I'm now curious as to whether Scott ever intentionally tried to get the fireworks at the end of World 1-1 in the originalSuper Mario Brothers.
While I think you bring up something valid, it's probably a moot point - he'd claim it was about showing skill and not about getting an extra award. *grin, duck, and run*
And that wouldn't work, as we all know. The same would go for archeivments, no?
Wow, you people still seriously don't get it. I will try one more time.
Here, let's pick an achievement. How about in Portal beating a level with as few portals as possible. The first question is, is it fun to try to beat a level with as few Portals as possible? If it is fun, then you would do it, and have fun doing it, without the achievement system ever existing. If it is not fun, why would you ever spend your time doing it, no matter how many points you get? I can see doing it for real money, but that's another issue entirely.
Now let's say that you normally wouldn't have fun with this challenge, but somehow because of the achievement points it becomes fun. Well obviously you have fun getting achievement points. Why are you wasting your time with a challenge that is no fun for you? I can write you a program that makes achievements pop up constantly with millions of points. Since you have so much fun with achievements, this program will make you feel orgasmic, no? I mean, if the achievements themselves are so fun, you would be running out to buy that Avatar game and get the 1000 points in 20 seconds, right?
If you don't enjoy running marathons, but do enjoy getting medals, why not just go to the medal store and buy a case of them? Or buy other people's medals on eBay? If you do enjoy running marathons, what do you need a medal for? You enjoyed the run in and of itself, and whether or not you receive a useless physical object shouldn't change that. If you win the marathon, you know in your heart that you are the winner, and that gives you all the satisfaction you should need. If having other people know that you are the winner is what makes you happy, because you are a braggart with low self esteem, you should just brainwash people into thinking you are the winner, or cheat. That achieves the same results with much less effort.
Long before achievements existed people were doing achievement-like things. Zelda 1 was beaten sans-sword long before the XBox ever existed. People were beating Doom with only the pistol from the start. Without achievements, people would still be beating Portal in record times with as few portals as possible, and people would still be carrying the garden gnome to the end of episode 2. The achievement system adds absolutely nothing to games, and has potential to take away from a game. It's really just unnecessary and pointless.
Scott, while I agree with you that playing games solely for getting an achievement is pathetic, I fail to see how Achievements devalue a game in any way, shape or form. Yes, achievements are not necessary to make a good game, but they are not pointless in the context of a game as they represent positive reinforcement.
What I absolutely cannot understand is your argument of something that isn't fun becoming fun only because of Achievements. Achievements cannot not do this and even if they did, wouldn't it be an argument for Achievements? What achievements can do is raise the interest in a game. If it is an uninteresting, boring, tedious or somehow bad game, they won't bring people with no interest in them to play them if the person is smart. For stupid people it will lure them into spending time and money on something worthless, which they will hopefully regret and do not make the same mistake again.
Scott, while I agree with you that playing games solely for getting an achievement is pathetic, I fail to see how Achievements devalue a game in any way, shape or form. Yes, achievements are not necessary to make a good game, but they are not pointless in the context of a game as they represent positive reinforcement.
I already explained that achievements have the potential to hinder immersion in games that require it as well as encouraging bad behavior in multiplayer games. As for positive reinforcement, do you need more positive reinforcement than the fun of playing the game itself?
What I absolutely cannot understand is your argument of something that isn't fun becoming fun only because of Achievements. Achievements cannot not do this and even if they did, wouldn't it be an argument for Achievements? What achievements can do is raise the interest in a game. If it is an uninteresting, boring, tedious or somehow bad game, they won't bring people with no interest in them to play them if the person is smart. For stupid people it will lure them into spending time and money on something worthless, which they will hopefully regret and do not make the same mistake again.
Achievements are doing this, and it is an argument against achievements. There has been no scientific study of achievements, so my argument is weak, but take a look around video game forums and such. Look at what people are talking about. There are indeed people who are buying games they don't like, playing games they don't like, playing parts of games they don't like, all in the name of more achievement points. True that it doesn't do that to every person playing, but it is doing it. You saw a quote somewhere above about soldiers doing things just for a medal. That's what we're talking about here. We're seeing an entire generation engaging in unpleasant and/or time consuming activities in exchange for what is effectively nothing. These same people are arguing that this sort of activity is not just OK, but awesome. Is that really the kind of society you want to live in? One in which people are willing to do things they normally would not do just for the promise of worthless points?
I really don't see any fundamental difference between these achievements and the old high score screens on the old arcade machines. I really didn't care about getting my initials to the top of the Galaga machine, but I certainly didn't look down on folks that chose to spend their leisure time trying to do so. I take the exact same attitude with achievements.
