Multiplayer Achievements - A Gamer in Limbo

[Webb]

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

Enjoy

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

[razzleson]

Not too bad of a read, nice job Webb.

[Wriggy]

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

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

[Magooush]

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

[DarkGeneral88]

Originally Posted by Magooush

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

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

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

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

[Thrall320]

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

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

[Jabi1]

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

[KewlBrettC]

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

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

[SpaceShot]

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

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

[KewlBrettC]

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

[NevEP]

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

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

[KewlBrettC]

Single Player is boring

[PerpetualHeaven]

Originally Posted by KewlBrettC

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

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

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

[theforcemonkey]

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

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

[rollerpenguin]

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

[Keytta]

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

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

[Creech]

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

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

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

[Chuppernicus]

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

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

[kungFuStu72]

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

[Adam Miller]

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

[teh x3nomorph]

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

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

[Sebastian55]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Magooush]

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

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

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

[xk3zofrenik]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[danjohnson58]

Originally Posted by KewlBrettC

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]

Originally Posted by KewlBrettC

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

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

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]

Originally Posted by Wreckon Dracgon

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]

Originally Posted by David Creech

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 I failed to get past the online multiplayer achievements with any positive comments so maybe it was for the best

[Sebastian55]

Originally Posted by David Creech

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

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

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

[tallywhackerhacker17]

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