you were moronic then and are moronic now. You play the game to have fun, the leaderboards were a fun bonus to compete with friends. You didn't play physical games that didn't have leaderboards then, huh?
I like how you started this thread with the implication that you like achievements when your real intention was to have people enter this thread to talk about how much they hate them. Duplicitous, OP.
>Beat game (one time) >Earned all achievements
Why is this so rare? Wouldn't you consider it a failure of game design that certain events were so missable that they couldn't get those cheevos the first time around? If I made a game, I'd want you to experience everything that the game had to offer.
what is the point of cheevos?
literally no one alive will ever be impressed by you having any of them and the difficulty of 100%ing a game is completely arbitrary
Achievements are a way for the devs to communicate to the players directly but outside of the actual game. They let the creator tell players what is important, things to try out, or go for. It's not just about being impressive, it's the uncovered soul of why a dev made the game to begin with. Highscores are just one aspect of that, as is completion.
Would either of you say the achievements in a game like Team Fortress 2 are not engaging, fun, and informative? Would you say it is the same experience without them? By no means am I saying this is universal for all games but most games i've come across with achievements have been better for them.
In Hotline Miami 2 (for example) there's the 50k kills achievement. It's a grind but it is there to celebrate the fact the game had map building. It was a way for the dev to encourage players to try out what so many fans of Hotline Miami wanted. Again, if all you see them as is something to achieve, then you're missing the point. Not every single pop-up is meant for everyone but they are there for a reason. Even the grindy ones.
You could also talk about Dead Rising's grind achievements and even it's survivor ones as well. They work wonderfully within the game and really do spell out what dev intention is there.
>Would either of you say the achievements in a game like Team Fortress 2 are not engaging, fun, and informative?
Yes. They are not engaging or fun, and are less informative than the wiki.
You'd really say the achievement for shooting the lake in RE4 isn't a clever way to push players to try and find easter eggs? >wiki
You're saying these are in no way a natural alternative to looking up guides? Why look up guides?
>You'd really say the achievement for shooting the lake in RE4 isn't a clever way to push players to try and find easter eggs?
Yes, I found that on the GameCube with no achievements. It was much better than the game ruining it for me by leaving "hints" with achievements. >Why look up guides?
TF2 links you to the wiki in game all the time. Why wouldn't I use it?
>Would either of you say the achievements in a game like Team Fortress 2 are not engaging, fun, and informative?
Yes. They are not engaging or fun, and are less informative than the wiki.
Would you have EVER drowned 20 Whorls in Risk of Rain on your own? Maybe my "dog" brain isn't as in-tuned to dev intentions as yours?
It really and truly is not about being forced or even challenged. Throwing around a paper plane in Little Nightmares is not some pavlovian test. It's a shame that is your gut instinct here. Or the achievements in Limbo, that are hints on were the glow worms are in order to get to the bonus level. Sure you're being helped, but is that so very wrong? You're saying a game should have no hints or any messages from the devs? Even ones you can totally ignore? You don't want these at all becuase they MIGHT help someone? Why?
>You'd really say the achievement for shooting the lake in RE4 isn't a clever way to push players to try and find easter eggs?
Yes, I found that on the GameCube with no achievements. It was much better than the game ruining it for me by leaving "hints" with achievements. >Why look up guides?
TF2 links you to the wiki in game all the time. Why wouldn't I use it?
You're ok with ruining things yourself using guides, but if achievements exist (something you can ignore) then they automatically ruin the game and shouldn't exist? You're not making sense.
>You're ok with ruining things yourself using guides
When I decide to use a guide, I am okay with using it. Yes.
I am not okay with achievements spoiling their own secrets.
Then ignore the achievements. Regardless, I've explained why I like them and like going for them. Our disagreement on it is what it is. You can continue using guides, i'll continue getting achievements, happy world.
4 months ago
Anonymous
You couldn't prove that "achievements are good" and left. Not big surprise.
what is the point of cheevos?
literally no one alive will ever be impressed by you having any of them and the difficulty of 100%ing a game is completely arbitrary
I like cheevos to the extent that they recognise doing some actually difficult challenge that not many people will be able to do
Unfortunately game devs have noticed that moronic people think there is some further inherent value to the cheevo, and that a game has failed if they can't get all of them
I remember when someone got really mad that a joke achievement in a game I worked on was hard to get. They were complaining how much bullshit it was and I was just bemused cause it was clearly just a dumb joke but need that 100% cheevo completion I guess
I platinum all the challenge modes in Timesplitters for no reason I would reset it all when I'm done and do it again
Most people don't play videogames for fun but I do
I thought Undertale had achievements? I vaguely recall rage quitting my first run because I didn't buy from the spider bakesale and it locked me out of an achievement unless I grinded a billion hours to buy the same shit elsewhere?
Stanley Parable was an interesting situation with that happening. Were they went out of their way to add annoying or impossible achievements and it just made people go out of their way to figure out tricks to getting them.
Not sure why they didn't just add a dev locked one, if they really wanted to frick with people. Guess watching players go out of their way to get them was funny to the devs.
You ain't missing anything, the trophies on Ps4 are just memes. Toby didn't give a single frick about them, you can get the platinum without beating the game.
stop being a Black person
I bought this game!
gay
>playing games for achievements
You missed the point of video games
I've already pirated the game and liked it. Was gonna buy it but it's pointless if it has no cheevos
What do achievements give you
It's just the evolution of an arcade's leaderboard, which people used to play solely to grind for the high score.
you were moronic then and are moronic now. You play the game to have fun, the leaderboards were a fun bonus to compete with friends. You didn't play physical games that didn't have leaderboards then, huh?
