Support NeoGAF

[levious]

Yup, that seems dumb as hell.

Score > weirdy scaling nonsense.

I like it, gives more weight to getting 100% in a game rather than getting a couple of easy trophies from ten different games.

 

[Draft]

What is slow about them? The only games I play with trophies are Wipeout and Dead Space. Dead Space "loads" trophies each time you start the game, and that takes tops a couple seconds. Wipeout doesn't seem to do anything special, trophy wise. When browsing trophies in the XMB, they load up as fast as any other menu.

 

[Kestastrophe]

I like it, gives more weight to getting 100% in a game rather than getting a couple of easy trophies from ten different games.

That seems in contradiction to what someone posted, where Guy A 100%'d 5 games and was a level 7, while Guy B 100%'d 1 game and was a level 5. Did I miss something?

 

[AndyD]

I think the levels scale, much like an RPG.

I.E., higher levels require more "experience" to level.

I'm at level 5, have been for quite some time... and bronzes are only counting for 1% now.

I have a friend on my list who's level 7, and he's 100%'d about 5 games, whereas I've only 100%'d one (Uncharted). So yah... I'm fairly sure it scales but I can't say for certain.

This is weird indeed. But at the same time, I guess they did not want people to get to crazy levels like 20-30 in a dozen games, while a new gamer is at 1 which would make them feel like they will never catch up.

I hope its a curve that reaches a plateau. In other words, it scales up to level 5, then its flat. So you get to 5 quickly at first (make you feel good), then it becomes a flat ranking system with even gains necessary so someone at lvl 9 and someone at level 10, 11, 12 know where they stand relative to each other. Otherwise if its steeper and steeper everytime, I dont see anyone ever getting over 10-11.

That seems in contradiction to what someone posted, where Guy A 100%'d 5 games and was a level 7, while Guy B 100%'d 1 game and was a level 5. Did I miss something?

Its not just about 100%ing. Getting 70-80-90% in a handful of games is often much easier than 100%ing 1 or 2 that may have one or two "crazy" trophies. Beat Zico in Wipeout comes to mind...

 

[Revolutionary]

That seems in contradiction to what someone posted, where Guy A 100%'d 5 games and was a level 7, while Guy B 100%'d 1 game and was a level 5. Did I miss something?

Yeah, I didn't mention that all the other games I've gotten trophies for are around 50-80%. lol

As for the level scaling thing being "dumb" (whoever said it)... that's just how an RPG works. lol

 

[Facism]

question about locked saves:

Are they locked to the system, or to the User/PSN IDs?

To hell with trophies if its the former.

 

[levious]

That seems in contradiction to what someone posted, where Guy A 100%'d 5 games and was a level 7, while Guy B 100%'d 1 game and was a level 5. Did I miss something?

I wasn't commenting on the scaling, sorry, just the weight that is given to bronze versus silver versus gold. Probably didn't understand what was being said in the first place.

 

[Artofwar420]

I don't agree with the first point, but I do agree with the second one, however it HAS gotten faster with the latest patch.

 

[AndyD]

question about locked saves:

Are they locked to the system, or to the User/PSN IDs?

To hell with trophies if its the former.

To the user ID. So you can backup and restore to a different system. Only 1 game that I know of is locked to the system, and that is Bowling... and I am not sure why.

And the values were determined by someone as to Bronze vs Silver, gold... Ill try to find it, it was something like 5:1, 4:1, 3:1, 2:1? maybe...

 

[linsivvi]

The trophy system came straight out of Kongregate.com, except that in Kongregate they tell you how many points you need for the next level, and each badge has a fixed point value (easy = 5, medium = 15, hard = 30, impossible = 60).

 

[krypt0nian]

I don't agree with the first point, but I do agree with the second one, however it HAS gotten faster with the latest patch.

This. OP has no clue in the first point.

 

[Facism]

To the user ID. So you can backup and restore to a different system. Only 1 game that I know of is locked to the system, and that is Bowling... and I am not sure why.

And the values were determined by someone as to Bronze vs Silver, gold... Ill try to find it, it was something like 5:1, 4:1, 3:1, 2:1? maybe...

good, good.

 

[btkadams]

who really gives a shit about trophies/achievements. the novelty wore off for me very fast.

 

[TeTr1C]

The only question I have is WHY ARENT MORE GAMES USING TROPHIES....WTF!!??!

 

[levious]

The only question I have is WHY ARENT MORE GAMES USING TROPHIES....WTF!!??!

bowling getting an update really raises my hopes for future updates to old PSN games.

