Gamerscore - A double edged sword

Now me, I love my gamerscore. I don't know why, it's just a number with some bragging rights. It is ultimately worthless yet in a way more precious than money. But is it killing game longevity?

A lot of games end with the 1000. If they have well balanced achievement then this can boost the longevity (good thing) but with the market understanding that an easy 1000 = higher sales it can shorten the lifespan of the game (bad thing).

Take Dirt 2 for example. I know a certain member of the forum that loves this game but won't be playing it much more due to having the 1000.

And how many people actually played more than 5 minutes of Avatar?

Call of duty have it right with in game XP giving just as much bragging rights if not more in the correct circles. Even with the 1000 in COD 4 many people continue to spin it up.

What can games do to balance gamerscore and longevity?

Do developers even care about longevity?

Once you've parted with your cash then a quick finish moves you on to a new game more quickly (good for devs) or does this in reality reduce new game sales and increase pre-owned sales and rentals (bad for devs)? I know some have said it increase unit sales but can this be true of all titles with easy achievements?

Have your say.

being one of the biggest game whores around here (ill play any rubbish for the sweet sound of that acheev ping!!), I can say it wasnt always that way.
Before xbox and even when I first got my xbox I would often play games to death. Indeed I played COD4 and lego star wars for months before the lure of the achievement pulled me.
However nowadays I barely play games for more than a week unless it is a special game, say something like Fallout. However on the flip side there are many decent games Ive played that I simply wouldnt have even touched before if they didnt contain achievements.
So I guess what Im saying is that achievements are a double edged sword and I suppose really sort the wheat from the chaff. A great game will always be a great game regardless of gamerscore and a rubbish one will always be rubbish and be played accordingly (csi, lost, king kong etc.)
I suppose from a developers point of view not everybody is gonna be interested in achievemnts and so at the end of the day they are gonna make the best game they can, obviously depending on their own skill and budget constraints. Also one only has to look at the plethora of sub-standard movie-tie in games to see that developers are keen to cash-in, and I suppose the quickly hobbling together of a game with quick easy acheevs is part of that.

*twiddles goatie* Hummies ..... im thinking .......



.. hurts ...

.. brain ...



You both have some really good points. At the end of the day game developers are in it for the Kudos and the money. But for them its a double edged sword too. Gamers vote with their feet

I think you are right when game devs are lazy with their achievements eg. a game with 10 levels and they just give an achievement for completing each level worth 100 points each. But when used properly achievements can actually add a decent chunk of gameplay to the title by introducing challenges within the main game, GTA 4 is a good example of this with some of nice achievements that aren't necessary to complete the main story but give you a few fun challenges to do outside of it.

Personally If I like a game I will keep playing it and keep going back to it. For example GTA I used to play online all the time despite feeling I had got all the cheeves I could out of it. Another example is Oblivion. I could have got all the cheevs from that in a week if I wanted but I didn't The game took me over a year to get them all (out of choice) and it was so in depth I just couldn't leave it alone.
Though saying that there are a couple of games I never would have played if it hadn't been for the easy achievements, so I guess you can thank my want for gamer points for even playing the game as I had no interest what so ever but ended up enjoying it anyway (kung fu panda for example)

I recon as long as the quality of a game is still there then people will probably still play them as they would an easy achievement game. Though there are going to be people out there who do just do it for the cheevs I hope there are some that would still, like me, want to get there moneys worth and more enjoyment out of a game once they have all the cheevs.

Regarding Avatar... Yeah that's the one game I really didn't try to play. Got the points and put it away after 15 mins... it was pants. The story started of bad and it was a game I never had any interest in anyway so in my book void lol.

there is no fixed answer to this as a lot of it depends on how the developers implement their achs

I think gamerwhore is one of the key factors in 360s success, but its not without its drawbacks

If the obtaining of the ach is too easy then one can end up buying the game just for the points, but for the majority of titles, having that extra goal of achs on top of the games goals is a winner.

Would I have played the 2 Burnout titles for about 200hours without those tough achs, probably not.
Would I have seen all of certain games or the end scenes of others without the added incentive of the plink plink fizz of ach obtained, I cant say. Would I have played Geometry Wars for 100+ days just to get that last freakin ach, definately not!!

I have been gaming for well over 30 years and in that time I have always been a play it fast and move on to the next sort of guy. But with the advent of ach points I have a new game, and that is to get as much completed of each title as possible. The result is that I get so much more out of every title and I have a to be played pile which gets bigger and bigger as I take so long actually finishing each game without gorging on new ones. For me it has opened my eyes to the sometimes overly hidden depths of some games, and on a financial level I have so much left to play I normally can now wait until a game is very cheap before adding it to my pile.

Yes there are some real bstrard ach and some totally unfair ones that try and sully the waters, but as a whole it is undoubtably the greatest addition to gaming since the joystick

When playing a game i like goals to aim for like gs or prestige mode as soon as i max these out i try to set online goals like get a w/l or kdr above a certain score.

The only game i've played for a long time was cod4 and that was for the presidge, and the fact i like it alot, i mean i played it for one year every night. lol no joke thou. also gears of war 2 is the same for me as cod4 was, just love [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] playing it for both reasons. i.ve now just got A parting gift and chainsaw achevo on gears last night. three more to go. not doing the co-op or the other one's thou. I play cos i like the game thats it.

I for one don't give a rats arse about Gamerscores, ironic when you think I'm here!

I'm not bothered about gamerscore either, but i do respect ppl that have high levels, cause that shows some dedication and time spent.

But i have been on other sites where ppl have "looked down"on other members because of gamerscore limit, and do not consider them much of gamer because it.

Thats the only thing i don't like about it.

my score and my lack of any talent should make a mockery of that argument

B1G Daddi F wrote:I'm not bothered about gamerscore either, but i do respect ppl that have high levels, cause that shows some dedication and time spent.

But i have been on other sites where ppl have "looked down"on other members because of gamerscore limit, and do not consider them much of gamer because it.

Thats the only thing i don't like about it.

In the case of multiplayer gaming it's the low score people I watch out for and hope to avoid. These tend to be the ones that only play the one game and are total maniacs. I know a couple that only really play Call of duty. They have low scores because they play nothing else, and are the ones that pwn you over and over again because they have learnt the maps and weapons inside out.