Make Achievements great again

So in most games achievements are kind of there just for the sake of doing them. I say make achievements worth of the time a player puts into them with rewards! This could be in the form of total achievement point where you can turn them in for rewards of horizontal or vertical progression. Another idea is particular themed chains of achievements with relative rewards for your efforts. For example if you complete a chain of cleric/healing related achievements then you get a particular cleric related augment or an increase in a cleric stat such as +1 mentality. If you complete some kind of tank chain of achievements you could gain HP or get a tank related augment. Getting something from achievements that isn't just cosmetic I would love. It also keep the hardcore player interested as they get something to grind that actually gives them some sort of character progression. It's a way of getting those last few extra stats/perks for your character which is a big time dump as compared to the normal progression path. But these progressions should be small addons to your character as to not imbalance the essence of the game. For example an ideal achievement chain for me would be I complete 30 jumping puzzles over an achievement quest chain and I get a reward of +3% movement speed as the reward, it thematically matches the achievement of exploration or an augment which makes a skill movement faster.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Noaani

Dolyem wrote: »

The only thing I would say separates them is quests are willingly accepted and give direct "physical" rewards while achievements are always active in a separate log able to be worked on at any time and the reward is notoriety instead of earning an item.

I've played games where achievements reward player with items.

I've also played games that automatically give the player quests without the players input - especially in relation to events that are happening.

To me, this means quests and achievements are the exact same thing, just with a different name, and a different UI element to access them.

Dolyem

Noaani wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

The only thing I would say separates them is quests are willingly accepted and give direct "physical" rewards while achievements are always active in a separate log able to be worked on at any time and the reward is notoriety instead of earning an item.

I've played games where achievements reward player with items.

I've also played games that automatically give the player quests without the players input - especially in relation to events that are happening.

To me, this means quests and achievements are the exact same thing, just with a different name, and a different UI element to access them.

Thats fair, could be implemented that way for sure. Personally though I feel like keeping them separate allows to make achievements another level of difficulty. Completing a quest is just completing a quest. Sure it can be a really difficult one but when push comes to shove its just a quest, I haven't ever heard of someone being impressed over a quest being completed. But, if you have a list of achievements that people can look at and most people not being willing or capable of doing them, suddenly it has way more weight when someone sees a person with the title for whatever achievement they saw and said "that's impossible". Achievements are just the "quests" that stand apart from the storyline and emphasize achieving the most difficult to near impossible feats. No harm in separating them by name.

Noaani

Dolyem wrote: »

I haven't ever heard of someone being impressed over a quest being completed.

Again, I have.

In EQ2, every expansion while I played had a questline that essentially required you to do all the content from that expansion - specifically all the raid content. Often, these questlines would require content be complete from previous expansions as well (such as having done the quest to learn the dragon language).

People that managed to complete that questline while the expansion was still current were rare. Even in top guilds, not everyone would complete them because many people didn't want to do the non-raid aspects of the quests.

While completing these quests did become less impressive as time went on, that is the same for achievements.

While there may be no harm in separating them, there is also no harm in not separating them. Which then brings it back to my original thought - why bother?

Vhaeyne

I honestly don't think achievements should be in any game. When I 1cc an arcade game, I might take a picture of the high score screen to show off, but that is as far as it goes for me.

Playing the game should be its reward. Achievement systems are just bloated chore lists.

OP says, "Make Achievements great again".

As if achievements were ever great. Achievements have never been great. As a player, you know when something was a challenge for you and when it was easy for you. You are going to feel accomplished when you truly "achieve" something of note, regardless of if the game tells you that you achieved something or not.

What is worst is the sort of achievement system OP is talking about. Where you get permanent stat increases for doing random "challenging" chores. This is the sort of thing that just snowballs, power creep faster. It also makes achievements go from being optional chores to mandatory chores.

Big no from me.

Dolyem

Noaani wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

I haven't ever heard of someone being impressed over a quest being completed.

Again, I have.