>Duh fing din' go bing in duh cornuh, whut duh poin' den
>no cheetos
>add really hard to get achievements to games just to annoy achievement hunters
get dunked on
I like how you started this thread with the implication that you like achievements when your real intention was to have people enter this thread to talk about how much they hate them. Duplicitous, OP.
Back in my day, we made our own fun but you just keep following that checklist wagie
>Beat game (one time)
>Earned all achievements
Why is this so rare? Wouldn't you consider it a failure of game design that certain events were so missable that they couldn't get those cheevos the first time around? If I made a game, I'd want you to experience everything that the game had to offer.
Achievements are a way for the devs to communicate to the players directly but outside of the actual game. They let the creator tell players what is important, things to try out, or go for. It's not just about being impressive, it's the uncovered soul of why a dev made the game to begin with. Highscores are just one aspect of that, as is completion.
Would either of you say the achievements in a game like Team Fortress 2 are not engaging, fun, and informative? Would you say it is the same experience without them? By no means am I saying this is universal for all games but most games i've come across with achievements have been better for them.
Just kill 100,000 zombies bro
In Hotline Miami 2 (for example) there's the 50k kills achievement. It's a grind but it is there to celebrate the fact the game had map building. It was a way for the dev to encourage players to try out what so many fans of Hotline Miami wanted. Again, if all you see them as is something to achieve, then you're missing the point. Not every single pop-up is meant for everyone but they are there for a reason. Even the grindy ones.
You could also talk about Dead Rising's grind achievements and even it's survivor ones as well. They work wonderfully within the game and really do spell out what dev intention is there.
You'd really say the achievement for shooting the lake in RE4 isn't a clever way to push players to try and find easter eggs?
>wiki
You're saying these are in no way a natural alternative to looking up guides? Why look up guides?
>You'd really say the achievement for shooting the lake in RE4 isn't a clever way to push players to try and find easter eggs?
Yes, I found that on the GameCube with no achievements. It was much better than the game ruining it for me by leaving "hints" with achievements.
>Why look up guides?
TF2 links you to the wiki in game all the time. Why wouldn't I use it?
>Would either of you say the achievements in a game like Team Fortress 2 are not engaging, fun, and informative?
Yes. They are not engaging or fun, and are less informative than the wiki.
>literal dog brain has to be told and rewarded for jumping the fence at the dog show
Would you have EVER drowned 20 Whorls in Risk of Rain on your own? Maybe my "dog" brain isn't as in-tuned to dev intentions as yours?
It really and truly is not about being forced or even challenged. Throwing around a paper plane in Little Nightmares is not some pavlovian test. It's a shame that is your gut instinct here. Or the achievements in Limbo, that are hints on were the glow worms are in order to get to the bonus level. Sure you're being helped, but is that so very wrong? You're saying a game should have no hints or any messages from the devs? Even ones you can totally ignore? You don't want these at all becuase they MIGHT help someone? Why?
You're ok with ruining things yourself using guides, but if achievements exist (something you can ignore) then they automatically ruin the game and shouldn't exist? You're not making sense.
>You're ok with ruining things yourself using guides
When I decide to use a guide, I am okay with using it. Yes.
I am not okay with achievements spoiling their own secrets.
Then ignore the achievements. Regardless, I've explained why I like them and like going for them. Our disagreement on it is what it is. You can continue using guides, i'll continue getting achievements, happy world.
You couldn't prove that "achievements are good" and left. Not big surprise.
what is the point of cheevos?
literally no one alive will ever be impressed by you having any of them and the difficulty of 100%ing a game is completely arbitrary
game devs use them to see how far people get in a game
I'm impressed by cheevos
>what is the point of cheevos?
they show the date you played game. it's nice to look back
I'm a beta cuck chad that likes being given goals by others rather than setting them myself
>what's the point of buying games with no cheevos?
there isn't one. no cheevo no buy
I like cheevos to the extent that they recognise doing some actually difficult challenge that not many people will be able to do
Unfortunately game devs have noticed that moronic people think there is some further inherent value to the cheevo, and that a game has failed if they can't get all of them
I remember when someone got really mad that a joke achievement in a game I worked on was hard to get. They were complaining how much bullshit it was and I was just bemused cause it was clearly just a dumb joke but need that 100% cheevo completion I guess
Try actually playing the game xbox kid. achievements would be going against the entire meta narrative of UT
Because playing this traajnny game is not an achievement
>game has 1 achievement
>boot the game
>less than 100% of owners have it
When I make a game I'm gonna do this to humiliate people.
Theres zero point to buying anything without cheevos. Just pirate it or emulate
I platinum all the challenge modes in Timesplitters for no reason I would reset it all when I'm done and do it again
Most people don't play videogames for fun but I do
but anon, where do the batteries go?
Uh I dunno man
achievements dont matter on steam when steam achievement manager exist
I thought Undertale had achievements? I vaguely recall rage quitting my first run because I didn't buy from the spider bakesale and it locked me out of an achievement unless I grinded a billion hours to buy the same shit elsewhere?
apparently it does on console but not on steam. shits gay since i'm pretty sure you can add cheevos after the fact but toby never did
>game that shits on 100% completion rate mentality
>I NEED MUH CHEEVOS
Stanley Parable was an interesting situation with that happening. Were they went out of their way to add annoying or impossible achievements and it just made people go out of their way to figure out tricks to getting them.
Not sure why they didn't just add a dev locked one, if they really wanted to frick with people. Guess watching players go out of their way to get them was funny to the devs.
Play the PS4 version. Achievements only ruin the moment, even Toby makes fun of the achievements you get.
You ain't missing anything, the trophies on Ps4 are just memes. Toby didn't give a single frick about them, you can get the platinum without beating the game.
you have friends you brag about game achievements with?