You mean, people like it because they have the choice. They have the choice to obtain them or not; those who are not interested at all can desactivated those.

I find your símile to be very strange, but since we're at it, it's completely wrong. If Romans didn't like their wine, they could always resort to Greek or Germania's wine, which was higly prized. Using your same example, if Xbox/Playstation players don't like their achievements/trophy, they can always resort to disable them on the options.

If you're on Nintendo's consoles, you're stuck on the "no achievement" option, so there's really no choice to be made there; unless the software itself comes included with an achievement package of its own, like Kit Icarus.

Which was equally crappy. I have eaten and drunk many ancient food and drinks. They didn't have the technology or knowhow to produce decent wine (by today's standards).

I'll make a different analogy: I rather have no Metroid games than average Metroid games. I don't want a choice in this case. Do something amazing or don't do it at all.

The question is, how can you gauge average Metroid games if there's no Metroid games at all? The problem is that you're trying to draw a comparison out of nowhere.

Using your same analogy: let's say MS/Sony came up with these ideas; Metroid:Achievement and Metroid:Trophy. How can you say "I don't want a choice because they're average" if they are the designers themselves? They're average in regards to what?

You could either say:

· Well, I'm not interested in what they have to offer.

· Nintendo should strive to make Metroid:Accomplishment.

Saying those two Metroids are "average" when there's nothing to compare them with, except with themselves, is the point I'm trying to get at. It's not the idea or the implementation that is bad. It is you that do not like the concept at all.

I like the concept, read my earlier post where I explained what Nintendo should do in my opinion.

You explained what Nintendo should do, and yet you also pointed out that achievement/trophies are average; this second part is the one I'm stressing out. They are not average; they're the concept and execution in themselves. You dislike that, you dislike the concept because the concept itself is the foundation to what we have. What you want of Nintendo has no correlation of you incorrectly calling "generic trash" at something that has never done before on the levels OP explains and everyone else that likes the achievement/trophy system.

So I am personally not an Xbox or Playstation fanboy. I like BOTH evenly. Both have their pros and cons. However, there is always one thing about them that I never understood.

Achievements

Now wait before you say something about it.

I always hear complaints about Nintendo's consoles not having achievements. Sure I guess it's nice to show people what you have earned but aren't there already achievements in the games? Most games have them anyway. Plus, achievements take up memory space. Not a lot at first but once you get a ton, they add up. 

Achievements always make my OCD trigger ESPECIALLY if others can see them and I really do not like that. Lol

So what is your opinion on achievements? Do you like them? Should Nintendo consider them as well? Do you think it is dumb to have an in game achievement system and out of game system?

They obviously don't follow the same philosophy I have. The idea isn't bad, but the implementation is.

How are any of them generic. I'll barely give you Sony since they just changed achievements into trophies. But ms is the one who created the idea of having them across the board so it can't be generic. I agree it can be improved but not generic. Heck even Sony's isn't when I think about it. I love their leveling idea. I just don't like how my achievements (for lack of a better word) on a Sony console would be split into gold trophy, platinum, silver and bronze (I know they're not in order).