Grind?

(L00fah) #141

[QUOTE=Zekariah;377205]Alright, enough of the L00f and zen show. Back on topic.

God…where were we?[/QUOTE]
We’re planning out the details for a sequel as we speak, don’t get your hopes up. :stuck_out_tongue:

I’m an achievement whore, truth be told, so my stance is clear.
But I think some games are way too gratuitous with the achievements. Sadly, Brink was definitely one of those games. Almost all of them are based on basic crap. I went a sense of ACHIEVEMENT with my achievements (please no “sup dawg” meme!).

I support these rewards completely if they’re rewarding actual skill.

(morguen87) #142

a game of good quality that offers an engaging experience does not need any grind or badges or achievements to offer a rewarding experience.
You could, gasp, just make a good game. And that would be reason enough for people to keep playing.

(L00fah) #143

[QUOTE=morguen87;377288]a game of good quality that offers an engaging experience does not need any grind or badges or achievements to offer a rewarding experience.
You could, gasp, just make a good game. And that would be reason enough for people to keep playing.[/QUOTE]
Rewards = bad game? Guess there are a lot of really bad games out there.
/sarcasm

Point being, there’s nothing wrong with including them in a game, may it be good or bad. It’s not like they’re a requirement to do or anything.

(thesuzukimethod) #144

going back to your proof/logic comment earlier :slight_smile:
…i think it’s safe to say that a good game doesnt need achievements/trophies, but that simply having achievements doesnt make a game bad (or good). there’s a venn diagram waiting to happen.

some people like them, others think they are lame. it would be bad marketing to ignore either sector…although (again, referencing that video), there are game design/theory reasons why achievements can be detrimental to building a better game…but their presence doesnt indicate some inherent flaw in either the game (that has them) or the gamer (who enjoys them).

(morguen87) #145

[QUOTE=L00fah;377297]Rewards = bad game? Guess there are a lot of really bad games out there.
/sarcasm

Point being, there’s nothing wrong with including them in a game, may it be good or bad. It’s not like they’re a requirement to do or anything.[/QUOTE]
What? I never said that.
What I did say was that a good game can stand on its own merits and does not need grind or achievements. That’s not say good games don’t have them, because some good games do, but they don’t need them - they’re fun extras. I’ve been a critic of Brink mainly because it seems like it was designed backwards. Like they thought of the fun little extras like customization and ability unlocks before they even started the core game play. The game seems molded around these frivolous extras instead of the other way around.

(Humate) #146

The achievements or grind in MP isn’t about being rewarded. Its about filling the “clocking” void missing from MP.This is basically what SD tried to do with Brink; offer that feeling that you’ve clocked the game, within the scope of a MP map. COD does this by giving you the opportunity to “prestige”. Which basically means - clocking the game more than once, while having something to show for it.

Originally that grind, or a better way of describing it - that “mountain climbing resistance” feeling stemmed from the players you played against. The achievement comes from beating the player, not the game. If someone kicks your ass 9 times out 10, the natural thing to do is go for a revenge kill. Which in itself, is a mini-achievement youve created for yourself. A boss fight :stuck_out_tongue: Ofcourse, you have nothing tangible to show for it… but who cares. :slight_smile: