Achievement Points

Achievements are gimmicks that create artificial replay value, nothing more.

I don't understand playing a game (once through or multiple times) solely for the sake of achievements. Do it because the game is fun, not because you get something in return. And I really don't get how some people won't play (or replay) a game just because they think the achievement system sucks.

Achievements are totally separate from the game - they're an extra.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew

The game should make me want to do that on its own.

---

Not only that, but I agree with Spo: I'd much rather have an unlockable that actually gives you something you can enjoy rather than a pointless number increase.

I don't mind achievements. I think it's a smart tack-on on Microsoft's part. But they hold little sway over the actions I take in the games I play.

The Achievements system is a brilliant idea that will be refined and included in some form in all new consoles from here on out.

Achievements are a great system that has been poorly implemented so far. Sony is more along the right train of thought with the trophy system. As said the current problem with the achievement system is that there's so many inflated achievements. It's nice when the game actually has an achievement to challenge you. Those are the ones that are the most fun and mean the most to me.

I don't mind achievements. When they're done right, the achievements are interesting and unique enough to be worth attempting. Crackdown is a good example of achievements done right. On the other hand, I'm not going to go out of my way to acquire obscure or annoying achievements. I didn't bother coin hunting in Lost Planet, for instance.

I think acievements are silly. Its an artificial way of extending a game. Randomly finding cogs in Gears or finding and shooting random medallions in Lost Planet is just silly. Some acievments that require some skill are more meaningful to me. So I take back saying that they are ALL silly. Some aren't . If they are well thought out, thats cool. Multiplayer achievements are ok, too.
Buying a game you don't really like and playing through it for the achievements( King Kong) is just silly. I have friends that do that shit. Its just dumb. I do like arcade achievements, though.

I like them in theory, they add a kind of extra dimension to the game, I honestly would like to see them on the wii and ps3 too, as i think they are generally good for gaming, but on this forum i have seen some posters here, most recently opaque in the shivering isles thread, say that they will play a game they really dont want to play just for achievements, and that struck me as weird, but thats the person, not the system itsself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coruman

Achievements are a great system that has been poorly implemented so far. Sony is more along the right train of thought with the trophy system. As said the current problem with the achievement system is that there's so many inflated achievements. It's nice when the game actually has an achievement to challenge you. Those are the ones that are the most fun and mean the most to me.

---

How do we know that there won't be any inflated achievements on the PS3?

No points is the assumption.

Come to think of it, some games already had achievements of sort. They just never had the points system. Halo had those badges you earned after beating the game on the corresponding difficulty. I remember not being able to let the game go until I earned that Legendary badge.