Do achievements work?

Since MS brought in achievements, i personally have started playing games for longer, and also for pointless reasons. For example i have played a number of rounds on GeOW just to get 100 revives, where i have concentrated on picking people up rather than trying to kill others, just for 10gs. Stupid i know but i am a naturally competitive person.

This though brings up a certain problem. Achievements have started to change gameplay habbits. We all know the guy who just chainsaws or picks up the same weapon every round.

I would like to know whether achievements have increased the number of hours you play games, but also whether it has annoyed you. Any opinions are welcome (and other poll answers)

I've found that games that have lots of well thought out achievements extend the life of the game tremendously. A perfect example of this is Crackdown. I found my self doing things in the game I wouldn't have normally done just to get the achievement..Marvel Ultimate Alliance is another game that does achievements well. It's defintely a plus.

i do play more but just for the single player achievements like finishing the game on hard after the normal setting. Online I hardly go into the ranked games cause I find its much more fun to just make a lobby and play with friends. And like you said its messed up to find people only ussing 1 weapon for the achievement.

They should drop the multiplayer achievements by a notch. some games have too many of them to get online and that screws people like me over but also the people without a gold subsription.

EDIT: it certainly doesn't get me to buy more games just for achievements but i'm ure some people do that. 

I don't really care much for acheivements.  I mean it's nice to get recognition for completeing a game on a certain difficulty or whatever but I don't do things specifically to earn them.  If you gained points from achievements that could be spent on unlockables like extra costumes or something then I'd be more interested.Chaos_Daro

That's sort of backwards since you usually get achievements for doing just that.

[QUOTE="Chaos_Daro"]I don't really care much for acheivements.  I mean it's nice to get recognition for completeing a game on a certain difficulty or whatever but I don't do things specifically to earn them.  If you gained points from achievements that could be spent on unlockables like extra costumes or something then I'd be more interested.heretrix

That's sort of backwards since you usually get achievements for doing just that.

Unlocking extra content and gaining achievements are different things.  What I meant was that when you gain an achievement you should be able to spend gamerpoints (or some other type of points) on extra content for games.  It would make "killing 100 people with a chainsaw" worth doing as you could spend the points you gain on extra costumes for your games or whatever.

I actually finish games now.

And I find myself replaying single player to explore more aspects of a game.  For example, PGR3 gives points for using the track editor, photo mode, Gotham TV, collecting certain cars and racing time trials in different cities.

if they are well thought out achievements like in crackdown (i spent ages looking for that globe) then i find it gives alot more replay time and fun to the game. one thing that i do find annoying though is when the bulk come from doing things that you would normally do anyway like complete the single player campaign or rack up a few kills in online and when devs make them very easy to get because they know they will net a few sales from the achievement whores. mirlegend

Dead Rising, Crackdown, and Marvel: UA have some of the most impressive achievements to obtain...I also hate the multiplayer achievements for the most part.. Most of them are beyond stupid, and not everybody is into multiplayer...

Come on 10,000 kills in GEOW? I think that while a tough achievement here or there is great, The best achievements are setup to steer you into playing the game in different types of ways..Like Doing a body juggle for 10 seconds or climbing the Agency Tower, then base jumping into the little pond below (two of my favorite achievements ever) in Crackdown. Having next to impossible achievements just makes me say "the hell with it" and not do it. after all it's optional.

Yeah I hate that. It sucks when you look at an achievement list and only see 12 of them, It makes me think that they didn't even try..

Dead Rising, Crackdown, and Marvel: UA have some of the most impressive achievements to obtain...I also hate the multiplayer achievements for the most part.. Most of them are beyond stupid, and not everybody is into multiplayer...

Come on 10,000 kills in GEOW? I think that while a tough achievement here or there is great, The best achievements are setup to steer you into playing the game in different types of ways..Like Doing a body juggle for 10 seconds or climbing the Agency Tower, then base jumping into the little pond below (two of my favorite achievements ever) in Crackdown. Having next to impossible achievements just makes me say "the hell with it" and not do it. after all it's optional.

heretrix

[QUOTE="heretrix"]

[QUOTE="Chaos_Daro"]I don't really care much for acheivements.  I mean it's nice to get recognition for completeing a game on a certain difficulty or whatever but I don't do things specifically to earn them.  If you gained points from achievements that could be spent on unlockables like extra costumes or something then I'd be more interested.Chaos_Daro

That's sort of backwards since you usually get achievements for doing just that.

