Any time a developer makes me get literally every collectable I roll my eyes. If there's anywhere remotely near 100 collectables, or hundreds, how about just X amount of each type. that's enough.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Developers, PLEASE Stop Doing These 10 Things in Your Trophy and Achievement Lists
- Thread starter Nephtes
- Start date
It's not. OP is just asking for things that aren't tedious.
I like a good challenge. Why the fuck would I want to have a bunch of rare missables that make me replay an open world game that may be 20 hours long, with nothing else different to show for it. That's stupid. That's lazy design. Criticism is not entitlement.
I want to be challenged and pushed to do new crazy things I wouldn't have normally. Shitty achievements like that don't benefit anyone at all.
Honestly an achievement that weeds people out who don't want to spend a lot of time or effort on the game would seem to me to fit the purpose of achievements more than blanket rules about achievements being arbitrarily fun or achievable under certain rules.
I mean, that's fun though. Fun is the whole of the experience. Not just the kinetic actions I am performing. That's why it's possible to have a "fun" movie. It's a movie I enjoyed and had fun with. Getting an achievement for dying in a silly way is funny to me, and I enjoy that a lot. I have a lot of fun with games like that, just like I'd have fun with a movie or have fun at a standup comedy night. When I ate something in NieR automata that I knew would kill me, I did it anyway and that was fun. Being the butt of a joke can also be fun, like in your lollipop chainsaw example. It's a silly moment between you and the devs. I find human moments like that fun. I think a lot of people do too.
Not everyone has to find something fun. But that's subjective. There are however other unfun things that no one likes and are just lazy design by people who clearly don't go for achievements themselves.
I'm fine with all of the achievements listed tbh. Some are easy to get and others are not. It's supposed to be an achievement, not a participation trophy.
the only achievement I don't want in a game are the pervy ones. Don't make me look up someone's skirt or stare at their boobs or have sex with them. Achievements like that say more about the developer and what kind of person they are than the person trying to play the game.
the only achievement I don't want in a game are the pervy ones. Don't make me look up someone's skirt or stare at their boobs or have sex with them. Achievements like that say more about the developer and what kind of person they are than the person trying to play the game.
Anything related to online or multiplayer is a huge no no for me. If your game shutting down its servers makes it impossible to achieve, then fuck right off tbh
i could never beat earthworm jim without dying, as the stretch at the end of the industrial level into bungee jumping into petes meteor shower is a complete nightmare. did get the one it has for beating it in an hour or something. those were great goals to try and gave the game more replayability for sure. just because i'm not skilled enough to beat EWJ in 1 sitting doesn't mean the achievements were bad lol those are REAL achievements
Well that's fine though. OP isn't saying every single thing has to be their definition of fun. They're mostly covering tedious things. Most of which a lot of people tend to agree with. I think the source of a lot of it is people who design achievements not actually being the kind of people who would go for them themselves.
You can't have an exact hard and fast rule. But the general thing OP is communicating is things that are more chore than they are fun. And that's not anything crazy to say.
I don't agree that a lot of games are fun, but you don't see me criticizing their achievement lists. But if someone who did like that game complained about how randomly there was one stupid achievement that was an mindless, boring chore, that forced you to do everything you had done before but this time 10x more tedious, then they'd have my sympathy.
Bugged achievements shouldn't be on this list. Bugs shouldn't happen period.
I agree MP achievements should be forbidden.
And achievements based on "story choices" are pretty meh yes, even though they're not the worst.
I'll of course be with you all the way with those "odd" achievement scores, like 1 point for an easy stuff + 49 points for the next hard stuff haha. "Rounded" cheevo scores FTW.
As for the rest, meh. You're not supposed to get 1000G in a single short and easy playthrough. They're called achievements for a reason.
I agree MP achievements should be forbidden.
And achievements based on "story choices" are pretty meh yes, even though they're not the worst.
I'll of course be with you all the way with those "odd" achievement scores, like 1 point for an easy stuff + 49 points for the next hard stuff haha. "Rounded" cheevo scores FTW.
As for the rest, meh. You're not supposed to get 1000G in a single short and easy playthrough. They're called achievements for a reason.
