Talk about TrueAchievements Forum

General chat about all things TA

A very lenghty text about how the Achievements lost there "steam" and fun over t

AuthorMessage
Destro WOD
283,044
Destro WOD
Posted on 19 July 18 at 06:13
Ultra long post, if you are lazy, click BACK on your keyboard. Recommand to be on a computer to read this, not a cellphone.

Achievements are awesome ! This was the best feature by far introduced during the 7th generation consoles and it redefined the way we game. If before the bragging of having unlocked something in a game was constrain in the boundaries of said game, never to be carried outside, now it wasn't the case anymore. Achievements and the gamerprofile concept let you not only keep track of the games you play under one universal feature, but it remember EVERYTHING you unlocked in specific games and that forever.

It is simply awesome to look at your gamertag and look back at all the awesome (and not so awesome) games you played over the years and bring back memories. You can also compare with your friends and look at what they have done that you didn't or vice versa. I love achievements and i will always will, BUT...

I feel achievements have lost there way in later years. Originally when they where implemented there was mistakes. It took them time to properly gauge the system. Either some games where too easy to get the 1000G by simply doing the story mode, or other games had ridiculous requirements like becoming first in the world on the leaderboard. But eventually they got it right. 1000G for retail games, 200G for arcade games. Then came the DLC with an additional 250G. At times it was fun to have extra achievements like in Gears of War 1, but some games just abused it to make players buy the unessessary DLCs to keep there completion.

Obviously it was hard to keep it right. Why a compagny would be allowed to add an extra 250, while another couldn't? So we dealth with it. Eventually the system was pushed to 1500 and finally 2000G while arcade titles as they got bigger where pushed to 400G. I think at that point it was still somewhat fair. Maybe 1000G for DLC compare to 1000G for the whole release game seem a bit overboard but at least you where assured that when the game hit 2000G, its over, no achievements could be added anymore. I could be wrong on this but i am pretty sure achievements had to be tied in to DLC and not just added for the sake of adding them.

Fast forward to the Xbox One and you could already see the system was loosing parts of its identity. Now every game is 1000, no matter how small it is. Don't get me wrong, there is some amazing Indy titles that truly can fill a 1000G, but there some small games who truly shouldn't have 1000 that just release and give one hell of an easy 1000 for 5$ or less. These games can be used to pad your gamerscore and even tought i get the point that it may help them sell, and i am a culprit of having done it myself, buying a game strickly for easy gamercore and deleting it a couple hours later is not the vision that achievements originally had.

On top of that it seem now any games can add as much as 500G every 3 months, without any limits. One of the worst case is Gears of War 4. Altought the game had 2 "new" maps (using quote because the ones who played it will know) released as DLC every month, it barely had any gamerscore added during the first 8 months or so. Then eventually they opened the flood gates and jacked the game gamerscore to 3500G !! They said they will make it 4000G total when there done, with the last achievements due september 2018.

I know some of you could say that new achievements are great and will keep us playing the game. But the achievements in GOW4 where not done well. Too much of them had you redo what you already done, like certain kill types, or in some cases just added an extra difficulty mode and wanted you to redo the same campaign again. In the case of horde they added a new difficulty, but added new cards and push the cards levels to 6 instead of 5, thus pretty much nullifying the extra difficulty for the peoples who kept up and where able to raise those cards to 6. Obviously looking back at this, it was simply a clever marketing strategy to make players indulge in there lootboxes micro transactions.

I know only a certain % of gamers care about achievements, but you can't deny that they tried to exploit that % as best as they could. They knew completionist would want to keep that completion. I know i am talking a lot about GOW4 in a general achievement post, but that game may be the gatekeeper of the futur of the system, because almost 2 years after initial release, it will still get new achievements. And lets say that those are not "quick stuff" either. They either are time consuming or require you to aquire items that are time consuming OR obviously you can pay them trough the legally debated "lootbox" system with real money. Oh and did i mentioned that after the second batch, they wouldn't even be retro active? Yup. Even if you already did the requirement, sorry for you, but you had to do it AGAIN ! That shouldn't be the case. New achievements should be tied to NEW CONTENT, therefore stuff you couldn't had possibly achieved before.

Gears of War 4 basterdized the achievement system and nothing let us believe it won't happen again. Sure there was games before that had enormous ammount of gamerscore but those where always special games. The Halo collection... the Rare Replay collection, those are COLLECTIONS and therefore its normal they get more than the standard 1000. A game like Killer Instinc was a bit of an abnormality but even tough they kept releasing achievements, they where releasing the content to go with it.

