Multiplayer Achievements - A Gamer in Limbo [Archive]

DarkGeneral88

08-05-2007, 11:25 PM

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

08-05-2007, 11:46 PM

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

08-06-2007, 12:36 AM

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

08-06-2007, 01:41 AM

SpaceShot

08-06-2007, 01:53 AM

KewlBrettC

08-06-2007, 01:57 AM

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

NevEP

08-06-2007, 02:17 AM

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

08-06-2007, 02:22 AM

Single Player is boring

PerpetualHeaven

08-06-2007, 02:55 AM

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

08-06-2007, 03:27 AM

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

08-06-2007, 03:37 AM

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

08-06-2007, 03:58 AM

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

08-06-2007, 05:50 AM

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

08-06-2007, 06:35 AM

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

08-06-2007, 12:02 PM

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

08-06-2007, 12:37 PM

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

08-06-2007, 02:28 PM

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

08-06-2007, 02:47 PM

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

08-06-2007, 05:37 PM

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

08-06-2007, 05:44 PM

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

08-06-2007, 05:54 PM

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

08-06-2007, 06:04 PM

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

08-06-2007, 08:14 PM

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

08-06-2007, 08:22 PM

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

08-06-2007, 10:51 PM

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

08-07-2007, 12:18 AM

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

08-07-2007, 10:55 AM

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

08-07-2007, 11:39 AM

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

08-07-2007, 12:46 PM

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

08-07-2007, 06:27 PM

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

08-07-2007, 07:06 PM

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

08-08-2007, 12:45 AM

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

08-08-2007, 10:48 AM

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

08-08-2007, 02:03 PM

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

08-08-2007, 06:10 PM

mig0

08-09-2007, 12:31 AM

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

08-09-2007, 07:06 PM

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

08-16-2007, 05:54 AM

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

08-16-2007, 05:31 PM

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

08-17-2007, 08:23 PM

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

09-01-2007, 01:09 AM

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

09-01-2007, 09:32 PM

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

09-03-2007, 01:57 AM

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

09-11-2007, 01:16 AM

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

09-11-2007, 11:20 AM

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

10-06-2007, 11:57 PM

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

10-07-2007, 01:48 AM

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

CaptainMayhem88

10-08-2007, 06:17 PM

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

10-08-2007, 07:47 PM

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

10-09-2007, 05:57 AM

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

11-01-2007, 06:04 AM

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

11-02-2007, 04:09 PM

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

11-06-2007, 12:27 AM

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

11-22-2007, 11:43 AM

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

11-30-2007, 09:10 PM

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

12-01-2007, 01:29 AM

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

12-02-2007, 03:52 AM

""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

12-02-2007, 06:43 AM

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

12-02-2007, 03:41 PM

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.

Scotian Bred

12-07-2007, 08:25 AM

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

12-08-2007, 02:19 AM

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

hestasrewind

12-08-2007, 09:46 AM

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

12-08-2007, 03:20 PM

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

12-09-2007, 10:58 AM

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

12-09-2007, 08:08 PM

Webb

12-09-2007, 08:28 PM

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

12-10-2007, 11:33 PM

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

12-23-2007, 01:46 PM

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

12-23-2007, 01:51 PM

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

12-25-2007, 08:56 PM

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

12-27-2007, 03:21 PM

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

02-21-2008, 04:01 PM

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

02-24-2008, 02:51 AM

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

02-27-2008, 02:48 AM

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

03-13-2008, 10:47 PM

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

03-13-2008, 10:52 PM

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

03-18-2008, 02:18 PM

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

GamingEconomist

01-13-2010, 08:11 PM

I kinda hate MP Achievements if you dont have a good team or some good friends around to help you with them.

Rhiot

01-13-2010, 11:18 PM

I only think multiplayer achievements should be added through updates. But to still feel a sense of accomplishment, You should have a good ranking/rewarding system like Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2

Eambo

01-14-2010, 01:59 AM

Personally, I think achievements are taking a lot of out games, and making them more grinding to try and draw every last minute of playability out of the usually very short games that are around these days.

If you look at older games, such as Final Fantasy, you could get literally 20+ hours of gameplay just completing the main storyline. Most games these days, you can complete in 2/3 hours.

Developers seem to think making an achievement to kill 100,000,000,000 of the same enemy on a level will make the game last longer.

One of the best systems I've seen was from Enchanted Arms. Not only was it a good, decent length game, but the achievements were 100% whenever you completed the game. As you progressed the main story, you got the achievements. All's good.

I think developers need to step back and think about what they're doing when they're making achievements. For example, I've seen devs (EA, I'm looking at you!) with achievements that can only be earned on particular weekends (NFS game weekends) which I find really annoying. I'm not an achievement whore, I'm a completionist - I'd rather 100% 5 games than 10% 500 games (as a lot of my friends do).

However it gets to the point where games are no longer enjoyable. For example GH3's achievements are extremely hard. And look at XBLA game such as Bejewelled and Hexic. I've yet to have anyone on my friends list who hasn't got the usual 3/4 achievements that are humanely attainable in Hexic - the others are either pure luck or madness :-P

Developers need to go back to their roots and work more on gameplay and story, less on grinding achievements. Don't get me wrong, I do ocassionally like the odd 'go out of your way to do this' achievement, however whenever there's a possibility of missing an achievement (requiring an entire playthrough to get it) or it requires hours of doing the same thing over and over, I can't help but feel developers are just milking gameplay hours...

That's my two cents on the topic =-P

Tailz

01-14-2010, 02:06 AM

Outside of maybe 10 games. Nobody will play Multiplayer games. So they have to do them and frankly whats the big deal? If someone is that concerned with their leaderboard status because someone isnt playing and only boosting for achievements and they are that upset then maybe they shouldnt be playing either.

FamiDude

01-14-2010, 12:39 PM

I'm all against online achievements. Why you ask?

1. Cheats. People who will contually cheat to get those ranked achievements. It takes the fun out of it when you come up against people who just ruin it for others.

2. Servers shutting down. EA I'm looking at you! Why bother making games with online achievements if they won't always be available? Of course the biggie was Chromehounds. 99% of that game us unplayable now.

3. No community after the first couple of weeks. Tried getting a game on stuff like Samurai Shodown 2? No one plays it any more except for a few hardcore who are so good it's not worth trying.

Suzuka Miyamoto

01-15-2010, 02:12 AM

What about games like Perfect dark zero?

That game has multiplayer achievements, but you can get them by playing with bots ( Ai ).

Steve50013

01-15-2010, 02:31 AM

This thread is three years old? Why has it just been resurrected again?

Webb

01-15-2010, 10:02 AM

This thread is three years old? Why has it just been resurrected again?

Editorials never get old I suppose. That's why :D

Chaos Lung

01-18-2010, 05:04 PM

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

Why does gamerscore matter if your offline anyway?? Its just a number that gets you nowhere in life. Just something for bragging rights if Im not mistaken. I think that if your pay same price for a game as someone who is online, then you should be able to get the same amount of gamerscore.

I have a mate who cannot be bothered with online, and has to search through games that are offline just so he can get a decent amount of gamerscore. We have our own little contest with eachother who ahs better gamerscore, and Im lagging behind by 7,000 so far. Its just a laugh for us, but if he buys a game with 600ish gamerscore online, its gonna be a waste of money for him when I can get same game, go online, and get closer to 1,000 than he can.

Re4dy4War

01-28-2010, 02:50 PM

I'm against online achievements. Some of the games I have been playing lately have no online community left.

Prey and Battlefield 2: Modern combat are two examples. I have every offline achievement for both of these games (among others). But the chances of me finding a serious game anymore to complete the online achievements legitimately are next to none.

The only chance I have now is to either boost, or try to conjure up an old school gaming night in one of the communities I belong to. By the way, if you are wondering how many people I game with that still have Prey, the answer is 0.

I still plan to finish Prey as competitively as I can by renting a second copy to play against my teenage kids, but it still sucks that I'll have to resort to that.

I like the idea of the 0 gamerscore achievements for MP, but I will still feel inclined to go for those as well. What I would like to see instead is more than one option to getting these achievements.

For instance: Call of Duty 3 has the online achievements for ranked. 'General' being the highest, you need 40,000 points online to unlock it. Now, I played the hell out of this game online, just not in ranked playlists. I would like to have seen these MP achievements obtainable in a single player fashion as an option as well. So, yes, you could unlock the 'General' achievement by getting your 40,000 points in ranked MP, or you could get the same achievement by killing 2000 Nazi's throughout your campaigns (just an example). That way, it's still a challenge, but it's not online only.

DeekBoy

01-29-2010, 08:13 PM

i know what you mean about those pesky online achieves. like call of duty WaW has 2 for prestiging and i know that i will never hit 10 prestige in that game. im glad that the new one doenst have those. Halo 3 was a nitghtmare but now that i have all of them im relieved.

