(08-05-2012 10:04 AM)Beardy Wrote: (08-05-2012 10:00 AM)Gardocki Wrote: (08-04-2012 10:16 AM)Beardy Wrote: I will never understand the point of Achievements. HELLO, ARBITRARY MILESTONE, THANKS FOR POPPING UP IN THE MIDDLE OF MY GAME AND RUINING THE WHOLE AESTHETIC.
Achievements add replayability to a game, they also give you a reason to play harder difficultly levels depending on the game. In an era where playing on hard or hardcore does nothing for the outcome of the game, achievements can be that carrot for making gamers challenge themselves.
Achievements are also bragging rights. It's fun to show that you've done something other gamers haven't done in a game. Like my buddy, who's balls I bust over not getting the Marathon Achievements in Trials HD. Now that's not to say some games have lazy achievements, but those games are looked down at by serious achievement hunters.
(08-04-2012 12:50 PM)Beardy Wrote: I s'pose my problem is that I don't know what "Beat Act 1 = 10Gs " actually means.
It means you get a small reward for finishing the act. Yes, you could finish the level to see the story advance, but why not get something to show that you actually did that in game? I could say I beat Call of Duty 4 on Veteran, but if I don't have the achievements to back it up, you'll know I'm lying.
I'm still not seeing anything there that couldn't be done within a game, rather than have the system tell you so and for it to be a universal "THIS IS HOW GAME THIS PERSON IS" online.
The console tracks it because it's a Microsoft/Sony thing, while the majority of games come out across all systems (like the Wii, DS, PS2, and PC). Why should game developers worry about tracking what you've done in a specific game when the console can?
And come on man, it's just achievements. Why make a big deal out of it?