To get back on Gears of War 4 one final time, lets just say that i love this franchise and i always kept playing it, even after the achievements and DLC where all released in previous installements. I would play when i wanted to. I kept completion of every games in the franchise (Xbox) and the players know those where not easy. Seriously 3.0 was one of the most time consuming and hard achievement ever made. Yet i feel even that achievement was nothing compare to all the time GOW4 required me to put into, especially playing a horde mode i never liked that much to begin with. Also the fun thing is i knew what i signed for with Seriously 3.0 and it was the last achievement i got in the game, after all the DLC achievements, as it should be. GOW4 did it backward by having a "more fair" Seriously 4.0 that gave us hope that it wouldn't be as time consuming as 3, but it then added longer and worst achievements after. I may be able to complete GOW4 but honestly i don't think ill invest the same ammount of time in Gears 5 if they gonna push to .. hell maybe 5000G this time.

I think DLC achievements should reflect what the DLC is about and never be more time consuming than the achievements in the original game. At least those original achievements you are able to see them before starting a game, before deciding if you want to invest that time. You also have all the buzz of the release and lots and lots of new players on the game when it comes to multiplayer achievements.

I love GOW4 but its actually hard for me to find peoples to do the horde achievements these days before most peoples moved on in my friends circle, like its always the case with old games. The peoples in multiplayer are also mostly the die hard fans, and there better then the hundreds of casuals that played for 2 months after release. Therefore releasing hard and luck based achievements over 1 year and a half after release should never happen.

In retrospective i miss the old time where achievements where better balance. These days either you can pad your gamerscore with tons of 5/10$ games giving you 1000G everytime, but on the other side AAA released can suck you up to stay on the same game for years adding achievements pretty much infinitely. What i would like would be the return of at least a decent limit on major titles. 2000G was more than enough. Also it may be just esthetic, but wouldn't it look much better if games would all end on a round number instead of sometimes leaving the game on odd bad looking numbers? Doom ended its achievement number at 1580 ...the first Battlefront at 1690. What odds numbers are that? Why they didn't end on at least 1500. Or currently i am playing Rise of the Tomb Raider, great game, a bit too much collectibles but super fun, but the achievements end at 2250. Not as bad a number as 1690 but why not stop it at 2000? If the limit would had still be in place it would had.

I know some of you could not care less about how much gamerscore a game has, or that it has gamerscore at all. But for some of us, who love achievements, i think it would be great to have uniformity. Achievements, or Trophies even, are so important to me that its one of the reason why i have zero interest on the Switch. As long as Nintendo don't implement its own Achievement system, i don't feel "rewarded" playing the games there.

And if Xbox keep the DLC achievements unchecked, at the very least they should introduce a kind of "platinum trophy" for next generation, rewarding players who at least did all the ORIGINAL achievements on a game.
Destro WOD
LuckyConquerer2
Posted on 19 July 18 at 10:27
There was once a guy who had such an issue with gamerscore that he created his own scoring system that was more true based on rarity. He made a great website too.
InfinityOnH1gh
Posted on 19 July 18 at 21:23
That's why I don't include DLC in my stats.
Momiji
643,412
Momiji
Posted on 19 July 18 at 22:55
LuckyConquerer2 said:
There was once a guy who had such an issue with gamerscore that he created his own scoring system that was more true based on rarity. He made a great website too.
But he made the mistake of still using gamerscore as the base for his "fix" therefore only making the issue worse.

Achievements were great 10 years ago but now they need to just die. I've missed out on plenty of great games due to feeling obliged to 100% a game before moving on or skipping something completely due to not having the time to invest 100's of hours on a game that has a 10 hour story.

But at this point in much too invested to just stop and start every game I own and ruin something I've been working on for years.
LuckyConquerer2
Posted on 19 July 18 at 23:00
If you hate them so much, ignore them. If you can not do that, try using an alternate tag.
alklein92201
495,470
alklein92201
Posted on 20 July 18 at 01:31
Momiji said:
Achievements were great 10 years ago but now they need to just die. I've missed out on plenty of great games due to feeling obliged to 100% a game before moving on or skipping something completely due to not having the time to invest 100's of hours on a game that has a 10 hour story.

