PDA

View Full Version : what kind of achievements?


thieflordgamer
02-24-2006, 02:19 AM
so do u guys like games with achievements that r as high as say, 50, where each is worth little and there r a lot of hard ones, and its hard 2 keep track of them all, or do u like where in like CoD2, theres 13 and theyre basic ones that r worth a lot. i like achievements that change the way u play the game, but 5000 games in quake 4 is just ridiculous. it takes forever to set up a game, and the loading screens! omg! theyre ridiculous.

Krazie
02-24-2006, 04:58 AM
I like games like condemned where they have a lot of achievements that give you a few points, but they arent completely rediculous that you cant do them

IMO, Condemned should be the model of an XBOX 360 achievement list

nestler16
02-24-2006, 05:01 AM
i do like the setup of condemned achievements... but i also like playing a game like fight night or king kong and if you beat the game you get the achievements

LOST
02-24-2006, 05:43 AM
i do like the setup of condemned achievements... but i also like playing a game like fight night or king kong and if you beat the game you get the achievements

agreed for 4 reasons.

1) It's easier. ;D

2) I don't like playing online that much.

3) I just think all should be unlocked through single player caimpagn, is that so bad?

4) proof you beat the game. Not you spent hours getting owned on Q4.

nestler16
02-24-2006, 05:48 AM
yea i think like fight night could have added a couple like KO in first round i dono made it a tiny bit more in depth

doadea
02-24-2006, 11:44 AM
I don't mind having low point achievements as long as they are not impossible....and as for online achievements, I don't mind them either as long as they are not dependant on you being first on some leaderboard like Quake 4. Make online achievments something like compete (not necessarily win) in 100 online events or something. American Wasteland and Full Auto have their online achievements right.....doa and quake 4 do not....

thieflordgamer
02-24-2006, 01:10 PM
ya, itll b hard 2 lose 20 matches in a row, lol

graf1k
02-24-2006, 03:26 PM
My opinion is that 15-20 should be the lowest point value for any one achievement. If it's not worth giving people at least 15 points for, it's not worth being an achievement. COD2 for example never gives you 10 achievements at once, but it doesn't need to because each time you get one you get that satisfied feeling of getting a solid 50 points each time you get one, and a bonus for beating the game totally. So yeah, less achievements, more time between them, and higher point values, but don't do an NBA2K6 and have 5 achievements worth 200 each or whatever.

U2MOFO
02-24-2006, 09:17 PM
Full Auto did a great job with the Achievements..... Sounds like Ghost Recon will have a similar system... :)

g4m3r7ag
02-24-2006, 09:31 PM
call of duty was a great system

nestler16
02-24-2006, 09:58 PM
call of duty was a great system


yea it was if you beat the game on a normal difficulty level you got something but you had to be realyly good to get all 1000.. but the 1000 isnt impossible if you play the game well

nny138
02-05-2007, 07:19 AM
indeed condemned had a great system. you could get about 1/2 of the pts from just playing through the game. and the remaining ones were not impossible at all, they just took patience and a few more play throughs. I hate when after playing through a really tough game you end up with like 80 pts, and you have to do all this crazy rediculous stuff to even get half of them. if its too hard i wont bother, and so the whole idea of the achievements fail.

Creech
02-06-2007, 06:34 PM
Only a year after the last post...talk about dredging up oldies... ;)

MrDillyYo411
02-06-2007, 11:01 PM
personally i like how the outfit is set up with gamerscore. a ton of possible achievments. Also like how the game has all the little side things that give medals which in turn gives achievments