When "easy" achievement points go wrong!

[Ajay1986]

But surely if you get the high score in an arcade its shows your dedication and the hours you'll have put into getting there because you dont get to the top without hours of play. Surely if you get an achivement to show youve played 100 hours or something its the same thing, it shows your dedication to the game. I think the points are a great idea i love unlocking achivements i love getting a kind of well done after putting in the effort to do something.

Oh and well said Brats thats what i wanted to say but wasnt articulate enough to.

[saif]

Cheers for the reply Brats. I appreciate the clarification. I think that, form what I understand anyway, it would be better to not have points attached to the achievements but just flag them. Just I read a little about "King Kong has easy points so play through that" which strikes me as silly. In the non-etreme version, high scores were about skill and fun )Pac man is different but assigning points to diff games will not work as a consisitent system. Half a good idea though !

[Matt]

Makes me laugh that people are complaining about achievement points

Sorry, I just don't get it. If you don't like them, don't worry about them. I like the idea someone else pointed out that it's a game in and unto itself.

[peeveen]

I hear that some people are so obsessed with this gamerscore malarkey that they are importing Japanese 360's just to get the points from the Jap-only games.

[Matt]

Seems extreme, but if it makes them happy, good for them

[dc-arena]

I hear that some people are so obsessed with this gamerscore malarkey that they are importing Japanese 360's just to get the points from the Jap-only games.

I think ST The King has done that (who is no longer no.1 either).

[Freddo]

presumably developers can get stats on their games in the field to see what achievements people are and aernt doing, how many people are completing the game etc.

useful feedback I'm sure.

[Welrain]

As I said before, a high gamerscore is a sign of skill, but it's not a measure of it. That's the difference.

It's usually a sign of someone with far too much spare time.

[John Beaulieu]

too much spare time to actually complete the games they own?

[Matt]

Too much spare time? Maybe they just enjoy gaming so devote time to their chosen leisure pursuit?

How do you measure how much time someone can spend gaming before you deem it too much?

Seriously, if someone wants to hammer Achievements it's up to them. Don't be too quick to pass judgement. Different strokes for different folks

[EvilBoris]

I think its a really good idea, I now play (most) of my games on all the difficulty settings and see a darn site more of a game than I would if the achievments weren't there.

It's just an extra incentive to play the games I own, kinda like playing a game to see the cool FMV ending.

[Kubrick]

I'd have to agree. I've only had my 360 for less than a week and I already think it's a good idea. Tbh, I rarely complete games multiple times etc, but I can see myself doing it more often if there's a small reward on offer.

Some achievements are rubbish though - I earned one just for losing 5 fights in a row on DOA4

[Welrain]

Too much spare time? Maybe they just enjoy gaming so devote time to their chosen leisure pursuit?

How do you measure how much time someone can spend gaming before you deem it too much?

Seriously, if someone wants to hammer Achievements it's up to them. Don't be too quick to pass judgement. Different strokes for different folks

What I meant here is that most the achievements i've seen are achieveable if you have plenty of time to hammer the games, so it isn't really a sign of "skill" as such. I suppose you can argue it both ways.

As I said previously I found gamerpoints far too addictive for my own good :P

[Matt]

Yep very additive mate

Can see your point as you've explained it there. I think most achievement points should be achievable if the user puts the time in to it. There is always some skill attached, unless EA start putting in "Stand Still For 2 Hour" achievements

The last thing gaming, and especially online gaming, needs is another layer of "I'm l33t3r than U!" bull****. If a below average gamer can, say, take 40 hours to plod through Tomb Raider and gets achievements points for that, I see it as nothing but a success - the gamer gets additional satisfaction (no longer do you just complete a game for your own amusement now, you actually have something to show the world for your trouble) and MS have effectively tied a lot of us in to buying the 360 version of multi-platform titles.

[Welrain]

It seems somewhat perverse that we need these gamer points to make us play these games to their full potential. How many now avoid playing non 360 games because of this?

It's an amazing marketing success by Microsoft, but at what cost? tbh is it good / is it bad...I'm really not sure.