Some thoughts on Xbox360 Achievements

Achievements are a hot topic lately on blogs, podcasts and in magazines, but I have yet to observe anyone express an opinion similar to one I feel very strongly about. The Achievements element of the Xbox360 experience is a stroke of genius, not because of ‘bragging rights’ which are often mentioned, but because achievements offer incremental goals and become a kind of game within the larger game, adding to one’s overall enjoyment each time you reach a new goal. For many of us, fun is what gaming is all about, and at their best, achievements simply make gaming more fun.

Since the Xbox360’s launch I have seen Achievements mature from a sometimes clever--sometimes misguided beginning to their current state. My Gamerscore bears the Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter blight of having earned achievements worth 2, 8, and in one case 36 points--not sure what Ubisoft was thinking there. But I traded in GRAW long ago, and since most other developers have wisely settled on point values divisible by 5, I will likely have a Gamerscore ending in 4 or 9 for some time to come.

Thinking about GRAW’s achievements reminds me that one pet peeve I have is when developers require a player to finish an easier difficulty mode to get achievements that should be given when a player completes a harder difficulty mode. I am a recreational gamer and don’t have time to burn; I need to get my gaming in when I can, but I’m not satisfied unless I have completed a game’s single player portion on the hardest difficulty. When I do so, I feel I’ve earned the points for any softer difficulty, too. Gears of War correctly rewards a player in this situation: when you skip Casual and finish a chapter on Hardcore you get two achievements. For GRAW, however, I played the single player only on Hard and was not awarded 275 points for the Normal difficulty. Oh, well. RS: Vegas did it right, so I hope Ubisoft will make sure GRAW 2 works the same way.

Another type of achievement that just plain sucks is one that requires luck rather than skill. Texas Hold ’Em and World Series of Poker: Tournament of Champions both give achievements for being dealt all hands through Royal Flush. The odds against drawing a royal flush in a seven-card game are almost 31,000 to 1, assuming your opponents don’t fold on you! Professional players go their entire careers without getting a royal flush, but people playing a video game that has an active life of a couple years at most are expected to get one? To the credit of 360 developers in general, this is the only achievement I can think of that can hurt your chances of getting other achievements. How many times (assuming you’ve played poker) have you called bets with a royal flush draw solely because this might be that 1 in 31,000 times that you get the fifth card you need? Sorry, but this is one of the stupidest achievements I’ve run into.

I’m not saying achievements shouldn’t be difficult: the more difficult they are the more satisfying when accomplished, as long as they are difficult but doable, and more important, doable via hard work and persistence. Who says playing video games can’t help us develop at least a few good qualities? Neither should the hardest achievements in any given game be too easy. Finishing Call of Duty 2 on Veteran was just right—difficult but doable, and it felt great to get that Veteran achievement.

I think the worst type of achievement is one that requires a player to reach #1 on a scoreboard, such as several achievements found in Chromehounds and GRAW. This type of achievement is simply out of reach for the vast majority of players; it takes more time and more skill than all but a very few of us have, and that large remainder of gamers is left knowing we will never get those achievements--not because we didn’t try hard enough, but because such accomplishments are simply beyond our abilities. No matter how much we play we’ll simply never be good enough to reach the #1 spot in a highly competitive game. The average gamer should be able to get most of a game’s achievements if he or she is willing to put the time in to develop the required skill. Perhaps the average gamer shouldn’t expect to be able to get all 1000 points in every game, but most if not all achievements should be possible if the gamer is willing to try hard enough.

On one occasion I was able to take the #1 spot on a leader board. It was on the Marathon board in Hexic, a feat that required more time than skill (which is why I was able to do it). Even though I only did it in Hexic, and my score has since been left far, far in the dust, at that time it was very rewarding to see my name on top and I didn’t need an Achievement Unlocked notice to feel good about it. In fact, I think one’s participation and position in any type of ranked mode should be the same: increasing your rank should be achievement enough, especially hitting #1.

I will go a bit further and deliver the main point of this post: Ranked Match achievements are not good for Xbox Live, and developers should not make them part of the 1000 point limit. My reason for this opinion is simple: when you make an achievement for ranked matches only, you force casual, recreational gamers to enter the realm of the MAGHUT (Maniacal, Antagonistic, Gay Hating, Under-supervised Teenager). Gears of War is currently my favorite online game, and I have a lot of fun playing it with my friends. I like Gears so much that I would like to get all the achievements as I have done with a few other games that I really, truly loved. But in order to do this I have to join ranked matches and am sometimes forced to spend my precious gaming time with maghuts who hate me and humanity for no obvious reason, and whom I in turn despise for their appalling behavior. (I’m not sure if the Live matchmaking scheme is even at work here, because as a recreational player with no negative feedback I get matched with some pretty disgusting characters.) This situation does not make my Live experience more enjoyable. And let’s face it: if Halo 3 has ranked match achievements it’ll be even worse.

