Renzatic on 1/4/2013 at 01:16
Quote Posted by Starker
Actually, come to think of it, it could affect core gameplay mechanics too.
If achievements change player behaviour, that also changes the metrics that are collected, and AAA is pretty metrics driven these days.
First, ask yourself if you think the majority of gamers are playing Mass Effect for the story and gameplay, or the achievements? If it's the latter, you and I both have something to worry about, but I don't think that's the case. There wouldn't have been so many people bitching about the ending of ME3 if they were just playing for the achievements alone.
Really, I think most people treat achievements the way I do. They're fun to play with after you've beaten the game once or twice, but they're not that big of a deal in and of themselves.
Though what do you mean by metric driven exactly? Are you talking about "how many people did X" like in that pick Judith posted (I think) earlier in this thread, or the gameplay itself?
jtr7 on 1/4/2013 at 08:51
Achievements for a NUT-heif!
Judith on 1/4/2013 at 09:20
Starker the analogy you posted doesn't really work.
First of all, achievements are added in the end of development process, so they're not impacting the level design, or even more ridiculously, the core mechanics - they're result of both. Not the other way around. Like Renz said, they're more like the waypoints, e.g. I can see where my friend is in the game right now so I don't spoil any major thing for her. If achievements were that much connected with game design, you'd probably be able to get most of them after a single playthrough, because they "would be in the game". It's a rare thing when you get half of the achievements after beating a single player game, it's more like 1/3rd. It's even less if the game has multiplayer component.
Secondly, achievements are not part of the game, as same as Steam UI or GFWL/Xbox UIs are not part of the game. It's an overlay. Achievements are a meta-game, which basically means that you can get some of them on second or third playtrhough. They aren't connected to your savegames, but to your profile. So if on your first playthrough you're getting achievements like "Killed 75 baddies with shotgun on fire", it's mostly a by-product. Or perhaps a result of your gameplay preferences. It applies even more in multiplayer, where you can get achievement for killing 1000 foes with sniper rifle, even if you reach for it as a last resort. You just played the game for really long time.
Thirdly, there are no rewards for the achievements. Just a pop-up message that you did something, even if it wasn't something you've striven for or anything really spectacular. On Xbox things get more competitive, as achievements translate to gamerscore. You can see how many points per 1000 per game you got (i.e. how you suck). Still, you can't use them as money or trade for anything.
And the last thing, players can use achievements as a good thing. When I beat the game, I usually check the list to see what I missed, and I often find myself thinking "hey, I could do this there?" or "I could use my powers like that?" So it can also increase replayability, which in case of Thief is one of the most important things.
The issue will always be the choice of words. They shouldn't be too revealing, because you'll be able to see the list before you play the game. Story-based achievements are either hidden, very brief or phrased in a way you could never understand what they're about without knowing the story.
Starker on 1/4/2013 at 09:22
Quote Posted by Renzatic
Though what do you mean by metric driven exactly? Are you talking about "how many people did X" like in that pick Judith posted (I think) earlier in this thread, or the gameplay itself?
Yes, the data about how players played the game.
jtr7 on 1/4/2013 at 09:32
I find that reading the manual, checking the Hints/Tips, experimenting, exploring, taking advantage of safe areas in the maps to try things, and reading the forums gives me more information about what I can do in the game without ever needing to check an achievements list. Redundant!
Starker on 1/4/2013 at 09:36
Quote Posted by Judith
Starker the analogy you posted doesn't really work.
First of all, achievements are added in the end of development process, so they're not impacting the level design, or even more ridiculously, the core mechanics - they're result of both. Not the other way around. Like Renz said, they're more like the waypoints, e.g. I can see where my friend is in the game right now so I don't spoil any major thing for her. If achievements were that much connected with game design, you'd probably be able to get most of them after a single playthrough, because they "would be in the game". It's a rare thing when you get half of the achievements after beating a single player game, it's more like 1/3rd. It's even less if the game has multiplayer component.
Secondly, achievements are not part of the game, as same as Steam UI or GFWL/Xbox UIs are not part of the game. It's an overlay. Achievements are a meta-game, which basically means that you can get some of them on second or third playtrhough. They aren't connected to your savegames, but to your profile. So if on your first playthrough you're getting achievements like "Killed 75 baddies with shotgun on fire", it's mostly a by-product. Or perhaps a result of your gameplay preferences. It applies even more in multiplayer, where you can get achievement for killing 1000 foes with sniper rifle, even if you reach for it as a last resort. You just played the game for really long time..
