GDC 2012

Most Popular GDC 2012 Games

  1. 1. Max Payne 3
    no boxshot available
    • Rockstar Studios
    • Action
    • Release: 05/15/12
    Follow:
    1. Not Following
      PC: Follow
    2. Not Following
      Xbox 360: Follow
    3. Not Following
      PlayStation 3: Follow
  2. 2. Street Fighter X Tekken
    Follow:
    1. Not Following
      Xbox 360: Follow
    2. Not Following
      PlayStation 3: Follow
    3. Not Following
      PC: Follow
    4. Not Following
      PlayStation Vita: Follow
  3. 3. Diablo III
    Follow:
    1. Not Following
      PC: Follow
    2. Not Following
      Macintosh: Follow
  4. 4. TERA
    Not Following

Do Xbox 360 achievements spoil the fun?

Brendan Sinclair
By Brendan Sinclair, Senior Editor

GDC 2010: Ex-EA Maxis developer Chris Hecker wonders if reward systems are undermining the inherent enjoyment of playing games.

Who was there: Chris Hecker of definition six returned to the Game Developers Conference, the site of his headline-grabbing appraisal of the Wii as two GameCubes duct-taped together, in order to deliver a presentation on whether or not achievements (or trophies and other incentive programs) ruin the joy of playing a game for its own sake. Hecker's currently working on a game called SpyParty but might be better known for his previous work at EA's Maxis studio on Spore.

What he talked about: Early on in his talk, the verbose Hecker said that he doesn't actually care about achievements as he plays, but he started considering the long-term effects of reward systems like that because of his 6-year-old daughter. Specifically, he wondered how achievement systems affected people and whether or not extrinsic reward systems like achievements ultimately undermine the desire for people to play games.

After taking detours into psychology, cremation, mathematics, global warming, LOLcats, and brain chemistry, Hecker lamented the limitations of much scientific research, emphasizing that in most fields, it's not precise once applied to the real world. Hecker recapped a number of studies, most of which concluded that when you tell people, "Do this and you'll get that," they wind up disliking "this" and insisting on "that."

The developer likened the back-and-forth studies regarding the issue in peer-reviewed scientific journals to a schoolyard brawl and then searched for common ground. One conclusion he said was largely agreed upon was that tangible, expected rewards contingent on doing something reduces the intrinsic motivation people have to do that thing. He was particularly worried about what that meant for games, considering how easy it is for developers to use those extrinsic rewards.

"Games are the only art form where the opportunity and mechanism for feedback is built into the form itself," Hecker said. He worried that opens the door for people to add extrinsic motivation to their games, even though they don't know exactly what possible harmful effects that could have down the road.

Hecker's "nightmare self-fulfilling scenario" was that extrinsic motivators would ruin the intrinsic motivation to play their games. And with the industry's current "fetish" for metrics, Hecker said developers will wind up being pushed toward designs where extrinsic motivators work well.

While players can turn their achievement notifications off, Hecker said that doesn't prevent them from affecting the game for everyone. He brought up the example of a Gears of War player who opted out of achievement notifications but wound up jumping through hoops to play games online with his friends. Because only ranked servers gave achievements, there weren't enough players on unpopulated unranked matches for him to get a game going. But since he couldn't join up with his friends on the ranked servers, he and his friends had to narrowly tailor their server searches and coordinate between themselves in the hopes of all winding up in the same ranked match at the same time.

Quote: "The industry needs to start studying the long-term impact of achievements on players, or we risk the doomsday scenario."--Chris Hecker, urging developers to be cautious with how they incorporate reward systems.

Takeaway: Although Hecker veered off on frequent tangents before circling back to his main point, the takeaway was unmistakable. He's not yet sure that achievements are ultimately damaging to a player's motivations to game for gaming's sake, but he wants researchers to look into that question specifically, and he doesn't want the industry going too far down a potentially damaging path before a real answer has been reached.

Brendan Sinclair
By Brendan Sinclair, Senior Editor

Brendan Sinclair has been a games journalist since 1999. His tastes are eclectic, though he has a definite affinity for games with arcade roots. He's Canadian, but has also been at home in Atlanta, Austin, Chicago, and San Francisco.