GhOsT SLaYeR

01-31-2010, 07:01 AM

chaosmaster074

01-31-2010, 09:34 AM

There should never be online achievements, period. Not even 0 point ones. Advertising for Xbox Live makes it seem like its an infinite pool of hip young gamers who are constantly playing any given game at any given time, all wanting to play with YOU. All you need to do is pop the game in and play, right? Wrong. See, despite how you payed $60 for the game and $50 for the permission to play it, the entire ordeal hinges on whether if other people are playing. What Live glorifies as premium magical online gameplay of the future brought straight to your entertainment center is no more than an average sleazy internet lobby, what the nerdier half of gamers have had for years before, what other people get for free. The only times MS's promises of a massive community is on Halo or (perhaps to its displeasure) Call of Duty. So, if no one's playing...then you can't get the achievements. This should never happen on my premium magical online gameplay!

Developers sometimes use achievements to bribe people into playing what they don't want to. Let me rephrase: what no one would want to. They use achievements to push DLC's out the door too, as they are aware that there are people who will play something they don't really like at least once around if it has gimme achievements. We're addicted, and they have the ultimate drug, as it doesn't cost them anything to give away a number, but it sure does make them a lot. I dread the day an awful game gets a higher rating due to being good for achievements.

CoD4 style games have it right -- challenges for online, achievements for offline. Challenges have all the fun of achievements, except no one cares if they can't complete them, so they can be cheeky and fun.

Achievements should only be based on things guaranteed to be possible and plausible. Not just for the first couple months after the game comes out. If it means anything, GS should stand for skill, not wealth or willingness to buy what they're dishing out. Though, it is pretty ridiculous to even think that, seeing as Microsoft and the entire industry are, indeed, businesses, and so GamerScore is almost certainly used to ego prod hardcore gamers into buying more rather than a pure-hearted attempt at gauging proficiency in games (imagine a world where your kills on Call of Duty increased your GS instead of paying admission for a game and doing hare-brained tasks with pithy names). That's just the way it is, but don't mistake it.

Ideally, achievements should be fun to get. They should not involve grinding. They should have a definite difficulty (looking at you, online achievements). They should not involve luck (again, online). They should be imaginative. They should not be missable. They should not shape or alter they way you play the game, at all. They should not require you to use a roadmap or to learn one beforehand. They should not keep you from enjoying the game (developers had to be insane making these). The best achievement list ever would probably get you all 1000 points just by playing through a game that would be fantastic without achievements. THAT...would be a dream come true. Might even cost extra.

Capn Doug

02-02-2010, 04:03 AM

Multiplayer achievements fall into the category of "have you tried this" achievements. They are a set of things that make the game different from the competitors or the games predecessors, perhaps you should try them. Having online achievements that almost certainly require boosting, on the other hand, does not fall into this category. For example, NHL 08 has an achievement for beating someone ranked in the top 100. This is almost impossible unless you are really good, really lucky or can get a player in the top 100 to throw a game. Killing three people with a single gun shot, having 1000 people online at the same time, these require boosting.

I am not sure that there should be a rule saying "no multiplayer achievements," but there should be a line somewhere that says: this should be realisticly possible for a player with moderate skill to achieve with out boosting, playing for fun within 30 hours. That is reasonable. Creating achievements that require boosting is not. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Designers (some more than others) often use achievements as a way to get people to buy the game early, play the game often and then upgrade to the next one at the end of the year. Smart business and perfectly fine for those of us who are not completionists, but irks some of those in this community.

Achievements should encourage you to explore the game, not just play through it start to finish and then trade it in. Look at the lists that BioWare creates. They have a lot of story achievements, but also a few cyrptic ones, and a few ones that encourage you to explore the features of the games, like find all four endings in Dragon Age or combine biotic powers 20 times in Mass Effect 2. Play this type of online game, do this five times (total, not in one session), these are the same thing. They encourage you to explore the game. They are not horribly difficult, they do not require you to spend hours online, they are not likely to irritate anyone beyond those who want to complain about something (this creature infests the nether regions of the internet).

In a sense, designers can't win. If they include only story based achievements (CSI: Hard Evidence) they are accused of making it too easy. If they include mutliplayer achievements they are ripped for doing so. If they include collectible achievements, they are ripped for doing so. If they include a hard one in a children's game (Lego Rock Band), they are ripped for making a game that 8 year olds can't 100%. If they include an achievement that forces you to play on a difficulty that needs to be unlocked, they are ripped for forcing you to play a game twice when you didn't like the game the first time through.

The only way to make a a perfect achievement list is to make a list of 60 "challenges" and hand out an achievement every time you finish a challenge until you reach 50 challenges. That way the 10 that you think are too hard for you to do, you don't have to do. Ten online challenges after the server shuts down? Well, just do the 50 offline ones. But then, your achievement list will just have, "Completed one challenge - 20 Gs" ins tead of "Completed Level 3 Without Dying - 20 Gs." Wait in this example, all achievements would have the same point value, like Dead Rising which had complaints about that, so I refer back to my earlier point: Designers can't win. If they can't win, why not put in some interesting and attainable multiplayer achievements?

Mahtan Tinuviél

02-11-2010, 07:33 PM

I go on the same line as above.

Achievements should be a way to encourage you to play the game more, or even again.
Another good point about on-line achievements is that, after a while playing a game, like CoD for ex., unless you are playing against other people it gets really dull. You know where to shoot, etc.
There are rare exceptions, like Bioshock and Assasin´s Creed were even without multiplayer you will get the game.

The downpoints are:
Not everybody has Live, and in a lot of countries Live is not supported. So if you are a completionist you will pay for lack of structure from MS or will have to find a way around it.
In some games there is not much place for multiplayer, but they put it in nevertheless to make a part of gamers happy.
There are multiplayer achivements (like Gears kill 10.000 dudes on-line) that are just time-consuming. After you are finished you just wasted 400 hours of your life on it. Others are almost impossible to get.

It will of course be very difficult to get a list of achivements that will make every single gamer happy.

I believe that as Live gets bigger and more people join in, it will be almost impossible for a game not to have ANY multiplayer action, even if it is simple battle, and not giving achievements for those will be very unusual.

Blah 2k

02-11-2010, 08:17 PM

Nothing towards multi-player addicts, but seriously, what's the point? Why aggravate people that have offline or silver accounts by having multi-player achievements, when they pay just as much for the game as you do? Ruining their achievement completion percentage.

My suggestion (albeit not worth much to some) is to have a multi-player only progression system (like World at War, MW 1 and 2) for the multi-player variant of the games, and have the regular marks for single-player as far as achievements go. Keep achievements out of multi-player! I can't stand achievement whoring fools who constantly do the same thing match after match, just for a stupid "blip" that pops up on-screen.

Don't get me wrong, I love the satisfaction of an achievement popping up every now and again, but not to the point where it aggravates other gamers trying to enjoy the game for reasons OTHER than achievements.

FigNewton85

02-25-2010, 05:33 PM

Skreacher

02-28-2010, 04:08 AM

Online achievements hould be similar to WoW's Feaths of Strenghts, Achievements that serve no points or purpose except bragging rights.

Brutalsleeper

02-28-2010, 01:38 PM

Some one mentioned earlier on dual-purpose achievements. 700ishGs could be pure single player and the other 300ish could be for moderate difficulty on-line achievements OR related but harder Single player achievements.
E.g.
Machine Gunner 20GS
Kill 50 people with a machine gun (MP)
OR Kill 250 people with a machine gun (SP)

JoshYo 16

03-01-2010, 05:55 AM

I don't mind multiplayer achievements unless they require too much time. I could see an achievement for 250 kills on a multiplayer shooter. However an achievement like getting 10th prestige on CoD: World at War? OUTRAGEOUS.

Another thing that pisses me off about multiplayer achievements is the fact that you HAVE to pay to get them. I personally am a member of xbox live, and don't plan on stopping any time soon. However, that doesn't change the fact that if you don't like online play, noone cares about you. Fork up the $5 a month or gtfo with your not-so-100% completion. $5 a month is nothing - petty change, but why would you wanna pay for something that you have no intent on using besides for getting achievements?

My opinion in the long run. EVERYONE should be able to 100% EVERY GAME. Not kicked to the curb, because they don't wanna pay $10 for some crappy DLC. Or left to rot because they have no desire to pay $5 a month for something they don't want to use. All online or DLC achievements should be 0G, and should not count towards 100% completion(if you have all the achievements besides online ones, the game should appear in your "completed games" section of the dashboard).