We're seeing an entire generation engaging in unpleasant and/or time consuming activities in exchange for what is effectively nothing. These same people are arguing that this sort of activity is not just OK, but awesome. Is that really the kind of society you want to live in? One in which people are willing to do things they normally would not do just for the promise of worthless points?
Wow. I can see your point, but I think you're blowing this way out of proportion.
I'm beginning to think this might just be a case of jealousy on Scott's part.
We have long heard both Rym and Scott lament that they no longer have enough free time to enjoy all of the entertainment they would like to enjoy. Could it be that if Scott were still living the "more time than money" life he would be enjoying achievements? Could Scott simply be jealous of the fact that a portion of game play now exists that is based entirely on spending tons of time on a game (which he does not have)?
I have noticed that Rym and Scott both point to the fact that they have to weigh what they do in their leisure time against the reward it brings them. I also think Scott's "gamer pride" is telling him that if he had more free time he could get all those crazy achievements but, because he lacks the free time required to earn these achievements he instead poo-poos them, hoping to make them irrelevant.
I could be entirely wrong but I am seeing far too many parallels between Scott's feelings towards achievements and my feelings towards Google Page Rank.
Haha, no. If I had more time for gaming, I would play more games, not play fewer games more. I'd also probably spend that time not playing games, but instead working on some projects.
Even if it does absolutely nothing to Scotts engraved-into-stone-opinion, there is actually the option to set your XBox to not display any system messages like achievement notifications or when friends go online during gameplay. So I don't know how valid the "pulling me out of the game" argument is. I dunno about PC games with achievements, or how many there are even, but if they are implemented well they also should have such an option.
As for "people only playing for achievements in multiplayer": Most achievements are gained by doing something successfully that will help you in the game. In Deathmatch or other situations that you are on your own, it doesn't even matter for other players if you screw yourself over by only going for an achievement and not for the win.
In team based situations it's a little different, but most players are not just going for achievements but try to win and achievements gained are just the frosting on the cake. Even if they go for an achievement, it's most likely something that will help the team succeed. In any case, I think we have established that people solely playing for achievement's sake are scum.
Of course, it always depends on what achievements there are. Something like the Turok "Grab Bag" achievement is just stupid and as with every other game mechanic, there are good and bad examples.
Wow. I've listened to plenty of episodes of GeekNights but after listening to this episode I have learned that Scott can be that guy.
With the Resident Evil: Umberella Cronicles I noticed that there are the plain items you get but there are also the sort of secret items you can pick up by breaking things that you wouldn't normally pay attention to in RE. You pick things up throughout the level but it isn't until after you finish the level does it announce to you what exactly you picked up. Getting these items don't help you or hurt you but you can show off to people just how carefully you play.
If you never get a fire flower in Mario you can beat the game just fine. Is the fire flower an achievement too?
By the same logic the grow mushroom is an achievement too. And what about the 1-UP mushroom, or the beanstalk, or the stars, or the coins for that matter. If you're going to broaden the term 'achievement' that wide you should just say that any obtainable thing in a game which is not necesarry to finish the game is an achievement. Then again, there are probably achievements for just finishing a boss or a level. Both of which must be done to progress in the game. Heck, The Legend of Zelda becomes a big achievement then, either play it with only the sword (or without it, I don't remember which is possible), or play it whilst obtaining all the other objects in the game.
Bottom line: Stop making this argument so silly and stupid. In a few posts you'll shout that buying a game is an achievement.
So are you against intentionally trying to get the fireworks?
Also: the fireworks give you points.
If you're sitting around trying to get the fireworks, Let's say there were no fireworks and no score. Would you have fun trying to touch the flag when the timer was on 6? If so, what do you need the fireworks for? If not, go on YouTube and watch videos of the fireworks. The problem with the fireworks is that they are so classic, they now have a nostalgia entertainment value.
If you're sitting around trying to get the fireworks, Let's say there were no fireworks and no score. Would you have fun trying to touch the flag when the timer was on 6? If so, what do you need the fireworks for? If not, go on YouTube and watch videos of the fireworks. The problem with the fireworks is that they are so classic, they now have a nostalgia entertainment value.
So now we're saying trying to get high scores in games is ridiculous too? If you're going to be so reductionist about everything, what do we need GAMES for? Let's say there were no goombas in Mario. Let's say there was no art at all! Would you still have fun in Mario if you were just running along a blank white world where nothing ever happened? Fireworks give you points. Score being an integral part of the game, it's a little silly to ask if you'd still try to get them if you took away their purpose for being.
