Achievements/Trophies: Where do you draw the line?

[Sheikah]

Well, at least that was a calculated decision by the developers themselves, and not something they had to add on...

 

I don't see ultimately how that makes any difference to the activity of doing everything - on paper there is still no point to it. We do it for enjoyment. In modern games, you get a platinum trophy. In Pokemon, you got a man showing you a certificate (damn you, Japan).

 

 

Not irrelevant at all. If developers have to include achivements, then the question is that how much do they affect game design and in which way? Does it guide the devs to come up with new ideas, or force them to spend time on pointless things? Are they just add-ons, or even taking away from the original game design? For example, do players need so many in-game rewards anymore, if they can get achievements? Does it deter developers from making highly-polished, integrated reward systems to increase player motivation, since "hey, well we can just slap on some achievements?" Now that's what I'd like to know...

 

I'm fairly sure trophies and the like have very little influence on the decision of game developers. I'd even go so far to say that trophy details are probably finalised after the game itself. I seriously doubt at the beginning game devs sit around a table coming up only with ideas that could be trophy related.

 

Plus even if that were somehow true, doing just about anything you can imagine doing in a game could award a trophy. Hell, I could award a trophy in RPG Maker. I could set it so that if you found a secret passageway (stepped on tile XYZ) you would trigger a trophy message. Such an easy thing to do, it'd hardly detract from game developers' time in the slightest.

Edited September 5, 2012 by Sheikah
Automerged Doublepost

[MoogleViper]

If the person playing the game is enjoying the time spent' date=' then does it matter?[/quote']

 

But I've known people who've spent hours trying to get an achievement, and didn't enjoy it, just wanted to get the achievement.

[jayseven]

Well yes, if they aren't enjoying it then they're idiots.

 

I've done exactly that :P Spent 20 hours working towards the dog tag achievement on MGS2 then realised it was too difficult for me to continue... Pretty wound up about it but ultimately I did enjoy 19 of those hours!

[Jimbob]

I look at the achievement list(s) of games i play, and see what ones i can easily get and which ones prove a challenge for myself. Plus it depends entirely on the game itself, i have 6 100% achievement complete games. Which are both 360 Fable titles, Sonic 3, Sonic + Knuckles, AC-II and that Harms Way title. Some others are 90% complete.

[MindFreak]

I do love achievements most of the time. I think getting a specific achievement is fun if it doesn't involve (too much) grinding. When starting on a new game, I instantly read the "roadmap" to the game on x360a.org to see if any achievements are missable as I usually don't play a game twice and thus want everything in one playthrough.

 

I remember Darksiders had an achievement for riding 150 miles but that was enough riding for two or three playthroughs of the game so it just seems mindless. (I got it, however, by putting a rubber band on the controller so he would ride in a circle by himself for an hour or two while I did some homework - yeah, stupid.)

I also just put in a lot of hours (20-25 hours) into Skyrim to get from level 59 to level 78 just for getting to kill a legendary dragon which had an achievement worth 20 points but I enjoyed most of that time I must say. I'm quite pissed that the new expansion, Hearthfire, comes with 50 points as I really enjoyed having 100 % on that game! And even though I haven't got 100 % on many games (three reatil and three arcades) I'm really proud of those 100 %s because it was a joy to get it. If there weren't achievements, I might not have bothered to play the game that much, which is the case of some Wii games.

On the other hand, I have only completed one game for getting achievements and that wasn't for the achievements in the first place. I played Splosion Man from start to finish even though I didn't like the game much. I admit: that was stupid.

 

When I look at live.xbox.com and compare my achievements to my friend's I just aim at getting more that 60 % or all achievements in all games. That is actually my main reason for getting them.

Edited September 7, 2012 by MindFreak

[Hero-of-Time]

I look at the achievement list(s) of games i play, and see what ones i can easily get and which ones prove a challenge for myself.

 

Yeah, I know my limits. It's like the achievements of Devil May Cry 4. I suck at those games in terms of doing specials and getting S ranks, but I still love playing them. This being the case I knew from the start I would never get all of the achievements, so I never went for them. This is the same for most fighting games as well, especially if you have to do the training modes ( Capcom, i'm looking at you ! ) or get so many wins online.

 

I remember Darksiders had an achievement for riding 150 miles but that was enough riding for two or three playthroughs of the game so it just seems mindless. (I got it, however, by putting a rubber band on the controller so he would ride in a circle by himself for an hour or too while I did some homework - yeah, stupid.)

