no. achievements do not change design at all. what would they change in a game to add achievements? i'm totally behind the argument that in app purchases and dlc change design. understandably. but adding achievements? no. the game design is not changed or impacted.
completely different argument here. focusing on multiplayer takes a lot of resources and planning. lets say the devs are forced to add 15 achievements. that's likely 15 api calls. 15 lines of code with a changing number in each one. that's it. it'd probably take longer to find where to put the line than typing the line.
if they didn't really care about the achievement integration then it'd take maybe an hour to throw it all together. not like adding a multiplayer aspect to a single player game that's actuall like developing another half a game all over and obviously takes way more resources.

false equivalence here.


(edit: i think i accidently put words in GR's mouth... should be correctly attributed now)

It was a joke. ;)

I agree with what you said there, comrade!

Only if you are manipulating symbols for the purpose of bypassing or coercing consent, especially by triggering a subliminal response, and that isn't at all going to necessarily be the case. But subliminal manipulation, in and of itself, goes far beyond what should be considered acceptable, because it's primary purpose is to circumvent consent. Without awareness, there is no possibility of consent. So if the desired response is a DLC purchase, or anything along those lines, consent should absolutely be required, for very obvious reasons.

There has to be an intention to subvert consent. Bypassing conscious awareness, in and of itself, doesn't meet that standard because consent doesn't always come into play. So art and marketing should not be conflated here, even though there are similarities. Obviously this is problematic because they frequently intersect, but due diligence, IMO, requires scrutiny and oversight to ensure that the public is not being subjected to practices that can, and should, be described as predatory.


I saw that, but I don't think the OP is calling for a wholesale ban of "achievements". I think it's an important issue that is very similar to other questionable marketing practices.

a few of questions here:
do you consider hi scores to be manipulation?

do you have an issue with the old arcades giving you 10 seconds to insert another credit while counting down, especially if they have a picture of your character / the person you're trying to rescue in peril? (i mean it's pretty obvious manipulation and it's totally tied into getting an extra coin out of you).

how do achievements elicit DLC purchase?

i don't have actual numbers but i'm pretty sure that the number of people so addicted to achievements that having more added in dlc is a cause to buy the dlc is pretty damn low. my guess is that usually there are far simpler rewards to entice dlc purchases with a higher success rate.
i mean mobile games are perfecting the art of impulse buy and microtransactions, yet they seem to not care about achievements really. i could be wrong, but most of the ios achievements are pretty lacklustre and there's far more pressure going on in the game with resource and time limits. achievements very much feel like an afterthought there.
not to mention the most played games that make the most money (looking at minecraft and fortnite here) don't use achievements as pressure at all and yet people are addicted to those two games moreso than most i've seen, and they make bucketloads of cash.

i've yet to see a solid argument that achievements are any more sinister than high scores or getting rated on your performance in the last level. I mean we could open up this discussion to "things game devs do to hook you into continuously playing their games", but even then i'd say the mechanics themselves are largely innocuous with noted exceptions to things like lootboxes with known gambling mechanics and real money costs attached (i mean we're fine with gambling in games as long as it's not for real money - the one armed bandits in moxxi's bar in borderlands being a prime example).

i just find it odd that people rail against achievements (the "external" ones) without having an issue with all the other, pretty similar hooks. i mean some people here are even ok with in game achievements, but argue against the external ones. but i mean lists of collectables on a level, unlockable outfits and artwork, even things like rubies hidden in pots in zelda are reward hooks designed to make you explore more and continue playing, just like achievements are meant to be - make you play more/again to fulfil some criteria to get a thumbs up. it's a silly being super critical of one mechanic without being critical of them all, and it becomes a slippery slope if you're not very clear about the boundaries of what is and isn't acceptable otherwise we remove all hooks for playing games and we end up with movies and no games.

i freely admit that some are insidious though. aforementioned lootboxes and mobile game forced time limits. when games are designed around making it more appealing to spend your money than play the game then i totally agree that something is rotten in the state of denmark. i've just never seen a game designed around achievements.

It's just achievements, man.

I think achievements aren't a bad thing,they can add extra things to do and more playtime.
I had a phase where I was a bit into trophiecollecting back on the ps3 but it never really impacted the way I played the game just sometimes made me do extra thing's when I enjoyed doing them.
Currently I completely don't care about achievements I just play the game.
I'll maybe start doing some achievements on witcher 3 becouse it's my favorite game and I can extend the playtime with it.

I already gave the example of cheat codes earlier in the topic.

Another example: immersion. Going through a tense dramatic scene in a game seamlessly > having the atmosphere interrupted by a social media notification. Certainly no one would accept such interruptions in film or books. It takes the player immediately out of the game world when achievements are external to the game itself.

Really, though, my point is that it's not so much what they would change so much as what they leave out. Do you deny that developer resources (including time) are finite? It stands to reason that the more they work on something (anything), the less they work on other potential things that could exist in that thing's place.

It's a matter of degree, not a matter of kind. The principle remains the same. Even the minimal time it may take to put together achievements that essentially function as their own thing outside the game world, could be spent on something else in the game.

Lolplatypus' example noted that a DLC can cause the completion percentage for achievements to drop, and that for completionists this could be sufficient to trigger a subconscious response.

That's a very specific example, and the rate of frequency is entirely irrelevant, IMO. If it's happened once, it's a very serious problem, because of what I've already stated re bypassing consent, but also because it's leveraging a known phychological disorder for personal gain, which I find extremely repugnant. There's no question in my mind that this is destructive, anti-social behavior. But I want to stress that I don't see achievements as the problem here; rather, it's the people who choose to implement them in this manner, and by and large, they're the same people that engage in other types of abusive marketing.

