Achievementitis is the new popamole

[Athelas]

Achievements/trophies are a silly concept. They're artificial rewards for performing completely arbitrary, pointless and tedious tasks. Unsurprisingly, they're incredibly popular among current gamers. Luckily you have the option to ijust gnore them and play the game however you want.

Except not. In fact, achievements are shaping the gameplay and story of games - negatively. Instead of adding actual content, designers are padding their games out with achievements. For most gamers, an achievement like 'kill a 1000 deers' seems to hold more (re)play value than an entire new area to explore.

A while back I was playing the PC version of Condemned: Criminal Origins, a survival horror game that originally appeared on the XBox 360, which has mandatory achievements I believe. The achievements consist of finding objects like random objects like dead birds and pieces of metal scattered throughout the game. Even though you don't get any points, these in-game objects were still carried over. The story of the game wasn't particularly good, but it had excellent atmosphere and the combat was appropriately frightening and visceral. At one point, an NPC who was the only character in the story that I was remotely invested in showed up to help you explore an area for clues. At one point you see someone knock her down in a cutscene or hear her yell or something (I can't remember exactly) and you go to investigate. You have a few gadgets, one of which gives off a stronger signal the closer you are to a dead body. Fearing the character dead, I used the gadget to track her down. The signal got stronger and stronger, and I soon saw her body lying on the ground in the distance. I walked closer and I was filled with dread until...

...the dead body turned out to be a dead bird, the aforementioned achievement. And the character was just unconscious and turned out to be fine. Yeah. So much for the 'horror' aspec of the game.

And this isn't even the worst example I can think of. And now Steam is in on it. And one of the most touted aspects of the new XBox console is some sort of new achievement system. There doesn't seem to be any end in sight.

 

[DalekFlay]

Games had collection bullshit before achievements. I do agree they are used to add replay value now though, in place of actual replay value. Compare Resident Evil games on PS1 with their rewards for finishing in certain ways... that was actual reward and replay value.

I don't care about them in general, especially since I often don't receive them because I like using Steam in offline mode (it's faster).

 

[Excidium]

I don't care about achievements one way or the other

It is p. hilarious how most of them are for doing things you have to do anyway by just playing the game. I got an achievement in Batman Arkham City for equipping the batsuit. WHOA

 

[BlackAdderBG]

Achievements for strategy games and city builders if done right can give you great replay value and force you to try new play styles.Those that are just for reaching next level or starting the game and bs in that line must die.

 

[Luzur]

kinda like those in Minecraft.

 

[Fat Dragon]

Achievements are like the new high score rankings, some people just enjoying collecting them and showing off their e-peen. I'm not big on them myself, but they've never really bothered me when a game has them. So long as they don't interrupt my game with a large "Achievement Unlocked" right in the middle of the screen, it's fine. Steam is pretty good at keeping it out of your face.

 

[Gurkog]

They are used partially to study how far players progress in games and what content they choose to experience the most.

 

[Metro]

Achievements have been around for years on Steam. Moreover, you barely notice them unless you're actively looking for it. They just pop up in a very small section of the corner.

 

[Damned Registrations]

Achievements are like the new high score rankings, some people just enjoying collecting them and showing off their e-peen. I'm not big on them myself, but they've never really bothered me when a game has them. So long as they don't interrupt my game with a large "Achievement Unlocked" right in the middle of the screen, it's fine. Steam is pretty good at keeping it out of your face.

This. Besides, some of them are pretty cool little challenges. There's an achievement in Spelunky for beating the game without ever grabbing any treasure. Which is quite difficult and requires very different gameplay.

Achievements that you can't possibly avoid getting through normal play are indeed stupid, but they're obviously there to track player progression, so I can't gripe that much.

 

[Telengard]

When people are rewarded for doing something stupid and tedious, they are much more likely to keep doing that stupid and tedious thing - even if it involves paying money in order to be allowed to keep doing that stupid and tedious thing.

More to the point, though, when people are rewarded, it changes their behavior. Which can be used for good - such as encouraging people to attempt something new. But when achievements are just placed into a game, they default to being a detriment to creativity and invention, since they encourage people to do a certain thing in a certain way so that they can get the achievement for doing that thing in that certain way. That, instead of the game asking people to invent their own way of surmounting the given obstacles.

 

[Unkillable Cat]

They are used partially to study how far players progress in games and what content they choose to experience the most.

Then grinding seems to be the best thing ever, because there doesn't seem to be a game released these days that doesn't have at least one achievement that involves killing untold masses of the same critter.

The only thing more loathesome than games with those kind of achievements are the games with achievements just to fulfill some arbitrary requirement for Steam, like getting an achievement for completing plot-vital quests or reaching certain locations. In other words, achievements are being given out for simply playing the game as intended.