 

Haha. I did this as well. I went for an afternoon nap one Sunday and just put the rubber band in place. When I woke up I had the achievement just waiting for me.

[jayseven]

Ha! I TRIED to do the rubber band thing but wireless controllers meant it would stop after, what, 15 mins? I tried twice then I just ran up and down a 'corridor' between where a giant sandworm was and another area and didn't have to do it more than 3 times and it unlocked... Not bad :P

[Deathjam]

Really, the best trophies are the ones that you can get while just naturally playing the game. Toss in a few that make players try something outlandish and fun, and you are onto a winner imo. When developers make achievements just to arbitrarily stretch the length of the game, they must know that their game is lacking in some department that it just can't keep the players interest.

 

As I mentioned before, for me, Burnout's were perfect as I didn't have to go out of my way to achieve any of the trophies and I kept playing the game long after I got 100%. Another thing is that there were challenges in the game that went beyond the trophy requirements, and could have easily been a trophy themselves such as obtaining the Burnout Elite licence IIRC which required you to do everything there was to do in the game. A tall order for sure and one not many I believe could be bothered to attempt.

[Cube]

Burnout Paradise should have had an achievement for doing all multiplayer challenges.

[jayseven]

So what's the difference between an achievement arbitrarily stretching out a game and an in-game element doing the same thing?

 

Goldeneye on the N64 had cheats for completing levels on certain difficulties within certain timeframes. Resident Evil and Metal Gear Solid reward dog tag collections and repeat playthroughs with unlockables.

 

So why is an achievement in their stead worse?

 

Would I play a game on Expert difficulty just to unlock an infinite ammo rocket launcher, or would I do it for 40G? Is one reason worse than the other?

 

If there have been 'meta game' elements driving replayabillity for generations, why is it so bad that it's tied to a global score?

 

This is what I don't get, @Dcubed. You talk as if this is a new element in gaming whereas it's just an evolution of what has been here for generations.

[Dcubed]

So what's the difference between an achievement arbitrarily stretching out a game and an in-game element doing the same thing?

 

Goldeneye on the N64 had cheats for completing levels on certain difficulties within certain timeframes. Resident Evil and Metal Gear Solid reward dog tag collections and repeat playthroughs with unlockables.

 

So why is an achievement in their stead worse?

 

Would I play a game on Expert difficulty just to unlock an infinite ammo rocket launcher' date=' or would I do it for 40G? Is one reason worse than the other?

 

If there have been 'meta game' elements driving replayabillity [i']for generations[/i], why is it so bad that it's tied to a global score?

 

This is what I don't get, @Dcubed. You talk as if this is a new element in gaming whereas it's just an evolution of what has been here for generations.

 

With those old ingame challenges (like the ones you see in Goldeneye), the reward is intrinsic to the game itself and completely useless and undesirable to someone who does not like the game. Modern achievements however offer an external reward for completing a task. It's this change that makes all the difference, as it encourages those with OCD to complete tasks they otherwise wouldn't want to do by offering an external prize for completion. Suddenly someone who hates the game that they're playing might want to complete that task in order to win those Gamerscore points.

 

Much like how people play slot machines in the hope of winning money. The reason for playing changes. You would never bother to complete Expert difficulty to get an Infinite Ammo Rocket Launcher if you didn't like the game to begin with, but if you were offered 40G for completing Expert and you hated the game, you might just well do it.

Edited September 7, 2012 by Dcubed

[Cube]

Much like how people play slot machines in the hope of winning money. The reason for playing changes. You would never bother to complete Expert difficulty to get an Infinite Ammo Rocket Launcher if you didn't like the game to begin with, but if you were offered 40G for completing Expert and you hated the game, you might just well do it.

 

But if you were compelled by OCD to get the achievements, then wouldn't the same apply to get all the unlocks in a game you hate?

 

You could even argue that a more "real" (digital) reward would make some people more inclined to do it, even if they hate the game.

[Dcubed]

But if you were compelled by OCD to get the achievements, then wouldn't the same apply to get all the unlocks in a game you hate?

 

You could even argue that a more "real" (digital) reward would make some people more inclined to do it, even if they hate the game.

 

If the game never had external achievement rewards, they probably wouldn't buy the game in the first place if they weren't interested in it to begin with.

 

Secondly, in game achievements, grinding and the OCD that drives completionists to work through an otherwise boring game have a finite end to it. Once a game has been completed, that's the end of the addiction. These meta game systems however, have no end and will seemingly continue forever, perpetually praying on these OCD tendencies for profit for as long as the service runs.

