He might be sarcastic, but I still agree with his points.  Those are pretty much the reasons I like achievements better.  To me, someone that likes collecting things, I like achievements better. 

Since they matter to me, I look at silly little things like that and I obviously like one over the other.  So again, how am I a hypocrite?  I don't think they are the same and the things it's not like I'm giving achievements free passes while griping about the same things in trophies.

To those people that think they're the same or pointless-- that is your right and I don't care if you think they're the same or worthless.  That's your opinion and I respect that.

To those people that like trophies better-- same as above.  You can like them better for whatever reason, I don't care, it's your opinion.  I'm not going to tell you you're wrong because that would be pointless.

The article pretty much voices why I like achievements better and do not like trophies.

This is pretty much spot on.  This article wasn't about trophies vs. achievements, it was about PSN vs. XBL.  He just had to write ten paragraphs of nonsense to couch his real opinions so he didn't come off looking like a fanboy.

That ten paragraph rant can be boiled down to one completely true statement that he didn't have the balls to make outright:  XBL is awesome, PSN is a wasteland.  Trophies and achievements are the same exact thing, both were stolen from Steam as far as I can tell.  The only difference is in the interfaces and software support.

I think Penny Arcade said it best.  If this generation has proven anything, it's that Microsoft is a software company and Sony is a hardware company.  Xbox has been plagued by RROD and DRE, PS3 has been plagued by Sony's inability to properly implement anything.

As someone who didn't say those things didn't matter, I think the differences are very much negligible and the article looks more like this:

Point 1: blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah, Point 2 blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah.

Point 3 blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Xbox Live provides better online gameplay blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

The loading times are sluggish blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

The strikethrough items are either personal preferences or exaggerations such as "you have to navigate to the trophy list" even though all you do is press "up" once.

@twest
thats the whole problem. Other people will do the opposite, for example to me, acheivements are 1000 bronze trophies. Nothing more.

There are arguments on either side and will he makes his well, he is not exactly looking at it from an outside perspective. He is looking at it like an xbox gamer.
At the same time, the article is title "Why trophies underachieve." He is presenting a case as fact when it's really only one good point and a lot of dressing that point up.

Ill give you a better answer if you can reasonably explain:

how several points is any more valuable than a bronze trophy or two?

Or how 2000 gamer points give anyone any more "identity" (or more "personality") to each player than a specific amount of platinum trophies, gold trophies, silver trophies and bronze?

How's about why the trophy system has any less of a "connection" to games on the PS3, as opposed to games on the 360?

The guy complains about how having almost all bronze trophies makes him feel like a loser or unskilled, but having a number of achievement points make him feel better about himself since "every little point helps" (as if bronze trophies doesn't add to the overall level). Then he goes and talks about the personality/identity of a profile and how the trophy system lacks it.... do you get where I'm going with this? If you have 3000 bronze trophies and nothing else, you will have an identity of a "loser". But if you have a gamer score of 3000, the value of your profile is the same as any one else that has 3000g regardless of the skill thats involved.... in other words, there is no "identity" because even "losers" are rewarded with the values of the better players on xbox live.

He's also implying that bronze trophies gives him no incentives while he ignores the incentives of a gold or platinum trophy.

The point is this, barring two facts (1. achievements are for every game since launch and 2. achievements load faster), you can make the same if not very similair arguements against achievements.

The Trophy system is imo leagues ahead of gamerscore.

One number vs. a series of aesthetically pleasing strata.

The XMB layout of it is good too.

Sony did well.

exactly, the only way to really logically explain why (or why you think) achievements are better than trophies without any reasonable backlash is by saying that you simply like one console over the other (for anyother reason besides the system of metascores). if you're just looking at it from a "metascore system vs metascore system" point of view, the same arguements can be made for either side depending on what the person decides has more value... 

I too was impressed by this comment.

This, a thousand times this

Just to add, platinum trophies are the biggest show of showing how good you are. Oh you have 1000g? Congratulations, thats 5x200, now look at this motherfucker shining right here

This article is ridiculous

Yes.. To each his own.