my head. In Half Life 2 there is a hidden tunnel with a singing Vortigaunt. If you find it in the older PC version, you'll see a singing Vortigaunt, but in the new PC/360 version you get a little thing popping up saying "Hey! Cool, good find!" That's kind of nice while you're playing. How many times have you found cool shit in a game? How many games did you go back and get "100%" on and not really feel any satisfaction other than "Yeah. I did it..." It's a little extra to have that 'blip!' pop up with a bit of points. No there's no use, but it is fun to get achievements.
So, I will agree that achievements can play a nice role in a great game, but that don't really add anything to a poor or mediocre game. I guess overall I think we would all agree that we should play for fun and if achievements happen to be fun to get (like Mitchy said), then that just adds value to an already fun experience.
Damned developers, and idiots going for dumb achievements. Achievements should add to the game, not make it annoying as hell. Searching for shit != fun as Scott has been saying. Finishing an extra hard specially designed level in x amount of minutes = really hard and awesome. You can't do the things in the advanced levels in Portal in the original levels, but beating them grants you an achievement, because it's really hard and you have truly accomplished something. Now if there's an achievement in Portal which states "Found all 100 tiles with symbol Y on it." screw that, and screw the idiots going for that achievement.
Finish the game and you get game ending one.
Finish the game in in under X minutes and you get ending two.
Finish the game and acquire all items and you get ending three.
Etc...
Those are true achievements because you will know if someone else did it based on if they even know the achievement exists. Well, unless they found the ending on youTube, but you get the point!
If there was a realistic simulation of a player progressing through the ranks, I could see it. But it's just pointless crap to get you to play the game for longer than you would otherwise.
I can understand in a game like GH3 where the harder songs are locked until you beat the easy ones but why lock up game boards in Mario Party?
The people who have come in asking about it, as rare as that is, are actually quite turned off by the lack of backwards compatibility in the new models because they normally want to trade their old ps2 in towards the ps3.