But at this point in much too invested to just stop and start every game I own and ruin something I've been working on for years.
That's not a problem with achievements though. That's a problem on individual gamers' ends.
#mentallypudding
Destro WOD
283,044
Destro WOD
Posted on 20 July 18 at 05:58
Momiji said:
Achievements were great 10 years ago but now they need to just die. I've missed out on plenty of great games due to feeling obliged to 100% a game before moving on or skipping something completely due to not having the time to invest 100's of hours on a game that has a 10 hour story.

But at this point in much too invested to just stop and start every game I own and ruin something I've been working on for years.
You see this is something i could never had done, it never even interested me. Its insane to go for every single achievements in every game, some of them are just terrible. And skipping on fun games just because of annoying achievements? NO...

I know it depends from one gamer to another, but completion is usually not something i aim for unless im die hard fan of the franchise in question like GOW as i said above. Right now i just finished the main story of Rise of the Tomb Raider and the Baba Yaga DLC. I really enjoyed the game, love this franchise but im not going for all the annoying achievements on the game. I still did 100% completion with every collectibles, i try to get as many misc achievements too. But the endurance mode... may give it a shot, but does not look like my cup of tea. Not why i play Tomb Raider. I do it for the story and the discovery, i like Lara as a character. And they even added a COOP endurance, that one you can be sure im skipping it lol.

I don't really mind... Ill probably skip score attack too or play it a bit to try it out but im not fond of doing what i don't like.

But to get back on my point in the thread its really that i feel games are kinda forced to have DLCs these days and add achievements for them... all for the $$$.

Also the shovel wares who get full 1000G list... i wish there would be a better control over them.
Destro WOD
Destro WOD
283,044
Destro WOD
Posted on 20 July 18 at 06:03
LuckyConquerer2 said:
There was once a guy who had such an issue with gamerscore that he created his own scoring system that was more true based on rarity. He made a great website too.
Honestly i never look or care about the trueachievements score i have. The fact that its independant from the real thing, that it only show HERE on my profile and not elsewhere like on xbox.com and such, make it irrelevant to me.

I mean, i understand the guy or guys put lot of effort into it, must have been pretty long put custom scores on every single achievements(or is it an algorythme?) and if some peoples actually enjoy it its great, but its not the reason why i signed to the website. I use and like other cool features but that one meh... not at all.

Its sad microsoft screwed up with the X1 in term of achievements, but the official system is still the one i care about.
Destro WOD
ChinDocta
1,115,725
ChinDocta
Posted on 20 July 18 at 06:44
Destro WOD said:
But to get back on my point in the thread its really that i feel games are kinda forced to have DLCs these days and add achievements for them... all for the $$$.
I mean...all of GoW 4's extra achievements have come in the form of Title Updates, so they cost the user nothing in terms of money and for the most part they're all retroactive so if you've already accomplished the task you'll get credit for it.

There are many examples of releasing DLC as a quick cash grab or something but GoW 4 is not a good one.
GI Flagging Manager
CRUM LEE
424,078
CRUM LEE
Posted on 20 July 18 at 12:37
alklein92201 said:
Momiji said:
Achievements were great 10 years ago but now they need to just die. I've missed out on plenty of great games due to feeling obliged to 100% a game before moving on or skipping something completely due to not having the time to invest 100's of hours on a game that has a 10 hour story.

But at this point in much too invested to just stop and start every game I own and ruin something I've been working on for years.
That's not a problem with achievements though. That's a problem on individual gamers' ends.
Exactly this. I'm so glad I don't treat gaming this way.
vSully
628,937
vSully
Posted on 20 July 18 at 17:13
The system has been completely flawed from the start. Devs assigning whatever G value to their achievements, initially totaling 1000 for retail releases. Stuff like Avatar with easy 200 and 300G achievements but MK vs DCU has all those difficult 5G Kombo Challenges. G assignment has always been completely arbitrary.

As for GoW, I gave up on that franchise after the lengths I had to go through for Seriously 3.0. Never again.
Destro WOD
283,044
Destro WOD
Posted on 20 July 18 at 22:10
ChinDocta said:
Destro WOD said:
But to get back on my point in the thread its really that i feel games are kinda forced to have DLCs these days and add achievements for them... all for the $$$.
I mean...all of GoW 4's extra achievements have come in the form of Title Updates, so they cost the user nothing in terms of money and for the most part they're all retroactive so if you've already accomplished the task you'll get credit for it.

