An argument for easy achievements
![analog_stick[1]](http://ramiismail.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/analog_stick1.png)
Last week I ended up in a discussion about the use and abuse of achievements as a progression support instead of offering challenges that either changed the players approach to the gameplay or that allow for extra –more difficult- goals. My fellow Vlambeer Jan Willem Nijman tweeted to point out that Assasssins Creed II hands out three different achievements or throphies before the game actually starts – you’ll have moved the left and right analog stick, pressed a few buttons as instructed by a giant, flashing prompt and you’ll have climbed a building to get that far in the game.
It’s a discussion that has been raging on and off – ridiculing the achievements and trophies that games hand out so easily for the most trivial of tasks and normal progression. It’s also a minor subject within a broader discussion on whether games have dumbed down too much to cater to non-gamers. Slowly paced tutorials walk players through everything with command prompts and sequences and cutscenes queue up to teach players how to move their analog sticks and how to jump. At the end of every step – how trivial it might be – an achievement is unlocked.
It’s a sentiment commonly heard amongst ‘core gamers’ and it’s a sentiment that I agree with on many levels – a lot of contemporary videogames simply do not dare to offer challenging gameplay anymore in fear of alienating a rather significant portion of their audience. The relentless difficulty Demon Souls or Super Crate Box offer is a concrete risk when you’re gambling with tens of millions of dollars. Thus, the lowest common denominator reigns, actual challenge locked away behind difficulties that are hopefully available from the start of the game.
A few months ago my girlfriend decided to check out what this medium I rave about all the time entails. Together, we decided she should start with Assassins Creed II because I felt it had a well-paced and expansive tutorial. She’s someone that has played every Angry Birds game, The Sims and Where In The World Is Carmen Sandiego. I had suggested Sword & Sworcery before hoping its relaxed nature would ease her in, but instead its reliance on gaming tropes and perceived monotony shunned her away.
As every gamer knows, it’s tough to sit back and watch someone walk into walls endlessly. She did exactly this in her first ten minutes of Assassins Creed II, frustration levels rising slowly to the point where she would just give up and never try again. After minutes that seemed like hours of desperately trying to steer a character straight ahead, she finally succeeded.
I used to argue that just achieving that goal in itself should be an adequate reward to motivate new gamers to continue playing, but I did not take into account that new gamers are fully aware walking should be a trivial tasks; they know that it isn’t a tough challenge to walk straight in a game, even if it is fully reasonable for them to find it difficult having never used gamepads before. They realize it is not an accomplishment by any standard and thus the argument fails.
She was already tired of playing and about to quit when the console played that unmistakable notification sound: achievement unlocked. She noticed the pat on the back and gave the game five more minutes of her attention – whereas if the game had just continued without the achievement, she would’ve been likely to just give up. The three achievements my colleague was quipping about were exactly the ones that kept my girlfriend’s attention and motivation up for the twenty minutes she played that day.
The reality is that ‘non-gamer’ as a concept has changed from what it was. Where previously, ‘non-gamers’ were people without any gaming experience, the recent rise of casual games has ensured ‘non-gamers’ practically don’t exist anymore. Where it used to be that non-gamers were a blank slate that would learn to deal with the oddities of the high barrier of entry in videogames through practice, nowadays they are anything but a blank slate. They have years of gaming experience – only the games they play are Angry Birds and Farmville.
One of the things that sets casual games apart is their short feedback/reward cycles, rewarding players for pretty much every action through exaggerated feedback. These are games that are accessible beyond anything the mainstream industry can ever hope to achieve through their simple pickup-and-play designs. While playing, the games will carefully detail every step of progress through little popups. When done, players are bombarded with over-the-top scoring systems with clear ceilings and values. The goal, of course, is that players might feel good about themselves.
Achievements and trophies can take the place of such feedback in mainstream games. While the ease of achieving such goals seem trivial to more proficient gamers, for many new to the medium they are actual achievements that they’ve been conditioned to expect reward for in a measurable way. These games are not simple to control and they are far from pickup and play – Assassins Creed II takes several hours of slow introduction and half a dozen achievements before feeling confident enough to let players into its wonderful world.
The longer I mulled over the problem, the more I realized that an achievement is actually an extremely elegant solution to easing new players in. They’re unobtrusive, they’re measurable, they do not affect or corrupt the design of the game and they can be handed out in abundance at the start of a game. They do not require attention or interaction – they can simply be an indication of progression that is concrete instead of abstract. They’re exactly what a casual gamer needs without negatively influencing the core experience more seasoned gamers are interested in.
I started reading websites dedicated to achievements to see what the objections were to simple achievements. This being the internet, I found an unquantifiable amount of complaints about achievements being ‘too easy’. As I started digging deeper, a realization set in: the problem these people were having wasn’t so much with the achievement being too easy to unlock for them – the problem was that others could unlock it just as easily. It’s the idea that if a ‘non-gamer’ can do it, things can’t be an achievement. At best, it’s a cry for more challenging games – at its worst, it’s an attempt to safeguard the exclusivity of hardcore gaming from newcomers. The underlying thought is simple: achievements are supposed to be for ‘real’ gamers.
