I don't mind achievements, i usually try to finish the games i like at 100%, achievements or not, but they are a way to encourage people to do so.
That said you get them for doing really anything, like opening a door or whatever, when that happens it bothers me a little.

I would prefer something more straight to the point;
bronze medal : you have done something important in the game
silver: you have finished the game
gold: you have finished the game at 100%

So only one achievement per game.

Achievements break the immersion of the game, and just ruin it.


*BING* "You spoke to an important character."

*BING* "You picked up that item you're gonna need later on."

*BING* "You walked 50 steps."

*BING* "You looked at that wall."


etc

I could give a hoot if a game has achievements or not during a purchase decision. I will say, once I have played a game through, achievements might make me continue to play in an attempt to get some if I enjoyed the game. Its gamification of a game. Pretty standard business now. Clearly, I think they fit some games better than others. Generally speaking if its easy enough to have them broadly available, they are only hurting themselves not having them.

You can turn off achievements in GOG Galaxy if you don't like them.

This leads open the discussion of what 100% is. JRPGs, for instance, often have achievements for getting every character at max level and getting (and keeping) 1+ of every item in the game, both of which are often deleterious to enjoying the game.

not only does many gamers like achievements, it is also good metrics for the developers.

imagine you have a game with achievements "Completed Level 1", "Completed Level 2" [...] "Completed Level 6"

97% complete level 1
95% complete level 2
89% complete level 3
58% complete level 4
57% complete level 5

The big drop between level 3 and 4 completion means that there is something wrong with level 4, which needs investigating. Well considered achievements can give the developers tremendously useful information.

I'm aware, and it's good metrics to have. I use them when discussing design flaws in Nioh. Developer's metrics are useful and I don't opt out of them (though I appreciate GOG has them out by default). But that's different than achievements, which are often not as clear or simple as that. Achievements often are much more than straightforward completion rates. They're awkward, sometimes gameplay-harming, edge cases much of the time.

They also destroy immersion when they occur.

Note: I'm not against achievements. I'm against bad achievements [which is what most games have]. I'm also against them being campaigned for and championed so strongly that people see them as requirements.

Source for this 'fact'?

It's not about liking them or not. It's about the people who try to push the mindset of "No achievements? No buy!", because they need them to expand there e-pen.

Heck, most people on Steam won't even try a game out if it doesn't have traiding cards for them to sell on the marketplace.
Just check out all the "No achievements? No buy!" threads on the Steam forums. Also, many people on Steam are also obsessed with the trading card system which has no real purpose beyond giving Valve more money.
.

Voting with your wallet is a pretty standard way to get a company to comply with your wishes in a capitalist system. If achievements are important enough for these people, then that is as far as I'm concerned an appropriate response. If you don't care for achievements then you don't have to hold back when a game is released without them. Good for you!
I very seriously doubt that this is the case. Personally, I don't know a single person that has expressed any interest in Steam trading cards. No doubt they have their fans, but given the shit price they sell for (scarcely worth even the time it takes to put them up for sale) I would say most people don't give a shit.

Unfortunately most millenial gamers are completely narcissistic and operate on the "It's not about playing the game that matters, it's showing everybody online that I do!" logic.

Take a step back and look at Yeshu's post. Yeshu is seriously, empathically, concerned for these people harming their own experiences because of the achievement system. That's a positive human trait, to care when there's an obvious problem.

I don't mind at all about them. I'm only interested in finishing game, if I like it and playing again later, if I really like it. I just turned off distracting notifications on Steam. I do like playtime feature however, so I can track my time spend with the game. Says a lot to me ; p

Some love them, some don't, some don't care. Depending on the achievements and the game, it may interest me. But I usually do not care about them. However, what bothers me is that people can point at a GOG version of a game and a Steam version of the game and say "the GOG version does not have achievements while the Steam version does, the GOG port is a lesser version." I do not necessarly think this, but some do. I would rather have them here because I would like this platform to be as successful as possible, since 99% of my digital games are on GOG. And for some, achievements are a selling piont. If you do not like them, ignore them or turn them off. I do feel they should be here though. I want equal ports with Steam, certainly patches, and yes, even achievements, even if I might not care about them.