Do you bother with trophies/achievements?

[danzibr]

Not quite sure "bother" is the right word. Maybe... do you strive for trophies/achievements?

Something happened to me recently. Many years ago, when I had more free time, I wanted to platinum all the games I got (on PS3). Nowadays I have little free time, and play a game for some fun gameplay and maybe a bit of story. Don't bother doing everything, don't bother with end-game content unless the game really captures me.

But now I'm replaying FFX (the PS4 version). I played a lotta FFX when it first came out. Not a ton, like 300+ hours over 2 playthroughs, but a decent bit. Now I'm past the point of simply beating it, got to where I can beat the end-game superbosses without getting platinum (namely, mastering the SG for every character), but... I just want the final trophy. Maybe it's nostalgia. Maybe it's because I count FFX among my favorite games of all time and it somehow deserves my attention to platinum it. None of my friends or family members will ever know, not for bragging rights. I just wanna do it.

Anyway. Do you shoot for trophies/achievements? Why, why not?

[Kitten Champion]

Depends. Lots of trophies are either inane busy-work or are so absurdly difficult as to not be particularly fun or interesting to obtain. For instance, any trophy based on collecting every item in the game - and you'll need a walk-through and multiple play-throughs to get it - or doing X a mind-numbing number of times when X isn't that fun in the first place just to get to an arbitrarily high number.

However, some trophies are just indicators of in-game content and/or stuff that in previous eras of gaming I would've been interested in doing anyways. I wanted to beat the super-hard optional bosses well before PSN was a thing, I always like getting the best rank on every mission/activity if the game itself is fun, and if there's optional stuff to unlock I'll try to unlock it.

Though, that being said, I did prefer the era where instead of trophies you got something more tangible in-game even if it's a useless novelty item or just a message from the developers saying "good job". I don't really need something to show others.

[Rynjin]

Depends on the trophy. I typically have no interest in platinuming games. And my recent run through of the Yakuza series would have broken me of the habit if I hadn't already been inclined not to. NO, I DON'T want to become a master of frickin' Mahjong and Oicho-Kabu!

I do really like "challenge" achievements. Not "find 100 of these things" but stuff like Half-Life 2's achievements in the episodes (The One Free Bullet and Little Rocket Man) really get me raring to play a game multiple times to get them. The former requires you to go through the game firing only a single bullet (required to shoot the lock off your cage at the start) and the latter needs you to escort a little garden gnome from close to the start all the way to the end of the game. It changes how you approach the game, making it fun in a way many other achievements aren't.

[warty goblin]

No. They're vaguely interesting to me on occasion as a way to judge where and when people abandon a game, but that's about it.

[Tvtyrant]

I got everything in Smash Bros Melee (except the trophy that was only in the Japanese version so 100% wasn't possible.) I also got every item and beat every boss in Kingdom Hearts 1&2.

That basically fulfilled my itch as a completionist, I haven't really felt the same desire since.

[Zevox]

Never have, no. I've never seen the purpose to them, personally. If they actually unlocked some in-game reward or the like it would be one thing, but as-is they're just annoying popups to me. I've actually disabled the notifications for them on my consoles, so I don't even see them anymore.

[SerTabris]

At first I just didn't care much either way and just disliked the notifications a bit. After seeing one of them right after an RPG romance scene, then it got weird and I went to turn the notifications off.

[Velaryon]

It's pretty rare for me to go out of my way for achievements or trophies anymore. I was never obsessive about it, but I used to care more than I do now, when I had more time to play video games. These days, if something looks like a fun challenge (like some of the character-specific trophies in Overwatch) I might try for it. If it's something that's based on grinding, I'll get it if I get it. Achievement points are not enough of a reward for me to go out of my way for them.

[Cespenar]

It's a pretty tried and true method to squeeze a bit more mileage from a game you'd otherwise drop, so I have nothing positive to say about them in general.

Except, the rare forms that I can tolerate, I guess, if I really think about it:

-Something like Into the Breach, where they can sort of act like "quests" in an otherwise quest-light game.
-Something like Doom 2016, where they help you actually unlock the weapon upgrades and whatnot.
-Something like in an adventure game, where you do something weird or out of the ordinary in an otherwise linear game, and the game acknowledges you for it.

[LibraryOgre]

I sometimes use them as a gameplay guide.

In Civ, for example, I wanted to play every different ruler. They all had an achievement associated with them, and so I strove for that achievement when playing that character. But other ones? Not worth my time.

[Haruspex_Pariah]

It depends, really.

In New Vegas, a lot of the achievements are just for doing things you'd do anyway. Other times they encourage play styles that I don't instinctively gravitate to and so I get a novel experience. Occasionally you get something dull, like healing 10,000 points of health using food, but they can't all be winners.

In a game like Forager, which is open ended as they come, the achievements lead me to explore the game's possibilities to a greater extent.

For Grim Dawn or Darkest Dungeon, I just don't give a hoot. Because the core gameplay is demanding enough that the achievements are more like a distraction.

[NeoVid]

I'll look over achievement lists and try to get the ones that fit what I was going to do anyway... and occasionally the ones that totally diverge from how I normally play, since achievements like that are often just like the weird challenges I'd make for myself in games I'd played too much.

I still think achievements are a poor substitute for showing off our high scores, though.

And something I often wonder... What happened to all the hate for achievements that they provoked back in the 360 era? It's not like gamers to stop complaining about something.

[Rynjin]

I'll look over achievement lists and try to get the ones that fit what I was going to do anyway... and occasionally the ones that totally diverge from how I normally play, since achievements like that are often just like the weird challenges I'd make for myself in games I'd played too much.

