Majic
Warlord
Anyone think there will be an achievement system like in many other recent games? And what achievements would you like to have included?
Achievements
- Thread starter Majic
- Start date
Chalks
The blue pieces
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2010
- Messages
- 1,097
You could probably manage to have some fairly cool achievements in the game. They add a nice distracting metagame to it for when you're bored - as long as they don't actually do anything like unlock content or something. That would be irritating.
I don't think there will be a system like this though - although Steam is encouraging developers to integrate Steam achievements into their releases so who knows.
I don't think there will be a system like this though - although Steam is encouraging developers to integrate Steam achievements into their releases so who knows.
Shurdus
Am I Napoleon?
This would be cool as long as is not needed for anything ever. Showing off to others that you have won on deity is cool, needing to beat deity in order to unlock a new nation that you can play is not.
I'm all for achievements, since they give some extra incentive to try things you usually wouldn't. The CivRev achievements were great; they gave me the extra impetus to try for harder difficulties (and not give up after getting demolished the first few times), play as civs that don't fit my playstyle (Russia, Arabs), and go for challenging games (OCC, Despotism game).
Like others mentioned, just so long as they don't unlock gameplay content, although I'd support achievements that unlocked cosmetic things. Winning as Elizabeth shouldn't give me Oda, but it'd be cool if it enabled new game backgrounds or MP avatars.
Like others mentioned, just so long as they don't unlock gameplay content, although I'd support achievements that unlocked cosmetic things. Winning as Elizabeth shouldn't give me Oda, but it'd be cool if it enabled new game backgrounds or MP avatars.
cephalo
Deity
Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I find that achievements add absolutely nothing to my enjoyment of any game. Among my recent games, I have this huge collection of ridiculous badges for such things as defeating the first tutorial, etc.
I will never care who knows what I did in a game I bought. There are no words to express what a non-factor this is in my opinion of a game's quality or entertainment value.
I will never care who knows what I did in a game I bought. There are no words to express what a non-factor this is in my opinion of a game's quality or entertainment value.
Shurdus
Am I Napoleon?
Yeah same here actually, although I see the value of certain achievements for bragging rights for those who care. Achievements are more tangible than stories... However I do feel that they are not needed.
Ahriman
Tyrant
Yeah, they seem like useless clutter to me. But I can happily ignore them, and I guess some people out there care.
Achievments can be fun in some situations, but most of the time I'll ignore them. I like doing odd, or difficult things and sometimes achievements help you to see where opportunites for difficult things exist.
I thought the historical victories in Rhye's and Fall of Civ were almost like achievements, because they helped to point out interesting and challenging things to try. Something like them would be a lot of fun for Civ V. I remember when I showed Rhye's mod to my friends we spent a few weeks playing it in our single player games, comparing who which of the different victories we could pull off.
I thought the historical victories in Rhye's and Fall of Civ were almost like achievements, because they helped to point out interesting and challenging things to try. Something like them would be a lot of fun for Civ V. I remember when I showed Rhye's mod to my friends we spent a few weeks playing it in our single player games, comparing who which of the different victories we could pull off.
I couldn't agree more and probably would have said much the same thing if you hadn't already.
Achievements sound more like an excuse to get away with a boring game, where you have to do what the game tells you and get "rewarded" with achievements to have your fun.
Achievements, assuming they do nothing unique like unlock new features etc., are pointless in pretty much every game I've seen them used.
Also, a game like Civ is already addictive enough. Really, adding a plethora of achievements is not going to help the addicted.
If anything, I think the recent phenomenon of achievements in games is a sad reflection on the state of gaming.
Don't get sucked in by them.
mjs0
The 4th X
QFTI couldn't agree more and probably would have said much the same thing if you hadn't already.
Achievements sound more like an excuse to get away with a boring game, where you have to do what the game tells you and get "rewarded" with achievements to have your fun.
Achievements, assuming they do nothing unique like unlock new features etc., are pointless in pretty much every game I've seen them used.
Also, a game like Civ is already addictive enough. Really, adding a plethora of achievements is not going to help the addicted.
If anything, I think the recent phenomenon of achievements in games is a sad reflection on the state of gaming.
Playing a good game should be its own reward.
I would like to see achievements in Civ5. I often find my games repetitive and would love to have some achieves to force myself to play in a creative or uncommon way and get a "reward" for it (nothing like new content). I find achievements to be entertaining, and that's exactly the point of video games, to entertain. I personally think it adds alot of playability for players like me. On the other hand, if you don't want them, don't bother doing them. Simple as that.
frekk
Scourge of St. Lawrence
I hope they bring back achievements. Civ4 is unique in the franchise, in that it doesn't have any. Every previous version of civ did - either a throne room or palace, which you upgraded over time as your score went up. They had no function in the game, they were just a fun element that gave you a sense of progress as you grew from a simple cave with animal skins for carpets to a luxurious palace.