 

[McBradders]

Yeah, I didn't mention that all the other games I've gotten trophies for are around 50-80%. lol

As for the level scaling thing being "dumb" (whoever said it)... that's just how an RPG works. lol

THAT WAS ME.

The problem is that because it scales it carries less value instantly because the higher you get the more games you have to score trophies in to get higher. At least with a gamerscore I immediatley know how much I'm behind and that gives me greater impetus to try and catch up.

The difference between 6000 and 7000 gamerscore is obvious (one retail title) whereas the difference between level 6 and 7 on PlayStation could, potentially, feel insurmountable which, in my mind, makes it kinda worthless outside of a game by game basis.

 

[AndyD]

The trophy system came straight out of Kongregate.com, except that in Kongregate they tell you how many points you need for the next level, and each badge has a fixed point value (easy = 5, medium = 15, hard = 30, impossible = 60).

These are that way as well. Each developer gets a "point budget" that they can allocate among their types of trophies at will (they can break up 100 points in 1 platinum and 3 golds or 1 platinum and 50 bronzes, or 100 bronzes - my math is not correct but you get the idea). PSN games are worth less, expansions give you additional points over the original game.

 

[BoilersFan23]

The only question I have is WHY ARENT MORE GAMES USING TROPHIES....WTF!!??!

2009 it's mandatory. Right now they are encouraging developers to use them, but it's not in the contract to include them.

The reason trophies have to synch is because your PS3 console login and PSN-account are two different things in a way. Although they may tie together, when I receive trophies while being offline, the link with my PS3 login (because I'm getting trophies). Once I sign onto PSN, the trophies synch with my PSN account. Due to their being separate accounts, that's why they don't synch right away, but I have NO problems with this.

As for trophies loading slow, it only may be slow in game, but a lot of that has to do with the PS3 OS footprint limitations in a way (firmware 2.5 helped a bit).

I love trophies because I feel like I'm playing an RPG. I'm wanting to gain more trophies to get to the next level. It's like an RPG, the higher level you get, the harder it gets to go to the next level.

 

[AndyD]

THAT WAS ME.

The problem is that because it scales it carries less value instantly because the higher you get the more games you have to score trophies in to get higher. At least with a gamerscore I immediatley know how much I'm behind and that gives me greater impetus to try and catch up.

The difference between 6000 and 7000 gamerscore is obvious (one retail title) whereas the difference between level 6 and 7 on PlayStation could, potentially, feel insurmountable which, in my mind, makes it kinda worthless outside of a game by game basis.

The idea was always not to compare overall scores, but game by game.

Sony have said they didn't want the focus on the overall level. There are also rumblings of sub scores by genre. So if you want to compare, then compare sports games vs sports games or FPSes vs FPSes, because with the Gamerscore, a 1000 points are vastly harder to earn in some games than others (theres a few infamous ones that take 10-15 minutes to get all the points, and some that are brutal) and an overall score means nothing in the grand scheme. And at the same time this may mean you will whip him at Halo even though your own score is 1000 for only playing Halo...

So if you want to know whether that guy you are about to challenge in a game of Madden or Halo or Bowling is going to be better than you, dont look at his overall score, look at his trophies/achievements in that game, or that genre... If he is awesome at Madden 06, 07, 08, 09 then you know he may well hand you your ass regardless of whether his overall Gamerscore is 4000 since all he has played were those 4 games. A genre can help because you can then group together Maddens, NCAA Football games, NFL Blitzes and so forth, as they are all football games.

 

[linsivvi]

These are that way as well. Each developer gets a "point budget" that they can allocate among their types of trophies at will (they can break up 100 points in 1 platinum and 3 golds or 1 platinum and 50 bronzes, or 100 bronzes - my math is not correct but you get the idea). PSN games are worth less, expansions give you additional points over the original game.

I know, that's why I said it's almost exactly a copy of Kongregate, except that Sony doesn't tell you how many more points you need for the next level.

 

[McBradders]

The idea was always not to compare overall scores, but game by game.

Sony have said they didn't want the focus on the overall level. There are also rumblings of sub scores by genre. So if you want to compare, then compare sports games vs sports games or FPSes vs FPSes, because with the Gamerscore, a 1000 points are vastly harder to earn in some games than others (theres a few infamous ones that take 10-15 minutes to get all the points, and some that are brutal) and an overall score means nothing in the grand scheme.

