Support NeoGAF

[Toadthemushroom]

An Alternative to Achievements

I thought this critique from designer Keith Burgun on achievements/trophy systems is well worth a read and discussion. Do give it a look, or at least read the excerpts below, before commenting.

He explores what impact achievements may have on game design, what impact achievements systems have on players, and how some types of achievements might (and should) be used in games in the future.

Here's a few excerpts (any emphasis mine):

On the main issue with achievement systems:

What's so bad about achievements? The mother-problem with any "achievement" system can be stated like this: at their best, they do nothing at all. At their worst, they influence player behavior.

What's wrong with influencing player behavior, you might ask? Influencing behavior is a bad thing because you (ostensibly) just spent roughly six to 12 months fine-tuning a set of game rules to do exactly that. Let's remember that a game is a set of rules that limit and motivate player behavior. You just spent a crazy amount of time tweaking, balancing, and turning knobs until player behavior was influenced exactly the way you wanted, all around one central goal and gameplay mechanism.

---

So let's assume that you have taken the time to create a balanced, dynamic, motivating set of rules for your game. Now you're just going to throw a bunch (most times, a ton) of other arbitrary motivators at the player? A great number of extra, optional goals that can be met even by accident? It's like spending years building a clock, and then just once you're done, pouring in a bag of random-sized gears and slathering over it with a dressing of industrial glue. In this way, achievements are yet another testament to the culture-wide lack of regard for the discipline of game design.

On the common achievements that players can't avoid getting anyway:

These achievements also do one other thing, however, and that's patronize the player. Did you already design the game to have its own rewards/motivation system? If so, then what is the purpose of having the game to pat me on the back at arbitrary moments? 25 kills? Why is that significant? The rewards that the game gives me are those that I ostensibly have to earn. Not the case for these achievements. You may as well have a timer that doles out a random nonsensical compliment every 15 minutes, such as "you are attractive" or "you've got a great sense of humor."

Without going too far off topic, I want to quickly address this aspect. Those who are familiar with B.F. Skinner's work, particularly in operant conditioning, probably understand that doling out rewards at random intervals, like the current achievement-model tends to, is a well-understood way to squirt happy-chemicals into a user's bloodstream and thereby keep them playing long after they've stopped learning anything. Philosophically, I personally think that games have the capacity to do much more than just be unfulfilling exploitative operant conditioning chambers, but even if you don't, you should be aware that this common system of achievements is causing a similar effect.

An example where achievements take away from a task which is naturally rewarding in its own right:

Let's think about the concept of an explosive grenade in Counter-Strike for a moment. When you buy one, it's exciting, because of the possible destructive potential. If you happen to put one in just the right place, who knows how many people you might kill in one slickly placed move? You may just damage a few people, you may kill one, or you may even kill several. This elasticity makes grenades dynamic and dramatic, and you feel it.

When you throw a grenade, and it actually does kill someone -- or better yet, two, or even three people -- it's a huge rush. All of those times that you got a grenade and didn't use it, or used it but to no effect were all leading up to this moment. A feeling of having gotten better at using grenades -- a grokking of the system of grenades -- is thrilling. You were in a totally unique situation and you made a call that resulted in an almost magical success.

Just then, a little window pops up and tells you that you've gained some kind of achievement. Suddenly, part of that thrill of having done something dynamic and unique is taken away. On some level, you've merely checked off a box -- the same exact box that thousands of other players have also checked off.

On how an external influence on player behaviour negatively impacts the internal game design's intended influence:

But some achievements actually influence players to act in ways that they would not normally act. I remember this kind of thing happening a lot in Team Fortress 2. Often there would be a medic doing something really stupid instead of healing teammates. Angrily, I'd ask, "What the hell are you doing, dude? Heal us."

"I'm going for an achievement", he'd reply.

This is really not that rare an occurrence, particularly when a game is new. We now have a situation where players are actively not playing correctly and disturbing or ruining the game experience for other players because of achievements.

