By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
 

Achievements, should they stay or go?

Yes 31 29.25%
 
No 13 12.26%
 
Only Sony/Micro should keep them 8 7.55%
 
Nintendo should consider getting them 53 50.00%
 
Total:105

Nintendo should make their stamps their achievement system.



Around the Network
Barozi said:

From what I've seen Steam achievements are just used in a highly inflationary way, losing the meaning of doing them. (at least to me)
It's like they allow the devs to do them in whatever way they like.

True, but there are also many Xbox and PlayStation games with easy achievements and others with barely none achievements on a normal playthrough... the e-penis summary on Xbox or PSN has not much more meaning (besides telling how much time someone spends on its favorite system). ;)

I don't care much about the achievement-summary but i like to collect achievements in my favorite games as long as they are fun (no stupid grinding stuff). Some other people waste their time on shitty games because they have easy achievements... and if they are happy with that: good for them. Everyone has different preferences.



Early on they seemed to me that for most people they exist solely for bragging-right. I don't mind them, it is nice to have something that shows that you completed the game even if you lose your savefiles, but i wouldn't be one of those huge dickhead morons who refuse to play a game because it doesn't have them. Games should be played because you want to entertain yourself, not so you can brag to your friends that you killed 100 people with a sidearm in Uncharted. That isn't an achievement in my opinion, that is just a statistic



Barozi said:
Conina said:
Ka-pi96 said:
They are incredibly important! The lack of achievements is the main reason I play little to no Nintendo and PC (steam achievements don't count) games.

Please elaborate why Steam achievements (or other systems with achievements like UPlay,iOS game center, Google play game services or Amazon Game circle) "don't count"?

They are working the same way as Xbox achievements and PlayStation trophies. You can track your game progress with them. You can share and compare them with friends. It can be an incentive to get the most out of a good game you like or to try different strategies.

From what I've seen Steam achievements are just used in a highly inflationary way, losing the meaning of doing them. (at least to me)
It's like they allow the devs to do them in whatever way they like.

Tales of Maj'Eyal has almost 1400 achievements
Team Fortress 2 over 500
Age of Empires 2 HD ~250
etc.

http://astats.astats.nl/astats/Steam_Games.php?DisplayType=Achievements

when I started TF2 it had maybe 70 or so. There's really no point in trying to get them when there can be weekly updates adding new achievements. Not good for completionists.

Also no really unified score system. Sony has levels and specific kind of trophies that add to the progress depending on their difficulty within the game. Now 360/X1 uses the same distribution with Gamerscore and sure there are some terribly easy-to-add-Gamerscore games that are able to skew the meaning of a high score/level, but those are few.

My ranking:
1. MS Achievements
2. Sony Trophies
3. Steam Achievements

MS being at the top for the only reason that they started it with the 360 and thus made ALL games compatible with it. Other than that there are pretty much the same as trophies.


steam cant unify the scores.  then some archievements in some games musst have  more worth than the entire archivements of other game series...

 

 

 

 

 

 



I used to be completely indifferent to them before I bought a ps3. Then soon after I got one, I ignored them for a while, then I became addicted to them and now, I really like them but don't feel they're worth my time. I only try to get them if I really like a game. They remind me that there are areas I missed, parts I haven't explored, etc.

I see them as a huge plus, but also a bit of minus, as they can get incredibly addictive and sometimes ruin the experience (focusing too much on them instead of the actual game).

Got a platinum on Infamous: First Light and it felt pretty awesome.



Around the Network
Ka-pi96 said:
They are incredibly important! The lack of achievements is the main reason I play little to no Nintendo and PC (steam achievements don't count) games.

If either Microsoft or Sony were to get rid of them then I would never play another game on their consoles!

Lmao, are you for real? I'm glad Nintendo doesn't have this because of people like you who only play games for achievements.



Ka-pi96 said:

I am for real. I don't play games only for achievements though, they are just the icing on the cake. I prefer cakes with icing to cakes with no icing, so yeah...

Why are you glad about less people wanting to play Nintendo games though?

Because I don't want Nintendo to make games that cater to people like you. I don't want 3 consoles that are effectively the same.



I think they are very useless and I don´t care.



Ka-pi96 said:

How would that be making games that specifically cater to certain people though? It would just be an addition to their existing games and providing they had all the options to hide or even turn them off then there would be people that wouldn't even notice the difference.

If you really believe this would attract PS/XBOX gamers Nintendo would also need to make games that suit their needs. No thank you.



I don't mind them. They add replay value for those that enjoy collecting them, and are usually pretty easy to ignore if you don't want to bother. That said, i can understand why certain groups of people might find them irritating.

For me personally though, i only really bother with them if it's a game i'm really enjoying (i do the same thing with internal game achievements, like the skill points in R&C). Otherwise i don't pay any attention to them.