• 11Nov 08

  A gamer's guide to implementing achievements

  Otherwise known as "how NOT to do it..." Developers, please take note.

  
  Quite surprisingly, one of the most successful and most talked-about aspects of the XBox 360's launch was not its hardware, nor its lineup, but its nifty inclusion of the gamerscore and achievement system which, for our rock-dwelling friends, is a standard feature in all xbox 360 software which rewards the player with up to 1000 "points" for completing various tasks and challenges as the developer sees fit, all of which count towards your accumulative gamer score.

  Though the madness regarding achievements has died down a little, and while more hardcore gamers have perhaps relaxed a little in what was originally a manic, obsessive race for more points, achievements still remain a fun, addictive and original aspect of most new releases.

  This isnt always the case, though. Sometimes achievements are implemented in a way so bland, so uninspired, so infuritating or in such an out-right awful fashion that they, in the worst cases, actually serve to hinder one's enjoyment of the game.

  Here we present a guide to preventing such software atrocities:

  HOW NOT TO USE ACHIEVEMENTS: A Gamer's Guide

  1) Arbitrary repitition of menial tasks:

  Nothing says "fun" like doing some dishes, mowing a lawn or cleaning out the garage! For whatever reason, a mind bogglingly large number of developers have implemented achievements in their games to basically reward the player for repeating a given task over and over and over again. Cases in point:

   

   Save a survivor being attacked by the infected 50 times.

   Yeah, you heard right... fifty times. Not save a survivor, kill the last bad guy or get a really special kill. No, repeat a given process fifty times. Even if a tasty marshmallow were dispensed from your console each time you successfully save a survivor, i honestly doubt it'd remain doing so fifty times.

  Of course, asking the player to do something a certain number of times is not bad by default. Some games incorporate this quite well into the gameplay, whereby the player will often NEED to perform certain tasks a number of times to advance. Others are just chores however. Take Chrome Hounds:

  

  Deploy on treads 50 times

  Yes, the game rewards you for choosing a certain type of base when constructing your mech... and then playing with said mech 50 times. There are similar achievements for using legs, wheels or a combination of the three. 

  WHY!?

  What is being achieved? What is the developer actually rewarding here? Is this not simply a chore the creators are forcing the player to grind through?

   2). Achievements which will mess up your online multiplayer

  Halo 3 rewards the player for using the Needler (a weapon) a certain number of times. It rewards the player for getting a certain number of grenade sticks, and a certain type of spartan laser kill. Nothing too crazy, and nothing too laborious to complain about. The problem? All of these apply to online multiplayer, and worse still, ranked multiplayer.

  Why is this an issue? Well, let's look at Gears of War for another very similar example:

  

  Kill 100 enemies in ranked matches with the Hammer of Dawn

  This basically serves to guarantee that at some point in your online career, you will lose a ranked match at least once due to that team member refusing to use any weapon other than the one in which he is attempting to acquire an achievement, regardless of how impractical the use of that weapon may be in the given situation, or of what effect it is having on the team.

  When Halo 3 launched, how many times did you enter the matchmaking lobby only to hear "...anyone wanna do an achievements match?" No, billy, i do not. I want to play the game.

  When your achievements hinder the player's ability to actually play the game, it's time to go back to the drawing board.

  3). Demanding unrealistic and unreasonable loyalty to your game

  Gears of War's Seriously Achievement will likely come to mind for most people, but i'll use another example rather than focusing too much attention on one game. Brothers in Arms, for example:

  

  Play the game every day for 100 days

  Puh-lease. Sometimes as a developer, it is equally important that you realise the shortcomings of your game, as well as its strengths. Demanding that your user base give unrealistic and unreasonable attention to your game only serves to make your studio appear somewhat dilusional as to the quality of your game.

  Even the best of this year's holiday releases likely wont last for over a quarter of a year before gamers move onto something else.

  4). Spoilerific achievement titles/names

  The xbox 360 dashboard features a section which allows the player to browse through all the games they have played, and the related achievements attached to them, either locked or unlocked.

  I know i cant be the only one who has been horrified by some of the names given to achievements in the past, in relation to how they so blatantly rip apart the game's story.

  Some games feature achievement titles and descriptions akin to putting "It turns out Vader's his father" on the Empire Strikes Back movie poster.

  5). Finally, be creative

  Achievements should not be something you "go after", if you ask me. An achievement is something which should pop-up on your screen to your delight upon doing something awesome. If i throw a grenade right across the map on Halo 3, only to have it land perfectly in the passenger seat of an enemy warthog, wouldnt it be brilliant if an achievement popped up to signify just how rare and how awesome a moment that is?

  If it were up to me, the requirements for all achievements would be made secret, allowing for the player to unlock them by doing what we buy these games to do in the first place; enjoying them.

   

  Thanks for reading.

  *achievement info and images from xbox360achievements.com

  • Posted Nov 11, 2008 10:02 am PT
  • Category: Editorial
  • 5 Comments
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
• 6Nov 08

  Quantum of Solace; a gentleman's review

  

  The Great man is back.

  So i was lucky enough to see the new Bond movie this week, and thought i'd post my impressions here, seeing as its getting some mixes reactions on the interwebs. Personally speaking, i was a huge fan of Casino Royale. I thought the more sombre, realistic approach was just what the doctor ordered after the super-cheesed invisible cars and bad guys with diamonds in their faces of the Brosnan era.

  So while some have complained that the fancy gadgets and tricks of the old bond movies arent present, you wont find that gripe with me. Craig does a far better job playing an agent with nothing but a gun and his own ability, rather than an arsenal of ridiculous space-age techno gadgetry.

  The film takes a slight departure from the strong narrative of the previous entry, instead going for a more action-heavy approach which fits the very angry Bond quite well. The story this time around sees James hunting down the members of a multi-national organisation who have set about destabilising governments for their own economic interests. An interesting twist on this however, is the fact that the organisation played a part in the death of Vespa, Bond's previous love interest, resulting in some mixed motives behind James' actions.

  Overall the story works quite well, though it lacks some of the more clever aspects of Casino Royale, instead opting for perhaps more simplistic "stopping the bad guys" plot lines. This is arguably necessary however to support the numerous action-heavy scenes. And it is with these scenes that my biggest gripe arises.

  The director gets in very close with his shots, which works when trying to establish dialogue, but not at all during car chases and fight scenes. The film opens with a car chase which SHOULD be incredibly exhilerating, but instead comes off as chaotic and hard to follow as super-close ups chop and change every milisecond between various angles. The same can be said of the fight scenes; one in particular was so close-up and so chaotic that i had absolutely no idea how Bond managed to subdue his attackers when the camera finally pulled out to reveal them lying unconscious. The shaky-cam worked excellently in films like saving private ryan to immerse the viewer into the situation, but in films such as this it simply makes events borderline impossible to follow.

  The film is c lassic bond overall however. It features the great story, characters and bond one-liners that you expect from any 007 feature, and should prove a worthy movie-going event for bond lovers, especially if you favour the new rebooted s tyle of the franchise.

  Verdict: Pretty Sweet.

  • Posted Nov 6, 2008 10:39 am PT
  • 2 Comments
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
• 4Nov 08

  Congratulations America!

  President Obama, eh? Has a ring to it. I'm very happy personally, as i thought from the beginning that he was the perfect man for the job, though i do admit i doubted he'd manage to pull it off in the end.

  Hopefully we can look forward to a great period of peace, progress and harmony.

  • Posted Nov 4, 2008 10:50 pm PT
  • 2 Comments
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg

See Previous Blog Posts »