opinions on balanced achievement lists

[biohazrd6]

I had posted this in the Oblivion forum but I thought I would post it here to start a further discussion.

I sure hope there aren't 100 achievements in Oblivion. That would split up the points just way too much. I just feel like some of the achievements in games like PDZ or DOA just require too much repetition and take the fun out of getting some of them.

But then there is the other side of the coin where all you have to do is play through a game to get 1000 points like King Kong. I think Microsoft should oversee the achievements for games just to keep some sort of balance. I really liked the achievements for games like COD2 and NFSMW. They were challenging and required a decent amount of time, but you didn't have to replay them over and over to get all the points.
Then again, both those games should have had some achievements for playing online.

There is a perfect balance somewhere, I just don't think any of the games I have played have found it just yet. My ideal achievements list would be about 25 - 35 achievements with a balance between offline and online achievements. There should also be a balance between achievements that are attainable by the casual gamer... meaning that you don't have to devote your life to completing them, and a lesser number of higher point achievements that require you to be very skilled and devote more time to them. But that's just my opinion. I'd love to know what everyone else thinks.

[uL x Hazzard x]

well I would just like to say that the limit for any game is 50 achievements and I am pretty sure elder scrolls will have that many or close to it so you don't have to worry about 100

[khytomer]

I totally enjoyed the Achievements on Condemned(50), Gun(31) and Call of Duty(13). As you can see all of these games have totally different numbers of achievements, so basically I can say: As long as I enjoy the Game a higher number of achievements can't be wrong. As with PDZ, I kinda understand the 50 partly boring achievements bacause its an Online Game after all, and if ppl think they need to get those achievements as fast as possible, they are to blame themselves if they didn't enjoy getting them(like me *lol*)

Taking Oblivion as an example: I'd find 100 achievements absolutely thrilling, cause I know this game is gonna rule and so are going to do its achievements. Everyone has its own point of view on this specific game: Some play it because its fun without caring for achievements, others play it for the gamerscore(those are to blame themselves) and are going to be totally ****ed because of 100 achievements, and others again will have fun acquiring hardtoget achievements or all of the achievements and won't have any problem withlowpoint-achievements. The latter's my passion.

[biohazrd6]

I didn't know about the 50 achievement cap. Good to know. Overall, I've enjoyed getting all of my achievements so far as well. Especially COD2, Kameo, and NFS. I think the only achievement that I'm getting sick of at the moment is getting all the costumes in DOA4. For some reason it's taking me forever to get through Time Attack so many times with the unlocked characters. I'm too close to give up though so I'll keep on trying until I succeed. With so many sweet games coming out in March, people who like getting their gamer points as fast as possible are gonna have to become more patient if they want to play every great game for the points only. It's going to be a lot of fun going for 1000 points in Oblivion, not to mention GRAW, Burnout, Battlefield, Far Cry... I could go on but you get the picture. Bring it on!

[Crono117]

I think they need to base acheivements on skill vs. time. If it's a very difficult acheivement like PDZ on dark agent then it shoudl be worth a majority of the gaming points, and if it's very time consuming like 1'000 infection kills, etc. it should be worth also a LOT of points. So basically, I believe PDZ could have found a perfect balance if it would have not had some of the really ridiculous online achievements and put more points into the single player. It'll never really be balanced, but EA isn't even trying, they're pathetic.

[Drakkenstrike]

I'd have to say Condemned was by far the most well rounded achievement out there. It's not too hard, doesn't take you over 500+ play attempts to achieve them all, and is almost perfect in length for a game of that style. There were just enough side things to look out for, but not enough to drive you insane. It's like the game never "tried" to make you hate it. To put it this way, it was never a chore getting those achievements b/c the game was actually enjoyable....imagine that :roll:

To be honest, 100 achievements doesn't sound so bad for an RPG. I mean, they could be as simple as "Wield a sword" to "Join the Assassin guild and kill it's leader". I play RPG's to death, so they really don't bother me. But put 100 achievements in say, "Joust", then I'd have a problem...

It's all relative to what you like :wink:

http://card.mygamercard.net/Drakkenstrike.jpg (http://live.xbox.com/member/Drakkenstirke)

[Drakkenstrike]

Oh yeah,
I'd also say Kameo had a good balance of achievements, considering it's targeted age. Go through the game, get half of them. Do some of the harder "A" ranks, and get the others.

Not to say I liked Kameo, b/c I didn't....at all....but the acheivements felt in place.

One more thing....ST the Kings "No collision" achievement in Ridge Racer should be worth more....like 300+. It's ridiculously hard. Things like that certainly merit more points than they give (also all the gaps in Tony Hawk, something not alot of people have).

Oh yeah, and achievements in games like Smash TV, Joust, Robotron etc are a FREAKING joke.....only about 1% of gamers will ever be able to achieve those points. RIDICULOUS!!

[Crono117]

I have to agree whole-heartedly with everything Drakkenstrike just said!