You didn't keep them from game to game and they didn't unlock any content - they were strictly graphical. This is an early phase of the civ3 palace, he's chosen to use a Middle Eastern style:
And here is one all done in the same style (you could mix and match different elements in different styles, or keep the same theme throughout) late in the game:
You didn't keep them from game to game and they didn't unlock any content - they were strictly graphical. This is an early phase of the civ3 palace, he's chosen to use a Middle Eastern style:
And here is one all done in the same style (you could mix and match different elements in different styles, or keep the same theme throughout) late in the game:
Yes, despite what I said earlier, I believe a game like Civ is actually one where achievements make a lot of sense to include, relative to other games any way.
frekk, you raise a good point that Throne Rooms were achievements. In a sense, wonder-building is sort of a type of achievement system as well. Why do so many players in the strategy&tips section refer to wonders simply as "shinies"? It's because they are often unnecessary and as you go higher in difficulty level they become less and less viable. Yet, in Civ1 to Civ4 wonders have been there so that building them gave you a feeling of accomplishment more than just trying to "win the game".
With some imagination and creativity (e.g. the Throne Room or Palace from previous games) you can make achievements at least a little interesting and that will add flavour to a game that can otherwise become a sterile exercise in number crunching (something I honestly feel Civ4 suffers from a tad).
I just would hate to see the unimaginative Achievement system with things like:
-Play 10 games to completion.
-Play a game with every leader to completion
-Build 10 wonders in a single game
-Win space race before 1900AD.
-Befriend 5 city states in a single game.
etc.
frekk, you raise a good point that Throne Rooms were achievements. In a sense, wonder-building is sort of a type of achievement system as well. Why do so many players in the strategy&tips section refer to wonders simply as "shinies"? It's because they are often unnecessary and as you go higher in difficulty level they become less and less viable. Yet, in Civ1 to Civ4 wonders have been there so that building them gave you a feeling of accomplishment more than just trying to "win the game".
With some imagination and creativity (e.g. the Throne Room or Palace from previous games) you can make achievements at least a little interesting and that will add flavour to a game that can otherwise become a sterile exercise in number crunching (something I honestly feel Civ4 suffers from a tad).
I just would hate to see the unimaginative Achievement system with things like:
-Play 10 games to completion.
-Play a game with every leader to completion
-Build 10 wonders in a single game
-Win space race before 1900AD.
-Befriend 5 city states in a single game.
etc.
.Zhahz
PC Gamer
I would pretty much agree. I would much prefer to see development effort focused on AI, gameplay, and other core features.
Civ has never lacked for lasting appeal. It doesn't need gimmicks to keep people hooked.
bonafide11
Worker
Achievements are fun. It won't make or break the game, but I'd be happy if they're in. If you get an achievement for winning the game with each civilization, it gives me an incentive to finish the game with each civilization in games that I might have given up on earlier because I already knew I had it won.
Sorry to dig an old thread up, but it's looking more and more like some form of Achievement system will be introduced in civ5. IIRC 2kElizabeth mentioned Achievements being one of the features that Steamworks brings to the game.
This is speculation still, but I'm already wondering what Achievements in civ5 will be. I even suspect some of my earlier suggestions in this thread will end up in the game. Win the game with every leader, etc.
Thoughts?
Acheivement: Civ Addict - Spend 1000 hours playing civ5.
This is speculation still, but I'm already wondering what Achievements in civ5 will be. I even suspect some of my earlier suggestions in this thread will end up in the game. Win the game with every leader, etc.
Thoughts?
Acheivement: Civ Addict - Spend 1000 hours playing civ5.
NovaSilisko
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2010
- Messages
- 69
Tavenier
King
I like the achievement system. I don't need it to brag, but I always feel I get everthing out of a game if I have all achievements. I 'haven't ever had achievements on a PC game, but I do on the X360. And gaining all 1000 AP forces me different play styles (have to be a mage in Dragon Age, have to use all weapons in Gears of War, play (and win) all civs on CivRev, etc).
I like it and to people who don't like it, it isn't something that is in their way. Just ignore the message you get when gaining a new achievement.
I am with posters that say they don't want unlocable civs or leaders. I do like it when other extra's are unlockable, like video's, pictures or stuff like that.
I like it and to people who don't like it, it isn't something that is in their way. Just ignore the message you get when gaining a new achievement.
I am with posters that say they don't want unlocable civs or leaders. I do like it when other extra's are unlockable, like video's, pictures or stuff like that.