I still think achievements are a poor substitute for showing off our high scores, though.

And something I often wonder... What happened to all the hate for achievements that they provoked back in the 360 era? It's not like gamers to stop complaining about something.

People stopped trying to use Gamerscore as a measure of social status,s o there was nothing to complain about any more.

[Dienekes]

No. I'd turn them off if I could.

[heronbpv]

I prefer to think of them as happy accidents, it's cool when they happen to popup, but otherwise they're not what I usually strive for in a game. Climbing the ladder, farming for levels/equips, progressing the story, beating past high scores, things like that are my actual objectives during a gaming session.
But I confess it's funny to see the list, so I tend to check it up (e.g. on steam). Usually lot's of silly things or interesting spoilers there.

[TaRix]

Really? I'd have thought there'd be more diamond-type players here. Sometimes I'll dust off a game that's missing a couple of awardments; I'll slog through a bunch of busywork to finish off a thing (lookin' at you, Skyrim). Other times I'll even attempt the tricky ones a few times and in a blue moon might even get one.

But I'm not going to bother for ones in multiplayer, unless they're of the friendly sort. If a title has multiplayer-only trocheevmints, I'm much less motivated to try for the 100%.

For Sakurai's style of feats, a la the latest Smashes, Kid Icarus Uprising and Kirby's Air Ride, I'll hack away at them but hit a wall and never get good enough to try again. That said, I think that system's the best sort, even though I can't show 'em off.

[factotum]

I'm not sure it would be possible for me to care less than I do about achievements. Just for giggles I had a quick look through my Steam library, and the game that I look to be closest on getting all of them is Just Cause 2--40/50 achievements after 205 hours played, and that's a game I haven't played in years; I haven't even got the cheevo for driving all the vehicles available! Basically, if I get an achievement naturally while I'm playing the game, OK, fine, but I'm not going to go out of my way to get tricky or awkward ones.

[heronbpv]

Also, forgot to mention: in case of fighting games, I do plan on always beating the character challenges/tutorials, but that's because they're a good way to check on each one of the characters, and see how do I feel about playing then on actual matches.
Also, see all the endings in the game. That's mostly true to SNK fighting games, which are my favorites and the ones I had access to.

[snowblizz]

Depends. Lots of trophies are either inane busy-work or are so absurdly difficult as to not be particularly fun or interesting to obtain. For instance, any trophy based on collecting every item in the game - and you'll need a walk-through and multiple play-throughs to get it - or doing X a mind-numbing number of times when X isn't that fun in the first place just to get to an arbitrarily high number.

However, some trophies are just indicators of in-game content and/or stuff that in previous eras of gaming I would've been interested in doing anyways. I wanted to beat the super-hard optional bosses well before PSN was a thing, I always like getting the best rank on every mission/activity if the game itself is fun, and if there's optional stuff to unlock I'll try to unlock it.

Though, that being said, I did prefer the era where instead of trophies you got something more tangible in-game even if it's a useless novelty item or just a message from the developers saying "good job". I don't really need something to show others.

Roughly this.

I hate it when it is something incessantly grinding to do, or plain impossible, say play multiplayer which I don't want to. "Bonus" (would the opposite be an Onus?) for being both...

Really it depends, sometimes I do hunt for achivements a bit. I mostly like it when they are punny, funny, interesting and slightly surprising (but not mind-numbingly silly as things you'd never do unless aiming for the achivement).

But a lot of games are totally lazy with achivements.

[Velaryon]

And something I often wonder... What happened to all the hate for achievements that they provoked back in the 360 era? It's not like gamers to stop complaining about something.

I think it's because gamers have bigger things to complain about now.

[Resileaf]

I generally enjoy going achievement hunting, though I certainly wouldn't attempt the harder than hard ones (such as completing VVVVVV without dying once).

But I take offense to games with multiplayer achievements. If the servers aren't closed, the only people who still play multiplayer by the time I get there are the hardcore or the exploiters.

[Sian]

In games that are somewhat Sandboxy by nature (specially Grand Stategy), I'm usually using moderately difficult achievements as targets for defining the campaigns I play, as otherwise I can't keep focus, and suffer from severe "hey, this start might be cool *next day* hey this start might be cool". I flip through the Achievement list until I find one that's sufficiently interesting, and then i play that out till it's done, and i Shelf the playthrough and starts something else

[Kaptin Keen]

Hell no!

It feels like work to me, and I don't do work unless I'm getting paid. I have real trouble figuring out why people do strive for these things, and why game makers put them in in the first place. Though, obviously, I'm in the minority here =D

[The_Jackal]

Not quite sure "bother" is the right word. Maybe... do you strive for trophies/achievements?

As a general rule, no, but I sometimes use them to give focus to a game which I enjoy. I liked Left4Dead2 a lot, for example, so I started to work on 'cheevos for that game, just to shake things up.

[factotum]

Hell no!

It feels like work to me, and I don't do work unless I'm getting paid. I have real trouble figuring out why people do strive for these things, and why game makers put them in in the first place. Though, obviously, I'm in the minority here =D

I can kind of see the attraction--the reason I have so many hours in Just Cause 2 is because I *tried* to 100% the game at least once. I think I got to around 77% before I got bored enough with the endeavour to just give up, though. For some people, I guess getting all the cheevs counts as part of 100%-ing the game as far as they're concerned, which gives them an incentive to try and get them all?

