(Achievement Unlocked)

[✪ Miscreation ⚥ ☯ 🎭]

What's your opinion on achievements? I find so disappointing that games like Don't Starve don't have 'em. Cards are a nice system too but it's not the same and you can simply buy them.

Should ALL games on Steam have at least a bare minimum achievements add to them?
[x]Yes
[ ]No

[Seretti]

Achievements don't make a game fun. Sure, it can be a nice little bonus but nothing more than that.

[UWU]

good

[SKARDAVNELNATE]

I buy games because I think I would like them. However, seeing that a game has a lot of achievements suggests to me that I might get caught up in playing them past the point of having fun. So I've played games with fewer achievements even if they weren't the most interesting to me at the time.

Achievements influence how I play the game. I'm looking out for something specific that I otherwise wouldn't pay attention to. I'm using a specific strategy rather than taking a more natural approach. I'm playing the game a 2nd or 3rd time.

[Anonymous Helper]

No. Whether or not to add a feature is solely up to developer's discretion. If they don't want something in their game or don't want to implement something for any reason, then that's that.

[Lithurge]

Originally posted by Miscreation:

Should ALL games on Steam have at least a bare minimum achievements add to them?

Some games already have achievements for just completing each level/chapter (however you want to describe them) and nothing else. Given they're story driven games they're pointless.

So no you shouldn't (not that you could) force every game to have achievements.

[✪ Miscreation ⚥ ☯ 🎭]

Originally posted by SKARDAVNELNATE:

I buy games because I think I would like them. However, seeing that a game has a lot of achievements suggests to me that I might get caught up in playing them past the point of having fun. So I've played games with fewer achievements even if they weren't the most interesting to me at the time.

Achievements influence how I play the game. I'm looking out for something specific that I otherwise wouldn't pay attention to. I'm using a specific strategy rather than taking a more natural approach. I'm playing the game a 2nd or 3rd time.

Yes, I agree! Achievements increase the game's replayability, a lot.

[Mailer]

I think Don't Starve in particular benefits from not having achievements as that game airs a lot of mystery around it, and what you are supposed to do in it. Having achievements detailing feats you can do would spoil a bit of that discovery.

Sure, you could also make every achievement hidden, but that's not always a good look either.

[✪ Miscreation ⚥ ☯ 🎭]

Originally posted by Mailer:

I think Don't Starve in particular benefits from not having achievements as that game airs a lot of mystery around it, and what you are supposed to do in it. Having achievements detailing feats you can do would spoil a bit of that discovery.

Sure, you could also make every achievement hidden, but that's not always a good look either.

I can see your point but you can't bake a cake without the proper recipe, can you? No. So having a bunch of hidden/secret features that players don't even care for because they'll never find it is not really useful without achievements at all. Sure, hidden achievements is perfect for Don't Starve, I agree.

[Ice Scream]

Just make your own achievements, write down on paper what you want to accomplish and then check mark them. There are your achievements.

[Crazy Tiger]

I wish there was an option to opt out of all that. I'm not interested in any of it.

[SKARDAVNELNATE]

Originally posted by Miscreation:

Yes, I agree! Achievements increase the game's replayability, a lot.

I'm not saying that's a good thing. I'm doing those things not because I'm having fun but because I need a specific sequence of events I didn't get the previous time.

[Crazy Tiger]

Originally posted by SKARDAVNELNATE:

Originally posted by Miscreation:

Yes, I agree! Achievements increase the game's replayability, a lot.

I'm not saying that's a good thing. I'm doing those things not because I'm having fun but because I need a specific sequence of events I didn't get the previous time.

And if you don't have fun, do you still do them then?

[✪ Miscreation ⚥ ☯ 🎭]

Originally posted by Crazy Tiger:

Originally posted by SKARDAVNELNATE:

I'm not saying that's a good thing. I'm doing those things not because I'm having fun but because I need a specific sequence of events I didn't get the previous time.

And if you don't have fun, do you still do them then?

I don't understand SKARDAVNELNATE's comments either... but I do LOVE the achievements! Games like Postal 2 have more than 80 of 'em, makes the gameplay much more interesting.

[miakisfan]

Originally posted by Anonymous Helper:

No. Whether or not to add a feature is solely up to developer's discretion. If they don't want something in their game or don't want to implement something for any reason, then that's that.

I agree here. Leave it up to the developers and if you don't like that they aren't in it vote with your wallet.

Achievements are nice in some games but they really shouldn't be the deciding factor whether you buy a game or not. I played plenty of games before achievements were a thing and that didn't stop me from loving them.

[BJWyler]

Achievements were created, and always have been nothing more than a way for devs to prolong engagement with their game. They are just as meaningless as another grinder kill 10 rats quest in an RPG.

The overall content in a game should be the reason one plays a game. If one is only interested in a game because of Achievements, then the game is not very good, or the player is simply playing games for the wrong reason.