Editorials

Trophies & Acheivements: Are they just a cheap gimmick?

February 7, 2011, Author: Phil Ubee

Back in 2005 Microsoft launched the Xbox 360 and with it introduced arguably the single biggest feature in video-game history; the Gamerscore. For those of you who have lived in a bubble during the current gaming generation (or simply have only played on Nintendo’s Wii system) the Gamerscore is an achievement system whereby points are awarded for completing pre set challenges within a game, these are then displayed on your profile to show off to all your mates.

It is fair to say that Microsoft’s Achievement system has caused a great deal of debate over the past five and half years, with many a games forum thread questioning the notion of giving an award for something that could be detrimental to someone else’s enjoyment. However, the Gamerscore system has been so successful that in 2008 Sony decided to add their own Achievement system by introducing Trophies, meaning Playstation owners could get in on the act. So like them or loathe them they are here to stay. The ultimate question is still there though, do Achievements and Trophies enhance the gaming experience or hinder it?

It is fair to say that over the life cycle of Microsoft’s Xbox 360 console, the Achievements on offer have been improved and developed almost beyond recognition with games on the whole now offering a far greater scope of challenges to get the full 1000 points on offer. This can be outlined by looking at just a couple of examples; Call of Duty 2 had thirteen Achievements on offer to Call of Duty 4’s 37 and required a player to simply finish the game on the highest difficulty to pick up the full 1000. In COD 4 that had developed so that if you had completed the game on hardened difficulty you would still be more than 200 points short of the 1000. Likewise Fight Night 3 had just eight Achievements on offer and its sequel, Fight Night Round 4, has 33, with a far greater sense of achievement coming from collecting them.

This is not to say, of course, that there aren’t still some poorly thought out Achievements and Trophies still out there. Even some of the big titles can be just as guilty, if not more so, when it comes to how they use the Achievement process. Many of the forum threads I have read are filled with gamers bemoaning the general laziness that see a Trophy or Achievement for something as fundamental to a game as creating your own character or starting the single player mode. The biggest debate, though, has always been how they are presented in online modes as this can lead to gamers working together purely for the reward, often to the detriment of those simply looking to play and enjoy the game.

Run him over!

Arguably, the largest scale collective raised eyebrow went up with Halo 3, as shortly after release if you went into a multiplayer game you would often see players just lined up so they could help their mates pick up the “Mongoose Mowdown” Achievement at the cost of an enjoyable experience to everyone else. I myself have seen many a game of FIFA ruined by people looking to simply get an Achievement, especially in Team Play mode.

In contrast, CoD4 was applauded because there were no Achievements in the online mode and the game topped the multiplayer charts for such a long period of time, which was seen by many critics as the way forward. Alas that has not been the case as subsequent games in the franchise have reintroduced the possibility of picking up awards online.

I, however, have always believed that online gaming is hampered more by quitters than achievement whores. I have never been as angry or frustrated with a video-game as I was with Fight Night Round 4’s Online World Championship mode. Every time I had someone beaten they simply quit the game as they were counted out, meaning not only did I not receive the “Pain brings glory” Achievement for winning a World Championship mode fight, but worse; I was unable to progress up the ladder.

Quitters stopping me from climbing the ladder.

I have also always been a critic of collecting hidden packages of some description, which to me has always been a cheap gimmick. It doesn’t matter if these are flags, intel items, pigeons or anything else; in my opinion, the fact that in the vast majority of modern games a Trophy or Achievement always seems to be assigned to collecting ten/fifty/all hidden packages is just a cheap way of trying to add a replay value. In all honesty, if a game’s good enough you’ll go back and play it again regardless, right?

As such, I agree in principle to Nintendo’s head of product marketing, Bill Trinen who says telling players ahead of time what is necessary to unlock [rewards] spoils the surprise of doing that task in the first place. He was recently quoted on www.games.on.net saying their titles are “designed for you to explore the game yourself and have this sense of discovery”. He goes on to say “In my mind, that really encourages the sense of exploration rather than the sense of ‘If I do that, I’m going to get some sort of artificial point or score that’s going to make me feel better that I got this”.

You wont get any Trophies in Zelda

To this regard, as it stands, I have only ever fully “completed” one game on the Xbox 360 and that was the Live Arcade title Cloning Clyde. That’s despite finishing quite a few games, including Call of Duty: Modern Warfare and World at War, Assassins Creed, and FIFA’s original Xbox 360 effort, FIFA 06: Road to FIFA World Cup. I do not feel in any way the fact that I haven’t got all the Achievements on a game means I haven’t seen all it has to offer, nor do I believe that in order to consider myself a true gamer I need to keep playing until I do get them. Instead, I am proud that I can look at my gamerscore and remember the enjoyment that every single point has given me.

As an owner of both a Wii and Xbox 360, I do not believe that I favour Microsoft’s console any more than Nintendo’s because of my Gamerscore. It is also fair to say that I am not the biggest fan of the Achievement and Trophy phenomenon overall. Having said that, I do think it is nice to be able to look back at the games you have played in the past and the level to which you have played them, which of course, the Achievement process allows you to do easily. Ultimately, what I’d really like to see is developers using this system to enhance the gaming experience rather than exploiting it to the point of shortening a title, in the belief that the majority will replay to get the rewards on offer, even if the game isn’t a good one.

I am sure the debate will continue as to whether the Achievement process is a positive or negative addition to the Video Game industry, but for me they are simply “there”. I’d be interested to hear your views.