One game that at least tried to do things a little different was Psychonauts. One of the achievement involved showing Mr. Pokeylope to all of the kids. While this involved some end-game jiggering, at least it fit in with the theme of the game.

 

[Damned Registrations]

I assume by 'these days' you mean, since August 9th. Since Spelunky was released on the 8th and it doesn't have any such achievement. Not that your statement made any sense anyways, since such achievements would serve to find out if people enjoyed doing that, they wouldn't be added because they enjoy doing that.

 

[deuxhero]

Achievements are nothing but a tracking system.

 

[potatojohn]

Luckily pirated games usually don't have achievements.

 

[Deleted member 7219]

Achievements when used correctly should be used to track when all content has been 'seen' in the game. It is nice to have a record of what you have managed to accomplish.

At their worst, they are for completing x chapter or killing x enemies.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

I hate modern times.

 

[shihonage]

The funniest thing about achievements is that nobody gives a shit about other people's achievements, only their own, yet they believe other people will care to look at theirs.

 

[Nutmeg]

Achievements are like lazy collectables or secrets. e.g. in DOOM there was this one level where you had to rocket jump to get something or other (I forget), and that would probably just be an achievement now days.

 

[felipepepe]

As people already said, they are just a new high score system... the real value are as completion tracking, both for players and developers.

You can learn A LOT about how people are playing a game just by looking at the global % of achievements on Steam.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

They are very good at annoying hipsters, too. GRR SO MAINSTREAM

In fact, achievements are shaping the gameplay and story of games - negatively. Instead of adding actual content, designers are padding their games out with achievements. For most gamers, an achievement like 'kill a 1000 deers' seems to hold more (re)play value than an entire new area to explore.

Nah. This sort of filler has existed since forever, it is an easy way of being able to stamp "features 80 hours of gameplay!" on the box. NPCs have been telling us to kill 1000 deers for them for a while. The fact you now get a little emblem for doing it is just an effect of the epenis competition that arrived with online gaming.

 

[Dr Tomo]

Honestly the questions I have to ask are, does it matter whether they exist or not? Also, how is it a detriment to gaming? I always thought that achievements are for neck beards to show off their e-peen on the interwebs so that they feel like they accomplished something with their life. Which in my opinion is a positive for the said individual to justify their existence by being a "better" gamer then "casuals" like me.

 

[Palikka]

Anyone got Age of Empires II HD on Steam? I was just wondering if the 216(!) achievements it has makes any fucking sense..

 

[Shadowfang]

Achievements are a lazy way of acknowledging the player's accomplishments.
They serve the same purpose as medal or a badge. They serve as reminder that your efforts haven't
been unnoticed.

I believe everyone enjoys having their actions and choices being recognized when playing a game.
Wasn't one of TES games biggest flaws not recognizing, many of the, players accomplishments?
But, and understandably, achievements are not everyone's cup of tea, because even if they recognize
your deeds they do it in a very shallow way.

Deus Ex acknowledged, in a very organic way, many of the interactions the player had with the game world.
If you walked inside the women's bathroom at UNATCO, instead of a cheap notice popping up at your lower
right corner saying something like: [Bronze Achievement: Augmented Perv] the game acknowledges you,
through the displeased reaction of Shannon and later with a slap on the wrist from Manderley at your first debriefing.
And again, Deus ex is full of these ways of acknowledging the player actions, even if they require the player to
artificially increase the games difficulty like going on a non-lethal playthrough.

I have to say that i really do prefer much more this kind of approach than of the achievements, but they can co-exist,
see Fallout: New Vegas. So achievements take nothing away from my gaming experience, they just add very little.
We don't need achievements to make the game artificially harder for ourselves. We already do it in rpgs when picking
less optimal parties as a challenge or when we ghosted Thief. There is nothing wrong with that either.
The only thing the achievements do is acknowledge the player's feat.

Achievements cant harm gaming much. Sucky games aren't going to be worse because of it,
nor will be good games as well. The FTL experience wasn't affected by its achievements.
At least not to me...

PS: Here is a helpful advise: Stop renting games on steam and playing console ports and you probably wont have to
deal with achievements so soon.

 

[Papa Môlé]

Most games are little more than simplistic dopamine circuit loops anyway.

Old way = Pop X moles? Level Up!
New way = Pop X moles? Level Up! Achievement Gained! New Outfit Unlocked!

 

[Night Goat]

Achievements can be done right, if they're used to encourage players to challenge themselves and play the game in different ways. This is almost never what happens though, instead the developers give achievements for doing tedious and frustrating tasks just so you can raise your numbers and show everyone how much of a life you don't have. Or, they give you achievements for doing nothing at all, like a plastic participation trophy they give you so everyone can be a winner.

New way = Pop X moles? Level Up! Achievement Gained! New Outfit Unlocked!

New outfit unlocked? Without any microtransactions? Get with the times!