Too many achievements?

[Jebus]

Does anyone think they've gone too far now? First it was the original EA games with like 6 achievements worth 100-200G each, now there are games with 60-100 achievements per game?

I don't think it's a happy medium. Half-Life 2 has 99 achievements, all tiny ones like 5G each. That game gets away with it because it's 5 games.

But other new games have 50+ achievements worth 5G each.

I'm not saying I'd prefer them all to be like CSI (5 achievements, 200G each) but it's almost too much work to rinse them now!

What does everyone else think?

[merf]

i'm guessing the change of approach is to appeal to the 'achievement whore' market out there and get them to favour the 360 versions of multi format titles.

i'd wage a guess that for the majority of sales of most titles a lot of folk don't give a stuff.

personally i stop playing a game when i've had enough of it, never once gone back to get an extra achievement (though i would go back to unlock additional characters, areas, cars etc if i liked a title)

only thing close to getting me into this was Crackdown, as I felt they were so well implemented, even then think i've only got 575/1250 now (or whatever it is)

like I say though can really see it as key differentiatior for a sector of the market in deciding between a ps3 or x360 version of the same thing (assuming that the versions are identical and comeout at the same time of course !)

[ChrisF]

They do seem to be going to extremes now! I think I'm happy with just getting them at a regular pace throughout a game. Viva Pinata, DiRT and PGR4 spring to mind as three games that I've thought have had the achievements spread out evenly.

Having 99 in a game doesn't really bother me as I'm not really a completionist, but I could imagine it will be driving some people crazy

[Geoff D]

i'm guessing the change of approach is to appeal to the 'achievement whore' market out there and get them to favour the 360 versions of multi format titles.

Surely the 'achievement whores' want fewer achievements, but with bigger values, such as CSI mentioned above?

[babs]

I prefer the smaller ones and more of them tbh. I don't get masses of time to sit down and play games any more, so the big scoring achievements that take ages just annoy me as I know I'll never get them. Things like PES6 needed stupid amounts of time invested.

I like to be playing and get the achievement popup when I'm least expecting it, even for something small

[hudson]

I like the more interesting smaller ones too.

I think games should reward you for doing special things in game outside of just walking through it like little Jimmy from number 2 did. Little Jimmy finished the game for 500 points, so did you, but you gloat to him how you achieved 'Slide down the bannister on your willy' one, for 10 secret points along the way, along with a 100 head shot combo.

[charlesr]

I've never really noticed achievements until Skate, in which playing for G really expands your imagination on how to play, for example forcing you to spend time in No Skate zones. Or finding new ways to fall over. Or learning all the tricks. Most of them are very well thought out.

I really couldn't give a stuff what the value on them is. They could have zero value and as long as the challenge is well thought out with a realistic but stretching target, I'd be happy. Unlike Gears of War where I'm just playing through and suddenly I get an achievement and I've no idea why until I read it. This type are a bit dull since everyone is going to get these.

edit: I agree with hoolak

[AllYourBase]

Games like Earth Defense Force 2017 are much worse. Only 6 achievements based around clearing the game on different difficulty levels. Practically the same icons too LOL

Not very imaginative! I prefer the Orange Box stylee.

[VR46]

As I guess Jebus was getting at, suppose 40 achievements per game at an average of 25 points a pop seems a happy medium to me. Some easy, some hard.

It's hard to please everyone at the end of the day.

[MikeF]

I don't care anymore how many achievements are in the game, if I don't like the game I ain't going to play it (VF5 - got 1 achievement and then traded as I don't like the game).

I used to pick up the 360 versions of games for the points but now I am going to pick up the version that I want to play the most and the better one.

Last night on Halo3 pissed me off, playing the infection mode all you could hear was please let me kill you all so I get my achievements. Sod that I want to play the game cause I enjoy them not too rack up a huge score anymore

In all honesty if the points were removed I wouldn't be bothered in the slightest anymore

[Kubrick]

I prefer the smaller ones and more of them tbh.

Same here. I probably prefer unlocking achievements in XBLA games since more of them require skill and actually are an achievement. Getting 200/200 in a tough Arcade game would mean more to me than having 1000/1000 in "Generic **** II"

Regarding PGR4, I feel some of the achievements in that are too lucrative and easy to acquire. That's definitely a case where the developers have deliberately made it easier for "n00bs" to earn a high gamerscore from it. All Platinums in Arcade mode is the only one that seems anywhere near as challenging as some of the crackers that were in the previous game.

[Brats]

But other new games have 50+ achievements worth 5G each.

No they don't. As Achievements have to add up to 100 points, some of them must be worth a lot more than 5G.

It's been like this for ages. It's not a new thing. Oblivion and Dead Rising both had 50 achievements. And games can only break past the 50 barrier if they have DLC (Orange Box being the only exception for obvious reasons).

I prefer lots of achievements for doing different stuff. PGR4 is another game that gets the achievements bang on. Some are easy to get which gives you a real sense of progress as you begin, some are rock hard for the completists and many are for stuff you would normally never try (pull a wheely for 500 metres, park an Aston Martin outisde the Casino, etc).

Imo developers are getting better and better with achievements.

[ItsThere]

I like the HL2 one, I am happily plodding through them as I play, getting the normal ones and the 'extra' ones where I rememebr to.

DH is right, it is happy to please everyone, in my mind the perfect structure would reflect small achievements that you get as a matter of course and 'extra' ones you have to earn during a SP campaign.
Followed by a big payoff for finsihing the campaign for like 100g.

[Yoshimax]

It can only be a problem for people who actually care or feel a need to acquire achievements surely ? I don't go out of my way to get them as you'll see from my gamercard (only got 1000/1000 from King Kong I think) - I could waste hours playing things like GH2 on easy to get the achievement but I can't rationalise that in my head - wasting hours of my time for like 20-50 gamerpoints which mean nothing at the end of the day.

It's a genius device for sure - whoever thought of them at MS should've been given a medal because I'm positive it has helped them shift loads of software that otherwise wouldn't have sold.

[VR46]

Really don't know if easy points does help sell loads more games - every American I see posting on a360p.com seems to use Gamefly for rentals over there.