Achievements

[helpless_writer]

Would you support Achievements (due to the implementation of Steam) in Civ V?

Also, what would you recommend for Civ specific achievements and/ or general achievements?

For Example:
General Achievement: Survive to 2050 playing all Civilizations at least once

Civ Specific: (America) Expand your civilization from one coast to another on a continent

 

[Commander Bello]

Answer to the first question: no, I would not. And no, I will not.

General answer: I liked the throne room, I liked the palace of previous installations. These have been "achievements" which were part of the game, which did refer to the game, which were integral parts of the game.

Up to now, there hasn't been any indication that Steam's so-called "achievements" would come close in any aspect.

Therefore, the answer still is: no.

 

[Ajidica]

I voted no as most achievements tend to be a bit of a number cruching thing. "Oh look, I've killed 5,000 enemy troops. Whee!" Plus they are almost all generaly geared toward multiplayer. Since I've only done multiplayer once and hated it, the awards have no influence on me.

 

[Willem]

Achievements have absolutely no interest for me whatsoever.

 

[Fatblob]

Option 3 seemed like the I don't care option so that got my vote.

 

[Earthling]

This will specifically make the game stupider, far more than anything like one unit per tile already does. I don't think it would be possible for them to add in achievements and not make the game stupider at least at a subconscious level.

 

[Shurdus]

Although I have unlocked achievements in the past I have no clue how I watch my achievements, nor do I know how how to view those of others. I can therefore safely say that achievements leave me very much unmoved. I voted for the third option, but in all honesty I do not care one bit about those achievements.

 

[Zhahz]

None of the above.

Not interested at all.

Some might like the stuff, so that's cool.

 

[Suho1004]

I voted for "No," not necessarily because I hate achievements, but because it seemed to fit the best out of all the answers provided. I suspected, like Fatblob, that the third one was the "I don't care" option, but I just couldn't choose an option that called achievements "a nice idea." I don't think they're a nice idea. I think they're pointless. But it wouldn't bother me either way.

 

[Ahriman]

I voted for "No," not necessarily because I hate achievements, but because it seemed to fit the best out of all the answers provided. I suspected, like Fatblob, that the third one was the "I don't care" option, but I just couldn't choose an option that called achievements "a nice idea." I don't think they're a nice idea. I think they're pointless

Precisely. Poor poll design.

 

[snowlyon]

achieve's...not needed. just another fad that seems to be running through the gaming world. a way for people to compair epeen's. yeah...no thanx, pass.~

 

[Jopo]

I think they might be fitted in, along with PALACE CONSTRUCTION AND THRONE ROOM etc. other advancement perks.

 

[Rusty Edge]

I make up my own rules and requirements before each game ( no whipping, no wonders, must accept all quests... whatever ) Why should I be held to anyone else's arbitrary standard?

 

[SammyKhalifa]

no, I'd rather the game creators spend their time working on something more interesting/important.

I don't play games so that I can show my online friends how awesome I am.

 

[moscaverde]

As already said in this thread, the achievements of Civilization are the throne room, palace building etc. These have some meaning in the game and the player always have to rebuild for every game.

 

[Ddude97]

As already said in this thread, the achievements of Civilization are the throne room, palace building etc. These have some meaning in the game and the player always have to rebuild for every game.

Completely agree here

 

[Rusty Edge]

I got to see the CivRev trophy room on the game I bought here for my niece.

 

[CaptainBinky]

Whilst I would like to have the palace from Civ 1 back, I have absolutely no issue with Steam achievements at all.

It's badly thought out achievements which are the issue, generally. I can't really see anything game breaking about a window that says "Achievement unlocked: launched a space ship" any more that having a window that pops up to tell you any other factoid in the game.

And to use Rusty Edge's example - wouldn't it actually be rather nice if, having refused to adopt slavery and whip your citizens at the end of the game you got an achievement which rewarded that? And similar equivalents for being generally horrid to everyone?

Personally, I think that'd be pretty cool.

But, yeah, if they're just vanilla "you won" achievements, then don't bother.

 

[Dark_Jedi06]

I don't play Civ for pretty gold stars...so the answer is no.

 

[paradigmx]

While it wouldn't "make or break the game for me", I do think achievements would be a nice addition, I originally didn't like the concept when Microsoft announced it, but the more 360 game I played, the more I enjoyed collecting achievements, some of the funnest experiences I've had in many games came from trying to get an achievement for something I never expected to want to do. I have also seen many games where the achievements add nothing to the game and are just annoying.

Provided that the achievements are well thought out and DO NOT include any multiplayer, I look forward to playing Civ V in ways I never considered.

Off the top of my head, some interesting achievements would be:

- win a game on deity (obvious i think)
- conquer a nation with twice the military of your nation(would tie in very well with 1upt and strategic warfare I think)
- 1 city challenge victory (again, kind of obvious)
- perfect diplomat(Win a diplomatic victory by being unanimously voted)


At the same time, if there's achievements to "found a city" or "discover a technology", I will have serious problems with it, achievements need to be something you actually have to work towards, not something you get given to you just for playing.