I don't have anything interesting to add to the conversation, but you ended up merging two game titles here, OP. I think you mean Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus?
I will always bring up the GRAW one reach number one on global leaderboard. Who's bright idea was that?
It's perfectly fine and merely a matter of personal perspective, which is why I'm having what I thought was a good natured and pragmatic conversation about our differing opinion on the matter.
So I am unsure how to reply to your message. I agree with everything you said. I feel as though this is clear in my posts and we are on the exact same page. So what's the issue? 🤔
100%ing the game makes sense, but some achievements go beyond that, requiring really weird, boring, or completely luck-based actions in order to accomplish, as OP complained about.
I just noticed you were contrasting fun vs satisfaction from work, such as your use of the word "but" and stuff. So I was just commenting on that. I hope I didn't come off as hostile. I just think that the paradigm of "fun" vs "effort" isn't accurate.
Idk, I think that the point of getting all achievements/platinum trophy is to provide challenge or something to do for players that really like the gamek and it represent a mastery over it. You definitely shouldn't feel entitled to earn them all.
But I'd agree that randomized ones can be very tedious. I remember "Bling Brigade" in Wipeout HD was so annoying to get.
But I'd agree that randomized ones can be very tedious. I remember "Bling Brigade" in Wipeout HD was so annoying to get.
Honestly OP, you should just turn off achievements. You'll be happier.
On topic, achievements should only be for things like OP listed where you're able to get through a game on a difficult setting/specific circumstance or play multiplayer at a high level. They should be an achievement instead of a participation trophy. Or they can be something amusing like the one for Stanley Parable where you return to the game after not playing for five years or DOA where you get an achievement worth zero points for losing 20 matches in a row.
On topic, achievements should only be for things like OP listed where you're able to get through a game on a difficult setting/specific circumstance or play multiplayer at a high level. They should be an achievement instead of a participation trophy. Or they can be something amusing like the one for Stanley Parable where you return to the game after not playing for five years or DOA where you get an achievement worth zero points for losing 20 matches in a row.
Yeah, i don't mind challenging trophies, but if it's one of those that only 0.1%< of players have earned then the dev went too far.
This easily seems like a case of just...Not caring about it so much? I understand liking trophies/achievements but if going after trophies is actively detrimental to your time playing it then why bother?
Excellent list. Yes to number 10 especially.
Double Dragon Neon presented a 1G achievement at the main menu and as far as I remember, expected you to beat the game to get the achievement ending in 9G to get back to an even number.
I said fuck this game, dropped it immediately, uninstalled it and searched TrueAchievements for other games with achievements I could use to fix my score. Played those games instead. Good job developers, your ploy just made me dislike your game.
Double Dragon Neon presented a 1G achievement at the main menu and as far as I remember, expected you to beat the game to get the achievement ending in 9G to get back to an even number.
I said fuck this game, dropped it immediately, uninstalled it and searched TrueAchievements for other games with achievements I could use to fix my score. Played those games instead. Good job developers, your ploy just made me dislike your game.
10. Eh, I feel achievement hunting is already a zero sum game where you try to 100% games and at that point it evens out anyway.
9. Yeah, this is generally lame.
8. This one depends, if the game is built around it like, say, Spelunky or Geometry Wars or something, then its fine. Wolfenstein is a good example of just tacking it onto a long cinematic game full of quick cheap deaths, and it doesn't really gel with the overall game design.
7. Generally fine as long as you can go back and it's not missable stuff that falls under point 5.
6. Also depends, I feel the SFV ones are relatively doable. You don't have to win that many matches in a row, in most games you generally get more rank from a win than you lose from a loss, so you can still move up even if you're only winning less than half your matches.
5. This is annoying. If there's no post-game, hust give me a level select once I complete the game at least to mop up missing stuff.
4. Yeah, this is lame, just make the achievement something you should already be doing if you were playing well.
3. Depends on the game again, personally I feel 2 is about the sweet spot (as with most games you'd need about 2 playthroughs to really see/do most everything anyway. If it's like a 100 hour RPG or something sure.
2. Kinda agree here. it makes more sense to make the achievment for more broad like for making a choice in general than for something specific you might not wantto do from a role playing perspective.
