Multiplayer Achievements - A Gamer in Limbo

[Webb]

Just added a new editorial to the frontpage. Feel free to debate the topic and the editorial in here...

Enjoy :D

http://www.xbox360achievements.org/news.php?id=390 (http://www.xbox360achievements.org/forum/../news.php?id=390)

[razzleson]

Not too bad of a read, nice job Webb.

[Wriggy]

Very interesting. I got my Gears of War weapon achievements by accident (though I did stay near the Boomshot on Gears quite a bit) ;)

I think 250/1000 or 1250 GamerScore should be multiplayer achievements. I know people who don't get online much and I can gaurentee they would have a 1000 on Gears, Pro Evo 6 and Football Manager 2007 but they have a daft score (ending with a 6) and I know how that feels :p (slightly annoying).

[Magooush]

I can't agree more with you. Online achievements have been taken overboard. Many games have a great multiplayer, but either bad/glitched achievements or almost impossible achievements. I would like to see 1000 GS in the single-player of a game with 0 Gamerscore (but still achievements ) in the Multiplayer. For me, after playing the 360 I don't see a point in playing games to play them :p. I play them to achieve something. ' 0 pointers ' would help me play the multiplayer version of the game as well as make me feel special when that " Achievement Unlocked" pops up ( even if it says 0 Gamerscore ).

[DarkGeneral88]

I would like to see 1000 GS in the single-player of a game with 0 Gamerscore (but still achievements ) in the Multiplayer.

I agree Magooush. I think the most efficient use of achievements would be 1,000 on single player with 0 GP multi player which can be unlocked in player mode. It would clean up the rank matches as said in the editorial of people just wanting to get achievements instead of playing a serious game. The player match players would get recognition for their achievements and those that can't play online are able to receive maximum points.

Actually another Ideal that adds on to what was said and they could make some money for it also is to send the game default single player achievements and if it's a live account they are given an option to either choose single or multi player achievements. Then at the end if they want the opposite they pay so many points for them. I find it acceptable for them to be able to get 2,000 if they paid cash for it.

Anyways good editorial. Hopefully they will stop multi player achievements or at least implement something like was said by Magooush and I.

[Thrall320]

Hey, I think that sounds perfect. 300 multiplayer points, and 700 for Single. Or, depending on the game, maybe the other way around.

...Or maybe split it 50/50? That would work out nicely I think, then both Single Players and Multiplayers get the same amount.

[Jabi1]

I would go with the 700 SP / 300 MP amounts. I think there are cheap ways to earn certain SP achievements in some games, but at least other people don't need to get annoyed by achievement fanatics in MP modes. When it comes to MP achievements, I think Gears of War has the worst ones I've encountered. Not that the achievements themselfs are not good, but the games net code or whatever makes them so stupid to achieve. It reflects no skill when the only way is to host your own game or join one hosted by your friend so that you don't need to suffer from horrible lag problems, unless you wish to give your enemy some easy kills. Also I don't like the fact that some games have so much ranked-only achievements, because earning them would be much more fun in player matches.

[KewlBrettC]

i would have to toatally disagree with your whole statement there:

Halo 3- To Little Gamerscore and Achievements for Online, and I'm disapointed.
Gears of War- Had a perfect amount of Online/Offline achievements. Weapon Achievements are great.

[SpaceShot]

I personally feel no achievement should require XBL Gold. It's not like people who never connect online or only have Silver didn't pay full price for the game. I am a gold member, but I would feel it is much fairer if there was no achievement that required XBL Gold.

I personally found GOW's list abhorent and I applaud Call of Duty 4's.

[KewlBrettC]

Yeah, but if you don't have online why does your gamerscore matter anyways?

[NevEP]

Great article. I agree for the most part. However, I must say, as others have, that the ranked achievements are a downfall. It should be any multiplayer mode (LIVE, System Link, Split Screen) included in the game, as in the case of Gears, in my opinion.

Of course I think we'll see a nice shift in achievements as more companies try their luck with them and finally learn what works.

[KewlBrettC]

Single Player is boring

[PerpetualHeaven]

i would have to toatally disagree with your whole statement there:

Halo 3- To Little Gamerscore and Achievements for Online, and I'm disapointed.
Gears of War- Had a perfect amount of Online/Offline achievements. Weapon Achievements are great.

First, your last post said single player is boring and no it's not. Weapon achievements suck. I hate the torque bow. I hate the hammer of dawn. I hate sniper and I hate trying to kill people with a pistol from a distance. Honestly, why can't I just stick to my boom shot, melee pistol, machine gun/chainsaw, and shot gun and just enjoy my time? I couldn't could I because I had to use these stupid weapons. Personally, I don't like online achievements. I go online to have fun but when I have to get some damn points for specific things.. gr. Something like 1000 kills overall or 500 kills is fine. But when you move into something like 40 points for territory and 50 points for assassination (just making these up) like most games do, it sucks. I don't want to play territory. I don't want to play assassination. I want to play what I want to play. That's just my two cent. I personally never liked the Hammer of Dawn and was never good with it. When it came to getting that achievement, I cursed endlessly at the screen. Kind of sucks that I wasted so many games getting that achievement. Damn you scuba steve damn you.

[theforcemonkey]

I hate online achievements. Sometimes, I don't get games because I see they have too many online achievements. I don't want to play every game online. Sometimes I'm only interested in the single player. Also, multiplayer achievements aren't consistent enough. Let's look at CoD2 and Gears. I can beat CoD2 on Veteran. I'm proud of that 1000. It took effort to do. Here's my argument - everyone who has those achievements did exactly the same thing I did. The achievement level was consistent. Now let's look at Gears. I've got one word - boosting. You never know when you're going to get people that are insanely easy to kill, or amazingly tough to take down. So, you get a bunch of friends, you take turns killing each other - boring. Or, you hope you get lucky in a round with like skill, and you stay in that lobby for as long as you can. There are people who have 1000/1000 in Gears, and even though I don't, I'm better at the game than they are. I've just had different matches. (Not to mention, I wouldn't touch the sniper rifle with a 50 foot pole.)

