Beating a game...any game = Achievement. So by Scott's logic he cannot possibly get any enjoyment out of any games because beating any game is an achievement and turns on a little light even if said light is invisible.
WoW = fancy chat program. That was the primary reason I played the game for more than a month. I played LOTRO for 1 month, didn't get into any clans or guilds or whatever and lost complete interest in the game.
That is the point of the MMO's...not defeating crap in the game, beating down monsters with friends and chatting it up and meeting people from around the world.
I remember back when I played EQ, I was absolutely stupefied by the fact that at one point I was playing with some dude from Seattle Washington, someone in Nebraska, and a chick from Australia while sitting in my dorm room in DeKalb Illinois.
I was really impressed with a lot of the Miis on the "Check out my Mii" channel. So far my friends and I have submitted characters from Azumanga Daioh, Venture Brothers, and the Kodama from Mononoke Hime. The Jack Black Mii was pretty damn spot on, as well as the David Letterman.
As for Lego Star Wars, with the Wii controls, was it fairly easy to use? What are your opinions on it? The reason I ask is because my boyfriend and I are torn on either buying it for the Wii for Xbox. I am pushing for the Wii, he's pushing for the Xbox. I think using the Wii Remote for some lightsaber action would be a lot more fun than just the normal play style. Let me know your thoughts.
As for Mario Galaxy, it's the Business. Period. I really can't wait to go home and play more of it.
As for Lego Star Wars, with the Wii controls, was it fairly easy to use? What are your opinions on it? The reason I ask is because my boyfriend and I are torn on either buying it for the Wii for Xbox. I am pushing for the Wii, he's pushing for the Xbox. I think using the Wii Remote for some lightsaber action would be a lot more fun than just the normal play style. Let me know your thoughts.
Using the Wii remote in LEGO Star Wars is not exciting. Basically, if you swing the Wiimote at all, it's the same as pushing the B button. One swing, any kind of swing, equals one push of B. The only other thing you can do is shake the nunchuck to build things faster. This is really not so bad, and is preferable to button mashing. The Wii control is not really different from normal controls.
As for Mario Galaxy, it's the Business. Period. I really can't wait to go home and play more of it.
Amazon just shipped mine. Should be here in a day or two. Probably tomorrow.
I might buy Lego Star Wars again. I loved them and regret selling them all the time. LSW2 on PSP was friggin' perfect. I loved that game on PS2 and thought "This was MADE for a handheld".
Regarding getting gameplay out of achievements:
You said that people who are done with games play more for achievements. I mentioned this earlier, but I was finished with Gears of War. I was over the campaign and couldn't get in to the multiplayer. That said, I decided I'd played enough to get the 100 kill achievement and it was bugging me that I played it to no satisfying end. I hopped on, got the achievement and thought I'd be done with it, but in that time, I figured out the maps, maneuvers and began to play more for fun. I've got so few achievements since then it's ridiculous, but I have played the absolute fuck out of that game online. Achievements got me in to a game. A measley 20 point achievement got me in on the online.
You don't think that achievements do ANY good at all. You have a problem with me playing the game for an hour and some to get a total of 100 kills. Gotcha.
I own a 360 and a PS3, and having those "little things that pop up" makes a difference in my purchase of a GAME OF EQUAL VALUE. Same price, same game, I bought CoD4 on 360 because it's SATISFYING to save the farmer in the middle of the game and getting the reward for it. It's a badge. What fucking difference does it make if I get a badge in a 360 game instead of getting nothing in the PS3 version.
You get satisfaction because you feel like you get a real reward from completing games. I get that too!! Because I get achievements you're saying that THAT is my reward. That's TOTAL bullshit, I finished Portal and was super satisfied, I was jazzed. Getting an achievement after the credits is like whipped cream on your hot chocolate. You're essentially saying, Scott, that because I enjoy achievements that I am enjoying and being rewarded less than you.
