Do you like how there are games abusing the achievements system?
I think that the limit should be that you can only get one achievement for one action.
Like with those Zup games you get like 4 achievements for entering a level and 4 for finishing it.
In this case I think one achievement for completing a level should be enough.
Make as many levels as you like, but don't give out 4 achievements for one action.
Personally I think this is the only way a game can "ruin achievements".
My only issue with achievements are games that constantly add new ones and the ones that give them out for nothing.
There are a few games out there that give achievements for opening the game or playing it for a few hours.
I don't think getting those achievements is very satisfactory and in the end that's all that matters - do we enjoy getting those achievements?
Comment has been collapsed.
There is literally no adventage of getting more achivements, and afterall, they still count as only 1 game 100%'d, so no harm done. Also, I have enough problem trying to not to care constanty about my achievements and enjoy playing, then why would I care about other people's ones?
Also shame on you for giving only yes I love it, I don't love it and depends options, while leaving out the I don't care ones. It's literally a rule in questionnaires that " I don't know / I don't have an opinion" to be added because it encourages people to fill it out, but it won't mess with the numbers that people felt forced to pick.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's probably a good thing. It seems like a lot of people consider in game achievements something to be proud about which, in my opinion, is a little strange. There are a couple of nice things with achievements, one being that it could encourage people to try different things in a game.
Comment has been collapsed.
Truth be told, I prefer the easy achievs over the ridiculously difficult ones, heh. As a bit of an achievement hunter myself, I'm certainly not one to complain about them being easy ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree to an extent. There are achievements in these games that I am fine with, for instance for finishing the game and get to a certain point in the game. But not for clicking buttons which you can't miss. Some ridiculously difficult achievements I am also fine with as it does really give the word "Achievement" it's meaning, but yeah i'm not one to chase those down.
Comment has been collapsed.
What should be removed is achievement unlocking software because that's what ruined steam events that used to be fun.
Comment has been collapsed.
There are no events involving achievements on steam anymore because of unlocking software. So no events = no enjoyment.
Comment has been collapsed.
The last event with rewards for getting specific achievements was like 5 years ago or so, maybe 4. It made people actually play the games lol :D
Comment has been collapsed.
Just look at the "X is a play your wins month" topics where people are getting motivated to play something by making it more fun, making it more game-y (to start games!) can be a lot of fun.
But just an example - SG had events when you could enter for a private giveaway only if you had at least one of the harder achivements (eligiable ones were named) of set 5-6 games. But only people who earned them before the start could enter, because after it anyone could just use SAM to unlock it. It really makes a few fun events impossible, or the possible reward for completing a game (that would be marked by an achievement, for example)
Comment has been collapsed.
Why? Unless you're the kind of rare person who exactly knows that ONE game has to be the next, anything that helps to pick the next game to be played is something positive. Also afterwards anyone taking part surely has an experience to share and discuss with the others. Not FOR the achivement, but the achievement marking the end (like I said, end of a game, or a special game mode)
Comment has been collapsed.
This comes up a lot, I enjoy collecting them but I don't go out of my way to buy games that have 1000 achievements in 5 minutes as their selling point, I just like how they can often point you towards game content you may have otherwise missed. It's very easy to ignore others profiles as well, if I see someone has an insane amount of them then I kind of just laugh as it just becomes a meaningless number at that point.
Comment has been collapsed.
Haha well that's a good question, I suppose it depends on the amount of game owned and the overall achievement percentage, I can see your point of view and do agree with it to a certain extent but I do think it adds a bit more to playing games and that feeling of "achievement" if there is any challenge to them.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sometimes unachievable achievements add more to the game's narrative, like if I remember well the Hate Plus one, or Gauge's one actually has a connection with a game itself (Like how if you fill the gauge in Gauge you lose, so not being able to 100% it and to fill the bar actually means that you won. Forever) - but some people are just too focused on their metagame and demand these to be removed just like the simply broken ones, which is just ignorant, wanting to destroy the message of the dev because of a forced, nonexistant metage.
Comment has been collapsed.
Considering games like these have their achievements devalued to the point where they're completely worthless on achievement comparing sites like astats and achievementstats, I don't really care. You can get as many of those achievements as you want, it won't gain you a single rank there. And of course Valve has no right to ban games like that simply because of their achievements, that's kind of ridiculous. Devs are free to design their games achievements however they want. The real problem is SAM considering Valve have confirmed they're most likely never going to do anything about it which makes ANY kind of achievement on Steam a bit pointless to begin with. From a competitive perspective obviously, not a personal goal perspective.