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I don't bother with all achievements. But imagine I'm playing an RPG where I'm really enjoying creatively destroying everything with my fire mage, and then I get a popup saying "Kill it with fire, bronze". Hell yeah, challenge accepted. Kill every type of enemy in the game using only fire? I didn't know if it was even possible, but now it's my goal. First try at every boss I'm going in with fire only. If I don't have enough power for it yet, fine, I'll use another way but come back later. I mean, I can come up with something like that myself, but if the developers already thought of it I don't have to think of it myself. I might have never thought of going for a tripple stunt on the wild seas in the flooded city level, too unpredictable, better not to risk it and keep racing. But if I can get a little trophy and a new decal for it...

Achievements can be used as a lazy way for developers to add content. But they can also be used as a lazy way for players to add enjoyment. I'm a big fan of enjoyment.

[Resileaf]

I can kind of see the attraction--the reason I have so many hours in Just Cause 2 is because I *tried* to 100% the game at least once. I think I got to around 77% before I got bored enough with the endeavour to just give up, though. For some people, I guess getting all the cheevs counts as part of 100%-ing the game as far as they're concerned, which gives them an incentive to try and get them all?

If it can make you feel better, it's impossible to get 100% completion in Just Cause 2 because there are a couple of destructible items (wind turbines, iirc) that are not in the game but are counted in the completion screen.

[Kaptin Keen]

I can kind of see the attraction--the reason I have so many hours in Just Cause 2 is because I *tried* to 100% the game at least once. I think I got to around 77% before I got bored enough with the endeavour to just give up, though. For some people, I guess getting all the cheevs counts as part of 100%-ing the game as far as they're concerned, which gives them an incentive to try and get them all?

Well .. yes, I see the attraction. It's like a mountain, right? It's just there, and most of us easily resist the temptation to climb them - but, some people, they just can't do it! They have to get up there. I still don't get it, though. When I think of mountain climbing, I honestly cannot imagine the feeling of achievement when you reach the top justifies the effort invested. Or cooking. I mean, I enjoy cooking, but making food isn't the point - it's serving it, eating it with friends, and mercilessly crushing my friends expectation that I cannot cook under foot. But I can't motivate myself to cook for myself, because the pleasure of eating a good meal doesn't measure up to the effort of making it.

...

I guess there's every chance I'm just weird =D

[factotum]

But I can't motivate myself to cook for myself, because the pleasure of eating a good meal doesn't measure up to the effort of making it.


Off topic--I think you're just spending too much time on cooking your meals, you can cook some nice stuff in less than half an hour.

On topic--I largely agree with you. I certainly have no desire to go climbing a mountain "just because it's there". I know there are people out there who do have that desire, though (or else there wouldn't be so many frozen bodies on Everest), so the achievement-hunters must be similar.

[AvatarVecna]

Generally, if I'm playing a game, and it's not particularly long or difficult, I'll go for the completionist thing. But for most games long enough worth buying, doing everything just for the sake of saying you did it isn't worth going out of your way - if you weren't gonna do it anyway, it's probably not part of what makes the game fun for you, y'know? This is TF2 for me - over about 2000 hours or so, I've maybe gotten half the achievements, and none of that was hunting, it was most just playing around with all the classes and weapons over time. I'm sure if I had more than a dozen hours of medic or heavy I'd eventually get another handful of each, but since I basically only play 2Fort a lot of the map achievements don't really interest me. It's just how it is.

There are exceptions, though. Sometimes, I'll get good enough at a game, sink enough hours into gameplay, or maybe it's just long and comprehensive enough that I'll get a surprising number of the achievements, and it's like a switch is flipped in my brain: "hey look, you got like 80% of the achievements just playing through everything, and that wasn't even just all story achievements. Maybe you can do this" and suddenly I gotta at least try. If I get in deep enough to see that I'm just not skilled enough or obsessed enough, I'll drop it. There's one game I've completed like this (Batman: Arkham Asylum), and two that I've almost completed like this (Batman: Arkham City, and Super Meat Boy). With the former, I'm currently staring at several "beat all the challenge maps with the ****ty alternate characters you haven't spend hundreds of hours mastering" and after attempting to play through those maps with those characters I'm convinced I'm only gonna get them if I beat my head against the wall, look up tutorials, or both. But with Super Meat Boy...

I'm so close I can almost taste it. (https://i.imgur.com/vquVKUB.jpg)

[Velaryon]

Hell no!

It feels like work to me, and I don't do work unless I'm getting paid. I have real trouble figuring out why people do strive for these things, and why game makers put them in in the first place. Though, obviously, I'm in the minority here =D

This part I think has an easy explanation. It's one part creating the illusion of extra content by giving players a little pat on the back for spending more time playing the game, and one part following the trend because other games are doing it and now it's expected.

[BeerMug Paladin]

I don't play as many games as often as I used to. That said, if I feel like playing a game of any kind, I'll usually not put it away for good and consider it completed until I've done 100%. Other than if I consider the things to get 100% to be things I just don't want to do.

I usually don't bother looking at achievements until I've played the base game a pretty solid amount and look to them to give me ideas for new things to consider trying (such as mainlining and using a different style of combat I didn't naturally engage with on earlier plays). That is, as far as I understand, what their existence is supposed to accomplish in the first place. Replayability.

[Kaptin Keen]

Off topic--I think you're just spending too much time on cooking your meals, you can cook some nice stuff in less than half an hour.

On topic--I largely agree with you. I certainly have no desire to go climbing a mountain "just because it's there". I know there are people out there who do have that desire, though (or else there wouldn't be so many frozen bodies on Everest), so the achievement-hunters must be similar.