If you say "Beat Mario in 100 steps and I'll turn the light on". The idea is NOT the god damned light. It's the GOAL that makes you seek the redeemable BADGE. The light is such a terrible analogy. Flicking a light on and earning a medal proving it are so different it makes me confused as to how you came to that conclusion. Disrespecting people who enjoy earning these rewards (Which DO affect gameplay in some games) is the most retarded thing ever. You can beat Zelda without a sword, that's a goal that's cool. I destroy 10 cars in Crackdown in sixty seconds. Those are 2 goals. I achieve mine, you achieve yours. Why do you give a shit if I get an acknowledgment saying I did it? People don't all play King Kong for a thousand points. I bought the TMNT game because I love the franchise, it just happened to have 1000 gamerpoints for me to earn on the way.
I don't understand this hatred for achievements. For something you find so useless Scott, you seem to care WAY too much about it.
;)
Edit: Rym you can't turn off achievements. Guess what though? You can TOTALLY IGNORE THEM. =)
I respect that Scott dislikes them, whatever. His argument as to why I should also dislike them is totally whack. Apreche, you turned them off in Portal because you were engrossed in it and it sucked you out. I have the same problem in GH3. I get achievement pop-ups and it's intrusive. Still, a lot of games I don't play to be immersed in. I play them for fun. I don't need the illusionary carrot to satisfy me, but what's the problem with having it there....besides "It's stupid"?
I forgot to mention in the show. One more reason achievements are no good. In multiplayer games you will have people playing for the achievements instead of playing to win. The consequences of that are obvious.
Lego Star Wars: My 4 year old son and I have beat the old x-box version of Lego Star Wars II. It is a very simple game. It's nice because we can play the game together. I like the novelty of the game and the cut scenes but if it wasn't for helping a 4 year old through the game I would fall asleep playing it. I wanted to get the new one for the Wii but I'm not so sure...
Lego Star Wars: My 4 year old son and I have beat the old x-box version of Lego Star Wars II. It is a very simple game. It's nice because we can play the game together. I like the novelty of the game and the cut scenes but if it wasn't for helping a 4 year old through the game I would fall asleep playing it. I wanted to get the new one for the Wii but I'm not so sure...
Probably better off taking a pass. You've already played half of it.
Also, I don't really hate the achievements that much. I'm just frustrated by people failing to understand my stance on the issue.
I forgot to mention in the show. One more reason achievements are no good. In multiplayer games you will have people playing for the achievements instead of playing to win. The consequences of that are obvious.
That becomes annoying. Usually you don't get more than one of these guys per match, but yeah, these fools are annoying as hell.
Also, I don't really hate the achievements that much. I'm just frustrated by people failing to understand my stance on the issue.I don't think that the failure is necessarily on the part of your audience, nor do I think it is necessarily on your part. It may just be that some clarification is needed. Let's say gamers can be grouped into two sets: set A (or "those who play a game because they enjoy it") and set B (or "those who play a game to get achievements"). Do you believe that set A and set B are mutually exclusive?
From what you said in the episode, it sounded like you were declaring gamers in set A are better than gamers in set B. If you do not believe that the two sets are mutually exclusive, what do you think about the gamers in the intersection of the two sets?
I got many good lol's out of this show. I think that Scott is pretty much wrong because the point of any game is to be fun. Games serve no useful purpose in society, they are purely entertainment. If Scott does not get entertainment from the little meta bits that is fine, but I don't think he should look down on others that do get entertainment from those bits.
I offer as an example, the awesome computer game Return to Castle Wolfenstein. This game is very cool and has a good story and is generally awesome. In many of the levels there are hidden areas with gold bars and other cool little treasures. These are completely irrelevant to the gameplay, but they are there if you want to look for them. When I stumble upon these areas, I usually think "cool, I found a secret area" and collect the treasure and move on. I never feel that they ruin the flow of the game or anything like that.
I also was laughing at the fact that Scott is essentially saying that people should play games less than they do. If they get enjoyment (the point of playing games) out of going back through the levels and finding all of the hidden rooms or whatever, then that is perfectly legitimate. I don't think anybody should be looked down upon for playing through a game again, if they enjoy doing it.