1. Very annoying but generally not intended by the developers obviously.
I don't really get this complaint since I feel if you care about achievements you'd likely want to 100% games anyway. For most games the only thing that's really a challenge is getting 100%, you generally get like 70-80% of the achievements by just playing though a game normally.
Last edited:
Our opposing concepts of fun just seemed like they would be more easily understood if I described mine in distinct and alternate terms as a point of contrast to the OP. Certainly I make no objective claims of what is it is not fun. That wasn't my intention!
I do think "what is fun" is a pretty big question though. Do concert violinists play for fun? Do ballerinas perform for fun? Is a dedication to one's craft or commitment to an art or action always in good fun? Or are different kinds of pleasure and satisfaction distinct from one another?
This is just video games and I'm inclined to say no matter how seriously you take your play (at least non-competitive play) it is always a leisure activity. I don't think I'm any better because I think it's fun to treat games like projects, you know?
And no hostility perceived, so don't sweat it. And none intended from me either! I just wasn't sure where you were coming from before.
I disagree that you need to be able to Platinum a game within a single play through. Multiple playthroughs is fine. Not every platinum needs to be a cakewalk.
That being said, the game should be doing other things to incentivize replays.
That being said, the game should be doing other things to incentivize replays.
Collectibles should be shown on the map or properly explained how to get. It's no fun having your phone turned on when you're gaming. And I mean in the "collect 100 doodads" thingies. Recently platinumed Second Son and the ability to see all collectibles really kept me in the game. I don't want to read a guide (here's looking at you Persona 5!!!)
I've stopped caring for the most part about trophies (outside of Capcom and Yakuza, which I'll still go for 100% in) so if an annoying requirement pops up I just ignore them since... its just a virtual pat on the back and is meaningless. So I just dont care.
However I dont like stuff in Yakuza where difficulty trophies don't stack. I don't mind the ones designed around skill or mastery of something (Mahjong, Puyo Puyo and other mini games) or when a couple of the games have missable stuff. But stacking trophies... its not too bad if its just "play game, do it again on Legend", but when its Yakuza 4/5 and its "play game on normal but not hard" I'm annoyed because Yakuza is way too easy anyway, and I dont want to play 4 especially (the game when the AI took the week off and so its a pushover on Legend/EX Hard) on an even easier difficulty... Oh well, at least the champion ring can spice fights up.
And while RNG doesn't usually bother me in Yakuza (part of Gambling is luck after all and I'll never be mad at losing sometimes in Mahjong just because, as that's how it goes sometimes) I will concede that the cat fighting trophy/mini game in 0 is ass since you can legit lose after winning in that mini game. Which is dumb.
As for SFV and its Gold league though... its a multiplayer fighter (especially at launch when the rest of the content was MIA). No surprise it has a challenge like that, and honestly its not like its asking you to hit max rank (which would be tough). Anyone who puts a ton of time to get better in the game should naturally get that trophy within time. I suck, so I linger in silver but I dont curse Capcom for making the trophy that way, its my own fault for not playing anywhere near enough to get the skills needed to get better. And Guile. Its all his fault. I hate his haircut.
However I dont like stuff in Yakuza where difficulty trophies don't stack. I don't mind the ones designed around skill or mastery of something (Mahjong, Puyo Puyo and other mini games) or when a couple of the games have missable stuff. But stacking trophies... its not too bad if its just "play game, do it again on Legend", but when its Yakuza 4/5 and its "play game on normal but not hard" I'm annoyed because Yakuza is way too easy anyway, and I dont want to play 4 especially (the game when the AI took the week off and so its a pushover on Legend/EX Hard) on an even easier difficulty... Oh well, at least the champion ring can spice fights up.
And while RNG doesn't usually bother me in Yakuza (part of Gambling is luck after all and I'll never be mad at losing sometimes in Mahjong just because, as that's how it goes sometimes) I will concede that the cat fighting trophy/mini game in 0 is ass since you can legit lose after winning in that mini game. Which is dumb.
As for SFV and its Gold league though... its a multiplayer fighter (especially at launch when the rest of the content was MIA). No surprise it has a challenge like that, and honestly its not like its asking you to hit max rank (which would be tough). Anyone who puts a ton of time to get better in the game should naturally get that trophy within time. I suck, so I linger in silver but I dont curse Capcom for making the trophy that way, its my own fault for not playing anywhere near enough to get the skills needed to get better. And Guile. Its all his fault. I hate his haircut.
