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

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - What is your Gamerscore?

twesterm on 17 October 2007
ItsaMii said:
twesterm said:
ItsaMii said:
What does gamerscore mean in quantitative terms? I mean how much is too much? What is average, what is poor? Correct if I am wrong, but I remember reading that you could get up to 1000 out of each game. How would my beaten games list (check my sig) translate into gamerscore?

Depending on the game, just beating a game usually gets you somewhere around 400-500 points. Some games give more for beating the game like Godzilla while others give you almost nothing for the single player.

If a game is really heavy multiplayer, they usually put most of their achievements in multiplayer. Gears split it pretty even but strangely enough Halo 3 made just about all 1000 points available through the campaign.

Everything else is received by doing random things like killing so many creatures with one engery ball in HL2: Episode 1, or collecting so many agility orbs in Crackdown, or completing sidequest.

Your 484 games beaten really depends on the games and how complete you were. Also, if they were a Live type game or a classic game like Pac-Man, Doom, Contra, or Double Dragon, those games only get 200-250 points instead of 1000. Getting all points on most games is actually pretty hard. There are a handful of games that are really easy to get 800+ points, but the rest are either really hard or are going to take A LOT of time.

Achievements sound pretty silly and worthless, and they are, but they truly are one of the most genius things the 360 did. Live is amazing, the balance of price and power is great, but achievements is what makes the console really shine. You can quickly see how you are compared to your friends, you see what games they have, and you can compare points with friends super easy.


Thanks dude. That helped a lot. It sounds interesting. But getting 250 for beating Ninja Gaiden (it is just a example) and 1000 for finishing a EA game for kids is bullshit. I remember reading a article where gamers got pissed with achievements like:

1) die in easy 3 times
2) log on Live
3) kill someone in a match from a mile away with shotgun (ruining team experience)

I can understand that winning more points from a hard game would piss off companies and publishers. The problem is that raw score do not tell apart "Godzillas" and easy games from "reach level 99" or "collect all the 1200 orbs". This is not bullying. I think that this score system is amazing and I envy it. I just wish they could tell apart the smart asses from the great player.


Yeah, Ninja Gaiden would be a 250 point game. Also, most of those 250 points games are harder to get just 100 points than getting 600 points on a 1000 point game. It's pretty ridiculous how hard it is to get achievements on a lot of the Live games.

As for the quality of the points, you can always see a list of every game that person has ever played (even if they didn't get any achievements). No hiding DOA Beach Volleyball and unlocking all the swimsuits for you (it's a little creep knowing that everyone can see everything you've played and how thoroughly).



 

Around the Network
ItsaMii on 17 October 2007

@Twesterm
"No hiding DOA Beach Volleyball and unlocking all the swimsuits for you (it's a little creep knowing that everyone can see everything you've played and how thoroughly)."


Imagine that in the Snes day: Cho Aniki 1000/1000
beat the game - 500
make 10 gay friends in Live - 200
unlock cowboy and policeman outfits - 300



Satan said:

"You are for ever angry, all you care about is intelligence, but I repeat again that I would give away all this superstellar life, all the ranks and honours, simply to be transformed into the soul of a merchant's wife weighing eighteen stone and set candles at God's shrine."

Nairu on 17 October 2007

Mine isnt worth talking about, but the guy who sits next to me at work has 99043 hehe. Hes a bit of a 360 fanatic.



Games i'm currently playing:

mrstickball on 17 October 2007

Actually, earlier this year, Old Spice had a reward program for gamerscore - you needed to increase your gamerscore by 4,000pts in a month (or less, I can't remember). Each person that registered at Xbox.com and did that got a free copy of Fusion Frenzy 2, a free XBLA game (Contra), and something else that was like $15-20. Either a T-Shirt or 1600 MS points. I can't remember.

So there are reasons for it outside of insane bragging rights.

My score is just a few points shy of 34,000. I gotta re-do my card to make sure its working.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

czott on 17 October 2007

I have  2985 from 6 games, about to tip into 3000+ by beating Halo 3 on Legendary (I'm on the last act). I know my sig shows 3,985 but 1,000 of that is from Enchanted Arms which was beaten by somebody else on my profile but I haven't played it.

I don't care about achievements in the sense that I have more than somebody or they have more than me, I just really like them because it gives me goals to complete in games, and that extends the game's life for me. If there were no achievements, I would beat a game and probably call it a day because I wouldn't really have anything else to do.  The achievements are addtional challenges to complete and I get a sense of accomplishment (game-wise) from it.



 

 

http://www.fortress-forever.com/ Fortress Forever is out now!

Around the Network
scotland yard on 18 October 2007
ItsaMii said:
twesterm said:
ItsaMii said:
...

...

