I also have objections to achievements. I do not want to be pressured into spending more time in a game to make perfect starngres think more highly of account of meaningless scores.

GOG Galaxy's ability to disable them makes me happy.

To be fair no one is forced/"forced" to get ANY achievements in any game(outside the ones that pop up for things like finish a level/beat a boss/beat the game/etc), by the devs or social groups......though I agree some might feel this way due to addictive personalities or them wanting to feel like part of a group(or be accepted into said groups).

I take the ones I get on console/etc for the fun of it, and sometimes collect the easy to get ones(as I play for near completion anyways), but that's about it....some(like the Diablo 3 "beat bosses with fists and don't get hit once" style stuff) can go take a flying leap, though, imo. :)

minor side note on the high score thing: nowadays it's all online, worldwide leaderboards. it's no longer limited to the arcade.
also: yeah slippery slope is a fallacy (usually) but i was trying to point out how having no definition to what is bad means everything could be considered bad. that's exactly why i was asking for definition about what is wrong specifically with achievements that couldn't basically be painted across the entire gaming ethos.

:) i'm not advocating banning (or claiming that's what everyone is suggesting), but when we look at what we can already do with achievements:
you can turn off the notification on all platforms as far as i'm aware of.
you don't have to share your profile with anyone, and if you do i believe most platforms have appropriate privitisation options in place to limit what can and cannot be seen.
so what more _do_ people want if not complete removal?

i'm trying to create equivalence with existing mechanics that are already accepted by gamers to point out how (imo ofc) it's silly to complain about achievements while accepting said other mechanics. i mean i assume you're ok with most of the things i've mentioned. maybe a few concerns here and there, but they're all mechanics designed to keep you in the game. and if you're largely ok with those mechanics, what is different about achievements that you're not ok with? i mean in game achievements are somewhat acceptable but shared ones are less so?

ultimately, from what i can see in most of your responses is the issue is "how easy it is to share". so let's dissect that. what's wrong with that? because most of the issues i see with that is an issue with social media in general and not an achievements issue. and you have appropriate privacy options in place on all major platforms from what i understand to handle this. if all you want is a toggle "don't share achievements" then i'd be totally fine with that. but extrapolating this back to the original arguement - achievements make games and/or gaming bad - i still disagree.

the best thing i've seen to argue against them is this: they require platform specific code to implement them for each platform. tbh it's not a major thing to deal with. a simple interface handles this. but that is a valid point. just not enough of one for its removal, and still doesn't support "makes games / gaming bad" imo.

here's the thing as i see it. gaming is addictive. almost every mechanic in gaming is designed to engage the player and reward them for playing (i mean this is why it's addictive. if the reward wasn't good enough the game isn't worth playing. this is subjective ofc as different people enjoy different things). achievements are simply another mechanic to keep people engaged.
now there are good and bad ways of engaging. sure. and to uphold the original point "do achievements make gaming/games bad" then i'd say you need to give some substantial arguement that achievements are a bad engagement.
all ive seen so far is some anecdotal evidence that some people are triggered by achievements. but without any actual numbers this isn't weighty evidence as we can anecdotally show people are triggered by any aspect of gaming. everyone is different, everyone has their triggers. if the number of people triggered by achievements is equivalent to the number of people triggered by other mechanics then achievements don't stand out as an unacceptable mechanic.
there are suggestions that it impacts design, but i have yet to see an example where they actually have changed a game's design to be implemented.
there are suggestions that the sharing aspect is bad. in and of itself, is it really? i mean social media has issues, but again: you don't blame the "nerd" for the bully who calls them a nerd. you don't blame games because a bully picks on a gamer (or a gatekeeper uses achievement scores to say they're not a real gamer).
There're suggestions that adding new achievements in dlc triggers completionists to buy dlc. but first: that's an assumption, and second: completionists will be triggered by not having the full game (ie the stuff in the dlc) with or without achievements. most achievement hunters i know actually don't like dlc or multiplayer because they're more interested in garaunteed to be farmable achievements and mp is a lot of luck and grinding, and dlc tacked on top is often not worth it especially when you could move onto a new game and farm up achievements at a usually faster rate.
so what exactly makes achievements "bad engagement"?

although i feel we're very much getting to a clash of opinions here as people are arguing without any actual facts and tbh without facts there's not going to be a clear answer. my opinion is achievements are pretty innocuous. take em, leave em, whatever you want. as long as there are appropriate privacy options for people who want them (which should really be on pretty much anything nowadays) then i don't see an issue at all. i certainly don't think they should be as vilified as they seem to be by some.