It is often wrongfully assumed that accessibility means sacrificing challenge or complexity, but it is neither – it is a way to allow people that otherwise couldn’t to experience the challenge and complexity that a game can offer. Such considerations are even – or more so – relevant to indie game developers. Whereas mainstream game developers have to deal with the consideration of non-gamers playing their game, indie game developers do not have the luxury of necessity – they might simply not consider the possibility of non-gamers playing their games.
My girlfriend and I are now playing through Halo 2. Last week, she suddenly backed off when overwhelmed by two Elites and strafed sideways into cover, proving she has succesfully mapped the actions on the analog stick to movement in the virtual world. She has rapidly evolved a sense of battle flow in Halo and will shout at me to help her or jump into the fray when she hears my shield depleted sound. If she had quit Assassins Creed II for not rewarding her with a concrete, measurable reward – she might’ve given up on gaming beyond Angry Birds altogether and miss a wide spectrum of amazing things.
So if I may recommend something that’ll take thirty minutes of your time, just to get some new perspective as a game designer: sit down and watch your parents, partner or friends struggle through all the trivial tasks in any game that you consider absolutely great. If anything it’s amusing, at best it’s a great way to challenge your assumptions of accessibility.
With that new perspective, take a look at what your games do to usher in new players. No-one says you have to implement your findings if you don’t want to, no-one says you have to dial back on the challenge in a game or sacrifice complexity. Maybe your game isn’t meant to be more accessible, maybe you’ll find that it is a good idea to reconsider. There might just be an argument for your game to hand out a concrete and measurable pat on the back if someone does something that might – to you and me – seem trivial.
barp SAYS:
2012-11-09 14:26:18
it is true that people stick longer with experiences when they are rewarded. you say your girlfriend kept on because of the achievement notices, although she wanted to quit. farmville players keep clicking because they are rewarded with every click, even if the tasks are trivial. but as you said - these things are nothing more but shoulder-padding. some people (or many?) might be motivated enough by shoulder-padding to carry on with what they are currently doing, but that does not really make it satisfactory itself - to anybody. non-game-inherent rewards can only conceal flaws of games, but will never make a game itself better. at some point, a game designer has to decide wether to focus on creating a truly good game or a "game" that is played for long times by people that just don't know better.
The Real Reason We Hate Easy Achievements | Kotaku Australia SAYS:
2012-11-09 00:46:14
[...] illustrates this point further on his blog by telling us the story of his girlfriend picking up Assassin’s Creed 2. As every gamer [...]
The Real Reason We Hate Easy Achievements | Tux Doc SAYS:
2012-11-08 21:13:14
[...] illustrates this point further on his blog by telling us the story of his girlfriend picking up Assassin’s Creed 2. As every gamer [...]
tha_rami SAYS:
2012-11-05 17:15:03
@Zach I disagree - the problem with that is that the reward is not concrete nor measurable - it's 'just' a thing you can do in the game. It's not something she's conditioned to recognize as reward - it's useless because she's not getting anything for kicking a chicken. Based on what I've seen in Sword & Sworcery, if anything, she'd be bored.
Zach SAYS:
2012-11-05 15:29:52
i think there's one huge huge problem with this argument, and you said it yourself towards the start. Your girlfriend was about to quit. Why was she about to quit? because the game was doing an incredibly poor job introducing her as a new player to the skills required to get her to play the game. She should have been enjoying herself the entire time. If that had been the case she wouldn't have needed the achievement. This reeks of lazy game design. There are plenty of ways to do this well. Here's a horrible but functional example, Imagine Asassins Creed 2 opens on a farm, with no walls to accidentally climb, the player simply has to turn and walk out of the farm to find a person to start the game. I'm not proposing a lengthly go do this and go do that thing, just a simple leave this 20' area and whatever. For a new person, they could walk around the farm and kick the chickens and maybe that evolves into a game where they have a great time kicking chickens and learning how to move around, before they're comfortable enough to move on, for an experienced player they just run and get going with their game, and maybe kick a chicken or two. What's important here is the game gives players a space to explore their new skills where they're enjoying themselves and proud of what they learned because they're able to demonstrate it and poke at the system (chickens).
Pippin SAYS:
2012-11-05 12:23:15
(Apologies for the formatting of that comment... I did actually put in paragraph breaks, but I guess they vanished!)
Pippin SAYS:
2012-11-05 12:21:22
Hmmm, I think achievements are clearly really appealing to and potentially useful to a lot of people, but I really do wish you could just turn them off. As Ben says above, it's pretty inappropriate in Shadow of the Colossus, for instance, totally working against the experience the game is (I assume!) trying to create. Additionally, a problem I have with achievements as an "every game" thing, and particularly for new players, is that they indoctrinate you into the very concept of "achievement" being the most important thing a game does. I think it can really narrow your chances of having a feeling other than "yay me!", and that's problematic. Like I say, though, perhaps if you could just turn the things off if you wanted, or have it be an "opt in" system, or whatever. I like achievements a lot sometimes and went all out to get all the single-player achievements in Skate 3, for instance, where they felt really appropriate.