A common mistake would be to blame this on that player. Let's put it this way: if you're blaming a player for wanting to make use of the system of achievements, then you're proving my point even further that they need to go.

And finally, on the best achievements and where they should go:

My Suggested Replacement: Variants!

Is there anything salvageable to this whole mess? Yes, there is. Some of the achievements -- those most-offensive ones that influence behavior, specifically -- have the potential to be interesting variants. While I don't expect achievements to vanish or dramatically change overnight, variants provide an alternative route that should be explored either in their place, or in addition to achievements.

What's the big difference between variants and achievements? A variant would be a new goal that you actively choose before the game begins, and only that single chosen "goal" is active during this session. One of the fundamental aspects of "a game" is that the rules and goals are agreed upon before the game begins. It doesn't make any sense to allow players to choose what their goals are on the fly, in the middle of the game. This will just allow them to choose whichever goal is most doable based on "how things are going". Worse, if you allow all the goals to be active at once, goals are going to be met by accident.

On why developers use achievements + conclusion:

As a developer myself, I think that there's this feeling like "the audience expects achievements, so let's humor them." I suspect that players probably feel a similar way; something like "oh, well, the developers like to put in achievements for some reason, so let's humor them." In other words, few people actually like achievements, but everyone believes that everyone else likes them, so they continue to exist.

I also think that it's continued to exist because, if we're being honest, a lot of video games these days are not terribly interesting on their own. The thinking is that developers can use the cheap distraction / lame collection-game that achievements provide to create interest in an otherwise uninteresting system. Their primary function, much of the time, is to stretch out what little interest there is over a larger amount of time by compelling the player to "collect". They stand out the most when they're in a game that doesn't need that – a game like Counter-Strike: Global Offensive.

It's important not to fall into the trap of thinking that just because we've had achievements for over half a decade that we will always have them. Now, I'll definitely acknowledge that there is indeed a chance that we will always have them, at least in some form, but it's worth noting that Nintendo has made a point of not using such a system, and that hasn't seemed to affect their commercial or critical success. As I've pointed out, there are a number of flaws with the achievements model, and as time goes on, what I am certain of is that they will either change drastically or disappear.

If you're a fan of achievements, I would simply ask that you try to look at them with a fresh perspective and ask what it is they really do for your software, and whether or not the points I've raised creates issues for it.

So look -- people expect "metagame," and I understand that. But if you have great metagame in the form of variants, great networking (such as cutting-edge, smart online leaderboards), as well as additional gameplay content, the number of people who flip out because you don't have "achievements" will be negligible. At some point, people will stop expecting them, as quickly as they learned to expect them in the first place.

I think this is a great piece. I never really understood how achievements worked from a game design perspective at both a higher level (Skinner's Techniques) and lower level (affecting player behaviour in various ways) until I read it a while ago, and since then I've definitely been more cautious about the systems, and how they impact my play session. I think we already are well aware of achievements which turn already-interesting features into a box-checking exercise but it's also really important to pick apart those achievements which mess around with the careful balancing of a game in the first place, or those achievements which make a dull task *seem* interesting even though it isn't. The gamification of a game, if you will.

Keith raises a good point about those achievements which would make for interesting variants on a game - they really should be part of the game itself, where their circumstances can be more easily controlled while not conflicting with the way a game has been designed for a "regular" playthrough. We've seen this in some games already which is great.

As for his closing section, it seems he was wrong about achievements improving compared to where they were when his piece was published. A lot of the techniques used to make achievements systems so psychologically compelling have been utilised a lot in service-based games themselves to keep people coming back (daily log-ins, daily/weekly goals etc.) But you could argue that in the case of those service-based games, those achievements are exactly what you'd call variants: A way of replaying something you already play a lot in a different way, under different conditions! Bingo.

What do you think about achievements after reading the piece? Has it changed how you view or engage with these meta-systems?

 

[Izuna]

Achievements only seem rewarding when they aren't extreme grindy and are a set of challenges or things to do that expand how you play a game. A great example is Crackdown 1 or in fact, Titanfall 2 (I have a blast speed running a 1000/1000 run).

