I essentially agree with the notion that it's easy to dislike something as a knee-jerk reaction when it's new and different from what you've become accustomed to, so here are a few reasons to clarify why I don't like achievements:
1. They ruin immersion. Getting a congratulatory pop-up after accomplishing something pulls you out of the gameworld and reinforces the feeling of you playing a game rather than the feeling of you being inside the game.
2. They fuel the development of "community" gaming and encourage comparison and competition in terms of results and to what degree of "completion" you played a game. Related to what has been pointed out earlier with how achievements serve as evidence for competition or bragging rights. Comparison and competition aren't bad things in and of themselves - some games are based entirely on them - but should every game be designed with the philosophy that you should share, upload and compare results rather than focus on the game itself as a single player experience? I don't believe so. And should games like BG that were designed with a different philosophy be updated to conform to the idea of comparing achievements, uploading results and jumping into and out of each others games? I definitely don't believe so.
3. They act as a crutch in terms of getting value or extra playing time out of the game. Should you explore every bit of every map (or kill 500 gibberlings, etc) because you feel like you want to, or because there's an achievement for doing so? Would you still do it if there was no achievement? Would you still do it if you couldn't show it off or if it didn't bump a virtual gamerscore? Is it you playing the game, or is it the developer/publisher playing you?
3b. They provide increasing amounts of hand-holding. Related to point 3, by rewarding various aspects of gameplay and approaches, achievements provide a shortlist of ways to achieve your goals inside the game. Something that was once the player's job to figure out and experiment with has in a sense been gift-wrapped and presented to them. It can of course be argued that increased approachability in itself isn't a bad thing - that's a different kind of debate, and it could simply be that I'm too old and grouchy to appreciate it.
im fine with achievments in some games. going for the platinum can occasionaly be fun, demons souls and dark souls both made me want to get the platinum trophy
but this game simply does not need them and the game would not benefit. It would frankly be a waste of time that would be better spent else were imo
my main issue in a game like this is that they are counter preductive to actualy roleplaying the game. BG presents a choice of how to play it this choice is made by the player and there character as soon as you add achivements to the mix you start to cause problems.
Any developer who can speculate or give us a time frame what it would take to add Achivements?
Also, gams such as Skyrim and Fallout 3 has achievements, did that really change anyones playstyle? Or in world of warcraft, Diablo3 etc.
I mean, im no programmer, maybe it takes a bit of time to add achievements, but how come then all arcade developers and every other developer manage to include it?
Also, achievements are a great challenge for players who are done with the game, to compare and challenge each other. It's one thing to say you "did everything" in game X, its another to prove it with achievement over xbox360/ps3 or over Steam.
Bragging rights, in other words? Why do you need to prove anything? Are gamers really that ego-centric and vain these days?
Also, achievements are a great challenge for players who are done with the game, to compare and challenge each other. It's one thing to say you "did everything" in game X, its another to prove it with achievement over xbox360/ps3 or over Steam.
Bragging rights, in other words? Why do you need to prove anything? Are gamers really that ego-centric and vain these days?
nope. but its a fun way to discuss strategy because you can see what your friend has managed to do or not - without using cheats, since achievments gets disabled with them.
nope. but its a fun way to discuss strategy because you can see what your friend has managed to do or not - without using cheats, since achievments gets disabled with them.
Is there some barrier stopping people from discussing it regardless of achievements?
For example, there are three karma based achievments; Devil, True Mortal, and Messiah in Fallout 3. Each of these requires a near-complete playthrough in order to obtain, which means that people have to play in multiple styles in order to complete. This is not spontaneous, it's not 'natural' gameplay. And I know of many people who use achievements as a form of checklist (comments on the Skyrim link above point to that as well), making sure they have completed it '100%'.
But back to what I said then, why do you think Blizzard added achievements for World of Warcraft,Starcraft 2 and Diablo3?
I still think its because: A. they want you to compare and compete with friends. B. show to players that there are certain dungeons,bosses and unique items that they might have missed. C. Give every gamer a challenge for the completionist.
Speaking of "C", before that people created their own challenged and flood the boards about them. Now, well basically with achievements, the developers put out their "own" for the community.
