A Tale of drowned puppies and the coming of Armageddon

[ReZourceman]

I had a group of 10-12 year olds the other day on Uncharted singing all match about ball sacks. It was genuinely glorious, and had me in stitches. Better than racist typical XBL player/haters.

[Nolan]

Dazzybee, I think you meant arbitrary not abstract.

 

Daft, "The True Horseman (100) COMPLETE the game on APOCALYPTIC difficulty" Darksider achievement. Rather than assigning an arbitrary number trophies are given an arbitrary color/metal dependant upon what the developer decides they are worth hardly different from achievements really.

 

To be honest though, I prefer trophies as well since they did away with arbitrary numbers which just somehow makes them seem more acceptable. Example, my brother-in-law never ever cared about achievements, but he tries to get trophies. He doesn't have time to dedicate for getting platinums, but he tries more than he did with achievements.

[Daft]

Daft, "The True Horseman (100) COMPLETE the game on APOCALYPTIC difficulty" Darksider achievement. Rather than assigning an arbitrary number trophies are given an arbitrary color/metal dependant upon what the developer decides they are worth hardly different from achievements really.

 

My point is if I push to get that final achievement it's just another 100 points that I could just get from another game.

 

If that's my final trophy, I get a Platinum. Getting an equivalent Gold on another game isn't going to do that.

 

The extra incentive is blindingly obvious (assuming you're into trophies/achievements).

[dazzybee]

Dazzybee, I think you meant arbitrary not abstract.

 

No, I meant abstract. This number which doesn't mean anything that has nothing concrete about it.

[Cube]

Getting all achievements for a game feels immensely satisfying. Getting a platinum trophy feels immensely satisfying. I still fail to see any difference, except that it's easier to show off to random people who really couldn't care less about it.

[MATtheHAT]

You would need a 'Super Acheivement' on top of the 1000/1000 score to be comparable with the Trophy system. I think MS kind of addressed this when having the games you have got all the Acheivement for appear in a sub menu. Still not the same though.

[Oxigen_Waste]

You would need a 'Super Acheivement' on top of the 1000/1000 score to be comparable with the Trophy system. I think MS kind of addressed this when having the games you have got all the Acheivement for appear in a sub menu. Still not the same though.

 

I think Cube said it all.

[Daft]

I think Mat and I said it all.

[dazzybee]

Getting all achievements for a game feels immensely satisfying. Getting a platinum trophy feels immensely satisfying. I still fail to see any difference, except that it's easier to show off to random people who really couldn't care less about it.

 

That's bullshit. There IS some prestige in it. Otherwise you could say it's satisfying enough just finishing the game..or creating your own little challenges...or getting highscores etc. They all are, but this system is different. It's quantifying things collectively. All this considered, the Achievements system is bollocks and the trophy system isn't.

[Caris]

Lol, 6 pages of Xbox vs PS3 and all the guy asked was if the games were the same price or not.

[MoogleViper]

"Mummy, make the fanboys go away!"

[MadDog]

It's a pretty pointless arguement, everyone is correct because end of the day it boils down to taste, imo the PS3 is the better value for money compared to the 360.

 

If i wanted to play Halo, GoW etc. i would get a 360.

 

If i wanted to play Uncharted, MGS etc. i would buy a PS3.

[Oxigen_Waste]

That's bullshit. There IS some prestige in it. Otherwise you could say it's satisfying enough just finishing the game..or creating your own little challenges...or getting highscores etc. They all are, but this system is different. It's quantifying things collectively. All this considered, the Achievements system is bollocks and the trophy system isn't.

 

Translation, it's not about how you get there, it's that you got there and that you got rewarded for it. That's what you're saying.

 

The only difference between the trophies and achievements is the "reward".

 

To be honest, I don't even think there should be a gamer score or trophies at all. The idea of achievements is brilliant in it's essence, in that it actually stretches out game a bit longer, and sometimes brilliantly, too. The ideal "reward" would be something like the Super Smash Bros trophy stand. Something you can actually use for something (other than boasting)!

 

You sayin there's "prestige" in it is even more ridiculous... as if it's such an accomplishment to play a game? This stuff is irrelevant and is designed solely to keep you busy, with virtually no benefits other than your immediate satisfaction. Prestige? GTFO! Yeah, it's a great idea, and it works, but for you to actually need the validation of such a quatification of how much time you wasted failing at life to the point of considering it prestigious is beyond redemption.

 

You simply take this shit too seriously!

 

Fuck this discussion, it goes nowhere. Slowly.

[Nolan]

No, I meant abstract. This number which doesn't mean anything that has nothing concrete about it.

Eh both work I just find Arbitrary more fitting.

 

All this considered, the Achievements system is bollocks and the trophy system isn't.

 

That's just an asinine way of thinking.

[McPhee]

tl;dr

 

Yes. Some PS3 games are more expensive than their 360 counterparts. One recent example being DiRT 2; cheapest price on 360, £14.99. Cheapest price on PS3, £30. There's been a few titles like that over the years since launch (mostly games that have launched later on PS3) but not enough for it to be worth putting you off the console. It's probably already been said; get whichever one your mates play on.

