Achievement Whore.

I'm randomly deciding to blab about Xbox Live's "Achievements" system. I realize most everyone knows all about it, but rarely am I more comfortable than sitting in a recliner with a laptop in front of me, sharing (read: force-feeding you) my opinions.

Now, I feel like Achievements have had some good as well as some bad effects on my gaming career. I've certainly become more involved in a wider variety of games due in part to the AP associated with each title. This has led me to try some games that have turned out pretty good, but on the flipside, I've punished myself trying some real junk. I would never have looked twice at King Kong's game adaptation if not for the easy AP.

To me, the Achievement system can be cool and lame at the same time. For less-imaginative developers, an achievement list can amount to tasks like "Complete Level 1" and so forth. This is all well and good, but if a game is easy to finish, you can end up with a large numerical score for a mere few hours of plowing through a game. Then you come to a game that is more difficult or time-consuming with a similar achievement structure, and it won't yield nearly the same points-for-time ratio. Not a glaring flaw, but noticeable enough to yours truly.

There are games with very easy tasks that take little effort and yet give more points per task, most notably certain sports games. An obvious example: getting 20 rebounds in a basketball game unlocks a bunch of points, and you could get full points in a short evening. Then there are games like RPGs that take quite a bit of time to do more complicated tasks for less points per task.

Then we come to the really well-done and seemingly well thought-out achievements. One of my favorite lists is that for Dead Rising, a free-for-all romp around a gigantic mall fighting thousands of zombies and uncovering truth about why said zombies exist. This game is non-linear, with few rules as to how to get through the game. The achievements are terrific in that they all equal the same number of points per task, each vary in difficulty & time to complete, and are a mix of game completion tasks along with unique ideas that have nothing to do with the main game.

For instance, there are achievements for completing the game, defeating enemy characters, and escorting survivors out of danger. These types of goals are achieved through normal playing. Then we come to more unique ideas, such as killing specific numbers of zombies, catching air on a motorcycle, trying on clothes in the mall, and the list goes on. There are 50 different achievements and each are worth 20AP. Casual players who pick up the game and go through it in a rental might get 100 or so, while those who explore and want more points can (and must) devote a lot more time to the game.

I like this because now that games retail upward of $60, a developer can considerably increase the replay value of their creation by being clever. Some games of course have excess difficulty or time to them, such as games that require numerous complete play-throughs from beginning to end (usually in the form of "Beat the game on Normal, Hard, Very Hard, Extremely Hard" and so on). If they're not adding something new or different to each play-through other than being tougher, it's little incentive to keep going.

No, the score itself means nothing, of course. Yes, there is some effort, skill, and persistence required. However, a high Gamerscore generally just means you've played a lot of games. That's nice and all, but at the end of the day (and your life) it doesn't make any difference to anyone else. Still, I've had fun watching the "Achievement Unlocked" bubbles pop up during my games, and it has definitely increased my motivation to try out different things, both new games and new approaches to those games. I hope developers continue to be creative in all ways, and the Achievement system certainly doesn't hurt if you ask me.

P.S.  I laugh at Sony for copying Microsoft using their "Trophies."