So now we're saying trying to get high scores in games is ridiculous too? If you're going to be so reductionist about everything, what do we need GAMES for? Let's say there were no goombas in Mario. Let's say there was no art at all! Would you still have fun in Mario if you were just running along a blank white world where nothing ever happened? Fireworks give you points. Score being an integral part of the game, it's a little silly to ask if you'd still try to get them if you took away their purpose for being.
What if you still got the points, but the fireworks didn't appear?
Comments
Here, let's pick an achievement. How about in Portal beating a level with as few portals as possible. The first question is, is it fun to try to beat a level with as few Portals as possible? If it is fun, then you would do it, and have fun doing it, without the achievement system ever existing. If it is not fun, why would you ever spend your time doing it, no matter how many points you get? I can see doing it for real money, but that's another issue entirely.
Now let's say that you normally wouldn't have fun with this challenge, but somehow because of the achievement points it becomes fun. Well obviously you have fun getting achievement points. Why are you wasting your time with a challenge that is no fun for you? I can write you a program that makes achievements pop up constantly with millions of points. Since you have so much fun with achievements, this program will make you feel orgasmic, no? I mean, if the achievements themselves are so fun, you would be running out to buy that Avatar game and get the 1000 points in 20 seconds, right?
If you don't enjoy running marathons, but do enjoy getting medals, why not just go to the medal store and buy a case of them? Or buy other people's medals on eBay? If you do enjoy running marathons, what do you need a medal for? You enjoyed the run in and of itself, and whether or not you receive a useless physical object shouldn't change that. If you win the marathon, you know in your heart that you are the winner, and that gives you all the satisfaction you should need. If having other people know that you are the winner is what makes you happy, because you are a braggart with low self esteem, you should just brainwash people into thinking you are the winner, or cheat. That achieves the same results with much less effort.
Long before achievements existed people were doing achievement-like things. Zelda 1 was beaten sans-sword long before the XBox ever existed. People were beating Doom with only the pistol from the start. Without achievements, people would still be beating Portal in record times with as few portals as possible, and people would still be carrying the garden gnome to the end of episode 2. The achievement system adds absolutely nothing to games, and has potential to take away from a game. It's really just unnecessary and pointless.
What I absolutely cannot understand is your argument of something that isn't fun becoming fun only because of Achievements. Achievements cannot not do this and even if they did, wouldn't it be an argument for Achievements? What achievements can do is raise the interest in a game. If it is an uninteresting, boring, tedious or somehow bad game, they won't bring people with no interest in them to play them if the person is smart. For stupid people it will lure them into spending time and money on something worthless, which they will hopefully regret and do not make the same mistake again.
We have long heard both Rym and Scott lament that they no longer have enough free time to enjoy all of the entertainment they would like to enjoy. Could it be that if Scott were still living the "more time than money" life he would be enjoying achievements? Could Scott simply be jealous of the fact that a portion of game play now exists that is based entirely on spending tons of time on a game (which he does not have)?
I have noticed that Rym and Scott both point to the fact that they have to weigh what they do in their leisure time against the reward it brings them. I also think Scott's "gamer pride" is telling him that if he had more free time he could get all those crazy achievements but, because he lacks the free time required to earn these achievements he instead poo-poos them, hoping to make them irrelevant.
I could be entirely wrong but I am seeing far too many parallels between Scott's feelings towards achievements and my feelings towards Google Page Rank.
As for "people only playing for achievements in multiplayer": Most achievements are gained by doing something successfully that will help you in the game. In Deathmatch or other situations that you are on your own, it doesn't even matter for other players if you screw yourself over by only going for an achievement and not for the win.
In team based situations it's a little different, but most players are not just going for achievements but try to win and achievements gained are just the frosting on the cake. Even if they go for an achievement, it's most likely something that will help the team succeed. In any case, I think we have established that people solely playing for achievement's sake are scum.
Of course, it always depends on what achievements there are. Something like the Turok "Grab Bag" achievement is just stupid and as with every other game mechanic, there are good and bad examples.
With the Resident Evil: Umberella Cronicles I noticed that there are the plain items you get but there are also the sort of secret items you can pick up by breaking things that you wouldn't normally pay attention to in RE. You pick things up throughout the level but it isn't until after you finish the level does it announce to you what exactly you picked up. Getting these items don't help you or hurt you but you can show off to people just how carefully you play.
If you never get a fire flower in Mario you can beat the game just fine. Is the fire flower an achievement too?
Yes. You can achieve super flower mode! besides, They're deviously hidden withing questionmark blocks.
Bottom line: Stop making this argument so silly and stupid. In a few posts you'll shout that buying a game is an achievement.
Also: the fireworks give you points.