VforVendetta Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 Well it really depends on the game. If it's multiplayer achievements for a game like Black Ops 2, I'm completely fine with it. (for the reason that I know there will be all these people online for practically years to come) However, for games like Red Faction: Guerilla Warfare, I can't really get the achievements without finding 5-7 other friends to help me out. I feel like that although it's probably a fairly old game at this point, the multiplayer still didn't survive for very long. So I wish that it didn't have multiplayer achievements. xD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tandle Posted April 14, 2013 Share Posted April 14, 2013 It depends on the game, really. If it's a game that I enjoy the multiplayer for, then that can be okay. Problem is that multiplayer achievements have a tendency to be ones that require you to go out of your way to get them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aceman417 Posted April 14, 2013 Share Posted April 14, 2013 I agree with this, and I don't like multiplayer achievements. If I haven't earned an achievement, why should it just be handed to me because I either chose not to play multiplayer, or I wasn't good enough when I did play to get it? I think my reasons for not liking multiplayer achievements have already been covered many times by several posts in this thread. I do enjoy some multiplayer games, but I think a lot of multiplayer achievements either ask too much, they require you to be very good at the game to get them, or they require blind luck. It wouldn't be enough to influence my decision on whether or not I would buy a game, because in all honesty as much as I think the introduction of achievements has been a massive success and a fantastic idea, they don't dictate either my style of play or my focus in games. One thing I think would be good to see, and I'm not sure how simple this may be to implement, is to have an either/or system when it came to multiplayer achievements. So the achievement could be unlocked by either doing something campaign/SP related or by an action done in multiplayer. Thus making the entire gamerscore available for people who don't like multiplayer, who may not have internet, who may not be too good at the multiplayer side of the game to unlock it. Maybe there could be a system of having a different achievement picture for the offline/online achievement so people could see which way the achievement was obtained. Also if at all possible some way of showing if the player had fulfilled both the offline and online requirements, obviously without any extra GS for this. Certainly an interesting concept I think. If this has been suggested/discussed previously in the thread then apologies if I've stolen anybody's idea! lol I just haven't read all 13 pages, just the first couple and this last page! Mass Effect 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yasfc13 Posted April 14, 2013 Share Posted April 14, 2013 Multiplayer Achievements have more of challenge then Single Player Achievements. It's great fun when you grab some friends to get a certain achievement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VeniVidiRici Posted April 14, 2013 Share Posted April 14, 2013 I wouldn't say I prefer games without MP-achievements per se, but I generally like SP-achievements more than their MP-counterparts. The problem with MP-achievements is that some of them are too time-consuming and others aren't obtainable after server shutdowns (looking slightly in EA's direction). Since I try to get 100% for the games I really like (what is, in my opinion, a nice way to honor the game), those kind of MP-achievements are frustrating. On the other hand some (well done) MP-Cheevos can really add a nice finish to a game. I think that most of these max-MP-level-achievements are not needed since they expand the time you HAVE to spend with it for 100% too much. Players don't need an achievement like this to prove how good they are in that game (or how much time they spent with it) because the player's level is usually shown ingame anyway, so there's no point in it. My personal best example atm is Tomb Raider: I like playing this game, so I got all SP-achievements. I also got 2 or 3 MP-achievements, but I don't think I'll complete this game with 100%. At the end there will be one achievement missing: Getting lv60 in MP. And that's a bit disappointing. Ergo: MP-achievements should be obtained by playing a fair amount of time in MP (especially when the game is mostly SP), but shouldn,t expand the time needed too much. I hope you understood what I wanted to say ^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmafrong Posted April 14, 2013 Share Posted April 14, 2013 Only some games should Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Craigus Posted April 14, 2013 Share Posted April 14, 2013 Mass Effect 3 Ah I'm presuming this incorporates an either/or system such as what I've described in my post? I haven't played it yet as I haven't finished ME2 so I've also steered clear of the achievements list. Well there you go then, the technology is available! I'd like to see more of it lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodHawk1991 Posted April 15, 2013 Share Posted April 15, 2013 I like them better if they don't have online multiplayer achievements mainly because I wasn't able to play online until last month due to either having no internet or data limits. >.> also I really want to get all the achievements for my games which didn't help back then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jas x God Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 I prefer only offline achievements just cause if I wanna play a game years from now I wanna be able to still get the 1000G. I don't mind multiplayer being included in games at all, multiplayer is fun. I just prefer there not to be mp or online cheevos. And like Strider16 said, they tend to be a hassle, and in my opinion not fun to attain. Some are completely out of my control too, pure luck is required- not skill. Not as much in newer games though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jas x God Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 I wouldn't say I prefer games without MP-achievements per se, but I generally like SP-achievements more than their MP-counterparts. The problem with MP-achievements is that some of them are too time-consuming and others aren't obtainable after server shutdowns (looking slightly in EA's direction). Since I try to get 100% for the games I really like (what is, in my opinion, a nice way to honor the game), those kind of MP-achievements are frustrating. On the other hand some (well done) MP-Cheevos can really add a nice finish to a game. I think that most of these max-MP-level-achievements are not needed since