For me, achievements have always been a mixed bag.  I’m not an obsessive achievement whore, and I think that they can ruin the immersion of a game that doesn’t need them to reach it’s full potential.  But then on the other hand, achievements can be great for extend the value of a game and I always feel this little ping of pride when I get one, like I’ve come one step closer to a pointless and unknown nirvana that I never really thought about reaching until that moment.

At first achievements were a fairly pointless addition to the video gaming world.  A lot of early games could be beaten from beginning to end and you’d have enough to proudly fill in all 1000 points.  An example of bad achievements in a game is probably the video game adaptation of “Avatar: The Last Airbender;” it was described to me like this: “You can get all the achievements by standing in a corner and attacking the wall for five minutes.”  Probably an exageration, but probably not far enough away from the truth to make the achievements an extension of the actual gameplay.

The dull grey slaughterfest of Gears of War 2 is probably one of the better examples of achievements.  They’re tougher to get and require an appropriate amount of skill and patients.  So if a person really loves playing it than that will show through their achievements.  On the other hand, does a game like flOw really need achievements (i.e. trophies)?  flOw is a game based around calmly moving deeper through an aquatic wonderland of geometric shapes.  I don’t really have to actually kill anything and sometimes I just load up it’s start screen to listen to the soothing music.  Does it require bonus points to be a great game?  Does Gears of War 2?

No.  Neither of them require achievements to be fun or interesting.  The soul purpose of these little treats is to give the player more out of their gaming experience, and it does do that.  Plus the achievements of flOw are drastically different from that of Gears of War 2.  They both use achievements (/trophies) that cater to their primary audiences.

The Path was a surprising game to find item collection (and therefore some kind of achievement based system) in.  The game shows itself to be a slow-paced and deep single player experience and here they have me collecting arbitrary stars for some reason, which I’m sure are used to reveal some kind of both ending for each character, but they are also trying to be more like a standard game while trying to play it artsy at the same time, and the elements clash.  I love the games-as-art progress we’ve made in recent years, and that’s one of the reasons I embrace the Tale of Tales games.  They’re trying to do something different, and here they fail by trying to meet an audience that they don’t have half way.  Item collection is not something that will tantalize outsiders, and the fans that they seem to have want the unique aspects they provide without it.  From my point of view the item collection adds a layer of gaminess to a game yearning to escape convention.  A backwards step.

My point with this is that achievements are good in the right places and when you understand your audience.  Gears of War 2 certainly does, as does flOw’s thatgamecompany.  But using the extras and achievements just to pad the lining of your games doesn’t always serve a purpose or improve the system.  It’s important to remember who you’re making the games for and achievements should reflect that, and avoid pointless drudgery and ignorant simplicity to the fullest.