Finally, I agree with an above poster - you shouldn't have to pay a yearly subscription fee to get 1000/1000. You pay full price for the game, you should get full use. (Don't even get me started on games that ship without splitscreen MP!)

[rollerpenguin]

I agree with most of you guys. I think there should be a lot less focus on multiplayer achievements. I'd say the developers should use them to make people sample the multiplayer and then if they ENJOY it they can continue playing. And there should never ever be achievements for specific weapons, that more than anything else has the potential to completely ruin a game. Another thing that I don't think anyone else has mentioned is what happens a year or two down the road when no one is playing some of these games online anymore. Is anyone going to be playing Quake 4 or The Outfit online next year? How bout the year after that? Seems to me that if you really care about getting all the achievements for games with high multiplayer points then you have to buy the game at launch i.e when it's most expensive.

[Keytta]

I am glad to see that many respondants were against excessive MP achievements ruling the games. I am not a big MP person but do try out a couple matches in each game just to see how the play is and interact with new people. I am often disappointed when I pay $60 for a game and then find out that many of the points are for MP and I will have little chance at getting them (I have no delusions of grandeur that I will ever get 10,000 kills in GOW, and my family appreciates that). For those games that want to off MP, I see nothing wrong with adding achievements at a minumal level, but it should not be above the 200 point mark so non-MP people do not feel shorted out of their $60.

A second option is to put all 1000 points into each game as single with the ability to download material (Bill Gates will like that) as extra content and the 250 points as a separate entity. I was proud of my GOW score, but 250 more MP points have shot my percentage to hell.

[Creech]

I am rather surprised Webby didn't really discuss same console multiplayer achievements at all, like Guitar Hero II and Rock Band. I agree with theforcemonkey's implied statement that more games should ship with split screen/same screen multiplayer.

I have people come to my house to game relatively often, and have for years, and many of the new games just don't support that. Halo 2 was great for that, but at this point we are pretty much burnt out on it. Big Bumpin' can be fun, and Heavy Weapon is an absolute blast. But of the new games this year, how many support four player same console play? GRAW 2 is the only one that comes to mind.

I hate to say this in public, but the Wii has the 360 beat cold for group/social gaming. I actually had someone threaten to bring a Wii over the next time he came to my house. Sigh...

[Chuppernicus]

I'd be fine with a split between the two with the single player getting the larger piece of the pie. 70 / 30 would be fine. But what I'd really like to see are some creative achievements. Kill X amount of guys with weapon A only leads to "me first" gaming. I'd like to see more TEAM based achievements not me achievements. A lousy 10 pts for reviving 100 players in GOW and yet you get 30 pts for a grenade tag. Reviving a fallen mate is more important to winning usually than getting a grenade tag. I understand that supporting a flag runner would be difficult to track to earn towards an achievement than say actually returning the flag. Will less online MP achievments lessen the cheaters and other unwanted gamers looking for kills? No. Halo 2 had no achievemnts and I won't play that game ever again because of all the cheaters and idiots that refuse to play as a team.

Long story short, if there are online MP achievements, try really hard to make them Team based not me based. Article was nice btw. Cheers

[kungFuStu72]

I actually quite like the idea of multiplayer achievements but hate it when they specify "Ranked matches only". I don't always want to play with a bunch of random idiots who team kill, scream down the mic or generally run around thinking it's cool to swear. I'd much rather play with friends and people I trust.
The best system I've seen so far is GRAW2. They don't specify ranked play but they do insist on at least 5 players in the game. So if you want to play with randoms and get achievements you can. But if you want to get together with friends and get achievements you can do it that way as well.

[Adam Miller]

I agree with the editorial but as it says they are decreasing and thats a good thing but until there is a rule that says no more than 25% online achievements there will be some games that have some pointless and not fun long ass online achievements.

[teh x3nomorph]

I agree with the article and am glad that this shift if being made. I was really, really worried about the Halo 3 achievements before the list was released.

Anyone who played Halo 2 for more than a day knows of how rediculous the cheating/glitching got in that game and it ruined it for a lot of us. I enjoy the Halo franchise and will continue to play the multiplayer even after I get my achievements in it, but that will at least be 1 less reason for people to cheat in that game, and I wont get frustrated for being royally screwed out of achievement points.

[Sebastian55]

I just want to say what an excellent job was done on the editorial and how I completly agree with most everything that was said.

For myself, I have always been a single player kind of gamer. I have told numerous gamers online that I typically won't buy a game unless it has a good single player/decent multiplayer combination. So for me, I'm glad to see that they are starting to focus more achievements on the single player aspects. I can only wonder how many people bought Shadowrun thinking it had a single player to it!? :confused:

But I must confess... I'm no angel when it comes to gaming sometimes. Even I myself am guilty and have gotten caught up in the "boosting frenzy" that often hits gamers from time to time in a game, just to work towards that 1000 GS. (Note: When I say "boosting", I in no way mean gamesaves becaue I feel very strongly against that and have voiced that opinion in a separate thread months ago.) Just wanted to clarify that before someone makes an ignorant statement about it. Also, I don't buy ignorant games, just for achievements. I won't even rent them. Just wanted to throw that in there, while I was venting on the matter.

But on the contrary to defend myself and others, I do have 1000 GS in several challenging games, games that take time, skill, teamwork and several other factors that you mentioned that make a game fun, and overall a worthwhile and enjoyable experience when it comes to gaming. For instance you pointed out the Call of Duty games. I LOVE those games simply because I feel that they provide a REAL challenge!! Sure the AI can pull off some BS shots sometimes, but playing in Veteran mode is definitely a challenge and extremely fun!! That's why I'm most proud of those achievements.

