Not sure if Scott just ignored my previous post, but I would like to ask him again if there are any points in which games could be hurt by the inclusion of achievements which isn't based on bad implementation.
What if you still got the points, but the fireworks didn't appear?
Then I don't care. Cartoon fireworks don't really make my day.
So you would still sit there trying to time your jumps to the flag so the level ended with the right number on the clock even if there were no fireworks?
What if you still got the points, but the fireworks didn't appear?Then I don't care. Cartoon fireworks don't really make my day.So you would still sit there trying to time your jumps to the flag so the level ended with the right number on the clock even if there were no fireworks?
I don't do that anyway, even if there is fireworks (unless I'm going for a highscore or something....)
So you would still sit there trying to time your jumps to the flag so the level ended with the right number on the clock even if there were no fireworks?
If I was playing for points, yes. Because I would want to do the most things that got me the most points.
What if you still got the points, but the fireworks didn't appear?Then I don't care. Cartoon fireworks don't really make my day.So you would still sit there trying to time your jumps to the flag so the level ended with the right number on the clock even if there were no fireworks?
No. There'd be no incentive without points. If you're rewarded with something like that (that eventually becomes nostalgic for you) then awesome.
If I gave you a billion points to dig a ditch, but the ditch had to be dug very precisely. Would you do it?
Yes. Because its a test of skill. You have to pace yourself so you don't run out of stamina, you have to be able to deal with rocks, and you have to know about the physics of the dirt so it doesn't cave in on you.
Yes. Because its a test of skill. You have to pace yourself so you don't run out of stamina, you have to be able to deal with rocks, and you have to know about the physics of the dirt so it doesn't cave in on you.
You're hired. I've got a lot of backbreaking manual skilled labor that needs doing, and I've got infinity points with which to pay you.
Scott, listen to this episode, then listen to the 080917 episode Evangelion. You make the exact opposite arguments. In the Eva episode, you say that people who can't separate the fanboyism from the media are stupid. In this episode you equate the fact that you doesn't like people who play games just to complete achievements with the fact that achievements suck.
Scott, listen to this episode, then listen to the 080917 episode Evangelion. You make the exact opposite arguments. In the Eva episode, you say that people who can't separate the fanboyism from the media are stupid. In this episode you equate the fact that you doesn't like people who play games just to complete achievements with the fact that achievements suck.
your argument in this episode was something like: People who play games just for achievement suck, therefore achievements themselves suck.
In the Eva episode, while discussing why the show is good despite criticisms was something like: Just because creepy fanboys want to see Rei or Asuka naked, that doesn't make it suck. In fact, if you can't separate a show from the creepy people around it, then you are stupid.
I'm now kind of tempted to have the discussion about this that we've had on at least two times before, including once in this thread. Fortunately, I know better.
Because they make the game about the achievement and not the game, right?
Yeah, except wait, no they don't, it's just the people who play games for achievements that suck. No game is about the achievements, some gamers are about the achievements. Jmerm has a good point, achievements don't suck. I mean, with only one game have I done stuff solely to get achievements, and that was after just playing the game for the sake of playing it for a long time, when I'd run out of ways to amuse myself with my own creativity (the game was Dragon Age).
The only legitimate complaint that Scott has, far as I can tell, is that it takes you out of the game. 'Course, that only applies if you're a hyper-realism nut who can't deal with any external forces bother you and your game. So sure, if you don't like them personally, they can be a bit irritating.
Anything else, though, is total bullshit. Scott, most people like achievements because it allows them to play the game more. At least, for people who aren't obsessed with them, that's the reasoning we take that allows us to enjoy them. There are people, I am sure, who only like achievements because it makes their ePeen feel bigger. However, I sincerely doubt that your suggestion that the *only* enjoyment they could possibly get out of an achievement-loaded game is the feeling of gratification they get from a little notification.
Point is, you're totally justified in disliking them. Suggesting that games with achievements are superior to games without, simply by virtue of not having the achievements, is bullshit.
-EDIT- I will, however, completely agree that a multiplayer game that rewards players in-game based on achievements have a fundamental design flaw that keeps them from being skill-based, competitive games. Doesn't mean they're not fun, it just means that I personally dislike them as multiplayer games, since the achievement game isn't as fun to me as a skill-based competition.
I've been thinking about this, and there is a skew of Scott's argument which is very legitimate. If a game developer replaces game content with achievements in order to make the game seem fuller, then the player has gotten shafted, and the game has been made worse. Is this your argument? If so, we are all barking up the wrong tree.
If a game developerreplacesgame content with achievements in order to make the game seem fuller, then the player has gotten shafted, and the game has been made worse. Is this your argument?
IF is a fine argument to make, but I don't think I've EVER heard of a game where that is the case.
There are good and bad reasons to have and use achievements systems. However how the system is designed will effect the personal or cultural/ social value of the achievements themselves.
The intended purpose for achievements is bragging rights. However since when the implementation became mandatory, developers who didn't plan for it, or just didn't spend time developing for achievement systems, they became a way of extending the play of games that otherwise wouldn't be played.
I have known this to be true of myself who 'meta gamed' by competing how high their gamerscore was on Xbox Live. This was while my friends and I owned mostly all the same games and the competition was close. Then it became pointless when certain people would play/ rent games that they wouldn't otherwise have played, if not to 'boost' their gamerscore. So gamerscore is a number with very little to no value. Likewise with equivalent systems.
