Oh. My. God. The fucked up future of gaming.

[Imbecile]

I really dont see what the big deal is. Sure the Developers have to cater for this evil feature, but they can put as little or as much effort into it as they want. Some developers effectively give all the points for completing the game, others reward you for skillful play, and yet others encourage you to try out game features, where normally you might think "I cant be arsed"

The feature doesnt detract from games in any way, because its entirely optional - all it gives is bragging rights, same as any high score, level up or bonus items. Its not like you HAVE to get the achievements, and its not like the Developers HAVE to implement them.

Its not like its significantly different than the way most games work, you complete a quest/level/boss/coconut and you get yourself a reward, be it a few experience points, a crossbow o doom, or access to the next level.

I have to admit I wasnt convinced at first either, but having actually tried it out - it seems to work pretty well.

 

[bryce777]

Think of the principle, and the broader implications, especially since we're facing a future where very few games with a decent budget will be PC-only.

Well, as I said before if we let it happen we will see the following: Microsoft will muscle its way into consoles as much as possible, and into publishing as much as possible. The publishers already call the shots as it is, but with the massive money MS has, they can take things to a whole new level and they have a history of doing everything possible to integrate things.

So, we could easily see a situation such as microsoft deeming every PC game it publishes must also be on the xbox. We could easily see forced content such as making games tie in to other games even when it makes litle sense. They also love the idea of episodic content and pay as you go so if they get enough of a toehold, you could easily see that suddenly no more games exist where you can buy them outright, but you have to pay 5 dollars in microbucks in order to play for one week. You could see suddenly that you are forced to register every single game and give microsoft our left testical and have an open connection at all times to microsoft for every game.

 

[Micmu]

The feature doesnt detract from games in any way, because its entirely optional - all it gives is bragging rights, same as any high score, level up or bonus items. Its not like you HAVE to get the achievements, and its not like the Developers HAVE to implement them.

No, if that's a strictly munchkin feature, then other features should be tailored for their needs, too. It's pointless otherwise.

I have to admit I wasnt convinced at first either, but having actually tried it out - it seems to work pretty well.

In what single player CRPG?

 

[Imbecile]

No, if that's a strictly munchkin feature, then other features should be tailored for their needs, too. It's pointless otherwise.

I have to admit I wasnt convinced at first either, but having actually tried it out - it seems to work pretty well.

In what single player CRPG?

Well it has munchkin sensibilities behind it - the same as any high score system. But just because the gamerpoints appeals to munckins, it doesnt mean that the objectives have to as well. That certainly isnt the way its working at the moment.

As I said earlier, points are being given on completing the game, others reward you for skillful play, and yet others encourage you to try out game features, where normally you might think "I cant be arsed".

I havent played a single player CRPG yet as there isnt one. However I think to assume that the overacrcing points system (that really doesnt mean that much to most developers) will somehow dictate the design of games is wrong. Its not the way that its working at the moment at least.

 

[bryce777]

No, if that's a strictly munchkin feature, then other features should be tailored for their needs, too. It's pointless otherwise.

I have to admit I wasnt convinced at first either, but having actually tried it out - it seems to work pretty well.

In what single player CRPG?

Well it has munchkin sensibilities behind it - the same as any high score system. But just because the gamerpoints appeals to munckins, it doesnt mean that the objectives have to as well. That certainly isnt the way its working at the moment.

As I said earlier, points are being given on completing the game, others reward you for skillful play, and yet others encourage you to try out game features, where normally you might think "I cant be arsed".

I havent played a single player CRPG yet as there isnt one. However I think to assume that the overacrcing points system (that really doesnt mean that much to most developers) will somehow dictate the design of games is wrong. Its not the way that its working at the moment at least.

The point is not what the feature is, but hat they are dictating that resources ahve to be spent in a certain way. It is not a big start, but they will no doubt o further the more power they have.

 

[Visbhume]

I don't see what the problem is. As Trash has already said, Achievements are just an evolution of highscores, a very basic form of social interaction for single-player games. It sounds like a great idea, really !

In fact, properly devised Achievements could encourage more sophisticated ways of playing the game than plain old hack and slash. Achievements reflecting diplomatic or sneaky play, for example.

Also, imagine for a moment if players could create their own Achievements. Players deciding "I'm going to finish the game without killing, or without using item X", and their profiles being updated accordingly if they were succesful. Many Nethack players already do similar things.

I want Achievements for PC games, too !

 

[OverrideB1]

With the understanding that Acheivements have to be implimented and the XBox Live feature has to be implimented comes illumination.

This is the next definitive step in not making a TES MMO, isn't it?

