I never said that it is wrong. I just thought "bragging" would be additional fun with achievements. If you don't want or need to show others why should we need this technical feature in the first place then - maybe just to make the managing of such goals easier? To be honest, I never realized that people did achievements manually before they became a feature ... actually the first time I unlocked an achievevent all I thought was "what was that"? Then I tried to figure out what I just gained and was a bit unimpressed when I found out that the answer just was "an entry in an achievementlist went from grey to colored". That's just how I experienced achievements it should not mean that they are unnecessary/unimportant or even bad.

Yeah, totally. Intrigued when I saw it and heard it about what's in it. Then I play and the balloon deflated...

They are not a bad thing for sure, when I got my Xbox 360 and experienced them for the first time I got quite hooked on them actually and tried to 'max out' every game I played. Then after a while going for them felt more like a chore than a challenge and that's where I drew the line. There are quite some meaningful achievements around which are either challenging without being unfair or grindy and unlocking them feels really good or they are just very creative and highlight an aspect of the game which would otherwise might go unnoticed by most players, and then there are the genius ones which are both of these. My all-time favorite is probably 'Little Rocket Man' in Half-Life 2: Episode 2 where you had to carry a garden gnome with you (which I wouldn't even know is in the game at all, weren't for this achievement) all the way to the end which was sometimes frustrating but boy, did it feel good once I finally got there! (Generally speaking The Orange Box really hit a golden balance with its achievements.)

But they don't make or break a deal for me either. I understand the frustration when they are omitted from a platform which otherwise has full support for them while they are present on a different one, but since they are not in the games themselves, instead being parts of an external client I don't really care for them as I don't use such things unless it's mandatory (which on GOG it thankfully isn't). It's different when they are an integral part of the game itself, like the badges in Shadow Tactics for example, where I usually chase them. Not all, though. Cheers!

(Edit: a typo again... man, do I suck at this)

This looked interesting - although from what I've heard so far, they missed the mark a bit.

One thing that would likely bug me no end is the lack of actual "inventory" - which seems to be a trend for new-age adventure games for some reason. How did this come about? Did they do some focus groups with mentally challenged people and found that it was too difficult to organise what they're carrying? So the solution - instead of simply limiting the weight/space of carried items to a reasonable/realistic level, which would be fine - they decided that the PC is only ever going to pick up and carry a single item at any one time?

From the looks of it, picking up a document potentially means dropping a previous document!

I can totally understand not being able to carry more than one large object - e.g. a TV or something, or maybe even a plate. But a document? An eraser? A pen? Nope, apparently pockets didn't exist in this alternate '80s Universe.

Anyway rant over - I'll probably still get this at some point since I'm a sucker for these kinds of dystopian representations in games (as long as it's done well).

EDIT RANT: It appears that most early reviewers are retards. and that apparently the PC has a briefcase which can hold multiple items (and has separate categories for IDs, documents, and what I presume are "other items". Though the first "level" (intro level) doesn't have the briefcase (and therefore you are limited to one item at a time in that case).

Good info, thanks!

That's a good point. My feeling is achievements started to become more regular with online play and leaderboards. I think as human beings we've now got to the point where we feel we feel achieving something is for everybody to know about, to show off or make them feel good about themselves. As I've never been good at games I never felt the need to show off or try the hardest settings on a game therefore achievements were never a problem for me. It's only with Steam that I get a bit of OCD if there's an achievement system in place and I'm not completing them. But some games like the Luxor series don't come with achievements.

Yeah, I don't understand how people equate the worth and price of a game with hours spent.

There's short games that did absolutely nothing for me and were a waste of money.

But the same goes for huge games, which is the reason I don't play any Ubisoft crap, because it's just pure repetition for the sake of creating an X-hour experience. Or take any Korea MMO in which you can literally grind for hundreds of hours and get absolutely nothing out of it.

Sure, I've also played long games like Dark Souls that I enjoyed every minute of it, but pitting Dark Souls against Gone Home, for instance, just seems ridiculous to me, because they're just not the same thing at all and I wouldn't prefer one thing over the other.

For a game to resonate with me, it doesn't need to be X hours long. It either happens, or it doesn't. It's not necessarily linked to how long a game is, but rather how the time is spent.

Edit: I found Edith Finch very meh, by the way. It sure was a nice story and the visuals were cool, but other than that, it felt kinda hollow to me.

Great minds think alike! :3