Probably not, though I'd definitely say there are games that a small proportion of people have not bought simply on the back of certain achievements/trophies. The Gears of War "Seriously" achievements spring to mind.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
A game designer's critique on Achievement and Trophy systems
- Thread starter Toadthemushroom
- Start date
Probably not, though I'd definitely say there are games that a small proportion of people have not bought simply on the back of certain achievements/trophies. The Gears of War "Seriously" achievements spring to mind.
LinkSlayer64
Member
Why can't the developer design the game in a way that encourages these things without a stupid list of ideas.
Do you think achievements made people do silly things like carry props all the way through Half Life 2? No they weren't a thing.
Breath of the Wild is a testament to all of this, because it contains no achievements, yet has had so many creative ideas pop up by players everywhere. When you design your game to encourage this sort of experimentation, many people will take advantage of it. (And it laughs in collection achievements faces with the reward for all Korok seeds.)
Do you really think the people interested enough in Gears to consider buying it backed out just because of the "Seriously" achievement?
enixbelmont
Member
I don't agree with the article at all, other than Multiplayer trophies being bad - especially when they make other players experiences worse. Devs should know better. No one likes them.
I also don't agree nintendo hasn't been affected by the lack of achievements at all(look at the sales of multiplats. Theres a variety of reasons but I'm positive lack of achievements and trophies contributed at least a little), and I'm pretty sure he's factually wrong about most people not liking them.
I think if you don't like achievements you can just design them better. Games are a set of rules, but good games have multiple ways to play them, at multiple skill levels. Getting an achievement for beating a game on the hardest setting, or speedrunning it, etc. is just fine with me. And I like achievements as a means to compare how far a friend has gotten, so I'm not against the free story mode achievements either.
I don't get why anti-achievement people are so adamant about getting rid of something you can ignore.
I also don't agree nintendo hasn't been affected by the lack of achievements at all(look at the sales of multiplats. Theres a variety of reasons but I'm positive lack of achievements and trophies contributed at least a little), and I'm pretty sure he's factually wrong about most people not liking them.
I think if you don't like achievements you can just design them better. Games are a set of rules, but good games have multiple ways to play them, at multiple skill levels. Getting an achievement for beating a game on the hardest setting, or speedrunning it, etc. is just fine with me. And I like achievements as a means to compare how far a friend has gotten, so I'm not against the free story mode achievements either.
I don't get why anti-achievement people are so adamant about getting rid of something you can ignore.
See what you're saying with your post, but I'm pretty sure there was an achievement for carrying that gnome to the end of HL2 Episode 2?
I am also a developer.
I'm releasing my first game on Steam over the next few months and I worked hard to create a set of Achievements that not only represent milestones earned while playing normally, but also set additional/obscure goals that are fun to discover and achieve. Some require that you play the game a bit differently, but in a clever way.
I feel that fans of Achievements (like myself) will enjoy obtaining them. Non-fans can turn off notifications (or ignore them) and move on with their lives. I don't see the problem with this.
It sounds like the author of the article just doesn't personally like Achievements, and maybe his close friends don't either. He's trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist among most gamers.
It sounds like you have the same opinion as the article author: you don't personally like Achievements, so they should not be there.
The original Dead Rising had a great list of Achievements that encouraged the player to both
1) play the game in alternative ways, and
2) play the game the way the designers intended.
Because of its sandbox nature, the player could play the game however they wanted. But the Achievements helped gamers get the most out of their purchase and I personally appreciated them greatly.
I'm releasing my first game on Steam over the next few months and I worked hard to create a set of Achievements that not only represent milestones earned while playing normally, but also set additional/obscure goals that are fun to discover and achieve. Some require that you play the game a bit differently, but in a clever way.
I feel that fans of Achievements (like myself) will enjoy obtaining them. Non-fans can turn off notifications (or ignore them) and move on with their lives. I don't see the problem with this.
It sounds like the author of the article just doesn't personally like Achievements, and maybe his close friends don't either. He's trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist among most gamers.
It sounds like you have the same opinion as the article author: you don't personally like Achievements, so they should not be there.
The original Dead Rising had a great list of Achievements that encouraged the player to both
1) play the game in alternative ways, and
2) play the game the way the designers intended.
Because of its sandbox nature, the player could play the game however they wanted. But the Achievements helped gamers get the most out of their purchase and I personally appreciated them greatly.