Comment has been collapsed.
Add remove all the achievements completely option.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think the title I gave this topic wasn't really amazing, it was more of a "Well that works to an extent" thing.
But for calling them all useless, I guess you are correct there as achievements in-game are indeed useless and really have no weight to them outside of Achievement collector groups. It's more of a self-accomplishment in a game. I think a good example of this is with achievements that are given for completing a game on the highest difficulty, though once again it doesn't hold much weight.
Comment has been collapsed.
Games on the whole have no real "weight" or "usefulness". The issue with achievements is that they're becoming something which is viewed as being separate from the games they tie into. Rather, achievements are like a survival mode in a game which also has multiplayer and campaign modes- most people can just ignore the mode and not feel any loss, but for some others, it's the foundation of what makes the game appreciable.
However, as with that example, it has to tie into the game- it has to compliment its strengths, and work against its weaknesses. If someone reviews the game and says "Well, the game has great campaign, but the survival mode is crap," then survival-minded players will likely avoid it.
Here- as your thread has indicated- we have people that are ignoring that context entirely. Instead of "how well does this gameplay mode work within the context of this game," it has become "Forget the quality or details of it, I just want survival mode. Oh, and it has to be this exact survival mode style that I like. Games without any sort of survival mode are crap, but so are any games with survival modes that are too easy or player-friendly!"
It's just another form of genre preference, nothing else (and as such, there isn't any "true" form of it). Outside of the context of another "game" (like astats) where such things are balanced against each other, the only thing that matters is how the approach relates to the specific game it is in.
And, let's be frank: Steam on the whole has ALWAYS had plenty of games with achievements that undermine the strengths of the games they're associated to. Flip side, perhaps games like ZUP! do fantastic with lots of micro-achievements: Having played microachievement flash games before, I can see how they can appeal to people: There's a constant flow of progression, and the achievements feel more like progress markers and part of the narrative, than obtuse, out of the way goals, or marks of overall completion. They often are actually components which are smoothly integrated into the gameplay.
Personally I may not especially care for the game style, but it's generally a style that actually approaches achievements with a respect for gameplay. So it's rather odd hearing them dismissed in favor of "grind this nonsensical task for 30 hours" style achievements, or outright impossible to complete achievements.
Instead of wanting the individual games "fixed", it's presumably the game that is Steam itself which you'd like to have organized, balanced achievements tied to. If that's something which you find appealing, then there's no reason you shouldn't pursue such a framework- in fact, that's a design which is rather compelling, and may even draw new users into the "achievement hunter" gaming approach. However, at the moment, we don't have Steam-based achievements- we have game-based achievements which Steam just happens to let you feature on your profile.
You can't argue against the true meaning of such, because the true meaning is whatever the devs decide it is. You can't argue against the quality as it relates to Steam, because the only reasonable measure of quality is how it relates to the game itself [and from that perspective, most achievement hunters are arguing in a contrary direction].
Put more simply: You're arguing against how the achievements work, as they relate to you- but they never were intended to cater to your playstyle to begin with. You're attaching your own meaning to things, and getting frustrated when that meaning doesn't match the meanings more commonly associated with the matter. That doesn't mean your playstyle is "wrong", it means that you need to look elsewhere to get the satisfaction you desire.
Games don't need survival mode to be fun for most of us. For you they do. You can't have the large scale survival mode for Steam itself that you want- so consider alternatives. If astats (which, again, I know nothing about) isn't doing it for you.. try and organize an alternative to that site, one with better formulas, one which excludes certain games entirely (if deemed necessary).
There are a lot of options available to resolve the matter in a way that's favorable to your preferences- and doing so in a way that doesn't poke at the enjoyment people of different preferences already get with the current achievements setup.
Comment has been collapsed.
Achievements..
When I played World of Warcraft years ago, they were one of the things which transformed WOW community to ugly. People measuring others(in skill for pvp/pve) by achievement rarity, achievement buyers (to be 'measured' high) etc etc.
I guess there is also some psychological point, that any 'achievements' are a proof of existence, whenever originally for yourself or for display(in the end it is for yourself)), and if person becomes concerned not about how they live 'now', but what is there to remember the past - to justify feel of emptiness and absence of true plans; they can get 'hooked' on 'visible' achievements. And this is not about games only.
