Gaming in the Achievement Era - Part 2

In our last Dialogue we talked about how Achievements and Trophies have changed gaming for the better. In this installment we examine the systems' potential for evil. Developers, take note!

Robot

We talked last time about the incentives and benefits that Achievements and Trophies (A/T) provide, but what about the negatives? I want to start with what I consider the slimiest, most exploitative practice since the establishment of the A/T system: DLC-related A/Ts. To guys like us, for whom 100% game completion is an obsessive-compulsive imperative, purchasing this type of DLC is an obligation, regardless of whether we even desired more content from that particular game. That it may be impossible to fully complete a $60 game without spending more money really pisses me off. What do you think? Is this a conspiracy to filch cash out of OCD gamers like ourselves? Does DLC need to include A/T to attract the average gamer?

Soundrel

I definitely agree, and I think the industry is trending towards DLC based A/Ts being more and more commonplace. I don't know that the concept of DLC Achievements and Trophies started out as anything insidious; from a technological and developmental standpoint I think it's extremely cool that a 1000 Gamerscore game can end up offering anywhere from 1100-2000 Gamerscore when all the content is released, but I completely accede that it has quickly become highway robbery for many developers who bank on achievement whores and completionists swooping up whatever they release.

Robot

Okay, so maybe I'm a bit quick to don my balaclava and storm the proverbial gates of big business. You're right--lots of gamers are probably happy to see that, not only is there more content coming down the pike for their favorite game, but they have more A/Ts to go for as well. Before the corporate apologists think I'm going soft on their poor big-name game companies, though, I want to mention a case where the exploitation of A/Ts for profit has lost any semblance of discretion: Angry Birds Space. The achievements 'Fowl Delivery' and 'Where No Birds Have Gone Before' are awarded simply for purchasing game upgrades in the app store. The fact that these additions are inexpensive is irrelevant; the principle is all. In order to complete the game, there are hidden fees, and spending money has become an achievement. For shame, Rovio!

Soundrel

Awesome and irrefutable example. I think that is one of the most extreme cases of a publisher flagrantly misusing unlockable awards to shamelessly line their pockets. In an effort to maintain sanity, I try to approach this topic the same way I approach life: sure, sometimes you leave the grocery store and discover that you were overcharged for your econo-bag o' pretzels, but other times you innocently forget to grab the case of water out from under the cart at checkout and you get home before realizing you got it for free. What I mean to say is, in a perfect world it all comes out as a wash. Hopefully Red Dead Redemption's free DLC "Outlaws To The End" and Army Of Two's free DLC "Veteran Map Pack" (both complete with full sets of new Achievements) cosmically offset the injustice perpetuated by the greedier developers. Of course the generosity illustrated  in my two examples is too rare to completely balance the scales.

Robot

Moving on, there's the problem of the "grind". Plenty of A/Ts require sinking dozens of hours into a game, and we find ourselves playing through one torturous multiplayer match after another, or starting yet another exhausting campaign play-through, long after the fun has died. You and I are no great fans of Grand Theft Auto IV's multiplayer, for example, yet we had to stomach ceaseless helpings of street races, foot races, and *ahem* Happiness Island sniping sessions to get through it. I want to see developers move away from this joyless repetition and focus instead on A/Ts that reward skill and exploration of game worlds and mechanics.

Soundrel

I think the key point of your statement is "long after the fun has died" - the achievements should be proportional to the level of fun the game offers. To a degree it's subjective, sure, but attaching achievements to diverse and entertaining tasks, regardless of difficulty, is far more progressive in my mind than being forced to engage in menial repetition. That said, our readers may not be aware that the Op Ed duo first met over a month-and-a-half long grind to level-up for a meager 20 Gamerscore, so I suppose there's a silver lining to everything! On the topic, where do you land on multiplayer achievements in general?

Robot

Truthfully, I usually cringe when they're included in a game I want to play. I don't have a problem with them in theory, but there are flaws. First, you are at the mercy of servers that can go down or be turned off permanently before you get all the A/Ts, leaving you forever shy of 100% on that game. I know that almost happened to you! Secondly, for some reason, they always seem to take so much longer than their single player counterparts. I could have finished Uncharted 2's single player Trophies three times over in the amount of time it took me to earn my final multiplayer Trophy. Ultimately, I think they're good for variety, but they shouldn't dominate the list or your time.

Soundrel

I too generally suss out the multiplayer Achievement list prior to buying a game. On one hand I definitely enjoy the social aspect of online multi; I've met some great and diverse people, had a lot of interesting conversations, and under perfect conditions it can be a blast. But online A/Ts are often times more grind-y than single player. A perfect example would be Gears of War's "Seriously..." which would take so long to complete, months from what I've heard, that it actually deterred me from playing the game. Perhaps it's not completely rational, but I don't like the idea of not being able to complete a game without sinking months of my life into the same repetitive activity.