Unlocking extra content and gaining achievements are different things.  What I meant was that when you gain an achievement you should be able to spend gamerpoints (or some other type of points) on extra content for games.  It would make "killing 100 people with a chainsaw" worth doing as you could spend the points you gain on extra costumes for your games or whatever.

[QUOTE="heretrix"]Yeah I hate that. It sucks when you look at an achievement list and only see 12 of them, It makes me think that they didn't even try..

Dead Rising, Crackdown, and Marvel: UA have some of the most impressive achievements to obtain...I also hate the multiplayer achievements for the most part.. Most of them are beyond stupid, and not everybody is into multiplayer...

Come on 10,000 kills in GEOW? I think that while a tough achievement here or there is great, The best achievements are setup to steer you into playing the game in different types of ways..Like Doing a body juggle for 10 seconds or climbing the Agency Tower, then base jumping into the little pond below (two of my favorite achievements ever) in Crackdown. Having next to impossible achievements just makes me say "the hell with it" and not do it. after all it's optional.

foxhound_fox

Since MS brought in achievements, i personally have started playing games for longer, and also for pointless reasons. For example i have played a number of rounds on GeOW just to get 100 revives, where i have concentrated on picking people up rather than trying to kill others, just for 10gs. Stupid i know but i am a naturally competitive person.

This though brings up a certain problem. Achievements have started to change gameplay habbits. We all know the guy who just chainsaws or picks up the same weapon every round.

I would like to know whether achievements have increased the number of hours you play games, but also whether it has annoyed you. Any opinions are welcome (and other poll answers)

09091988

I don't have a 360 (yet) but from what I've heard from friends who do have one, they love the concept of acheivements but also hate them.  

As you mentioned, they said that it does make a game more fun at times and does extend gameplay. 

What they hated was the number of games that make up crappy or BS acheivements just for the sake of attributing all the points.  When you have to go out of your way to do something unnattural or insanely difficult to get a couple crappy acheivement points it's frustrating and...as you say...pointless.

And there is also the issue of the typical internet nerds who will cheat just so they can say they've unlocked an impossible number of acheivement points. 

So from what I've heard I think your opinion is pretty much bang on with what other people feel.  They are a great concept but can be annoying at times.

[QUOTE="Chaos_Daro"][QUOTE="heretrix"]

[QUOTE="Chaos_Daro"]I don't really care much for acheivements.  I mean it's nice to get recognition for completeing a game on a certain difficulty or whatever but I don't do things specifically to earn them.  If you gained points from achievements that could be spent on unlockables like extra costumes or something then I'd be more interested.heretrix

That's sort of backwards since you usually get achievements for doing just that.

Unlocking extra content and gaining achievements are different things.  What I meant was that when you gain an achievement you should be able to spend gamerpoints (or some other type of points) on extra content for games.  It would make "killing 100 people with a chainsaw" worth doing as you could spend the points you gain on extra costumes for your games or whatever.

It was just a suggestion.  As they are, achievements are pretty much pointless.  I was just thinking of how they could be made more useful.

EDIT:  BTW, I never said we should use MS points to get these things, I said Gamerpoints.  Nobody should have to pay for horse armour or anything like that lol.  What I was getting at is that, in addition to gaining an achievement, you should get some sort of "currency" (Gamerpoints for eg.) that could be spent on whatever extras you wish to unlock in a game. 

 Things like extra difficulty levels and other important things should be unlocked just by completing the game but things like Artwork, "making of" videos and maybe even alt. costumes could be unlocked with the currency you get from achievements.

[QUOTE="heretrix"][QUOTE="Chaos_Daro"][QUOTE="heretrix"]

[QUOTE="Chaos_Daro"]I don't really care much for acheivements. I mean it's nice to get recognition for completeing a game on a certain difficulty or whatever but I don't do things specifically to earn them. If you gained points from achievements that could be spent on unlockables like extra costumes or something then I'd be more interested.Chaos_Daro

That's sort of backwards since you usually get achievements for doing just that.