(edit: and as usual, thanks for the good discussion. while i may or may not agree with your points, it's always interesting have good detailed discussions, rather than responses that skip 90% of your points. i try do the same, but i know i get distracted ;) )

Newell World Order?

I really don't understand what you mean by subverting/coercing consent. The very act of designing the game such is subverting consent. I wouldn't have felt sad that the character dies in that movie, but the play of lighting and musical climaxes combined to elicit an emotional response, and now I'm sad. Nobody asked my permission to make me sad.
You say it matters if it is something the player wouldn't have agreed to willingly, but that's not really a meaningful criterion. If a game has a tactility and feedback where when I press the mouse button, there's a loud satisfying bang sound and particle effects, and then another satisfying pop and explosion on screen when I hit something, and that makes me enjoy and continue playing a game, where if it was just me tapping a mouse and the enemy on the screen disappearing, I wouldn't care as much...has my consent been taken away? I'm doing something I otherwise wouldn't have been doing, because the feedback system has been set up in such a way as to cause in me a positive response, and thus I keep playing.

Finally you say that it is only a problem if it is being used to sell something or market something to you. First off, as mentioned by others, achievement systems where it suddenly resets to a smaller number when a DLC is released is...such a small segment of achievement systems, it seems ridiculous to condemn all achievemnt systems for that. Never mind the fact that not all games implement them like that (in fact, my game library is not exhaustive, but I can't find any game I have with achievements where I haven't bought the DLC, but my achievement list lists those DLC achievements.

But even disregarding that, it's not really a meaningful criterion either.
If a game psychologically manipulates you into liking it, and you recommend it to others, is that bad?
If an MMO game psychologically manipulates you into playing it longer than you would otherwise, and thus psychologically manipulates others into enjoying it more (for having more people and more social interactions instead of being an empty game), is that bad?
If a game ends on a cliffhanger, and then a sequel comes out, is that bad?

You know the achievements I hate

kill 999 bad guys in the year bc 40,000 in -5000 seconds

Kill 999 bad guys using *1* thrown toothpick

Kill 999 bad guys with 1 explosive barrel

Decapitate 1 badguy using a tin can bounced off piece of level geometry while standing on a pixel while simultaneously stuffng a small cat into a bottle while also making a 3 course dinner in the next room and doing so in 1 second flat

These types of achievements are what NEED to be BANNED PERMANENTLY they are IMPOSSIBLE and the devs are just being f#cking pr!cks!

reason for edit: changing *it* to *in*.

Some games on console not only lack cheat codes (a standard feature in the past) but have not let you copy/transfer your own saves or use other people's save, because they are more concerned about people "cheating" the achievement system than they are about people owning the products they buy. All of the affronts against ownership make gaming bad, in my view. My original point about cheat codes is that they are a dying breed compared to the past...due to achievements gaining so much foothold and popularity. Devs are putting in achievements, and generally not putting in cheat codes. Again though, this is more a console based argument from my past observations, but it does apply since we are just talking about "acheivements" in general.

I've already addressed this point earlier in the topic explaining that minimal content could be added to a game such as lines of dialogue. As for the "in-game feedback", please...that goes to what I said about breaking immersion. ESPECIALLY when the achievement is based in humor. I want to get lost in the game world, not be jolted out of it by someone clearly telling me, "hey, laugh at this part". The next big evolution will be to have picture-in-picture "hilarious" reaction videos of people making funny faces in the corner of your screen during key moments of the game. I do not deny that such a style may (inexplicably, imo) improve your or others' overall enjoyment of the game, just that it does not improve (and in fact negatively affects) immersion (which is what me and many others value in games). See the distinction?

This whole time it feels like you're dodging my point about finite resources. Just be honest. Acknowledge that there are finite resources and that you want those resources to be used on the things YOU value about the game. That's what I'm doing and you're no different in that respect, just that you have different preferences.

