Xbox 360 NTSC-uk Gamerpoints Leaderboard

[chopemon]

I, also as a developer, respectfully disagree with you then sir

[Spatial]

The thing is, especially using Fallout as an example, Bethesda and MS knew about that use of the command to trigger the achievements when the PC version of the game first came out in 2008 and they've done nothing about it. No patch, no bannings, nothing.

If MS of all people aren't bothered (and this is the same people that threatened to ban players from Xbox Live for using a legitimate glitch in MW2 to ruin other paying customers online fun) then why should anyone else? The answer is they shouldn't. Bethesda was happy making more cash (because even the big developers talk about how slapping easy achievements in help sell games) and MS were happy because more people would be using the GfWL client.

Achievements haven't been about the actual achievement since 2006 /2007 and the 360 games really started rolling in. You can get a huge gamerscore by playing by sheer volume of games alone these days and that's not taking into account that achievements aren't (and never really have been) an indication of a players skill.

It always has been, and always will be, an arbitrary number and attaching significance to it is just as crazy as attaching significance to the way people get that score.

And as someone who's done both Fallout 3 and Avatar I can tell you there is absolutely zero difference between getting them in the two games. In fact the Fallout 3 one was actually more taxing than Avatar for me because like a total dumbass I kept spelling the word achievement wrong.

75 times

[Chunky]

Achievements haven't been about the actual achievement since 2006 /2007 and the 360 games really started rolling in. You can get a huge gamerscore by playing by sheer volume of games alone these days and that's not taking into account that achievements aren't (and never really have been) an indication of a players skill.

I disagree with this. Overall gamerscore is not about players skill, but individual achievements are. High gamerscores mean nothing to me, but the acquisition of hard achievements show skill and ability.

For example, 1000g in all the known whores games mean nothing, but people who have for example the achievements for the epilogue in Call Of Duty 4, for completing Lost Planet on the hardest difficulty level, for getting all Platinum medals in PGR4, or for beating Command and Conquer 3 on hard, have all shown a high level of skill.

I have all of those achievements, by the way

[Gradius]

I disagree with this. Overall gamerscore is not about players skill, but individual achievements are. High gamerscores mean nothing to me, but the acquisition of hard achievements show skill and ability.

For example, 1000g in all the known whores games mean nothing, but people who have for example the achievements for the epilogue in Call Of Duty 4, for completing Lost Planet on the hardest difficulty level, for getting all Platinum medals in PGR4, or for beating Command and Conquer 3 on hard, have all shown a high level of skill.

I have all of those achievements, by the way

I'm with you on this (although i am guilty of many whoring crimes), there is nothing more satisfying than getting the full 1000g on a game like Dead Rising like i did this week [/willy waving]

[fuse]

Achievements haven't been about the actual achievement since 2006 /2007 and the 360 games really started rolling in. You can get a huge gamerscore by playing by sheer volume of games alone these days and that's not taking into account that achievements aren't (and never really have been) an indication of a players skill.

Not disagreeing with the last part, but I think there are still a lot of games and achievements that are indicative of skill, time, and dedication. I have no issue with people artificially inflating their gamerscore as it doesn't really matter that much to me in general, and most people who are into achievement hunting know there's plenty of easy ways to increase your score for little effort and that the real significance is in the achievements themselves - but I do think it's a bit of a shame in cases like these where within one game there's an entire world of difference (okay, 100+ hours) between obtaining them legitimately and smashing in a few cheeky console prompts. I know I'd be a bit gutted if I spent the time getting 100% on Fallout 3 and then a week later everyone else had done it in 5 minutes flat. I'm all for the PC version being segregated out here as that seems fair, but there's not really much solace for those who finished the PC version legit

[peeveen]

245 Gradius57300
.... DEAD RISING (+40, 2 achievements, 1000/1000, COMPLETE!)

Holy crap, I never even noticed that!
Amazing stuff.

I still plan on doing those last two achievements myself sometime ... gotta do Genocider AGAIN first (I stupidly didn't save after I did it the first time, so didn't get the Megablaster, which I gather comes in handy for Survivor mode).