Now anyone can argue with me all along about achievements and their purpose, its not me who created the system, not me - but every developer- who added it to their games.
But back to what I said then, why do you think Blizzard added achievements for World of Warcraft,Starcraft 2 and Diablo3?
I have absolutely no idea, as I do not play those games. I was not even aware of achievements for those games, most probably due to my lack of interest in them. However, listing different games does not give a reason for having them. I can think of a number of reasons why I wouldn't bother with them.
I still think its because: A. they want you to compare and compete with friends. B. show to players that there are certain dungeons,bosses and unique items that they might have missed. C. Give every gamer a challenge for the completionist.
And all can be done without actually having achievements.
I am genuinely intrigued by the topic, and mean no disrespect or offence, but I still don't understand the idea of achievements. They remove spontaneity and natural gameplay, at least in my opinion.
Oh, so you have no intrested in games such as warcraft,diablo and starcraft? Anyway, if you dislike achievements you can just ignore them. Nobody is forcing you to collect them and share it.
Oh, so you have no intrested in games such as warcraft,diablo and starcraft? Anyway, if you dislike achievements you can just ignore them. Nobody is forcing you to collect them and share it.
No, never played them. Too busy with work and life and such.
Dislike is only part of it. People are still going to comment about them. For example, as you said, if a person doesn't have an achievement for something no one will believe that they did it. These days, the achievements are worth more than the game itself. And that includes the Gamerscore and whatever it's called on all the other platforms. The Gamerscore apparently overrules common sense and sound judgement in many situations that require it, which is why I dislike that - but that's a different topic.
You can make games a social activity without adding gimmicks. You know, during the 80s I used to talk to people about how I played certain games; it didn't require achievements or leaderboards, it required other people to have an interest in it. Not everything is, or should be, a competition. Back then, people wouldn't come out with "OMG, LOL, u didnt complete tat, u dont have achievemtns fr it" (I almost had an aneurysm typing that), because people could discuss a game without resorting to insulting others because they might have done it better.
I don't much care either way whether Overhaul adds achievements to BG:EE. I've played a bunch of games that have them, and it can be kind of fun to light up and ding all the little lights in your achievements book. It's a Pavlovian thing. And no company is a better master of Pavlovian psychology than Blizzard.
I actually once got into lighting up an achievement called "Loremaster" in World of Warcraft that required me to do every quest in every area on every continent. I worked on it for about two months. I finally got it lit on one of the continents - I think it was Eastern Kingdoms. I had a lot of fun doing it, and it was quite satisfying when I finally got it.
The fact is, games that do it have higher sales. It's even better if the online client allows your achievements to be publicly seen in an online profile. Like someone said, it's bragging rights. It makes you feel like you have a publicly displayed trophy case, even if, in reality, nobody ever looks at anybody else's.
I don't see why it would hurt to have them for people who want them, because people who don't could easily ignore them.
Now whether it could ever actually happen is another matter, with all these blasted legal issues and uncertainty about the future of BG:EE. Also, if the legal problems are resolved, and Overhaul comes right back to BG:EE at full operating capacity and full rights to do as they please, I don't know how complicated and costly the technical programming and implementation aspects would be.
But back to what I said then, why do you think Blizzard added achievements for World of Warcraft,Starcraft 2 and Diablo3?
I still think its because: A. they want you to compare and compete with friends. B. show to players that there are certain dungeons,bosses and unique items that they might have missed. C. Give every gamer a challenge for the completionist.
Speaking of "C", before that people created their own challenged and flood the boards about them. Now, well basically with achievements, the developers put out their "own" for the community.
Now anyone can argue with me all along about achievements and their purpose, its not me who created the system, not me - but every developer- who added it to their games.
D. Because of what I said earlier, it's another dopamine trap. Something can be common or added by all developers, but that doesn't make it a solid idea except for what it is, another trap.
Have you noticed how more and more games are adding core RPG elements to their games, even if they are not required at all? It's because filling bars is very attractive to our brains. Good storyplay is being sacrificed for RPG factors like experience bars, upgradeable gear, etc.
