I’ve Had Enough Achievements
By Mike Mason
I’ve Had Enough… is a regular feature by Cubed3’s Mike Mason, discussing some of the more irritating practices of the games industry. This time: shouldn’t Achievements arrive naturally when we’ve actually achieved something?
How big is your Gamerscore?
Mine’s pretty tiny. Not quite imperceptible. Maybe above average. It’s not the size that matters, but how we get there, right? A public badge of honour to show just what games have been worthy of our time and persuaded us to part with those precious hours we have to ourselves. Then why, pray tell, is my list full of achievements like ‘complete X missions’, ‘collect Y bottles of something or other’ or ‘hit stuff Z number of times’? Is it that these feats extraordinaire have compelled me to continue, or is it just the greedy part of my brain that likes to see numbers rise, preferably in increments of multiples of five? More than likely, outside of the mission-based ones gained through finishing a game normally, it’s the latter. Which is exactly why achievements need to liven up a bit.
Before we go any further, let me say that I am not anti-achievement, trophy, whatever. In a console generation full of Exciting New Things – widespread online, augmented reality and a little control method called motion – achievements are right near the top of the list of quality improvements in my book. Sad as it may be, whenever I go to Wii games after an extended bout on that which gobbles most of my gaming time, the 360, the whole thing feels a little empty without the occasional ‘plink’ and addition of pointless numbers to a meter on a card adorned with my name. What I don’t understand fully are those who go after every single point in a game whether they’re having fun or not. But I digress. Those adorable achievement addicts are not what I have on my mind here.
Inherently, achievements are surely a great thing. Rather than just tearing through games and moving on to the next, achievement systems offer people an obvious avenue to spend more time with the games they purchase. They add an extra layer of things to do; no longer can you say with full conviction that you’ve done everything you can in a game until you have received the full amount of points/trophies/stamps for it. Going by this definition of ‘complete’, I’ve finished roughly one game in the last two years. That’s quite pathetic, but if you look at my play history you will spy others close to that fabled point, games that may otherwise never have been enjoyed so much outside of the initial playthrough. I recently ‘finished’ Brütal Legend, completing its story. Yet I didn’t immediately toss it aside; I booted it back up and began to clear it of its side missions for those tantalising numbers. The buttons of the achievement whore nagging inside of many gamers are pushed by things like this – and that can only be good for titles’ longevity.
The carrot-on-a-stick trick of rewarding those who play more is a fantastic idea that only enhances a good game. How lovely does it feel to finish off a particularly tough section, one that you’ve toiled over for hours? Rather lovely. Now, what about if you’re given a virtual pat on the back afterwards? Feels even better, right? The only way it could be improved is if Stephen Fry popped up, made a witty comment and gave you a hearty “well done!”. You never know, it might happen – he does like to put his voice in games. In the mean time, Microsoft have taken things a bit further than the points systems by giving you presents when you accomplish certain things in games such as Splosion Man via their Awards system. Okay, it’s useless junk to clothe your avatar rather than anything beneficial like Microsoft Points, but it’s a step in the right direction for those who like prizes.
[Continues...]
Pages: 1 2
Agree with the last point you made. It really is best to not look at achievements on your first play through as it makes the experience more organic. The only time I plan for achievements is if it’s a rental game that I don’t really care about.
Good article.
I have learnt from my mistakes when it comes to achievement-whoring. Now, I don’t bother to look at the achievements at all before playing a game, especially if it’s one heavy on story. As you point out, I like the pointless reward of achievements and trophies, especially ones that are saying “thank you” for simply continuing in a game, but I also heartily agree many of them could be so much more inventive. I am still undecided if I think “kill X players with weapon Y” is a good one for versus – can be tedious (and people can squabble over weapons, too) but it does at least force you to try new things. Some of the better achievements IMO are those created by Valve. Both The Orange Box and the two Left 4 Dead games offered a good mix of the instant reward and the more challenging drip-feed.
Also, if it’s any game involving animals (even fictional ones, like Viva Pinata), I’d quite like to have David Attenborough congratulate me instead of Stephen Fry.
I feel that what is wrong with achievements is the gamerscore. I have no problem with giving someone an achievement for finishing a game, but my preference would be a system that meant that achievements could not be done unless you were specifically trying to do them, or just very lucky.
For instance, in Halo there was a whole scene of speed runs and melee only runs. That sort of thing takes real dedication, and extends the lifetime of a game way beyond the main campaign. If you give awards for that sort of thing they really mean something.
The downside is always getting a game months after release only to find that the multiplayer-tied achievements are redundant as there’s not a soul still playing multiplayer…
It’s funny that the only series that dos t tie achievements to mulitplayer, but instead rewards the player constantly overly is the most played online game MW2.
I maintain that if I was in charge, you’d hit a question before the credits scene:
“Did you enjoy the game?”
Yes or no, you’re given a single 1000G achievement as a thank you for experiencing, beginning to end, something it took a team of fifty people at least 24 months to create.