Another thing I dislike about achievements is the fact that the score you get hardly ever reflects the difficulty or amount of time spent doing it. I don't want to play a game on it's hardest difficulty for 50G, I'll take 75 or 100. (0G on CoD:WaW for getting level 70, however the achievement is still required for 100% completion.)

master_shake_350

03-02-2010, 04:47 PM

Single Player is boring

Single player can be boring but I prefer to obtain achievements with out the use of interacting with douchebags that won't help you out but I guess that is the whole point of boosting.

I dislike online achievements because of the reason mentioned above and because if you pick up older games, some you can no longer get achievements online due to glitches or server shut downs!

Zenfrozt

03-05-2010, 03:02 PM

Online achievements are frustrating paticularly for those of us who may not have fast enough internet to deal with online play. Perhaps in the future online achievements should be counted seperately, rather than counting towards a gamer's score. You end up feeling penalised for an inability to play online very much.

Mahtan Tinuviél

03-05-2010, 03:57 PM

Another issue about on-line achievements is the current MS greed.

Come on, 40 GS for Dante´s and 90 GS for Brütal Legend is just a way of getting completionist to download the DLC even if they did not like the game that much.

Don´t get me wrong (I´ve downloaded both), if you like the game then achievements wouldn´t really count.

Also with time they become impossible (try to get PES 2009 online now the 2010 is on sale), or you need to find a boosting partner and relly on their good will.

F8L Fool

03-08-2010, 10:23 AM

I personally love multiplayer achievements. I think they're brilliant and there's very few games that I could imagine playing without them. I despise that the CoD franchise strays away from them, and only completed MW2's because I had already told friends I'd help them with Spec-Op's.

Online achievements are great if and only if they are really designed well. It's no different than a bad single player achievement in my eyes. I'd much rather have to get thousands of kills online, rather than play through a game 2-3 times to finally unlock the hardest difficulty that the last achievement is for.

Multiplayer achievements will be more and more commonplace, trust me. The reason for that is every genre is trying to incorporate online more and more each year. Shooters that didn't have MP are getting it (BioShock 2, Uncharted, etc.), RPG's are getting it (Demon's Souls and White Knight Chronicles may be on the PS but you can bet your ass similar stuff for 360 and PC's will be happening), and the list really drags on.

Online gaming is the now, and the future. Soon you'll be more surprised by a game not having MP (at the very least online) features and achievements than anything.

Look at Halo, Gears of War, and Bad Company if you want to see what the real deal is with online achievements. If only every game did the same, gaming would be a better place for me.

Brutalsleeper

03-08-2010, 02:50 PM

At the end of the day achievements are a set of goals the developers think we should be rewarded for, whether that be on-line or off it is their progative to choose. I do prefer off line achievements but I don't want to banish on-line ones nor do I want rules deciding what achievements can be for what game modes, part of the fun is the variation between games.

So yes I would like less on-line achievements but not at the expense of the variation they offer.

Diskidgotsol3

03-10-2010, 05:32 PM

I kind of like online achievements.because it makes me fell like im paying live for something. lol

DopeySO

03-11-2010, 08:55 AM

My stance is in between... I like to get achievements by doing stuff online.. but I also hate some online achievements. Mostly grinding achievements.. like hit 'x' rank (which takes like 1+ month(s) )

I agree with this. A few online achievements here and there arent bad. Its the ones that are like play 1000 games, or kill 10000 people that just turn into massive grind fests and just arent fun.

Future13579

04-13-2010, 03:59 PM

I hate online achievements, apart from the ones for games that the main focus is online, like battlefield bad co. and MW2, which should have proper onlineachievements not spec ops

Wortsenawl

04-14-2010, 08:03 AM

I am not a fan of online only achievements parlty because I initially didn't want to have to pay to play online... it pisses me off. If you want to charge online then reduce the cost of the game slightly - though I realise the MS own the online side, so they are the ones that profit not necesarrily the developer - but I digress.

Anyways, I don't mind too much if the online achievement are possible for the average gamer. Not all of us can spend every day and night honing our skills, so getting x kills in a row for many gamers, unless they are boosing, is not possible, even less so with all the cheating that goes on. I like most of the GoW ones as you can do them locally with friends, or with BOTS or they are rewarded for team efforts like horde.

Too many online achievements rely not only on your skill, but luck and your team mates allowing you to get the achievements. I also don't like that they have to be in ranked matches - which again points to the non-private, just playing with friends, which in my mind is what online gaming is really all about. Saving us old school gamers from lugging PCs, monitors, etc to friends houses to set up an LAN and play together.

Tenlo

04-14-2010, 05:57 PM

I think developers should also take into consideration how many people are likely to play their game realistically online. Games like GOW, Halo and COD are going to have busy servers where online achievements are possible, if time-consuming. Other games, like Prey and Brutal Legend, should leave them out. Perhaps test the waters of your online game with a version without achievements and if it becomes popular add achievements in the next instalment (And if it is popular you know there will be a second instalment).

Bioshock 2 is a good example, not many complicated achievements to get online, ok, the ranking can be time consuming, but the community seems to be there to support this, which perhaps 2k already knew. I still see people playing this who lvl 40+ so its definitely got something pulling people back in

Action!

04-17-2010, 08:28 AM

I think developers should also take into consideration how many people are likely to play their game realistically online. Games like GOW, Halo and COD are going to have busy servers where online achievements are possible, if time-consuming. Other games, like Prey and Brutal Legend, should leave them out.

I entirely and whole-heartedly agree. Certain games should not bother including online achievements for the sheer fact that there is no community to support them. Some games, especially older or more obscure titles, NECESSITATE boosting for certain achievements, which is in my opinion unacceptable.

Vonzipper

04-17-2010, 12:00 PM

I have only been a member for a short while so this is the first Editorial I have read and I actually liked it a lot! I totally agree on how multiplayer achievements are reasons for people to get distracted from fully enjoying the multiplayer experience and focus on boosting. I know it because I do it!

Modern Warfare on Xbox Live I can happily play without worrying which achievement I need to get next in MP, or how many guys I need to kill to get 'X' achievement (Save that for the challenges ;)). Sometimes though a rubbish game can have MP achievements almost as an excuse to get people to play the Multiplayer such as James Camerons Avatar or Rogue Warrior. Noone actually wants to play the multiplayer on those games because it's good, they just want the achievements then be done with it!

Nice piece of writing Webb, I'll definitely have to check out some more Editorials from now on! :)

FigNewton85

04-20-2010, 08:12 PM

I think Modern Warfare 2 has been a perfect blend of single-player/co-op and multiplayer. The achievements were great, challenging, and fun! I'm glad there aren't any multiplayer achievements staring at me, so I can enjoy the optional unlockables found in prestige, challenges, and callsigns/titles.

daruna

04-22-2010, 12:04 AM

I personally hate multiplayer achievements with a passion but they have a place particularly for multiplayer fanatics and for the cynic inside me as a good measure of popularity for marketing people.

You know what really gets on my nerves? Secret achievements for seemingly random things. I mean it seems so daft that the achievements list shows stuff that reveals stuff or is a blatent spoiler and then has secret achievemtns like "shot a gnome" or something. Yeah I went OT just had to vent. Thankyou.

$RebelG

04-24-2010, 08:57 PM

I don't like multiplayer achievements at all. I don't always have enough money to pay for Live, and I never buy the year Live because I know I go through at least 4months or more periods where I don't play online at all just because I don't feel like it or want to.

Now don't get me wrong, some online achievements are pretty fun take for example GTA IV where you have to kill a R* player to get that zombie skin, that was pretty cool. Not hard at all, and you know its going to come sooner or later, you don't have to work for it and its not impossible. Now some of the other online achievements IV had were impossible. Okay, maybe not impossible for everyone - but really really long winded or just based on total luck.

If developers put in those kind of online achievements then I really wouldn't mind because you know you'd eventually get it by just enjoying the game online and not having to think about ''I have to kill X amount of people'' or ''I need X amount of XP''

Hell, even if they got rid of online achievements all together I'd be happy, because I don't always want to play online. I really enjoy the achievements where they make you explore the game, or go over it in a different manor and stuff. You know like that one achievement in Fallout 3 where you have to collect like 30 Nuka cola bottles? That's time consuming sure, but its a lot better/easier than having to deal with online ones. Same goes for the Dead Rising game achievements, some of them seem really enjoyable. Like ''Kill X amount of zombies with a certain weapon'' or ''Complete story with X ending'' Things like that again, are time consuming but it lets you play through again and go for other achievements rather than having to worry about getting everything in 1 play through.