World of Warcraft does benefit from achievements somehow, as they are linked to some benefits that, in the past, came with feats or other factors (Arena mounts, special titles, etc.) but the rest are nothing but extra hooks to keep you addicted.
This is why I personally dislike achievements, because they are nothing but artificial extra gameplay and just traps to keep me addicted. Instead of working on the extra story or real replayability, they hook people into this.
Why do you think Call of Duty started to add XP bars, obtainable feats, etc.?
But back to what I said then, why do you think Blizzard added achievements for World of Warcraft,Starcraft 2 and Diablo3?
I still think its because: A. they want you to compare and compete with friends. B. show to players that there are certain dungeons,bosses and unique items that they might have missed. C. Give every gamer a challenge for the completionist.
Speaking of "C", before that people created their own challenged and flood the boards about them. Now, well basically with achievements, the developers put out their "own" for the community.
Now anyone can argue with me all along about achievements and their purpose, its not me who created the system, not me - but every developer- who added it to their games.
Or just because in the three games you listed keeping gamers interested and playing online is a big part of their revenue model. In the case of WoW they want to add features that keep people playing and subscribing. In the case of Starcraft 2 they wanted to have a feature that kept people playing it in between expansions (to keep the idea of buying the expansion on their mind) and for Diablo 3 they wanted another feature to get people playing online and spending money on its auction house (they get service fees from the real money auction house) as well as keep people interested until a future expansion comes out.
If anything I think that coming out after these legal troubles are solved with an achievement system would just make overhaul look unoriginal and desperate. I don't think it would be well received by critics.
I just wanna comment that; I don't play world of warcraft,Starcraft2 or Diablo3 either. And yes, my reason is because of the time consuming part. I don't have time to invest into a mmorpg nor play enough multiplayer to get into starcraft 2.
However, I did play those games for a few month and I liked them, but after that I moved on - but yes, If I was 10-14 I would probably be into world of warcraft.
For example, there are three karma based achievments; Devil, True Mortal, and Messiah in Fallout 3. Each of these requires a near-complete playthrough in order to obtain, which means that people have to play in multiple styles in order to complete. This is not spontaneous, it's not 'natural' gameplay. And I know of many people who use achievements as a form of checklist (comments on the Skyrim link above point to that as well), making sure they have completed it '100%'.
Some of those comments are indeed stellar examples of how odd achievement-driven gaming can be, like:
To get all of these in a single playthrough, you will need to make sure you save your game at levels 7, 13 and 19 and do all three of them before moving on and before saving over your old save file. Also be sure to save a side-quest or main quest for just before reaching each of the required levels to make it easier.
I would suggest being good at first. Getting bad karma is the easiest, so staying good the entire game will make it easier to handle these. Get your achievement for good, then reload your save. Go on a murder spree until you hit neutral, then turn in your quest to reach your target level. Reload your save yet again. Go on an even bigger murder spree until you hit bad, then turn in your quest to reach the target level. Repeat this process for each set of achievements.
Like @Troodon80 said, how much of that sounds like someone enjoying the game, and how much sounds like someone painstakingly trying to minimize their time spent playing while checking all the achievements off a list? The whole thing seems to scream "I don't really want to play the game, but man, I really want those achievements."
Lets make another thing clear, in Baldur's Gate 2, I wouldnt go for achievements that didnt fit my playstyle. I don't have the time nor intrest in collecting achievements that doesnt fit me. Now, you can check my steam account "Quezcatol" and see my achievements for yourself.
Also, the argument that it would sell better if they included achievements and other addiction-related features doesn't seem completely sound to me. If Coca-Cola added a tasteless ingredient to their drinks (like a lot of people figure they already have) that made people who drank it addicted, so that suddenly a lot of people who normally would never enjoy a coke now started doing so and as a result sales went up, would that be a good thing and a sound marketing philosophy?
People already do that today, it's called "sugar". I bought some Leverpostej recently and found out it had sugar in it... wtf?! Today everything have sugar in it for no reason beside creating "sugar addiction". No wonder it was called "honey sickness" during the roman empire, diabetes that is.