You can cook nice meals quickly - I have a pasta pesto thing I can do in 20 minutes flat - but it's still faster to make some slices of delicious danish rye bread, and even if it takes only 20 minutes to make, it still takes even less time to eat. And while I always have bread and topping in the house, the ingredients for my pasta are something I need to go buy, something that takes at least an extra 30 minutes.

But the real issue is: I enjoy my rye bread only very slightly less than a proper meal


This part I think has an easy explanation. It's one part creating the illusion of extra content by giving players a little pat on the back for spending more time playing the game, and one part following the trend because other games are doing it and now it's expected.

Oh yea - certainly. But they noticed there was a market for it. Maybe it's an evolutionary thing, like .. it grew from how much time people invest in looking for easter eggs.

[Amechra]

Something like Into the Breach, where they can sort of act like "quests" in an otherwise quest-light game.

I'm not sure Into The Breach counts, because achievements there give you coins so that you can unlock new teams. So it's more like they're actually quests.

As for me? I'm really annoyed by the existence of a lot of achievements. I absolutely hate achievements that trigger when you get X% of the way through the game, because they break my immersion pretty hard. But achievements that are signposts for new content are A-OK in my book!

[danzibr]

Hell no!
Ha, my favorite comment so far.

I don't bother with all achievements. But imagine I'm playing an RPG where I'm really enjoying creatively destroying everything with my fire mage, and then I get a popup saying "Kill it with fire, bronze". Hell yeah, challenge accepted. Kill every type of enemy in the game using only fire? I didn't know if it was even possible, but now it's my goal. First try at every boss I'm going in with fire only. If I don't have enough power for it yet, fine, I'll use another way but come back later. I mean, I can come up with something like that myself, but if the developers already thought of it I don't have to think of it myself. I might have never thought of going for a tripple stunt on the wild seas in the flooded city level, too unpredictable, better not to risk it and keep racing. But if I can get a little trophy and a new decal for it...

Achievements can be used as a lazy way for developers to add content. But they can also be used as a lazy way for players to add enjoyment. I'm a big fan of enjoyment.
I like this a lot. Some games I really enjoyed, then yeah, ran out of things to do.

But take Sonic Mania. There’s an achievement for finding a hidden submarine. Would never have known about it were it not for that achievement, gave me something to do.

But in say Hyper Light Drifter or Momodora: Reverie Under the Moonlight, iirc there are achievements for beating the game without dying. Or in some games without even taking a single hit. Yeah that’s never going to happen.

[The_Jackal]

This part I think has an easy explanation. It's one part creating the illusion of extra content by giving players a little pat on the back for spending more time playing the game, and one part following the trend because other games are doing it and now it's expected.

Well, how is that different from a regular in-game mission? The point of achievements (if done well) is to direct the player to things the developer thinks is intrinsically rewarding. That said, I will certainly concur that most achievements fail in this regard. But sometimes, sure, they can encourage you to engage in the game in different ways, or gently nudge the player to complete content they might have otherwise skipped.

For my part, I think the best implementation of achievements was not a regular achievement list, but was, rather, the weapon unlocks from Modern Warfare 2. You actually got in-game cosmetics for doing them, and they encouraged the player to shift out of their comfort zone (which was the typical meta loadout), to acquire some new toys.


You can cook nice meals quickly - I have a pasta pesto thing I can do in 20 minutes flat - but it's still faster to make some slices of delicious danish rye bread, and even if it takes only 20 minutes to make, it still takes even less time to eat. And while I always have bread and topping in the house, the ingredients for my pasta are something I need to go buy, something that takes at least an extra 30 minutes.

But the real issue is: I enjoy my rye bread only very slightly less than a proper meal

Well, both pasta and rye bread are technically replete with other people cooking for you. Meal prep isn't a binary situation, it exists on a continuum, where you raise and kill your own chicken on one end of the scale, and where you order McNuggets for delivery on the other end. That said, I think we're acculturated to festishize cooking, much in the same way we festishize reading novels, hand-writing letters, and all the other things old people did "In their day". Yes, my great grandmother would spend hours making Rétes (https://www.bigoven.com/recipe/rtes-hungarian-strudel/896664) on the kitchen table, but I don't have to, I can just rock on down to the pastry shop and buy a piece. I also gather that she used to walk to school in the snow, uphill, both ways.

[Kareeah_Indaga]

I don't bother with all achievements. But imagine I'm playing an RPG where I'm really enjoying creatively destroying everything with my fire mage, and then I get a popup saying "Kill it with fire, bronze". Hell yeah, challenge accepted.

This sort of thing I'll do. If I'm enjoying the game and run out of content in a particular direction I might use it to try a different direction (say I finish the main quest line and there's an achievement for 'complete X sidequests' or 'clear Y dungeons' - I might do that) . But if there's content that I would never touch (EX: multiplayer mode in an otherwise single-player game) or don't enjoy, adding an achievement to it is not going to convince me to try it.

[Amechra]

Well, both pasta and rye bread are technically replete with other people cooking for you. Meal prep isn't a binary situation, it exists on a continuum, where you raise and kill your own chicken on one end of the scale, and where you order McNuggets for delivery on the other end. That said, I think we're acculturated to festishize cooking, much in the same way we festishize reading novels, hand-writing letters, and all the other things old people did "In their day". Yes, my great grandmother would spend hours making Rétes (https://www.bigoven.com/recipe/rtes-hungarian-strudel/896664) on the kitchen table, but I don't have to, I can just rock on down to the pastry shop and buy a piece. I also gather that she used to walk to school in the snow, uphill, both ways.