KillerBEA

04-26-2010, 07:40 AM

I kind of like online achievements.because it makes me fell like im paying live for something. lol
:whsPlaying mp lets me feel like iam getting my moneys worth out of my live subscriptions. That said i dont play online in games that dont have mp achievements such as mw2, thats part of the reason i like bad company so much cause EVERYONE can see that i reached rank 22. I like mp achievements please DONT go away.

mhkerr

04-27-2010, 11:09 AM

I think multiplayer achievement have their place in games that can guaranty a decent online community, like halo, gears etc.

But I dont like them for the simple reason that some of them are now impossible to get, ie a lot of EA sports ones.

As consumers we wouldnt put up with this in any other form of entertainment we purchase; If I buy a 3 year dvd, I still expect to be able to enjoy the extra features, not be told sorry you should have bought this film when it came out and the ablity to watch the deleted scenes was turned off six months ago or you can only watch it if someone else in the world is watching at the same time.

Developers are releasing more and more dlc in an effort to make money as pre owned games and rental are becoming more popular. They should realise that rental and used games allow people to play stuff they wouldnt normally be comfortable paying full price for and if they like them, they might be inclined to buy the sequal/next game on release. However if an old game comes with unachievable online achievements it may put people of buying that developers product in the future. Alot of people feel this way about EA.

Haddati

04-28-2010, 03:30 PM

Hello everyone
As a lot have said before, multiplayer achievements can be fun or a pain, depending on the comunity of a given game.

I got Red Faction Guerrilla a few months back, and it was very time consuming to get some of the online achievements, because the comunity is really small.

I totally support the idea of separete "paths" for achievements, but I also think that many of this are more directed to hardcore gamers or just ppl with too much time on there hands haha

Regards

Mastershke1

04-28-2010, 04:37 PM

Theres to many games with multiplayer, it shouldn't be a pre-requisite for all games that are released. I'm not sure why developers think they need multiplayer to sell, but there are plenty of great games that do not have multiplayer. That being said, to get back on topic, multiplayer achievements are mostly a grind and are not fun at all. Repetitive, boring, and they kill my completion percentage. I mean why the fuck did grand theft auto need multiplayer, fucking clown shoes.

Opiate42

04-28-2010, 08:31 PM

Achievements for online grinding really just don't appeal, not a whole lot of fun.

MP mode achievements for rank and getting X no. of kills with such'n'such weapon I can say I despise but they have a place for those who enjoy grinding away at a game.

Which I don't. I love the Gears series but can honestly say I will never get any of the 100 kills per weapon in the first game or hit lvl 50 let alone 100 in the second, think I'm at level 16...mostly from Horde. Seriously...well I won't even touch those, 4 plays of G2 and only at 8,800. 8.8% of the way there...yay.

The best kind of multiplayer achievements are co-op squad based games like in Horde, Firefight, Zombies and Spec Ops. Those are stupidly fun and rewarding getting together with your buds and bashing through and are far more enjoyable in replay value, not requiring an online community that may not exist outside of ahievement boosting (i.e. Prey, Timeshift, etc...)

If they are going to have MP achievements then many of the Halo 3 ones are great to use as an example (mostly), by accomplishing certain feats during a single match: sprees, vehicle rundowns, etc. Those are fun and can happen anytime. Bioshock 2's that involved saving a sister or getting your first Big Daddy kill ditto. Hitting level 30 or 40? Grrrr....not so much.

Leave the level grind on the sidelines developers oh please oh please oh please! There has to be better ways to thank your dedicated players!!

pepo0

05-01-2010, 11:14 PM

I dont like the online achievements cause not everybody can have gold acc and this is kind of making you to get one

CMTony

05-05-2010, 11:08 AM

The worst bit of any game's achievements are when they add some for DLC. Especially when people can't always get the DLC which makes their completion rate even worse.

MinginMate

05-06-2010, 10:13 AM

i like online multi player achievements if they aren't insane

you know those achievements for playing 500 games in a sports game or 50 something hours

or even the amass a huge amount of points acheeves, hate those

hynch

05-07-2010, 02:02 AM

Multiplayer achievements turn me off. I rarely put in enough multiplayer time to earn any of them.

LukeG69

05-09-2010, 02:42 PM

bedlight

05-10-2010, 03:01 AM

I absolutely hate multiplayer achievements. I'm not good at online. Not in the slightest. So having to deal with trying to get those, really erks me. I usually don't get games as soon as they come out, so when I get around to it, the online community has dwindled. Which makes it harder to get achievements. Plus the people who do stay on the game, are immensely better than I could ever imagine to be. The rank ones are the ones I despise the least though. Simply because whether I'm good or bad, if I play enough, I'll get them. Like Bioshock. First 15 levels, I was PHENOMENAL. Then I was eh, and the last 5 levels to get to 30, I was horrendous. I honestly have no idea how I was that good in the beginning, but it was great. The ones that are sheer luck, or kill an assload of guys, are just unnecessary. Especially if they're like kill a bunch of guys with certain weapons. Those I believe should be online or off.

/rant.

Arkalivan

05-11-2010, 04:44 PM

I agree with the achievements when they're plausible to get without an exploit and actually challenging. The current one I'm concerned with and will get around to eventually is the achievements surrounding Saints Row 2 Co-op campaign. Rants abound of how glitchy the experience is and how it's best to start and finish the entire game with one person. Unless you have a dependable friend, this can be problematic.

How many of the people on your list that you've only met over Live can you expect to start a story mode with you, and stick with you through the entire thing, or even get on often enough to speed the process up? Multiplayer achievements aren't my gripe as much as achievements that require your dependence on another person's presence.

Aside from dependable people, Live usually sees people moving on to games new to the market often enough. Perhaps you simply want to complete a game that's been out so long that, the simple act of finding a match is time consuming, especially if it wasn't a game that got much spotlight time even back when it was brand new. It's arguable that you've actually achieved anything when you need the presence of others to attain it.

nutkar97

05-11-2010, 06:43 PM

agreed, MP achievements shouldnt be too important, as there are many players who dont have internet access and therefore cant physically do them. this makes them unable to complete many games, which they paid full price for.

make the MP acheivements as a free download, then if you wish to do them, you download the patch, and can get them, if you dont, dont download it :P

stinkracer

05-16-2010, 02:41 PM

This may have been brought up but I find it annoying when no one is playing the games online anymore. How is a person supposed to finish MP achievements if there is no multiplayer?

dx_08mpa

05-17-2010, 12:59 AM

I don't see where it is fair to have multiplayer achievements when not everybody can get a good teammate to get these or even more just like the last guy said some multiplayer is discontinued. Just because I waited for the price to drop on a game shouldn't mean I can't get achievements because they already discontinued the multiplayer.

Sir Kayne

05-30-2010, 02:28 AM

Good points. To me, it seems achievements should be one of two things: a challenge, or a way to encourage a player to play a game differently. The most frustrating of all achievements I find are usually multiplayer ones that are so specific, it's nearly impossible to if you get an older game. A good example is the Tom Claney games... They are usually painfully specific, like "Neutralize 4 players simultaneously with a silenced weapon on 3 burst fire during the hours of 3 and 6 pm, but not during the rainy or cold season, unless it is a leap year. Then you may only kill 3 players, but must critically wound 1 other player within 3 health."

I agree with what you said about achievements being challenging, but attainable. At least MW2 only has single player achievements, and the multiplayer perks/awards are stand alone. BC2 also did it much better than their first installment.

hodge

05-30-2010, 10:57 PM

Multiplayer achievements are alright as long as they are realistic and for popular games. It's annoying to get a game which nobody plays anymore, and find that a large proportion of the achievements are unobtainable

lethal.b

05-31-2010, 11:49 AM

companies like EA should just get rid of online achievemnts altogether,. their servers are terrible and the games always get released glitch so theres always at least 1 unobtainable achievment. then on top of that they want to charge people who buy the game second hand to play online. not many people play on the older EA games online anyway so soon their games online base will be dead altogther meaning if you dont purcahse the game new within a year of release you wont be able to get all the achievements for that game

sunny aus

06-11-2010, 06:23 AM

Gotta agree with your piece. Well written.

I find it hard to get online often, so the fact that good single player games (even Halo 3) have multiplayer achievements drives me insane

brettesman

06-29-2010, 07:40 AM

Prime example of a game that shouldn't have multiplayer achievements...Singularity...not worth playing online and 1/4 of the achievements are online.

Xavygravy

06-29-2010, 11:33 AM

Good developers won't force tedious multiplayer achievements upon us. e.g. MW2 (no multiplayer achievements)

Greedy developers will include tedious multiplayer achievements (even if most players are boosting) so there are more people playing, and will release map packs with new multiplayer achievements to keep you there. e.g. BioShock 2 Map Pack DLC 'forcing' boosters to boost to level 50.

