An addendum to the other thread...

Which games have you played significant amount of time (+10 hours) and you still have very very low Gamerscore point?

For me, the music games are tough to score on. I only have 140 point on Rock Band 2 even though I have played it probably over 30 hours.

I have only 480 (out of 1425) even though I have played 50 hours of that.

Devil May Cry 4 - 150 points after going through it twice!!!

KUF Circle of Doom - 190 points, pretty close to finishing it before losing interest

And GTA IV, I have 30 (!!!) points after playing it for little over 10 hours. Not gonna get close to 1000 on that one...

for as many hours as i've put into Forza 2, only 195 points.... probably the worst points per hour of any game i've played.

I have 30 points on GHIII and have played it for hours and hours.

Frickin' Devil May Cry 4... beat the game and only got 90 points out of it.

Dead or Alive 4: 140/1000

Unlocked secret characters and beat the story mode. And played for 10+ hours. I know because that is one of the 9 achievements I got for the game.

Perfect Dark Zero. I suffered all the way through that game and only got 1 achivement for 10 pts. Needless to say that game is not one I would waste my time to get achievements on....but you would think completeing the entire game would get you more then one achievement.

It appears I am one achievement away from 1000 in Lost Odyssey too.

Geometry Wars, I frikkin suck at that game!!! 20 points maybe??

GTA4- only 185/1250
COD4- 340/1000
and Prototype, ive already logged about 20 hours, only 300/1000

mega man 9 20/200

Xbox 360 game - Ninja Gaiden 2 10 of 1250 2 of 70 Achievements

XBLA game - Boom Boom Rocket 10 of 200 2 of 12 Achievements

Guitar Hero III - 65
Forza 2 - 55
Burnout Revenge - 45
Perfect Dark Zero - 25

Exit - 5

dbburns, I feel your pain...

For a game that I've put almost 300 hours into, I only have 320 points: COD4.

Smackdown vs. Raw 2008 - 0
Stuntman: Ignition - 5
Gears of War - 10
I had each of these sitting around forever from gamefly, when I finally played them I couldn't get into them.

GTAIV - 80 - played this for a few weeks straight even.

Halo 3 - 60 - not sure, but my main Halo 2 group didn't really get into Halo 3, but I did put time into it.

PGR 3 - 35 - Pack in game, only played for a few minutes.

Games I played substantially with no gamerscore - NHL 08 (75), NHL 09 (135) - completed full seasons in each. College Hoops 2k7 (55) - I mostly sim and then play the tournaments in legacy mode. Forza 2 - played this for months to net 176. NFS: Carbon - beat the main game, 50 gamerscore.

GH3 is odd. I have over 500 points in Rock Band, 700+ in GH2, nearly 700 in GH: Aerosmith and about 480 in RB2. But GH3, despite playing for at least 5 hours, I only have 45 points. That game's achievements are way hard.

I played a bunch of Viva Pinata, maybe 30 hours and never got to 300 gamerscore.

Am I the only one who feels that if you complete a game (even at a normal difficulty) or a season, you should have at least 1/3 of the available points? If not at least 1/2?

Doesn't it seem wrong that you play the full game and the game is telling you that you have only scratched 1/10 (or less) of what is available?

some tough games for me include:

Chromehounds
GH III
Geometry Wars
Battlefield: Modern Combat

I only have 5 points in GTA4, but I have really not played that since launch. Maybe sometime this summer.

I think the hardest game to get achievements in is Rumble Roses. Aparently hundreds, if not 1000 hours for 1000/1000

F.E.A.R. I know have less than 100 points and I have played it quite a bit. To give you an idea, I now have just over 100 retail games completed to 1000 so this one as the completionist that I am irks the hell out of me.

In addition to the games mentioned above, where I have many of the same issues with abnormally low achievement scores as others, add these:

Blue Dragon
Dead or Alive Xtreme 2
Eternal Sonata

And yes, I agree with the comment above, that if you complete the basic game (particularly if it's something like an RPG), you should be automatically earning some non-trivial percentage of achievement points along the way. It's particularly aggravating to have achievements that can only be earned on the second playthrough of a 40+ hour RPG.

Am I the only one who feels that if you complete a game (even at a normal difficulty) or a season, you should have at least 1/3 of the available points? If not at least 1/2?

Doesn't it seem wrong that you play the full game and the game is telling you that you have only scratched 1/10 (or less) of what is available?

I personally think game progression achievements are lame so I don't really care about them.