 

Note the pre-requisites for endless playing as laid out by John Hopson http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/131494/behavioral_game_design.php?page=2

 

How to make players play forever. The short answer is to make sure that there is always, always a reason for the player to be playing. The variable schedules I discussed produce a constant probability of reward, and thus the player always has a reason to do the next thing. What a game designer also wants from players is a lot of "behavioral momentum," a tendency to keep doing what they're doing even during the parts where there isn't an immediate reward. One schedule that produces a lot of momentum is the avoidance schedule, where the players work to prevent bad things from happening. Even when there's nothing going on, the player can achieve something positive by postponing a negative consequence.

 

Both the immediate variable reward schedule (Achivements) and the avoidance schedule (oneupsmanship via Gamerscore) are both in place in modern achievement systems...

 

The fact that these metagame systems are public via the internet as well only serves to heighten the effect further. What would otherwise have limited impact is heightened greatly, to the point where it could well be dangerous.

Edited September 7, 2012 by Dcubed

[Sheikah]

I think we should point out here that people who make game purchases based on achievements/trophy potential are undoubtedly the smallest fraction of gamers, not enough to start trash talking the achievement system in any way.

 

It's also slightly naive to suggest the addiction ends with in-game achievements whereas with gamerscore/trophies it is neverending. There is no difference as far as I can see. In either case, a game has a set number of achievements (whether they be in-game rewards such as weapons, or up to a maximum of 1,000G or 1 platinum trophy). While your gamerscore can keep on rising, so too can your roster of games that you end up wanting to complete all the in-game rewards of.

Edited September 7, 2012 by Sheikah

[Dcubed]

I think we should point out here that people who make game purchases based on achievements/trophy potential are undoubtedly the smallest fraction of gamers, not enough to start trash talking the achievement system in any way.

 

It's also slightly naive to suggest the addiction ends with in-game achievements whereas with gamerscore/trophies it is neverending. There is no difference as far as I can see. In either case, a game has a set number of achievements (whether they be in-game rewards such as weapons, or up to a maximum of 1,000G or 1 platinum trophy). While your gamerscore can keep on rising, so too can your roster of games that you end up wanting to complete all the in-game rewards of.

 

There's a big difference between a naturally developed OCD tendency to gaming as a whole and a system that is specifically designed to pray upon OCD tendencies.

 

A person can become addicted to anything, but certain things are designed to be as addictive as possible. Drugs, alcohol, nicotine, MMO games and yes these Achivement/Metagame systems are much more addictive by design than other substences/objects. But naturally, only people with addictive personalities/tendencies will fall pray to these substences to begin with (and indeed to differing extents, depending on how susceptible the subject is)

[Sheikah]

Well that point is kinda moot. People with addictive personalities will and have become addicted to video games long before any points-based achievement systems were implemented.

 

Put short, addicts will always find their vice, regardless of whether they are rewarded with points for carrying it out. If people have OCD in video games, perhaps they shouldn't be playing video games.

[jayseven]

Much like how people play slot machines in the hope of winning money. The reason for playing changes. You would never bother to complete Expert difficulty to get an Infinite Ammo Rocket Launcher if you didn't like the game to begin with, but if you were offered 40G for completing Expert and you hated the game, you might just well do it.

 

My issue here is with the "might" and the "probably" usage in both this post and your later one. Identifying one element in a game that can be attributed to one small group of people is not actually doing much more than just making sweeping generalisations.

 

There are multiple ways that achievements affect design, but then there are multiple other elements that affect design - these design alterations are not inherently bad or wrong.

 

You dislike them because you dislike the idea of being controlled in some subconscious way, yes?

 

Go play the one of the valve games that has audio commentary. You will learn about how they go about designing their levels using light as a tool to guide players through a level non-verbally.

 

Yes, having an external rewards system alters gaming habits, and yes companies may benefit from this, but it isn't bad. There was a larger change in how games were made when the possibility of having a saved game came about. Games made for arcades are designed differently. The rumble pak altered games to the extent where force feedback is completely expected in a game, and kind of noticed when it's not there.

 

Going back to your argument; I do not think that gaming is up there with smoking/gambling/drugs (unless we're talking south korea :P). I understand that you are saying it is positive reinforcement and thus instilling more of a completionist in a gamer, but good games are still better than bad games, so what?