Not me but that would likely improve the game for me and hopefully shine a light on how "artificial" the external achievements are for others. Consider that for years gamers have shared various "challenge runs" amongst each other,and consider that many challenges even persist today despite being outside of the achievement system (e.g., speedrunning is generally not an achievement in games). Having to pay for such a hypothetical DLC would show people what they are paying for: made-up challenges by the developer, rather than actually novel content. No one pays for the privilege to be told that they can speedrun games or complete an RPG at low levels, so it's beyond time to apply similar reasoning to external achievements.

Not an "official" answer, since I wouldn't get it, but to me, it seems all of that is meaningless unless connected to in-game type rewards (like my earlier example of Fallout New Vegas improving the player character's ability). My main beef with acheivements: what is to stop the player from "killing five enemies in under five seconds" or "collecting 10,000 coins" as their own self-appointed goal. Why is the Pavlov Pop-Up needed for most people to do that anymore? It has not really been made or hinted at but I think there's a legitimate argument that achievements stifle creativity. Instead of the player exploring on their own and creating their own replay value, they follow a prescriptive list.

I can only repeat myself: with everything you said in this discussion, you're advocating for a ban, but exactly like Pontius Pilate did, you pretend to wash your hands in innocence, and are refraining from actively calling for a ban, yourself.

"Who? Me? I'm not calling for a ban. I simply want all achievements gone. But I'm not calling for a ban. However - I do think, someone should look into the possibility of a ban. But not me. Oh no. All I'm doing, is washing my hands in this bowl of innocence - see?"

That's hypocrisy of the highest order.

I will simply end this "discussion" by agreeing: this is beyond pointless.

True, though when those things were first thought up they had a lesser chance of being used to brag to much bigger crowds/groups & they(score lists) were less appealing to be used for such reasons by those addicted to such praise/etc.

Fair enough, but that would likely mostly only be needed if we were in a position to implement said changes & wanted to....most here likely just want to voice their stances and move on(not me, but others). :)

Fwiw I never thought you advocated banning in this case. That said: You CAN gturn such things off....but usually it's behind a bunch of pages/settings/options, and how many actually even bother to shut such off(if they have an addicted personality?).

I made one such suggestion a few times over already: i.e. informational campaigns similar to those for cigs and alcohol in print/on tv/etc, and also maybe small warnings on boxes.

(Also maybe even gaming addiction hotline numbers posted in various places gamers frequent like some states do for gambling addiction?)

Who says we ALL are ok with ALL of those mechanics? ;)

Because most of those mechanics are more tame and less addictive than achievement hunting(or so i've seen/noticed).

Also shared ones are less so because they give a bigger "gratification spike" due to being able to share them across the globe with a few clicks at most.

It's because one can share them and have people take note of them more easily(and get that mental "high" more easily and to a higher level) with shareable ones rather than a privacy thing, at least to me.

Somewhat or fully? I can understand the former, but not the latter....especially as several here have explained why it can be bad to some people in the world(gaming addicts/achievement addicts/etc).

And why do you THINK they were added? To be nice to the players?

They literally have people dedicated to finding new ways to get people to buy more games and spend more in said games(if applicable to that game).

They are, but not to all...only to some.

It's not just anecdotal....go look up the one dude who has 500K xbox 360 gamer score and wanted/wants to go for 1 million, who buys and plays ANY game just to bump up that number.

Add to that all the people online that have made MEMES and TROPES about it due to it being prevalent enough, and one can see it's not just "anecdotal".

At this point I don't know whether you truly don't see the bad aspects of achievements(to some people) or don't want to. o.0 ;D

In this case other nerds(devs) are also to blame for adding in such things to hook some players who are more susceptible to such.

What makes them bad(NOT to ALL, but to some) is what we've all been saying for several posts now.

They addict some people to where they spend more time and money than is healthy to get them, and devs very likely added them in to hook more people & sell more games. Most of this is not anecdotal and can be verified if one searches the net a bit.

(I would but I just want to chat about this and not debate in earnest atm)

The problem here, I think, is that some here don't want to see the upsides in them whereas you don't want to(readily) see the negatives in them.

I find it nice as well....most simply skip my posts and move on, so it's nice to get some engagement and converse on topics of interest with fellow gog users. :)
==============================================================

I think what that user was/is trying to say(in part) is that if a game is designed a bit to get players engaged to allow them to enjoy said product that's more ok/acceptable, but if/when devs make games in a way so as to maximize how many buy a game(and DLC) or try to get people as hooked as possible that's not as ok.

