Achievements

[eireksten]

I also like achievements It depends a little on what kind of achievements they set up, of course, but if some are interesting and difficult to achieve, it will be cool to try collecting them. Hopefully Firaxis puts a little thought into these and don't just add boring and time consuming achievements (perhaps we should have a brainstorming session on achievements we would like to see).

Either way, as the framework was already in place when they chose to use Steamworks, I don't see this taking all that much time from developing other things. They only need to compile a list of achievements and implement trackers for them. If on out of four appreciate achievements, I think that's pretty good.

 

[LiDDiS]

No. Who cares? These achievement/trophy things just exploit kids with OCD.

 

[Mercade]

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.

Well put. The throne room was neat and I don't think I care about these "achievements", whatever they may be.

 

[plasmacannon]

It sounds like the lame achievements people get on FaceBook.
"You just found a turnip, do you want to share this with your friends?"
Then, you end up with a list of like 20 games you've tried and where you have a high (usually not that high) score on them.
I don't want Civilization to turn into one of those lame app games.
This might be the reason they are oversimplifing it.

 

[the343danny]

I kinda want achievements ala TF2 style. Not as in you get items with them but how some are not number crunching or you beat the game in this mode, but more in the lines of the achievement where you kill somebody with your homerun taunt as scout or you kill somebody via a reflected rocket as pyro. Something interesting like that.

 

[PeterWimsey]

Maybe you should get an achievement for killing a tank with a spearman.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I voted No, because I believe that if there are a kind of achievements in the game, they should be incorporated to the core gameplay, not trivial bonuses. There is so much to do with Civ.

 

[Tylerryan79]

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.

This also, and as other posters mentioned, Id really like a throne room included this time around. I remember when I first played civ i, and had really no clue what I was doing, but loved when I got to upgrade my throne room. It eventually got me going in the right direction, and was just plain cool.

 

[markieness]

Achievements = Manipulation tool.

 

[Adam7Eight]

Achievements = totally lame.

 

[civ_king]

Achievements should be different throne room upgrades

 

[Grouchey]

Dear me, are Steam achievements part of CIV V?

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Having played Civ Rev (as well as 1-4) I think they would be an interesting addition... And probably the ones from Civ Rev would work well

Win as Civ X, using Victory Y, at a Difficulty level...

Where that Civ or victory can be All or Any as well

Achieving particular things with a single city were interesting

Some Really hard ones would be interesting...
Win a game with no combats/military units (although the AI might not be that easy to manipulate)

Win a game with control of 10 'continents' or more

Get a unit to X experience (say the equivalent of 255 exp in Civ 4)
Have a unit survive X battles

Win a game by 1000 BC.. by Culture/Space Race


A few simple ones might be OK.. win a battle.. ie you get them for playing a while

Or ones that indicated you played a lot
ie
Build 1,000 total cities (over multiple games)




Having a more dynamic in game Throne room/Palace would also be very good

 

[PieceOfMind]

Dear me, are Steam achievements part of CIV V?

Was that a rhetorical question? If not, Yes achievements will probably be in civ5.

 

[cccv]

I don't see how it's a problem unless you have OCD. If you just have to unlock the achievements, turning the game into a job and sucking all the fun out of it, then sure I guess it's bad. But if you're sane enough that you can ignore it and be satisfied with what you unlock just by accident while playing the game for fun, how can it hurt?

Although, I don't really know how steam and these achievements work. Is there ever a tangible reward that comes along with them? Like, is there any chance that Persia could be in the game, but only unlockable if you get the "won a Deity game" achievement? Because that would suck. It would punish the people who aren't that good at video games (like me >.>), or the people who just don't want to play the way you have to play to unlock the achievements.

But I'm just gonna assume that it won't work that way unless I hear otherwise, so I'm not worried. Don't see a problem. As far as I know it's nice for people who like it, and can be ignored by most people who don't. Anyone who doesn't like it but can't ignore it should really learn how.

 

[PieceOfMind]

I don't see how it's a problem unless you have OCD. If you just have to unlock the achievements, turning the game into a job and sucking all the fun out of it, then sure I guess it's bad. But if you're sane enough that you can ignore it and be satisfied with what you unlock just by accident while playing the game for fun, how can it hurt?

<snip>

But I'm just gonna assume that it won't work that way unless I hear otherwise, so I'm not worried. Don't see a problem. As far as I know it's nice for people who like it, and can be ignored by most people who don't. Anyone who doesn't like it but can't ignore it should really learn how.

Actually many sane people suffer from addictive tendencies. I'm sure you will find many civfanatics who admit to having stayed up far too late playing civ, for example, or playing it when they should be working. Look at how many sane people smoke cigarettes because they are addicted, yet want to quit.

Now, I'm not really anti-achievements, but I do find it troubling they've been named that way (honestly, the things in most Achievements systems are not really achievements - remember, we are playing a video game, not bettering the world) and that more often than not they don't do anything to improve one's enjoyment of the game but rather keep one playing it longer. In a way I think it exploits a gamer's ego.

