... when going after achievements?

I'm torn. In some ways, this can be a good thing, but in others, it's horrible.

For example, I'm playing Dishonored and replaying the game isn't horrible because it's short. Nabbing the achievements work because you should be able to acquire them in two plays.

However, Fallout 3 has several achievements that demand we play the game three separate times. The problem: Fallout 3 isn't a short game. Despite how good it is, I don't feel compelled to play it three times for achievements, especially when one of them isn't easy to get (neutral to level 30). I need to be specific here: in most cases, these are the only achievements left to get, since most of the other ones usually are obtained when playing the game the first time.

This gets even more complicated with those idiotic secret achievements, which are usually easy to know thanks to this little search engine called "Google" (and I just love how publishers will ensure these are in every $20 guide book, defeating the whole purpose of "secret").

Up until recently, I didn't have a care in the world about these "G" points, but now that Microsoft is giving away some free stuff based on the score, they've changed from being benign to useful.

I'm closing in on 10,000, but it'll be a while. Too busy replaying games trying to get as many achievements as I can with as few play throughs as possible, which means other games aren't getting any love.

It's a conspiracy, I tells ya! Conspiracy!

The easier it is to get achievements, then the less they are really 'achievements'.

I don't mind it at all for a couple reasons. I almost always replay a game I like at least twice, probably 4 or 5 times eventually if I really like it, even if it's super long, but I do it just because I want to, and getting missed achievements is a little side thing. I didn't know anything about Microsoft giving rewards to players based on their gamerscore until now, but that still doesn't make me care about obtaining achievements. I could not be more unaffected by this trend.

Well... I feel like to at least some degree achievements were created specifically to encourage multiple replays of the game. At the very least I think we could safely say they were implemented to extend the shelf life of the games, and encourage players to continue playing a game after they normally may have stopped.

I kind of dig earning achievements but I don't think I've got %100 in any of my games, anyway. If I'm not going to be replaying the game otherwise, the prospect of achievements isn't going to change my mind on the matter.

Obligatory "people actually care about achievements?" post here.

If i replay a game it's because i feel it's worth it (Dragon Origins, 700 hours and going ). Achievements do not factor in in any way.

If you think Fallout's achievements are demanding try getting the achievement in Ghost Recon where you have to be #1 in one of the global leaderboards.

There is also the annoying "Seriously" achievements in the Gears of War series.

I can't stand online multiplayer achievements. It's impossible to achieve anything to do with the leaderboard when hacks/cheats are widely available before you've even bough the game. I stopped playing Ghost Recon online because of those achievements.

Fallouts achievements can be done in 1 playthrough if you have save points to rollback to.

I don't mind replaying a game. If it's fun, I'll get right to it, regardless of whether or not there's anything to earn. If there is, though, in the form of alternate things to unlock, multiple endings, separate paths, hidden challenges, side quests, then it's icing on the cake.

But Achievements are [censored] idiotic. If people are getting sore replaying their games solely to earn them, good. It'll help more people see how dumb they truly are.

This.

So, by the few comments, none of you care about the rewards given out by higher achievement scores?

Interesting. I concur with replay: I'll do it if the game's fun, and some achievements are designed nicely to make the replay a challenge.

Perhaps I should weigh the rewards vs. the obtaining points and go back to them being "meh".

Oh, and yes, some achievements are bone-headed by design, being far, far too ridiculous to be worth the effort. Who in the world thought this was a good idea?

This sums up all I needed to say.

For example, I frown on just being handed trophies just for playing the game's story. Seriously? It's an achievement that I got halfway through your game's story? Is it that bad you need to entice rewards for people to complete it?

I think Trophies and Achievements should require effort to obtain. Like New Vegas, I still have 1-2 maybe 3 achievements to obtain, but while I'm not upset I don't have them because I know I'm a lazy ass. If someone's only desire to replay a game is for achievements, then it clearly wasn't that good of a game.

Actually, i find those handy. They allow me questimate how far i'm in the game when playing it the first time Along with those that are given when completing all sidequests or such, quicker than checking stats, if they are even present. Those are getting rare nowadays too.

You know, games nowadays are taking themselves too seriously. What ever happened to games being fun?

I don't know how many times I've played Chrono Cross and Suikoden V. New Game Plus+ is a good method to keep people playing.

Schemes used today seem lazy.

I don't think so at all, I think it's just the culture around trophies and achievements. I even played RDR and trashed talked some dude who was cheating in multiplayer and after I got bored and left the session he criticised me for not having 100% completion on all my trophy sets. Seriously, the fact some gamers judge by achievements is a bit....pathetic.

NO. Games aren't about fun. Come on, don't be crazy. It's all about the meta.