People already do that today, it's called "sugar". I bought some Leverpostej recently and found out it had sugar in it... wtf?! Today everything have sugar in it for no reason beside creating "sugar addiction". No wonder it was called "honey sickness" during the roman empire, diabetes that is.
You should try Lucozade, it has the equivalent of 8 teaspoons of sugar. It's still not particularly addictive, although that's really going to depend entirely on metabolism, hormones, and other bodily make-up...
Wow, that went off-topic fast.
Anyway, since BG:EE isn't actually tied to a particular client, I cannot see achievements being made a core part of the game. Games that have such a system are usually tied to some online presence; internet domain, client, etc. The best you might be able to hope for is some sort of Beamdog achievements, or perhaps forum badges. Which seems extremely unlikely. Unless, of course, they get into a contract with Valve and make achievements exclusive to Steam which, likewise, seems unlikely.
Also, the argument that it would sell better if they included achievements and other addiction-related features doesn't seem completely sound to me. If Coca-Cola added a tasteless ingredient to their drinks (like a lot of people figure they already have) that made people who drank it addicted, so that suddenly a lot of people who normally would never enjoy a coke now started doing so and as a result sales went up, would that be a good thing and a sound marketing philosophy?
As @raxtoren said now, they add sugar. Corn syrup or plain sugar are addicting and is added to all sort of products, even bread. For them is a good thing and a "sound marketing philosophy", but for customers? Well, depends what is your perspective.
I can give many examples (as I'm a therapist, in the making, and slightly obsessed with nutrition), but I'll go for a personal one. Some time ago I was feeling fairly sick, so I could really eat nothing, so for two days I basically just watched a TV show (Homeland if you're curious) and drank tea with a good dose of sugar. After those days, I felt bit better so I went to the shop. The I realized that I was roaming around the candy area (I never eat any candy), craving candy, soda, etc. I didn't really understand why suddenly this...until I made the connection. I don't eat any candy or drink soda except in very rare occasions, and when I do, I always feel tempted to buy more soda and so on. The effect in our brain is very strong.
Marketing (which I studied in the past, but ended dropping) is based on weakness preying. Buy this so you can be X, Y or Z. Go here and you will be treated very well, do this and you will feel like you belong. A long etc. What about sex? Appeal to our primal urges.
Sugar in food is one step further, as they directly appeal to our primitive brains. The amount of sugar found in American food is disgusting, but it's getting to that point in Europe as well.
So, achievements in videogames is not so different. It's no longer about the storyline or the dialogues or the immersion, it's about tricking our brains with flashy XP bars and achievements.
Depending your point of view, you may consider this a bad or a good thing. In the end, we're happy by doing things that make us happy. If spending 6 hours filling bars in a RPG while eating corn-syrup powered food makes you happy, why not? I really can't argue against it. It's everywhere.
@Vishnu Following that line of thought and recapping the conflict in this thread, I'd say that because of such developments it's then pretty reasonable - even justified - that the people who once upon a time enjoyed their food and beverage as they were (i.e. without a lot of extra sugar) argue that they don't want every new product made available to have extra sugar added to it. It might turn out especially bad if an old and established product that a lot of people love as it is, was remade with a thick coat of sugar - as has been suggested here.
Speaking of "primitive brain" a theory of where the sugar obsession stem from is honey. That's right. during stone age sugar was found in honeycombs and salty food theory stem from salt in animals meat. Since obviously cave men didnt filtrate salt from the water at that time. She, my biology teacher, also said that women probably today like pink and red color more because they used to look for and pick berries and cherries during the stone age.
Anyway, enough about that.
the achivements idea of the brain might be true, but that can be said about many things; shooters = satisfying to killing something, which comes from our hunting days. Sex addiction is because, as I was taught, to reproduce a lot since during the stone age most kids died at young age, and men rarely hit over 30 because of diseases and starvation. Leveling in a game is also a progress thing, we should always strive to be better and stronger so we can survive the next challenge- evolution in a nutshell. Cheering for a sportsclub = being part of a "tribe" and supporting these "hunters/soldiers"and being part of their faction.
Anyway, if they don't wanna include trading cards or achievements, then thats fine. I'm not some hater/basher who will get angry and protest or boycote the game for that. I can't wait for BGEE2 no matter what. However, as I said, I would appreciate it if they included what all other developers has already done with their games.