131 Comments

  • ClanRukai

    Posted Oct 3, 2010 9:41 pm GMT

    Achievements can be addicting and fun, but can ruin the experience of the game if all I think about is going for achievements. Left 4 Dead 1 and 2 had fun achievements, and it was one of the funniest and most frustrating I had to deal in a game when beating the game in expert.

  • Coronithofcork

    Posted Aug 25, 2010 6:31 pm GMT

    I personally detest the online achievements. I find them annoying. I like the achievement were you do wacky things in game. Like drowning a Nazi in a toilet. That is satisfactory!

  • kevin8se7en

    Posted Mar 15, 2010 4:34 pm GMT

    I think achievements make games more fun.

    Normally, when i'd finish a game, it would collect dust or i'd trade it in for another one. With achievements, I can look at all the stuff I havent done before, and try and do it. Like when I beat GTA, I hadnt gotten the "Blow up 10 cars in 10 seconds" achievement, so I wanted to do it. I did it, and it was fun to do. It adds a dimension to the game, and elongates the gameplay. Better bang for your buck basically.

    Although I do dislike the "play XXX online ranked match" ones.

  • Glade_Gnarr

    Posted Mar 15, 2010 12:53 am GMT

    It only matters if you're an achievement whore.
    But who plays ranked matches in gears anyway?

  • frazzle00

    Posted Mar 14, 2010 9:32 pm GMT

    What right does Chris Hecker have to determine how people enjoy their gaming? There are plenty of people who enjoy their achievement points; let them have their fun. For those of you who don't care about these things just ignore them. Seriously Chris Hecker should devote all this effort to making good games, and not spewing rubbish.

  • Kaunte

    Posted Mar 14, 2010 3:46 pm GMT

    The worst thing I can think of is Kane and Lynch. That game had an achievement that required you to play numerous rounds of the multiplayer, and as a result people started coming into games and teamkilling everybody at the start of the round so they could get the achievement faster..... Ruined the whole multiplayer.

  • Paul2004

    Posted Mar 13, 2010 3:46 pm GMT

    I agree with AnelZukic. I dont play for achievements (I dont use Live, so i see little point) however on afew occasions i have had the urge to do something just to get the achievement for it (Such as taking all HVT's alive in Mercs 2, when i killed most before). Some may try to do everything just to get all the achievements but i think they enjoy getting everything and the braggin rights that go with it while others like me just dont really care but like to see what we can do next. Ppl play for enjoyment afterall

  • thumbsdown01x

    Posted Mar 13, 2010 11:28 am GMT

    Chizaqui, NO, NO NO NO! Snes and Genesis games are MUCH MUCH shorter.

    The only reason they'd take "weeks" to beat is probably because most of them didn't have a save feature for easy continues. The typical Snes/Genesis game release on Xboxlive arcade, that even has a new "save feature" is shorter than the typical game. Pokemon and Zelda... aren't they JRPGs that are generally long? A typical game from the snes/genesis times are shorter than current games, especially since most of them didn't even have the save feature.

    Of course, if you want "long" games, there are plenty of tedious JRPGs out there. Also, the reason why some of the games you mentioned are "short" is because of how concerned the developers are worried about "reputation" and always "fresh content." The goal is to make a game as long as possible without repetition. If "length" is what you want, JRPGs will fill your needs, but they have the kind of gameplay people would call "tedious."

    Big-name games are generally developed in like 3 years. Unless you are speaking of RPGs specifically, SNES and Genesis games would only take longer to beat due to a lack of a "save" feature, and having to start from the very BEGINNING after you lose, or take it off. There are exceptions though

  • AnelZukic

    Posted Mar 13, 2010 9:11 am GMT

    a double-edged sword I would say I always played for fun and to be honest I never watch at the achievements, but I did once and realized I got 1000/1000 on Fallout 3 so I guess if you play a game for fun, you will be able to the same as if you follow the quests a achievements gives to you

  • Chizaqui

    Posted Mar 13, 2010 8:49 am GMT

    You know what spoils the fun? It used to take weeks to beat a game back on the NES and SNES. You never talked about re-playability when talking about the original Pokemon games, or the original Zelda. There's one thing that Nintendo can still manage to do-push out games that can't be beat in just one night. The modern age of gaming has led to games that are developed in a year or so, and can be thoroughly beaten in just under a week. The achievement system is one of the only things giving a solo player experience! Think of Fable, after all. It was supposed to be some epic rpg, and the second one was shorter than the first! Every game series I can think of is following this trend. Morrowind was much grander in scale to Oblivion (hell, they couldn't even bother with a quest that fixed up Kvatch... instead it was always burning.) Achievements are what they are, a system to kind of hide the fact that companies are pushing out half-arsed products for $60 a pop-and releasing the other half of the game as after-market addons via the marketplace. Shameful, really.