[Diageo]

I don't think you should be throwing the word OCD around like that. It's a debilitating condition that doesn't really apply to what you're trying to say. Instead of OCD tendencies I would think you mean OC tendencies, unless you think they have a tendency to develop full-blown OCD.

[Dcubed]

You dislike them because you dislike the idea of being controlled in some subconscious way' date=' yes?

 

Go play the one of the valve games that has audio commentary. You will learn about how they go about designing their levels using light as a tool to guide players through a level non-verbally.[/quote']

 

Behavioural modifiers are not inherintly bad and I never claimed them to be. You're absolutely right in saying that they've been used since the dawn of time for good purposes. My dislike stems from the combination of this technique with external metagame systems. This is completely different from its use in low level game design (like the Valve example you pointed out)

 

Going back to your argument; I do not think that gaming is up there with smoking/gambling/drugs (unless we're talking south korea :P). I understand that you are saying it is positive reinforcement and thus instilling more of a completionist in a gamer, but good games are still better than bad games, so what?

 

Is the measure of how addictive a game is now also a measure of quality? I thought it was how enjoyable the actual experience was?

 

Yes, having an external rewards system alters gaming habits, and yes companies may benefit from this, but it isn't bad. There was a larger change in how games were made when the possibility of having a saved game came about. Games made for arcades are designed differently. The rumble pak altered games to the extent where force feedback is completely expected in a game, and kind of noticed when it's not there.

 

Can you not see the difference between those new frontiers of design and the dawn of modern achivements? Not all forms of change are bad at all, but in this case where games are moving beyond simply providing a satisfying experience, towards being designed to fulfil OC tendencies (thank you for the correction Diageo!) I don't see that as a positive change at all. Perhaps it's best illustrated here: http://www.cracked.com/article_18461_5-creepy-ways-video-games-are-trying-to-get-you-addicted.html

 

Same goes for Free 2 Play/Freemium games, only they are 10 times worse! (but that's a different topic all together)

Edited September 8, 2012 by Dcubed

[jayseven]

I do see what you are saying on all of your points, I just disagree that it is detrimental in a different way to the sheer fact that games exist as forms of escapism. I think the issue that swarthes of people choose games over real life in varying degrees of intensity is the diamond to your OC-focused facet, here.

 

And that diamond is just one of dozens that stud the crown of 'entertainment' that human beings wear to create meaning in our reality.

 

It was kinda fun making that extended metaphor but I'm not entirely sure it works, but hey!

[Dcubed]

I do see what you are saying on all of your points' date=' I just disagree that it is detrimental in a different way to the sheer fact that games exist as forms of escapism. I think the issue that swarthes of people choose games over real life in varying degrees of intensity is the diamond to your OC-focused facet, here.

 

And that diamond is just one of dozens that stud the crown of 'entertainment' that human beings wear to create meaning in our reality.

 

It was kinda fun making that extended metaphor but I'm not entirely sure it works, but hey![/quote']

 

I think it works fine

 

But I still note a difference between games that act as a form of escapism and games that are designed to act as a form of escapism (even at the expense of the user's own enjoyment and will)

 

I suppose then the issue comes from the intent behind the use of said techniques. I think it's safe to say that the progenitor of these systems (the Xbox 360 Achievements system) was designed in the most callous of manners, in order to lock people into their ecosystem and keep them running on that treadmill.

 

The creator of that Behavioural Games Design article from 2001 http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3085/behavioral_game_design.php?page=1 (which has become a cornerstone amongst researchers in the industry and single handedly landed the guy a job at Microsoft upon them reading it) himself has gone on record to state what he deems as "crossing the line of unethical" in regards to using his techniques to purposly get people addicted...

 

http://wow.joystiq.com/2010/07/27/15-minutes-of-fame-psychologist-and-games-researcher-john-hopso/

 

When does the idea of designing a game that players want to play slide into the shadier territory of "tricking" players into becoming "hooked"? Is there a line in the sand, a point at which a compelling rewards system begins to feel unethical?

 

For me, the line is when the reward mechanisms are unrelated to the game design. Every game has something players find rewarding, otherwise you wouldn't play it. There's no way to make a fun game that doesn't have a reward mechanism of some kind. The point of my work is to help designers understand the impact of their design choices so that they can choose mechanisms that are consistent with their overall vision for the game. If the game is intended as a deep, immersive experience, the designer needs to choose reward mechanisms that encourage that style of play. If it's a casual game played in short bursts, the rewards should reflect that.