In EQ2, every expansion while I played had a questline that essentially required you to do all the content from that expansion - specifically all the raid content. Often, these questlines would require content be complete from previous expansions as well (such as having done the quest to learn the dragon language).

People that managed to complete that questline while the expansion was still current were rare. Even in top guilds, not everyone would complete them because many people didn't want to do the non-raid aspects of the quests.

While completing these quests did become less impressive as time went on, that is the same for achievements.

While there may be no harm in separating them, there is also no harm in not separating them. Which then brings it back to my original thought - why bother?

Only reason I would bother is to add more weight to them, and they dont fill up a quest log -shrugs- not a huge deal but definitely has a better feeling when you do complete them and it doesnt require you to clutter your log.

Dizz1

Grand quest, achievement, accomplishment, what ever it calls, I like to see that you achieve things then you gain titles, and title will give you a very small buff at certain content.

daveywavey

Some players like to enjoy the game through the collection of the "achievements" - part of the reason Steam always puts out a ton of achievements for their games. Other players like the actual content. I don't see why Ashes couldn't cater to both types. I quite liked how Guild Wars did it, where they had tiers of titles, so if you killed say 1000 creatures, you'd get the first, and then that'd increase for each tier until you got the highest title for that particular achievement chain.

Noaani

daveywavey wrote: »

Some players like to enjoy the game through the collection of the "achievements" - part of the reason Steam always puts out a ton of achievements for their games. Other players like the actual content. I don't see why Ashes couldn't cater to both types. I quite liked how Guild Wars did it, where they had tiers of titles, so if you killed say 1000 creatures, you'd get the first, and then that'd increase for each tier until you got the highest title for that particular achievement chain.

EQ2 had a similar title system, where you would gain the title of Hunter of [mob type] after killing 100 or so of the mob, Slayer of [mob type] when you had killed either 2,500 or 5,000 (can't remember off the top of my head), and Destroyer of [mob type] for killing 10,000 of a mob type.

They had this in the game years before they had an in game achievement system.

I get that some players enjoy collecting things in games - but why does that need to be achievements and not quests?

daveywavey

A quest like that generally gives you a one-time reward, be it money, experience, or some poor quality weapon that you instantly go and sell/deconstruct/etc. Anything more than that and the reward is too great for the quest. But, a title can be worn forever. It's a reward that lasts.

Not saying that I'm particularly into titles at all, cos I never really used mine even when I had them. But, I know plenty of players I've played with who would have rather have a title to display than a big shiny weapon.

Noaani

daveywavey wrote: »

A quest like that generally gives you a one-time reward, be it money, experience, or some poor quality weapon that you instantly go and sell/deconstruct/etc. Anything more than that and the reward is too great for the quest. But, a title can be worn forever. It's a reward that lasts.

Not saying that I'm particularly into titles at all, cos I never really used mine even when I had them. But, I know plenty of players I've played with who would have rather have a title to display than a big shiny weapon.

In EQ2, the quests in question almost always offered either the best or second best item available for the slot. In some cases, they were used for actual years after being released.

They could also be turned in to house items when you had finished with them - and so served a similar purpose to titles in that regard. Most of the quests in question also gave the player completing them a title.

Then again, these are quests that take months from when you start them, not hours. Even if you didn't start them until your guild was capable of killing all the content needed (which only ever happened near the end of an expansion cycle), it would still take weeks.

A number of these items from 10+ years ago are still considered essential to acquire if you are new to the game, though the quests have since been toned down to allow for this.

I'm not overly in to titles either, but I have no issue with them specifically. My issue is with achievements and the notion that they are in any way inherently distinct from quests.

Dolyem

Noaani wrote: »

I'm not overly in to titles either, but I have no issue with them specifically. My issue is with achievements and the notion that they are in any way inherently distinct from quests.

