| JoHnNyFr3sC0 said: @Mr. sickVisionz Wow I just realized what you said was true lol...like in Resistance 2 when they give you trophies for defeating seperate Bosses...Um isnt that suppose to occur for you to beat the game? lol |
It's like the developers are saying, "theres a high number of people who buy games soley to read the manual and stare at the menu screen. We use trophies/achievements to get these people to actually hit the start button and play." LOL, playing a game that you buy isn't an achievement in my book.
Beating a game on the hardest setting, ok thats worthwhile. But so much other stuff is like... its not achievements to me. I understand that some people want a really high gamerscore and beg for achievements just for playing a game, but I think more developers shouldn't be afraid to embrace zero point achievements or not feel the need to make it where you can unlock 50%+ of the max amount on a regular playthrough.
If I had a Star Wars game and one of the achivements was like, "beat the game without using force powers on an enemy" or "beat the game only using force powers"... i'd be way more motivated to do that than I would because I saw an achievement for working your way through the story.
People should want to replay your game because its fun. Achievements should be like the icing on the cake, but really the game should be fun enough that you want to replay it anyways. I shake my head a little bit when people say stuff like achievements add replay value. Is the game so bad that you'd never play it again if you couldn't get 10 more points on your gamerscore?
