the_dengle said:
Yes, it actually is. Tell me that the 360 achievement system wouldn't be "unified" if one single 360 game didn't implement achievements. You keep saying that mandatory achievements don't hurt anyone, but they do. They force developers to spend time and resources implementing features they may not have envisioned for their game. Developers should be allowed to make the game they want to make, not be forced to follow certain arbitrary guidelines for their content. |
What actually are the rules MS/Sony have for implementing "achievements"? Does anyone know? I mean if each game need to have a minimum of (for example) 50 then that's where things start getting ridiculous, especially for single player games where you end up with a bunch of meaningless sentances that basically tell you what you have just done.
@Euphoria.. To continue with the Xenoblade example... why is having an achievement for "all characters to lvl.20" (and others of that vein... such as "X number of kills") better than an actual stat table that tells you what levels your characters are on, or how many kills/points/wins etc. As for the other examples, what difference does it make if I get told I have just defeated a boss... I know what i've just done. The final two sound like more significant achievements (and I am using the proper meaning of that word rather than the achievement system we are talking about) and should be rewarded with something other than a crappy bit of text... ie a new weapon or character... or perhaps an art gallery. Something more substantial than "well done, you have just done what you just did".