Unlocking extra content and gaining achievements are different things. What I meant was that when you gain an achievement you should be able to spend gamerpoints (or some other type of points) on extra content for games. It would make "killing 100 people with a chainsaw" worth doing as you could spend the points you gain on extra costumes for your games or whatever.

It was just a suggestion. As they are, achievements are pretty much pointless. I was just thinking of how they could be made more useful.

its PAINFULLY obvious that u dont have a 360 

I dont really care much about the gamer score and the points you get from the achievements, but I do like trying to get achievements mostly because it gives me more things to do when playing certain game and it makes the game last a bit longer.  The achievements in games like dead rising (which is a pretty short game) where really good as I dont think that I would of played it again after I completed it if it wasn't for the achievements.

Hopefully when Sony brings out the trophies for home it will work similarly to achievements.

its PAINFULLY obvious that u dont have a 360 

OpticalCanine

lol you're kidding, right? 

To be honest, if I feel the need to compare myself against others I'll hop back in WoW for a bit. 

But if you like points and want to measure you gameing skills that way I'm not going to knock anyone for it. 

I only got my 360 2 or 3 weeks ago but I'm surprised how addictive they are especially crackdown and I just don't have a scooby dooby doo where that globe is but I would'nt buy games just for achivment pointsKrAzY_cHrIs

its at the front of the observatory on the Russian gang island. i think theres a women boss nearby and its close to the bridge to the third island if thats any help at all.

I think achievements actually diminish the gaming experience.  Ive been playing videogames all my life, I do not need microsoft one day to step in and give me recognition for things I can already do, I do not need them to tell me I am doing a good job.

1) Achievement points diminish the online experience.  Most 360 games I have contain a large multiplayer aspect of the game and many of the achievement points are focused around that aspect.  MORE OFTEN THAN NOT when I am playing an online game, my teammates are more focused on sticking their 100th opponent with a grenade or dropping their 20th supply ammo crate than actually playing with teamwork, achievements bring a frustrating "every man for himself" aspect to games.

2) games like crackdown use achievement points as a way of making the game actually smaller.  games like god of war 2 and other games like bully and zelda all technically have achievement points.  the achievement is loading up the file and seeing your name next to a 100% complete sign,  again, I do not need microsoft acting like big brother telling me how to play my videogames.  Also the achievement points in crackdown are unique and fun, i had alot of fun with them, but they could definately exist without the achievement points, and most likely exist better,   for example  what if in the agency there was a shop, or a man to talk to who could give you these special tasks to do and you could be rewarded for doing them by various prizes in game ( guns, stuff like that)  the fact is achievement points make the game smaller, developers dont need to create that guy in crackdown and they can pump out games faster using the achievement point system, overall i think these games are less complete.  you have a game like god of war 2 which doesnt have achievements, they have the treasures in the game, beat it on god mode etc to unlock movies and chars, beat the challenges of the titans to unlock more, i did that, it was fun and i dont need achievement points to brag about it, in fact i like the treasure option more because its programmed into the game, if it was just a little "achievement unlocked blip" i think it would seem less complete.

3) TO SOME PEOPLE ONLY  achievement points HAVE THE ABILITY to act as an addictive lure for people to buy more and more games just to get the achievements in them, SOME people can feel the impulse to buy a game not for fun and just for the achievement score, i have friends who do this, this is microsoft marketing in my opinion at its best. 

4) achievements in a game have always existed, being able to kill 10,000 people has always been around ( im sure most of us would have that achievement in halo 2) but without that achievement being around in halo 2 i know that we have all used alot more teamwork and communication and the overall experience was better. 

I think achievements actually diminish the gaming experience.  Ive been playing videogames all my life, I do not need microsoft one day to step in and give me recognition for things I can already do, I do not need them to tell me I am doing a good job.

1) Achievement points diminish the online experience.  Most 360 games I have contain a large multiplayer aspect of the game and many of the achievement points are focused around that aspect.  MORE OFTEN THAN NOT when I am playing an online game, my teammates are more focused on sticking their 100th opponent with a grenade or dropping their 20th supply ammo crate than actually playing with teamwork, achievements bring a frustrating "every man for himself" aspect to games.