I think it is a win/lose situation though. Whether or not it was Microsofts intentions, I believe multiplayer achievements try to attract more Xbox Live customers and I'm sure without a doubt in my mind that it probably has, for sure!! But again, making multiplayer achievements that are sometimes bizzare like Quake 4 - #1 and #10 on Leaderboards, or Call of Duty 3 - 40,000 points... These are bizzare multiplayer achievements that do nothing but provoke gamers to boost and find alternative ways to go about getting the achievements. With Quake 4, my point being is that if you don't buy the game the day it comes out and play for no end, or boost your way to #10 and then on to #1, then you're not going to get those achievements.

One of the greatest single player experiences on the 360 was Call of Duty 2 and the list was a challenge as well, but more importantly, it was the essence of what an achievement list should be... Challenging but achievable.

I couldn't have said that any better than Webb! "Challenging but achieveable". I must admit, it's got a ring to it! ;)

I guess only the future can tell what will happen with achievements, but Webb I applause you from doing such an excellent job on the editorial about this subject. I think it is one that requires much consideration and thought by game developers and gamers alike.

[Magooush]

To add on to what I had said before, I would also like to see the "0 point MP achievements" to be secret. Hopefully it would make the game more playable without people running around only to get achievements.

To what others have said:
Some games are Multiplayer games. The Halo series has a great singleplayer but also an amazing multiplayer (besides for hackers and modders). I would glady see Halo with a more even singleplayer to multiplayer achievement ratio. Other games are based and made for singleplayer but have a multiplayer. These games have the horrible multiplayer achievements and should have 0 Gamerscore in multiplayer and even maybe an achievement or two. I've been on games where in the multiplayer there is literally seven people playing.

I also agree with Spaceshot on how not only Gold Members should get to play the "full game". Silver Members and even people who don't have live should be abel to get 100% points in a game. Now I didn't say 100% completion because I have alreadey stated that I would like to see achievements in Multiplayer but they would be for 0 gamerscore.

[xk3zofrenik]

I disagree on this article. There are many games that the achievements are done poorly for the MP, however putting all 1000 on SP is definitely not the answer.

Pretty much most games, (specially shooters) the SP is the shortest part of the experience, so putting all the eggs in that basket would really suck for all of us who pay for broadband/XBL subscription and enjoy gaming online nightly regardless of the flaws. Plus for a MP enthusiast is sometimes the other way around. You have to run through a campaign on a very high difficulty level (and sometimes a very dismal experience) just because you want to finish a game you love in MP.

Not to mention that there isn't an ending or anything in MP. So achievements have taken the role of pretty much giving that sense of completion to MP gaming. Taking that away or minimizing it would seriously diminish the experience.

I think if they just divided achievements in general by SP and MP, and categorized accordingly thru Xbox live. People can feel like the have %100, or completed something without lessening the importance of MP.

It could be something like Gamerzones but for achievements. If you only do SP then have a bigger point value for the SP achievements. If you only do MP you get a bigger point value for those achievements, if you like both have the current blend from the developers. That way it will show %100 according to preference. Also something you can switch back and forth in your account, so that you can pick how the achievements look for you and everyone else for each specific game.

Plus the same thing could be done for people who dabble on games and are not interested in finishing everything at the highest difficulty.

In other words. Achievements shouldn't be a rigid grab-all scheme. Trying to please everybody or the majority. It could very well be something customizable, that can fit your playing style without dictating how to play to everyone else.

[danjohnson58]

Yeah, but if you don't have online why does your gamerscore matter anyways?

It's not a factor that determines anything online, at the end of the day gamerscore only accounts for you and what you have achieved (no pun intended). I'm sure the silver users have just as much intrest in gamerscore as gold members.

Friends of mine who don't have live access still count gamerscore as a big thing, sure it gives bragging rights and can help people self-inflate their own ego's but at the end of the day it all comes down to the one person.

I don't have the biggest gamerscore in the world and i sometimes enter a room on vegas/gears etc and someone looks you up and i'm automatically kicked on presumption i'll be great at the game or i get hounded with abuse because of my own achievements, the fact that i have 21k+ doesn't make me any more or less of a player then your average, i still have a normal life, with family, college, work, social life the whole thing takes into account that the harrasment of some form isn't viable, i like achievements as it gives something to work for, what i dislike is peoples automatic judgement that gamerscore is relative to you as a player.

Sorry i kinda went off on a tangent there, DaWebbmeister wrote an intresting article and i for one couldn't agree more with him. That whiny 12 year old who wants his achievement or the people who boost for the achievement are the people that take the fun out of playing online, sure it's easy to put up with but after you play a couple of hours and find that theres normally one of these kind of players in the room, it kills the spirit of the game as such.

Games like Halo 2 you can take and look at the glitching and cheating people lower themselves to in order to get some points, i mean where's the fun in playing a game without the enjoyment?

I think it will be intresting to see how the 700/300 split goes as far as gamerscore is concerned, but i would love to see something like 900/100 or even 1000/0 in favour of single player so people play for fun and themselves not for some ego points to make them seem big online.

[Wreckon Dracgon]

i would have to toatally disagree with your whole statement there:

Halo 3- To Little Gamerscore and Achievements for Online, and I'm disapointed.
Gears of War- Had a perfect amount of Online/Offline achievements. Weapon Achievements are great. I must say that this is totally wrong and you're missing the spirit of the editioral. Gears achievements suck ass, and they take away from what should be a great online game. You have someone using snipe and they're some 100 yards away from the person they just shot, yet they're screaming don't take my kill, don't take my kill as they run around like Barry Sanders trying to make it to the downed victim only to get Shotgunned by the guy waiting around the corner. Where as if he wasn't worried about getting his damn achievement we'd be playing as a team with him downing them from distance and squad mates using the Lancer to clean up the mess. Not to mention all the damn kids running around not playing as a team just trying to Frag Tag as many people as they can for the achievement. That takes away from the actual gameplay of the game which is to play as a squad. Reasons like this is why online achievements suck, especially those type. Now maybe a few win 10 ranked matches, or win 5 ranked in a row is okay because those would at least force you to play as a team. One reason I like to play Annex on Gears more so than any other, with kills not counting you can always get a good match. Enough ranting I've got a Gears Boosting match at 2p I need to get ready for... got to get that "Don't Hurt' Em" Achievement.... Rooftops FTW


Also you're kidding about the single player games being crap right... because I had more fun running through the Gears Co-Op than anytime ever in the history of gaming... hold playing KOTOR.