Ok, I dont think indy games require that much. I play alot of indy titles and some of them have very little in amount of total trophies. Some have alot, but some games are only bought by "trophy hunters" as there easy platinums, haha (like Greg Miller from kinda funny)
As for AAA, it cant be that hard on making a list of trophies, and if you really dont want to make players go away from your designed experieince because of arbitary achievements, just place the trophies in a way that wont do that.
You can delete your achievements (on playstation anyway) by the way.
Lys Skygge
Member
I don't even look at the trophy list until I finish a game. Once I complete a game once, then I'll work on the Platinum. That way my first playthrough isn't influenced by trophies.
Not really, but there will have been a small proportion of people as I said that will have been put off by that. It would be a very small proportion though.
LordRaptor
Member
I've seen reviewers attacked for their scoring of a game because their personal gamertag was not the gamertag that was used when reviewing the game in question.
I've seen a recent thread here on GAF about how distasteful they found peoples reactions to achievements to be
I've seen multiplayer games ruined by people playing for achievements not for playing the game (lets all remember Turoks team killer achievements as a nadir)
I've seen 'auteur' games that did not want to add achievements as they felt it would ruin the experience have to add them anyway to meet console certification.
What are the actual pros in favour that cannot be gained any other way?
Some people who really care about ePeen can easily measure their ePeen?
The problem is that the minority of people vocally in favour of achievements require mandatory systemic achievements, because if achievements are opt-in then comparisons are only amongst people that care, and are not global / universal metrics.
Why can't the developers design the game in a way that encourages these things and give the people who do them an achievement
I don't get why the achievement would make it feel less rewarding or anything
xrnzaaas
Member
I don't think it's possible to make a good study on that topic, because even the hardcore trophy hunters will be ashamed to admit that they didn't buy something because of a bad achievement situation.
I don't think of myself as being addicted to achievements and trophies anymore (I still collect them but more casually
), but I paid more attention to them in the past and there were some titles that I didn't play because they had only time consuming achievements or simply because they didn't offer a platinum trophy when they should.as a trophy hunter I've purchased multiple games I normally wouldn't have because they had an interesting/easy list. There are also games I've waited on for a sale/skipped completely because they didn't have a platinum the list was too hard ridiculous. I can say with 100% certainty if these developers aren't taking their trophy lists seriously they are going to lose money. How much is variable, but a trash game with an easy platinum will get sales off that platinum alone. I'm sure the developers of My Name is Mayo made a small fortune because they were basically selling 2 platinum trophies for a dollar.
It'll be an insignificant number. Probably smaller than the number of people that bought Trivial Pursuit just because it had achievements attached.
LinkSlayer64
Member
They decided to do that after they saw that people did crazy stuff like carrying buckets to all over, or escaping raveholm with a mattress. You're helping to validate my point - it wasn't necessary, a checkbox was not necessary to encourage alternate playstyles, people did it without being told they could.
And?
LinkSlayer64
Member
I'm addressing the point of "it helps encourage alternative playstyles" I don't like using this term, but it is pretty lazy to rely on a list of things to tell your player what they can do instead of making it fluid within the mechanics of the game.
That's stupid and shouldn't be encouraged at all. Not a problem with achievements though, but with people - without them they would just find another way to discredit reviewers (too few reviews, gave a score i don't agree to game x, etcetera)
That thread was more about difficulty settings than achievements - again, would happen the same way with or without them.
Multiplayer being ruined by achiev hunters would still be ruined by the alternative proposed by the author (in fact it would be even worse). And multiplayer games were ruined before achievements were a thing anyway - i'm noticing a trend on your complaints about achievements when the blame should lie on the players instead
Already said i agree with achievements not being enforced. Them existing for those wanting to wouldn't ruin the auter games in any sense.
The pros are all over the thread. Some people do enjoy comparing their epeen, why should i tell them how they should have fun with their games or not, specially when it doesnt affect me in any sense?
dl77
Member
Yeah, I remember that Halo 2 was famous for it back in the day as they had the info from where everyone was running around on the maps.
In the case of achievements knowing how many people have actually done something that is most likely arbitrary gives a great insight into the mentality people have whilst playing your game.
Fair enough. My original post in this thread (i.e. my reply to the OP) stated that I am quite conflicted with regards to achievements/trophies. To me, this one is quite a good achievement in that it does require strategy/thought/forward planning etc. whereas getting 10 headshots by comparison seems pretty terrible. I see your point that it wasn't "necessary" but perhaps Valve thought it was cool people were taking mattresses through Ravenholm and thought they could open the idea of playing this way to more people. After all, HL2's physics system is one of its most memorable features and I'm sure a lot of work went into putting it into place. Kinda makes sense for Valve to include an achievement based on taking an object through the game when you view it like that.