I have 3 gifts for the devs. A coffin, a nail, and a big hammer. I think you already know how to use them

 

[MrSmileyFaceDude]

Achievements are not part of Oblivion's gameplay, they are an effect of it. When you gain an achievement, a notification pops up (which is part of the Xbox 360 UI, not part of the game's UI) and that's it. They are not part of the game itself. Think of it as a separate application monitoring your progress and then ticking off checkboxes as it sees you complete them.

 

[Imbecile]

The point is not what the feature is, but hat they are dictating that resources ahve to be spent in a certain way. It is not a big start, but they will no doubt o further the more power they have.

Well the resources needed are pretty minimal if the developers cant be arsed, and the outcomes are only positive. Restrictions have always been imposed on developers. In many ways Nintendos "quality control" system could be interpreted as being far worse. You could say:

"Mein Gott! Those fuckers want to stop all small developers, and shut out all the innovation and creativity that they bring to the market. Its only a small step from only Nintendos games being published on Nintendo systems. I remember when it was all fields. When Men were Men, and Games were Games. Ja mein Fuhrtento!"

But ya dont, because thats just silly. If people get fed up of being dictated to - they can always move to a competitor who is willing to give them the artistic freedom that they want.

But thats not going to happen, because ultimately games sell machines, games are where Microsoft, Sony et al make their cash, and only a cretinous company would drive away developers by forcing them to do things that they really dont want to.

 

[bryce777]

The point is not what the feature is, but hat they are dictating that resources ahve to be spent in a certain way. It is not a big start, but they will no doubt o further the more power they have.

Well the resources needed are pretty minimal if the developers cant be arsed, and the outcomes are only positive. Restrictions have always been imposed on developers. In many ways Nintendos "quality control" system could be interpreted as being far worse. You could say:

"Mein Gott! Those fuckers want to stop all small developers, and shut out all the innovation and creativity that they bring to the market. Its only a small step from only Nintendos games being published on Nintendo systems. I remember when it was all fields. When Men were Men, and Games were Games. Ja mein Fuhrtento!"

But ya dont, because thats just silly. If people get fed up of being dictated to - they can always move to a competitor who is willing to give them the artistic freedom that they want.

But thats not going to happen, because ultimately games sell machines, games are where Microsoft, Sony et al make their cash, and only a cretinous company would drive away developers by forcing them to do things that they really dont want to.

As they gain more pwoer, developers will have less and less choice. the quality control is something pc games could really use, but to my knowledge they are not dictating features.

It is a small start, but it is a trend that is not a good thing by any means.

 

[OverrideB1]

As Bryce777 points out, corporations gain power by dictating to their suppliers what they can and cannot supply using "quality control" or by buying out their competition. Microsoft are particularly adept at this strategy of expansion by acquisition - as are Sony. Plus, the larger the corporation - the more money they can throw at something until either they own it, or it goes away.

That was the Xbox strategy - Microsoft lost money on each unit sold simply so that they could price each unit lower than the PS2. I wouldn't be surprised if Sony play the game in reverse when the PS3 comes out. Microsoft's strategy for the gaming market is identical to Sony's - they each want total and complete control with zero competition. Then they can jack the prices up to the point where they're making profit again. And both corporations have enough clout and financial muscle to go a long way towards acheiving their goal.

Honestly, if Gates wanted to, he has the cash immediately available to buy out the suits at Zenimax and make Bethesda part and parcel of the Microsoft empire: thus giving him control over both the PC and XBox development of future Bethesda games. The question then becomes - for him - are potential future financial gains wirth the initial outlay. As for the suits at Zenimax - wave enough money at them and they'll be off like rats up a drainpipe.

 

[Section8]

As far as "things that are fucking the games industry in the arse" go, it's not even close to touching the sides, even with all sorts of other appendages crammed up there. It's really no different than coming online and saying "I got the Child Killer reputation in Fallout!" and hoping somebody cares.

It's a largely unobstrusive imposition on developers, and it's not like it sets a precedent of mass control over game content, because that sort of thing has been in action for years. Dev kits aren't just handed out willy nilly. It may just be hearsay, but I'm pretty sure every console release has to go through an approval process. Somewhere along the way there would have been games that didn't meet the standard, and so Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft/whoever in that situation would say "Here's what you can do to meet our requirements."

Mildly troubling, but it's far from the end of the world.

 

[bryce777]

I just want to know how big of a part joketelling plays in the game,a nd how the people reaqct, and how you can even get jokes. Seems a little weird, though if it was done right it could be a lot like the swordfights in monkey isle. I would personally suck the cock of everyone at bethesda if they implemented their combat system that way.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

There are more interesting things to rant about.

 

[FrancoTAU]

Think of the principle, and the broader implications, especially since we're facing a future where very few games with a decent budget will be PC-only.

