When "easy" achievement points go wrong!

[Brats]

Blah, blah, blah..... it doesn't mean **** apart from you've probably been playing alot of generic crap.

Generic crap in your opinion. Which is the whole point I'm making about taste (which you brought up when you said 'Gamerscores are good indicators', or don't you get that?). I have a reasonable Gamerscore, but I don't think I've played any generic crap at all. All the games I've played I've enjoyed and they all brought something different to my gameplay experience.

I can respect your gameplay choices. If you can't respect mine, then more fool you.

[TheForce]

Infact, I'd have alot more respect for people who have played games such as King Kong 360, Tomb Raider and what ever else, with absolutely no acheivement or gamerpoints for it, as it's an indicator that this gamer is on my wave length and couldn't tolerate playing this crap long enough to gain an acheivement.

You can play and disregard a game before you complete a first level.

??? so you have respect for a gamer that plays the same game as I do, but just doesn't finish to get no gamer points ? ... just because I play the same game but actaully finish it (because I think it's a fun game) I get no respect from you because I got some points for it ? And the guy who plays the game but shuts it off to get no achievement is on your same "wave lenght"? and get's your respect...

I must be missing the point here.....

I can only guess how many friends you got in your list

I like the gamer score, especially in games like PGR3 and Burnout , it's comparing with my mates who actually is able to beat the challenges ...
But everyone should do what they like

[razu]

Canton makes sense to me. You can see from the points gained from certain games whether people have spent any time on that game. If someone has 0 points on a load of games you dislike, but lots of points on games you like you can tell they spend time playing games you like, which is a sign you might get on with them.

E.g. King Kong is rubbish. If you have wasted a chapter of your life getting all the available points then I think you are stupid, and we won't get on. Tomb Raider is complete rubbish. If you have lots of points for this and King Kong then I know we won't get on. However, if you have played King Kong and Tomb Raider, have 0 points from both, you probably thought as much of it as I did. We might get on. Ridge Racer is brilliant, if you have lots of points for that then you might not be a div.

I also agree that you can disregard a game before you complete a first level. I often disregard games before buying them, or even reading what they're really about.

E.g. Quick scan of IGN front page... first game I see "Dark Messiah of Might & Magic". Mmmm, tempting, but no. I'll sleep easy tonight not knowing what that ****e is all about...

[Ajay1986]

Canton can you give us your GT id like to see the games and points you have so i know weather to respect you or not

[dc-arena]

The problem is the Achievement system is rarely used properly and effectively. Games like EA Basketball (no idea on the name) gives you 200 points or something for creating a character. How is that an achievement? For 200 points in Ridge Racer 6 you have to work your ass off for a very long time.

King Kong is another one. Complete the 7hr adventure and you get 1000 points. Lots of people seem to have this game because it was bundled in with their Xbox (I certantly wouldn't of paid for it otherwise but chose to play through it as PGR3 was so dull). It's an incredibly easy game to complete, and you get the full 1000 points at the end. Call of Duty 2, however, you have to complete twice and slug your guts out through Veteran to get 1000 points.

With so many TCRs in place with Microsoft, you'd think they would have stricter guidelines to how points are given out within games. But then if the game is incredibly short and linear then the task of distributing the points does become harder.

Meh, its all done for the American market anyway and they seem to love it.

[Matt]

E.g. King Kong is rubbish. If you have wasted a chapter of your life getting all the available points then I think you are stupid, and we won't get on. Tomb Raider is complete rubbish. If you have lots of points for this and King Kong then I know we won't get on. However, if you have played King Kong and Tomb Raider, have 0 points from both, you probably thought as much of it as I did. We might get on. Ridge Racer is brilliant, if you have lots of points for that then you might not be a div.

Yikes, that's one of the most judgemental things I've ever read! OK, I've played KK so you think I'm stupid?!?! And everyone else who has played KK is stupid. And none of us will get on with you? **** mate, IT'S A GAME! It's not a life statement, it's a 5 hour game. I enjoyed the movie, thought I'd rent the game. I actually liked parts of the game, playing as Kong was a unique experience, I felt the rage and power of the character.

Stop me if I'm wrong, but you're basically saying that you base your friends purely on what games they've played, and if they ever dare play a game you deem "rubbish", you "know" you wouldn't get on with them anymore? Is that a life statement? Are games that important to you?

Because seriously, I couldn't give two ****s what games people play and whether they get achievements for them. If ST King wants to be top of the achievement pile, good for him. It's a nice little competitive field and adds a little celebrity to the scene. If some of my closest friends buy KK just for points, that's entirely up to them. And I don't believe anyone should base judgement on a human being based on what games they like playing.

They're ****ing games!!

[Matt]

The problem is the Achievement system is rarely used properly and effectively.

Actually I disagree. Too many people seem to think Achievements should only go to the "l33t" gamer who can get 100 headshots in a row on some 100mph FPS. What is wrong with having achievement points for completing a game? Is that not an achievement? I don't think anyone really thinks Gamerscore is a true reflection of gamer skill, but it's not a bad place to start and it's great fun.

I'm personally glad games can vary wildly from Easy to achieve to borderline Impossible. I question the logic of having extra levels of games which were only unlocked by the best gamers, and to me, Achievements for completing the simplest task just open the experience for more players.

If some games want to have you invest 20 hours to get 200 points, that's up to them. If another wants to give you 20 points just for hitting the start button, so what? It just lets more people join the party and give that wry smile when Achievement Unlocked flashes on your screen.

[Rossco]

Here here.