[Creech]

Gears achievements suck ass, and they take away from what should be a great online game.
<snip>
Also you're kidding about the single player games being crap right... because I had more fun running through the Gears Co-Op than anytime ever in the history of gaming...

I agree with this entirely. I LOVE playing Gears single player or co-op on the campaign, and I absolutely detest the online multiplayer experience in ranked game.

Very well said, WD.

[Webb]

I am rather surprised Webby didn't really discuss same console multiplayer achievements at all, like Guitar Hero II and Rock Band.

Well, in all honesty, I never even went that far in to the psyche :p I failed to get past the online multiplayer achievements with any positive comments so maybe it was for the best :biglaugh

[Sebastian55]

I agree with this entirely. I LOVE playing Gears single player or co-op on the campaign, and I absolutely detest the online multiplayer experience in ranked game.

Very well said, WD.

I have to say kudos to this as well!! Gears of War was one of the most exciting co-op experiences ever, the absolute best! :uzi:I think more games should allow for the completion of single player achievements through co-op. A buddy of mine and I enjoyed working through every single bit of the co-op campaign. I even found myself, after having completed the campaign, going back and playing with other gamers in co-op to help them with their achievements as well as just for the heck of it to have plain old fun. Very few games I know include co-op and truly it's one of the best features a developer could employ in their games. I'm glad to see that Rainbow Six: Vegas uses this, which I haven't done yet, but am sure that it will be a great experience as well.

I hope many games to come have a decent variation of single vs. multiplayer achievements. Single player only lasts so long... no matter how good a game, but multiplayer is where you get the REAL replay value out of a game.

As for people who only have silver accounts, I'm sorry but I don't feel empathetic at all. All I can say is... "Buy a gold subscription if you don't like that most games have a lot of multiplayer achievements". That's sort of one of the reasons for purchasing a gold account, to get the full, true experience out of a game and online community. If you don't want to worry about the subscriptions, then I hate to tell you, but your using the wrong gaming console. Most people should know this before buying the system. Microsoft wants YOUR money... and they WILL find a way to get it, but not always. ;)

[tallywhackerhacker17]

i completely agree, i like how fear did there achievements having the campaign worth most of the game and the multiplayer weapon achievements worth only 5 points each giving players not much incentive to try to boost to get them

[brabbijt]

very nice editorial, good to read :)

i also love the new madden 08 achievements, i think that`s the way to go, 100% SP

[Comon ST]

Good job on the article Webb.

Also to add to the SP/MP debate, when you have a game like Carbon, which is roughly 60% MP/40% SP, your fucking pissed off. Cause EA has the Ultimate Shit Servers. And all of the Weapon Achievements in Gears of War were fucking retarded when a bunch of retarded 12yo ruin your game, yelling "I call *Said Weapon*." So, I pretty much side with the 1000 SP achievements.

And to the guy who said, if you don't have online, whats the point of gamerscore? Your a fool. Think before you say something like that. People these days have friends, haven't you realized that? Well, unless those Gears achievements have made you anti social...

[Devolon]

IMO, an achievement list is a guideline. The guys who created the game tell me "ok, we made this game, we would like you to do this and that, so we give you achievements if you play this game as it is supposed to be played". Since these developpers spent some valuable time creating online options for their games, they should be allowed to lock achievements wherever they want to. There's no need for a general rule here, like 70%-30% or whatever. They just need to have some common sense, and forget about stupid things like "kill 10000000 enemies online" or "play 100000000 games online".

[bplayak]

Great great editorial Webb!!! Some games have gone WAY overboard with the multiplayer achievements. I like the idea that it's good to have some achievements just to get some people to try the multiplayer out but unless you love the multiplayer, it's difficult to put the time into getting the achievements. I actually didn't mind the gears online achievements because I loved the game so much but if I run into a game where I'm not really liking the multiplayer too much, I'll play it for a little bit but then I'm finished. Overall, I'm happy companies are hopefully starting to move away from them a little bit.

[Shadow76]

I agree with most people on here as a casual gamer i dont play ranked games as it is full of idiots who think they own the game or clans running amok so when games have the "ranked game" achievements i tend to stay clear .

The only game to date that i have played a rank match in is Flatout UC .

So to have 100% in SP and 0 points in MP would be the way to go or have the achievements for player match`s that way you can enjoy the game with friends and still enjoy the " boink " as and when it appears

[Danny Dibo]

Myself,
I don't mind a few online achievements. IMO, they extend the playability of certain games, and give you a list of all new challenges. The ones I am completly against are the get to rank #1 type achievements. They make it impossible to ever get the full 1000, unless you were the first one in the world to play that game over live.

Other then that, I don't mind them. Its a challenge, and I would much rather be accumalating 100 kills with a sniper then searching all over the place for some hidden orb or kitten or whatnot.

[LinkFox101113]

I do not entirely agree with you.

I do think the some game developers are relying on multiplayer to much when it comes to filling up the achievement list.

But, I do NOT think we should get rid of them all together. I depends on what the game focuses on. With some games I agree, multiplayer achievements are unnecessary. Others have great multiplayer and you should be rewarded for playing them. Two games that I think got the single player/multiplayer achievement amounts correct are FEAR and Splinter Cell: Double Agent.

I have said my piece and now I'm happy... :AR15

(P.S. I can't really say much about Gears because I have only ever rented it and I don't really care for too much. Yeah, that's right. I just said I don't like Gears of War. Deal with it... I'm more of a Rainbow Six and DOOM fan.)