I have friends who also wish to get all the Gears Achievements, and we are forced to contrive a ranked match where we can play together to earn credit toward those goals and simultaneously avoid being called offensive names as we witness first hand the dire state of today’s gaming youth. This sometimes feels a bit like cheating to me: we are playing ranked matches amongst ourselves to create a friendly environment, but this is contrary to the basic premise of the ranked match. Since I feel a bit guilty about contriving a ranked match, this further decreases my gaming fun, which makes it rare that I find myself playing ranked games, which means that in all likelihood I will not get any of the ranked achievements for Gears of War.

Well, maybe that’s just too bad for me. But I don’t think it is only me. I think many Gears players have had similar experiences and thus are unlikely to chase these achievements, even though they may desire to do so. Is Gears intended to be a game only for maghuts? I think Microsoft wants it and every other game to draw people into Live and Xbox360 gaming. Any time a Gold trial member is placed in the company of maghuts, Live’s future is harmed. I suspect those ranked achievements are contrary to growing the Live Gold membership.

So is this situation worth the benefits, whatever those may be, of including ranked match achievements in any game? I think most gamers who choose to play ranked matches would do so anyway, and for them the ranked-match-only achievements are just a bonus. They get gratification from moving up on the scoreboards, from achieving stats that boost their egos, and in many cases from pwning the poor noobs who stumble innocently into their clutches. But I think there are many more casual players who, while they avoid the shocking society often found in ranked matches, still enjoy Player Matches with friends and with strangers who are also seeking fun multiplayer gaming without all the name-calling and creepy t-bagging you have when two or more maghuts get together in the same match.

All, or at least most, of a game’s achievements should be offered in good faith to the widest selection of gamers. Rather than requiring us to play ranked matches for the Versus achievements, we should get credit for headshots in Player matches, too. That way, no matter what type of versus match you prefer, Ranked or Player, you care still able to get the achievements.

Some will say that this ruins the point of Ranked Match Achievements, which are supposed to be harder to get due to an increased level of competition in Ranked matches, and harder to contrive because in a ranked match you aren’t supposed to be able to get a bunch of fellow Gamerscore whores in there with you to take turns lining up for headshots. But let’s face it: the latter situation happens anyway. Those who want to boost achievements will find a way to do so. And as far as the increased level of competition, so what? Most of us play video games for pleasure, not to prove our manhood and claim the most fertile woman in the tribe or to train for professional gaming tournaments. What I value in a video game is more fun. I don’t go bravely into ranked matches and suffer the company of maghuts because of some Nietzsche-esque belief that spending time with them will make me stronger. I simply want to enjoy myself, and sadly I find that chasing the ranked match achievements in games like Gears is no fun at all.

I realize that some who read this won’t care whether average gamers are having fun or not playing Gears of War and might advise us to go play Viva Pinata. (Which was a lot of fun, in spite of an Achievement for playing 50 hours, which I will never get.) But by definition most of the people found on Live are of average ability, and I think most of them play for fun. Thus, everyone should care what kind of experience these people are having because this is the group that keeps Live humming. You may be one among the small group of elite players who have a legitimate chance of claiming #1 on the GRAW scoreboards, but if the majority of Live gamers aren’t enjoying themselves, there won’t be any scoreboards for you to conquer or noobs for you to pwn. You’re better off being content with the admiration of other players of your high ability who will notice your rank on scoreboards because they are competing with you for a high spot themselves. These are the only people besides you who care what your rank is anyway: the rest of us couldn’t care less.

In conclusion I point out that for many of us, achievements have become a goal in themselves. I have one guy on my friends list who chases achievement points for their own sake, and I say more power to him. He has found a way to add enjoyment to his gaming, which is what it’s all about. He enjoys not only the game itself, but the constant increase in his Gamerscore, a few points at a time. However, even this accomplished gamer with over 45,000 achievement points won’t play ranked matches unless it’s a contrived friends-only event. Hardcore gamers may scoff at our sensitivity to offensive behavior and our desire to have a playing-for-fun-only shot at all the achievements. If the maghuts don’t get you down, then you’re either tougher than we are, or you need professional help. And if you suffer their company because stats are everything to you, then good luck in life, babe. Good game stats only impress the guy one spot below you. If you really want to impress me, let’s see you get a royal flush.