Xion_Stellar
People should stop referencing data that makes me feel uncomfortable because games get ported to platforms I don't like
I have no proof to back this up but I'm almost certain that The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion 5th Anniversary Edition sold worse on PS3 because of the LACK of Trophies.
A bit of history here:
The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion launched on X360 first with Achievements and eventually the game got ported to PS3 however the PS3 version didn't have Trophies (either because Sony didn't require PS3 Trophies when the game launched on PS3 or because there was no Trophy System in place yet...I don't remember which).
5 years later Bethesda puts the game on sale again in anticipation for The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim but this time Box art on PS3 version said we would get Trophy support this time however days before the game came out all indications of having Trophy Support was removed and the game launched without Trophy support again so as such me and quite a few more people didn't double/triple dip on the title because of the lack of Trophy support.
No it doesnt, he has a very valid case specially with his TF2 medic example, it disrupts games like overwatch too where you have a mecy refusing to revive teammates because she wants to go for the x4 revive achievement.
Not to mention Achievements ruin entire concepts for games, like undertale in the PS4 is gonna have them, if the add achievements for all the endings you get them, you might as well not play the fucking game if you're going to ignore the main themes of it.
Also, Many games include achievements that force you to play in ways you don't want, Red Dead Redemption had an [admitedly hilarious] achievement for tying a woman to the railroad tracks and letting her get ran over by a train, cartoon villian style, but fuck that shit, i was playing good guy John, why encourage this when the game also is designed to let you decided if you want to be good or bad?
Reckless Abandon
Member
Bingo, this is why I don't mind - in some cases even like - them. They help you explore different things in games that you might have otherwise neglected, including trying new/higher difficulty levels. And there is typically a nice feel-good moment with a sense of accomplishment when you take down a higher difficulty.
For example I've been playing Killing Floor 2 and never really thought about the platinum, but ended up playing enough to where finishing a match on the highest difficulty was all that was left. I spent time getting good, tried it a few times, and eventually won and got the platinum, and it felt like a solid accomplishment.
LinkSlayer64
Member
But my point is, they don't need an achievement, people just do these things.
Some people wouldn't think of these things though is what I'm getting at. That's what I meant by Valve maybe seeing some people were doing it and thought it was cool and others might enjoy the challenge/fun of trying it themselves.
I agree with your point to some level though, if Deus Ex came out today and there was an achievement for
saving Paul
Like I said, I'm horribly conflicted on the whole thing!! Achievements when done well can be great but quite often they are implemented very generically/boringly. The worst I can recall is the Uncharted games, nearly every trophy is for finding collectibles or killing with certain weapons X amount of times. So boring.
GoldenCrow
Member
The achievements he mentions in his piece are generally the ones I have problems with however I have found certain kinds to be great. Achievements quickly fell into a set of typical types for almost every game and were arbitrary but there are developers who use the fact that they know certain players are looking at them so use them as part of their game design. Want to highlight something that the team is proud of you can use achievements. Want to let the player know that there is a different way to complete the game that isn't obvious, you can use achievements to highlight this. Think playing the game with or without certain items is damn fun and likely to be missed you can use achievements to highlight this as well. For games I really enjoy I use achievements in a similar way to unlocks before they disappeared, I really enjoyed things like unlocking characters in fighting games or unlocking cheats like in Goldeneye.
i dont think people would do that dumb MK achievement that requires playing with everyone, fatalities, pints of blood etc. by themselves, and you could even replicate it in the first games if you want to (but without any gratification for it)
"but the achievement is dumb as hell!"
i agree. but it's not for me. some people thought it was fun pursuing it. who am i to tell them they shouldn't?
spoilery achievements are spoilered before you get them. your point falls flat
nothing stop someone from playing it first "like it was intended" and then chasing achievements after. hell, even if they want to do it first time, why should you bother? it's their game. their lives.
SentryDown
Member
This critique has some good points but some are rather biased because the author only seems to consider the worst of the worst in terms of trophy design. The whole system isn't bad because some developers put achievements that rewards the player for nothing, don't fit with the game structure or encourage bad behaviors (esp. in multiplayer). These trophies are bad, there's no denying that, not the system.
