hen the Xbox 360 launched on November 22, 2005, it not only ushered in a new generation of console gaming, it introduced players to a feature known as Gamerscore.
While the concept behind meta-scoring isn't new, the broad-scale utility of the achievement system — and its place in the public eye — leaves some gamers hungry for points. Many times, these achievements serve to increase the longevity of titles, granting points for completion percentages or fetch-quest objectives. In other cases, more obscure tasks are presented, some even contrary to the game's original flow (such as beating Half-Life 2: Episode One while having only fired exactly one bullet).
Can achievements (or a comparative meta-scoring system) actually distance the player from the core experience? That is to say, while the experience may have been enjoyable, was it actually meaningful?
What I did not expect gamerscore to be about:
1) A reason to stop playing a game.
2) A reason to keep playing a game.
An interesting point. My gamerscore has only served to remind me that the games I play to completion are few and far between.
My compulsive nature cringes if I look at the percentage of achievements for each game in my history, but I am not compelled by it in any way. It's too much work for something that I only do for fun.
I play games to be social, assert my prowess at puzzle games over Chris, and to be target fodder in shooter matches with friends.
Achievements, for the most part, feel like homework. There have been some unique ones that sounded cool at the time, but never have I felt any deep satisfaction from completing them and I imagine I never will.
I guess I just see them as pseudo accomplishments, and not something to boast about when I could be pwning Chris in a duel on Borderlands. That is far more satisfying. :]
Some achievements I could never see myself attempting (like, as depicted in the image, carrying a plastic gnome through more than 2 hours of content in Half-Life 2: Episode 2), yet there are achievements that I actually did try — and successfully (again, HL2, completing Ravenholm through exclusive use of the gravity gun).
Beyond some curiosities of dedication, I find achievements to not be worth the effort. World of Warcraft, with its offering of titles for certain feats, however, not only substantiates the accomplishment but rewards it in a time-honored way — cognomens are indeed recognized in-game, often serving as indicators of skill.
Spoiler: I'm using PS3 lingo since I don't have a 360.
I'm very guilty of playing a game to only get the trophies. I've only done this, however, with rentals or games I get from the library. When I only have roughly a week to play a game, I try to push myself to the limits and do everything there is (or they want you) to do. Sometimes it doesn't always work.
I find it more personally satisfying when playing a game to get all the trophies I can. It's definitely an esteem-booster when playing the games. Plus having to push myself to play harder difficulties and overcome ridiculous obstacles has honed my skills. Back when I first got my PS3, I had a really rough time even playing FPS games on the easiest mode. Now, a couple years & several games later, I almost always start out on the hardest.
I think how achievements are rewarded ultimately determines how worthwhile they are. Gamerscore, to me, is completely irrelevant. I find no useful information or solace in a number or percentage. LotR:O and WoW, on the other hand, turn achievements into meaningful and tangible milestones. LotR:O actually incorporates achievements into their version of talent trees, tethering vital character upgrades and skill enhancements to related achievements. World of Warcraft, as Michael mentioned, turns achievements into feats of skill, and often rewards them with exclusive titles, mounts, or pets. I'm not a completist by any means, but I can get behind earning your "Starcaller" title.
What I thought achievements were going to be when I started playing 360:
1) A means towards reviewing games. For example, in Bomberman: Act Zero, I only got 5 achievement points, then I stopped playing. Whereas, in Oblivion, which I do recommend, I got all 1250 gamerscore.
2) A token/prize for beating a game. In the previous summer, I beat the entire Jak/Daxter series (PS2) for the first time. I have nothing to show for it.
The first point kind of fizzled out, since different games have different levels of difficulties for getting achievements (Culdcept Saga is great, but I only have 200 GS of 1000), and because I can avoid playing bad games. The second point still holds true. I've beaten games, and I'm never going to play them again, but it's still nice to see it in my history.
What I did not expect gamerscore to be about:
1) A reason to stop playing a game.
2) A reason to keep playing a game.
The first part is hard to demonstrate. Given the habit so many of us share (buying games, and buying new games, even though we never beat our old ones), it is rare to find a game that we can sit down, play the whole thing to completion... and then pick it up and beat it again. I'm getting close to getting 1000/1000 on Arkham Asylum....we'll see if I'll ever play it again (and why not? It's excellent!).
As for giving the ability to keep playing a game... it's true. Sometimes I'll just sit down, knowing that I want to play something, but not knowing what it is. So, I'll browse through my profile, and see what I've yet to do in games I put down a while ago. Sometimes that, in itself, is entertaining.
Then there is the competition aspect of gamerscore. But, like in any video game (or any aspect in life), it's always quite likely that there are thousands of people who are always going to be better at you. But still, it is nice to be able to compare your game-playing with your friends, especially with specific games (especially since you can look at their history and say "Oh look, Billy got this achievement before that one. Interesting").
Alll in all, playing for achievements is a complement for playing the game, obviously. It is true that some people do play only for the achievements, but I imagine they still have fun playing the game itself, otherwise they'd probably all just be buying games from the bargain bin.
Going back to the Culdcept Saga example, it seems only 9 Canadians and 23 US-residents have gotten 1000 gamerscore on this game. It would be interesting to ask them and see how many of them were just "boosting" through.