However, in a game, if I do something cool, apart from just talking about what I did to someone, it is especially cool to show the thing that I did. An achievement is the crappy way this can be done, since it's just an emblem, description and a number.
Video capture devices help you tell this story better, but it does require some effort and time, sometimes extra hardware is needed. So there are trade offs.
Some games, like Halo 3 and some older PC games have built in record modes. Where you can go into an editor of the game you've just played, and make video recordings/ screenshots from a spectator camera. Post your video somewhere, and then you've shared a thing. Awesome.
Leaderboards are cool, but not all games will implement the attributes you want to match your friends against. Some modern games allow you to make your own personal challenges between friends, but I've not seen any real sophisticated challenge systems, that weren't just mods.
In Halo 3 if you played the Campaign coop, you could turn on scoring, and you'd play for the most kills, but that's confined within the game. And not a meta system. And it does allow for re-playability without distorting or distracting the way the game was intended to be played.
The problem with achievement systems as they are, is that they're not very sophisticated. They're mostly mile stones for most games. They could be used to great effect, but only with good design. But there should always be a choice to enable/ disable them if you care about them or not.
The point is achievements do serve a purpose, just the systems aren't designed well. So they're use is bastardised by all sorts of different intents, which doesn't seem to enrich the experience of gaming. Whether that's amongst others or by yourself.
What it comes down to, is as a player, if you really enjoy a game, and desire more variety from that game, who do you turn to for that content? Yourself/ the developer/ the community/misc.?
Do you care about sharing what you've done with other people? Or even care to keep record for yourself, of what you've done, that isn't just in your biological memory?
I completely support achievements because if you win Science Victory as Poland in Civ V, you get the achievement "Poland Can Into Space", and that makes up for any bizarre cultures that crop up from such systems.
Comments
I don't do that anyway, even if there is fireworks (unless I'm going for a highscore or something....)
No. There'd be no incentive without points. If you're rewarded with something like that (that eventually becomes nostalgic for you) then awesome.
People who play games just for achievement suck, therefore achievements themselves suck.
In the Eva episode, while discussing why the show is good despite criticisms was something like:
Just because creepy fanboys want to see Rei or Asuka naked, that doesn't make it suck. In fact, if you can't separate a show from the creepy people around it, then you are stupid.
These two arguments are contradictory.
Anything else, though, is total bullshit. Scott, most people like achievements because it allows them to play the game more. At least, for people who aren't obsessed with them, that's the reasoning we take that allows us to enjoy them. There are people, I am sure, who only like achievements because it makes their ePeen feel bigger. However, I sincerely doubt that your suggestion that the *only* enjoyment they could possibly get out of an achievement-loaded game is the feeling of gratification they get from a little notification.
Point is, you're totally justified in disliking them. Suggesting that games with achievements are superior to games without, simply by virtue of not having the achievements, is bullshit.
-EDIT- I will, however, completely agree that a multiplayer game that rewards players in-game based on achievements have a fundamental design flaw that keeps them from being skill-based, competitive games. Doesn't mean they're not fun, it just means that I personally dislike them as multiplayer games, since the achievement game isn't as fun to me as a skill-based competition.
Cue someone providing an example, inevitably.
The intended purpose for achievements is bragging rights. However since when the implementation became mandatory, developers who didn't plan for it, or just didn't spend time developing for achievement systems, they became a way of extending the play of games that otherwise wouldn't be played.
I have known this to be true of myself who 'meta gamed' by competing how high their gamerscore was on Xbox Live. This was while my friends and I owned mostly all the same games and the competition was close. Then it became pointless when certain people would play/ rent games that they wouldn't otherwise have played, if not to 'boost' their gamerscore. So gamerscore is a number with very little to no value. Likewise with equivalent systems.
However, in a game, if I do something cool, apart from just talking about what I did to someone, it is especially cool to show the thing that I did. An achievement is the crappy way this can be done, since it's just an emblem, description and a number.
Video capture devices help you tell this story better, but it does require some effort and time, sometimes extra hardware is needed. So there are trade offs.
Some games, like Halo 3 and some older PC games have built in record modes. Where you can go into an editor of the game you've just played, and make video recordings/ screenshots from a spectator camera. Post your video somewhere, and then you've shared a thing. Awesome.
Leaderboards are cool, but not all games will implement the attributes you want to match your friends against. Some modern games allow you to make your own personal challenges between friends, but I've not seen any real sophisticated challenge systems, that weren't just mods.
In Halo 3 if you played the Campaign coop, you could turn on scoring, and you'd play for the most kills, but that's confined within the game. And not a meta system. And it does allow for re-playability without distorting or distracting the way the game was intended to be played.
The problem with achievement systems as they are, is that they're not very sophisticated. They're mostly mile stones for most games. They could be used to great effect, but only with good design. But there should always be a choice to enable/ disable them if you care about them or not.
The point is achievements do serve a purpose, just the systems aren't designed well. So they're use is bastardised by all sorts of different intents, which doesn't seem to enrich the experience of gaming. Whether that's amongst others or by yourself.
What it comes down to, is as a player, if you really enjoy a game, and desire more variety from that game, who do you turn to for that content? Yourself/ the developer/ the community/misc.?
Do you care about sharing what you've done with other people? Or even care to keep record for yourself, of what you've done, that isn't just in your biological memory?