That's a great solution... when you have pastry shops you can go to. If I want linzer torte or lebkuchen, I have to make it myself (because American pastry shops do donuts, cakes, sugar-based cookies, and that's basically it).

[Kaptin Keen]

Well, both pasta and rye bread are technically replete with other people cooking for you. Meal prep isn't a binary situation, it exists on a continuum, where you raise and kill your own chicken on one end of the scale, and where you order McNuggets for delivery on the other end. That said, I think we're acculturated to festishize cooking, much in the same way we festishize reading novels, hand-writing letters, and all the other things old people did "In their day". Yes, my great grandmother would spend hours making Rétes (https://www.bigoven.com/recipe/rtes-hungarian-strudel/896664) on the kitchen table, but I don't have to, I can just rock on down to the pastry shop and buy a piece. I also gather that she used to walk to school in the snow, uphill, both ways.

.... welllll - technically, raising your own chicken is farming, not cooking. But yes, I agree with you, I'm certainly not crafting my own fresh pasta.

Unexpectedly veering back on-topic, what I'd really like would be an 'Achievement Bot' - like, an option you can switch on which summons .. let's say a cute squirrel which completes your achievements for you. I'd get all the achievements - if getting them required zero effort. Damn, I think I've elevated laziness to an artform =D

[Amechra]

.... welllll - technically, raising your own chicken is farming, not cooking. But yes, I agree with you, I'm certainly not crafting my own fresh pasta.

Unexpectedly veering back on-topic, what I'd really like would be an 'Achievement Bot' - like, an option you can switch on which summons .. let's say a cute squirrel which completes your achievements for you. I'd get all the achievements - if getting them required zero effort. Damn, I think I've elevated laziness to an artform =D

If it's something that a particularly well-trained squirrel can do, then it wasn't worth your time in the first place.

[Rynjin]

Well, both pasta and rye bread are technically replete with other people cooking for you. Meal prep isn't a binary situation, it exists on a continuum, where you raise and kill your own chicken on one end of the scale, and where you order McNuggets for delivery on the other end. That said, I think we're acculturated to festishize cooking, much in the same way we festishize reading novels, hand-writing letters, and all the other things old people did "In their day". Yes, my great grandmother would spend hours making Rétes (https://www.bigoven.com/recipe/rtes-hungarian-strudel/896664) on the kitchen table, but I don't have to, I can just rock on down to the pastry shop and buy a piece. I also gather that she used to walk to school in the snow, uphill, both ways.

That recipe...doesn't look that difficult. Yeah it takes "hours" but a lot of it is just waiting for dough to set or your timer to go off while it's in the oven.

That's what I think a lot of people don't understand about cooking. It's something you can do while you do other stuff much of the time. People stress about Thanksgiving dinner, for example, but while I technically spent 5 hours cooking on Thanksgiving, most of it was just waiting, chilling, and watching TV.

The effort is well worth the reward, since you get food better than you can get at 90% or more of restaurants at a tiny fraction of the cost. No 300% markup on ingredients, no tip, no delivery fee, just hot food made fresh and delivered right to your mouth.

[Kaptin Keen]

If it's something that a particularly well-trained squirrel can do, then it wasn't worth your time in the first place.

But that seems to be my point exactly: Achievements aren't worth my time, but if an in-game squirrel would do them for me, I'd be fine with that. The achievement could be silver, say, if it was the squirrel that put in the effort, and gold if some poor schmuck decided to do squirrel work.

[AvatarVecna]

I'd get all the achievements - if getting them required zero effort.

Plot twist - toggling on the achievement squirrel does nothing but win you a secret hidden Achievement named "What A Chad". Double plot twist, it's worth 0 gamerscore.

[Amechra]

Plot twist - toggling on the achievement squirrel does nothing but win you a secret hidden Achievement named "What A Chad". Double plot twist, it's worth 0 gamerscore.

Well that, and it unlocks the secret achievement squirrel optional boss, which gets harder for every achievement you have the squirrel do.

[Kaptin Keen]

Um ... squirrel boss is my favourite ..... oO

[Amechra]

It is time. The 'Kings of Bloodshed' have been an annoyance since forever, and now I'm going to wipe them out. Or, you know, the village of theirs that's right next door.

I have body armor, I have assault rifles, I have highly skilled guys and girls, and the K's of B are going down.

I give my self 10 to 1 odds. I'm going to get utterly creamed, aren't I? But this is how we learn, and thankfully I have none of that painful pride that would force me to not make a save game before sending the troops.

Oh, dear god .. I just sent off everyone who can actually fight, and now the Three Little Pigs joined my colony. The Big Bad Wolf is ...certain to be just around the corner. I'm doomed.

I think you're in the wrong place - I'm guessing you meant to stick this in the Rimworld thread? :smallwink:

[Kaptin Keen]

I think you're in the wrong place - I'm guessing you meant to stick this in the Rimworld thread? :smallwink:

Oh!

Hush. We shall never speak of this again. And I'll camouflage my previous post to look halfway sane.

[Hunter Noventa]

I sometimes use them as a gameplay guide.

In Civ, for example, I wanted to play every different ruler. They all had an achievement associated with them, and so I strove for that achievement when playing that character. But other ones? Not worth my time.

Yeah I've done the same thing with Civ. Sometimes I'll just pick out an achievement and go for it.

Otherwise I more or less ignore them. The only games I've got for 100% of trophies on lately have been the Super Robot Wars games that came out recently (V, X and T)

[AlanBruce]

Depends on the game and how much I’m invested into it.