  • shkar

    Posted Mar 13, 2010 7:25 am GMT

    just don't do anything stupid and I will be fine....

  • quiksurfer

    Posted Mar 13, 2010 6:10 am GMT

    that sounds quite true
    but i'm just a casual gamer plus i dont really give a d@mn about achievement
    cheerssss

  • thestrateger

    Posted Mar 13, 2010 5:14 am GMT

    A thoughtful article.

  • blackphoton

    Posted Mar 13, 2010 5:00 am GMT

    very interesting article

  • steelmouth

    Posted Mar 13, 2010 3:25 am GMT

    @emceelokey right on it never gets old I still cant get used to turning on/off the x360 with the wireless controller

  • steelmouth

    Posted Mar 13, 2010 2:46 am GMT

    Now who is this guy is he serious?

    Achievements are the best thing ever to happen to games. Games are mostly good to play only once or twice. Any more replay value after is due to achievements, every attention to detail, weeks maybe months playing on the highest difficult settings, exploring every inch of the map for collectables and my favourite the BRAGGING RIGHTS are all due to achievement. Achievements are the sole reason am still playing some games years later (Gears: Am still trying to kill RAAM on insane and he just won’t die)

    But off cause some achievements are really bad and not worth it so developers and maybe ms and Sony should monitor their fairness.

  • Axe_336

    Posted Mar 13, 2010 2:16 am GMT

    Wondernova - I think what he's trying to say is THAT should be what's satisfying. Instead we're breeding a gaming culture where people buy and return crappy games JUST for the achievements (Hang around a game store long enough and you'll hear the stories). Now, granted, it's a good way to check how you stack against someone in something like Halo or Modern Warfare, but don't those games have their own internal ranking systems? And do I really need the system to reward me for taking a certain path in a game like Heavy Rain where failing can be just as interesting as winning? I'm not really against achievements, I just think they don't work for every game. Plus they can sometimes give away plot elements if you scroll the list before beating the game. Like "Ah, the enemies ultimate fortress... So why are there three levels completion achievements beyond it on the list?"

  • wondernova

    Posted Mar 12, 2010 11:13 pm GMT

    think bout this for a moment. has anyone ever been playing a game, then got frustratingly stuck on a puzzle, boss, dont know where to go kinda moment in a game? cursing the developers, you want to throw the control pad. but then it clicks. you get past that part of the game. your overcome with an immense feeling of satisfaction. you forget how much you hated the game before that moment. thats why we play games right?

    i think achievements are the embodiment of that concept, and capture that satisfaction. Chris Hecker, you worked for EA, enough said.

  • Tseng

    Posted Mar 12, 2010 7:11 pm GMT

    This really only applies if the gamer cares about the achievements. They would have to research prior to playing the game exactly what they need to do to get all the achievements. Personally, I think most people just play, and if they get achievements , great, and if not, who cares? Secondly, the gamers that actually care about achievements only really go after them on their second or third play through, after they have already experienced the joy of playing a game just for fun. Saying that achievements are potentially damaging to gamers is a bit of a stretch, in my opinion.

  • HUNTER-VENOM

    Posted Mar 12, 2010 4:44 pm GMT

    Achievements are fun but flawed if you buy an old game especially multi-player your gonna miss out because people mite not play that game anymore or like Chrome Hounds you cant even play online anymore. The online ones also causes cheaters and booster to mess up games just look what happened when Halo 3 had them people stopped playing matches to get achievements so if you joined a game and it was going on you would have to back out or start killing people and most likely get bad feedback from every person there. It also causes people to focus on there own goals instead of helping there team if playing a team game. So while fun they should stop online ones so everyone has a chance to get them.