they expand the time you HAVE to spend with it for 100% too much. Players don't need an achievement like this to prove how good they are in that game (or how much time they spent with it) because the player's level is usually shown ingame anyway, so there's no point in it. My personal best example atm is Tomb Raider: I like playing this game, so I got all SP-achievements. I also got 2 or 3 MP-achievements, but I don't think I'll complete this game with 100%. At the end there will be one achievement missing: Getting lv60 in MP. And that's a bit disappointing. Ergo: MP-achievements should be obtained by playing a fair amount of time in MP (especially when the game is mostly SP), but shouldn,t expand the time needed too much. I hope you understood what I wanted to say ^^ Completely agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Magic Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 Depends on the game really. But I don't like achievements that require the use of co-op. Not a lot of my friends play the same games as me, so it's difficult finding someone sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aceman417 Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 Ah I'm presuming this incorporates an either/or system such as what I've described in my post? I haven't played it yet as I haven't finished ME2 so I've also steered clear of the achievements list. Well there you go then, the technology is available! I'd like to see more of it lol Yeah, heard it is also incorporated into the Mass Effect app as well, not too sure about it though. An either or situation would be great for a lot more games, as I can only stand MP in certain games eg, CoD, Halo, GoW, BF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampire Amaya Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 I do tend to steer clear of games with online multiplayer achievements. Mostly because we don't tend to get new games unless they're bought for us, so we're playing them probably a year after release when hardly anyone might be playing anymore. Also, at the moment, neither me or my boyfriend have gold.. Local multiplayer and co-op achievements are another thing, these I don't mind at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dstevey Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 achievements should be tied to single player only. I think rewards such as weapon upgrades, rank upgrades are more rewarding to the multiplayer aspect of a given game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blookaz00 Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 I prefer games that don't have multiplayer achievements, because like the poster, I often buy games after they've been out for some time and by the time I actually get them people stop playing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lonehorn78 Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 Both, but depending on the game type, for example online vs achievements on a game like dead rising 2 is useless but is convenient for games such as gow or cod or similar:uzi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dothtmaster Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 Without! i never seem to have time to get them if they're online. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOceanHasEyes Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 Definitely without. I am terrible at multiplayer, except Gears of War. I don't mind Gears of War online achievements. Every other game that has multiplayer I usually go like 2-10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarwashNUMBER9 Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 no on line. i like how ME3, most online can be do in campain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadsea 1993 Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 Out of all these dislikes for MP achivements maybe some DEVS are reading this thread and decide to not add any MP achivements in their future games. COD 2 and 4 did it right. They had MP but all SP achivements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aceman417 Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 Out of all these dislikes for MP achivements maybe some DEVS are reading this thread and decide to not add any MP achivements in their future games. COD 2 and 4 did it right. They had MP but all SP achivements. Maybe we should send the thread link to all Devs. That would get them straight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk83rty Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 (edited) We'll put it this way. Tonight, I was going for an achievement on Halo 4 that requires healing 5 people (total, not in 1 game) near death with the regeneration field. The teammates I was getting were so bad that it took almost 2 hours. And one kid that knew i was going for it was intentionally not going in there and he was trying to make me mad in game chat. Online achievements can be ok if it's something like: "rank up" or anything that isnt based on teammate/opponent behavior. Anything that requires cooperation of other people that aren't your friends usually is a lot of trouble with how the Live community in general is, and usually ends up in me getting angry. Achievements shouldn't be "kill person that is doing X" because that means you have to match a person that is actually doing that particular activity. Also, only competent people play the game correctly anyway, so finding somebody doing what the developer actually intends to happen in their game might actually be hard to come across on some titles. I've pretty much lost faith in the average random person I come into contact with on Xbox Live, so generally online achievements are bad. Edited April 22, 2013 by sk83rty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadsea 1993 Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 Maybe we should send the thread link to all Devs. That would get them straight. Maybe,not all,you cant please everybody Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robs95 Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 online achievements can make the 100% way harder, i think rank up achievements and do x kills with y weapon is ok but nothing like win 50 games in a row or heal 5 teammates at onces! its to hard and everyone is going to boost it anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ninja Eagle Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 online achievements can make the 100% way harder, i think rank up achievements and do x kills with y weapon is ok but nothing like win 50 games in a row or heal 5 teammates at onces! its to hard and everyone is going to boost it anyway I agree with you. Mildly difficult achievements are ok, but having to spend hours online in a game that's not cool at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now