I posted this over in the "FTL now has achievements" thread, but decided I should make it its own thread.

Good point.
I must admit I had a similar opinion to yours not so long ago. I have been playing games for decades and never had any need for achievements, but now I find some amusement in unlocking achievements...
Although I don't normally give them a big importance, excepting they are an important implemented part of the game and thus related to unlocks (like in FTL, EtG...) I also find them to be a nice memento of how you played the game, which feats or challenges did I beat, or how did I play in general. Being no achievement hunter, I don't mind at all if, after finishing a particular game, I haven't unlocked more than 27% achievements or whatever. I have finished the game playing in my own way and that's all that matters to me. My gameplay is rarely dictated by achievements.
I share your point of view that achievement hunting ofter ruins the game. But some people like that kind of challenge. It's their way of playing and if they enjoy that, there's nothing wrong about it in my opinion.

i disagree.
achievement, in and of themselves, are not bad. well implemented achievements can add a new facet to the game, giving a player further goals to aim for. you could argue that a good game doesn't need more goals, but then does having more goals actually detract from the game?

it's not like a game is made worse simply to allow achievements to be added. that's the problem with monetisation: the game is actually changed to make purchases more appealing and this is at the detriment of the game / gameplay.
but how does adding in an achievement list alter how the game is made? it would be a very edge case that would do this and very far from the norm.

as for taking advantage of people's psychology to hook them into playing the game: that's what games do, with or without achievements. any halfway decent game does this with rewards of some sort, be it XP or items or levels or collectable art unlockables.

in fact i posit that if you have an issue with achievements then you must also argue against having all unlockables such as artwork and music tracks etc which are present in many many games. even unlocking new characters with different skills is a reward designed to keep you playing.

you don't actually say _how_ achievements make a game worse. the only thing you say is that they take advantage of "people's psychology; personalities and weaknesses" but i say that games do that anyway with rewards and punishments as part of the gameplay. if they didn't you wouldn't play the games because they'd be boring (no rewards for succeeding) and too easy (no punishment for failure). achievements are simply another facet of what a game is. whether the developers add them or not, or make them easy or hard, they're are all just simply another part of the game that may or may not be used or may or may not be implemented well.

a blanket statement of "achievements are bad" or "achievements make games bad" i'd say is an untenable position which you're going to have a difficult time defending.

Sorry, but I fail to see how this is in any way different from let's say:

-- trying to collect all the (hidden) stars in a Mario game, or
-- searching every nook and cranny in a (more or less) open-world RPG to find all available loot.

Both things are absolutely comparable to achievement hunting, in the sense that some players will enjoy doing them, while others won't bother.

And yes - that may dictate how some players play a game, and it may become more frustrating than enjoyable in the end (to some)...but that's none of our business, wouldn't you agree? Says who?
You don't like achievements? Fine - I don't like them either.
You know what I do? I simply ignore them.
I don't mind getting the ones that I receive by simply playing a game, but I don't actively try to achieve them.

I simply don't care about achievements. I don't need them. The same goes for the 120 stars in Super Mario 64. I don't feel the need to collect them all. But I don't complain about them being there.

What I do like, however, is to search every nook and cranny in games where there are nooks and crannies to search through - but that doesn't mean, I would try to get all the nonsensical achievements that are available in the same game ("find 500 of X", or "kill 250 of Y".

And if anybody else likes to go after achievements? So what? That's their decision, and their decision alone.
Why do you care about the way anybody else enjoys (or doesn't enjoy) playing their games?

Some guys love doing speedruns - personally, I don't get it.
But I would never try to tell any of them to stop doing speedruns.
If that's what they enjoy doing - all the power to them.

I like achievements but never read them before playing to avoid this. I only take a look at them after, sometimes months or years after. They are a way to bring back the good memories of a game.
Most people want achievement for social display only though.

The whole first half of my post was filled with examples of how achievements make gaming worse.

Once you concede that achievements do have a psychological effect, the answer is fairly simple: DLC.
Imagine your player goes for 100% completion in your game, manages to do it, hits the high. Then you release DLC with new achievements, his 100% drops to a 72%, and that needs to be rectified. Selling your content obviously is easier with higher player retention and once that's established it makes sense to break your game up to maximise profit. While I'm not an expert, I'm fairly sure that a Monkey Island affects your brain differently than a Cookie Clicker. I think it's dangerous to equate any artistic output and the satisfaction of consuming such with mechanics explicitly designed to condition player behaviour. And maybe that's just me, but I think we're treated to a higher quality when developers make the game they'd want to play instead of the game that achieves the highest player retention by using the most effective psychological hooks. That's quite a blanket statement that I certainly wouldn't subscribe to. You are under the impression that this is a concious choice. OP argues that it isn't.

Should the government ban achievements? (hopefully a One World Government)

Well, I can't do the thinking for others, can you (or can the OP)?
Assuming, that the answer to that question is "no", what are you suggesting we do?

Before you answer, let's think about the following:

Some people might be unconciously influenced by books and movies - should we ban books and movies?
Last time I checked during the 80's, certain music styles were deemed "bad influence" on "innocent kids' minds" - should we ban these music styles?
The same goes for comics, tv series, games...you catch my drift.

