Sony Copied Microsoft, But Where Is The Backlash?

Slimebeast

Currently Offline

75,594

20941 posts since 06/06/07

Recent Badges:

Pon Received 100 wall post comments on gamrConnect.
Spreading the Disease Score a total of 50 games in your collection.
Hit And Run 15 comments posted on VGChartz news articles.
We're Still Watching You Received 50,000 profile views.
Open For Business Earned 10 badges.
3 Years Has been a VGChartz member for over 3 years.

Currently Playing:

The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (PS3)
Dark Souls (PS3)
The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim (PS3)
Demon's Souls (PS3)

Slimebeast on 11 April 2009

Hapimeses said:

Slimebeast said:

Hapimeses said:

Slimebeast said:
MS invented achievements, because the point is that it's a unified system that works through all games. That's far different than just having a "high score" on individual games like in the days of the great coin-op Arcades.

The point you seem to be making has already been made several times in this thread. MS created a unified leader-board founded upon various challenges in all the games on their platform. That was pretty unique. It deserves attention. It rocks. Others copied it because it was a good idea. Some platforms were slammed for copying (Sony, contrary to the OP's claims), some were not (Steam; well, not much), but none of that really matters. What matters is that it was a good adaption of an old idea, and it worked well.

However, to say 'MS invented acheivements' isn't true. It would be better to say that MS invented the universal Gamerscore. Many games had achievements in various forms before MS so effectively added Gamerscore to the mix.

I'd say MS still invented achievements because when you say 'achievements' ppl r thinking of that universal point system that works towards a larger goal, and that was a unique invention that will stay in gaming for all time.

Achievements dramatically changed the way so many gamers play their games, so in hindsight it will be one of the really huge things to be remembered from this gen.

(but I'm in no way critizicing Sony for copying, I just say give credit where credit is due)

I kinda agree with this. MS certainly brought the universal Achievement system into place and unified it with the Gamerscore, and it worked. Bloody well, if I do say so myself. However, I can't find it in myself to say MS invented Achievements, because that wouldn't be true -- as I said before, many games had goals and rewards of various types before MS came along, and some were pretty much identical to Achievements.

It was the universal application of Achievements that made the difference, and the Gamerscore. Sure, neither 'achievements' nor 'high scores' were unique ideas, but their universal application certainly was. It really, really worked, and did dramatically change how many people played their games (me included).

So, I wouldn't use your 'invented' line so readily, but I do fully support the thought behind it. Microsoft brought Achievements to the masses, and it worked. Sony (and others), realising they were losing out on several levels, moved in and copied the system (with only a few adaptions).

I agree with you. I just tend to use more sweeping language. U defined it more correctly.

Videogirl said:

Slimebeast said:

I'd say MS still invented achievements because when you say 'achievements' ppl r thinking of that universal point system that works towards a larger goal, and that was a unique invention that will stay in gaming for all time.

Achievements dramatically changed the way so many gamers play their games, so in hindsight it will be one of the really huge things to be remembered from this gen.

(but I'm in no way critizicing Sony for copying, I just say give credit where credit is due)

Yeah for the worst IMHO. Some people give too much credit to achievments and trophies and disregard completely the quality of a title as long as they can get a larger e-penis thanks to it. It's truly pitifull. Don't get me wrong I like online play and I'm all for competition in games, but this is not competition it's just vaunt.

Yeah, true. Achievements mean nothing for me personally (they would if I was younger, but I guess I'm too old and tired nowadays), and also I think they kinda in the same way like leveling and item-hunting in a MMO tend to act like a drug, doing more harm than good overall.

Hapimeses

Currently Offline

10,648

1180 posts since 20/02/08

Recent Badges:

A Civilized Man Managed to avoid being banned for 5 years.
Ride Into the Sunset Managed to avoid being banned for 3 months.
Escape Artist Managed to avoid being banned for 1 month.
Making Friends 10 friends on gamrConnect.
'Ello Princess! Awarded for signing up.
50 in One Add a total of 50 games to your collection.

Hapimeses on 11 April 2009

Videogirl said:

Slimebeast said:

I'd say MS still invented achievements because when you say 'achievements' ppl r thinking of that universal point system that works towards a larger goal, and that was a unique invention that will stay in gaming for all time.

Achievements dramatically changed the way so many gamers play their games, so in hindsight it will be one of the really huge things to be remembered from this gen.

(but I'm in no way critizicing Sony for copying, I just say give credit where credit is due)

Yeah for the worst IMHO. Some people give too much credit to achievments and trophies and disregard completely the quality of a title as long as they can get a larger e-penis thanks to it. It's truly pitifull. Don't get me wrong I like online play and I'm all for competition in games, but this is not competition it's just vaunt.

I think that's unfair.

Achievements et al have changed how many play in a good way (and bad, but I'm only tackling the good here to respond to your point). Games that were only dipped into or played once often get far more playing. Aspects of play that would never be explored are done so for odder acheivements (when a developer cleverly designs them, and doesn't just reward a gamer for solely doing what the central thrust of the game requires). Many gamers gain many more hours of gameplay out of a title that could have been dull otherwise.

This is all good; assuming the game at hand in enjoyable and the achievements are fun to chase. It grants extra value for money. I like this.

However, where I do think you have a point is where people avoid titles without such rewards, missing out on a potentially great game or experience simply because of a ephemeral, largely meaningless reward. Not buying Valkyria Chronicles because of a lack of trophies, or not buying Empire: Total War because of a lack of achievements are two, clear examples of this. Really, two awesome games missed out on for such a petty reason seems a bit daft to me.

Hapimeses.com

Hapimeses

Currently Offline

10,648

1180 posts since 20/02/08

Recent Badges:

Littlest Genocide 1,000 posts on the gamrConnect forums.
Everything's Falling Into Place Add a total of 100 games to your collection.
8 Years Has been a VGChartz member for over 8 years.
The Nuts & Bolts Add a total of 25 games to your collection.
9 Years Has been a VGChartz member for over 9 years.
Man or Robot? Managed to avoid being banned for 10 years.