Are Achievements Helping or Hurting Games?

When Microsoft launched the XBOX 360 in 2005, a seldom used new aspect of gaming, achievements, became immediately popularized. While not the first to include such a system for rewarding players for completing various tasks in games, Microsoft blanketed all games on their system with the Achievement Gamerscore meta-game. Later, Sony too, jumped on board, adding a similar system of rewards to its games on the Playstation 3 with the Trophy System. These intangible merit badges offer little more than proof of accomplishing an action within a game. But their existence has come to change the way we all play games. But is this change a welcome addition to gaming, or something that the industry needs to rethink?

In 2006 when I got my XBOX 360, I didn’t really know what achievements were, much less cared. But as the messages kept popping up on my screen with that catchy little ‘bloop’ sound, I became more curious. I got 25 points for killing how many guys? I completed half of the game’s chapters? What do these things mean?

On XBOX 360, each retail game has a total of 1000 possible points from achievements, and each XBOX Live Arcade title a total of 200. They can have varying amounts of actual achievements. Typically harder achievements are worth more points, but that’s not always the case. Sony’s system is similar, however there aren’t points involved. Sony uses bronze, silver, gold, and platinum trophies, each class for doing something more difficult. Platinum trophies are usually reserved for being awarded all other trophies in the game. A game can contain any number of trophies, but usually only one platinum. While Microsoft uses gamerscore to track your total progress in points, Sony uses a percentage and a level system based on how many trophies you’ve earned.

I find myself now very preoccupied with achievements in games. For many people it’s about the competitive nature, the bragging rights of showing your friends what you could accomplish in these games. For me, however, it’s the OCD completionist yearning from within. I feel like I’m not truly done with a game until I’ve earned all the achievements in it. I feel like there is still some content left for me to see, or that I’ve not truly completed it. It always leaves me with this itch that I need to satisfy.

When I later purchased our PS3, I made a deal with myself. I didn’t want to get involved in trophies. I promised I wouldn’t look at what they were or even try to unlock them. I didn’t want to feel that way about two different reward systems. So I talked myself into not caring. And a year later, I’m doing great. But recently, while playing through Ratchet and Clank Future: A Crack in Time, I found that without trophies, I have no desire to go back and get all the collectables, find the hidden weapons, or even complete all the arena challenges. I didn’t see the point. This raised some questions for me about the way that achievements have changed the way I play games.

While playing Ratchet and Clank, I felt like I spent a lot more time engrossed in the story and gameplay. I had no worries or frustrations with missing collectables, or not taking damage at certain points (or whatever else achievements ask us to do). I felt a more pure experience in my gaming that I haven’t felt since before achievements existed. It was just me and the game, and it was great. I’ve since beaten the game, but I know that there are more collectables to gather, side missions to complete, and plans to find to finish the ultimate weapon. But I have no desire to do so, no itch. The story is finished, I feel done with the game. I feel as though I can put it on my shelf and feel content. And that’s a very liberating feeling that I’ve not had for a long time in gaming.

On the other hand, while playing XBOX 360 games, I long for the achievements. I need that completion, that 100% on my gamercard. I need to look at that list and see everything I’ve done. Seeing 100% on a game is a completely satisfying experience to me. I know that I’ve done all there is to do in a game. I’ve absolutely completed it. And I’ve gotten not only my money’s worth, but extended my time with the game. I recently played through Star Wars: The Force Unleashed II, on Medium Difficulty. I still need to find all the remaining collectables, and finish the game on the hardest setting. These two achievements are cause for me to play though a game I enjoyed a second time, motivation I might not otherwise have had. Its sitting on my shelf now, but it’s an eyesore in my mind, knowing that it’s not “complete.”

So this raises the question: Do achievements impact games in a positive or negative way? Or is it somewhere in between?

To me the answer is blurred. Because I treat games on the two systems differently, I’ve created a spectrum for myself in the way that I play these games. I can never play a game on XBOX 360 with a pure mindset, and I have no motivation to spend more time with my PS3 games than I need to in order to complete the main story.

Earning achievements isn’t always enjoyable. I’ve done some real chores to gain badges of completion. Collectable achievements are, more often than not, simply not fun. Does it add anything to my gaming experience to have every flag in Assassin’s Creed? Not at all. Other achievements such as killing a tank with only melee weapons in Left 4 Dead doesn’t add anything to the game besides unnecessary frustration. And some game developers have no grasp of how achievements work, and earning them all is a total nightmare (The Last Remnant is an example that comes to mind).

While it seems almost every game has one or two of these “chore achievements,” for the most part achievements are focused towards rewarding you for exploring all you can do in a game. I don’t know if I would have hunted animals or tracked down bounties in Red Dead Redemption if not for the achievement, but I thoroughly enjoyed doing so. Likewise, I’m planning on playing though Fallout: New Vegas again to experience the other faction’s storylines. And I really enjoyed trying out the multiplayer in Bioshock 2. Both of these things I would have never done without the achievements creating that sense of completion dangling on the stick before me.

While I do believe that without achievements, gaming would be much more pure, I find myself leaning towards the attitude that achievements are a great new facet of gaming. They give cause to fully explore all a game has to offer when you may not on your own. They give you measureable sense of completion in a game. And they give you drive to go back and play through games a second or even third time. But every once in a while, it’s still nice to escape to a PS3 game and clear my mind of that nagging need for completion.

What do you think of achievements? Let us know in the comments if you think they are positive or negative influence on gaming.