Conclusion:
Either we agree that there is a free will and everybody can use it (even to their own harm); Or we have to come to the conviction that, simply because some people don't know how to handle their free will, we all have to forego certain freedoms in our lives.

https://www.gog.com/wishlist/site/achievement_support_for_compatible_games

Just let people play as they want.

I do want to point out that this isn't just me. There's a body of research out there going back and forth examining whether "gamification" (particularly in office and educational spaces) is ethical or not. Is it ethical to exploit psychological weaknesses to drive a behavior, even if it is a desirous behavior? Such discussions should also be held within the gaming community to consider this. Thus my thread here.

Here's one example in the space that has a bibliography pointing to others with varying theses:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303035492_More_than_Just_a_Game_Ethical_Issues_in_Gamification

Again, you're arguing on the basis that there's anything conscious at play. There isn't. Ignoring for a second here that you're equating unfounded puritan hysteria with legitimate concerns with regards to pattern-forming psychological tools, actually yes, there is banned music in Germany, for example. Quick search brought up Endstufe, Noie Werte, Kahlkopf, Sperrzone and Störkraft. Would imagine they're banned for a pretty good reason. I don't agree there is completely free will, no, which sort of renders your second option void, as well. That said, we already forego certain freedoms and for good reason, that seems rather normal to me and as such I'd rather go with the second option here.

Kudos for that link, I've been looking for something like that for a while now.

none of those examples are how achievements make _a game_ worse.
all those examples are of how people react to them. but the same people fight over hiscores, or completion rates. all of those things already existed long before achievements and people have been trying to gatekeep or chase 100% completion or speedrun since games came out.

so achievements don't make games worse, or at least you have yet to give an example of how they make games worse.
achievements allow people to be sh*tty to one another? they did that before achievements, they will continue to do so if you take achievements away.

imo

I'm arguing that I can consciously decide to play a game without going after achievements (or playing especially challenging game elements).
I'm further arguing that, if anybody else can't consciously decide to not go after achievements (or playing the challenging game elements), that I can't do the decision for them.

And I asked you, if you think, you can do it for them. Or if the OP can do it for them.
You think you can? How would you do it?
Well, that unfounded hysteria lead to record burnings, book burnings, and several trial courts.
Again: do you think we should add achievements in games as reasons for new game-burnings and trial courts?

Yes. Pretty good reasons, indeed. These bands' songs are banned, because their lyrics contained racial hate and rabble-rousing. Which is forbidden by law in Germany.
Which you should know, if you're a German.

And which has nothing to do with unconciously made decisions like hunting after some extra points in games, even if it stops being enjoyable after some time and begins being more of a chore.

But the question I was asking involved if you think we should start banning games, like others did ban books and movies and music (mind you: without having illegal content in their lyrics!) in the past?

Well, I do believe in free will.
But it's nice to know that you would rather ban games for all of us, than to let some of us live with the impairments, that their weak free will brings them.

Btw: is my second option now rendered void, or is it not? I ask, because you first say it is, but then conclude that you'd rather choose it over everything else.

Edit: missing word

you don't need achievements for this. many games already track completion rates as a % or show how many Xs you've collected and then they add red Ys in the DLC.
Are you saying games should remove all collectables? many people play clicker games that don't come with "achievements". you realise that every single game rewards you in some way. finishing a level in mario has little fireworks because that is a reward. effectively that is an achievement. you get a little pat on the back to make you want to get it again on the next level.
some games are more manipulative than others, but they are far more insidious than handing out achievements. lots of games create what is effectively a skinner box, rewarding you for doing well and punishing you for failing. rewards can be anything from finding a bit more gold to a new random piece of loot, and punishment can be a 30 second load after death, or losing gold, or just having to redo part of a level.
this is what makes games enjoyable to play. risk vs reward. an achievement is simply another reward. inherently they are not bad themselves.
even a running total like a gamerscore isn't inherently bad. we've had hiscores since arcade games came out. do you suggest doing away with score? and yet risk vs reward is why we play games. again: you need to understand what a reward is and what a punishment is. a reward can be anything positive and a punishment can be anything negative.
points are a reward. finishing a level is a reward. some rewards hook people more than others. some rewards hook different people differently. some care naught for achievements but give them a completion percentage and they will chase 100%. some people see a timer and they _have_ to get faster each time they play. and getting faster is a reward.
punishments are losing a life, restarting a level, restarting the game, having a sad face appear. anything negative. some punishments are more effective. some are designed to do different things. the 10 second countdown on an arcade machine where you see your character beaten up, but you can save them for 1 more credit - that's a punishment designed to make you lessen the punishment by paying. that's got nothing to do with achievements, and games have been doing that long before achievements were invented. some will make the choice consciously, and some will chase it like an addiction. it's true, but again: this isn't an issue with achievements. this could be anything that appeals to the person in question. completion percentages were designed to hook people. new character unlocks, artwork unlocks, timers on stages, hiscore boards. all these things are designed to make people play the game over and over. unless you see all these things as bad, achievements are not bad. they are simply another hook to keep someone playing if that's their jam. just like the many hooks in all games.

i'm not saying achievements are good. i'm saying they're not bad. they simply are a thing. some like them, some don't. some get addicted chasing them, some don't. they are like many other aspects already in the games we play. singling them out alone while being happy with all the others is silly imo