[poulpy72]

Thx for the great article Webb...

For my part, I'm a singleplayer gamer only. I'm probably not the only one with kida or with a job that's put yourself in a "be available 24/7" situation. So if I need to pause my game to take care of my kids or answer the phone, then I can't really get into a MP game...and I must admit that I love to take all the time I need to play, to look in every little corner to see what might be hidden and so on. If I want to pause the game because I need to pick my nose, then I can do it without getting shot in the head by someone else...

Anyways, what I would like to see from game developpers, and obviously approved and stamped by Microsoft, is a system where you'd always have 1000 achievement pts in single player mode and an additional 200-250 pts for the multiplayer gamers. This would enable us, singleplayer addicts, to get 1000pts in most of the games we play. We would then have 2 achievement lists per game, with 2 different completion leaderboards. That would fit us best I believe.

Thx again for the article Webb, and thank you all guys for reading me out. I hope things will change for the better in the future as the achievements on the 360 is what pushes us that much deeper into our games.

Cheers!

[Sebastian55]

Thx for the great article Webb...

For my part, I'm a singleplayer gamer only. I'm probably not the only one with kida or with a job that's put yourself in a "be available 24/7" situation. So if I need to pause my game to take care of my kids or answer the phone, then I can't really get into a MP game...and I must admit that I love to take all the time I need to play, to look in every little corner to see what might be hidden and so on. If I want to pause the game because I need to pick my nose, then I can do it without getting shot in the head by someone else...

Anyways, what I would like to see from game developpers, and obviously approved and stamped by Microsoft, is a system where you'd always have 1000 achievement pts in single player mode and an additional 200-250 pts for the multiplayer gamers. This would enable us, singleplayer addicts, to get 1000pts in most of the games we play. We would then have 2 achievement lists per game, with 2 different completion leaderboards. That would fit us best I believe.

Thx again for the article Webb, and thank you all guys for reading me out. I hope things will change for the better in the future as the achievements on the 360 is what pushes us that much deeper into our games.

Cheers!

Now there's an idea... 1000 for single player, 250 for multiplayer. ;) That way single player people could still get their full 1000 while those who enjoy both or multiplayer could work towards the extra 250 if the like.

[mig0]

I generally dont like multiplayer achievements for 2 reasons.

1- like you said, it affects how people play online, and that can be needlessly annoying.

2- the achievement could become impossible to get either because of riduclous standards (see NBA live 07 "1000 people") or because nobody plays the game online anymore (see Fuzion Frenzy 2 multiplayer).

I generally rent games and don't usually get games immediately upon release (viva gamefly, but I've got a bunch of games in my queue), so I avoid online games a bit.

[Brighton X]

Great article Webb, I agree with you, mostly.

I like achievements more like Seriously, you can get them while playing & you can play anyway you want to & still get them. But if games don't have online achievements I tend to not play them as much as I normally would, like CoD 2. It was a great Editorial & really got me thinking about multiplayer achievements. Props dude.

[Turbo VDuB 44]

I generally agree as well, but they change the ways games are played...and who else loves it when someone steals a kill in GoW just to get their ranks up....drives me insane, hence i love games with little to no online achievements...such as CoD4. Tops of 5 achievements i can get online with under 50 total hours of play to get them all...unlike seriously or Elite which each take wellllll over 250 hours total

[Justicezero]

In the example of "The Darkness", Having online achievements/multiplayer in a portion of the game that was considered by many (including the developers) as being "Thrown together" isn't really fair to the gamer. WE want the achievements, but if the multiplayer sucks...and in the example again of "The Darkness" has MASSIVE lag/server problems it's almost unbearable. Hence, I too am happy about the heading away from Multiplayer/Online Achievements. Even tho I did enjoy the achievements in multiplayer Bomberman Live XBA.

[mightydionysus]

I like achievements. I really do. I found myself last summer playing every game I could get my hands on to boost my score. Fortunately, the need to get points has finally worn off and I am no longer grabbing a crappy sports game, adjusting sliders, and smiling as I earned an easy 1000 in an hour. I still want points, but I seem to be leaning toward the 1000 in Guitar Hero 2 more than the much easier TMNT game. That said, many online achievements seem to be nothing more than a quick exchange of losses so we can gain 20 more points. However, some online achievements have been very fun to get. I especially enjoyed the S.C. Double Agent Bronze-Gold Missions which brought me together with other gamers to beat the game, not find a way for some easy points. But this tpe of experience is a minority. In fact, I don't have many 1000's for games with online achievements. That says something... either about me or what I think about online achievements.

[Murbay]

I raised this same issue a couple of months ago on my forum and I have to say the vast majority of our community, including myself would have to agree 100%

I think I started it because I was a little bewildered at why they had even bothered to tack a multiplayer section onto Overlord and the fact that far too many single player games are too short now because resources are taken up by adding a multiplayer section.

I argued that there are titles out there which deserve multiplayer and quite rightly should carry on with their winning formula but other titles should leave it out and wait to see what the gaming public has to say. If people call out for multiplayer, then it could always be added at a later date by downloadable content.

You can tell the games that have no experience in this or have thrown multiplayer together simply by looking at the achievements, some of them being ridiculous. I cannot remember which game it was now but one game in particular has an achievement for killing 5 people with a single grenade. I remember one night joining a team and rather than playing the game as it should be, someone was trying to gather everybody together so he could drop a grenade for the points. Granted, we all help each other out from time to time but at least I play the game as it is meant to be played and if I get an achievement for it, then I know I have earned it.

I don't often play multiplayers anymore, unless of course it is something like GRAW or Rainbow 6 because far too many people are chasing achievements than playing the game and it is becoming something of a frustration to us gamers out there who play because we like to game.

