Slashdot Mirror
Reinventing Gaming Addiction with 360 Achievements
jayintune writes "An article from 2old2play looks at how the XBox 360 achievement system is bringing out the addictive qualities of console games by adding a whole new level of competition to 'single-player' games. At the same time, the achievements extend the life and replayability of the games. Do you actually get more for your money from a single player Xbox 360 Game then from another console? You be the judge."
uhm...yes?
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
And we wonder why nobody RTFA? Please don't bother; that was the fluffiest nonsense I've read all week!
Summary: You think you've finished that game, eh? Well, try to do it with a melee weapon only! Then you can try it again without using any powerups! Only XBox 360 games have these innovative features!!
I will load up even just the basic XBL arcade games to unlock more achievement points. Whenever i see "Achievement Unlocked" on my screen, i immediately have to check out what i received it for. Sad? Sure. But it definitely adds an element of " I Really gotta keep playing this game " to every game. Having the live updated gamercard available from www.xbox.com also makes it addicting because anyone can see your progress, or lack thereof. Very smart implementation.
While it's all well and nice that the 360 has added 'another dimension' to gaming by adding leaderboards, I still think we need to wait for the 360 port of NetHack before players of this particular console know the true meaning of the word "addiction" :)
Joking aside, I think it is small touches like leaderboards that can keep a certain element coming back for more, and if titles for the 360 implement this, more power to them. Competition in gaming is nice and healthy, for the most part, so as long as it doesn't descent to the levels of stat-padding for globally ranked games as seen in BF2; or the account farming [from the psst-hey-fella-wanna-buy-a-top-score? dept] of WoW (or other MMORPGs), it should be -- dare I say -- fun for the Xbox 360 players.
If all you have is a grenade, pretty soon every problem looks like a foxhole -- MightyYar
Is anyone else concerned that your activities are being monitored even in single player games?
The flip side to this reward system is that companies will be able to tell when you most often play games, what games you play and how long you play in one sitting.
Nice article. I also find myself replaying the new arcade games over and over just to get more achievements. MS really made a smart move here with the gamercard idea. Personally I think they should allow you to trade in those points for actually Market Place cash but oh well. Anyway nice article, but I'm sure the anti MS people are going to have a field day with this.
I have this dodgy PS2 controller, occasionally, the X button stops working, or the analog functionality disappears. If I want a real challenge, I just plug it in, and play Gran Turismo. Hours of extra fun.
So how much did Micro$oft pay for this "news" item?
but I wouldn't be too surprised if we started seeing crap games that have huge point rewards.
If a big title isn't selling well enough, MS can bribe gamers into buying it with the promise of huge point rewards.
Sounds great for the statisticians and hardcore gamers -- and with no detriments to the casual gamer. Very clever, very simple. This would make competitive gaming much more fun; no longer do you have to compete directly against a player to determine dominance, now one can merely challenge a friend or enemy to a contest: "First to x points in game y wins prize z!" It would also make ranking players much easier, and expand rankings from directly competitive games, like wins/losses/disconnects in RTSs and kills/deaths/suicides in FPSs, to even the most non-violent and relaxed game (side scrollers, turn based strategy, puzzle, etc.). Overall, a great idea, and one that I hope will be integrated not only into Xbox 360 games, but other consoles and the almighty PC as well.
games journalism blog
It will not work without good games.
At the end, the only thing that really counts is the quality of the game. If you barely enjoy playing a game, would you really bother replaying and trying to defeat a boss with no power-ups or collecting all 50 amulets? Would you really care doing it just for bragging rights? If you're a fanatic of a given game, chances are you're already playing it over and over again, and the Achievement Points concept would be one more reason to keep doing so.
AP works only if the game is fun in the first place -- it won't do much for crappy games.
digg is cool and all, but it's got a lot of crap on it. Just now the top article is as follows:
Seagate 250GB 7200RPM 8MB Buffer Hard Drive $69.99 submitted by hankosky 20 hours 22 minutes ago (via http://www.tigerdirect.com/app...)
"Huge Savings! Seagate 250GB 7200RPM 8MB Buffer Hard Drive This is the hard drive industry insiders are talking about and the monster HDD that garners top ratings in the computer magazines. See for yourself why the Seagate "
If it sounds like an ad, that's because it is.
Fluffy article or no, they're right. The achievements system is pure genius, because it adds public bragging rights to the concept of 100%'ing a game, and suddenly I'm interested. They've tacked a level grind onto every game out there, and it worked.
I'm totally addicted to 100%'ing the achievements in my games. I've spent hours scouring maps for hidden items so I could claim the elusive "game complete" achievement in Kameo. I routinely start every game on the hardest difficulty level so I can show off to others that I've done it. I spent 3 days with a checklist from GameFAQs finding hidden gaps in Tony Hawk. I played Gun 3 extra times so I could have credit for beating it on every difficulty level.