The last three games I platinumed were Bloodborne, Sekiro and RE 2 Remake.

The first two gave me gaming satisfaction because, well... they are somewhat difficult.

RE 2 is a more personal game for me since I played the original a lot back in the day. Also, in the case of this game, trophies bring rewards. For example, there is a trophy that can only be earned by beating the game in under 2 and a half hours, saving only three times and playing in Hardcore Mode.

It was a harrowing and oftentimes frustrating affair, but once that trophy popped up, you get a nice unlimited ammo gun (varies depending on the character used). And damn if it isn’t satisfying to run around the RPD with it!

[danzibr]

Nice with the RE2 Remake trophy!

I might shoot for that someday. I too played a lot of the original.

Well, I did platinum FFX. Then I started FFX-2, was originally thinking to platinum it, then realized I don’t care about it nearly as much as I do the original, then decided not to.

I put like 300 hours into FFX as a kid, but only beat FFX-2 once, and it was a rush job, didn’t even get the good ending. I just don’t have the same attachment.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Hell no! Ditto. I generally have no flocks to give about 'cheevos.


It feels like work to me, and I don't do work unless I'm getting paid. I have real trouble figuring out why people do strive for these things, and why game makers put them in in the first place. Though, obviously, I'm in the minority here =D

I can answer that one... metrics.

Say you want to know what percentage of people who purchased (or purchased on their behalf as a gift) your game actually played it. Well, if they have the 'completed the tutorial' achievement, then they've at least turned it on.

It tells you what demographics your game is actually hitting, regardless of what you were aiming for. Say you had an achievement for a hardcore difficulty that you expected maybe a half percent of your playerbase to actually get, but it actually came up with something like five percent. That's something you need to look into. What about your game, or at least the hardcore mode, attracted more players than you had anticipated? Was it faster (Say... a lack of cutscenes put in just because you assumed anyone who is on Hardcore mode has already seen them enough already) and the game has a surprisingly robust speedrunner population? That's useful and relevant information, and something you can even lean into for a bit, such as adding in skippable cutscenes in Normal mode or something. Minimal effort for an increase in popularity.

Likewise, if a given metric hit well below you were expecting, say you were expecting at least 20% of the players who at least got through the Tutorial to complete the game on at least your lowest difficulty setting, but it turned out to only be 5-10%, go back and find out why. Was there an unanticipated difficulty spike somewhere that a lot of people gave up on? Did gameplay just get repetitive and boring and lose people? Again, this is useful information, if not for something to patch for this game, than to carry with you into your next project.

Achievements give the developers a way to have a finely granular metrics to present for consideration, feedback that requires the player to take no further action.

[Kaptin Keen]

I can answer that one... metrics.

Say you want to know what percentage of people who purchased (or purchased on their behalf as a gift) your game actually played it. Well, if they have the 'completed the tutorial' achievement, then they've at least turned it on.

It tells you what demographics your game is actually hitting, regardless of what you were aiming for. Say you had an achievement for a hardcore difficulty that you expected maybe a half percent of your playerbase to actually get, but it actually came up with something like five percent. That's something you need to look into. What about your game, or at least the hardcore mode, attracted more players than you had anticipated? Was it faster (Say... a lack of cutscenes put in just because you assumed anyone who is on Hardcore mode has already seen them enough already) and the game has a surprisingly robust speedrunner population? That's useful and relevant information, and something you can even lean into for a bit, such as adding in skippable cutscenes in Normal mode or something. Minimal effort for an increase in popularity.

Likewise, if a given metric hit well below you were expecting, say you were expecting at least 20% of the players who at least got through the Tutorial to complete the game on at least your lowest difficulty setting, but it turned out to only be 5-10%, go back and find out why. Was there an unanticipated difficulty spike somewhere that a lot of people gave up on? Did gameplay just get repetitive and boring and lose people? Again, this is useful information, if not for something to patch for this game, than to carry with you into your next project.

Achievements give the developers a way to have a finely granular metrics to present for consideration, feedback that requires the player to take no further action.

Yes - surveillance with a smile, I'm sure. But is it worth it? I mean, sure, data is data, but it's going to be skewed in so many ways, right? Also, don't get get feedback data regardless of achievements? I seem to recall accepting ToS that included that sort of thing?

Oh, internet! Thou hast us to Pavlov's dogs reduced. Woe is us.

[AlanBruce]

Nice with the RE2 Remake trophy!

I might shoot for that someday. I too played a lot of the original.



Thank you! The trick is to memorize your route, decide what to pick and not and most importantly... use the knife on bosses.

I don’t think the game developers thought players would use the knife on bosses, but it’s a very powerful weapon against them if you know when to catch them when staggered for extra damage.

Saves you a bunch of ammo for the final boss.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Yes - surveillance with a smile, I'm sure. But is it worth it? I mean, sure, data is data, but it's going to be skewed in so many ways, right? Also, don't get get feedback data regardless of achievements? I seem to recall accepting ToS that included that sort of thing?

Achievement numbers are pretty solid, because they reflect what people actually Did The Thing. It offers a degree of granularity that other feedback data, such as forum complaints or raw number of hours logged, can offer. And can often work in complement to the data that Steam offers you.

For example, you can cross-reference, say, accounts that have the 'beaten the game on at least easiest difficulty' with 'what computer specs are they using'. If a lot of people are running 'min-spec', or potato just barely big enough to run your game, then you can infer that you probably don't want to crank up the graphics for the sequel because it will alienate those players.