I hate to say this but I think Def Jam Icon had the best idea of all when they did their multiplayer achievements. For those of you who have played it, you will know what I am talking about. For all the online multiplayer achievements in that game, you can also do them in single player by completing the requirements on hard difficulty. Granted it probably adds more of a challenge to the achievement because you can't ask the AI to stand still while you kick it into a window but for me that is the way ahead. Keep your multiplayer achievements but at the same time give us gamers who are fed up of not being able to play a multiplayer game as it should be played a chance to do them on our own.

[Timpysan73]

Great editorial. I've actually started shying away from games with an overabundance of multiplayer achievements. I don't feel like I should be forced into multiplayer in order to earn achievements.

[Drewdude1023]

I agree with you all 95%. I think tons of the multiplayer achievements are crappy. But i don't shy away from MP for that. I play MP to play, not get achievements. That's what single player is for.

[MrHarribalsonya]

I agree 90% with where your going on the subject matter. Coming from someone who achieved "seriously!" before achieving "serious of tubes". It was just a pain hosting matches for me. Cause at the time i didn't have the greatest connection, but needed the perfect 1000. But I've only experienced the "whiny 12 year old" a few times. The weapon achievements came passively for me and most of my friends with the exception of the hammer of unreliability. Now with that said, if GOW on vista comes with a "seriously" achievement! I'd cry like one of those 12 year olds, and my girl would have a freakin heart attack. But all in all i think you make a great point. I'm sure someone who bought Shadowrun doesn't have XBLIve, and i couldn't begin to imagine there pain.

[Weirdo666]

lets hope game developers take notice...

i havent played Def Jam but it sounds like a great idea, enabling the achievements in SP,
i am put of from some MP games as they players only want you to stand still and get the 500 multi kills award or something
it also makes some teams or players so fucking anal that you cant have a decent game, where you are allowed to play, have fun and screw up, no you get kicked or shouted at cause poor little baby didnt get his 10.000 kill

thats probably why i like games as condemned, bioshock, oblivion etc...

[krucifiedkevin]

i guess this shows my age.. because video games to me are a solitude event, a way to escape other people and not to have to come in contact with people.
it saddens me that "campaigns" are shorter in single player modes so that the developer can focus on multi-player maps weapons etc...
i also dont understand how people can look down upon a game that has no multiplayer
some games just are not meant to be played online and just wouldnt work. BIOSHOCK comes to mind right now since it is new and has no multiplayer modes it has gotten some flack for not having multiplayer, which boggles my mind. but how would multiplayer in it work? would you be able to be a "Big Daddy" and if so then wouldnt everyone be one and then it would just be a map full of "Big Daddies" slowly lumbering around etc... then if multiplayer wasnt any good people would complain that it was just "thrown in for the sake of multiplayer"
as far as achievements go it would be a nice option to be able to disable m/p achievements, esp. if you dont have a gold account. i have a few games that i have all the single player achievements for but zero of the m/p points..

[tjayars]

I enjoyed overlord while the darkness was not neeeded. the emphasis should be on single player. very good article.

[CaptainMayhem88]

very nicely done, I to am happy with the achievements for Halo 3 you can't get most of the online achievements in team games only free for all.

[Weirdo666]

very nicely done, I to am happy with the achievements for Halo 3 you can't get most of the online achievements in team games only free for all.

i like the Halo3 achievements that allow you to do them in MP or SP, such as Headshot honcho or Pink mist, this is exactly what we need if a) you dont have a gold account or b) are fed up with 10 year olds cursing at you if you dont hit a flie´s ass from 500meter... :uzi:

[Honkymagoo]

If games like The Darkness and Overlord didn't have MP achievements it would be great. But when you don't have a lot of them in games made pretty much FOR the MP such as Halo 3 and CoD4 I'd really like to see a fun MP achievement list. So it goes both ways really.

[benbam87]

Yeah, but if you don't have online why does your gamerscore matter anyways?

Just what i thought lol. But i believe it should always be a major part single/Minor MP.

[metalhead212]

For the most part I can agree, or at least understand where the author is coming from, but what I do not agree with is the remark about people who do not have gold accounts feeling as though they have gotten a defective product in regards to the online multi-player achievements.

When the consumer purchases, or denies to purchase, a gold account they are accepting the repercussions of that decision, I.E. access or no access to online multi-player and the achievements that result from that multi-player. I understand there is an exception to the rules in regards to people who have no access to high speed internet and what not, but for the sake of discussion we will exclude that fact. I feel that it is the creative right of the makers of the game to decide whether or not to include online achievements. An achievement is just that, it is a goal one can decide to pursue or choose to ignore. Granted there are many people out there who would much rather stack their gamer score than enjoy the game they are playing, but that is one of the many negative aspects of the incorporation of gamer scores into the world of video games that the gaming community has to deal with.

The fact remains. A consumer who has a silver account is not being deprived of anything by an outside force. They have chosen to remain in that state through their own free will. What they have is not an incomplete product, but a product that has the ability to unfurl into something more. When a consumer purchases a GM vehicle with On-Star capabilities but chooses not to purchase that service, they have not been given a defective or incomplete product, they have been given a product that has been tailored to their specifications. They have actively sought out to purchase the Xbox360 and have chosen to stay in a silver state. Why should the whole industry change how they feel their games should be presented to tailor to a small section of the market?

The truth of the matter is that the majority of people who play games play online. The main game in any game can only be played so many times before it becomes extremely stale. Incorporating achievements into the multilayer is just another way of getting consumers to come back and play their game time and time again months and months after it is released. That is the draw of any good achievement is it not? To ensure that a certain game is in the Xbox 360 drive at all times?

I for one feel that Gears of War AND Halo 3 were both on the right track. Halo 3 made sure to encourage multiple run throughs of the game by putting a variety of achievements into the game that could be unlocked through the main game and Gears of War ensured that people would be playing their multi-player long after the release of competitors games by incorporating achievements that required an extensive amount of dedication to multi-player.