The best developers make good multiplayer modes that people will want to play, with or without achievements. e.g. CoD, Halo
Slightly below that are multiplayer modes that you have fun playing, but your only real incentive to play for a long time is the reach x rank/kills achievements. e.g. Gears (imo)

AlBeano3630

06-29-2010, 05:08 PM

i still thinkk that multiplayer achievements are ridiculous unless the game is multiplayer ONLY such as shadowrun, for a long while i didnt have xbox live and i also only had a select number of games so i played and replayed these games a shit looad of times (oblivion and mass effect being some of them) so if some of these games had multiplayer achievements then i would have been screwed as XAvyGravy said just greedy developers.

~AlBeano

tweak4ever

06-29-2010, 10:19 PM

ugh...they piss me off...especially when some are pure luck, like 2 for 1 in halo 3

bokkoman

06-30-2010, 01:02 PM

I kinda agree with most of you.
But some online achievements are indeed hard to get. And yeah, if people don't have a gold account, they can't even get them.
That's why i like MW1, there aren't alot of online achievements or none, can't remember :P

They should make it like 900points off, and 100 online if they use multiplayer achievements.

Tylord101

07-02-2010, 12:13 PM

In a short story long, I think multiplayer achievements should be in games, but only ones that make sense. For games like Gears of War 2, there are those achievements that only a total addict would get (seriously 2.0, GETTING LEVEL 100), and I HATE it when games make you "obtain the highest level in the game" to unlock an achievement. It makes an ugly scar when you have a 950gs or something like that simply becuase you didn't play the game for a total of 5 full months. Then there are the "background" games, the sadly unknown games, that should not have multiplayer achievements at all (or no multiplayer altogether, *cough cough* Saints Row 2). No one likes to play multiplayer on a "dead" game just to get achievements, because there is NO one online and you won't have any fun getting them *cough cough Saints Row 2 again, there is no way to get in a good game without 1 person or your entire team leaving, and it is you versus 3 other people*. The worst achiev would be getting the highest level on a dead game. That is pure torture. Achievements should highlight the points in the game and should make people want to play it more (like in Halo 3), without being nearly impossible to get or making you have to grind out 24/7 weeks just for one achievement.

Blah 2k

07-02-2010, 04:31 PM

Excellent article. I completly despise multi-player achievements.

snipore

07-20-2010, 05:13 PM

I like games that give most achievements for solo/campaign and then a few small point ones for multiplayer. Its nice to have a reason to do some things in multiplayer but I prefer them to be things you work at like a total number of kills with a given weapon. nothing hard that takes boosting but it takes some time to accomplish.

AmaterasuXero

07-23-2010, 12:46 AM

I only like multiplayer only achievements, if l don't have to waste my life just to get them

D2B2WIN1

07-23-2010, 02:31 AM

Multiplayer achievements are filler when dealing with about 50 achievements. A simple question for most developers or achievement creators is: Why do you need to have multiplayer achievements that are harder for most causal online enthusiast (Halo 3, FEAR, Prey, Gears of War 1&2, etc.) and give points for it?

Simple solution:
1000G Single-Player with or without Co-op Achievements
900G Single-Player/100G Multiplayer that is/are easy to achieve.

BubbaSam1

07-25-2010, 08:56 PM

Tha Chris Fisher

07-25-2010, 11:05 PM

I have some what of OCD when it comes to getting achievements and I have to get all of them for one game or I feel like I have't completed it...so, I get all the offline achievements and go to get the online and there are either to complicated for most gams like EA's are or the game is no longer played by people. Like NBA Live 07 for instance; good luck getting the "Online with 1,000 people" because nobody plays this game no more!

Necrosis102

07-25-2010, 11:52 PM

Like NBA Live 07 for instance; good luck getting the "Online with 1,000 people" because nobody plays this game no more!

EA shut down the servers for that game, so that achievement is now unattainable (although it was essentially impossible to unlock anyway; aside from dedicated events, the last time at least 1000 people were online was at the game's release)

I agree about completing games though. Thanks to EA, I'm now stuck with 960/1000 on NBA Live 06 because they closed the servers :/

CUADERNOS

07-26-2010, 07:44 AM

My question is why Creators create the achievements that take you almost a year to get! And why we cannot invite people into ranked matches. I mean they also keep on creating WWII games. There are some games out there that people play for like a week then nobody plays it anymore. We dont really need multiplayer achievements.

they want you to keep playing the game
but the multi player on some games are just terrible
like dark sector it takes 3 minutes to find a match and its not fun at all

ZackNovak

07-29-2010, 05:37 AM

Multiplayer achievements aren't necessary to keep a game active. Look at the Modern Warfares for instance.

Earink

07-29-2010, 01:11 PM

i agree with what i've seen a few people say online achievements but worth 0 points would be nice. I can't always afford brand new games, so it sucks when I buy an old one and no one wants to play online for achievements. however saying all this. I think Online co-op should be allowed achievements. because if a game has online co-op then that's probably one of it's main features. it just sucks on games such as shadow run, where you can only get a measly 60 gs for playing offline!

Sentry

07-30-2010, 08:40 AM

I think multiplayer achievements are alright as long as they are fairly easy to medium. That way if the game dies, you won't have to get 1000 kills or capture 5000 flags with a 2 man team..

lordthrash

08-03-2010, 09:04 PM

Really i think multiplayer achievements should not even exist. If you like the game and want to play repeatedly, such as Modern Warfare 2, online be my guest. i know people who play this and only this because they love the multiplayer. If i want 1k a game i should be able to without grinding pointless hours playing in ranked matches getting nothing but a cramp in my ass. I enjoy playing with my friends, don't get me wrong, especially in Halo 3 we try to get a better rank for bragging rights! But to get achievements, no. Multiplayer should be for enjoyment only, not achievements!

HAK Devil

08-04-2010, 01:56 AM

I'm fine with MP achievements that require a "feat" i.e killing 2 guys with one sniper shot or something of that sort.

Basically, to me, MP achievements should not involve long feats of grinding to get to a certain level and unlock the achievement. Rather it should be a short skill testing requirement that truly requires gaming ability to attain rather than just mindless boosting for 100 hours.

HKX Bionic

08-08-2010, 07:18 AM

Call of Duty did achievements right. Actual Achievements being all Offline, but then having "Challenges" for Online. For me personaly, i found this made me estatic. The Achievements where the way I like them, and the way you worded it in the artical was perfect, 'Challenging but achievable.' But then there where the online 'Challenges' which included pretty much your standard achievement material. Pure online junkies could had a list of things that made them stand appart, and Achievement junkies had a list of things to do online. if you odnt like online? thats ok, because you can still obtain the full 1000

Gareth Dent

08-08-2010, 01:00 PM

To be fair, some multiplayer achivements are nice and balanced like a few of halo 3's but then you get the obscene ones like in GTAIV that are glitched and broken and those just ruin a game for me. Having OCD before i buy any game i actually check the achivement guide for it to see how hard or to browse the online achivements. So many great games i haven't bought just because i don't want the infamous online achivements to my list. Kane and Lynch 1 has 2 0 G achivements, each requiring first and second place on the leaderboards. That.. is fucking insane and their was no need for it.

pastamazoo

08-09-2010, 11:23 PM

JackJumpsCandle

08-10-2010, 04:56 AM

I enjoy multiplayer achievements as long as they are not rediculous. Things like "Two for One" in Halo 3 are just rediculous, but things like "Get XXXX number of online kills" are a lot of fun to go for.

Double2Seven

08-12-2010, 11:28 AM

I think they should all be like COD 4, all ingame, and when you go into the online it keeps track of the stats on there, i hate playing a game to find out the last 10 achievments are all online doing something i really don't wanna do or don't care about. Gears of War is a perfect example..

Singularity is another example.

People are not playing the game, they are just going for achivs, and that ruins team gameplay modes.

Swaf13

08-13-2010, 12:52 PM

I have mixed emotions on this topic, me and my friends quite often discuss this. I think multiplayer achievements can really add to an experience if they are handled right. The endure achievement for ODST springs to mind. You couldn't do that any other way than with 4 friends or some decent organisation through forums. I for one like a good few multiplayer achievements, more often than not they are a good challenge. Especially if they are handled by the developer well. Some though are just awful. I dislike Bioshock 2 for it's multiplayer achievements.

minimaster58

08-13-2010, 02:46 PM

What about when the multiplayer dies or doesn't get off the ground and has achievements (Like Banjo Kazooie Nuts and Bolts) what do the developers do then? give them away in an update or DLC? Or do they have to boost to get the most out of their game?

BigBadBradBallz

08-13-2010, 08:59 PM

I believe modern warfare 1 and 2 has this down to a science and it appears that Halo: Reach is following suit. Ridiculous online get 10000 kills achievements or reach a certain rank (looking at you COD3 and Halo wars) are not what people who are all for achievements are all about. Both MW games are incredibly tough to achieve a full 1000 for but it is feasible no matter how old the game might be. COD4 is on my list on games i hope to complete soon since there is no online achievements even tho COD4's MP has died off quite a bit since COD5/MW2 have been released.