It's a matter of good game design all in all, you can also consider that designing achievements is like having 10-50 extra rewards to distribute to the player, and you need to find as many conditions to unlock them. So if you design these well, at worst they're doing nothing, at best they fulfill the needs of some of the players, give extra goals, help comparing progress within a game, etc
It's a matter of good game design all in all, you can also consider that designing achievements is like having 10-50 extra rewards to distribute to the player, and you need to find as many conditions to unlock them. So if you design these well, at worst they're doing nothing, at best they fulfill the needs of some of the players, give extra goals, help comparing progress within a game, etc
The existence of bad trophies doesn't prove that all trophies are bad.
As for undertale, I don't know a single person that didn't treat the endings like a checklist. "I'm doing my genocide run now" etc. Are you suggesting that every ending was supposed to be discovered by accident by each player?
I take you haven't played Undertale.
The game itself is a HUGE criticism of treating games like "check lists" and "doing things just because you can", the themes explored are ones precisely that criticize players for engaging in this behavior, and yes there are people like who you mentioned, but there is also tons of people who swore to never do genocide runs, i sure as hell havent.
WrenchNinja
Member
There is no point arguing with someone about this when they've already dismissed the fact that you can turn off notifications and dismissed the fact that you only participate if you continually bother to check them out.
I felt like Trophies affected not only my playing habits but also purchasing - I would buy loads of games and never really enjoy them beyond ticking off few easy earned trophies. When the game demanded too many nonsensical trophies - they would hamper my enjoyment with the title and eventually got bored as I couldn't get more out of the game.
I feel, looking at friends' game trophy lists - a lot people were similar. You could argue that you should not pay attention but these systems are designed to be very much visible on your game card/profile.
Back in the day you unlocked more content for extra work/ achieving milestones - with DLC around achievements and trophies were a neat replacement for developers I think. Did EA not make the trophies hard on purpose to make people more reluctant about trading their games in?
That's why I find going back to Nintendo so refreshing - I am enjoying the games 100% for what they are and the wins and achievements are my own and of mastering the little systems rather than doing a checklist of stuff. I think it makes the experience so much more personal.
I feel, looking at friends' game trophy lists - a lot people were similar. You could argue that you should not pay attention but these systems are designed to be very much visible on your game card/profile.
Back in the day you unlocked more content for extra work/ achieving milestones - with DLC around achievements and trophies were a neat replacement for developers I think. Did EA not make the trophies hard on purpose to make people more reluctant about trading their games in?
That's why I find going back to Nintendo so refreshing - I am enjoying the games 100% for what they are and the wins and achievements are my own and of mastering the little systems rather than doing a checklist of stuff. I think it makes the experience so much more personal.
30yearsofhurt
Member
Same here.
If I finish a game it means I've enjoyed it.
I may then look at the trophy/achievement list and ask myself if I reckon what remains outstanding can be done.
A case in point was the TR re-boot.
I enjoyed it (so sue me) and I didn't pick up half the collectibles or explore a huge chunk of the map.
It didn't affect how I played the game. It just gave me more to do once the game was done.
Shake Appeal
Member
Would not care if achievements went away entirely. As it is, I just ignore them.
Toadthemushroom
Member
He did post a GDC talk which actually has a whole section addressing the "you can just turn them off" point. I haven't watched it yet but I think it's worth noting.
LordRaptor
Member
Sorry, "not seeing that you are participating in a system" is literally not the same thing as "not participating in a system".
The only arguments for mandatory systems are that - what is actually a very small but vocal minority - cannot accurately measure their ePeen unless everybody is forcibly tracked whether they want to be or not.
Because the "Achievements are fine, anyone that doesn;t like them can just opt out" argument actually works a lot better the other way round - "Achievements are fine, anyone who wants them can opt in".
TwoDurans
"Never said I wasn't a hypocrite."
I like achievements in single player games because they present extra challenges, and in some cases present an alternate way to play a game that I ordinarily wouldn't have.
MP achievements on the other hand should go. I can't even play Battlefield DLC within the first week because you end up on a team where half the players are achievement hunting or boosting.
MP achievements on the other hand should go. I can't even play Battlefield DLC within the first week because you end up on a team where half the players are achievement hunting or boosting.
Jawbreaker
Member
One neat thing about achievements/trophies is seeing what percentage of players completed specific tasks or parts of a game.
CrazyArcadia
Member
I agree with a lot of points he brings up, though I might be prejudiced since I belong to the group of people who are mostly annoyed at achievements. Though more at the way they're implemented (meaningless at best, grind-inducing and game-breaking at worst).
Now in general, I think trophies and achievements could be game-enhancing if done right, e.g. giving the player legit challenges or invite them to rethink the way they play a game. But in many cases, they are random "congrats, you're great maybe" popups on top of self-rewarding gameplay systems.