I'm sorry that was such a long post, but I wanted to state my opinion clearly.
I think I now understand Scott's position on achievements.
It is not that he is against them he is simply against people playing a game ONLY to get the achievement.
Sort of like if some guy was giving out trophies for driving the most nails through your penis and the current holder of the trophy had put 100 nails in his penis. Yeah, you could go for 101 nails but why?
As to Rym's marathon analogy. I would extend it and say the achievement is knowing how long it took you to run the marathon not the actual fact that you finished.
As to Rym's marathon analogy. I would extend it and say the achievement is knowing how long it took you to run the marathon not the actual fact that you finished.
If you are only running the marathon because you enjoy medals, don't run the marathon. Only run if the running of the marathon is in itself enjoyable. If running the marathon is in itself enjoyable, what do you need the medal for?
As to Rym's marathon analogy. I would extend it and say the achievement is knowing how long it took you to run the marathon not the actual fact that you finished.
If you are only running the marathon because you enjoy medals, don't run the marathon. Only run if the running of the marathon is in itself enjoyable. If running the marathon is in itself enjoyable, what do you need the medal for?
What if you WOULD enjoy running a marathon, but just need a little extra push to actually run it? Wouldn't the idea of a medal be useful then?
What about having an achievement that encourages lateral thinking? "Beat this level in this super hard way and get an achievement!" Maybe the achievement would make you solve a level in a way you never would have thought to solve it. Sometimes, you can't always figure it out just on your own. Sometimes, a little push or a hint can be a good thing in a game.
I will agree that many people will play just to get the achievements, but you can't really stop that. Many people who play games will MAKE achievements external to the game just to get them. People WANT achievements in games; why else would people make little tournament things for their various online games? If people want to get widgets for doing things, then a smart game designer will give them widgets for doing things. The smartest game designers take that idea and make something out of it; many of the achievements in the Orange Box games are excellent examples of using achievements to encourage lateral thinking.
So, are you really going to throw the baby out with the bathwater? Are you opposed to the very IDEA of achievements, or just their implementation?
So, are you really going to throw the baby out with the bathwater? Are you opposed to the very IDEA of achievements, or just their implementation?
I just have less respect people if they are motivated by effectively nothing. Also, the implementation of the achievement system has the potential to make games worse, and is not necessary.
Scott, old buddy, old pal. Let me let you in on a secret. Nine times out of ten, I'll agree with you when it comes to an argument with Rym, simply because of the fact that Rym drives a purple Sunfire, or because he is stupidly gay for dragons, or because he secretly has some stupid Randi obsession with some sort of retarded fung-shui, or because he has to make his grilled cheese sandwiches stupidly fancified. This is the one out of ten times that I am forced to disagree with you.
You complain that no one understands your opinion. You know why that is? It's because you scream about it like a lactose intolerant retarded 4 year-old wanting an ice cream cone. It's also because you are being close minded and screaming about it in a very Hitler like manner. If you are so worried about people doing something repeatedly because of a false reward, then you should be taking on credit cards for offering cash back rewards instead of lowering their interest rates.
Also, I don't know you. I'm not your buddy, and I'm not your pal, but I think, for your sanity, you might want to learn how to just let things slide. It might also be good for your heart.
What about high score lists in older video games? If you say that you've played in an arcade, and not wanted to be on the high score list, then you are straight up lying to yourself. Whats the difference between being able to write 'ASS' on the top score for an arcade game, and having your name being 'Garglecawk' (don't think I spelled that reference right) and getting all the acheivements on a game? People play through games to show they're better than others, and if you've said that you haven't then you've never played an FPS, and you should!