@Shin, yep, that's a good analogy that puts both topics together.
@raxtoren, that's correct, but the difference is that achievements and XP bars are very "on your face", to say so. It's kinda amazing to see some people who used to hate on videogames, become addicted to Facebook games.
I'm not opposed to achievements, as a general concept. In Orcs Must Die!, you earn achievements by completing levels in specific ways, which I think is what you're aiming for with this request--something like a target to shoot for. It works well for that, because there are a finite number of levels and the achievement adds an element of replay value: You completed the game? Great, but have you unlocked all of the achievements as well?
In OMD (I'll be using that as my "shining example" here), achievements are a positive addition because they force you to become better at the game.
On the other hand, I just recently started playing Assassin's Creed 2, where the achievements are... lackluster, shall we say. Sure, some of them are interesting, like the ones you unlock by climbing the highest tower in any city--but at the same time, that's something you'd want to do anyway just in the normal course of playing the game. In the first ten minutes of the game, you unlock four achievements. For no reason other than finishing a cut scene. That's not what achievements are for. They give you an "outside the box" goal for solving an objective. "Complete Chapter 4 in less than five minutes", or "Get through the Cloakwood Mines without taking damage". Those would be worthwhile achievements. Unfortunately, there are very few moments in Baldur's Gate that would make any sense at all with an achievement-style goal.
The thing is, BG isn't designed that way. It's an immersion game. The challenge is getting through the story; that's it. There may be certain battles that are difficult, but for the most part the game isn't there to be challenging.
Also, I like the Challenge threads that have popped up on these boards; they do a nice job of filling that replay void, in a way that achievements never could. Make a character with 10 in every stat and play through the game on Insane, solo? That's the sort of thing that wouldn't make any sense in an RPG and thus wouldn't make sense as an achievement; but as a challenge for players to undertake? I love it.
When you design a game, you have to look at any new feature in terms of what it adds to the experience. For achievements, it's not enough to look at how other games benefited, because the game you're developing might not follow the same conventions. You have to look at how achievements would best be used in the game you're making. So far I haven't seen anything that makes me think, "Yes, that would add something to the experience."
That's just my opinion, though; other people may feel differently about it (and this post does not reflect the official stance of Beamdog or its subsidiaries, blah blah blah...).
I was looking at the final fantasy 7 achievements over steam. The hardest ones, which I got for ex over playstation 1, only around 1-2% has managed to get. I'm speaking of the optional bosses and mastering the materia.
But one of the most disturbing things I found out was, only 81% has finished the first battle. Since Final Fantasy 7 starts with a battle it and its basically impossible to lose it... I assume 19% of everyone who bought the game hasnt even start it up. Maybe it's more digital collection copy they got? I mean 19% who hasnt even played the game, thats bizarre.
Anyway, Final Fantasy 7, which has optional characters to recruit and optional cities/areas to explore, they basically just added achivements into the story and mastering each characters finale skills and beating the extra bosses.
Baldur's Gate 2 could for ex have "Dragon Hunter" kill all the dragons, collecting legendary weapons, etc I see many achievements that could be in Baldur's Gate.
Now Dragon Age used some cheesy ones, Romance achievements, and leveling up to 20, but they serve their purpose I guess... for newcomers.
Oh and I appreciate your comment Dee, thanks for giving your input.
In OMD (I'll be using that as my "shining example" here), achievements are a positive addition because they force you to become better at the game.
And this is a key reason why I do not like them, and cannot understand them. Anything that 'forces' people removes spontaneity and natural gameplay. If a game is worth exploring, then people will explore. If a game has good character interaction, then people will interact with those characters. Etc., etc.
As a typical example of this (and why BG/BG:EE does it well), I saw a recent thread where someone was doing a minimal kill play-through, and did so without the notion that they would get a gold star for completing it. People are intent on exploring the game world and trying new things, despite the lack of achievements.
If the drive to be better is there because the game is good and they want to be better, then the player (in any game) will get better on their own terms as opposed to being forced or 'encouraged.'
