Achievements!?

"

AmberGhost wrote:

[...] people would take their time from their normal playing to pursue their achievements, and if it would piss them off, they would quit the game, thus adding hard ones is stupid, as it pulls people away from the game. [...]

Wait, what?

"

Iao wrote:

"

AmberGhost wrote:

[...] people would take their time from their normal playing to pursue their achievements, and if it would piss them off, they would quit the game, thus adding hard ones is stupid, as it pulls people away from the game. [...]

Wait, what?

The guy speaks truth. I've had to pull myself away from trying to get achievements on AC3 because I was at a stage of the game where I couldn't actually get the achievement that early, and was getting annoyed at why I couldn't.

No Achievements please

Please no. They are not needed here.

"

Covert wrote:

Please no. They are not needed here.

Arguments can be made that things that are already in the game aren't "needed".
Arguments can be made for things that aren't in the game are "needed".

It really blows my mind that people mindlessly and without reason object to something that if done correctly could add literally hundreds of hours of playtime, if you choose to take advantage of it.

This argument people are making that they could cause people to quit the game is interesting. Theres multiple things already in this game that could do that, like the difficulty of certain mobs. There have been many discussions that the way the game is being developed will not appeal to the masses. If this is the case, as suggested by even the hardcorest of GGG supporters, shouldn't these things be changed or removed so they don't cause harm?

All of this is meaningless of course. Everything comes down to game devs doing a good job or not. There is no feature I know of that can't theoretically be included in just about any game and work.

Achievements are a way of extending gameplay.

They are a cheap, lazy, replacement for content and depth.

B.

"

bredin wrote:

Achievements are a way of extending gameplay.

They are a cheap, lazy, replacement for content and depth.

No, they're only a replacement if they replace something. You can do both, and many developers do just that, since as you say, achievements are relatively "cheap" to implement.

"

alaizon wrote:

No Achievements please

I second this post.

"

GusTheCrocodile wrote:

"

bredin wrote:

Achievements are a way of extending gameplay.

They are a cheap, lazy, replacement for content and depth.

No, they're only a replacement if they replace something. You can do both, and many developers do just that, since as you say, achievements are relatively "cheap" to implement.

They do replace something: they replace content and depth.

Simple logic says that time spent on developing and coding (and artwork etc) achievements is time not spent on making a batter game.

They always feel like a last minute, tacked on, desperate attempt to keep players interest in a game they know has limited or no replayability.

B.

Well, I guess your feelings are your business. I was only interested in discussing what things are.