 

He works for Bungie as of August 2010.

Edited September 8, 2012 by Dcubed

[jayseven]

The whole good/bad intentions, good/bad outcome argument is hugely subjective. If gamers use games as a form of escapism, and developers make games designed for escapism, then there's no conflict here there's just supply and demand. It would be stupid if games were designed NOT to be escapist, if gamers demand escapism. Stating that gamers are playing games against their own will is a generalisation and in itself a bit of a paradoxical thing to say. The elements that lead to the gamer willingly play a game is at question here, for sure, but I argue that it is irrelevant - whether it is achievements or high scores or k/d ratio or that you rent it and need to finish it before it goes back. I recognise the distinctions between all of the above, and I recognise that it is a behaviour modifying element.

 

I do not agree that the intention behind said technique is in itself malicious or negative compared to any other element that goes in to designing a game that is intended to make money. I think that the issue here is that we live in a world where there are businesses that are buying something cheap and selling it to you for more. I think that is something that you can argue to be immoral for the good of the great, but that's just not what capitalism is.

 

What you are saying is that gamers are now addicted to the achievements, thus need to play games to feed, whereas without the external model they would just be addicted to the particular game. What is also happening is that the all-in-one entertainment hub is trying to lock the gamer (or 'user' which goes hand in hand with 'addict') to their screen where tehy can control the choice of entertainment they have on offer.

 

Here's a relevant TED vid to the discussion.

 

By having a controllable environment, a company can observe how a gamer spends their money and time on entertainment and use the data to increase the efficiency of milking the gamer for money - by giving the gamer what they want. Microsoft have been good at creating monopolies in order to control how users are able to interact with products/information/etc/etc, and have been able to steer billions of dollars of industry by shaping not only the choice of stock on the shelves but by manipulating the entire warehouse of shelves.

 

But this doesn't mean that the corporation behind it all is omniscient. It doesn't mean that it's evil. It just means that it knows how to make money - and that's by giving consumers what they want, whether it's good or not.

 

I think I'm probably guilty here of arguing rather poorly by meshing too many points together.

 

But reading your quote I don't see something that fully backs up what you say - and the bolded part does not mean that achievements themselves are unethical.

 

There's no way to make a fun game that doesn't have a reward mechanism of some kind. The point of my work is to help designers understand the impact of their design choices so that they can choose mechanisms that are consistent with their overall vision for the game. If the game is intended as a deep, immersive experience, the designer needs to choose reward mechanisms that encourage that style of play. If it's a casual game played in short bursts, the rewards should reflect that.

So the designer needs to choose reward mechanisms that are right for that style of game. This is reflected in the range of types of achievements that reward various kinds of gameplay -- he isn't saying external rewards are bad, he is saying that they need to be thought about and that they need to agree with the game's design. He's saying they can be complementary, not that they are immoral.

 

I think it is hyperbolic and a bit daily-mail to say gamers are lab animals trapped in a callous ecosystem. I think that all you're doing is identifying an element that is pervasive in all elements of life, that has been around for as long as man - manipulation for personal gain. That's just life.

[Dcubed]

But this doesn't mean that the corporation behind it all is omniscient. It doesn't mean that it's evil. It just means that it knows how to make money - and that's by giving consumers what they want' date=' whether it's good or not.[/quote']

 

To make my own personal perspective on the matter a bit clearer here, I'd argue that drug dealers and Tobacco companies are evil for many of the same reasons that I'm accusing these platform holders. You're right in saying it's subjective, but I would find it hard to argue that the likes of Microsoft should be let off while Tobbaco companies are lambasted for the same things. Why should I consider Microsoft or Sony (let alone MMO and F2P game makers!) to be different from these types of corporations? (And before anyone points out the obvious, I fully realise that gaming does not have the same devastating physical effects that these drugs possess - nonetheless, the agenda behind the creation of these systems and the techniques in use are extremely similar)

 

But reading your quote I don't see something that fully backs up what you say - and the bolded part does not mean that achievements themselves are unethical.