Clapton Is G0D

08-14-2010, 05:24 PM

Cool nice work

kintaris

08-15-2010, 03:23 PM

Overall I think that developers should include as few multiplayer achievements as possible. Most decent online multiplayer arenas have their own league-tabling separate from achievements, so some of the particularly grinding achievements in online multiplayer are a bit redundant seeing as you're already grinding to improve rank. So all those achievements are really doing is annoying those people who don't play online multiplayer but want to get all the achievements.

That being said, some of the best, most rewarding and funniest achievements so far have been online multiplayer achievements. I'm happy to go out of my way to find someone online to help me get some of the more epic or entertaining achievements, but not to have to solicit someone's help to grind my way to a certain number of kills. It makes the social aspect more businesslike and less about having a laugh with complete strangers.

StrikeFear14

09-13-2010, 02:33 PM

I think multiplayer should never be a prerequisite for achievements. There should always be a single player counterpart to getting them, at the very least.

azurebAt

09-19-2010, 02:57 PM

I think multiplayer should never be a prerequisite for achievements. There should always be a single player counterpart to getting them, at the very least.

I agree and personally think a larger issue is the ridiculous achievements that you have to grind away at for hours on end that have nothing to do with the actual game or story line. One could easily argue that these are only there to artificially extend game play time and to award some trivial achievement value. Recently, although otherwise an excellant game Mafia II (and Jimmys Vendetta DLC) had some good examples of this.

YMMV

esarty

09-21-2010, 10:40 AM

I'm another one who would like to add my voice to the annoyance with weakly considered multi-player achievements. I think the concept of achievements is an excellent one, but far too many game makers put no thought into them.

You get some satisfaction from hearing that beep, but far too often it's a case of relief that you can stop grinding and start enjoying yourself again. It can be a fine line between finding something that feels like a true personal achievement and something that feels like an annoying chore. Lazy studios don't seem to think there's a difference.

It's the same when it comes to achievements that change gamer behaviour. Some of the best achievements around do this - make you approach things in a different and refreshing way, adding variety and longevity to a game. But as has been pointed out, some achievements change behaviour in a very negative way - often changing player behaviour to the detriment of other players in the game. I have no issue with someone choosing to drift through a soulless multi-player kill grind, but where that behaviour impact on the gaming experience of others it's terrible design.

Yes there's always people out there who just want to ruin the experience for others, but for game makers to encourage and reward this is rather disappointing.

On a final point, I have no time for game makers who set up achievements for online gaming and then switch off servers for those (often sports) games after a relatively short time. I understand that they've been making no money from the used game market (other than occasional DLC purchases), but they should not be making these features such an integral part of a game if they have no intention of supporting them beyond a certain timeframe - unless they make that timeframe very clear from the start.

Pormogo

09-21-2010, 08:35 PM

Nice post.

I do hate Online one-on-one match achievements; The other player quits if he loses or doesn't get what he/she wants.

Tcaps8

09-24-2010, 12:03 PM

i dont like the darkness online achievements :/

JAW LV

09-27-2010, 07:21 PM

The only online mp cheeve that bothers me are those that require a lot of time grinding them out. There usually isn't much skill involved, only that you have an absurd amount of free time on your hands which most of us don't.

RunDMC

09-30-2010, 12:24 PM

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.
In my country -if I can call this shithole a country- Live is not oficial. The only way to play online is either to hack(auto-ban) or to import a few cards. The second option would result in a payment of almost 300 bucks a month. THAT. IS. NOT. CHEAP.

ValZho

10-22-2010, 03:18 PM

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 think this is brilliant. ... to carry it further, maybe M$ could eventually move to a two-score system, one for offline play, and one for multiplayer... or at least a breakdown of your gamerscore into these two categories. I think that that is a fairly obvious and definitive distinction between types of games, gameplay, and players.

nexxd

10-24-2010, 02:35 PM

I think i would have to disagree, i think having two scores would take much away from the simple GS system in place now. However I do think that steps should be taken to prevent having achivments that cannot be reached ie where game servers have gone offline and multiplayer achivements are no longer possible to get.

I think the awards now availble should be given instead of GS for multiplayer achivements which are far out of the reach of most people.

frenkieh

10-28-2010, 08:39 AM

I think it's not fair that you have to have a internet connection and people to play with to finish a game.

HatTrick190

11-06-2010, 01:45 PM

Really good read. Nice job :)

RoughGalaxy

11-13-2010, 07:29 AM

I for one, never do pvp, so all the point related to pvp achievements are lost on me. I don't boost, and I try to earn all the achievements I get. Making pvp points extra would be a great idea, as I know people who never play the story mode of games.

Jericho99

12-07-2010, 11:23 PM

I dont think multiplayer achievements should exist unless there is an active community. I cant get Condemned 2: Bloodshots acheievments because multi is dead.

FootlessSamson

12-20-2010, 07:41 AM

Very interesting, nice post

Hochberg

12-20-2010, 11:55 PM

I'm perfectly okay with multiplayer achievements. Just not the insane kind of achievements like 'Win 500 Ranked Matches' or Gears of War's 'Seriously...:Kill 10,000 enemies in ranked matches.' I don't mind at all achievements for doing things in multiplayer for the first/couple times. I actually believe that new free game Harm's Way had very good multiplayer achievements.

Ozwick14

12-23-2010, 02:40 PM

Single player can be boring but I prefer to obtain achievements with out the use of interacting with douchebags that won't help you out but I guess that is the whole point of boosting.

I dislike online achievements because of the reason mentioned above and because if you pick up older games, some you can no longer get achievements online due to glitches or server shut downs!

Splinter Cell : Double Agent is a perfect example of that man, crappy game but for $5 i wasn't complaining... Go online and NO ONE is playing so multiplayer achievements are impossible :/

St Jolly777

01-04-2011, 03:13 PM

I have yet to find any online MP Achievements that added to the value of the game...Most achievement whores boost them with friends...the people that don't care don't go for them and then the EA's of the world shut down the servers making them impossible. I don't see why we need them.

nohigher

01-28-2011, 04:53 AM

This has actually been bugging me quite a bit. I'm more of a solitary player and I feel like so many games nowadays force a multiplayer. Even if a multiplayer is nice, if the game is mainly meant to be single-player I get all OCD about getting the multiplayer achievements even if I don't particularly want to play the multiplayer.

Trajan330

01-29-2011, 03:54 PM

I totally agree.

SUBJECT BK201

02-01-2011, 09:57 AM

Bit of a double edged sword though isnt it? If it wasnt for online multiplayer boosting, half the people on this forum and other likeminded forums/sites would never have met or would have had much reason to.

But the annoying bit is, in a majority of cases it ruins a lot of games and the point of some achievements. In all fairness though, boosting is always gonna be there regardless of whether theres achievements to be earned or not (boosting in Modern Warfare 2/Black Ops or rank in Tekken 6 for instance. Tekken 6 doesnt have any achievements tied to rank but that hasnt stopped a plethora of people messaging me asking me to meet them in Ranked-Asia to help them boost).

In the long run, its the developers fault (for lack of imagination and succumbing to ill logic for sales and gain) for this as much as the gamers. Dev's want people to buy their titles and *most* gamers just want easy/silly shit to unlock just for points and will buy/rent a title for that purpose alone rather than play the game on its own merits.

dasheq

02-02-2011, 09:22 PM

I really hate multiplayer achievements, if the multiplayer is good I will play it, why not? Achievements are a nice addition that extend my game-experience but if a game forces me to play multiplayer, and most likely boost it - I just turn it off.

branishere

02-02-2011, 10:48 PM

its bugs me when you want online achievements for games but the servers have been shut down after only a mere year..........ea

St Jolly777

02-03-2011, 05:40 PM

Along with the comments already mentioned I would also have to wonder out loud how much is the single player campaign being degraded or marginalized in order to use time and resources to develop a throw away multi-player experience? Mass Effect 2 is a great game...multiple game of the year accolades...and yet it did it without MP. Would the game have been as rich a single player experience if the developers were also tasked with a meaningless add on multi-player experience?

snazzyskier

02-04-2011, 01:15 AM

Well if the MP is really fun and there are few simple, obtainable cheevos; then I don't mind.

DivineDreams

02-06-2011, 12:49 PM

I think multiplayer achievements are the dumbest thing ever, and let me tell you why.

1. What if someone doesn't have live, or ran out of gold, but still loves getting 1000G in games? They're hooped.

2. What if the game becomes unpopular and no one is available to play against online? Or, even worse, it becomes so bad that the company just shuts down the servers?