The way I understand the critique, it is arguing to give achievements meaning and make them part of the game experience instead of skinnerbox-style devices to have the player execute menial tasks. Compare Ninja Gaidens "kill 1000 enemies with weapon X" to Metal Gear Risings "kill bossencounter y without getting hit". Now one of them invites you to challenge yourself and get better at the game while the other just tells you "waste 5-10 hours with a shitty weapon you actually don't prefer". Same for "collect all item z in the gameworld", especially when they don't serve any additional value. And please remember how multiplayer trophies often tend to invite players to not play the game in the way intended or ignore tasks, which often takes away the fun for players who actually want to play a real round of MP (especially in team-based games, and even more infuriating if the trophyhunter then just disconnects after achieving their goal).
So IMO achievement systems need an overhaul. Not a "take it away!" but a way that allows to make them part of the game design instead of checkboxes and a way to allow devs who don't see value in them for their specific project to not being forced to include them. I know people argue that it let's them see their personal progress, though I ask myself - what about books, cds, movies, media in general. Do people really need a proof at hand that they finished a game? But to each their own, still please allow critical thinking on how to improve the concepts.
Now in general, I think trophies and achievements could be game-enhancing if done right, e.g. giving the player legit challenges or invite them to rethink the way they play a game. But in many cases, they are random "congrats, you're great maybe" popups on top of self-rewarding gameplay systems.
The way I understand the critique, it is arguing to give achievements meaning and make them part of the game experience instead of skinnerbox-style devices to have the player execute menial tasks. Compare Ninja Gaidens "kill 1000 enemies with weapon X" to Metal Gear Risings "kill bossencounter y without getting hit". Now one of them invites you to challenge yourself and get better at the game while the other just tells you "waste 5-10 hours with a shitty weapon you actually don't prefer". Same for "collect all item z in the gameworld", especially when they don't serve any additional value. And please remember how multiplayer trophies often tend to invite players to not play the game in the way intended or ignore tasks, which often takes away the fun for players who actually want to play a real round of MP (especially in team-based games, and even more infuriating if the trophyhunter then just disconnects after achieving their goal).
So IMO achievement systems need an overhaul. Not a "take it away!" but a way that allows to make them part of the game design instead of checkboxes and a way to allow devs who don't see value in them for their specific project to not being forced to include them. I know people argue that it let's them see their personal progress, though I ask myself - what about books, cds, movies, media in general. Do people really need a proof at hand that they finished a game? But to each their own, still please allow critical thinking on how to improve the concepts.
Literally the only thing that changes is that you go from the default of everyone seeing them to everyone not seeing them. You'd still be 'forcibly tracked' by 'the man' while playing games.
theprodigy
Member
receipts.gif
Yep. Powerpyx has a PS4 community with over 10k members, PlaystationTrophies probably has more members than NeoGAF, and people that do trophy/achievement videos can make a very comfortable living on youtube. There is a sizable group of people that really enjoy them.
LordRaptor
Member
No; if "opt in" was the default, you wouldn't get achievements at all.
Stat tracking would only be amongst those who had also opted in.
Note that this is exactly how Apple and Googles systems work.
WrenchNinja
Member
If you don't want to participate, don't bother checking the trophy and achievement tab. You care so much about a feature that you can easily ignore which is really weird. That you're boiling this down to a measuring contest and that you think it's a vocal minority who enjoys them is telling just how out of touch you are. Like are you still stuck in the mid oughts? It's really nuts.
Toadthemushroom
Member
I suspect that point is referring to the Skinner Box, and how people who are really into the achievement levelling/tracking metagame might be influenced by Skinner's Techniques.
It's not going to be the case for everyone but anecdotally I know people (including myself) who were really focused on getting achievements and levelling up trophy levels/Gamerscore, only to later realise that it just wasn't actually much fun.
That's on a macro-level though, I'm sure people do genuinely enjoy achievements on a micro-level, e.g. for their stat-tracking capabilities. Which would still be done better using player telemetry. Even Nintendo's Splatnet 2 is doing it and the game itself has no achievements.
Personally, I just turn off the notifications and don't check the lists anymore so I play the game without being influenced by the external influences, but I think overall the piece does a good job at explaining how different types of achievements work.
LordRaptor
Member
Let's put it another way;
If people got a hold of Anita Sarkeesians gamertag that she used primarily for academic research, would her gamerscore be used to discredit her?
I hope you realize the vast difference between the data collected between achievements and Google analytics and how they are used