By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft - Achivements can move up to 40,000 copies of a game.

Ail on 07 October 2009

trophies are the same they do move units of software.

I do not purchase a game depending on whether it has easy trophies or not but I will purchase a game with trophies over one without them....

This has made me played some games I woudn't have played otherwise ( and I was happily surprised by quite a few of them).



PS3-Xbox360 gap : 1.5 millions and going up in PS3 favor !

PS3-Wii gap : 20 millions and going down !

Around the Network
Munkeh111 on 07 October 2009
twesterm said:
bonkers555 said:
thekitchensink said:
Well, I know that, all other things being equal, I tend to choose the 360 version because I prefer Achievements to Trophies. Like with Arkham Asylum, if the PS3 didn't have the extra content, I'd have got it on the 360.

The only reason I got Batman Arkham Asylum for the PS3 because of the Joker DLC.  99% of time I buy multiplat games for my 360 instead of my PS3.  I do prefer Achievements to trophies too.  I guess it just preference.

I'm actually the exact same way.  When looking at a multiplatform game, I usually choose in this order:

  • Achievements-- if it's easy to get achievements, I'll probably get it for the 360, otherwise, not a big deal either way since all PS3 games now have trophies (before that, it was automatically 360).
  • Online-- If I'm going to be doing something online, I'll choose 360 over PS3 since I have way more friends on Live.
  • Random DLC-- If one game has a really cool DLC the other doesn't have (like Batman AA), I'll get that one.

The first two I take the opposite point of view to you. If I am going to complete a game, I am prefer the platinum trophy over the 1000 mostly because of DLC (yes achievements sell DLC, big time!). I also prefer the satisfaction of a gold trophy more than the 100g or something you woudl get from finishing the game. This is especially because most games only give you a gold if you complete it on hard, which I am now doing! Online, I am not happy having to pay for parts of my game twice, and more friends have PS3s, and I prefer the controller. I think we can all agree on your last point

Achievements certainly have made me some 360 versions, but those are all games released before trophies, but each to his own

 

I have never bought a game, just because of easy achievements, with the exception of Dash of Destruction, but that was free, and Linger in Shadows, and that was £1.50



ocnkng on 07 October 2009
Kasz216 said:
Kantor said:

I don't understand when people say this. They are the same thing! The only difference is that one is a number and one is an icon. The actual "achievement", ie the thing you do to get that number/icon, is the same. That should really be the most important part, the feeling of knowing you have done it, rather than the visual feedback given.

Eh I disagree.  Numbers > Icons.

 

I have a score of 40,000 thousand.  You have a score of 20,000 I'm totally twice as better.

 

I've got a Square.  You have a triangle.  I have no clue how much better I am then you are.


I have 15 tropies, you have 8.

 

But they're all different kinds so I have to employ some sort of strange olympic grading scale to know how much better I am then you at something.

 

Not that i actually care about achivements.  But that's why points > Icons.

And I disagree.

Trophies are not really icons. They are a much detailed grading system then just numbers can ever be.

For example I look at someone's trophy card and I get a better idea of what sort of gamer they are.

If I see someone having double the number of trophies then someone else but only half the number of platinum trophies, I can say that the former is a better completionist while the latter plays a larger number of games.

Then again there is the level system that I can attain by gaining enough trophies.

The trophy system is able convey more information by breaking itself upto convey quantity as well as quality.

The achievements just look like a mess of points.

 



 

It is better to die on one's feet

then live on one's knees

Ail on 07 October 2009

If the achievement system was really perfect, you would not have the majority of the achievements whores looking at sites like trueachievements these days...



PS3-Xbox360 gap : 1.5 millions and going up in PS3 favor !

PS3-Wii gap : 20 millions and going down !

Lord Flashheart on 07 October 2009
twesterm said:
Lord Flashheart said:
kitler53 said:
someone should make a game where you get a full 1000 points just for starting the game. it would sell like hotcakes for sure. xD

Avatar.

Well you don't get them for just starting the game but you can get them quicker than it takes to install the game to the HDD.