In my opinion I feel that the inclusion of achievements and gamer scores has actually hindered the video game community in ways that are irreversible. More and more I see that people are more focused on boosting their gamer scores than playing for the love of the game. On top of that I hear more and more people say that once they 1000 a game they never touch it again which is a shame because most games have a lot more to offer that doesn't relate to achievements and gamerscore points but all that gets ignored. The "scene" has gone from people playing to play and love the game to people trying to prove who has the biggest penis.

[SuperGaz]

The "scene" has gone from people playing to play and love the game to people trying to prove who has the biggest penis.

ha i agree, Game set and match MetalHead.:woop:

[Raider]

I agree with you. Gears had awful multiplayer achievements. They should have kept the seriously achievement. Every good multiplayer game should have a 10,000 kill achievement. Something to show that you own in the game. Halo 3 I though had awful achievement based around luck. When I have a sword 3 people never came near me.

COD4 has an awesome multiplayer. I think they should have given just 500gp for the campaign and the last 500gp for multiplayer. A 10k kill achievement. 10 kills in a row. 7 kills, 5 kills and 3 kills. Win once on every game type, win once on every map. Reach level 50 etc. Rainbow 6 had its elite achievement meaning that you have to play the game for hundreds of hours online before you got this one, but it bizarrely had just a 100 kill achievement. I would have loved this game to have a 10,000 kill achievement and I would have reached it twice over by now.

[Zilla ll Dope]

Very interesting. I got my Gears of War weapon achievements by accident (though I did stay near the Boomshot on Gears quite a bit) ;)

I think 250/1000 or 1250 GamerScore should be multiplayer achievements. I know people who don't get online much and I can gaurentee they would have a 1000 on Gears, Pro Evo 6 and Football Manager 2007 but they have a daft score (ending with a 6) and I know how that feels :p (slightly annoying).
true but you can atleast get like 700 in gears as for somehow if they got the expansion pack and did those with another controller in local.

[CaptainMayhem88]

I'm one for just all 1000 for SP so you can play online without worrying about people just playing the game for the achievements.

[Marx0r]

""Sir, all multiplayer achievements eradicated"

I thought the exact same thing (More accurately, "all online achievements neutralized") when I saw the list. Great minds think alike, I assume.

IMO, Halo got it right. Either make the online achievements not gameplay-related (e.g. no "Kill 200 people online by running into them backwards and reflecting bullets off walls and back into them" achievement) or make them gameplay-related so that only you suffer for your poor performance (Lone Wolves only)

[Pibbz]

As someone who works on cruise ships, stays on them for around 6 months at a time and has no internet connection I say down with MP achievements. I've had my 360 for several months and racked up quite a few achievements. I came home on break and bought 3 months of XBL and found out I had to start all my achievements over because my current ones wouldn't transfer over to my live account. I'm trying to rack up as many MP achievements as I can before I bring my 360 back with me on a ship in January. Then after that it's 600/1000 for any game I play until I get home again. :(

[KewlBrettC]

First, your last post said single player is boring and no it's not. Weapon achievements suck. I hate the torque bow. I hate the hammer of dawn. I hate sniper and I hate trying to kill people with a pistol from a distance. Honestly, why can't I just stick to my boom shot, melee pistol, machine gun/chainsaw, and shot gun and just enjoy my time? I couldn't could I because I had to use these stupid weapons. Personally, I don't like online achievements. I go online to have fun but when I have to get some damn points for specific things.. gr. Something like 1000 kills overall or 500 kills is fine. But when you move into something like 40 points for territory and 50 points for assassination (just making these up) like most games do, it sucks. I don't want to play territory. I don't want to play assassination. I want to play what I want to play. That's just my two cent. I personally never liked the Hammer of Dawn and was never good with it. When it came to getting that achievement, I cursed endlessly at the screen. Kind of sucks that I wasted so many games getting that achievement. Damn you scuba steve damn you.

i don't understand why you guys would want to get rid of online achievements. They are great. They make me actually want to play online. Call of Duty 4 sucks because they have absolutely zero online achievements, so i really dont want to buy so i can play with my friend. I think its up to the developer to chose what achievements are in the game.

[NumberUno]

Multiplayer achievements are good for some games like Halo, and other very popular games just because you can find people to game with .. lets look for a minute at other games that suck online , you would never find people online to play with .. unless you post all over the internet looking for someone to play at a specific time .. so for those games your ethier stuck buy missing out on achievements that are harder to get then what they should be because noone is ever online .. it would be just good to maybe have a couple per game but nothing to hard .. and focus more on just single player achievements .. there is two good reasons for companys to just stick with single player achievements .. 1. You can get them on your own time and your not forced to play the game like mad when it first comes out just to find people to play online (which is most of the arcade games) & 2. Not everyone has live alot of people live in rural communitys so these people are screwed out of alot of GS because of no connection to LIVE ! .. i say down with multiplayer achievements or if not entirely all together then just have like 2 or 3 per game.

[KINGxSAINT]

I Wish games were all multi player achievements like Call Of Duty 4 and Halo 3.

[hestasrewind]

when i first got my 360 (mar 2005), I didnt have any access to live, so I couldnt achieve any online achievements, which really affected my gs (which is why we're all here lol), and now i have access to live, those games are no longer played by anyone, so i will never see a full score on any of those titles, and there will be many people who dont have this access and will be in the same boat in the future. This said, I agree that some online achievements are nice, but as someone mentioned earlier, maybe with a 0 gs, or, just a thought, maybe a dl achievement set, which adds a few achievements when you do take your game online? This would still mean that people who play single player would be able to get the full 1k, but maybe the people who access live could maybe get an extra 100-200? just a thought.

[SinisterTarheel]

hey as long it has both offline and online achievements it doesn't matter. the multiplayer ones challenge unless you got your friends helping you

[buck wyyld]

I Wish games were all multi player achievements like Call Of Duty 4 and Halo 3.

