For me, it’s when people complain that a game/system/platform doesn’t have them. Some games and systems don’t need or want to gamify playing games and that’s okay
Comment on When we eat the billionaires, we should spare Gabe Newell? No?
DrunkAnRoot@sh.itjust.works 1 day agowhats wrong with game achivments?
Suburbanl3g3nd@lemmings.world 23 hours ago
Orygin@sh.itjust.works 15 hours ago
They didn’t invent them. The Xbox 360 already had achievements years before them.
Suburbanl3g3nd@lemmings.world 13 hours ago
I didn’t say Valve did. I said why I don’t like achievement systems or, I guess more accurately, why I don’t think everything needs them
Klear@quokk.au 19 hours ago
They’re nothing but a skinner box that’s supposed to keep you playing games for longer. It’s the same type of instant gratification built into most mobile game, but applied to everything else.
howrar@lemmy.ca 18 hours ago
In a system where you pay once for the game, isn’t that a good thing? It lets you enjoy the game for longer instead of making you constantly buy new games, thus spending less money for the same amount of enjoyment.
Klear@quokk.au 18 hours ago
It’s meant to keep you playing after you stop enjoying said game. Besides, pay once? Shit like this is very often paired with the free-to-play and microstransactions model.
yermaw@sh.itjust.works 11 hours ago
I really dont think its that bad. I can see the argument that they should be able to be disabled for people with OCD or something. I used to feel some kind of FOMO for not 100% every game.
howrar@lemmy.ca 9 hours ago
Right, that’s a fair criticism with regards to microtransactions. I don’t know much about those kinds of games though, so I can’t really say much about it.
My partner bought Skyrim twice (Steam and Switch) and 100%'d both, and now is going through the same process with BG3. I’m just thinking about how the achievement system is acting like a multiplier to the game’s value in this instance.