Any repetition is awful unless it is doing something multiple times in a row.

For some reason, as a notification, I have only cared about how it appears on 360. Though, PS3/4 isn't far behind.

 

[Phawx]

So someone with little to no self-control decides that because they specifically aren't able to be mature, instead a new complete system should be created to cater to their preferred way.

Cool.

Or you know, you could turn off achievement notifications.

Or, only go for achievements you want to go for.

 

[Crankshaft]

At their worst, they influence player behavior

I mean I've played alternate game modes and multiplayer because of achievements so it could be argued that achievements can help get people to try out things.

 

[Crazy Diamond]

Influencing player behavior isn't always a bad thing. When I went for the Platinum in MGSV, it helped me get much more out of the game and encouraged me to utilize different play styles.

 

[danowat]

These are the reasons why some developers make good achievement lists, and others don't, all achievement lists are not equal.

When done well, the player behavouir modification can be a good thing, as it can drive player to play a game, or do things, in a new, more fun, or different way, see below.

I mean I've played alternate game modes and multiplayer because of achievements so it could be argued that achievements can help get people to try out things.

It really boils down to the developer to look at achievements in a way that they bring something good to the game, rather than just a box ticking exercise.

 

[SocksAndShoes]

I use trophies/achievements as a record of games I've played and how far I got in them. I often go back a few years and forget that I played certain games.

 

[Sinfamy]

They're a great way to reward players for discovering optional areas and defeating difficult enemies or puzzles.
Just don't have a bunch for boring collectibles that detract from the flow of the game.

 

[Keinning]

I don't agree with his counter strike example. First, some people actually do get the rush from seeing the pop up and not from the act itself. Two, if it bothers you that much, turn it off. Its that easy.

And his alternative is even worse. Pursuing a single achievement every single game file? Even if they reduced achievements to like 10 "meaningful" stuff it would require 10 different runs to get them (and depending on them you would need to redo a lot of the game). That's just not practical.

 

[Toadthemushroom]

They're a great way to reward players for discovering optional areas and defeating difficult enemies or puzzles.
Just don't have a bunch for boring collectibles that detract from the flow of the game.

In the piece he does argue to the contrary about this, using CS: GO as an example of how using achievements in these contexts actually takes away from what would otherwise be a cool and unique moment that the player just discovered themselves:

Just then, a little window pops up and tells you that you've gained some kind of achievement. Suddenly, part of that thrill of having done something dynamic and unique is taken away. On some level, you've merely checked off a box -- the same exact box that thousands of other players have also checked off

 

[Sinfamy]

In the piece he does argue to the contrary about this, using CS: GO as an example of how using achievements in these contexts actually takes away from what would otherwise be a cool and unique moment that the player just discovered themselves:

True, but if Bloodborne never had a trophy for a certain area, I would never have looked it up how to get there, thus missing it entirely. I think they can be a good guide for the player on what else is there to do and discover, do it subtly, I don't know.

 

[30yearsofhurt]

Sorry, but this guy is way off base.
Achievements don't make you play a game differently.
They don't rob you of satisfaction.
They just make you try more stuff that the designer wants you to try.

 

[Phawx]

In the piece he does argue to the contrary about this, using CS: GO as an example of how using achievements in these contexts actually takes away from what would otherwise be a cool and unique moment that the player just discovered themselves:

His argument crumbles when you know that you can turn off achievement notifications

His entire problem can be solved with a few mouse clicks. He should practice self-control.

 

[Timeaisis]

Achievements are fine. They are a easy way to track your progress as a player, and a nice meta goal for the player to achieve to insert as a designer. They will only ever influence player decisions if developers let them. And at that point, it's not the problem with the achievements, it's a problem with the design.

That's like blaming a nail for an ugly house.

 

[CecilRousso]

You kinda want the solution to be to just do better achievements, but I guess there's a reason that so many developers keep making bad ones.