In Steam, achievements are mysterious thing. Probably I just can't imagine why would I compare my achievements to anybody's, or vise versa, or ever look through my list. There are rare occasions when after or during a play-through they can set your eyes on something you probably wouldn't notice otherwise (for example, some hidden routes in decisions you actually would like to replay for), but this can also bring spoilers, happens fairly rarely and after a play-through of a game with a replay value there are a lot of better resources to go through 'secrets' and alternatives check-list. Probably it is better even not to know about secrets if you didn't find them yourselves - another question. I wouldn't mind if there weren't any achieves at all. And these trash games taking away desire of some people to play only for achievements probably do a great job.
On SG achievements have an additional role - if you want to check if person have played a game you have given to them. For a number of games they really show did person play game, or at least tried decently, or just hoarded/idled for cards. They can be used by someone who would bother to check this, but this is also a waste of time and unnecessary witch-hunting if used 'wrong'. However, considering a huge number of occasions of even great games being just hoarded and not played for years, such an eye-opener isn't bad (as one-time event). I myself recently checked a few of better games I have given away during my 4 months on SG only to discover that people didn't play them at all yet. This is incredible.
I enjoy creating puzzle events, but currently I am planning how to change my approach in giving better games away, to ensure they will be played. Not even to justify my spendings, but because I am 100% sure someone would really enjoy these better games at least here and now.
Too long. Almost smiling myself at this piece of a fruitless effort
Comment has been collapsed.
I dunno, I kinda consider the PvP achievements a bit of a blessing. Obviously the PvE ones were a joke but I can't imagine the state of running an RBG without achievements. Getting to something like say 2k in arena didn't exactly require a whole lot of effort for someone who's actually interested in PvP, but it still gives an easy divide between the PvP and PvE community. It's better than going around and checking everyones current rating which means even less, or worse yet just picking up completely random people and hoping they have a brain. Of course there are still idiots who can get way past 2k, boosted or not, but it's better than nothing.
Comment has been collapsed.
Questionable. It is how people used them when recruiting for an evening BGing, yes. But if you enjoy PvP, it was better to be in a PvP guild with tested people.
About arena achievements, in most of arena seasons there were op setups, depending on current patch, and for example around 6-9 seasons there was a clear trend that using team of current op you can get few hundreds of rating higher just like that, owning others. People kept switching between alts to keep owning (because, why suffer?). I did this myself at some point, afterwards I lost interest in the game ~
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't disagree at all that it's not without its flaws, but like I said, it's still better than nothing. Season 5 was an absolute joke and pretty much brought arena to shame for an entire season long and you're going to run in to mmr exploiters from time to time no matter what. I was pushing 3s rating as KFC with my friend and a friend of his who was 2.6k and you could tell within about 5 games that he was barely a challenger level player, but unfortunately that's what you get for trying to get serious about PvP in a PvE game, fixing stuff like that was pretty much at the bottom of Blizzard's bucket list. It was exactly the same for me, got to the point of being unbearably frustrating and my circle just moved on to other games. Blade and Soul was meant to be the "promised land" of competitive arena, but don't even get me started on how that turned out in its western release...
Comment has been collapsed.
I played WoW since beta and a fair amount of years kind of religiously but I am not able to recollect any memories of achievements. What were they for? Maybe only PvP since I tried my best to stay away from that despite playing on a PvP-server?
Comment has been collapsed.
They appeared in BC, I guess. I missed this moment, had a pause between classic and lich king.
For everything what you can imagine. Developing skills (like cooking/fishing etc), finishing pve runs, achieving boss kills under some special conditions, millions of achievements of incremental character, event achievemens, reputation achievements, quests, and of course pvp (battlegrounds and arena). I played mostly pvp.
Point of some of them was that you could get pets/mounts/titles and while this has some sense in mmo, these were too many for a lifetime and a lot of people eventually stopped to do anything not for achievements :) Meh.
Comment has been collapsed.
There is no true meaning to achievements.
At least, it's not those annoying achievement which requires 100 hours of pointess grinding. Those are the real abomination.
Comment has been collapsed.
Small suggestion: don't make question that makes people disagreeing with you look bad :p nobody likes things 'abusing' anything, better ask "Do you think is it a problem that game creators make achievements less demanding" or "Is lowering meaning of the game achievement bothering you", and if question would be like that my answer is No, I'm playing for gameplay, not really into achievements hunting, due to lack of time too :) but I can understand the problem for some people, it had much bigger meaning back in a days of harder productions :)
Comment has been collapsed.