2) games like crackdown use achievement points as a way of making the game actually smaller.  games like god of war 2 and other games like bully and zelda all technically have achievement points.  the achievement is loading up the file and seeing your name next to a 100% complete sign,  again, I do not need microsoft acting like big brother telling me how to play my videogames.  Also the achievement points in crackdown are unique and fun, i had alot of fun with them, but they could definately exist without the achievement points, and most likely exist better,   for example  what if in the agency there was a shop, or a man to talk to who could give you these special tasks to do and you could be rewarded for doing them by various prizes in game ( guns, stuff like that)  the fact is achievement points make the game smaller, developers dont need to create that guy in crackdown and they can pump out games faster using the achievement point system, overall i think these games are less complete.  you have a game like god of war 2 which doesnt have achievements, they have the treasures in the game, beat it on god mode etc to unlock movies and chars, beat the challenges of the titans to unlock more, i did that, it was fun and i dont need achievement points to brag about it, in fact i like the treasure option more because its programmed into the game, if it was just a little "achievement unlocked blip" i think it would seem less complete.

3) TO SOME PEOPLE ONLY  achievement points HAVE THE ABILITY to act as an addictive lure for people to buy more and more games just to get the achievements in them, SOME people can feel the impulse to buy a game not for fun and just for the achievement score, i have friends who do this, this is microsoft marketing in my opinion at its best. 

4) achievements in a game have always existed, being able to kill 10,000 people has always been around ( im sure most of us would have that achievement in halo 2) but without that achievement being around in halo 2 i know that we have all used alot more teamwork and communication and the overall experience was better. 

CrazyIvanIV

[QUOTE="CrazyIvanIV"]

but without that achievement being around in halo 2 i know that we have all used alot more teamwork and communication and the overall experience was better.

heretrix

Epeen contest for little boys.  Stroke it! STROKE!

God this world makes me all depressed. 

Well, I did play my 360 a lot (for achievements), but I am done until the Halo 3 Beta is out, until then, I have my new Wii/ps3.  Playing without achievements is actually more fun, because you don't feel like you have to do something in a game.  Bluestorm-Kalas

Ummm. Isn't that the whole purpose of playing the game? You know, to DO SOMETHING?

I've found that games that have lots of well thought out achievements extend the life of the game tremendously. A perfect example of this is Crackdown. I found my self doing things in the game I wouldn't have normally done just to get the achievement..Marvel Ultimate Alliance is another game that does achievements well. It's defintely a plus.

heretrix

yes games that use nice achivements are amazing, it makes me wanna play more(geow, oblivion)

but some achievements are gay (F.E.A.R, some in saints row,)

I like games that give a good amount of points for finishing the campaign and then assigning the rest of the points to out-of-the-box type achievements.  I think Crackdown does a good job of this. 

I actually didn't like the Oblivion achievements because they were too easy (the only game I have 1000 points for).   You just go through all the missions and you get all your points.  They could have had achievements that encouraged exploring, or encouraged making potions, etc..  

[QUOTE="CrazyIvanIV"]

I think achievements actually diminish the gaming experience.  Ive been playing videogames all my life, I do not need microsoft one day to step in and give me recognition for things I can already do, I do not need them to tell me I am doing a good job.

1) Achievement points diminish the online experience.  Most 360 games I have contain a large multiplayer aspect of the game and many of the achievement points are focused around that aspect.  MORE OFTEN THAN NOT when I am playing an online game, my teammates are more focused on sticking their 100th opponent with a grenade or dropping their 20th supply ammo crate than actually playing with teamwork, achievements bring a frustrating "every man for himself" aspect to games.

