Anyone really care about achievements?

Achievements are fun when they encourage you to play the game in ways you normally wouldn't. Stuff like "win a map on normal without ever founding a town."

I do if it's one I needed. Like if someone builds Hosten's Library before I do, I'll be pissed because I need to boost my tech research big time (falling behind ).

But I didn't care too much when Gilden built the Mint and the magical girl built the Abbey.

I think they are good for bringing atmosphere to the game.

I like the sort of X-Box achievements, it's just a fun way of tracking progress, seeing what you've done, and creating new goals for yourself. Some of my friends play the games soley for the achievements... they are called achievement whores and they know it.

I also like the Civilization sort of "achievements" because they let you know whats going on in the world and keep you informed. It's also nice to kinda feel like you accomplished something important rather then hear nothing back. It's only one pop-up, it ain't so bad.

to echo what some people have said earlier...... yes I care about achievements.

That said I dont care about Xbox style achievements, as they are pointless imo.

The reason I care about "achievements(or "wonders" in Civ) is they add to the game. I feel they add a lot of options and different ways of playing..... ways of increasing the overall power of your empire....... they add to the builder play style.

I don't understand OP..... are you complaining about wonders or are you complaining about being given info about other peoples wonders? Personally I see both as needed.

I also dont like the correlation some have made between xbox style achievements and civ style wonders. They have absolutely nothing to do with each other Imo.

I was just thinking the other day how it seems so many games have to have so called "achievements" in them now. If they actually add something to the game, like an unlockable or something like the wonders fine, but the ones that are just icons on a stats screen I usually ignore. The exception being those ones that force you to think outside the box and play differently to get. They can help your overall gameplay when well thought out and designed.

I think there is some confusion here about which achievements are being referenced by the OP.

TBS, Civ type achievements vs. online gaming personal profile achievements.

And for the record, the achievements I have seen to date in Elemental aren't all that great.

They should really consider doing something Mass Effect-like with achievements. In ME, earning them gave you tangible bonuses (extra shield, damage, whatever). Same could be done here. "Win a Diplomatic Victory with at least 10 AI" could give you a % bonus to your diplomatic capital income. "Earn 500,000 Gildar with caravan trading" could give you a bonus to caravan income. So on, so forth..

The achievements that make you play a little out of orthodox can also award their bonuses. Like from Tridus' example, winning a map without founding a town can give you +1 to all starting stats, etc.

I actually hate those kinds of achievements. Encouraging different playstyles is one thing, but forcing different playstyles so you have all the bonuses or extra equipement or whatever is bad, IMO. As long as they are purely for bragging rights, I'm okay with them. But (at least for me) when they give you something more, especially something that affects the game, it forces me to try to get them. Things that are non-consequential are fine, like new avatars or things like that.

If I want to play every single game the exact same way, I shouldn't be punished for that (aside from being overly predictable in MP). Maybe it's just me that sees them that way, though.

Well, with well designed achievements it would end up that by playing the game that exact same way would give you bonuses to that way of playing. The only "punishment" there is that you won't have bonuses geared towards the other play styles that you don't care about anyway.

The bonuses have to relate to what you do to get it, then as you play more and more you get improvements to your desired style of play.

only if the badge looks cool, and its witty or an inside joke.

Other than that, no.

You know whats awesome about achievements. Thats exactly what they are. If you don't like them, you don't have to do them and the game still plays the same for you.

That being said I enjoy them to a limited extent. I walk away from playing a game with a little more than just a save file and hours of my life gone.

I really hate those hard or retarded achievements. Kill 10000000000 enemies. Or die 150 times by walking off an edge.

I don't mind "kill a billion enemies" achievement ... but yea "die 150 times by cliff diving" is retarded.

At least, its retarded if its something people GO OUT OF THEIR WAY to do, instead of some inside joke about a level's difficulty.

Yeah I like to be rewarded for my achievements not punished.

I hate jumping online in a game to see someone whos obviously trying to get ah achievement as he runs around only using a melee weapon and gets no kills in a round. kinda ruins the point of team play.

My pet peeve for the Xbox online style achievements are the easy ones. Or rather the 'awarded for playing the game normally' ones. The recent Total War games are a good example; you get an achievement for starting a game.

The only real use for it is to go look at the Steam stats and note 10% of owners haven't received that achievement

Unless the AI starts getting achievement bonuses too ("Being killed in Easy Mode 1,000+ times", "Being betrayed by the Player 20,000,000+ times", "Failed to develop properly one of its cities 99,999,999,999+ times"...), no bonuses (and let's not mention MP). Unlocking non afecting game stuff like clothes for the Sovereign, alternate style for your buildings... Yeah, that's fine and cool. Unlocking new techs and/or unit types and/or possible initial spell book options could be even acceptable as long as the AI gets them too (somehow/if possible).

imho (I like ME's style but one is single player action rpg and Elemental isn't)

NEVER should an achievement change any portion of how the game is played, or how strong/weak your position is.

The only exception (if any) could be secret, hidden minigames ... or easter eggs.

Why not? It's worked in ME quite well. Sure ME is a different game from Elemental, but neither of you actually said why it wouldn't work.

Why not? As long as it's taken into account it can work well. Take a look at Alpha Protocol for example, achievements replace what most other games would describe as perks.

A similar setup could work quite well in Elemental as a means of adding a little more RPG depth to the NPC area. A big gap at the moment is that the only way to level your NPC's is to engage in combat, which might make sense for say my adventurers but why would my scholars or merchants be off chasing dragons?