KALTSAS

02-08-2011, 08:19 AM

some online achievements are ridiculous

Mongolian Beef

02-08-2011, 08:41 AM

Online achievements suck ass.

kingcoopzilla

02-10-2011, 01:25 AM

its bugs me when you want online achievements for games but the servers have been shut down after only a mere year..........ea

My sentiments exactly! I'm so close to 1000gs in Tiger Woods 2010 but I can't do the make $5m online achievement as tournaments are now only online for 6.5 hours a week starting at 4.20am monday morning my time; and almost all the tournaments are on DLC courses which cost nearly a fiver a pop! The cheek!

St Jolly777

02-10-2011, 07:48 PM

That bring up another point...now with sports games turning to Online Passes, it sure seems like they are killing the used market for these games (at least to the completionists out there.) Look for more...not less...MP Achievements in the sports game to try to drive online pass sales to drive additional revenue to the developers.

CPT Dr Allgood

02-11-2011, 06:12 PM

carl1975

02-12-2011, 05:53 PM

if there is one thing i dont like its on line achievements :uzi:

Hagibor Chayil

02-13-2011, 02:20 AM

Online multiplayer achievements drive me crazy. I dont have a lot of friends who play the Fable series, so I don't have any of those, and I like my 100%'s.

I think achievements that arent worth gamescore points are the best thought.

St Jolly777

02-17-2011, 03:32 PM

Achievements worth 0 points are worse than Multiplayer achievements in my opinion!!

WooLy TB

02-18-2011, 04:41 AM

Thanks to our....uhh...shall I say, "borrowed" internet, I can't get on LIVE that much. I don't really care for games where 3/4 of the achievements are in a multiplayer I won't spend a lot of time playing.

I agree and if there are achievements online I am fine with the ones that are time consuming such as get to the rank of captain, but I can not stand the ones that are like get nine triple kills in one game
Y

ZackDark

02-26-2011, 01:36 AM

And don't forget the online achievements of games which online serves are permanently shut down!

FIFA 08 (along with a few other EA Sports older games) had its server shut down recently and it has quite a few online achievements, which are now literally impossible to get.

Aneurinbiker

02-26-2011, 10:58 AM

I think it's entirely dependant on if you like the game / how much they involve you doing things that you dont like in that mp, for example I really enjoyed gta iv online and getting the wanted trophy (i was on ps3 at the time) was fun

NoahLambert

02-28-2011, 08:53 PM

KuShNsTieN

03-08-2011, 07:27 PM

This is obviously just my personal opinion, but think online achievements should be limited to easier to get ones. For example: I can no longer get a lot of the online achievements in some of the older titles simply because no one plays them. :(

yeah i agree with you. like people who like to 100% games are forced to buy games when they release to try to get mp achievements when alot of people play online.

I dont think games that really isnt popular for multiplayer should put out mp achievements because no one plays so no one can earn it

DPGS Devin

03-09-2011, 01:00 AM

Im like you here....im half and half. I liked the achievements that were more "win twenty matches" or "preform a killing spree" and stuff along those lines but i hated stuff like "kill five enemy's with the shotgun on blah blah map" because some noob would go bat shit crazy when i picked up the shotgun and would betray me or make it impossible for me to use it when really just trying to play a damn game.
However, i do believe that each game needs some sort of multiplayer achievements that way people at least try the online expericance so im very mixed as well (btw nice read) :drunk

dezuk

03-10-2011, 07:37 PM

i gota say i dont like online achievments, single player are very good to have but multiplayer just ruins it, for example a shooter like moh people are just trying to launch all offensives so dont play the game as a team because they want an achievment, online 1's should be stopped and save them all for single player

HurtANicka

03-14-2011, 03:17 PM

Good stuff, and I agree for the most part, but personally I wish they would just do away with the multiplayer achievements altogether because I'm pretty much never going to do them, just not the part of game play that I like.

Boots Orion

03-23-2011, 04:01 PM

its bugs me when you want online achievements for games but the servers have been shut down after only a mere year..........ea

Funny you should slag on EA when you have an EA game as your picture.

Also, the only game by EA that had servers shut after anything close to just a year was LOTR Conquest and that was because they lost the right to LOTR products (for reasons unknown though the BFME II online access stayed open until January of this year).

Anyhow, concerning the topic. I think that a lot of the MP achievements are stupid and can't really be achievement legitimately (unless you ONLY play that game AND are really good).

It would be nice if more MP achievements were for co-op achievements wherein at least a modicum of skill was involved - and multiple attempts were necessary.

BUT - MP achievements for frags and headshots are here to stay so we might as well deal with it.

Gottle

03-24-2011, 03:38 AM

the only game by EA that had servers shut after anything close to just a year was LOTR Conquest and that was because they lost the right to LOTR products (for reasons unknown though the BFME II online access stayed open until January of this year).
Wrong. I can name a bunch of them. EA titles, of course.
Servers doesn't need to be closed in order to have unobtainable MP achievements, they closed some features like leagues, tournaments and racedays after less than 1 year (even 8 months)

Boots Orion

03-24-2011, 03:25 PM

Wrong. I can name a bunch of them. EA titles, of course.
Servers doesn't need to be closed in order to have unobtainable MP achievements, they closed some features like leagues, tournaments and racedays after less than 1 year (even 8 months)

You are wrong actually. I wrote about EA shutting the servers down...what you are referring to are online features that have been discontinued. They are two different things entirely.

There are going to be occasional exceptions (e.g., NASCAR) but contrary to what you are indicating, the vast majority of the online league and tournaments are available much longer than a year with EA Sports. For example, I just wrapped up the online FIFA 08 MP achievements using league games in January...3 and a half years after the game came out! What do you want...a cherry on top?!

I'm not an EA fanboy, but they close features for sports games (e.g., GOTW in NBA Live 09) after the season is over. You can't expect them to keep those open in perpetuity. They closed the "reel" feature off in skate. after the game was out two and a half years...more than long enough for true fans of a game/series to get the achievements (e.g., the customers EA cares about most). I missed out on getting those but I can't complain when I paid $7 for the game last November.

Furthermore, the worst offender for shutting features off prematurely is 2K Sports, so you should direct more of your anger towards them.

The bottom line is, if you aren't willing to pay for a game when it comes out, don't whine about it if certain features are closed off. People always seem to forget that the developers and publishers are in this business to make money. If shutting the servers/features down helps them save money that they can contribute towards putting more quality games out, when really the only people it is hurting are achievement junkies, then I'm all for it. Even if this means I can't get one or two "life altering" achievements.

Leiredian

04-01-2011, 04:24 AM

In my opinion, multiplayer-only achievements are just screwing people like myself, who either don't want to pay, or don't like multiplayer gaming.

zoidberg1339

04-12-2011, 12:01 AM

I really can't stand online cheevos but that's just me

jhaiisiin

04-15-2011, 05:34 PM

Gonna toss my hat in as another single-player preferred gamer. I game sometimes with my wife (lucky me!) but when I see MP achievements that require 3+ players, I always go "Well... damn. Not gonna get all the achievements for this game."

SnakeEyes237

04-28-2011, 09:41 AM

I for one, HATE online achievements. Being in the military and going on deployment pretty much prevents me from working on most online achievements. I spent a year on deployment and it was work, gym, games, sleep...everyday, and with no internet, well, killing 10 trillion people in Bad Company online wasn't going to happen. Point being, if you're in the military, getting online achievements proves to be difficult when you're away from the "real" world for a year or so, and until somebody can start adding to my gamerscore for real world events, well, looks like it's singleplayer only for me.

soulcreek

04-28-2011, 10:40 AM

not really a fan of online achievements, maybe they can put a in game option so u can disable them if u want to

BlazinYankk

05-08-2011, 03:30 PM

i dont think there should really be multi achievements. I kinda like Blops achievements for multi, but that should be only for doing minimal things

doubleminor

05-11-2011, 09:25 PM

I'm not much of an MP person myself outside of close friends/regular gaming friends. I don't like multiplayer achievements for many of the reasons already stated.

However, I do enjoy the combat training in Black Ops. It gives that MP experience without playing actual humans (with a couple of achievements obtainable already). I know many people don't like bots, but it's as close to MP as some without Live Gold can get. But the argument can then be made that it would take away from human multiplayer. Pick your poison, I guess.

mionch

05-15-2011, 06:54 PM

Well I find the MP Achievements quite frustrating - even though I do not have enough time to play games to max out the gamerscore (I usually get bored with the game to quickly, too ;) ) I find it almost impossible e.g. to gather a team of 3 friends or random people in Crackdown 2 and set up an achievement hunt (mainly because few of my friends actually have an xbox, not to mention Gold and the game I want to play at the specific moment).. Achievements worth 0GS are a good idea to me though.

