The next console from MS - What do you think they'll do with achievements?

I rhink it would be best if they transfer and they. Might be nice to be able to filter the list based on New system games and 360 games but that's about it. Why not transfer them if it is the same Live account?
-Evangelo2

I want to see more achievements that do something besides give you meaningless points when you complete them - unlock gamerpics, avatar crap, wallpapers, or additional game modes/cheats.

Gamerscore will definitely transfer. There is no way in hell MS will make gamers toss out their gamerscore, the internet will explode. As for the other comments, no it will probably be one number, the one number is what makes the system work so well.

They might change it so games can do more than 1000, but even then... I dunno. I don't think the system needs to be changed.


That's up to the developer. Some games do it, like I know PGR4 did the gamerpics, and Mass Effect gives you bonuses for the next run through the game.

I have no idea what they'll do, but it would be neat for them to add some statistics. For instance, on each game's achievement list they could have a figure for how many gamers have received a certain achievement (i.e., if 2% of people who played Gears got 'Seriously...', put that on there), maybe implement some sort of tiered system (ala PSN with the gold/silver/bronze) based off that, etc.

But yeah, I would assume they would have to carry the scores over untouched. People either REALLY care about achievements or not at all, and I don't think MS would be doing themselves a favor in angering the former.

How about Trophies? And create a virtual world where your avatar can show off those trophies in a virtual "Home"? However, don't release this feature when the console is released and don't require all games to support these "trophies". Also, release a half-assed version of the initial idea and then promise to make it great as time moves on.

I agree with #3.. they will have like an overall score.. and a legacy score.

For examply my gamerscore is like 3000 now. If I played and finished all achievements on a new Xbox720 game for 1000 points.. My gamerscore would look like this:

Daekwan17 - 4000G (3000G legacy)

#2

my pick is #3
my guess on what they'll actually do, #2

They need to add incentives for getting acheivements/high gamer score. Until then they are meaningless to me.

I'm thinking schwag for your avatar is a no-brainer moving forward. No reason to wait for the next console for this, though. Publish an interface and let developers start adding it to new games now.

I will never understand this attitude. Have you never walked into an arcade? Played a game for score? The score is the incentive. You might think its a stupid incentive, and inconsistent, and so forth, but it is what it is.

Achievements will reappear in some form, but they'll probably be different from how they are now. I have a feeling that we'll be able to keep our current gamerscore, but games for the next system won't add to it. New games will use something too different to justify simply adding to our old score.

In effect, our current 360 gamerscore will look like what legacy xbox games look like now (a big "0"). I highly doubt MS will make it cumulative into the next system. Not only would it be discouraging to new consumers, but it also assumes that MS wouldn't change the current system (which they will).

For example, one model for new achievements would be to do away with points altogether. Instead, we could unlock virtual items, demos, themes, and so on. The more difficult the achievement, the more worthwhile the payoff. But since there would be no more points, there would be no reason to make them cumulative with the 360 achievements.

So my answer is a combination of #1 and #3.

I have no doubt it will be number 2. It has to be because the next Xbox WILL be 100% backwards compatable. Gamerscore is almost as significant as gamertag. Gamertags were transfered, and so will gamerscore. There will be significant uproar if anything else is done. I bet many people would play original Xbox games if gamerscore were applied to them and counted towards current amounts. Thus people who get the next Xbox will still play Halo3, gears and have the gamerscores count. People who start with the new Xbox, will have the option to start from scratch, or transfer the exiisting information. Most will likely transfer.

I'm saying #2 without a doubt; GS is currently tied to your gamertag today and I could play a live enabled game w/ Achievements on the PC and it will show up in my account. Why would that not happen with the next xbox?

I could get points from the 360, the 720 & a PC all of which tie back to a single user account. Additionally, assuming that the next xbox will have BC, how would you score a game from the 360? You acheived it on the new xbox but it's a 360 title....The achievement system works and I will be seriously pissed if they don't stack the points.

No need to break them out in to legacy scores or anything else.

I agree with Guinn3sS. The arcade argument doesn't really apply. If I get a high score in an arcade it's because I exhibited more skill at playing the game than the next guy. While skill is involved in some achievements, many are just perseverance. How skilled did someone have to be to get the 1000 GS in Avatar? When I see someone with a high gamerscore I think, "Way too much time on your hands", but if someone makes it to the top of the CoD multiplayer leaderboard, then I'm impressed.

Okay. As I said in my initial post, the reason achievements are popular is because of the score based attraction to it. All of the reasons you give for why its a garbage score based system I agree with. I think it is too. But clearly judging by all the custom leaderboards and all the forum sig pictures and giant forums like achieve360points a lot of people don't agree. While it would be cool to see these people flop around in Dodonpachi or Ikaruga or whatever (even though getting to be top in Dodonpachi takes dozens of hours of game time with it at the least - too much time on their hands?), the fact is that the score is a major draw.

