LOGIN  .  SIGNUP   .  SUPPORT 
HOME / MESSAGE BOARDS / GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

General Discussions

Signup   Message Boards Home   Newest Posts   My Favorite Boards   My Threads
Page 1 of 4   •  First Page  •  Previous Page  •   Next Page  •   Last Page
Signup or Login to Post
POLL: Are You an Achievement/Trophy *****?
 
SuperSkyline89  posted on Jun 20, 2010 12:07:50 PM - Report post

Current rank: 3 Stars. Next Rank at 4000 Posts.
Send a message to SuperSkyline89
AUTHOR
How do you game?

Do you buy a game because it has easy achievement or trophies so you can rule the leaderboards?

Or are you a completionist? Someone who doesn't buy a game for the achievements and trophies but does like to get as many as possible.

Or do you totally ignore them and just play the games as if achievements and trophies were never created?



I'm a completionist. I've never bought a game just to get the achievements. I have a few franchise games that I enjoy and aside from a few exceptions I don't buy other games. But the games I do buy, I go for 100% offline Gamerscore, online not so much but sometimes I do that too.

[Edited by SuperSkyline89, 6/20/2010 12:11:34 PM]

 
Paradox  posted on Jun 20, 2010 12:17:47 PM - Report post

Current rank: 3 Stars. Next Rank at 4000 Posts.
Send a message to Paradox
MODERADURR
If a game has an achievement in it that looks fun or challenging, I give it a shot. However, when games have achievements like "Do this 1000 times" or "Beat level 1", I tend to not care.
 
saurabhfzd  posted on Jun 20, 2010 12:18:10 PM - Report post

Current rank: 3 Stars. Next Rank at 4000 Posts.
Send a message to saurabhfzd
ELITE
option number 2 best describes me. i like to complete a game fully. do everything possible. not so much online. i'm a completionist.
 
Dhampy  posted on Jun 20, 2010 1:00:28 PM - Report post

Current rank: 2.5 Stars. Next Rank at 2000 Posts.
Send a message to Dhampy
ELITE
Personally, I find achievements to be stupid. Wooo, you finished level 5, so here's an achievement. Weeeeeee, you killed 800,000,000,000,000 enemy foot soldiers who are all identical and are killed with one bullet, here's an achievement.

---------------

The August 2010 issue of PC Gamer has a guest editorial which addresses this somewhat. It's written by Mikail Yazbeck, one of the designers of Mount and Blade: Warband.

He describes what he sees as the proper way of using achievements: as a way to give free-form games the same sense of gratification which linear games have, to get players to play the game longer and in different ways.

However, applied differently, they become the way by which the free-form game becomes linear. They become the designers way of forcing the player to play a certain way.

I think he has an interesting take--it might be worth looking at.

 
Latiosmaster47  posted on Jun 20, 2010 1:12:57 PM - Report post

Moderator
Send a message to Latiosmaster47
MODERATOR
I'm only interested in achievements if there's some other reward attached, or if it's actually a cool achievement. Or if it's funny... or if it's an easter egg...

Usually stuff like "clear the coliseum mode" gets you an achievement as well as some cool sword or something. And sometimes games have achievements attached to secret easter egg type stuff, but yeah, those achievements like "you ate a sandwich" are really dumb and I don't see why people feel the need to collect achievements like that.

 
malyg  posted on Jun 20, 2010 1:36:49 PM - Report post

Current rank: 3.5 Stars. Next Rank at 8000 Posts.
Send a message to malyg
ELITE
I hate online achievements...
 
Vonfuzzball  posted on Jun 20, 2010 2:11:05 PM - Report post

Current rank: 3 Stars. Next Rank at 4000 Posts.
Send a message to Vonfuzzball
ELITE
I used to hunt achievements all the time but came to realize it's absolutely pointless. In fact the only thing you get from it is bragging rights, and lets face it; i already have plenty of those. :P
 
SuperSkyline89  posted on Jun 20, 2010 2:40:55 PM - Report post

Current rank: 3 Stars. Next Rank at 4000 Posts.
Send a message to SuperSkyline89
AUTHOR
quote:
originally posted by Dhampy

Personally, I find achievements to be stupid. Wooo, you finished level 5, so here's an achievement. Weeeeeee, you killed 800,000,000,000,000 enemy foot soldiers who are all identical and are killed with one bullet, here's an achievement.

---------------

The August 2010 issue of PC Gamer has a guest editorial which addresses this somewhat. It's written by Mikail Yazbeck, one of the designers of Mount and Blade: Warband.

He describes what he sees as the proper way of using achievements: as a way to give free-form games the same sense of gratification which linear games have, to get players to play the game longer and in different ways.

However, applied differently, they become the way by which the free-form game becomes linear. They become the designers way of forcing the player to play a certain way.

I think he has an interesting take--it might be worth looking at.

I take the "it gives me a reason to play longer" approach to it. Before achievements I would finish a game and be done with it. With achievements I play through the game casually to enjoy it and once that's done I see which ones I never got by dumb luck and work towards them.

Page 1 of 4   •  First Page  •  Previous Page  •   Next Page  •   Last Page
  Post Reply
Go to page: 1  2  3  4 
All times are (GMT -06:00) Central Time (US & Canada). Current time is 5:35:17 PM