Comments
1. They ruin immersion. Getting a congratulatory pop-up after accomplishing something pulls you out of the gameworld and reinforces the feeling of you playing a game rather than the feeling of you being inside the game.
2. They fuel the development of "community" gaming and encourage comparison and competition in terms of results and to what degree of "completion" you played a game. Related to what has been pointed out earlier with how achievements serve as evidence for competition or bragging rights. Comparison and competition aren't bad things in and of themselves - some games are based entirely on them - but should every game be designed with the philosophy that you should share, upload and compare results rather than focus on the game itself as a single player experience? I don't believe so.
And should games like BG that were designed with a different philosophy be updated to conform to the idea of comparing achievements, uploading results and jumping into and out of each others games? I definitely don't believe so.
3. They act as a crutch in terms of getting value or extra playing time out of the game. Should you explore every bit of every map (or kill 500 gibberlings, etc) because you feel like you want to, or because there's an achievement for doing so? Would you still do it if there was no achievement? Would you still do it if you couldn't show it off or if it didn't bump a virtual gamerscore? Is it you playing the game, or is it the developer/publisher playing you?
3b. They provide increasing amounts of hand-holding. Related to point 3, by rewarding various aspects of gameplay and approaches, achievements provide a shortlist of ways to achieve your goals inside the game. Something that was once the player's job to figure out and experiment with has in a sense been gift-wrapped and presented to them.
It can of course be argued that increased approachability in itself isn't a bad thing - that's a different kind of debate, and it could simply be that I'm too old and grouchy to appreciate it.
but this game simply does not need them and the game would not benefit. It would frankly be a waste of time that would be better spent else were imo
my main issue in a game like this is that they are counter preductive to actualy roleplaying the game. BG presents a choice of how to play it this choice is made by the player and there character as soon as you add achivements to the mix you start to cause problems.
Also, gams such as Skyrim and Fallout 3 has achievements, did that really change anyones playstyle?
Or in world of warcraft, Diablo3 etc.
I mean, im no programmer, maybe it takes a bit of time to add achievements, but how come then all arcade developers and every other developer manage to include it?
For example, there are three karma based achievments; Devil, True Mortal, and Messiah in Fallout 3. Each of these requires a near-complete playthrough in order to obtain, which means that people have to play in multiple styles in order to complete. This is not spontaneous, it's not 'natural' gameplay. And I know of many people who use achievements as a form of checklist (comments on the Skyrim link above point to that as well), making sure they have completed it '100%'.
I still think its because:
A. they want you to compare and compete with friends.
B. show to players that there are certain dungeons,bosses and unique items that they might have missed.
C. Give every gamer a challenge for the completionist.
Speaking of "C", before that people created their own challenged and flood the boards about them. Now, well basically with achievements, the developers put out their "own" for the community.
Now anyone can argue with me all along about achievements and their purpose, its not me who created the system, not me - but every developer- who added it to their games.
I am genuinely intrigued by the topic, and mean no disrespect or offence, but I still don't understand the idea of achievements. They remove spontaneity and natural gameplay, at least in my opinion.
Anyway, if you dislike achievements you can just ignore them. Nobody is forcing you to collect them and share it.
Dislike is only part of it. People are still going to comment about them. For example, as you said, if a person doesn't have an achievement for something no one will believe that they did it. These days, the achievements are worth more than the game itself. And that includes the Gamerscore and whatever it's called on all the other platforms. The Gamerscore apparently overrules common sense and sound judgement in many situations that require it, which is why I dislike that - but that's a different topic.
You can make games a social activity without adding gimmicks. You know, during the 80s I used to talk to people about how I played certain games; it didn't require achievements or leaderboards, it required other people to have an interest in it. Not everything is, or should be, a competition. Back then, people wouldn't come out with "OMG, LOL, u didnt complete tat, u dont have achievemtns fr it" (I almost had an aneurysm typing that), because people could discuss a game without resorting to insulting others because they might have done it better.
I actually once got into lighting up an achievement called "Loremaster" in World of Warcraft that required me to do every quest in every area on every continent. I worked on it for about two months. I finally got it lit on one of the continents - I think it was Eastern Kingdoms. I had a lot of fun doing it, and it was quite satisfying when I finally got it.