I consider mysef a trophy/achievement hunter, and although I agree that bugged achievements suck, I think all of your remaining complaints are bad.
If developers followed your guidelines there would be zero variety in their achievements/trophies lists which is one of the main reasons why I have fun going for them. I've had some memorable moments going for trophies that require multiple playthoughs (Souls games), missable collectibles (The Witcher 3 which you mentioned) and hard multiplayer ranks (SFV included). I'm glad developers apparently don't care what players have to say about their achievements.
If developers followed your guidelines there would be zero variety in their achievements/trophies lists which is one of the main reasons why I have fun going for them. I've had some memorable moments going for trophies that require multiple playthoughs (Souls games), missable collectibles (The Witcher 3 which you mentioned) and hard multiplayer ranks (SFV included). I'm glad developers apparently don't care what players have to say about their achievements.
10.Fair
9.Also Fair
8.Hmm I mean while I'm also not likely to get ones like that they would be actual achievements for people that do.
7.Not sure if Xbox is like this but hidden trophies can be un-hidden.
6.They should not even be a thing unless its an online only game.
5.Fair
4.See 6 eliminate them all.
3.Thought I would disagree with this then I remembered I save scummed the Bloodborne endings.
2.Ties into 3 as well.
1.Yup, have a glitched trophy that never popped in a VR compilation on PS4 that I played more of some of the bad games in it to get them just to be stopped at the last one I did.
It's called a topic TITLE, that is how you properly punctuate a title.
I don't care about achievements enough to 100% a game I'm not enjoying. I just like my Gamerscore ending in 0 or 5.
It ending in 1 due to an "achievement" for doing nothing annoyed me, and certainly didn't make me want to play the game afterwards.
I agree with the entire list.
Which is why I'm glad I stopped giving a fuck about trophies or achievements in... Ooft... 2009 maybe.
Which is why I'm glad I stopped giving a fuck about trophies or achievements in... Ooft... 2009 maybe.
i don't think that getting every trophy or achievement in a game is necessary to complete it. I'm completely ok with having trophies that fit into all of those categories. I also think that very few games have well designed achievements if its even possible in the first place.
Lists like these are why I'm happy I don't care about achievements. I'm perfectly fine leaving Ghost of Tsushima at 70% or whatever and moving on to something else.
Also this literally reads like a clickbait headline
this one weird trick to make people open your thread
this one weird trick to make people open your thread
I'm not really sure why No.1 is on this list... Developers don't intentionally make bugs so achievements are unobtainable.
The only ones I really agree with are 5 and 4, and what another poster said, Multiplayer achievements that are unobtainable once the servers are offline.
The only ones I really agree with are 5 and 4, and what another poster said, Multiplayer achievements that are unobtainable once the servers are offline.
Do games actually do this? Can't say I've ever seen that but maybe I just didn't notice.
Very nice list OP—agree with almost all of your points. In particular I am not a fan of permadeath trophies and lately tacked on NG+ trophies that come out for most major Sony titles months after I just finished playing the game. Unless the new game plus radically changes the game or introduces new and interesting things I don't want to slog through a game I just finished again.
Here's my recent thing: Create trophies/achievements to show content you really want people to see and play, not shitty filler that will just end up making your game look worse as a result. This was one of many problems I had with Cyberpunk, which has trophies for completing every gig and scanner mission that are littered all over the map in a very Ubisoft-esque way. These tasks are TRASH and only serve to pad out your playtime.
OP
OP
Well if you read the description, it's really about what devs do (or don't) do after they discover they have a bugged achievement.
Gearbox in my example acknowledges they have an issue on Twitter and refuse to fix their bug and unlock the Achievement for those affected despite having the ability to do so (they literally have a user facing variable that shows they can fix the issue).
#1 is about what devs should do when an achievement is bugged.
I don't fully agree, it sounds like you just want to get all achievements in one playthrough.
Multiple playthroughs or hard modes or whatever, it's all fair. These are achievements. Even silly ones like collecting all feathers or hard ones like making it to the end with all NPCs alive.