Also, some of the achievements are crazy hard to get, and it's really fullfilling once you get them. On Guitar Hero 3 for the Xbox 360 there are achievements for 5-staring songs on expert. So not only do you get the feeling of awesome by just doing it, you also get to show all your friends about how awesome you are. Granted there are some bullshit ones, like getting one every time you complete a level. But there are a good amout of hard ones that you can challenge yourself to get. How is challenging yourself for an achievement any better than challenging yourself to getting insanely awesome in an FPS?
I don't really care about achievements (had an Xbox for a year and a half and just broke 1000!) but I don't care about them being there, and if someone wants to obsess over something I don't care about, then I'll let them be stupid.
Comments
WoW = fancy chat program. That was the primary reason I played the game for more than a month. I played LOTRO for 1 month, didn't get into any clans or guilds or whatever and lost complete interest in the game.
That is the point of the MMO's...not defeating crap in the game, beating down monsters with friends and chatting it up and meeting people from around the world.
I remember back when I played EQ, I was absolutely stupefied by the fact that at one point I was playing with some dude from Seattle Washington, someone in Nebraska, and a chick from Australia while sitting in my dorm room in DeKalb Illinois.
As for Lego Star Wars, with the Wii controls, was it fairly easy to use? What are your opinions on it? The reason I ask is because my boyfriend and I are torn on either buying it for the Wii for Xbox. I am pushing for the Wii, he's pushing for the Xbox. I think using the Wii Remote for some lightsaber action would be a lot more fun than just the normal play style. Let me know your thoughts.
As for Mario Galaxy, it's the Business. Period. I really can't wait to go home and play more of it.
Achievement: Self Righteous Achievement Bigot
Regarding getting gameplay out of achievements:
You said that people who are done with games play more for achievements. I mentioned this earlier, but I was finished with Gears of War. I was over the campaign and couldn't get in to the multiplayer. That said, I decided I'd played enough to get the 100 kill achievement and it was bugging me that I played it to no satisfying end. I hopped on, got the achievement and thought I'd be done with it, but in that time, I figured out the maps, maneuvers and began to play more for fun. I've got so few achievements since then it's ridiculous, but I have played the absolute fuck out of that game online. Achievements got me in to a game. A measley 20 point achievement got me in on the online.
You don't think that achievements do ANY good at all. You have a problem with me playing the game for an hour and some to get a total of 100 kills. Gotcha.
I own a 360 and a PS3, and having those "little things that pop up" makes a difference in my purchase of a GAME OF EQUAL VALUE. Same price, same game, I bought CoD4 on 360 because it's SATISFYING to save the farmer in the middle of the game and getting the reward for it. It's a badge. What fucking difference does it make if I get a badge in a 360 game instead of getting nothing in the PS3 version.
You get satisfaction because you feel like you get a real reward from completing games. I get that too!! Because I get achievements you're saying that THAT is my reward. That's TOTAL bullshit, I finished Portal and was super satisfied, I was jazzed. Getting an achievement after the credits is like whipped cream on your hot chocolate. You're essentially saying, Scott, that because I enjoy achievements that I am enjoying and being rewarded less than you.
If you say "Beat Mario in 100 steps and I'll turn the light on". The idea is NOT the god damned light. It's the GOAL that makes you seek the redeemable BADGE. The light is such a terrible analogy. Flicking a light on and earning a medal proving it are so different it makes me confused as to how you came to that conclusion. Disrespecting people who enjoy earning these rewards (Which DO affect gameplay in some games) is the most retarded thing ever. You can beat Zelda without a sword, that's a goal that's cool. I destroy 10 cars in Crackdown in sixty seconds. Those are 2 goals. I achieve mine, you achieve yours. Why do you give a shit if I get an acknowledgment saying I did it? People don't all play King Kong for a thousand points. I bought the TMNT game because I love the franchise, it just happened to have 1000 gamerpoints for me to earn on the way.
I don't understand this hatred for achievements. For something you find so useless Scott, you seem to care WAY too much about it.
