Achievements

[CaptainD]

If you're playing an adventure game in particular and it has achievements - do they make you feel more inclined to play the game again after you've completed it?  Do they make ANY difference to your gameplay experience?

Just interested in people's opinions on this.  I've got one game coming out soon with achievements, another that I'm considering adding them... trying to think whether it made me play games again after completing them, but apart from briefly re-visiting Da New Guys, I can't really think of an instance where it mattered much to me.  (Although thinking about it, some of the achievements in The Critter Chronicles were quite fun.)

[Gribbler]

I think achievements are a nice addition and might help extend game's life so to speak but personally I don't care about them when I play an adventure game.

[Stupot]

Same as Gribbler, I like the idea of them, and I will always try/hope to get as many achievements as I can during playthrough, but I'm very unlikely to replay a game in order to collect the ones I've missed.  Same goes for any game, really, not just adventures.

[Ghost]

I don't care for achievements, and I think achievements in an adventure game are absolutely pointless. In arcade/action games, yes, there are crazy things one can do with some skill/luck. Or just luck. I can see how someone will enjoy being rewarded a "You killed ten bosses with a single bullet fired blindly while moving the mouse with your nose".
But adventure games are linear, and today, few games even have multiple solutions to puzzles. "You killed LeChuck (again)" would sound a bit silly really when it is the point of the game to do just that.

Classic "score", however, is quite a bit of fun in my book, because a game with score will usually have little actions/side-puzzles that don't need to be solved. I smiled at a lot of Resonance's "hidden points"... And that may be because balanced score is an integral part of an adventure game, while achievement are, these days, often tacked on because Steam or whatever distributor requires it.

Going through an adventure a second time? Yes, often. For achievements? No; and not even for finding "the last lousy point".

[kconan]

On the first question, no I wouldn't replay strictly for achievements.  I would only replay if I enjoyed it and there are lots of things (dialogue options, endings, etc...) I could have missed on a single playthrough.

They don't make a difference to me.  I've only checked achievements a handful of times (Left 4 Dead games come to mind), and none were adventure games.

[Gribbler]

I only care for achievements on console games because they stack up on your PSN or XBOX profile, and that's only when I know beforehand that I actually will be able to collect them all without too much trouble. "Testament of Sherlock Holmes" for example.

So I sure don't care about them when I see "You killed ten bosses with a single bullet fired blindly while moving the mouse with  your nose" on the list 

[Ghost]

So I sure don't care about them when I see "You killed ten bosses with a single bullet fired blindly while moving the mouse with  your nose" on the list 

It's harder than it sounds 

[waheela]

I think as far as Steam games go, I don't really care about getting all the achievements. In most cases, I feel like they're just big time-wasters and don't really add to the gameplay experience at all.

In an adventure game though, I think it could be a really cool replacement to the archaic "points system". If done right, I think it could be used as a more creative, visually stimulating way to motivate the player to complete side quests and explore the world more (in an already awesome adventure game). Instead of getting +2 points added to your numerical score, it would be awesome to receive cool-looking badges you could view on another menu. Just my opinion though, I'm not sure everyone would agree.

[CaptainD]

So I sure don't care about them when I see "You killed ten bosses with a single bullet fired blindly while moving the mouse with  your nose" on the list 

It's harder than it sounds 

Rats, I'm going to have to take that particular achievement out of my next game (and there I was thinking I was being original... :-P)

Ghost - I see what you mean about adventure games being - largely - linear.  I'm interested to see what you think about the ones in my (soon to be released) game though - we've tried to be inventive with what we chose, and many are things that you don't actually need to do to actually complete the game, but are - hopefully - fun. 

[Ghost]

Ghost - I see what you mean about adventure games being - largely - linear.  I'm interested to see what you think about the ones in my (soon to be released) game though - we've tried to be inventive with what we chose, and many are things that you don't actually need to do to actually complete the game, but are - hopefully - fun.

I *always* like to be swayed by awesome games! 

[cat]

I like achievements But not that you solved this puzzle so you get the "use-key-on-lock" kind of achievement. Rather for side quests. The visitor had a few of them. I played "The Search for Oceanspirit Dennis" a second time because I wanted to get some of the achievements. But I guess it depends on the game length.

For sheep quest I made two side quests which unlocked bonus material. People seemed to like this.

The classic point system for me isn't an achievement system but a progress indicator.

[qptain Nemo]

I love achievements. As long as they're fun and don't just serve as milestones for game progression. And I think games by Daedalic show nicely how you can use achievements in adventure games, even if for completely silly stuff. It's still fun.
It's a huge bonus of course if they're also sensible and challenging in interesting ways.

I'm pretty happy about getting all achievements in Primordia and I'm about to do the same with Deponia, despite the bizarre requirement one of achievements there has...

[dactylopus]

In some console games, I have enjoyed playing after completion to get Achievements.  Assassin's Creed and Grand Theft Auto are good examples.

I'm not sure how well that would translate into adventure games, though.  If the Achievement was an extra, and seemed a worthwhile challenge, I might enjoy it.  For example, if there are rooms you don't need to visit to complete the game, but there is an Achievement for visiting all rooms, I'd probably replay to get it.  Mostly, though, I would be replaying to see what I missed.  Or if there was an Achievement for killing a boss in a specific way (although not as complicated as Ghost's idea), like killing him without getting hit, or killing him with a weaker weapon, that might be seen as a fun challenge.

I'll agree with cat as well, and say that giving me an Achievement for simply making progress in the game seems a bit lackluster.  It should be for a bonus, or an extra, not for standard completion.

[Crimson Wizard]

I liked achievements in strategy game (Starcraft 2), because they served a role of additional "challenges".
However, my personal experience with adventure game achievements was slightly negative. I do not replay adventures often, and even if I do, some time should pass before I'd want to try again. This is why the presence of achievements made me a bit nervous. Also, their description and order in the list is giving a hint of future events in game. I found them spoiling atmosphere of adventure really.


EDIT: I want to say, in Adventure game I'd rather have achivements hidden. This way you won't have a temptation to check with achievements list all the time to know if you missed anything, and can get pleasant surpirse when completing a special action.