Would you play a Game without Trophies?

[blackops]

loves2splooge said:

Achievements and trophies are cool but I don't understand why they are taken so seriously when there isn't much of a reward for collecting them. Unless you're striving to achieve the highest trophy counts, what's the point? (if so, you better not be playing anything but ps3 games with trophy support. That means no 360 games since that cuts into your trophy hunting time. No Wii, no DS, no PSP, no PC, no PS2, etc.) And you can forget about spending your free time on anything but achievement hunting if you truly want to the biggest.) I suppose it has merit when you're competing with your circle of friends in RL (since you're more likely to beat them) but not every platinum trophy is equal, not every gold trophy is equal, etc. (this is also why I strongly disagree that trophies are more effective than achievements, especially when you can always look at completion ratios, at telling you who the better gamer is. Both systems are flawed) Just because you have a higher count of trophies doesn't mean you're a better gamer. Especially if you own more trophy support games than the buddy that you are comparing the size of your uhhh e-trophy case with.

Once you turn gaming into a full-blown competition, you're sucking the fun out of the hobby. This is why hardcore gamers, the most competitive gamers, seem to be the most miserable gamers out there and complain the most about the state of gaming. Anything that dilutes the exclusivity and competitiveness of their hobby makes them violently angry. Casual gamers haven't forgot what gaming is all about (FUN) and neither has Nintendo (Ps360 is still fun but often times you'll find that lots of game designers forget that their so-called "hardcore games" are supposed to be fun.

I already said no comparison of TROPHIES and ACHIEVEMENTS. Or else u gona start a fanboy war. Let's stick to talking about only trophies, thanks. And you do have a valid point in your second paragraph.