Comments on: Games don’t need to have external reward systems (kind of)

By: Fili

Fili — Sat, 29 Jan 2011 08:06:21 +0000

There are a lot of games that use achievements in their core mechanic. Team Fortress 2 is a very good example: unlock 10 achievements with the medic and unlock a new weapon for the medic. At 20 achievements another weapon. These new weapons really change the strategy and gameplay. And they have these for each of the 9 classes.
In our next game I’m planning to unlock exclusive content based on achievements. This content won’t be vital but players will want them :P
Another reason for unlocking achievements is e-penis :) I’ve finished starcraft 2 about 4 times and started 5′th time just to get some achievements that my friends don’t have and brag about that to them :)
I don’t buy games just for achievements but if I find one with achievements and I like it, I try to unlock as many as possible. It’s just like Pokemon: gotta catch’em all :)

By: Anders

Anders — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 16:37:33 +0000

I read a white paper the other day by a digital agency called VerticPortals, which actually makes some interesting points in regards to why social games such as Farmville achieve success through social reward systems – thought that might be interesting?

You can find it here: http://www.verticportals.com/socialgaming.

By: hermitC

hermitC — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 14:37:51 +0000

IMO these put-on, additional reward systems are meant to be optional extensions. Some people like to share their stats with friends, others don’t (e.g. myself). As long as such features are optional and don’t bother the core game mechanics its OK.

I agree on the loose coupling of such “features”. The more they are integrated into the core the more important they (may) become for the game flow. Maybe that’s a reason why they are not that deep integrated: to keep ‘em disposable.

By: Morning Toast

Morning Toast — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 14:26:53 +0000

I don’t believe Achievements are part of the “natural” game. I treat them as reasons to go *back* to the game. Especially games that aren’t endless (like sports, fighting, driving, puzzle), once I play through the game/story once, there is often little reason for me to go back. I can play through the game as I would naturally, then when its over, go back and try to get all the achievements. Particularly for games that have a long first play through, even if it’s fun I don’t want to spend all that time again for no reward. The trophies give me a reason to go back…it doesn’t matter if the game is fun or not.

I don’t treat achievements as a primary goal for any game, they’re always secondary objectives…and I think that’s their point. I don’t think most gamers chase achievements as their goal. But I think achievements are a great addition to our modern games, casual or otherwise.

Do games *need* achievements? No, you’re right. Is there no reason not to have them? Absolutely not.

By: LF

LF — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 12:39:06 +0000

That would be true if all players were the same same. Since this is not the case different game mechanics and reward appeal to different gamers.

Just yesterday I was reading an article on Gamasutra – Lifting The Designer’s Curse (http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/6267/lifting_the_designers_curse.php). It’s about a different subject, but here is a quote from it that fits perfectly our discussion.

“The emergence of casual games was made possible by improving the perception of benefit to a type of player that was not motivated by the benefits of core games.”