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).