It always gives me a smile when Achievement Unlocked appears on screen.

God knows why, but whenever I get an extra 10 points for doing the simplest of things, I just appreciate it, its like a nice way of the developers saying "Nice one, keep up the good work!" or something....



I do wish developers would be a little imaginative with the points though, like Tiger Woods is crazy stuff you need to do for all the points, you really need to earn them but Need for Speed: Most Wanted is just a certain amount of points for every person you defeat. Once you defeat them all, you get 1000 points. Easy. Boring. A game like that should have had points for having chases lasting set amount of times, and getting bountys up to extreme amounts, owning every car in the game, buying every part, etc. That type of thing... Same goes for Oblivion, as amazing as the game is, the achievements were a bit of a let down.

I like achievements for progressing in the game, thats fine, its expected but its also good for doing extra things, finding cool easter eggs and having good skill to pull off cool stuff that isn't actually required to finish the game that not everyone will do.

[John Beaulieu]

I can't understand some people - people saying **** like "if you got points for completing King Kong then your stupid" ... complete and utter bollocks

Some people really need to think about why they play games, and why they bother posting on gaming forums like ours ... I play games for enjoyment, KK isn't a great game, but it is an enjoyable run through from start to finish - thank god that they give you the full amount of points for that one run through since its not a game you want to repeat over and over, whereas Call of Duty 2 makes you work for your points, but doing so is fun and improves your game for playing online (anyone who completes the game on veteran should be bloody good online as well).

People, if you want to keep posting here then take into account other people might not think the same way that you do and to post accordingly - if you want to start insulting people because their opinion differs from your own then I suggest you do it elsewhere, because if you continue to do it on these forums you might as well consider them your last post here.

[Canton Province]

I can respect your gameplay choices. If you can't respect mine, then more fool you.

I don't know what "more fool you" means but if you're trying to call me a fool, you're the fool who thinks gamer points equate to skill, not me.

If I actually gave a **** about you, I would probably respect your game choices if you enjoyed the games your playing. What I said was I can't respect anyone who's playing games to earn gamer points. Whether I think their crap, generic or average is irelevent. I also said that gamer points give you a good indication of who's on your wave length. If you can't see that, or you have a problem with it, well....that's your problem. Just like I have to deal with my problem with people trying to rinse their own gamer scores.

The fact that people play games that I don't like doesn't bother me at all. Honestly.

[Eps]

I just think the whole thing is a bit of a silly idea, to be honest -- a public 'gamerscore' that shows what a 'l337 g4m3r!!1!1!' you are for all the people online to see.

[saif]

Not having a 360, can someone explain the purpose of gamerpoints? I thought that there was a pay off but, reading this, it seems all you get is some useless points. Is that right? Some points to show kudos?

If so, it is clever by MS to get discerning gamers (as I can only assume you all are) to play games that you have described as "alright" or "not ****" to play through. Why are people playing through games that they don't even like? IS that not the same as reading a book so you can tell your mates "I read 10 books last week" or watching telly - "I saw five different programmes last night, they were ****e but I needed the points". Can someone clarify that GP are really like this?

[Brats]

Saif,

Gamerpoints are purely a cosmetic thing. You can't use them for anything. By completing certain objectives set within the game, you unlock achievements which give you a gamerscore.

I see it as a very positive thing, if used as a way to get more from games you have already played through and enjoyed. For example, at the moment I'm playing through GRAW on hard mode which earns you extra achievments. I have to be honest and say that I would never have played hard mode normally, but having started it I'm enjoying it more than I did when I played through normal mode.

I personally would never play a game I didn't enjoy just to get the achievements, but I can understand why people do. It's no different in some ways to people going for arcade high scores. The guy who recently achieved the Pac-Man high score had to play the game for over 20 hours non-stop. At this extreme, I don't believe the game itself remains 'fun' at all, however the sense of achievement must be huge.

And this is why people do these things. The current Gamerscore leader is Rance6 with 44,000 odd points. When you take into consideration that you get 1,000 points per game (200 for Downloadable Arcade titles) then the law of probability says that he has played games he didn't actually enjoy.

But then does someone who walks to the South Pole or swins the English channel actually enjoy it? And for what other reason do they do it except to say to other people 'look at what I have achieved'. Mankind has always stretched ourselves to achieve certain goals we set ourselves, and whether you're slogging through FIFA or climbing up the North Face of Everest, the reasons are the same. To get that achievement and wear your badge with pride.

[Jebus]

I still say that every 5000 (or something, whatever figure...) you get you should be awarded some microsoft points...

For me the achievements add extra life and playability to a game I might only go through once. For example, ages ago I would have just completed Ghost Recon, set it aside as a wonderfully enjoyable gaming experience and move on, maybe sometimes playing multiplayer on it. The achievement points have made me want to go through this fantastic game again on hard-mode and test my ability to complete it a second time on a harder difficulty level.

They aren't going to make me buy every game including the **** ones just to bump my score up, and I can't see anyone doing that.

Top Spin 2 I hated, got one achievement in the time I spent trying to like it, but sold it on within a few days...I wasn't going to keep it to get "points".

[Matt]

Exactly, like you I played GRAW through again on Hard while on another console I wouldn't have bothered. That's a good thing as far as I can make out, more value for money and an even greater sense of achievement for completing it on Hard.

Frankly I think anyone taking Gamerscore seriously needs to re-appraise why they game, it's not a hallmark or anything other than fun. If you can't see the fun in chasing achievements, just accept other people can.

Though that guy with 44,000 may be playing games a little too much :/