[Sheikah]

My 360 shows me a list of games that I have 100%'d.

 

Not exactly true. Some games you may have expansions for, thus total points available for a game are above 1,000. The basic overview only shows you the number of points you have for an individual game, so you may have the easiest 1,000 points on Oblivion, for example. And most people can never be bothered to click that game and laboriously scroll to the bottom to see if there's any unlocked achievements.

 

There's no real reward to getting that last difficult 20 points, for instance. You could get the same value of points by slapping Avatar in the dic tray. Furthermore, no one can be arsed going through everyone's achievement list to check their individual game scores. Trophies are an easy way to quantify people who have fully completed their games. And completing a load of DLC content doesn't count towards unlocking the platinum, either.

 

I've seen people with gamerscores over 100,000 points, which on closer inspection had fully completed few difficult games and had mostly played lots of games, and shit games known for giving good gamerpoints. Contrast this to the PS3, where people with lots of platinums and golds actually have spent a lot of time and effort. Gamerscore is easily abusable and not as good a system. But considering trophies came after, you'd be a bit worried if Sony hadn't managed to improve upon it in any way.

Edited January 27, 2010 by Sheikah

[Cube]

Not exactly true. Some games you may have expansions for, thus total points available for a game are above 1,000. The basic overview only shows you the number of points you have for an individual game, so you may have the easiest 1,000 points on Oblivion, for example.

 

I have over 1000G on Halo 3, but it doesn't appear on the list because I haven't got all of them.

 

Contrast this to the PS3, where people with lots of platinums and golds actually have spent a lot of time and effort.

 

Except those who play games with easy platinums.

[Mundi]

The only real difference between trophies and achievements is that trophies have more bragging rights for the same efforts (when it comes to multi-plats).

So great, someone might care for 5 seconds.

[Daft]

Look, I've got both my e-peens in my sig now! Happy days...

[Sheikah]

I have over 1000G on Halo 3, but it doesn't appear on the list because I haven't got all of them.

 

I am talking about the list people usually look at when comparing gamerpoints - it states the number of G next to a game, which could easily be 1,000 for Oblivion while having the easiest points out of 1,200/1,250 (or whatever the maximum is).

 

 

 

Except those who play games with easy platinums.

 

There's few games like that. I'd say probably less than 5% of the total amount of 360 equivalents. There's tens, possibly hundreds of games like that on the 360. Most of the time when people have platinums they are in games requiring some skill, as the 'easy platinum' games really aren't that numerous to bother finding.

[Shorty]

The only thing I think is negative about the Platinum trophy is that you get it, then you buy some DLC, you no longer have all the trophies for that game, but you still have a Platinum which suggests you have 100%. 1000/1250 however displays immediately that you haven't done everything you could.

 

Gamerscore is more like an old school "High Score" whereas PS3 trophies are a cabinet to display your greatest triumphs. The PS3 system may be slightly better than the 360 system, but since they essentially just stole the idea from Microsoft, I would've been disappointed if they hadn't improved it somehow.

Edited January 27, 2010 by Shorty

[Mundi]

Yeah and that is because trophies are relatively new compared to achievements.

Easy GS games are nearly always multiplatform tie-ins.

So all in due time I guess?

[Sheikah]

The only thing I think is negative about the Platinum trophy is that you get it, then you buy some DLC, you no longer have all the trophies for that game, but you still have a Platinum which suggests you have 100%. 1000/1250 however displays immediately that you haven't done everything you could.

 

It says just the number of G next to your game in the 'compare' section, as far as I can remember - maybe if you click the game it'll give you what it's out of, but otherwise you could have 1000G out of 1250 despite having only gotten the easiest achievements, and at a glance it'll look like you've fully completed the main content.

 

The alternative to giving away the platinum for getting all trophies in the regular game is to only give it away for getting all trophies including DLC trophies...which would cause outrage for having to pay extra just to get the platinum trophy.

 

Plus, say you complete a game fully, then 5 months later they release DLC. You'd have your platinum trophy stripped from you if that were the case, which is ridiculous.

 

DLC tends to be on the easy side, and I'd rather people be tempted to buy DLC because they enjoy the game rather than for additional merit they can get for completing it. The extra 1 gold and couple of silvers people may get on PS3 means you're unlikely to buy DLC for trophies.

 

 

As for stealing...when Microsoft first came out with the original Xbox they must have stolen just about everything they could from everyone else. Not that it matters, as everyone steals everything these days.

Edited January 27, 2010 by Sheikah

[Nolan]

If you completed a game, and DLC comes out it will be removed from your list of completed games despite you previously having 1000/1000.

[Sheikah]

If you completed a game, and DLC comes out it will be removed from your list of completed games despite you previously having 1000/1000.

Which is pretty silly, since you've basically completed the game but it's telling you you actually didn't. I may not want to go back to Resi 5 when DLC hits as I'd be bored of it/no longer interested, but this doesn't mean I should be punished for that. Which is why I agree with the platinum being awarded for completing the actual game and not add on chapters.