[Vinyadan]

I enjoyed the achievements in DOOM, because they pushed you to trying out some weapons that you maybe would have otherwise ignored. It definitely did help that DOOM had an arcadey feel with modern enjoyability (the various levels were fairly long set-piece battles in large spaces with multiple floors), so you could play the same level thrice in a few days without getting bored by it.

Otherwise, I generally ignore them. I remember when they appeared in flash games, which were very simple, and that I understood: the games were too repetitive to hold you just through the gameplay, so they added this little factor. But PC games shouldn't need them.

[factotum]

Achievement numbers are pretty solid, because they reflect what people actually Did The Thing. It offers a degree of granularity that other feedback data, such as forum complaints or raw number of hours logged, can offer. And can often work in complement to the data that Steam offers you.

Not to mention that it doesn't feel like the developers are spying on you. I always remember seeing a video online where somebody had taken the exact location of player deaths by falling in the game "Just Cause 2" and constructed a ghostly representation of the world map from it. Which was cool, don't get me wrong, but it meant the developers of the game were, for some reason, keeping track of that information, and I could never quite figure out why they were doing that.

[Kaptin Keen]

Achievement numbers are pretty solid, because they reflect what people actually Did The Thing. It offers a degree of granularity that other feedback data, such as forum complaints or raw number of hours logged, can offer. And can often work in complement to the data that Steam offers you.

For example, you can cross-reference, say, accounts that have the 'beaten the game on at least easiest difficulty' with 'what computer specs are they using'. If a lot of people are running 'min-spec', or potato just barely big enough to run your game, then you can infer that you probably don't want to crank up the graphics for the sequel because it will alienate those players.

But ..... they show fairly weak data for one like me, who quite frankly couldn't care less - and really strong data for completionists who deliberately chase achievements. It's .. skewed. Yes, you get the data, but the data itself doesn't tell you whether the player is one like me, who got the achievement by sheer chance, or someone who went out of his way to get it.

It tells you who Did The Thing, but not why.

On the other hand I'm sure they made a deliberate decision. If the data was collected without feedback (in the form of achievements), it would be less skewed, I feel. But then you wouldn't get to throw the completionists their bone.

It's an interesting topic - sadly, I'm sure you only get the real meat of it if you get hired into a games developer.

[snowblizz]

Not to mention that it doesn't feel like the developers are spying on you. I always remember seeing a video online where somebody had taken the exact location of player deaths by falling in the game "Just Cause 2" and constructed a ghostly representation of the world map from it. Which was cool, don't get me wrong, but it meant the developers of the game were, for some reason, keeping track of that information, and I could never quite figure out why they were doing that.

Level design I guess.

[warty goblin]

But ..... they show fairly weak data for one like me, who quite frankly couldn't care less - and really strong data for completionists who deliberately chase achievements. It's .. skewed. Yes, you get the data, but the data itself doesn't tell you whether the player is one like me, who got the achievement by sheer chance, or someone who went out of his way to get it.

It tells you who Did The Thing, but not why.

On the other hand I'm sure they made a deliberate decision. If the data was collected without feedback (in the form of achievements), it would be less skewed, I feel. But then you wouldn't get to throw the completionists their bone.

It's an interesting topic - sadly, I'm sure you only get the real meat of it if you get hired into a games developer.

I suspect given the conditions that trigger achievements that it's actually pretty easy to tell the completionists from everybody else. For one thing the completionists will tend to have more achievements, and also rarer, harder to get ones. And not achievements have anything to do with metrics either, so you can simply filter some out because you don't care about them.

[Amechra]

I'd assume that they're generally looking at those "you completed X% of the main plot" achievements.

And, honestly? Unlike other forms of data collection, I'm pretty OK with this one. After all, the data being gathered is (in general) public knowledge. You could go on your Steam account right now, open up a game, and see what percentage of people got Achievement *A*.

[Resileaf]

About the use of achievements as metrics, I think they might not be ultimately the most useful way for devs to get metrics (they've got better tools for it), but they're very convenient for players to get metrics that are easy to understand. It can make players have a look at what other players have done in this game, see how far they've gotten, maybe make them feel proud of having completed an achievement that few people have managed to do. And maybe even make them realize that there aren't that many people who even start up the game and complete the tutorial, which might make them realize that there are a truckload of games that they haven't started up and done the tutorial for.

[spectralphoenix]

But ..... they show fairly weak data for one like me, who quite frankly couldn't care less - and really strong data for completionists who deliberately chase achievements. It's .. skewed. Yes, you get the data, but the data itself doesn't tell you whether the player is one like me, who got the achievement by sheer chance, or someone who went out of his way to get it.

It tells you who Did The Thing, but not why.

On the other hand I'm sure they made a deliberate decision. If the data was collected without feedback (in the form of achievements), it would be less skewed, I feel. But then you wouldn't get to throw the completionists their bone.

It's an interesting topic - sadly, I'm sure you only get the real meat of it if you get hired into a games developer.

If anything, it's probably better for people who aren't chasing achievements. Let's say for each weapon in the game, they give out an achievement for killing 100 enemies with it. Assuming enough enemies, those are going to be pretty easy to get on purpose, and someone who wants the achievements will get all of them, no problem. Someone who ignores the achievements though, and doesn't use the weapons they don't like, will have achievements for some weapons but not others. And they're ultimately looking at percentages, not individual accounts - if 60% of the playerbase has 100 kills with the plasma rifle but only 30% with the submachine gun, that tells them something. Conversely, not every achievement is intended to provide meaningful data. But they're trivial to add, so why not?