Inherently I would say they are both goals. But a quest can vary in the most simple and mundane tasks to some of the most difficult, along with plenty of in between. Where an Achievement should always require a serious amount of skill to complete, no easy mode basically.. By definition, if you complete an insanely hard quest you are in fact achieving something, so why not deem it an achievement? I wouldn't be achieving much of anything for talking to the class trainer for the first time, not anything worthy of notoriety anyway.

Noaani

Dolyem wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

I'm not overly in to titles either, but I have no issue with them specifically. My issue is with achievements and the notion that they are in any way inherently distinct from quests.

Inherently I would say they are both goals. But a quest can vary in the most simple and mundane tasks to some of the most difficult, along with plenty of in between. Where an Achievement should always require a serious amount of skill to complete, no easy mode basically.. By definition, if you complete an insanely hard quest you are in fact achieving something, so why not deem it an achievement? I wouldn't be achieving much of anything for talking to the class trainer for the first time, not anything worthy of notoriety anyway.

Every game I have played that has achievements has had exceedingly easy ones to achieve.

As you point out, many RPG's (including MMORPG's) have achievements that are literally "complete this quest". Why is that even an achievement? What is gained from having it as both a quest and an achievement? Hint - the answer is nothing.

Look at basically any game with Steam achievements - a good number of them will be things that you literally just do as you ae playing the game normally.

Skyrim is a good example, with achievements to complete the introduction quest, or to reach level 5. Or then there is WoW having an achievement to visit a barbershop, or one for literally falling.

I mean, sure, there are also achievements that are harder to get - but this is the same with quests, some are quick and easy, some take weeks/months and require a good amount of perpetration.

So the point stands - why have two systems that perform exactly the same function?

Dolyem

Noaani wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

I'm not overly in to titles either, but I have no issue with them specifically. My issue is with achievements and the notion that they are in any way inherently distinct from quests.

Inherently I would say they are both goals. But a quest can vary in the most simple and mundane tasks to some of the most difficult, along with plenty of in between. Where an Achievement should always require a serious amount of skill to complete, no easy mode basically.. By definition, if you complete an insanely hard quest you are in fact achieving something, so why not deem it an achievement? I wouldn't be achieving much of anything for talking to the class trainer for the first time, not anything worthy of notoriety anyway.

Every game I have played that has achievements has had exceedingly easy ones to achieve.

As you point out, many RPG's (including MMORPG's) have achievements that are literally "complete this quest". Why is that even an achievement? What is gained from having it as both a quest and an achievement? Hint - the answer is nothing.

Look at basically any game with Steam achievements - a good number of them will be things that you literally just do as you ae playing the game normally.

Skyrim is a good example, with achievements to complete the introduction quest, or to reach level 5. Or then there is WoW having an achievement to visit a barbershop, or one for literally falling.

I mean, sure, there are also achievements that are harder to get - but this is the same with quests, some are quick and easy, some take weeks/months and require a good amount of perpetration.

So the point stands - why have two systems that perform exactly the same function?

Well, like I said previously, an achievement SHOULD take a serious amount of skill. The term has definitely been warped in many games in an attempt to make ALL gamers feel that they are succeeding no matter what they do, its a cheesy way to hook a player onto a game. But properly done, achievements can actually hold weight and value.
The 2 systems do not have the same function. Quests are a list of chores and jobs to complete for experience and physical rewards, they vary in difficulty but that is their function. Achievements are purely for notoriety and satisfaction, but SHOULD always require a high level of skill to complete. And while some games give items for achievements, I believe they should only give titles or, at the most, purely aesthetic items.
Also achievements don't clutter up a quest log.

TLDR having the 2 separate systems gives more weight to the harder tasks when completed so long as you keep the difficulty of achievements high. And it keeps the achievements from cluttering your quest log.

Marcet

"You equipped a sword!! Congratulations, take this potion."

...

"You drank a potion!!"

Dolyem

Marcet wrote: »

"You equipped a sword!! Congratulations, take this potion."

...

"You drank a potion!!"

yea those are the worst. Just little spurts of dopamine to keep a player hooked

Noaani

Dolyem wrote: »

TLDR having the 2 separate systems gives more weight to the harder tasks when completed so long as you keep the difficulty of achievements high. And it keeps the achievements from cluttering your quest log.