...but COD4 has no multiplayer achievements. I wish it did, with all the customization and quality fragging to be had. The Halo 3 achievements were by and large fun, but necessitating many be done in 'Lone Wolves' arenas just blows. The Gears achievements are brutal for this same reason. Live is set up to play with friends, so I think it's fair to demand developers recognize this.

Then take a look at something that's just broken, like The Darkness online's lagging flagellated FPS hell. It's a tough call for some programmers to be able to glean whether players will flock to their game online or not, especially considering that the game's not even done as they design their achievements sometimes, yet placing thoughtful goals that either reveal new elements of quality gameplay or play well upon the game's obvious strengths are always the most intriguing and enjoyable to obtain, whether in single or multiplayer.

That said, I'd like to see fewer 'Beat game on X difficulty', 'Finished X without dying' and 'Won X games in league online' achievements simply because they force you to play the game (many times, not all) in a very narrow or repetitive manner. "Harpoon five enemies to the trunk of a car', 'Toaster in the bath' and playing the 2 alternate endings to Criminal Origins have been some of the best achievements I've earned simply because they were a blast to try. Like anything, these games can oftentimes do a better job of playing to their strengths to impress us instead of monotonously copying the lists from all other games of the same genre.

[mcnichoj]

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but if you can't play online then what do you need gamerscore for anyway? GS is essentially a way to show-off to other people online that you have obtained certain things in games.

[Webb]

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but if you can't play online then what do you need gamerscore for anyway? GS is essentially a way to show-off to other people online that you have obtained certain things in games.

There is such things as personal feelings of accomplishment and having something to show for them :)

Like a virtual diary if you must :p

[Defcizion]

Nice write up. I really enjoyed it. My view on mutliplayer achievements, shouldn't involve certain ways of killing. It should be just straight out killing. Like GoW shoulnd't have 100 or so of this type, it should still have it's Seriously. I like the cumulation and the over-time achievements, but not when they factor in what I kill them with.

[TIGERBOOBOO]

I can't agree more with you. Online achievements have been taken overboard. Many games have a great multiplayer, but either bad/glitched achievements or almost impossible achievements. I would like to see 1000 GS in the single-player of a game with 0 Gamerscore (but still achievements ) in the Multiplayer. For me, after playing the 360 I don't see a point in playing games to play them :p. I play them to achieve something. ' 0 pointers ' would help me play the multiplayer version of the game as well as make me feel special when that " Achievement Unlocked" pops up ( even if it says 0 Gamerscore ).

I agree. Way too many achievements on the online side. Also takes way longer to achieve the online achievements. Some are next to impossible. ALso, some games that have online achievements are now obsolete as far as people playing them. Also, some servers have been taken down.

[TIGERBOOBOO]

I Wish games were all multi player achievements like Call Of Duty 4 and Halo 3.

That sir, IS LUDICROUS at best. No one has the time to play every game online for 50 or 60 hours, then by the time you get to some games the server is down or there is nobody playing anymore.

[SynysterChris]

personaly i think online achievements are great they make u get better at a game. but i must all games should be a straight 1000 offline then all game should have a patch for the 250 online if that game has online to begin with. and in cases like shadowrun where it is all online then the game has 1000 all online so that would make the whole thing better. so u can have the 1000 and choose to go for the extra 250. or to fix this all games should come standard with 1250 gamerscore so 1000 for offline and 250 for online and if they choose to add more achieves with DLC then they add more achievements.

[TheTrueDanteSparda]

Im kinda in the middle with this, Because you can get games with all 1000 being offline and it could end up as ludicrously(sp?) easy as The Last Airbender, which you can 1k in about 20 mins apparently. I wouldn't know as I refuse to boost my score with that game.
At least in Fight Night and King Kong you have to complete the game. (easiest two games I know of, Not sure how easy CSI is though...)

I think Halo got it right really, It was balanced well, Still need to get around to finishing legendary personally, but it'll happen in time. COD4 got it right as well though, by adding little challenges such as saving rosywich(sp?) on the stairs and saving the farmer. Just little things like that.

Some online achievements are nice as long as their not way way way way stupid. ("Seriously..." i'm looking at you) A challenge, yes, stupid. No.

It's a question of balance, no?

[hightree22]

well put. Some games have better online multi player experiences than others, but on the whole, it shapes how people play, or organize themselves to play, and can suck the fun out of it - for some games. It did that for me on Gears of War, but not on Ghost Recon Advanced War Fighter 1 or 2. Not sure I can peg why, but a few bad experiences with Gears, and I never went back. Some great experiences with GRAW and GRAW 2, and I still go hard on those games.

[theruler]

def agree with you on this one but you forgot to mention how even though some are balanced games like halo3 and gears the games can be glitched :(

[SoulProphet85]

well, multiplayer achievements are fun to achieve but lets not forget that there are some games that no one plays online anymore (i.e. Juiced 2: HIN). I feel that multiplayer achievements do give you a better experience online but that experience dies when you get the game at a later date. Some games will eventually lose players when new games come out (i.e. Gears Of War) this trend just doesn't really deserve to be the majority of the game, instead the single player game should be better for people to play (i.e. Call Of Duty 4).

[hansen578]

i hate how there is gears achivement matches
halo 3 had a great achivement list because you had to get the achievements in lone wolves so there would be no way to boost
Call of Duty 4 had the best Single player campaign ever which would only make it okay to have no multiplayer achivements

[ClutchPapi34]

I love multiplayer achievements. I think the online achievements give you another thing to do in the online mode. It keeps the games interesting. I wish COD 4 had some online achievements.

[vI Starlight Iv]

i really likemp achievements but it is ridiculous when they are in the game and you have to do ranked!!!

I want to play multiplayer with my friends thats the point. Even worse that in halo 3 i have to do lone wolf a specific type of ranked.

Multiplayer acheivements are fine but let me do them with friends on one team and randoms on the other!!!!!!!1