[Hulk Davidson]

Nice one Gradius! Did you get the 5 and 7 day survivor on your first try? You must have been pretty nervous for the whole 14 hours!

[Gradius]

Holy crap, I never even noticed that!
Amazing stuff.

I still plan on doing those last two achievements myself sometime ... gotta do Genocider AGAIN first (I stupidly didn't save after I did it the first time, so didn't get the Megablaster, which I gather comes in handy for Survivor mode).

The real Megablaster is essential really. As for the achievments, they're not difficult as such, they just require you to pay attention for 14 hours straight!!

[Gradius]

Nice one Gradius! Did you get the 5 and 7 day survivor on your first try? You must have been pretty nervous for the whole 14 hours!

Yep, first try.

This is also the best game guide ever.

http://hoddans.com/tool/drsurvival/

I could have survived another 2 days easy using this guide, i didn't really fancy it tho!!

[Steakman]

Not really sure what the problem is to be honest, personally i've set myself some goals that i want to complete this year, one of them is to complete fallout on the 360 as it's an excellent game that i havent had time to get into properly yet. There is no way i'm going to sit through it twice though!

I'm not the kind of person to use health/ammo/cheat codes etc to ruin games, i am however the kind of person that would rather spend that time, probably 100hrs, playing something original and fun.

Each to their own i say. 1 borrowed game, 1550pts, yes please.

Felt alot more dirty spamming avatar as i had no intention of playing fallout if it hadn't been for the (cheat?) addachievement menu.

[Jebus]

I disagree with this. Overall gamerscore is not about players skill, but individual achievements are. High gamerscores mean nothing to me, but the acquisition of hard achievements show skill and ability.

For example, 1000g in all the known whores games mean nothing, but people who have for example the achievements for the epilogue in Call Of Duty 4, for completing Lost Planet on the hardest difficulty level, for getting all Platinum medals in PGR4, or for beating Command and Conquer 3 on hard, have all shown a high level of skill.

I have all of those achievements, by the way

Respect for those cheevos, but are they actually skill based or are they from sheer volume of time spent practicing/perfecting them etc.

I suppose it depends on your preferences, but I've gone from whoring to not even caring, I don't enjoy half the "achievements" that games require, I've never enjoyed playing games on punishing difficulties and I'm buggered if I'm NOT going to enjoy the precious little time I have to play a game!

I'm just saying that playing a game on (for example) the hardest difficulty...that 100GS, is that actually fun, or is it taking time away from you actually enjoying the next game on the pile?

At times I've completed a game and realised there's an achievement for going through it again on "hardest" and thought about doing it then stopped and thought...why would I ruin the experience I've just had, sully it's memory with a lesson in frustration!

[MonkeyJuggleDX]

I'd say there's probably more honour in playing Hanna Montana than there is in cheating to get achievements on Fallout 3 PC.

[peeveen]

At times I've completed a game and realised there's an achievement for going through it again on "hardest" and thought about doing it then stopped and thought...why would I ruin the experience I've just had, sully it's memory with a lesson in frustration!

On the flipside, I think I enjoyed my second playthrough of Bioshock about ten times more than my first playthrough because it was on Hard mode with vita-chambers turned off, something I would never have bothered with otherwise.

but are they actually skill based or are they from sheer volume of time spent practicing/perfecting them etc.

I don't get it. Surely that applies to anything in life? I know a guy who's a fantastic guitarist, but is it actual skill? Or has he just cheated by practising loads?

[Synthesthesia]

I don't get it. Surely that applies to anything in life? I know a guy who's a fantastic guitarist, but is it actual skill? Or has he just cheated by practising loads?

Nice, this is exactly what I was thinking. A skill is developed usually. I think luck is more akin to what he was saying...

[Kubrick]

I agree that perseverance and practice will get you plenty of "tough" Achievements like Mile High Club which can be retried almost-instantly, ad infinitum, but there are some that require genuine World-class skill and talent that no amount of practice will bring.

I could play Ikaruga, Raiden IV, DeathSmiles or Mushihimesama Futari until I was blue in the face, but I reckon I'd still have no chance of unlocking every achievement in them. I simply don't have the necessary level of skill/concentration/whatever and never will have.