Thanks dude. That helped a lot. It sounds interesting. But getting 250 for beating Ninja Gaiden (it is just a example) and 1000 for finishing a EA game for kids is bullshit. I remember reading a article where gamers got pissed with achievements like:

1) die in easy 3 times
2) log on Live
3) kill someone in a match from a mile away with shotgun (ruining team experience)

I can understand that winning more points from a hard game would piss off companies and publishers. The problem is that raw score do not tell apart "Godzillas" and easy games from "reach level 99" or "collect all the 1200 orbs". This is not bullying. I think that this score system is amazing and I envy it. I just wish they could tell apart the smart asses from the great player.

Another thing I could not understand was why the users scores looks so low. Is it so hard to get points (considering that you may get up to 1000/game) or VG users are just average players? That is why I asked about my 400 games in games in points. Maybe people just play the games they like and ignore extras.


Well, everyone can read everyone else's achievements, so it does end up separating good players from poor ones. If someone is bragging about their 10000 point score, you can investigate exactly what achievements they have. 

And most scores are so low because most games are extremely difficult to score 1000 points on. For example, there's an achievement in Gears of War that is worth a measly 50 points, but it requires you to kill 10,000 people in ranked online matches. GRAW has the same achievement, only there it's worth only 24 points. GRAW also has an achievement that requires you to be ranked number 1 in the world in online multiplayer for the game -- and it's only worth 40 points.

Also, just beating the game rarely gives you 500 points. You would have to beat it on every difficulty setting... you usually can't just run through on easy and expect achievements (easy and normal modes usually have gimped -- if any -- achievements).

Some developers even get clever with achievements -- there are achievements that you get through an 'infection' in online play. What happens is that all the developers of a game have this particular achievement and they will play their own game in online multiplayer and whoever they play against will receive that achievement, too. From there, anyone who plays against that player will receive the achievement and be able to 'spread' it themselves.

Having 1000/1000 for any game (except TMNT and Fantastic Four) is something to be proud of. 



mrstickball on 19 October 2007

Scotland - add 50% of every launch-to-Febuary game to that list.

College Hoops, NHL 2k6, NBA Live, NBA 2k6 all were jokes for getting high scores on.

Now, if you want a game that means alot by maxing achievements, try Blue Dragon or Ridge Racer 6.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Goddbless on 19 October 2007
scotland yard said:
ItsaMii said:
twesterm said:
ItsaMii said:
...

...

Thanks dude. That helped a lot. It sounds interesting. But getting 250 for beating Ninja Gaiden (it is just a example) and 1000 for finishing a EA game for kids is bullshit. I remember reading a article where gamers got pissed with achievements like:

1) die in easy 3 times
2) log on Live
3) kill someone in a match from a mile away with shotgun (ruining team experience)

I can understand that winning more points from a hard game would piss off companies and publishers. The problem is that raw score do not tell apart "Godzillas" and easy games from "reach level 99" or "collect all the 1200 orbs". This is not bullying. I think that this score system is amazing and I envy it. I just wish they could tell apart the smart asses from the great player.

Another thing I could not understand was why the users scores looks so low. Is it so hard to get points (considering that you may get up to 1000/game) or VG users are just average players? That is why I asked about my 400 games in games in points. Maybe people just play the games they like and ignore extras.


Well, everyone can read everyone else's achievements, so it does end up separating good players from poor ones. If someone is bragging about their 10000 point score, you can investigate exactly what achievements they have.

And most scores are so low because most games are extremely difficult to score 1000 points on. For example, there's an achievement in Gears of War that is worth a measly 50 points, but it requires you to kill 10,000 people in ranked online matches. GRAW has the same achievement, only there it's worth only 24 points. GRAW also has an achievement that requires you to be ranked number 1 in the world in online multiplayer for the game -- and it's only worth 40 points.

Also, just beating the game rarely gives you 500 points. You would have to beat it on every difficulty setting... you usually can't just run through on easy and expect achievements (easy and normal modes usually have gimped -- if any -- achievements).

Some developers even get clever with achievements -- there are achievements that you get through an 'infection' in online play. What happens is that all the developers of a game have this particular achievement and they will play their own game in online multiplayer and whoever they play against will receive that achievement, too. From there, anyone who plays against that player will receive the achievement and be able to 'spread' it themselves.

Having 1000/1000 for any game (except TMNT and Fantastic Four) is something to be proud of.

 

Let's not forget King Kong. All you have to do is end the game and you gain 1000 points along the way. I see mrstickball has me beat so I'm off to rent Cars & TMNT! lol j/k. 

I know the thing I'm most proud of is my 1000/1000 in Call of Duty 2! 



Love the product, not the company. They love your money, not you.

-TheRealMafoo

gamer9851 on 19 October 2007

21,210 in in 16 months.
And I have good chance to break the 25,000 bar before christmas !!!!!



Gamertag : Dark Red Icarus  

Gamerscore : 29000!!!! still growing

PSN ID : Gamer9851

Now Playing : Soul Calibur 4 and World of Warcraft

Adam540 on 19 October 2007

Close to 9000 I believe. Should jump a bit this winter as I get more games.



Currently Playing:

Xbox 360 - Rock Band, NHL 08, Skate, Halo 3, Mass Effect

Wii - Mario Galaxy