My favorite achievement in any game so far, is still the Boar Bather achivement in Brütal Legend - "Boar Bather. Ride a Razorfire Boar into the Sea of Black Tears and live to tell the tale. "

That was a fun skillbased challenge, based on a thing that wasn't completly obvious that you could even do, ride a Razorfire Boar. And it didn't take away anything from the game, and it wasn't a chore.

Would love to see more achievements like that one.

 

[Wamb0wneD]

Great piece indeed. Wonder how many will actually read trhough all of the OP before posting.
People saying the author should practice self control maybe should consider he's not talking about himself but the achievement-system itself.

 

[Keinning]

Sorry, but this guy is way off base.
Achievements don't make you play a game differently.
They don't rob you of satisfaction.
They just make you try more stuff that the designer wants you to try.

It depends on the game honestly. Some devs put achievements that make you play the game in a slightly different way to get them. Others just put something like "get x kills" or "complete x chapter" which is meaningless. But obviously this is not a fault of achievements by themselves (or how the system is right now) but how the developers choose to implement them.

I just don't get why so many people who don't like achievements want to remove/change them when its clearly not their thing. I don't chase achievements, i know they're not for me, so why the hell should i keep bothering people to change how they are when there are tons of other people pleased with them? Shouldn't they be the one voicing what works and what don't with the current achievement system instead of me?

 

[Toadthemushroom]

True, but if Bloodborne never had a trophy for a certain area, I would never have looked it up how to get there, thus missing it entirely. I think they can be a good guide for the player on what else is there to do and discover, do it subtly, I don't know.

A "tell" should be implemented into the game perhaps - that'd stop it from feeling like checking off a box.

There isn't much subtle about checking a list of tasks (trophies) and then discovering something by means of the effect (checking off a box) rather than because you really wanted to find a secret area through the game itself.

 

[Quonny]

If only you could disable/hide them. Oh well. Maybe one day.

 

[sixteen-bit]

I'm surprised toby fox put trophies in Undertale on PS4 and Vita tbh. Must've been mandated for certification.

 

[Orca]

In the piece he does argue to the contrary about this, using CS: GO as an example of how using achievements in these contexts actually takes away from what would otherwise be a cool and unique moment that the player just discovered themselves:

You could just as easily argue the opposite, that when you see there's an achievement for killing six people with one grenade and you go for it...weeks later actually DO it and find that only 0.12% of players have managed it, you feel an even greater sense of reward.

The whole thing boils down to 'lazy achievement lists are bad' - not that achievements/trophies themselves are flawed at all.

 

[Fisty]

In the piece he does argue to the contrary about this, using CS: GO as an example of how using achievements in these contexts actually takes away from what would otherwise be a cool and unique moment that the player just discovered themselves:

Yeah but does the "thrill" of that accomplishment really dissipate because the game recognizes you did something? The argument is really flimsy

 

[phanphare]

wow that's a really well thought out piece. interesting stuff.

 

[Toadthemushroom]

His argument crumbles when you know that you can turn off achievement notifications

His entire problem can be solved with a few mouse clicks. He should practice self-control.

This makes no sense. He's a game designer advising other game designers about achievement systems. He gave a definition in the article about what a game essentially is - a set of rules that determine player behaviour.

Now if you're a designer trying to determine player behaviour, how helpful would it be to tell players to turn off their notifications, Vs simply not making checkbox achievements like the ones he mentioned?

 

[bennibop]

I cant say I agree, trophies / achievements have got me to try new modes, and experiment with how I approach a game. The only time they are an issue if they are poorly implemented by the developer.

 

[nekkid]

I see their point, but of the people I know the achievements that genuinely make you change the way you play (milestones in MP tend not to, for example) only do so on subsequent plays.

So for example, I'll play through a campaign and expect to get progression-based achievements for completing levels or defeating bosses, but I won't target the achievements that encourage an unusual style of play until at least my second play through.

I don't know anybody who goes in for maximum achievements on their first run.

 

[Keinning]

This makes no sense. He's a game designer advising other game designers about achievement systems. He gave a definition in the article about what a game essentially is - a set of rules that determine player behaviour.