Alex Camilleri SAYS:
2012-11-05 02:22:35
My first approach to achievements was back in 2008, when trophies were introduced to the PS3, more specifically in Super Stardust HD. I remember I felt extremely good when I finally managed to get all of them, since a couple of them were really difficult to obtain. I believe that what pushed me in the task of unlocking all the trophies was the "show-off" factor: I wanted to show people how good I was at the game. As you cleverly pointed out in the article, it wasn't about me feeling good for the completed task, it was about me feeling good 'cause the other players weren't as good as I was. Achievements are really powerful tools in the hands of the game developers: they can be used for a lot of different reasons, and can be addressed to different player types. I honestly hate when a game gives me an achievement for having completed a tutorial or for having completed one chapter of an adventure. It feels to me like the developers are treating me like a dumb player: I spent 60€ on your game, of course I'll finish the tutorial and the damn Chapter 1!
I really understand that new-players can enjoy that satisfying achievement sound playing after the first 2 minutes of gameplay, but I think there's something missing here: most of game developers nowadays use achievements as a tool for lazy game design. Making the player feel good is a task that the game designer needs to solve INSIDE the game system, not outside. Since it is my belief that game design is not about creating games but about crafting player's experiences, I think game developers should focus on providing a sense of accomplishment inside the game itself. You can make something happen, you can unlock whatsoever, you can even rely exclusively on some great visuals.
I loved Dead Space achievements because, for example, they pushed me to finish the game exclusively with the Laser Cutter weapon (I believe that's the correct name...), and I experienced a really different game back then. Take Super Meat Boy: you feel the sense of accomplishment after each stage because you get amazing feedback ingame, not because you unlock an achievement.
I personally believe that achievements should be used exclusively as design tool for expanding the gaming experience pushing the player to different directions, and not as feedback machines. The feedback machine should be the game, and if the game doesn't manage to give the players the correct sense of accomplishment, it means there's a flaw in the design.
Andrew SAYS:
2012-11-05 02:19:21
I thoroughly enjoyed reading this blog post. Before starting my own dev studio (RatDog Games) I had a lot of experience designing achievements for the studios I worked for. I quickly learned that the thought of how achievements should work varies greatly form studio to studio.
At one I would have moments where I felt I designed some great achievements only to be told they were too hard. A common thought was that many of the studios games were purchased because players wanted easy achievements to quickly rack up their gamer score. On the flip side another studio felt that average players shouldn't gain any achievements ( or at least less than 10%) because they should all be challenging. Of course in the end the answer always lies in the middle.
I feel that Sony has the right idea with the trophy system. This allows both casual and hardcore gamers to get what they wish/need. Bronze trophies can be used to engage casual players while higher tiers can be actual achievements. In the end we will still be able to judge who is the better player.
I'm also a big fan of watching people play games to see how they react to situations. Twitch.TV is great for for this purpose ( also has gamers of all skill levels). I have attempted to get some people who aren't gamers to play but its easier said than done lol
VDZ SAYS:
2012-11-05 02:10:19
a·chieve·ment [uh-cheev-muhnt] noun 1. something accomplished, especially by superior ability, special effort, great courage, etc.; a great or heroic deed: his remarkable achievements in art.
The problem with Achievements is that there are different opinions on what they are, and people can't agree with each other on what they should be. The dictionary definition, as well as the definition suggested by many Achievements, is that it's a special feat not everyone can pull of that you should feel awesome for. This is the reason why so many people insist that Achievements should not be easily accessible: an Achievement should be an achievement.
I fully agree that achievements can be used to reward players, and rewarding players is pretty much essential in gaming (the most basic idea of a game is giving the player a challenge and rewarding them if they overcome it).
However, Achievements are not the only way to reward players. Rather than 'ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED', the game could also give 'Mission completed!', 'Congratulations!', 'Objective cleared, 500 gold received', 'You are awesome!', 'Good job!', and so on. It's been in games since long before Achievements were invented, some of them very clearly used for that same goal of motivating the player to not quit playing ("You're a fantastic dancer! You should dance one more time!").
According to most hardcore gamers, however - and I personally agree with that opinion - an Achievement is a special kind of reward that should go above and beyond a mere 'mission complete' or 'good job'. Achievements are supposed to be the 'holy shit you are awesome' of rewards. If every trivial action gives you 'holy shit you are awesome', when do you know you are truly awesome? I have nothing against people being rewarded for completing the tutorial, even if I find it simple to do, but I do want to get a better reward for doing a no-death run of an entire world than the one I get for completing the tutorial. If you've already given the pinnacle of reward to the most basic accomplishments, what's left for the more difficult accomplishments?
Every succesful action in a game should be rewarded in some way. But the reward needs to be proportional to the accomplishment, and the pinnacle of reward is not appropriate for a basic motion everybody goes through. You can give the player awesome points, check their accomplishment on a list, display it to the rest of the world, unlock features for them, even give them trophies - but I just can't consider their accomplishment an achievement, and by extension not worth an Achievement.