They may not be a part of the game, but they do affect player behaviour, and thereby the recorded metrics, no? And do developers not make use of the metrics?
Quote Posted by Judith
Thirdly, there are no rewards for the achievements. Just a pop-up message that you did something, even if it wasn't something you've striven for or anything really spectacular. On Xbox things get more competitive, as achievements translate to gamerscore. You can see how many points per 1000 per game you got (i.e. how you suck). Still, you can't use them as money or trade for anything.
The talk (and the article that summarizes it as well as the research that it's based on) is about rewards like verbal encouragement, getting a score for your task (like a grade in school), getting a gold sticker or a badge, etc. It does not have to be something useful, or even physical.
Quote Posted by Judith
And the last thing, players can use achievements as a good thing. When I beat the game, I usually check the list to see what I missed, and I often find myself thinking "hey, I could do this there?" or "I could use my powers like that?" So it can also increase replayability, which in case of Thief is one of the most important things.
Alternate ways of playing could be pointed out without achievements. In fact, players used self-imposed challenges long before achievements.
Furthermore, using extrinsic motivators to make people want to replay your game is a bad idea. It should be interesting enough by itself.
jtr7 on 1/4/2013 at 09:38
Yeah, discussing things like personal--not officially sanctioned--achievements on the forums is much more meaningful and connecting.
Judith on 1/4/2013 at 10:38
April fools, huh?
Inline Image:
http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/9315/aprilfools.pngAnyway,
Quote:
They may not be a part of the game, but they do affect player behaviour, and thereby the recorded metrics, no? And do developers not make use of the metrics?
I know where this is going, and yes, the metrics affect the way devs make games, so the circle is unbroken ;) And achievements may or may not affect player behaviour, this is not something always certain,. I know they affect mine, but only after the first playthrough, and in case of many single player games I play - there is no second playthrough at all. Or there is after a year or so. In such case I already experienced the story, the emotional and intellectual impact etc. and I already treat such title as more "gamey" than during the first playthrough. The reasons are obvious - the game has already taught me everything I needed to know about it in order to beat it.
Quote:
Alternate ways of playing could be pointed out without achievements. In fact, players used self-imposed challenges long before achievements.
And how it is done now? Any examples? The players you talk about are not the target audience of the achievements. It's the broader audience that is. So my sister or my mom playing Dishonored will know from achievements that you can ghost the whole game or play without using "magic" skills or killing anyone. Does simply reading it from achievement list make them more stupid? I knew that from watching previews and trailers or figured that by myself, but they don't have time for that. Also, they haven't played many games yet, and rarely their gaming sessions were longer than 30 mins. So they didn't really have the conditions to think about games that way. Actually they might never be in such place.
Your or rather our point of view is often narrowed by many implied assumptions we make, just because we're in gaming since early 80s or so. We're not the only audience out there, actually we are the minority and we're using very obscure "gaming language". If games can communicate with more people new to games, more efficiently and faster - the better for the games. Achievements are just one of the ways to do it. Hardcore gamers can ignore them or use them to their own advantage, the best implementation of achievements includes every or at least most player types.
Quote:
Furthermore, using extrinsic motivators to make people want to replay your game is a bad idea. It should be interesting enough by itself.
Social psychology and terms such as internalization say hi.
Starker on 1/4/2013 at 11:17
Quote Posted by Judith
And how it is done now? Any examples? The players you talk about are not the target audience of the achievements. It's the broader audience that is. So my sister or my mom playing Dishonored will know from achievements that you can ghost the whole game or play without using "magic" skills or killing anyone. Does simply reading it from achievement list make them more stupid? I knew that from watching previews and trailers or figured that by myself, but they don't have time for that. Also, they haven't played many games yet, and rarely their gaming sessions were longer than 30 mins. So they didn't really have the conditions to think about games that way. Actually they might never be in such place.
It could be done within the game through game design. You don't have to reward the player with a badge (btw, the research often found no difference between symbolic and tangible rewards). Just by noting down how many times a player has been noticed, without incentivizing it, would point players towards ghosting.
Quote Posted by Judith
Social psychology and terms such as internalization say hi.
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overjustification_effect)