An aside....I dislike this for two reasons:

1. They usually do this to get you to buy another game. Imo it's ok if the first game/the prior game is self contained and/or the story was too grand/big to fit into 1 game alone, but not as much if they cut a game up into a bunch of very small parts to sell the same game bit by bit to people.

2. Sometimes a company folds/has poor sales of prior games and that next part/sequel never comes.

(Like with Anachronox's sequel, the other sequels to Advent Rising, the completed and not released second half to Toonstruck, etc)

yeah. you're going to need to provide some sort of proof for this. i do not believe that achievements are linked to the decline in cheat codes. maybe they happened over the same period but i very much doubt that's more than coincidence. in fact if you want to complain about the loss of things like mods and cheat codes then you're far more likely to find cause in the rise of mulitplayer, not achievements.

i could be wrong, but i need more than your observations to lend any credence to this theory.
ok. so the immersion part is all your subjective opinion then. there are games out there that break the fourth wall and part of the immersion is admitting you're playing a game. but even for serious games, still your subjective opinoin.

i've admitted finite resources. however you over-inflate the amount of resources it'd take. you want a few more lines of dialogue. that's probably going to take more time and involve more people than adding 10 cheesy simple achievements. unless you want the devs writing your dialouge (and trust me, as a dev, nine times out of ten you do not want devs writting your dialogue without the writers knowing about it).

ofc i'd rather the achievements were done correctly and added value and were cheesy "well done, you completed the introduction" type of achievements. exactly the same way i'd rather have properly written, good dialouge rather than 2 extra lines slapped in because someone had half an hour free and decided that npc X should talk about what they had for lunch for no apparent reason.

and finally: sure, i'd like achievements added rather than not. they do amuse me. but there are also diminishing returns on everything. if there are no achievements and there's enough dialogue, a few more lines of dialogue is worth less than adding a few achievements. likewise, adding 150 achievements is going to be worth less than adding a small side quest if there are already 15 achievements. and the people needed to add achievements are generally not the same people needed to add dialogue. yes there are finite resources but at the same time there are different resources and devs can be adding achievements _at the same time_ as writers add a few more lines of dialogue. it's only the super tiny indies that share multiple roles (3 man dev houses, or 1 man teams) that will have to choose one or the other here.

Yeah those can be annoying....like the ones in Diablo 3 where you need to kill a boss on higher difficulties in little time and/or without getting hit ONCE. o.0

I say this: "Why contain the insane achievements? Let the bodies of tired collapsed gamers pile up in the gaming forums. In the end they'll beg us to remove them" ;)

(The above is a parody of the Deux Ex intro, btw, in casy anyone thinks that means anything else o.0 :))


==============================================

To be fair at least many PC games still have cheat codes/modes....heck, even such games on console have them sometimes via achieving in-game milestones/picking up collectibles(Like in Uncharted games, for one example).

Yes, one needs to earn them but for some games they are there...and also for some that extra challenge(to unlock cheats/etc) might/can be more fun. :)



=============================================

It isn't needed for most, but it can be fun for some.

I would argue it can do both....stifle it/direct one's actions, but also(for some) it can allow one to see new possibilities they never thought of and new things to try in some games. :)

Besides being overly dramatic this is somewhat wrong....that user never said they wanted such banned, but you keep putting words in their mouth and ascribing such to their intent for some reason(likely to maintain cognitive dissonance, and so you can dismiss their arguments more easily...because f they're "bad people" with "bad ideas" who want "bad things" then it's far easier to ignore them and dismiss what they're saying).

I've stated a number of times that I don't want to ban achievements. The fact that you've missed that tells me you're not terribly interested in what I'm communicating, so what's your intention?

Do you really think game devs are going to admit to such things?

Also why do I have the sneaking feeling even if we provided actual proof you would likely say you needed more? ;)

ok. so the immersion part is all your subjective opinion then. there are games out there that break the fourth wall and part of the immersion is admitting you're playing a game. but even for serious games, still your subjective opinoin.

I agree RJ is likely over inflating the amount possibly taken away from a game by adding in achievements.

Yeah, extra game content isn't always going to be good just because there's MORE of it...this is true.

Heck, even Jeff Vogel did a ton of stuff with his games and he is just 1 man(or maybe 2...I forget).