If the game has a task for you, how does that task being labeled an achievement rather than a quest give it more weight?

Essentially, what you seem to be saying here (or my understanding at least) is that developers should take all the tasks they want to ask of players, pull out the harder ones and put them in their own category, and then only reward titles rather than actual useful items to that harder group.

I'm sure you can see why I don't see the point in that.

The quest log thing is just a case of designing a better quest UI.

Dolyem

Noaani wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

TLDR having the 2 separate systems gives more weight to the harder tasks when completed so long as you keep the difficulty of achievements high. And it keeps the achievements from cluttering your quest log.

If the game has a task for you, how does that task being labeled an achievement rather than a quest give it more weight?

Essentially, what you seem to be saying here (or my understanding at least) is that developers should take all the tasks they want to ask of players, pull out the harder ones and put them in their own category, and then only reward titles rather than actual useful items to that harder group.

I'm sure you can see why I don't see the point in that.

The quest log thing is just a case of designing a better quest UI.

Not what I am saying at all. An example for the difference would be as simple as this.

QUEST
Big questline leading up to a raid, different varying difficulties of different tasks.

Once these are finished you finally get the last quest to kill the big bad, you complete it and get your physical rewards and/experience.

The end. No "Achievement"

ACHIEVEMENT
Go back to that big raid boss that you've already killed (makes sense in the story?) on the highest difficulty and kill it without a single person dying. BOOM, achievement, heres a title to show off that awesome accomplishment.

One can argue you could make that achievement a quest right? But why even make it a hassle for players to go a find and accept said quest, or even several quests for different achievements on a single boss when you can simply have a system that has them already active for you? These should be endgame activities anyway so XP shouldn't even be a factor at this point.

And as far as your argument of reworking the UI, why do that when this 2 system method works perfectly fine? It is literally organizing the UI by separating the 2 lmao.

Noaani

Dolyem wrote: »

One can argue you could make that achievement a quest right? But why even make it a hassle for players to go a find and accept said quest, or even several quests for different achievements on a single boss when you can simply have a system that has them already active for you?

Quests don't need to be found and accepted by players.

Developers of various games have done things like hidden quests, automatic quests and location based quests.

Assuming a game like WoW with differing difficulties of instanced content and the game could just automatically update you with all appropriate quests for the difficulty of the instance you are in and haven't completed.

Dolyem

Noaani wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

One can argue you could make that achievement a quest right? But why even make it a hassle for players to go a find and accept said quest, or even several quests for different achievements on a single boss when you can simply have a system that has them already active for you?

Quests don't need to be found and accepted by players.

Developers of various games have done things like hidden quests, automatic quests and location based quests.

Assuming a game like WoW with differing difficulties of instanced content and the game could just automatically update you with all appropriate quests for the difficulty of the instance you are in and haven't completed.

That takes away the point for a character to explore towns for character progression though? A player should be pushed to explore when experiencing content for the first time. But quests for killing a boss after killing the boss for another quest is not only redundant, it doesn't make any sense as far as what an NPC is asking of you.
And WoWs "solution" by adding the quest giver with every quest at the beginning of the dungeon was just so people could level quickly and rush to endgame. I would say you could toss a character in like that once you completed the dungeon and questlines once, allowing you to choose which difficult things to achieve. But why even go through the process of making an NPC and each individual quest (for each individual dungeon which will be based entirely on types of zones, nodes and decisions made by them) to accept at the start of the dungeon or raid, when you can simply have a UI dedicated to all of it which you can read on the fly and decide which ones you want to go and attempt to complete once you've already completed proper storylines.

Noaani

Dolyem wrote: »

That takes away the point for a character to explore towns for character progression though?

It would if developers just did that with all quests, but not so much if they only did it with quests that were specific to an instance or dungeon.

Quests that exist to facilitate getting out in the world would still be out in the world.

Child Item