So if you want to know whether that guy you are about to challenge in a game of Madden or Halo or Bowling is going to be better than you, dont look at his overall score, look at his trophies/achievements in that game, or that genre... If he is awesome at Madden 06, 07, 08, 09 then you know he may well hand you your ass regardless of whether his overall Gamerscore is 4000 since all he has played were those 4 games. A genre can help because you can then group together Maddens, NCAA Football games, NFL Blitzes and so forth, as they are all football games.

That's better, but... I think score is a better aggregator and therefore incentive. We pretty much universally lament achievement whores buying shite like Avatar: The Last Airbender, but how much of the 360's success and attach rate is due to the Gamerscore system?

 

[AndyD]

That's better, but... I think score is a better aggregator and therefore incentive. We pretty much universally lament achievement whores buying shite like Avatar: The Last Airbender, but how much of the 360's success and attach rate is due to the Gamerscore system?

Well that's why you have an overall score. That gets harder the more you play it... :lol

Whether its level 7 on PSN or 30k gamerscore is a matter of semantics. In a few months when every new game has trophies, and the patterns will have been figured out we will look at it differently.

If I told you now that you need 1 100% game for level 1, then 2, then 3 and so forth... then you would know that your level 8 is 9 full games behind your friend's level 9. And he is a whopping 21 full games behind his friend at level 11. If you know the algorithm, you can put yourself in a relative position against him. In a few months we will know the algorithm, and then we can compare ourselves to our friends better.

I still feel the system is a plateau where after the first 5 quick levels or so it levels out to a flat gain, so you will always know that say 3 or 5 or 20 full 100% games are worth a level.

 

[McBradders]

Well that's why you have an overall score. That gets harder the more you play it... :lol

Whether its level 7 on PSN or 30k gamerscore is a matter of semantics. In a few months when every new game has trophies, and the patterns will have been figured out we will look at it differently.

If I told you now that you need 1 100% game for level 1, then 2, then 3 and so forth... then you would know that your level 8 is 9 full games behind your friend's level 9. And he is a whopping 21 full games behind his friend at level 11. If you know the algorithm, you can put yourself in a relative position against him. In a few months we will know the algorithm, and then we can compare ourselves to our friends better.

I still feel the system is a plateau where after the first 5 quick levels or so it levels out to a flat gain, so you will always know that say 3 or 5 or 20 full 100% games are worth a level.

But that's just it, on the surface level I'm not moving for those 3, 5 or 20 games. On the surface that bar is moving in tiny, tiny incriments. At least with a score, when I get 100 points, my score immediately reflects that. It's much more satisfying that sitting there looking at that bar and wondering how much, if at all, its moved.

 

[Gbeav]

Broken, no. I don't see how waiting 2 seconds for them them load is slow :lol

 

[AndyD]

But that's just it, on the surface level I'm not moving for those 3, 5 or 20 games. On the surface that bar is moving in tiny, tiny incriments. At least with a score, when I get 100 points, my score immediately reflects that. It's much more satisfying that sitting there looking at that bar and wondering how much, if at all, its moved.

There's a percentage number right now... and it moves at least 1% for a bronze... I am not sure what you mean. And it all goes to the whole point of it not being emphasized as an overall score... regardless of how addictive it may be. Score whores will fawn over 100 points for an achievement the same way they do for a 1% bar move in level 7. Their goal is to get it high and fast and in between steps are worthless.

 

[Woo-Fu]

The people who care this much about trophies/achievements are more broken than either system could ever be.

 

[NinjaFridge]

who really gives a shit about trophies/achievements. the novelty wore off for me very fast.

I prefer game specific rewards within the game, like the treasures in Uncharted. They don't do much either but i'd rather get them than go after Trophies or achievements.

 

[Ferrio]

Trophies/achievements should die in a fire.

 

[decon]

I really like trophies. Yes the gamercard is just pretty slow, and so is the comparing part but overall I like them more than points on 360. Maybe it's because I was there when it all started, which I didn't with points. I also like th leveling stuff and the different catagories of trophies. I find the platinium trophy a bit dumb though.

This applies to points to, but it gives me reason to be stuff in my games that I usally won't do. They extend the life of games in my opinion.

You guys bitching about points and trohpies, what's the big deal? It's not like you HAVE to get them. It can't be that much of a deal now can it?

I prefer game specific rewards within the game, like the treasures in Uncharted. They don't do much either but i'd rather get them than go after Trophies or achievement.

I agree with this. Hopefully devs will get to a point where you get like three brown trohpies and then that unlocks something.

 

[AndyD]

I find the platinium trophy a bit dumb though.

This. I wish the platinum trophy was not "get all other trophies" but what the hardest gold is now, stuff like "beat the game on hardest...".