Think of the PS3 release, think of Sony not forcing some kind of features just so they can sell a online system membership, think of Xbox 360 continue to be only 1/5 of the total market share.

It's going to have a lot more than 1/5th of the market share just due to first mover advantage for so long. Well... in the US and Europe anyways. The Japanese hate the Xbox and will continue to buy Nintendo and Playstations.

I'm still confused as to why people will be buying $400 console systems that are becoming more and more like their computer sitting in the other room.

 

[bryce777]

Think of the principle, and the broader implications, especially since we're facing a future where very few games with a decent budget will be PC-only.

Think of the PS3 release, think of Sony not forcing some kind of features just so they can sell a online system membership, think of Xbox 360 continue to be only 1/5 of the total market share.

It's going to have a lot more than 1/5th of the market share just due to first mover advantage for so long. Well... in the US and Europe anyways. The Japanese hate the Xbox and will continue to buy Nintendo and Playstations.

I'm still confused as to why people will be buying $400 console systems that are becoming more and more like their computer sitting in the other room.

Because that is what they are used to, and because most people who play console style games don't buy software, just download it, and because the minimum computer literacy needed is beyond many people.

 

[MINIGUNWIELDER]

Yes, it's bragging rights. But since Xbox Live is an online community, that's no less appropriate than parading around as a level 75 warrior in World of Warcraft.

do some reaserch next time you generalize dipstick(60 is the lvl cap)

also the only people who brag about being lvl 60 are people who bought their accounts

the acheivements are only a thing to use for sizing your opponents up

like say:
this guy
beat Razor in NFSW

on oblivion:

also why do you not make important npcs killable?

i mean killling all the main quest quest givers(except the heir and) and still finishing the game would be one heck of an acheivement

 

[kingcomrade]

OH NOES HE DUDNT NO TEH LEVLE CPA IN WARLD OF WARCRAFT!! NOOB!

 

[Twinfalls]

When you gain an achievement, a notification pops up (which is part of the Xbox 360 UI, not part of the game's UI)

That'll totally add to the atmosphere of games like Silent Hill.

 

[Anoik]

Yes, it's bragging rights. But since Xbox Live is an online community, that's no less appropriate than parading around as a level 75 warrior in World of Warcraft.

do some reaserch next time you generalize dipstick(60 is the lvl cap)

Well, it will be lvl 70 with the new expansion.

 

[MINIGUNWIELDER]

When you gain an achievement, a notification pops up (which is part of the Xbox 360 UI, not part of the game's UI)

That'll totally add to the atmosphere of games like Silent Hill.

oh shut up

also msfd said "75"

 

[Twinfalls]

oh shut up

eh? Smoke it, fagort

 

[7th Circle]

Think of it as a separate application monitoring your progress and then ticking off checkboxes as it sees you complete them.

That's an interesting way of describing it...

Does Microsoft by chance have access to collected numbers of achievements (e.g., 180,000 people completed achievement 1, 130,000 people completed achievement 3)?

 

[Tintin]

How overblown can this crap get? At first upon reading Twinfalls melodramatic title and first post I thought it as something stupid too. But it turns out all it is an extra thing for Xbox360 which isn't even in the PC version. All it is, is that in playing the game, upon doing certain things like quote "becoming the head of a guild, or completing the main quest", along with the reward of actually finishing the damn task, Xbox 360 players get a little "Achievement point" along with it. OH THE HORROR

minimum computer literacy needed is beyond many people.

Putting a CD in a computer instead of a console and clicking INSTALL is beyond many people?

 

[Twinfalls]

Tintin, section8, et al

The point is not what the feature is, but that they are dictating that resources have to be spent in a certain way. It is not a big start, but they will no doubt o further the more power they have.

Surely you're familiar with the concept of the 'thin edge of the wedge'?

This development needs to be considered in the context that change happens gradually, with (seemingly small) steps like these. It's not just that there is clear content dictation (and to claim its 'feature dictation, not content dictation', is spurious), but also a clear direction as to how the outlook of gamers is to be shaped. Consider how friendly to the adventure genre this development is. If your adventure doesn't feature anything 'collectible', if its a strange, narrative-twisting interactive tale, say the game equivalent of 'Memento', how will you shoe-horn 'achievements' into it? And what of the need of every game to feature Live voice-chat?

Think about how it is that RPGs are now being reviewed like this.
Look at the mindset there. An RPG must feature lots of cool stuff you can pick up early, and huge battles you can get into right off the bat. And it's got to be easy to be teh big RULERMAN. A dominant mindset like that doesn't just happen overnight. It's a the result of an accumulation of changes.