And of course, some achievements aren't really avoidable as long as you're doing the content - if they make achievements for completing chapter 4, starting New Game Plus, or choosing the Evil ending,it doesn't matter how much disdain someone holds the achievement system in, they're getting the achievement.

Ultimately, achievements can serve a lot of different purposes. They can serve as a roadmap to explore some of the more open-ended games, they can provide challenges for people looking to spice things up a little, or just be little jokes. And some games have terrible achievement systems - the Age of Empires 2 rerelease comes to mind (nearly 300 achievements including one for each side for playing that side 100 times.) But every game mechanic can be misused.

[Resileaf]

Ultimately, achievements can serve a lot of different purposes. They can serve as a roadmap to explore some of the more open-ended games, they can provide challenges for people looking to spice things up a little, or just be little jokes. And some games have terrible achievement systems - the Age of Empires 2 rerelease comes to mind (nearly 300 achievements including one for each side for playing that side 100 times.) But every game mechanic can be misused.

Used to have achievements for playing each faction a thousand times.
Slightly over-the-top.

[Olinser]

I quite like achievements, actually.

In fact, especially for nostalgia games, whether they have Steam achievements or not is quite often the deciding factor in whether or not I actually buy it.

[Knaight]

Mostly no, but well designed achievements for challenges are an exception. Shadow Tactics: Blades of the Shogun really stood out here, with discrete replayable levels with optional achievements for level wide behavior. I'd beat a level, then strategize how to collect all of them (except the speedrun bit) in as few runs as possible, then do weird challenge runs using tactics that emphatically weren't my go to approach to deal with my go to approach being blocked.

[Kaptin Keen]

If anything, it's probably better for people who aren't chasing achievements. Let's say for each weapon in the game, they give out an achievement for killing 100 enemies with it. Assuming enough enemies, those are going to be pretty easy to get on purpose, and someone who wants the achievements will get all of them, no problem. Someone who ignores the achievements though, and doesn't use the weapons they don't like, will have achievements for some weapons but not others. And they're ultimately looking at percentages, not individual accounts - if 60% of the playerbase has 100 kills with the plasma rifle but only 30% with the submachine gun, that tells them something. Conversely, not every achievement is intended to provide meaningful data. But they're trivial to add, so why not?

And of course, some achievements aren't really avoidable as long as you're doing the content - if they make achievements for completing chapter 4, starting New Game Plus, or choosing the Evil ending,it doesn't matter how much disdain someone holds the achievement system in, they're getting the achievement.

Ultimately, achievements can serve a lot of different purposes. They can serve as a roadmap to explore some of the more open-ended games, they can provide challenges for people looking to spice things up a little, or just be little jokes. And some games have terrible achievement systems - the Age of Empires 2 rerelease comes to mind (nearly 300 achievements including one for each side for playing that side 100 times.) But every game mechanic can be misused.

Yes, you can design your criteria to suit your purposes - but the data will always be skewed by those who try to get 100 kills with every weapon to get all the achievements, and those like me who are completely oblivious. It'll be skewed by the Ironman Only for achievements, something that's quite common. And other things besides.

Any game* I play, I'm likely to rack up the most kills with the shotgun. It just suits my playstyle. Besides the point, but that's sure to be true regardless of achievements.

But I'm not saying achievements cannot produce data. They just cannot produce statistically correct data, unless you make allowance for a very substantial number of unknowns.

* Doesn't apply to solitaire, mine sweeper, or railroad tycoon.

[Olinser]

If anything, it's probably better for people who aren't chasing achievements. Let's say for each weapon in the game, they give out an achievement for killing 100 enemies with it. Assuming enough enemies, those are going to be pretty easy to get on purpose, and someone who wants the achievements will get all of them, no problem. Someone who ignores the achievements though, and doesn't use the weapons they don't like, will have achievements for some weapons but not others. And they're ultimately looking at percentages, not individual accounts - if 60% of the playerbase has 100 kills with the plasma rifle but only 30% with the submachine gun, that tells them something. Conversely, not every achievement is intended to provide meaningful data. But they're trivial to add, so why not?

And of course, some achievements aren't really avoidable as long as you're doing the content - if they make achievements for completing chapter 4, starting New Game Plus, or choosing the Evil ending,it doesn't matter how much disdain someone holds the achievement system in, they're getting the achievement.

Ultimately, achievements can serve a lot of different purposes. They can serve as a roadmap to explore some of the more open-ended games, they can provide challenges for people looking to spice things up a little, or just be little jokes. And some games have terrible achievement systems - the Age of Empires 2 rerelease comes to mind (nearly 300 achievements including one for each side for playing that side 100 times.) But every game mechanic can be misused.

Oh yeah, achievements like the AoE2 are STUPID. They don't show any particular skill at the game, you don't have to do anything special, they're just stupid time sinks. And for people that actually care about how many games they've played, a stat page with games played of each race is far superior.

Nobody interested in achievements looks at it and says, 'Huh well I guess I have to play 1300 games to get all these 'play games as x' achievements'. What they do is find another achievement hunter and trade 5 second wins back and forth until they both get the achievement in a minimum of time. Or Ninja Gaiden for XBOX (maybe it was Ninja Gaiden 2?) had a different achievement for each weapon.... beat the entire game using only that weapon. There were 9 different weapons, so that meant that at a minimum for 100% achievements you had to beat the game NINE TIMES. It's not hard, just time consuming, and practically nobody will get them unless they are specifically trying to get the achievement.