MP achievements (that have a short life) and bullshit objectives with easily missable stuff, yeah that is really annoying.
Also I don't even know my Xbox achievement score, so the number thing is a non issue, but that's just me. I don't see the reason for the score at all, I just like achieving milestones.
Multiple playthroughs or hard modes or whatever, it's all fair. These are achievements. Even silly ones like collecting all feathers or hard ones like making it to the end with all NPCs alive.
MP achievements (that have a short life) and bullshit objectives with easily missable stuff, yeah that is really annoying.
Also I don't even know my Xbox achievement score, so the number thing is a non issue, but that's just me. I don't see the reason for the score at all, I just like achieving milestones.
The staffing cost of fixing the bug (if they still have workstations configured and access to things like a live data repository), testing it internally, and then passing the update through 1st party certification is probably too high to justify the ROI.
The only achievements I have a problem with are ones that encourage people to play a certain way in multiplayer as that can ruin it for everyone else.
The exception to this is Stranglehold where there was an achievement for winning like 300 multiplayer matches as John Woo. This meant that everyone only ever picked that one character and that unintentionally made the multiplayer way better.
The exception to this is Stranglehold where there was an achievement for winning like 300 multiplayer matches as John Woo. This meant that everyone only ever picked that one character and that unintentionally made the multiplayer way better.
Yeah. I definitely think it's a really broad topic. I think I was just noticing a vibe in this thread of like "fun is subjective! Anyway, games can also be unfun things." And I'm thinking like, I mean, but if fun is subjective, many of those things are fun.
I think we can talk about different tastes as being valid, but ALSO sometimes set a boundary like, okay devs, making me upload a photo on a shitty service that doesn't work and will be shut down in three years in order to get the 100% is stupid. Please just make it be for clicking the button. You've gotten the engagement with the system you wanted either way. Or, okay devs, maybe making me play a 40 hour game but then have one achievement be for mindlessly killing one enemy for another 30 hours is a bit much. Maybe SOMEONE will enjoy it, but the vast majority of people's experience isn't being enhanced by this.
I also have always been a big proponent of the idea that people's tastes and things can be grown or discovered or both. And I think we can reasonably say like, okay, certain types of achievements probably are never going to introduce someone to a new experience, whereas, maybe a hard mode would. Sure it definitely won't for everyone, and that's fine. But we can still talk about like, hey this is maybe a bit dumb and ridiculous and pretty much no one likes it or would ever.
I think if we have the discussion, you eventually start finding common themes among many different crowds. Those seem to me to be:
1. I want to actually be able to, even if it's hard, 100% the game.
2. I don't want the 100% to just be handed to me for nothing. That's unsatisfying.
3. Stuff that is completely tedious and mindless isn't really fun.
4. Achievements that encourage me to do explore the whole game are generally good.
5. It really sucks to have to repeat a massive amount of effort to go back and change one single variable, especially when that would have been effortless to do, if I'd known.
Obviously all of these still allow for subjectivity and a vast array of what someone finds fun, but I think there are definitely some achievements that fit so far out of those goals, that the vast majority of people will be unhappy with them, regardless of who finds what fun, that they probably should just be removed.
I don't really mind either way. As I'm playing through a game and I hit around the ~80% point, give or take, that's when I'll take a closer look at the trophy/achievement list. If it looks fun/obtainable, I'll put in the extra time and do them. If they seem ridiculous/tedious, I'm out and will just finish the game up.
NG+ trophies are dumb as fuck.
Spider-Man and Horizon both added NG+ modes in updates with added trophies for them, but being add ons they weren't required for the plat. But now Miles has a NG+ trophy from the get go so you need to play through the entire game twice, and I swear if Horizon 2 follows suit as a big ass RPG...
Spider-Man and Horizon both added NG+ modes in updates with added trophies for them, but being add ons they weren't required for the plat. But now Miles has a NG+ trophy from the get go so you need to play through the entire game twice, and I swear if Horizon 2 follows suit as a big ass RPG...
I hate trophies locked behind difficulty settings. I'd have the platinum in Dragon Age Inquisition if not for that. Not gonna replay it on Nightmare.