Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (chino tradicional)
日本語 (japonés)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandés)
Български (búlgaro)
Čeština (checo)
Dansk (danés)
Deutsch (alemán)
English (inglés)
Español de Hispanoamérica
Ελληνικά (griego)
Français (francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (húngaro)
Nederlands (holandés)
Norsk (noruego)
Polski (polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português-Brasil (portugués de Brasil)
Română (rumano)
Русский (ruso)
Suomi (finés)
Svenska (sueco)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraniano)
Comunicar un error de traducción
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
Denunciar este mensaje
you CLAIMED that it takes away resources and I asked for proof not how achievements work or that someone has to add them. I want proof of your claim that companies lose vital developing time by adding achievements just as you claimed.
so come on.. or can't you?
show me a Dev saying that they don't added achievements because it takes away from other developing duties.
also funny how you are not responding to my video and why achievements aren't just "garbage" for Devs.
just another screaming voice without any crap to back up their screaming... nice
The first part of his post CLEARLY points out how it uses resources, so it seems you did not bother to read said wall of text.
It starts with people having to think up multiple achievements.
Then they get written up and sent off for approval.
Willing to bet dollars to dog turds it's a significant back and fourth before the final approval.
Then the thumbnails have to be designed, and again, back and fourth approval submissions.
Then, once all that's done, programers have to create all the code to implement them.
As I said, a waste of time and resources.
Even simple ones like, "completed level" or collected X anount", or "killed X amount of X" takes resources to implement, and are completely inane booby prizes that are by definition NOT an "achievement".
As to your video...
Just because you can find one developer that uses it for some type of monitoring does not negate the fact that the overwhelming majority of achievements are pointless participation trophies.
Plus, everything they said can be done in the background without the need of achievements.
All you have done is found an "exception to the rule" and tried to present it as the rule.
Because how did you determine that? How do you look at the rate of earning and separate those who haven't got to play the game yet? How did you determine those simply got a way through the game and didn't like it? Or any of the other myriad reasons?
You cannot.
You can look at what I call the automatic achievements.
These are the achievements that 99.99999% of players will get simply by playing the game, and many of these achievements tell you exactly how much the people played, such as map completion achievements, defeat boss achievements, complete mission achievements, etc.
So when I see an automatic achievement awarded at say 60%, and then many of the other achievements that actually require input from the player at around 20% or less (more often less), then it's pretty obvious, especially when the achievement for completing a map/mission is at 60%, but the 1 or more achievements available in that map/mission is at 20% or lower...again, more often than not...lower.
The number of reviews can give you a hint, or rough idea of how many are/have played and how much they played, as can other STEAM features.
Even if you disregard the number of reviews, when you have differences that large, again, its pretty obvious.
As I said, it's not a by the book analysis, but it is valid information that shows a pattern (if you take the time to think about it and put the pieces together), especially when coupled with what I said about forum comments...and not just the STEAM forums.
You can also randomly look at profiles.
so yes, I can extrapolate all that and form a conclusion with a high degree of confidence.
so you still have not provided any evidence to YOUR claims.. typical of people that shout their opinion as fact and when asked to back it up they write a wall of text instead of actually doing giving just one example to the claims..
https://www.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/4by887/how_important_are_steam_achievements/
https://www.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/9ajes8/is_it_worth_the_time_to_integrate_steam/
I could go on... but I will put you on ignore anyway since you can't provide anything to backup your claims and I gave you enough chance to do so by now.
Are you under the assumption that achievements and everything they entail just magically appear in the game without any human interaction whatsoever?
Do you actually think that achievements like, completed mission X, or, built 10 of X, or any of the other pointless 'filler' is providing invaluable data to the studio/developer and in turn helping them to create better games?
Are you really that blind and nieve?
Are you one of those kids that stuck his/her hand in the fire even though you were told it was hot?
Again you go out and find a few comments from achiv supporters and claim that as "evidence".
That is what's called "confirmation bias".
How many articles with the opposing views did you skip past before you found those?
Just look at how many posters here have said they don't care about achivs. Even in the redit links you posted a lot of the replies boil down to, "don't care", even the developer is unsure if he/she should spend (waste) time on them.
You can also look at completion rates (I explained it in another post) and see that most do not care about achievements.
Again, when it comes to using them as tracking and data points, all that can be done in the background with less work and effort than creating and implementing achievements.
If a game is any good, then it should not need achievements in order to get players to explore, play, or whatever, or be needed to track anything.
For the love of Spock, games survived for decades before achievements came along, or any of this data tracking stuff.. (you didn't even need a connection to install and play the game), and more often that not those older games were, and in many cases still are a hell of a lot better than the crap released within the last 20 years.
Go play the first few Quake games and others like it such as Unreal and you will see.
They promote exploration without the need of some achievement telling you to, and when you did find a hidden or secret area, it always contained something to make it worth it...weapon, armour, etc.
I'm sorry that achievements are such an addiction for you, so much so that you repeatedly try and defend a lost argument.
I'm just spitballing here, but maybe you should just accept that achievements are inane participation trophies, and then go out and find some other means of validation.
Actually its about the same effort. With the disadvantage that most people will opt-out of submitting telemetry for non-server based games. The tracking has to be done anyway, it's simply what you do after that that's the difference. Either make a call to your data collection serivce or make a call to the achievement interface of the platform.
As you can clearly see with achievement ratios too, is that most people do not care for
- actually playing trough games
- higher difficulty ratings
- multiplayer
I guess developers should simply save time and ressources by cutting that stuff out also. End the game half-way through. Most people don't care nor will ever know. You also avoid negative press for having a bad ending like Mass Effect. Win-win. :D
Anyway, the ratios don't tell you anything about how much people "care" about achievements or whether it improves engagement or even sales. Which they actually do. The whole gamification aspect and the effect of something simple as a progression bar has been anyalsed to death. People like growing numbers, filling bars, or checking of items from a list. What a low obtainment ratio tells you is just that most people don't go particularly out of their way to get them. Which is true for pretty much every aspect of live.
I seen no reason to rehash any of it.
Find a hidden room that contains a special weapon or armor, etc, or even a badass monster that proceeded to eat your head.
One of my "modern" games gave an achievement for, "starting the game" , and another for "completing the tutorial", even though the tutorial was part of the game and Cound not be skipped.
OP wants required achievements, other people are just bickering.
The best achievements I've seen are all from Paradox's games. They are strategy games and they want you to do everything ranging from extremely hard things like "conquer the entire world as this tiny island country," or even silly things like "own the entire continent, but not any land-to-sea areas." :P
Agreed
You must be new to the forums ;-)
Kind of like the movie industry.
Guys, we're out of ideas for new movies, so we're going to remake all the ones from the last ten years or so and call them----reboots.
I read about one achievement in the Gears of War World that requires you to kill 100,000 enemies....a friggen 100,000
I've been gaming since the late 70s and I doubt I've killed that many combined