Now if you're a designer trying to determine player behaviour, how helpful would it be to tell players to turn off their notifications, Vs simply not making checkbox achievements like the ones he mentioned?

As i said, some people get their kicks from the notifications. Turning them off by default would rob them from this joy, which is far from the best alternative. having the option to turn them on/off, on the other hand, can please both sides.

 

[Wamb0wneD]

Sorry, but this guy is way off base.
Achievements don't make you play a game differently.
They don't rob you of satisfaction.
They just make you try more stuff that the designer wants you to try.

There are people that buy and play through games they find shit because it has an easy platinum trophy. Come on now.

 

[VaultBoy101]

I read through the entire OP and feel like his arguments are very weak. There's a solution to pretty much every complaint he has about achievements, many of them discussed to death over the years and already brought up in this thread.

Furthermore, his claim that "few people actually like achievements" is demonstrably false, which I suspect is why he includes no data to support this claim other than "I don't like them, therefore most others don't either."

 

[Toadthemushroom]

Yeah but does the "thrill" of that accomplishment really dissipate because the game recognizes you did something? The argument is really flimsy

Eh, it's one point out of several which address many different types of achievements.

Personally I see his point - but it really depends on what's the "normal" for players playing these games and what they expect. Personally I like to find out something cool in a game and it not to have been assigned to a checklist. Like the writer himself said though, these types of achievements do nothing at all - which is achievements at their best (at their worst they alter player behaviour for the worse)

 

[Toadthemushroom]

As i said, some people get their kicks from the notifications. Turning them off by default would rob them from this joy, which is far from the best alternative. having the option to turn them on/off, on the other hand, can please both sides.

Yes, but like the writer says games should strive to do better than this. The kicks you get from the notifications from these sorts of regular achievements are literally the results of skinner's techniques, rather than anything cleverer in game design terms.

 

[Keinning]

Like the writer himself said though, these types of achievements do nothing at all - which is achievements at their best (at their worst they alter player behaviour for the worse)

Does it really change for the worse, though? One achievement for beating a shooter with only melee weapons, for example, force the player to rethink their strategies for the whole game and try a different playstyle. It altered their behaviour regarding the game, but would you really say it was a negative thing?

Yes, but like the writer says games should strive to do better than this. The kicks you get from the notifications from these sorts of regular achievements are literally the results of skinner's techniques, rather than anything cleverer in game design terms.

devs should strive to do a lot better in a lot of points, not just achievements. trying to remove or drastically change them instead of devs themselves putting more work into doing better achievements is a cop out

 

[Griss]

Agree with most of that. Can't stand achievements and the way they affect my game playing. They seem specifically designed to keep you playing the game long after it has stopped being fun, and that line and where it is crossed is such a hard one to recognize as a player, it always catches me.

If the game designer wants a player to try something, he should make in-game rewards that are apparent to the player.

To those who like them - what do they achieve that couldn't be achieved without an intrusive system wide implementation?

The worst part is that games are mandated to have them. Why should Sony and Microsoft have a hand in someone else's game design? That's bullshit imo.

 

[sibarraz]

Forcing the players to play under a determined set of rules imposed by the creator's vision sounds really lame

Rules should only be applied in multiplayer games

 

[VaultBoy101]

There are people that buy and play through games they find shit because it has an easy platinum trophy. Come on now.

I've bought and played games because of easy achievements over the years, and in many cases the side effect was opening me up to new experiences and new games (or in some cases entire genres) that I ended up loving, which led to me buying other games I would never have considered before.

Who loses in this situation?

 

[Phawx]

Great piece indeed. Wonder how many will actually read trhough all of the OP before posting.
People saying the author should practice self control maybe should consider he's not talking about himself but the achievement-system itself.

On Xbox - turn off "gaming and system" notifications

On Playstation - Under settings you can edit your notifications. You can disable trophies

On Steam - Disable the Steam Overlay

This is an option that can be exercised. In his Counter Strike example, he would have remained happy.