The system isn't perfect. Some games, like King Kong or give away achievement points like they're candy. I'm more proud of my 25-point "Big Cheese of the South Seas" achievement in Hexic HD than I am of the entire 1000 points credit I have for King Kong. Other games like Quake 4 have achievements that almost nobody will win (be #1 on the worldwide leaderboards). Some games give you a full set of achievements just for beating them. We'll see how things settle out.
Even Jesus hates listening to Creed.
I don't know about anyone else, but to me, these next-generation consoles are about as exciting as a toilet that flushes itself.
These game companies keep reinventing the wheel and try to make it sound like something new and innovative.
This is a pretty creative approach but I don't think it adds anything in general. Now, I don't know what the points/GP actually go to since I haven't really followed the 360 much. But unless it's awesome stuff, it just seems shallow.
Say I'm game company X. I make a mediocre game that people won't really enjoy. To compensate, I add a ton of points in the game to make people want to finish it. MS probably has to clear points but odds are they will allow reasonable requests.
Solid gameplay needs no reward such as points. Look at the people still playing Starcraft. Besides the Bnet ranking, they have no other real perks to playing. I would rather see MS reward developers of games that people that continue to play . I would certainly rather have better games as a reward than points.
I don't think this does anything to reinvent addiction. It's just like people playing MMOs to get enough gold to buy the next item they need. Play until you get what you want and then go do something else. It isn't addiction if you're just grinding it out.
Slashvertisement wasn't coined because a blatent ad posing as a story showed up once.
I think this is stupid for a variety of reasons.
#1 - Casual gamers won't play XBox Live b/c whenever they log in some punk ass Live kid will mock their achievement record. I don't think M$ is interested in "adding a new dimension to the gaming experience." This is the type of "feature" which really doesn't matter to most people, but at the same time it creates a profitable database of gamer information for M$.
#2 - XBox doesn't have any good single player games and Playstation will always dominate this realm. People buy XBox for the multiplayer experience, most single player XBox gamers get bored with what's available and trade the system in for a Playstation (I work at Gamestop, I observe these trends)
#3 - It may increase rentals, but no one will spend $60 to increase their "gamer score." Furthermore, only morons and kids will find the achievement points worth spending extra money + time. People who go out of their way to increase these statistics rather than allowing them to reflect their actual gaming habits belong in the ranks of people who sell MMORPG items on Ebay (i.e. utterly pathetic)
This rabid appeasement to the "hardcore" gamer is going to kill M$ the same way it killed SEGA (think SEGA-CD, SATURN, Dreamcast, GameGear/Nomad). The hardcore gamers don't control this industry anymore, it's the casual gamers who collectively spend more money than the "hardcore" crowd (that's why EA owns this industry). I have a lot of faith in Nintendo's upcoming strategy, but Sony has proved to be the only player who can consistently merge both demographics under one platform.
Sure some good games can be addicting, but just because a game is addicting it doesn't mean that it is good. I for one find all those "addicting" elements (status bars, experince points, extra items, etc.) to be rather uninteresting, because they often add obsolutly nothing to the core game itself, but simply stretch it by forcing the player to do the same thing again and again just to raise his level a bit so he can continue with the next larger obstacle. I would much prefer if gamedesigners would make there game good by adding larger areas, less restricted levels, more complex controls (so that you, the player, has to learn, not just the hero has to collect more XP), more freeform gameplay and more dynamic in the AI (good games produce thrill by dynamic AI, not by prescripted events), instead of turning each and every game into a sort-of RPG with statusbars, XP and other stuff tacked on. I prefer games where I am the one who accomplishes something, not by XP-counter.
Sure. It happens here all the time, but with the obvious editorial okay. With digg, anyone can promote an item to the top if you've got enough user accounts (this time, 10 diggs was enough to push it to the top). I usually browse digg on the "digg for stories" page, which shows you up to the minute added content. There are lots of interesting things that doesn't get promoted up to the main page.
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Lots of games already have special extra tasks you can accomplish to show off how "hard core" you are.
The 'Ratchet & Clank' games for the PS2, for instance, had the Skill Point system. A skill point would be some extra challenging task you could complete, such as winning the a minigame race in under a certain time limit, or acquiring all the weapons, or defeat a certain level/boss with just your wrench, etc. You even got a skill point if you managed to get all the other skill points! Skill Points could then be used to unlock additional things in the games, such as different skins for your character, or silly features like making everyone's head extra-large.
The only new thing here is that now your accomplishments are stored online and are visible even if you aren't currentally playing the game.
What exactly are achievement points used for? It's not like you can turn them into cash or whatever online currency used to "buy" other Live stuff.