2) games like crackdown use achievement points as a way of making the game actually smaller.  games like god of war 2 and other games like bully and zelda all technically have achievement points.  the achievement is loading up the file and seeing your name next to a 100% complete sign,  again, I do not need microsoft acting like big brother telling me how to play my videogames.  Also the achievement points in crackdown are unique and fun, i had alot of fun with them, but they could definately exist without the achievement points, and most likely exist better,   for example  what if in the agency there was a shop, or a man to talk to who could give you these special tasks to do and you could be rewarded for doing them by various prizes in game ( guns, stuff like that)  the fact is achievement points make the game smaller, developers dont need to create that guy in crackdown and they can pump out games faster using the achievement point system, overall i think these games are less complete.  you have a game like god of war 2 which doesnt have achievements, they have the treasures in the game, beat it on god mode etc to unlock movies and chars, beat the challenges of the titans to unlock more, i did that, it was fun and i dont need achievement points to brag about it, in fact i like the treasure option more because its programmed into the game, if it was just a little "achievement unlocked blip" i think it would seem less complete.

3) TO SOME PEOPLE ONLY  achievement points HAVE THE ABILITY to act as an addictive lure for people to buy more and more games just to get the achievements in them, SOME people can feel the impulse to buy a game not for fun and just for the achievement score, i have friends who do this, this is microsoft marketing in my opinion at its best. 

4) achievements in a game have always existed, being able to kill 10,000 people has always been around ( im sure most of us would have that achievement in halo 2) but without that achievement being around in halo 2 i know that we have all used alot more teamwork and communication and the overall experience was better. 

heretrix

i understand your comments and respect them even though some of the facts are wrong, but how can achivements make a game smaller. Unless you mean that it makes you more focused on one aspect in the game. If so this is more a bad selection of achievements rather than the fault of achievements. The game shouldnt be built around achievements, eg certain items put into the game just to make an achievement.

[QUOTE="heretrix"][QUOTE="CrazyIvanIV"]

I think achievements actually diminish the gaming experience.  Ive been playing videogames all my life, I do not need microsoft one day to step in and give me recognition for things I can already do, I do not need them to tell me I am doing a good job.

1) Achievement points diminish the online experience.  Most 360 games I have contain a large multiplayer aspect of the game and many of the achievement points are focused around that aspect.  MORE OFTEN THAN NOT when I am playing an online game, my teammates are more focused on sticking their 100th opponent with a grenade or dropping their 20th supply ammo crate than actually playing with teamwork, achievements bring a frustrating "every man for himself" aspect to games.

2) games like crackdown use achievement points as a way of making the game actually smaller.  games like god of war 2 and other games like bully and zelda all technically have achievement points.  the achievement is loading up the file and seeing your name next to a 100% complete sign,  again, I do not need microsoft acting like big brother telling me how to play my videogames.  Also the achievement points in crackdown are unique and fun, i had alot of fun with them, but they could definately exist without the achievement points, and most likely exist better,   for example  what if in the agency there was a shop, or a man to talk to who could give you these special tasks to do and you could be rewarded for doing them by various prizes in game ( guns, stuff like that)  the fact is achievement points make the game smaller, developers dont need to create that guy in crackdown and they can pump out games faster using the achievement point system, overall i think these games are less complete.  you have a game like god of war 2 which doesnt have achievements, they have the treasures in the game, beat it on god mode etc to unlock movies and chars, beat the challenges of the titans to unlock more, i did that, it was fun and i dont need achievement points to brag about it, in fact i like the treasure option more because its programmed into the game, if it was just a little "achievement unlocked blip" i think it would seem less complete.

3) TO SOME PEOPLE ONLY  achievement points HAVE THE ABILITY to act as an addictive lure for people to buy more and more games just to get the achievements in them, SOME people can feel the impulse to buy a game not for fun and just for the achievement score, i have friends who do this, this is microsoft marketing in my opinion at its best. 

4) achievements in a game have always existed, being able to kill 10,000 people has always been around ( im sure most of us would have that achievement in halo 2) but without that achievement being around in halo 2 i know that we have all used alot more teamwork and communication and the overall experience was better. 

09091988

i understand your comments and respect them even though some of the facts are wrong, but how can achivements make a game smaller. Unless you mean that it makes you more focused on one aspect in the game. If so this is more a bad selection of achievements rather than the fault of achievements. The game shouldnt be built around achievements, eg certain items put into the game just to make an achievement.

I know that it hasn't changed the way I play games however there are probably a lot of gamers out there with live...that want their profiles showing the 100% completions....