Imagine all the exciting achievements that might be found in a game like Eye of the Beholder or Darklands or other classic games.

I've never cared much about achievements to an extent of desiring them all in a particular game which offers them so that I may lengthen my e-penis by having a load of achievements diplayed on some Internet profile to instill envy on all those who dare gaze upon its magnificence. Some are really into that. Also, I never take achievements into consideration when purchasing a game; athough, some people might.

That being said, achievements, imo, can be amusing and can add to a game, and even though it seems doubtful achievements would ever be added to classic games, my mouth wouldn't fall to the floor over an announcement about achievements being added to classic games. There is a lot of interest right now in older content, and going back and redoing an entire game isn't necessarily the only option for invigorating an older title.

* laughs *

Technically speaking, it would be very simple to add achievements into ScummVM supported games.
ScummVM is an open source reprogramming collection, so adding stupid achievements, like "player has entered all areas in the game", would only take one integer variable and a condition in every room that updates it, copy-pasted into required parts of the source code.

I really don't see how this would make games any better though. If there's somebody willing to tweak all those old games, that person's time would be better spent creating something else, such as hot spot indicators for old pixel hunting adventures. It's sad, I would love to buy and play more newer games, but as they are crippled by all achievement garbage, they are really almost unplayable.

Take a look at the latest Broken Sword for instance. All areas are self-contained to minimize any effort required to play the game, and instead we get annoying popups when we "achieve" trivial and useless things, such as enter new rooms in the game.

When developers try to make Steam users happy at the same time as they are trying to bring their games to mobile platforms, the end result is really disturbing.

*facepalm*

That really depends on the achievements in question.

Not all achievements require the player to do chores outside of the actually gameplay, to unlock them (and which artificially stretch the playing time, if you want to achieve them).

Some get unlocked while just playing the game the normal way, by reaching some pre-defined points in the story, or by receiving a new in-game skill, etc., aka: you would have to go there, anyway, if you want to complete the game.
Those are the ones, I usually have nothing against.

It's basically the dev's way of patting you on the shoulder and saying: "Well done! You do great so far, now - what can you achieve next?"

See the problem?

For me something like this should be called simply "checkpoint", not "achievement", as achievement is a result gained by effort. :D

Yeah, well...tell that the devs. :)

But as I said - I like those the most, because you don't have to do some unrelated shit, to get them.

I believe it was in Tomb Raider (2016), where you could get achievements for killing birds and/or deer.

I mean - I have no problem with killing animals in games, IF it serves an in-game purpose (like crafting, etc.), but killing animals, just to get an achievement?

Nah - I skipped that, without even thinking twice.
And , mind you - I wouldn't have had problems, if it would've been something like shooting isolators from telegraph poles (I believe that was in Sniper Elite - and it was fun).

It's just, that I don't like to do things in games, that I also don't do in real life - like killing animals for absolutely no reason whatsoever, apart from getting another icon in my Steam account.

Good point. Quite a few games here don't have achievements yet have them over at Steam.

Achievments are also a method of tracking what people actually do in games and give out statistic on how many people actually complete a game. It's actually pretty interesting on that regard, as I've noticed that relatively few players do actually finish the games they started, at least if achievment statistics are to be believed.

Especially big games, like Divinity Original Sin 2, has fever and fever opened achievments the further the game goes. To the end is as few as 20% or so that have gotten there, so that does make you question why make really long games if most people will never bother completing them.

You have achievements for the SNES. NES, Genesis, PC-Engine even the Atari 2600 and a few arcade games are getting achievements

Nintendo has achievements, i own a new 3ds did not notice them there even for the vc games ?


I do like achievements in general , i always play out the game first and then see what i missed in achievements , if the game was great and is easy for me will go for all achievements or else not.

I have seen some of the old games like monkey island 1 & 2 , grim fandango etc get achievements they are fun.

I dont understand, why there is so much hate agains Achievments. If you dont like Achievments, just dont do the achievements, if you like them, do it. Where is the problem? I like achievemnts because i play and enjoy a game much longer with achiements. try another difficulty, explore more and do weird stuff, then without achievements.

i think it would be also great, if older games just have one achievment if you beat the game (i like to see all the games i beat in a list). i think this would be possible because its maybe possible to just read the savefiles, or maybe it will work with an screencapure script, like the achievemnt will triggert if you see the ending screen, or something else.

They are added to the original games, check this site for more info: http://retroachievements.org/