Topic: System-Level Achievements Coming to Wii U

[NWR_insanolord]

And he's not being hypocritical; as always, he wants Nintendo to conform to his personal tastes and mocks any opinion that goes against his own.

[TJ Spyke]

Exactly, Ian is also mocking anyone who likes or cares about achievements/trophies. If he doesn't like them, that's fine. But he shouldn't be acting like his opinion is the right one or better than those who like achievements (which as J.P. said, can be great when done well).

[Chozo Ghost]

Ian is also mocking anyone who likes or cares about achievements/trophies.

No, he wasn't. He was only mocking the policy of Sony and Microsoft where they were mandatory. I think he is fine with them being an option.

[UncleBob]

any player that cares about achievements is a tool.

[Chozo Ghost]

Okay, well that bit does looks like he was mocking achievement advocates... especially when you snip it out and quote it completely out of context.

[UncleBob]

In what context, exactly, is saying that anyone who cares about something is a "tool" not mocking anyone who cares about that something?

[Chozo Ghost]

Well, I'll let Ian speak for himself. But the impression I got was that he was fine with achievement as an OPTION, and that bit you quoted was what he said he would do if he were a developer being forced to include them. When people are forced to do stuff they don't want to do against their will they will tend to do them the most half ass way possible, or deliberately sabotage it out of spite. That's why I agree that this shouldn't be forced. Its just like why having a military made up of volunteers gives you better results than a military made up of draftees. People who are doing something they don't want to against their will are going to half ass it, or even toss a monkey wrench in to **** things up.

[UncleBob]

I'm fine with many things being an option... but that doesn't mean I don't have a low opinion of those who take that option.

To call everyone who likes said option a "tool" is mocking them... even if you do it in jest (as most mocking is done in jest).

[Ian Sane]

I think achievements are silly so my hypothetical game would be mocking the concept because if I was a game designer I wouldn't want my game to have any.  But they are an expected feature these days so a console should support them.  But it should be optional and up to the developer to decide if their game should have them or not.  The fact that Sony and MS REQUIRE them is ridiculous.  This isn't like making sure the game doesn't crash, this is just dictating content.  It's as ridiculous as mandating online multiplayer in every game.

And I don't react well to being forced to do something that should be optional.  Thus, if I was a game designer, I would refuse to do achievements in a non-mocking way as a personal protest against Microsoft's ridiculous demands.  This would apply for practically anything.  If I had to use Kinect, I'd make it so the player has to finger the screen to fulfill the mandatory Kinect requirement.  If Nintendo, for some reason, mandated Gamepad touchscreen usage (and they don't thankfully) I would make you draw a mustache on a portrait of an Iwata or Reggie lookalike.  If you're going to dictate the content of my game for arbitrary reasons, I'm going to do so in a way that mocks you.

[UncleBob]

Your comment isn't just mocking MS/Sony.  You clearly attacked those who like achievements/trophies.

[Ian Sane]

I said "And I would make sure all the descriptions made fun of the whole concept and implied that Microsoft and any player that cares about achievements is a tool."

I would make sure the description of the achievement implies that.  To mock the concept, my Microsoft mandated achievments would make fun of the player that worked hard to earn them.  My game would only have achievements because I'm forced to have them and then the achievements would make fun of those that earn them, so that any attempt to "show off" one's achievments would backfire.  Who wants to show off achievements that state they're a tool?

Just imagine some ridiculous achievement that involves an insane amount of mundane effort and time from the player only for the player's achievement to be called "Has No Life" and then mocks them for going to insane effort just to get some checkbox by their name for something the developer didn't want to do in the first place and only included because Microsoft made them.  Or imagine one called "Turned On Game" which is just so utterly meaningless that showing off that achievement would make you look silly.

"Care" is the key word.  I didn't say "like", I said "care".  If you're the sort of gamer for which achievements are so important to you that you really care about your "status" on Xbox Live, you ARE a tool and that's exactly what I'm mocking.  I imagine most gamers would find it funny that a game, in protest of mandatory achievements, had really silly achievements.  If you care so much about achievements that this would offend or upset you then your priorities are really goofed up and you are well deserving of mockery.

[UncleBob]

So...

Exactly, Ian is also mocking anyone who likes or cares about achievements/trophies. If he doesn't like them, that's fine. But he shouldn't be acting like his opinion is the right one or better than those who like achievements (which as J.P. said, can be great when done well).

[Chozo Ghost]

I don't have a problem with achievements or the people who like them, but I think Ian's idea is pretty damn funny. I would have to give kudos to any developer with enough balls to do something like that, but imagine the backlash they would get from fans... and what would Microsoft do? Technically, they fulfilled the mandatory requirements imposed by Microsoft, but they did it in a blatantly insulting way which trolls both Microsoft and gamers alike. Would Microsoft take action?

[broodwars]

I don't have a problem with achievements or the people who like them, but I think Ian's idea is pretty damn funny. I would have to give kudos to any developer with enough balls to do something like that, but imagine the backlash they would get from fans... and what would Microsoft do? Technically, they fulfilled the mandatory requirements imposed by Microsoft, but they did it in a blatantly insulting way which trolls both Microsoft and gamers alike. Would Microsoft take action?

It depends on the severity of the language and whether it casts the Xbox 360 in a particularly bad light.  I've seen some light jabs taken at Microsoft in the past that they've just ignored, such as a broken door in Bulletstorm that flashes the Xbox 360 Red Ring of Death when someone tries to open it.  I think, though, that it would be less of an issue of Microsoft blocking the game in question so much as it would burn all your bridges with Microsoft cooperation on future titles so it would be incredibly stupid for a developer to taunt them with the achievements.

That said, there are jokes and movie references in achievement names all the time, so there's plenty of opportunity and precedence for levity in achievement names.  It all comes down to the language of the achievement names and descriptions whether Microsoft would have serious issue with them.