"GDC 2011: McGonigal Says 'Don't Exploit Gamers', Extrinsic Rewards 'Missing The Point'"

[kane_magus]

Interesting.

The following rant may only be tangentially related to the above, but it's still a rant I've been letting percolate for quite a long while now, and this seems as good a time as any to throw it up here...

Ok, so whatever happened to the days when people would play a game because, you know, they actually wanted to play that game? Nowadays, people will buy or rent an otherwise crappy game just because that game grants a quick and easy 1000 points to their gamerscore. I don't see the point. To put it more bluntly, I personally couldn't give less of a rat's rear end about getting achievements in games.* However, I personally know more than a few people who loves them some achievement whoring, many of whom have indeed played that very Avatar game explicitly for the cheap 1000 points gamerscore and played it only for the couple of minutes or so it took to do it, so maybe I'm just an old fogey or something. *shrug*

* - With that said, I want the ones that I do get to at least show up properly, though it's not so much about the trophies themselves as that I just want the game itself to show up in the list properly.

Comments

[stuckinacave.livejournal.com]

I have liked the idea of Achievements since Microsoft first announced them...the well designed ones anyways.

I mean, Mass Effect was great and I'd have replayed it anyways, but the fact there's achievements for using particular characters for most of the game, or completing the game as different classes, it gives a player incentives to try a different combination and potentially getting more out of the game.

Otherwise every replay of ME1 by me would have Wrex and Tali, and I've never give the chance to Garrus, broken biotic dude (can't remember his name...) or many of the other details of ME1 that Bioware put into that game.

[kane-magus.livejournal.com]

I don't have a problem with the basic idea of achievements in and of themselves. I don't care about them, as I said, but I have no real problem with them. What I do have something of a problem with is the concept of all these people lately who play some games solely for the boost in their gamerscore that the games give. And yes, I do personally know people who do this sort of thing. They'll play some of the crappiest or blandest games ever, just to get the quick 1000 or however many points. Of course, if that's how they want to waste their time then who am I to argue otherwise? But I simply don't see the point in it at all.

Or even take games like your example of Mass Effect. Given that one of the guys I'm talking about knew that I've played it myself, he recently asked me about how quickly I thought someone would be able to go through the game and get all the achievements, and when I told him it'd probably take at least 3 or more playthroughs to do so, he lost interest in playing it (despite the fact that he claims to already own both ME1 and ME2) and decided to look for something else to play. I was like "Dude. Regardless of achievements, you should give it a try. It's a good game." He was like "Nah, I don't have time right now. I just needed a quick gamerscore boost for some online thingie or other that I'm involved in and thought maybe Mass Effect would do it, but oh well." That sort of thing completely mystifies me.

[stuckinacave.livejournal.com]

What I find funny is that people I know who don't achievement hunt say the exact same thing about me liking ME1.

I suppose that's one of the interesting things of gaming...everyone thinks the way they play them is the "right" way of doing so.

[owsf2000.livejournal.com]

*nod sagely*

[kane-magus.livejournal.com]

I totally agree with the squirrel on this one.