If someone were to make a (really good) game that falls within your tastes and interests and that game would come without achievements.

And then they would offer a pure "Achievement DLC" containing only those - no new levels, gear etc. - for a little amount of money, but not next to nothing either...

Who of you would be inclined to get that DLC?

Speaking for myself I would probably get it, but not because I care for the achievements, but I feel compelled to own the complete game...

If you would get it for the actual achievements - would it matter if they were actually meaningful (like "Killed five enemies in under five seconds", "Collected 10,000 coins") or meaningless ("Completed the tutorial", "Killed the first enemy")?

I do not care much about achievements, as long as they are local and not intrusive. For me the real bad part are online achievements. They bloat the game with more shop specific code and increase the risk of breakage when the proprietary shop service is not available anymore. Game developers instead should focus on the game itself, so everyone could benefit.

I've never gone on playing a game, past the point where I was having fun, just to get achievements. But for a game that I'm already enjoying, achievements end up allowing me to play the game, past the point where I've experienced the single player campaign/content.

That's why I keep saying that repetitive games(roguelikes, sims, platformers, turn based, puzzles)really need achievements(in game or client based), while narrative driven games(walking simulators, point and click adventures, role playing games) not so much.

As a good game that uses achievements to extend its "campaign", i'd point out "Into the Breach". I played it for 35 hours slowly unlocking all the achievements, and even though the game is a "run based" roguelike(you just keep doing the same content over and over again, across multiple runs), the achievements made it feel like a continuous campaign.

As a bad use of achievements, I'd like to point out "Warhammer 40,000: Space Wolf" on Steam. I've played it for over 200 hours and I'm still at around 70% achievements unlocked. The problem is that it has generic "collect 500 bear asses" type achievements, and grinding them out is just boring. I played the game for so long because I had a great time with it, but I'm not grinding the same campaign mission over and over again, just to get 100% completion!

Even if OP "left no room to debate" people can still do so with the OP or even others in the thread/etc.

Also what do you mean by mental threats? Care to expand on this/explain(perhaps with examples from OP's post so I know how to reply to such)? :)

The first bit here is what OP seemed to be doing for the most part, though.

As for the second part here....again, please show me where he called for a ban(not alluded to or hinted at...outright called for=).

The problem is that some of us aren't talking about those without such addictions, but those WITH them.....and also(from what i've seen) even some of those who are "mentally stable" can fall prey to such addictions.

I think agree and disagree a bit here.... I agree those with such addictions should seek help if possible, BUT if devs make something to compel others to play/buy a certain way then the blame/fault is also somewhat on the one's who designed/implemented such things(including achievements, but also lootboxes/micro transactions/etc).

No it doesn' go through disabling it for everyone...you seem to go straight to the worst possiuble scenario in such cases, when there are other options.

One possible option: warnings(even if small) on game boxes and game addiction help campaigns on tv/in print/etc like with smoking and drinking.

They were also added to sell more games, as well.

As for those other things....people could seek challenges(Nuzlock challenges being a thing) even before they were a thing, and most games have progress tracking lists in the menus.

You forgot their addictive nature that was very likely designed(like other things) to appeal to those with such personalities and draw them in more.

Also just because people have "free will", and people could technically do what they want to do, we still should do something(albeit not banning them/etc) about it.
=================================================

They have been and are still less likely to add secrets/collectibles/etc(of the "old school" variety[i.e. with some effort put in]) in their games, for one.

In the voice of Eeyore: "Thanks for noticing me" ;)

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

This....the problem with anyone reading stuff on topics they care much about is that often their beliefs will cause them to only/mainly see someone's words on such things(if that other person is criticizing/etc) in a certain(usually negative) light.....mainly seemingly so that they don't have to contemplate what that person is saying might even be partially true/valid.

I myself see it as such, but to a smaller degree than achievements(shareable ones) due to there being a "barrier" to doing such(in local arcades)....i.e. one had to go to said arcade to do so, and usually could only limit bragging about such to those around him(while playing) and those who read the scores list.

Nowadays people can share achievements with everyone in the world who can read them, and can do so quite easily....so it's a more likely addiction.

I do, somewhat, for the reasons above & the fact that it's done to get more money from players.

They usually add more achievements to a game, and as such entice those who hunt them for the overall points/score or those who want/desire to collect more of them.

That's because they are "free"(thus lesser barrier to playing/entry), and they use other mechanics(some even worse) to get people hooked to them.

You seem to be assuming(or worse, trying to paint others) as if some here have no issue with other mechanics just because we don't list them all here and how much they bother us & why....that isn't usually the case.....most here are likely trying to stick to the topic at hand(achievements) or save time by not mentioning every mechanic they dislike and why.

As for internal ones....well one cannot brag online to other as easily with those(as said before in this post by me and also by others in this thread).
==========================================

"I don't experience issues with said achievements so they're not a problem for others or worth worrying even a bit over"

I do hope you''re joking or being silly a bit here, as the above is how you seem to be coming off to me with this bit.

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

Some might want to use both, and most games disable achievements(for obvious reasons) when using ANY cheats(or even the console in some games).

Not sequels(as most games are self contained), but imo "chapter style" games(small or large) are very iffy propositions due to companies possibly folding before all chapters/etc get released(like with Telltale) or due to poor sales of prior chapters/etc.....also not saying they should be banned with this bit, btw.

Also there you go again(as others did) with assuming banning is the only solution....there ARE more options than banning and not banning things, you know. :)

Slippery slopes are often fallacies for a reason. ;)