The fact is, games that do it have higher sales. It's even better if the online client allows your achievements to be publicly seen in an online profile. Like someone said, it's bragging rights. It makes you feel like you have a publicly displayed trophy case, even if, in reality, nobody ever looks at anybody else's.
I don't see why it would hurt to have them for people who want them, because people who don't could easily ignore them.
Now whether it could ever actually happen is another matter, with all these blasted legal issues and uncertainty about the future of BG:EE. Also, if the legal problems are resolved, and Overhaul comes right back to BG:EE at full operating capacity and full rights to do as they please, I don't know how complicated and costly the technical programming and implementation aspects would be.
Have you noticed how more and more games are adding core RPG elements to their games, even if they are not required at all? It's because filling bars is very attractive to our brains. Good storyplay is being sacrificed for RPG factors like experience bars, upgradeable gear, etc.
World of Warcraft does benefit from achievements somehow, as they are linked to some benefits that, in the past, came with feats or other factors (Arena mounts, special titles, etc.) but the rest are nothing but extra hooks to keep you addicted.
This is why I personally dislike achievements, because they are nothing but artificial extra gameplay and just traps to keep me addicted. Instead of working on the extra story or real replayability, they hook people into this.
Why do you think Call of Duty started to add XP bars, obtainable feats, etc.?
If anything I think that coming out after these legal troubles are solved with an achievement system would just make overhaul look unoriginal and desperate. I don't think it would be well received by critics.
And yes, my reason is because of the time consuming part.
I don't have time to invest into a mmorpg nor play enough multiplayer to get into starcraft 2.
However, I did play those games for a few month and I liked them, but after that I moved on - but yes, If I was 10-14 I would probably be into world of warcraft.
I don't have the time nor intrest in collecting achievements that doesnt fit me.
Now, you can check my steam account "Quezcatol" and see my achievements for yourself.
Today everything have sugar in it for no reason beside creating "sugar addiction".
No wonder it was called "honey sickness" during the roman empire, diabetes that is.
Wow, that went off-topic fast.
Anyway, since BG:EE isn't actually tied to a particular client, I cannot see achievements being made a core part of the game. Games that have such a system are usually tied to some online presence; internet domain, client, etc. The best you might be able to hope for is some sort of Beamdog achievements, or perhaps forum badges. Which seems extremely unlikely. Unless, of course, they get into a contract with Valve and make achievements exclusive to Steam which, likewise, seems unlikely.
I can give many examples (as I'm a therapist, in the making, and slightly obsessed with nutrition), but I'll go for a personal one. Some time ago I was feeling fairly sick, so I could really eat nothing, so for two days I basically just watched a TV show (Homeland if you're curious) and drank tea with a good dose of sugar. After those days, I felt bit better so I went to the shop. The I realized that I was roaming around the candy area (I never eat any candy), craving candy, soda, etc. I didn't really understand why suddenly this...until I made the connection. I don't eat any candy or drink soda except in very rare occasions, and when I do, I always feel tempted to buy more soda and so on. The effect in our brain is very strong.
Marketing (which I studied in the past, but ended dropping) is based on weakness preying. Buy this so you can be X, Y or Z. Go here and you will be treated very well, do this and you will feel like you belong. A long etc. What about sex? Appeal to our primal urges.
Sugar in food is one step further, as they directly appeal to our primitive brains. The amount of sugar found in American food is disgusting, but it's getting to that point in Europe as well.
So, achievements in videogames is not so different. It's no longer about the storyline or the dialogues or the immersion, it's about tricking our brains with flashy XP bars and achievements.
Depending your point of view, you may consider this a bad or a good thing. In the end, we're happy by doing things that make us happy. If spending 6 hours filling bars in a RPG while eating corn-syrup powered food makes you happy, why not? I really can't argue against it. It's everywhere.
That's right. during stone age sugar was found in honeycombs and salty food theory stem from salt in animals meat. Since obviously cave men didnt filtrate salt from the water at that time.
She, my biology teacher, also said that women probably today like pink and red color more because they used to look for and pick berries and cherries during the stone age.