;)
Edit: Rym you can't turn off achievements. Guess what though? You can TOTALLY IGNORE THEM. =)
I respect that Scott dislikes them, whatever. His argument as to why I should also dislike them is totally whack. Apreche, you turned them off in Portal because you were engrossed in it and it sucked you out. I have the same problem in GH3. I get achievement pop-ups and it's intrusive. Still, a lot of games I don't play to be immersed in. I play them for fun. I don't need the illusionary carrot to satisfy me, but what's the problem with having it there....besides "It's stupid"?
Also, I don't really hate the achievements that much. I'm just frustrated by people failing to understand my stance on the issue.
That becomes annoying. Usually you don't get more than one of these guys per match, but yeah, these fools are annoying as hell.
From what you said in the episode, it sounded like you were declaring gamers in set A are better than gamers in set B. If you do not believe that the two sets are mutually exclusive, what do you think about the gamers in the intersection of the two sets?
I offer as an example, the awesome computer game Return to Castle Wolfenstein. This game is very cool and has a good story and is generally awesome. In many of the levels there are hidden areas with gold bars and other cool little treasures. These are completely irrelevant to the gameplay, but they are there if you want to look for them. When I stumble upon these areas, I usually think "cool, I found a secret area" and collect the treasure and move on. I never feel that they ruin the flow of the game or anything like that.
I also was laughing at the fact that Scott is essentially saying that people should play games less than they do. If they get enjoyment (the point of playing games) out of going back through the levels and finding all of the hidden rooms or whatever, then that is perfectly legitimate. I don't think anybody should be looked down upon for playing through a game again, if they enjoy doing it.
I'm sorry that was such a long post, but I wanted to state my opinion clearly.
SCOTT'S OPINIONS: SERIOUS BUSINESS
It is not that he is against them he is simply against people playing a game ONLY to get the achievement.
Sort of like if some guy was giving out trophies for driving the most nails through your penis and the current holder of the trophy had put 100 nails in his penis. Yeah, you could go for 101 nails but why?
As to Rym's marathon analogy. I would extend it and say the achievement is knowing how long it took you to run the marathon not the actual fact that you finished.
What about having an achievement that encourages lateral thinking? "Beat this level in this super hard way and get an achievement!" Maybe the achievement would make you solve a level in a way you never would have thought to solve it. Sometimes, you can't always figure it out just on your own. Sometimes, a little push or a hint can be a good thing in a game.
I will agree that many people will play just to get the achievements, but you can't really stop that. Many people who play games will MAKE achievements external to the game just to get them. People WANT achievements in games; why else would people make little tournament things for their various online games? If people want to get widgets for doing things, then a smart game designer will give them widgets for doing things. The smartest game designers take that idea and make something out of it; many of the achievements in the Orange Box games are excellent examples of using achievements to encourage lateral thinking.
So, are you really going to throw the baby out with the bathwater? Are you opposed to the very IDEA of achievements, or just their implementation?
You complain that no one understands your opinion. You know why that is? It's because you scream about it like a lactose intolerant retarded 4 year-old wanting an ice cream cone. It's also because you are being close minded and screaming about it in a very Hitler like manner. If you are so worried about people doing something repeatedly because of a false reward, then you should be taking on credit cards for offering cash back rewards instead of lowering their interest rates.
Also, I don't know you. I'm not your buddy, and I'm not your pal, but I think, for your sanity, you might want to learn how to just let things slide. It might also be good for your heart.
Also, some of the achievements are crazy hard to get, and it's really fullfilling once you get them. On Guitar Hero 3 for the Xbox 360 there are achievements for 5-staring songs on expert. So not only do you get the feeling of awesome by just doing it, you also get to show all your friends about how awesome you are. Granted there are some bullshit ones, like getting one every time you complete a level. But there are a good amout of hard ones that you can challenge yourself to get. How is challenging yourself for an achievement any better than challenging yourself to getting insanely awesome in an FPS?
I don't really care about achievements (had an Xbox for a year and a half and just broke 1000!) but I don't care about them being there, and if someone wants to obsess over something I don't care about, then I'll let them be stupid.