Also his argument that "Nintendo is successful without achievements" is just silly. Achievements can be fun and awesome. Achievements can be boring. Take what you want from it. Have self-control. I agree there are shitty achievements. I don't elect to obtain them. It's not a problem that requires any attention.

Either pay attention to achievements or don't. And if you want to pay attention to achievements, have the willpower to understand that you will never get 100% of all of them.

 

[Toadthemushroom]

Does it really change for the worse, though? One achievement for beating a shooter with only melee weapons, for example, force the player to rethink their strategies for the whole game and try a different playstyle. It altered their behaviour regarding the game, but would you really say it was a negative thing?

It does if that was never an intent from the developer tuning the game for a player's first playthrough. See the bit on variants. These sorts of achievements are actually the best, but they should be more controlled to prevent players from responding to external rules that don't exist *within* the game.

This is an option that can be exercised. In his Counter Strike example, he would have remained happy.

He is a game designer writing about what achievements do to player behaviour. I'm pretty sure game designers aren't going to be advising players to either micromanage their notifications or be happy/unhappy in their games, instead they should be thinking about how to incorporate external rewards in games, if needed.

 

[LordRaptor]

There are actual psychological research papers on extrinsic motivators - such as achievements - and this is well documented, so anyone going "Lol achievements don't _____" - you're wrong.

The problem with console achievements systems is that they are systemic; every game must have them, every game must have a minimum number, every game must display them in a standardised manner, every game must track them in a standardised list.

Yes, I know that people who really fucking love achievements think this is the best thing ever, and that people who do no want achievements at all can turn off notifications about the achievements that they are still getting as though thats the solution, but systemic achievements are bullshit and I can't wait for them to die off.

 

[Strings]

The point re: achievement notifcations undervaluing 'unique, dynamic moments' is bizarre to me.

Like, I typically respond in an opposite manner, going "Oh cool, got a trophy for that!" It cements the moment in my mind as opposed to taking away from it, and gets me to reflect on whatever the hell I just did for a split-second, instead of possibly glossing over it.

 

[rochellepaws]

I understand the points raised but achievements under most systems are currently the only way to provide visibility of progression and accomplishments at a glance to the user and to their friends and the community as a whole.
It's nice to be able to look at my friends trophy list and see how far they've progressed in FFXII compared to me, it's nice to have those global statistics on what proportion of people defeat an optional end game boss so I can determine the difficulty of my accomplishment, it's to be able to see my entire game catalog at a glance (physical and digital) and get a rough completion estimate for future reference without having to load saves for games I haven't played in years.
Those sort of social and statistical elements are vital to me and I wish people would look beyond viewing achievements as only a sort of checkbox addiction thing.

 

[rulerk1]

Influencing player behavior isn't always a bad thing. When I went for the Platinum in MGSV, it helped me get much more out of the game and encouraged me to utilize different play styles.

yep this is what ive been doing lately. Im not really trying to plat games but get all of the content i can out of them and these trophies are how to gauge progress. I also like going back to see a snapshot of what i did during the year.

 

[irrotational]

I'd love to see his views on Destiny and the Year 1 community wide white-whale hunt for Ghorn...

 

[Symbiotx]

Forcing the players to play under a determined set of rules imposed by the creator's vision sounds really lame

Rules should only be applied in multiplayer games

I can't help but laugh at that. Whenever achievements are brought up, do you know what the majority seem to loathe? Multiplayer achievements.

But aren't you already forced to play under a determined set of rules imposed by the creator's vision when you're playing any game? You play within their defined boundaries. This is just bonus objectives.

 

[Toadthemushroom]

There are actual psychological research papers on extrinsic motivators - such as achievements - and this is well documented, so anyone going "Lol achievements don't _____" - you're wrong.

The problem with console achievements systems is that they are systemic; every game must have them, every game must have a minimum number, every game must display them in a standardised manner, every game must track them in a standardised list.