Anyway, enough about that.
the achivements idea of the brain might be true, but that can be said about many things; shooters = satisfying to killing something, which comes from our hunting days.
Sex addiction is because, as I was taught, to reproduce a lot since during the stone age most kids died at young age, and men rarely hit over 30 because of diseases and starvation.
Leveling in a game is also a progress thing, we should always strive to be better and stronger so we can survive the next challenge- evolution in a nutshell.
Cheering for a sportsclub = being part of a "tribe" and supporting these "hunters/soldiers"and being part of their faction.
Anyway, if they don't wanna include trading cards or achievements, then thats fine.
I'm not some hater/basher who will get angry and protest or boycote the game for that. I can't wait for BGEE2 no matter what.
However, as I said, I would appreciate it if they included what all other developers has already done with their games.
Achievements are an useless crap.
The only achievements that should exist are those very difficult to obtain, not those like "accessing level 2".
@raxtoren, that's correct, but the difference is that achievements and XP bars are very "on your face", to say so. It's kinda amazing to see some people who used to hate on videogames, become addicted to Facebook games.
In OMD (I'll be using that as my "shining example" here), achievements are a positive addition because they force you to become better at the game.
On the other hand, I just recently started playing Assassin's Creed 2, where the achievements are... lackluster, shall we say. Sure, some of them are interesting, like the ones you unlock by climbing the highest tower in any city--but at the same time, that's something you'd want to do anyway just in the normal course of playing the game. In the first ten minutes of the game, you unlock four achievements. For no reason other than finishing a cut scene. That's not what achievements are for. They give you an "outside the box" goal for solving an objective. "Complete Chapter 4 in less than five minutes", or "Get through the Cloakwood Mines without taking damage". Those would be worthwhile achievements. Unfortunately, there are very few moments in Baldur's Gate that would make any sense at all with an achievement-style goal.
The thing is, BG isn't designed that way. It's an immersion game. The challenge is getting through the story; that's it. There may be certain battles that are difficult, but for the most part the game isn't there to be challenging.
Also, I like the Challenge threads that have popped up on these boards; they do a nice job of filling that replay void, in a way that achievements never could. Make a character with 10 in every stat and play through the game on Insane, solo? That's the sort of thing that wouldn't make any sense in an RPG and thus wouldn't make sense as an achievement; but as a challenge for players to undertake? I love it.
When you design a game, you have to look at any new feature in terms of what it adds to the experience. For achievements, it's not enough to look at how other games benefited, because the game you're developing might not follow the same conventions. You have to look at how achievements would best be used in the game you're making. So far I haven't seen anything that makes me think, "Yes, that would add something to the experience."
That's just my opinion, though; other people may feel differently about it (and this post does not reflect the official stance of Beamdog or its subsidiaries, blah blah blah...).
The hardest ones, which I got for ex over playstation 1, only around 1-2% has managed to get. I'm speaking of the optional bosses and mastering the materia.
But one of the most disturbing things I found out was, only 81% has finished the first battle.
Since Final Fantasy 7 starts with a battle it and its basically impossible to lose it... I assume 19% of everyone who bought the game hasnt even start it up.
Maybe it's more digital collection copy they got? I mean 19% who hasnt even played the game, thats bizarre.
Anyway, Final Fantasy 7, which has optional characters to recruit and optional cities/areas to explore, they basically just added achivements into the story and mastering each characters finale skills and beating the extra bosses.
Baldur's Gate 2 could for ex have "Dragon Hunter" kill all the dragons, collecting legendary weapons, etc I see many achievements that could be in Baldur's Gate.
Now Dragon Age used some cheesy ones, Romance achievements, and leveling up to 20, but they serve their purpose I guess... for newcomers.
Oh and I appreciate your comment Dee, thanks for giving your input.
As a typical example of this (and why BG/BG:EE does it well), I saw a recent thread where someone was doing a minimal kill play-through, and did so without the notion that they would get a gold star for completing it. People are intent on exploring the game world and trying new things, despite the lack of achievements.
If the drive to be better is there because the game is good and they want to be better, then the player (in any game) will get better on their own terms as opposed to being forced or 'encouraged.'