There are many examples of releasing DLC as a quick cash grab or something but GoW 4 is not a good one.
You are wrong on many aspect. First of all the retro active part is only true for some of the title updates achievements. The latest 2 had none of this and when it comes to redoing campaign on an extra difficulty, even if the difficulty was not present before its still a cop out to me. I mean i done it on insane already, leave me alone with this "do campaign on the hardest" bullcrap.

Secondly even if the titles update where free, some of the achievements like getting a full class of horde to max level (Classy!) where obviously designed with monetary value in mind. I played A LOT, like REALLY a lot and it took me forever to raise that damn class. A casual could never do this without paying.
Destro WOD
Destro WOD
283,044
Destro WOD
Posted on 20 July 18 at 22:16
vSully said:
The system has been completely flawed from the start. Devs assigning whatever G value to their achievements, initially totaling 1000 for retail releases. Stuff like Avatar with easy 200 and 300G achievements but MK vs DCU has all those difficult 5G Kombo Challenges. G assignment has always been completely arbitrary.

As for GoW, I gave up on that franchise after the lengths I had to go through for Seriously 3.0. Never again.
Like i said it took them time to gauge on the system. Some games where ridiculously too hard while others ridiculously too easy in the first year or 2. But after that i don't really mind the numeral value not being "on par" with the difficulty. I mean as long as the whole thing is doable fairly. MK vs DC may not be a good exemple because i personally am a fan of MK and usually go for the 1000+ in those games yet i couldn't bare those stupid unrealistic challenge combo but then again im not either a super duper pro at combos. I always managed to do "fine" in fighting games because i have a good sense of the fight, i play more on instinc and improvisation and usually it serve me fine against average + players. But obviously when facing total pros who impout 35/40% combo, i just can't compete. I was able to do all the combo challenges in Mortal Kombat Deadly Alliance back in the days and deception too but MK vs DC was above my league... Way too much crazy timing required.

But in the end i still got 600G+ in the game so i don't see it as a total failure. Like i said im usually satisfy if i get 500+ in a game. Obviously i love getting the 1000 but 500 is "decent"

As for GOW its sad tough that because of a shitty achievement you let go an entire franchise. Its a proof that bad achievements like that can be damaging.
Destro WOD
ComboChrist
661,758
ComboChrist
Posted on 20 July 18 at 23:11, Edited on 20 July 18 at 23:14 by ComboChrist
tldr: you dislike gears4-tu's as much as anyone else. Anything else?

Oh and apparently you didn't do S3.0 legit, otherwise you would know that Gears4 doesn't take nearly as much time as 3.0
Destro WOD
283,044
Destro WOD
Posted on 10 August 18 at 01:03
Depends what you call legit, obviously i had to idle boost matches like everyone else for shitty modes. The rest i boosted a couple things like like heavy weapons but most of it i did against real player online.
Destro WOD
CAE9872
38,087
CAE9872
Posted on 10 May 19 at 12:50
I think I get the sentiment of the post and I agree. In my opinion the original intent was 1,000G for a game and 200G for arcade. I am happy with 1000 each now as really what is retail vs arcade anymore anyway.

However, games now seem to treat the achievements in an "arbitrary" way meaning the devs sit and say "Oh yeah we need achievements...best we get to that...just assign numbers to stuff" or thats what it feels like sometimes.

Achievements were supposed to be just that! Achieving something notable. Hard to get doesnt worry me.

But achievements now seem broken to some extent - a game's score is pretty irrelevant now as what is the score - 1000, 1468, 2250, etc.

And lets not even get to unobtainable and broken achievements due to server closures and bugs - makes the whole thing seem senseless.

And yet...I STILL like getting them. I now just use it for myself and keep track personally of what I have and havent done in a game. I chase as close to 90% of a game achievement and see where the pieces fall (although my ratio is useless as I tend to "hop" too much trying stuff before settling into to play something "properly").

They lost there lustre I guess? Trying to see whether I have done better than someone else is pointless nowadays - if my score is higher doesnt mean I am "better"; just means I could play more games.

I echo the comment that peope with 90% + completion are pretty much the pinnacle - provided you have a minimum of 50 games or so; less than that and still means you building.

And one final word - ONLINE achievements CAN ALL GO TO HELL!!!! I hate every one of them...
Want to join in the discussion? Please log in or Register For Free to comment.