I don't think that giving people a bunch of virtual ********, like items or whatever, will change this dynamic. If you don't enjoy the achievement system, hey there's a wide open game for you to play. And most games nowadays have unlockables anyway - wahts the difference between unlocking a new trucker hat for your character after beating level 5, or getting a new trucker hat after getting 200 achievement points? Hmm, none really.

I think that generalization is really not fair. I have seen people throw up 10-15 000 gamerscore in a weekend, and then I have seen people play 1000's of hours on CoD and have a tiny gamerscore. Apart from Kill-Death ratio, there is no 'skill' in being in top of leaderboards in CoD, it is really a function of time, the people on the top of leaderboards are the ones who have generally spent the most time in the game. Overall gamerscore is also not a true reflection of ability, but individual achievements are. Agreed when someone gets 1000/1000 on Avatar, most likely they have not played the game, but when they get 1000/1000 COD4 they truely are a 'vetran' because that game is hard. Similarly getting 'Mile High Club' is truely an achievemnt worth boosting. I like many people would not even play CoD on vetran if it were not for the achievements.

Online achievements I am not a fan of because there is usually no standardization. Halo 3 is the only game that attempts true skill matchmaking, thus level 50 people do not play with level 10. In CoD, you have guys that are boosting 37-2 kills-deaths, but the minute they are matched up against a 'clan' they get their butss kicked and complain about something or leave the game so as not to affect their k-d ratio.

I personally do not immediately assume that people with high gamerscores = play too much. It does mean that they play a lot of DIFFERENT games, but I know many people that play 2-3 games but for hours a day month after month, and have a very low gamerscore. These are the people that are on the top of the leaderboards in individual games and likely have spent a lot of time playing (in CoD the stats page tells you how much time the individual person has put in the game, months ago, one person on my friends list had 40+days of time put in = 40 * 24 hours, that is almost 1 1/2 months of their life including sleep playing CoD4 in less that 1 year time. This person was not even on the top of the leaderboards....) yet he has a low gamerscore..

I'm not so sure it will even be looked at as a transfer. It will still be your gamertag with all your gamertag things which are stored offline now. If only they could be used toward MS points in some manner.

I agree. They mean nothing to me either. All that a big GS says to me is you either play a ton of xbox or youve had your xbox for a long time.

I never do anything solely for the purpose of GS. Whats the point? There needs to be an incentive besides just showing the world you play xbox 14 hours a day.


I like the swag idea, but how about MS points? Something like 100 MS points for every 1000 GS points. That would motivate me.

I have had a 360 since launch. I just broke 8000 GS. And I play mine alot.

I'd be up for the MS points idea. Even 100 MS points for 1000 gamerscore isn't much, but it's still something besides bragging rights. I personally do go for some achievements, but ignore others. Basically when getting an achievement becomes more tedious than fun, then I quit going for it.

I would say def #2.

My guess is MS is going to carry the gamertag/gamerscore/achievements system forward to the next console -- these are the best things going for the current console, and both Sony and Nintendo are way behind. I'm not a fanboy, but I think these features are the most brilliant things Microsoft has done for the gaming community.

And I was going to add fuel to the fire and say "the only people that complain about the Gamerscore are those with a low number" , but in all honesty I agree with deveng... length of 360 ownership + amount of different games played = Gamerscore. That's all, nothing more.

I think most people don't equate the overall GS to any skill level or "hardcoreness". OTOH, individual game GS (or achievements) can be used for that.

Exactly. I don't care about GS, but certain achievments I hold in higher regard. I kindof wish they'd add a "Proudest achievements" list you could update with your favorite 10 that you've gotten. Not that anyone else besides myself would care.

It's because so many achievement are simply awarded for game progression that I don't care about the GS much. That's just indicative of how many games you play and how much free time you have.

They'll undoubtedly get rid of them because they are so unpopular and no one cares about them...

Number 2.

To me, achievements can go a long way to making a game more fun by adding mini games within the game. For example, I can just run through a game like Left4Dead but now there's an incentive to do other things in the game that I might never do because they weren't highlighted to me by an associated achievement.

Some games are clearly **** at using the achievement system while others can bring more elements of gameplay out by setting up achievements well.

mproper, I'm quoting your post because I think this a great suggestion that really helps enhance the problematic gamerscore. Many people voicing complaints about the gamerscore are saying that the actual number has no meaning (other than length of system ownership and number of games played). Displaying self-selected achievements would be a good supplement for the gamerscore, conveying actual skills through difficult-to-earn achievements or even a sense of humor through goofy achievements.

I would love to be able to display "Zombie Genocider" from Dead Rising (52K+ zombies killed in one play-through) right next to the "Romantic" achievement from The Darkness (for sitting down and watching a movie with your girlfriend for a few minutes). I would definitely check out my friends' "proudest achievements" lists from time to time.

This still won't entirely address the issue of motivation (or lack thereof) to obtain achievements. If someone didn't care before, this wouldn't do much to make them care now. But there is value in highlighting a handful of achievements.

Edit: #2 is definitely the way MS will go.