Contender19

05-17-2011, 07:59 PM

online achievements suck, the ones where it makes you do something specific that's nearly impossible... the only ones i like is like "get to level 50" that's the only thing i'll do but if it's like do eight backflips and stab someone in the throat while flying and eating a hamburger... yeah that crap is annoying

Harfang94

05-18-2011, 12:38 PM

I don't hate multiplayer achievements in general but I hate the one you have to do in co-op. Because I always play with guys who don't want to do them.

MET4LWALKER

05-23-2011, 05:13 AM

How do you guys get achievements for multiplayer achievements when the game is ancient? e.g. something like Castle Crasher seems almost impossible to find an online match.

Assassin024

05-29-2011, 08:34 PM

Agreed. The majority of my incomplete achievements are those that require you to go online. I'm fine playing with my friends, if one of them happens to be into the same game at the same time as me, but most of the time your left to play with the general public *shudder*

FellowMD

05-31-2011, 08:34 PM

I have a few friends sad too, cause they don't even have live!

elephantd

06-02-2011, 01:00 AM

I think online achievements are great when done right. Killing 10,000 people online is a damn achievement and you should be rewarded for that in Gears! Killing 100,000 enemies total....................... That's just mean.
I wish all good multiplayer games had highest rank achievements, because max rank should always be rewarded!

jrennie08

06-04-2011, 04:40 PM

interesting article dude :) Seems like the games which should have multiplayer achievements don't, and the games that shouldn't, do. *Sigh*

Brutalsleeper

06-05-2011, 12:29 AM

interesting article dude :) Seems like the games which should have multiplayer achievements don't, and the games that shouldn't, do. *Sigh*

Pretty much right, a few exceptions obviously. the problem is no game develeopers are going to sit down and say "You know what? This game we have been working on for years isn't very good, so we won't put any online achievements in because the online community for it will be minuscule within a few days after release."

JonathanXS

06-06-2011, 10:14 PM

I'm in complete agreement with this statement.
Seconded. You might as well tack on "Buy X years of XBL" as an achievement for your profil-

Oh wait, they did that.

darkforge

07-08-2011, 04:17 AM

I discovered the bane of MP Achievements when I played Prey. NOBODY was on the servers and I had to achievement boost just to finish out the game. It's ridiculous.

Games shouldn't focus on online achievements so much, not everybody has the skillset or money to be on XBL Gold and those damn locked achievements are quite painful to look at day in and day out. Plus some of them are way too difficult.

Lonz93

07-09-2011, 01:33 AM

I love Red Dead Redemption but I hate the Multiplayer achievements. Some of them are just impossible to get without boosting.

chelseaman99

07-10-2011, 01:48 AM

IMO the only games which should have online achievements are the Call of Duty and Halo games - the ones which are built to be played online.

Wickedsi

07-13-2011, 03:40 AM

I do not really care for the online achievements honestly. I think the online playing should just be a fun experience and enjoying the game no matter how good or bad of a player you are.

Fleurz

09-26-2011, 09:53 PM

The ones that require XBL and can't be obtained through couch co-op really annoy me, tbh.

roym899

11-26-2011, 03:40 PM

I also hate MP achievements. For expample I earned 100% in GTA IV SP, but I still miss so many achievements and boosting still needs such a long time. (even by using a glitch)
Additionally to those ultra hard/time-consuming achievements, they shut down the servers making it impossible to obtain the achievements. It's so stupid to have games in the list, you know you will never ever complete because of those stupid server closures...

baboulas

11-28-2011, 08:21 PM

In reach for example the added two new achievements for a PREVIOUS map pack, which noone plays anymore. There's no way you can get in a game and try to achieve them, it just won't happen which sucks hard.

1 up

12-02-2011, 07:49 PM

i think they should get rid of online achievements.
i miss alot of gamer score because of online achievements.
and i also think they should make when both players play multi player they should both get achievements for completing missions instead of 1 player getting the achievements.

Reclaimer 112

12-05-2011, 05:28 AM

Online achievments should ahve their own category. There should be regular in-game achievments, and then a seperate score for MP. Life would much better :)

Slay3r v

12-06-2011, 02:09 AM

All the games are fine how they are. Some people like online play, some don't like it. Simple as that.

The Demolition

12-10-2011, 08:57 PM

I liked this editorial! Good read.

ChickinOnaChain

01-06-2012, 01:57 PM

Personally, MP achievements are lost on me. I don't care for MP to begin with. Co-op yes but to get into a game, with a bunch of strangers...not gonna do it. That's why I don't have all of my rep stars filled. And probably never will.

The SmilinVic

01-07-2012, 07:47 AM

I agree like red dead's posse up achievement, I mean its so simple just....just so hard for someone like me to do

thornxy

01-08-2012, 12:15 AM

While I am quite new to the console MP scene I have played my share or MP games and I find in some cases achievements/awards can ruin the experience. Some people get too focused on trying to complete achievements or getting xp or whatever that they are a hindrance and ruin the game for at least the side they are on.

nvscgs

01-11-2012, 10:21 PM

The problem you are going to have with having all the points for offline and not points but still have achievements for online is the game will not register as having all the achievements completed if the person does not get those online achievements.

lifeexpectancy

01-13-2012, 08:27 AM

Do they even proofread/edit the editorials? Jesus seriously, use some sense x360a. Your editorial writer was throwing commas in just for the hell of it. They aren't pepper people. You don't just sprinkle your prose with them liberally to add spice.

Don't even get me started on sentence structure and spelling errors.

I understand grammar rules aren't generally followed on forums, but when it comes to the site's front page editorials you MIGHT want to think about proofreading.

OT: Multiplayer achievements are superfluous. Case in point: MW2 and MW3. Both had strong player bases without using MP achieves to gain numbers.

Mr BOND 3535

01-16-2012, 03:39 AM

I thought it was a pretty good read

TheMaize

02-18-2012, 02:16 PM

i know this is an old post, but nice reading anyways.

I too am against multiplayerachievements...I love playing some of the niche titles, but its close to impossible to find people to play against.

Generally i dislike the idea about having to go out of your way to get achievements...Some games have multiple ways to get achievements..why not do that with multiplayer achievements? like...get 1000 online kills OR 10.000 singleplayer/local kills.
Play 100 games online OR finish campaign on all difficulties...

I also absolutely hate the collecting achievements in most games...1000 GS, should in my opinion be possible to get in time by dedication and skill only....it takes the fun out of most games, when you have to follow a guide all the time, because some collectibles are just hidden too well...

As far as i know, Microsoft have a rule about that the 1000/1000 should be possible to get without further investment than the game....But isnt xbox live just that?

SRSavior

03-08-2012, 04:51 AM

Delow317

03-08-2012, 09:59 PM

I really hate the idea of multiplayer achievements. I loved The Darkness, but as soon as I saw just how many ridiculous MP cheevos there were, I felt an emptiness growing inside of me, knowing that I would never have all of them cleared. My OCD kicks in with any 360 game I buy... I have every achievement in Nier, which took me about 70-80 hours of playtime. Yet, if it had a single MP achievement, I probably wouldn't have it.

I love single-player games, and that is the main reason I own a 360 (besides SC5). Putting multiplayer achievements in games that were meant to be enjoyed as singleplayer experiences just seems like a bland form of getting people to play a game more, and make sure they have a LIVE membership.

Wow, me and you almost have the same brain. I couldn't agree with you more. I'm also from the old school and prefer deep story driven single player games than wasting my time with randoms for a spot on the leader board. If you ask me the popularity of Online Multiplayer is actually hindering single player games in many ways. Don't get me wrong, I love MP gaming with my buddies, but randoms running their mouths? LOL, just like you, I'd rather be playing a quality single player game like Batman AA, AC, Bioshock, Fallout, Skyrim etc.

Again, I couldn't agree with you more.

Spade.

03-09-2012, 03:38 AM

I have no gripe with multiplayer achievements. Problem? :blurp

Delow317

03-09-2012, 10:53 PM

I have a BIG GRIPE when it comes to MP acheivements... Why? Because I shouldn't have to rely on others when it comes to getting all GS in everygame I own, that's why.

I have no problems with MP cheeves only if the entire game is online mp only like BF 1943. But that's ok, I will never buy a game this is MP centric and doesnt include a concrete single player story.

A good example of this is Bioshock 2. They had no reason to include multiplayer when the series has always been known for its narrative alone.

I'm also sick and tired of this online MP trend in gaming. Single player games has most definitely suffered with the rise of MP centric gaming, and I'm sick of it to be honest with you. This is definitely not the same industry I grew up with back in the 80's, not by a longshot.