 

[cccv]

^Yes, calling them "insane" is hyperbole. Don't take everything so literally. I still think if someone logs hundreds of hours into something they take no joy in with the only reward being a little icon that says "you did it," they need to get over it.

But more interestingly, you said the achievements make people play longer. I actually disagree with that. When I play ciV, if I unlock an achievement as I play, great. Maybe I'll aim for some of the low-hanging fruit, but that's it. I'm not going to play multiplayer just to earn a specific achievement, I'm not going to log hours of frustration into trying to beat a higher level when I'm just not that good, etc. For the people who actually do those kinds of things, I imagine that once they've unlocked everything they can, they'll stop. There will be no more worlds left to conquer, so to speak. And if the experience has been joyless, if they've logged hundreds of hours of frustration into chasing an achievement rather than playing for fun, they'll possibly never want to see the game again at that point. I, meanwhile, will be able to play the game forever (or until the next civ comes out). I won't have made myself hate the game, or reached a plateau where I felt there was nothing more for the game to offer.

So yeah, one more reason OCD people could end up with this being a negative experience for them. But since I'm not one of that crowd, I can't really say I care about achievements. They won't have a negative impact on me.

 

[PieceOfMind]

I mostly agree. Especially that for someone who doesn't care much about achievements, there is no negative impact.

Sorry if I took your comments in particular as literal. Basically I'm using your post as a way to put my opinion out there.

What I want to really know though, is what game design goal is achieved by implementing achievements? This probably varies from game to game. I know that in TF2, a large number of the achievements are simply ridiculous and because there are so many I just can't even be bothered trying many of them. The fact I've read some of them for the classes I usually play might imply I'm using the Achievements feature - I don't know. Maybe I'm falling behind the times but I really don't understand the recent trend in video games to having these achievements as features worth mentioning when selling a game. I'm inclined to think it's because they're easy (cheap) to develop and implement for the positive effect they have on gamers, relative to developing actual gameplay features. Like you said, it's the low hanging fruit you will sometimes make an effort to get. If that motivation had not been provided by an achievements system, would you perhaps have sort it elsewhere? Maybe looking on civfanatics or similar websites for strategy articles or suggested self-imposed "roleplay" games?

 

[cccv]

I mostly agree. Especially that for someone who doesn't care much about achievements, there is no negative impact.

Sorry if I took your comments in particular as literal. Basically I'm using your post as a way to put my opinion out there.

What I want to really know though, is what game design goal is achieved by implementing achievements? This probably varies from game to game. I know that in TF2, a large number of the achievements are simply ridiculous and because there are so many I just can't even be bothered trying many of them. The fact I've read some of them for the classes I usually play might imply I'm using the Achievements feature - I don't know. Maybe I'm falling behind the times but I really don't understand the recent trend in video games to having these achievements as features worth mentioning when selling a game. I'm inclined to think it's because they're easy (cheap) to develop and implement for the positive effect they have on gamers, relative to developing actual gameplay features. Like you said, it's the low hanging fruit you will sometimes make an effort to get. If that motivation had not been provided by an achievements system, would you perhaps have sort it elsewhere? Maybe looking on civfanatics or similar websites for strategy articles or suggested self-imposed "roleplay" games?

heh, makes sense.

The trend in achievements, I think, can be both benign and manipulative. One of the main reasons to have a game that rewards you, either through a "you did it" icon or rare drops or whatever, is because they're making sure we Skinner rats keep pushing the lever. They're hoping to make the game addictive and exploit you in the process. This is either because it's a subscription game or because they have a long-term plan to keep selling you content even after you bought the game.

And that may bring us to the DLC issue. But I'm not worried about it. As much as the day zero DLC leaves a bad taste in my mouth and kills off a good chunk of the respect I have for the makers, I'm not paranoid enough to assume, for now, that the long-term plan of the civ series is to exploit us in a cynical fashion. Because the other reason for achievements is simply that some people just like having them. If people like having them and it can be done with minimal effort, like you said, why not? I think that's the more reasonable explanation. After all, we all know how addictive Civ is on its own. And addictive because it's fun, not just because we crave the false sense of accomplishment that the "you mined a total of 25 iron resources!" "achievement" gives us. So really, I don't imagine it'll be integrated into the game in a meaningful way, it'll just be a nice side perk for some and no big deal to others.

I don't really see how it'll have positive effect on the way I play the game. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'll decide to try multiplayer just once for the achievement and fall in love with it. Kinda unlikely since I suck, but... >.>

 

[radioplug]

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.

I would think it wouldn't take more than a day to code achievements into the game. It can't be that difficult seeing that some indie games have upwards of 300 of them.

Personally, I don't care. Some may argue it ruins the game experience, but with a turn-based game like Civ, it wouldn't really have that affect. I would be more opposed for it in games like TES:IV.