Damn, beat me to it.

And yes, I did rent the game just for that.  :-p

My mate bought it of eBay for £3 and he also got a hold of NBA 2K6 or whatever its called. I went round got the achievements for myself then he sold them together on eBay as an "Achievement Pack" for more than he paid for them.

Not bad if you can get 2000 easy g's and make a profit.



Official member of the Xbox 360 Squad

Around the Network
d21lewis on 07 October 2009

I never bought a particular game for achievements (I also rented Avatar!), but I DID buy the 360 version of a game over the PS3 version BECAUSE of Achievements. When I look at my PS3 version of Batman, I shake my fist! Why did the Joker have to be exclusive!?



d21lewis on 07 October 2009

The downside to trophies is that they came late. I'd already beaten Resistance, Heavenly Sword, Metal Gear, and Uncharted. I know Uncharted got patched, but I wasn't going to play through it again. As a result, Trophies mean nothing to me. I don't even attempt them. And while Achievements don't show how good I am, they don't tell how much I suck, either. I probably have 250/1000 GS in Street Fighter 4. Unless you specifically look for that game, you'll never know how bad I was in that beloved game! With Trophies, I'd probably have zero platinums. I just can't dedicate time to a game like I used to.



FootballFan on 07 October 2009

^


:/


Uncharted 2 perhaps?



Kasz216 on 07 October 2009
KylieDog said:
Kasz216 said:
Kantor said:
thekitchensink said:
Well, I know that, all other things being equal, I tend to choose the 360 version because I prefer Achievements to Trophies. Like with Arkham Asylum, if the PS3 didn't have the extra content, I'd have got it on the 360.

I don't understand when people say this. They are the same thing! The only difference is that one is a number and one is an icon. The actual "achievement", ie the thing you do to get that number/icon, is the same. That should really be the most important part, the feeling of knowing you have done it, rather than the visual feedback given.

Eh I disagree.  Numbers > Icons.

 

I have a score of 40,000 thousand.  You have a score of 20,000 I'm totally twice as better.

 

I've got a Square.  You have a triangle.  I have no clue how much better I am then you are.


I have 15 tropies, you have 8.

 

But they're all different kinds so I have to employ some sort of strange olympic grading scale to know how much better I am then you at something.

 

Not that i actually care about achivements.  But that's why points > Icons.

 

 

That is why different rankings for trophies (Platinum especially) are so great.  They show you collect harder trophies (in general) and complete games to the full rather than just play a dozen games and only get easier trophies before moving on.

 

 

However.  As stated... you have to use some weird olympic system to judge things.  Also the same  trophies on different games are still going to be varying difficulty wise.

 



Kasz216 on 07 October 2009
ocnkng said:
Kasz216 said:
Kantor said:

I don't understand when people say this. They are the same thing! The only difference is that one is a number and one is an icon. The actual "achievement", ie the thing you do to get that number/icon, is the same. That should really be the most important part, the feeling of knowing you have done it, rather than the visual feedback given.

Eh I disagree.  Numbers > Icons.

 

I have a score of 40,000 thousand.  You have a score of 20,000 I'm totally twice as better.

 

I've got a Square.  You have a triangle.  I have no clue how much better I am then you are.


I have 15 tropies, you have 8.

 

But they're all different kinds so I have to employ some sort of strange olympic grading scale to know how much better I am then you at something.

 

Not that i actually care about achivements.  But that's why points > Icons.

And I disagree.

Trophies are not really icons. They are a much detailed grading system then just numbers can ever be.

For example I look at someone's trophy card and I get a better idea of what sort of gamer they are.

If I see someone having double the number of trophies then someone else but only half the number of platinum trophies, I can say that the former is a better completionist while the latter plays a larger number of games.

Then again there is the level system that I can attain by gaining enough trophies.

The trophy system is able convey more information by breaking itself upto convey quantity as well as quality.

The achievements just look like a mess of points.

 

Or you could just see what percentage of achivements the person has completed on certain games.

It's not like harder trophies are going to be gotten when easier ones aren;t.