It was July 2006, Daniel Powter was all the rage, fraternities everywhere wouldn't stop talking like Borat, and I had just rented my ninth Xbox game (ever) in the hopes of unlocking some more of these "achievements" I was beginning to enjoy so much. The game was Human Head/3D Realms' Prey, and I was quickly becoming annoyed with all the gameplay they had placed between me and my precious points. Even the scant day-and-a-half it took me to sail through all 1000 gamerscore was apparently too much, seeing as I returned the game with so much force that Blockbusters everywhere have been going out of business ever since.
A couple days later I received the latest issue of [Popular Gaming Publication!] in the mail, and opened up to find Prey plastered with their "Game of the Month" award. Sure, it was a slow month for games (it was either Prey or Chromehounds, for Pete's sake), but the more I thought about it the more I realized that my rabid achievement hunting had seriously screwed my appreciation of a decent game - and the achievements weren't even that bad! For me, it was an experience that defined the dark side of playing for points, and it's a definition that has stuck with me ever since. Not surprisingly, it's also the type of thing that many gamemakers have become overtly concerned with this generation.
A couple days later I received the latest issue of [Popular Gaming Publication!] in the mail, and opened up to find Prey plastered with their "Game of the Month" award. Sure, it was a slow month for games (it was either Prey or Chromehounds, for Pete's sake), but the more I thought about it the more I realized that my rabid achievement hunting had seriously screwed my appreciation of a decent game - and the achievements weren't even that bad! For me, it was an experience that defined the dark side of playing for points, and it's a definition that has stuck with me ever since. Not surprisingly, it's also the type of thing that many gamemakers have become overtly concerned with this generation.
Way back in March you may remember hearing about one such gamemaker, indie developer Chris Hecker, whose talk from GDC drew from budding research that suggests being extrinsically rewarded for completing tasks may actually diminish the task itself. In other words: exactly what I had experienced while earning achievements ("extrinsic reward") for playing Prey ("diminished task"). Hecker et al. argue that "intrinsic motivation" is the real goal for designers, and that taking away from such can lead to crappy games and "repetitive, dull tasks." They're absolutely right, but I don't think the player is positively powerless in this equation. It might take a conscious decision after some genuine reflection, but the mistake I made back in 2006 is very avoidable.
Which is why I find it at least a little funny when achievements as a whole are met with disdain, shame, or even hostility at times. Yes, they should never overshadow anything as possibly profound as gameplay or narrative, but they have their place. Haven't things like scoring and "leaderboards" been a part of gaming since the beginning? Even when the most sublime game succeeds in surpassing the sum of its parts it's not despite being a game (i.e. interactive), it's wholly because of it. Every game is different, of course, and there are far more gray areas than even I have alluded to, but ultimately I say playing for points and appreciation are not mutually exclusive endeavors.
So to all you closet achievement lovers out there, wherever you may be, I say stand tall and shout loudly, "I'm coming out of the closet, right now!" Don't worry, everyone will assume you're referring to achievements, and you'll make a bunch of new friends afterwards!