Least achivements per hour played is probably Rock Band 2. 395/1000 points, 24/50 achievements.

Followed closely by GTAIV 445/1250 points, 28 of 55 achievements.

Or possibly Ikaruga....65/200, 5/12. That game is hard as....well, hard as some kindof hard substance.

I have to say any of the GH games and Forza 2
Now I know alot of the achievements in GH are tied to online play and expert level neither of which I care about so I'm not terribly surprised
Forza on the other hand has to be one of the stingiest games out there and I hate acheievements that basically are for speinding x amout of dollars such as the "collect all cars from x" on that game

F.E.A.R. I know have less than 100 points and I have played it quite a bit. To give you an idea, I now have just over 100 retail games completed to 1000 so this one as the completionist that I am irks the hell out of me.

This thread has made me laugh, which I appreciate, and this post in particular - F.E.A.R.'s stinginess inspires almost universal feelings of irksomeness. I played through it 3 times (the second two plays specifically as achievement hunts) and still have some ridiculous total like 145. Does anyone know if F.E.A.R. 2 follows this same philosophy? I'd still like to play it regardless.

This thread has made me laugh, which I appreciate, and this post in particular - F.E.A.R.'s stinginess inspires almost universal feelings of irksomeness. I played through it 3 times (the second two plays specifically as achievement hunts) and still have some ridiculous total like 145. Does anyone know if F.E.A.R. 2 follows this same philosophy? I'd still like to play it regardless.

The achievements in F.E.A.R. 2 are much easier to get and largely deal with completing missions, finding intel/items, and a few are weapon-related. Nothing like the ultra difficult ones of the first. 500 or so pts are multiplayer-related.

Just to add to the thread: Looking at my gamercard I notice my points for Lego Star Wars II (90/1000) and Star Wars: TFU (60/1000) are low. A pattern perhaps? I don't think TFU achievements are that difficult, I just could not defeat the small, spider-like boss on the junkyard level and eventually got frustrated to the point I traded the game in.

This thread has made me laugh, which I appreciate, and this post in particular - F.E.A.R.'s stinginess inspires almost universal feelings of irksomeness. I played through it 3 times (the second two plays specifically as achievement hunts) and still have some ridiculous total like 145. Does anyone know if F.E.A.R. 2 follows this same philosophy? I'd still like to play it regardless.

While I have not played F.E.A.R. 2, looking over the achievement list while it looks like a bear to get the full 1000 in the game it does not look like to be as stingy. Through 1 play-through it looks like you could conceivablt get close to 4-500 points. And no stupid achievements of play this way one time and then have to play the opposite way the next time just to nab about 50 points :)

Pefect dark zero, perfect example of why NOT to make all of them multiplayer, jeeze!

As I mentioned above, Dead or Alive Xtreme 2 requires some extreme heroics to unlock even a single achievement. Each and every achievement is based on getting a character a complete set of swimsuits, rather than on any actual game play accomplishments.

On the plus side, because most players will have zero Gamerscore in the game, one can use the dashboard option to delete it altogether from one's play history and thus remove the 0 / 1000 entry.

On the plus side, because most players will have zero Gamerscore in the game, one can use the dashboard option to delete it altogether from one's play history and thus remove the 0 / 1000 entry.

Wait. What? You can do that?

Yes, this capability was added some time back by a dashboard update. If you have zero Gamerscore in a game, e.g. because you only played the demo (back when demos made entries in the achievement list), you can go to the entry for the game and delete it altogether. You can't do this if you have any non-zero score.

Add another to the Perfect Dark Zero 10 pt club.

Go to your games history and hit the blue x button to delete the game history.

I need to 2nd Burnout Revenge. Still the game I've likely logged the most hours on, and very little acievement points to show for it.

Burnout Revenge ... good one! ... I think I have 35 points after hours and hours of play.

What are you guys doing wrong then? I have 805 points in Burnout Revenge and didn't do much of any online play, which is why I am missing the other 195.

Blue Dragon
Viva Pinata: Trouble in Paradise - MUCH harder achievements than the first game

What are you guys doing wrong then? I have 805 points in Burnout Revenge and didn't do much of any online play, which is why I am missing the other 195.
Personally, when playing "Burnout Revenge", I found that there was often one race per difficulty level (rank), usually a time trial of some sort, that I simply could not finish. Not being able to complete one race means that one earns nothing for that rank. Multiply by a few ranks, and one is suddenly missing a lot of potential Gamerscore.