I enjoy finishing games and I enjoy the sense of completion from getting all the achievements in a game. I do rank quite high on astats, but even without a ladder to compare myself to others I would still do it because I like to feel like I've experienced all the game had. So if people want to fill their achievements list up with crap like this, that's their business. Other people unlock all of them with achievement unlockers or use cheats, and honestly if you feel satisfaction from that, then whatever. But it's sad that for so many people getting achievements becomes more important than what you're actually playing. Would you really prefer to waste time playing a game that's awful just because you're getting achievements for it? I do think valve should maybe rein the practise in a bit though as it does seem pretty exploitative when top of the list of features in a game is "1000+ easy achievements!" , but maybe before they do that they should force those with achievements to make sure they all actually work! That is more of a peeve for me. Denied the satisfaction of a finish, just because the dev didn't do their job properly.... grrr.
Comment has been collapsed.
the question is, anyone cares how many achievements are displayed on a profile?
because it's as sad as people counting games in their libraries and being proud of buying trash they will never play.
it's just a stupid number with no real meaning, especially when some people cheat them with ladySAM or play games 20mins-long to farm 1700 achievements.
Comment has been collapsed.
When I look at achievements I only look at quality! If I see someone with 200 perfect games etc and see most of them are Zup, free or cheap easy 100% I don't appreciate it... like it's cool looking on the steam profile but when you look at astats you realise how unimpressive it is! I much prefer seeing someone perfecting Final Fantasy etc
If they think numbers are cooler then let them Zup it out :3
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't care about the number of achievements I have. What I care about is how many games I've completed. Sometimes I appreciate that for certain games, such as runners without an end; the achievements sort of act as a way to say you've beaten/completed the game. I'm the kind of person who loves collecting such things in games I like, but I'll never buy a game just for achievements. Heck, Undertale doesn't have achievements for a very good reason and that's one of my favorite games of all time, so yeah. I also find it silly because achievements didn't even exist back in ye olden days, but I still worked to complete them then, and people obviously enjoyed games without them. Funny how fads work!
Comment has been collapsed.
I think most Achievement hunters are a pretty serious bunch so I assume they will figure out themselves who has a lot of worthless ones and mark them with the mark of shame.
What has been on my mind recently are Workshop mods that change balancing and Achievements levels.
Comment has been collapsed.
Doesnt bother me. At the end of the day, the only value they have is the value you place on them. You dont get discounts, or account levels, or any real advantage for having them, so to me, it doesnt really matter if some games have super easy ones or difficult ones. I just like collecting them so I have some goals to work towards in a game (and an excuse to keep replaying it after I finish the actual story)
Comment has been collapsed.
What do you mean "abusing the achievements system" ?!
Are achievements or their number some credibility or something that can be redeemed or cashed in any way?
They are just a game feature and each game has different features. And as part of democracy it's a great thing that such freedom exist.
Comment has been collapsed.
There are games, where achievements are really achievements. For now I'm in Path of Exile, and on lots of achievements I'm like "How am I suppose to do it??". Like, make 2 complite random events collide with each other. 1 of them exist only ~20-30 seconds, and tryes to run away from player into random direction. In 200 hours of playtime I never seen them close enough, and didn't even know they can interact with each other.
Comment has been collapsed.
24 Comments - Last post 43 seconds ago by OneManArmyStar
26 Comments - Last post 5 minutes ago by NeoRonin
36 Comments - Last post 9 minutes ago by sensualshakti
15,580 Comments - Last post 17 minutes ago by kolja300314
884 Comments - Last post 33 minutes ago by sensualshakti
1,511 Comments - Last post 53 minutes ago by xargu
10 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by AZZOCAT
136 Comments - Last post 2 minutes ago by Mitsukuni
24 Comments - Last post 3 minutes ago by schmoan
1,619 Comments - Last post 11 minutes ago by ConanOLion
9,054 Comments - Last post 11 minutes ago by Khazadson
55 Comments - Last post 22 minutes ago by OneNonLy
32 Comments - Last post 23 minutes ago by Chadworthy
1,644 Comments - Last post 28 minutes ago by Mhango
As of late 2016 many people may have realized there has been a sudden up rise of games with ridiculously easy achievements, and i'm not talking about games with maybe 1 or 2 easy achievements, no I mean achievements in the number of 500+. Such games like 'Zup 1'-'Zero', 'Super Duper Flying Genocide 2017' and 'The Quest for Achievements' to name a few are games that are guilty of doing this, with them having up to 1000 achievement for doing little to nothing.
And I am wondering what your opinion is on this matter, if Valve should outright ban games with achievements being this easy with the game being very low quality or if these games should keep going.
Personally if it wasn't already obvious, I am one who is against this, originally when it was just Zup 1 and 2 I was fine with it as long as that would be it, but recently there has been a steady increase of games like this and I personally now find they are just ruining the point of actual achievements.
Comment has been collapsed.