Yes, I know that people who really fucking love achievements think this is the best thing ever, and that people who do no want achievements at all can turn off notifications about the achievements that they are still getting as though thats the solution, but systemic achievements are bullshit and I can't wait for them to die off.

Yeah, I think Valve made the right call in making them entirely optional to the developers, both in terms of whether they can implement them in the first place and how they even work.

 

[Lord of Ostia]

I read through the entire OP and feel like his arguments are very weak. There's a solution to pretty much every complaint he has about achievements, many of them discussed to death over the years and already brought up in this thread.

Furthermore, his claim that "few people actually like achievements" is demonstrably false, which I suspect is why he includes no data to support this claim other than "I don't like them, therefore most others don't either."

Gotta agree with this. His claim here is based entirely on his own bias. While he may be right that many game designers don't like achievements, he has no proof of that, and is almost assuredly wrong when he claims that the audience doesn't actually enjoy achievements. People are very vocal about how much they enjoy achievement systems. This kind of argument comes off as pretty pretentious and insulting to the audience, basically 'you think you like this thing, but I know better than you and you don't actually like it'. If the audience didn't want achievements, they could make that very clear to developers already.

 

[Toadthemushroom]

Influencing player behavior isn't always a bad thing. When I went for the Platinum in MGSV, it helped me get much more out of the game and encouraged me to utilize different play styles.

I agree. I think the author agrees too - he brings up types of achievements which influence behaviour, but should be applied in specific controlled circumstances instead of available for the player to go for at any given time.

 

[Keinning]

New Vegas had several "challenges" ingame which mostly asked for stuff that usually are achievements elsewhere (like killing x with y weapon or z type of damage). All they did was give a bit of xp though. Some of them were more creative and required more effort - like the one were you have to kill Benny with Maria (his own unique weapon) or crippling Caesar's head with a spear.

Now, how many people actually cared for them with this system? How many people bothered to do them? Which challenge was too hard and which challenge was a piece of cake everyone and their mother could get? It could be an interesting data to know, but we'll never do because they weren't achievement, just ingame fluff. In this sense, i find achievements fascinating - they can track a lot about how gamers are playing a certain game and the lengths they would go to do absurd/hard stuff to get them. Having this sort of statistics open for everyone to see (and flail around in their friends faces if they want too) isn't a bad thing in my viewpoint.

I agree. I think the author agrees too - he brings up types of achievements which influence behaviour, but should be applied in specific controlled circumstances instead of available for the player to go for at any given time.

This is kinda nonsense. So i could have a "melee kill only" achievement and then a "kill the final boss with a fruit knife" achievement, but then i would have to play the entire game two times to get them? Why? If the player enjoys chasing several achievements in a game at the same time (*sometimes even doing "achievement saves" to get them, why limit them like that for arbitrary reasons?

 

[Symbiotx]

The point re: achievement notifcations undervaluing 'unique, dynamic moments' is bizarre to me.

Like, I typically respond in an opposite manner, going "Oh cool, got a trophy for that!" It cements the moment in my mind as opposed to taking away from it, and gets me to reflect on whatever the hell I just did for a split-second, instead of possibly glossing over it.

I think this is cemented even moreso now that it screencaps when it happens. It's like hey here was a milestone you reached and here's what it looked like!

I like when achievements pop up as I do something cool. Chasing achievements is lame to me and I don't like having to look up specific things to do. I like when they just happen and remind me that I did something neat.

 

[Not Drake]

Forcing the players to play under a determined set of rules imposed by the creator's vision sounds really lame

Video games are not lame

 

[Megatron]

So look -- people expect "metagame," and I understand that. But if you have great metagame in the form of variants, great networking (such as cutting-edge, smart online leaderboards), as well as additional gameplay content, the number of people who flip out because you don't have "achievements" will be negligible. At some point, people will stop expecting them, as quickly as they learned to expect them in the first place.

Seems a bit obtuse here. He spends the article pointing out examples of poorly done achievements and says if the developers implement really well done content you dont need achievements, but it apparently doesnt occur to him that developers could just do a better job of implementing those achievements and putting more thought into them.