You could use an achievement system instead to allow those NPC's to develop outside of combat in a way that makes sense. Create an achievement called "Caravan Master" which grants +10% value to caravans, and let it be earned by any merchant character stationed in a city which is receiving at least 4 caravans from other cities.

You now have two uses for NPC's. You have the normal heroic warrior types you have now, or you can also have them focus on administering your empire. Depending on which route you send them down they will naturally advance to be better in that area. It makes a little more sense than a character giving you two gold per turn even while they're wandering through the middle of a barren desert hunting down wolves. As a bonus, characters likewise don't become more powerful warriors after spending six years auditing the Imperial Treasury too.

With regard to the "Those dirty Germans built Stone Henge first!" achievements: I like them. They give a brief idea about how the other players are doing, and add some nice flavor to the game. That being said, I would prefer they be along the lines of news broadcasts (like MOO2). Feel more like news from afar, rather than a big deity telling me to stop building the Great Wall of Italy

With regard to the "List of the top five most militaristic players": I don't really like these, just because they tend to feel pointless. You usually get a better idea of what is going on from just checking the various menus or even looking at the border. That being said, I don't really care if they are in or not. And, if Elemental's ratings system actually has meaning, this could be fun.

With regard to the "Impale five enemies with a single ballista shot": I DO like these, but only if they are done properly. They should either be things that happen over the course of gameplay (Bad Company 2's online achievements are a lot like this) or things that encourage you to try new and exciting things (the recent update for Half-Life 2 encouraged me to try Ravenholm with only the gravity gun. Was a VERY fun experience). But stuff like "Jump off a cliff ten times" or "Knife fifty people with gatling guns" aren't really my cup of tea. Unless it is the kind of game where you are encouraged to do crap like that (Just Cause 2 :p)

As far as unlocking stuff with global achievements: I am perfectly okay with that in FPSs and the like. But I am pretty sure Elemental isn't the kind of game that would really benefit from (or even work with) that kind of system.

Per-Character "Achievements": These would work great. I love them in the Total War series. In fact, I would be pretty surprised if a feature like this isn't going to already be in the 0-Day patch or capable of being added through scripting. Every time you massacre an enemy (maybe one unit kills off 50% of the enemy force in tactical), you get a chance of getting a trait.

If achievements (Civ style) provide important or interesting information that is otherwise unavailable or easily missed, they are a good idea.

Since they have been brought up, profile achievements are essentially pointless (though great for people who need shiny badges to feel special).  If they provide an rpg metagame they can be a useful addition, however in a strategy title I want to start each game with a clean slate, and feel that my experience and improved skills are making me a better player, not my improved profile.

Very different game.

I'm not a fan of it either for a game like Elemental. When you've got a sandbox game and each new map is starting fresh, why would I start with 10% more whatever then everybody else because in the last game I happened to kill 47 summoned units with cavalry under a full moon? The game should be getting easier because I'm getting better at it, not because I've played enough that my achievement bonuses give me a big advantage over the computer.

(And that's just the single player.)

Starcraft 2's campaign did a better job at it, for campaign purposes. You got a pool of resources you could spend, but a bigger pool to buy from and had to make some decisions. Do I want the stimpacks, or the bunker range? If I get both, maybe I can't get Maelstrom Rounds for my tanks (and dear god do I want that!). But you're always working with the same pool, so it's really about which units you use with your playstyle and want to support rather then just piling up bonuses for playing a lot. Also, none of it affects multiplayer.

Comparatively, I hated Demigod's favor items. Aside from the bugginess of favor disappearing several times, some of them were qutie powerful and it made a real difference in someone coming in and just flattening newbies without access to those items.

10% is not a "big advantage" over the PC. If it was a big advantage, I wouldn't suggest it. I guess this is preference, but achievements that don't do anything are meaningless to me. Why would I kill 47 summoned units with cavalry under a full moon if I get nothing for it? As a primarily single player game, there's not going to be much use for a social aspect to them, unlike say SC2's portraits.

Even though ME is a different game, it's also single player and that's why they're comparable. The only consideration is the one player, so any balance concerns pretty much go out the window, as long as the bonus given isn't overpowering (which something like 5-10% is not, or +1 to stats, and the like). There's a lot of flexibility with a rewarding achievement system. For example, you might be able to choose 1 or 2 bonuses to take into a game. So if you feel like playing an RPG-ish game with just your Sovereign, you can pick two unlocks that benefit him. If you feel like playing an economic game next, you can pick those instead. If you for some reason feel like it makes things too easy, you don't have to pick anything. Because it is a single player sandbox, this system makes perfect sense as it allows each player to customize their game experience to their tastes. Plus it seems like a good compromise since you wouldn't have to use the bonuses if you're really against them. It would also make it fine for "competitive" MP (in quotes because it's never gonna happen :P), or just disable it altogether.

Your talking about a completely different world.

Raw sandbox is no place for carry-over advantages.

However ... if its a campaign that has multiple stages (and each stage is a new map), then a LOT of carryover can be justified.

For instance, in the original Empire Earth, etc ... wouldn't it be nice to bring the soldiers you managed to keep alive with you to the next map?

Or at least your top 3 unit's levels. (or your hero's levels)

in the HOMM campaigns ... you practically have to start over each time (or are given the exact same carry-over whether you had more or less soldiers/resources at the end of the last map).

So yea ... in multi-stage campaigns I could see some carry-over. But not in Raw Sandbox.

Achievements are things tied to the game as a whole, not to the individual campaigns ... therefore I rest by what I have said earlier.

Thread reminded me of Foamy on Achievements .

I put link instead of embed due to language and crude humor, so beware.