 

So the designer needs to choose reward mechanisms that are right for that style of game. This is reflected in the range of types of achievements that reward various kinds of gameplay -- he isn't saying external rewards are bad' date=' he is saying that they need to be thought about and that they need to agree with the game's design. He's saying they can be complementary, not that they are immoral.[/quote']

 

Games on these platforms can only be designed in two manners. They can either be designed with the achievements in mind in an attempt to encourage exploration of mechanics that may otherwise have gone untouched (Like in Geometry Wars 2) or they can be tacked onto a game that was designed without them (most level based games that give you those shiny Gamerscore points for completing a level)

 

The former style of reward mechanism (the one that is inherently linked to the game design itself) can be done without the need to utilise external rewards, while the latter is encouraged by these mandatory OS level systems (and is also a majority amongst released titles)

 

So again I ask, what is the point of having an external reward system, when the "good" style of achievements can be done without them? (BTW, I'm quite enjoying this debate! Thanks for the riveting discussion! )

Edited September 8, 2012 by Dcubed

[jayseven]

1st point:

The agenda behind gaming and smoking is not fairly linked at all. There is a difference between being addicted to cigarettes and being addicted to punching babies in the face, for example. There is a difference between gambling addiction and a compulsion to smile at strangers. I would find it incredibly easy to argue that.

 

I fully disagree that the agenda behind an act fully determines the morality of that act. I fully dispute that killing thousands of millions of people and getting rich off it is the same as achievement unlocked: Kill 50 enemies with a pistol. That there is a similarity in how people behave in the two instances is no reason to draw further parallels. I do not think that it is plausible to dismiss the dangers of smoking when considering quantifying the agenda because the agenda is worse because the teleological consequence is known. That is why it is so ethically dark.

 

The parallel only goes so far. They are only similar to a point. I can argue that giving someone a puppy is the same as shitting in their garden twice a day because I can leave out a whole bunch of relative information that is extremely relevant.

 

Achievements are like tesco reward points. Air miles. "Buy 10 get 1 free." Getting a limited edition coke glass with my big mac that's part of a set of 6 is not the same as getting cancer.

 

2nd point:

"good" style isn't very objective :P

 

So we need to identify what an external rewards system offers that internal ones do not, yes?

 

it offers external awards.

 

That's it.

 

It's like the pasta sauce thing. Before there was chunky sauce nobody new they wanted it. There's nothing wrong with regular smooth sauce.

 

Only in this instance, the creation of external awards like achievements also give companies that want our money (the cheek!) to see how we game in more detail, and to see what they can do to change their games so that we'd play them more. The bastards!

 

Yes, gamers will endure a certain amount of pain in order to attain a sense of reward. But as we have already agreed that this can exist in games without external rewarding, then it's not really something to add to the 'definitely evil' pile.

 

I think you are kind of taking away a lot of control that a gamer has in how you describe achievements systems. I understand your angle, I just think that focusing on it does nothing but make you dislike games. It doesn't mean you see a 'truer' vision of what game development is, or what the companies are doing.

 

EDIT: Essentially, I am saying that an external reward model in itself DOES present more awards to gamers, and thus it provides more of a sense of achievement, which is a good thing, and not evil like tobacco companies.

[Dcubed]

I never said that these addictions were the same thing, nor as damaging/immoral, I simply said that the techniques used were very similar. You're right about the agenda not fully determining morality though, I didn't exactly make that clear (and it does make for some rather absurd comparisons which you helpfully pointed out!) Besides, Gambling companies are the closest example anyway.

 

And it is the technique of combining achievements with external metagame systems that I despise so.

 

So we need to identify what an external rewards system offers that internal ones do not' date=' yes?

 

it offers external awards.

 

That's it. [/quote']

 

Not quite that simple... The main difference between an internal rewards system and an external one is that an internal system is finite in its content, while an external one can continue forever and has relevance outside of the game.

 

It's the difference between a race track with an end and a treadmill with a carrot dangled in front of you that keeps getting continually replaced when you take a bite.

 

I think you are kind of taking away a lot of control that a gamer has in how you describe achievements systems. I understand your angle' date=' I just think that focusing on it does nothing but make you dislike games. It doesn't mean you see a 'truer' vision of what game development is, or what the companies are doing.[/quote']

 

Yes I am taking an extreme example in my case and I understand that not everyone will be affected in the same manner, but the same applies to any addiction. I don't like these systems precisely because they exploit those who are already vulnerable to OC tendencies. This kind of system wont affect those who don't suffer from OCD to nearly the same extent. F2P games are sustained only be a small minority of people (some data about how this works by exploiting "whales" and "addicts" is explained well in an internal Kongregate presentation here: http://casualconnect.org/content/europe/2012/Emily_Greer_CCE_2012.ppt ) and wont affect most people in the kind of manner I am suggesting, but I still hate them for the exploitation that they pull on this small, select group.

Edited September 8, 2012 by Dcubed