2 ms·

I would have mostly disagreed, but after reading the following comment in this thread I think you have a point (emphasis added): > This looks like a fun projec

I would have mostly disagreed, but after reading the following comment in this thread I think you have a point (emphasis added): > This looks like a fun project to give some more /incentives to playing older games/. I don't have an issue with achievements when they're built on top of a game that doesn't need them to be fun, but when they're added to try to "incentive" a game then maybe you should be playing an intrinsically fun game instead? Sometimes its okay to complete a game and not need to be "incentivized" to play it again.

YurgenJurgensen 3y ago
Surely even the notion of 'completion' is the same kind of extrinsic motivation? If the game is intrinsically fun, why have a score, or an end screen, or a fail state?
- thaumasiotes 3y ago
  > If the game is intrinsically fun, why have a score, or an end screen, or a fail state? The end screens stick around because people really do want them. But it's very common for people to enjoy games without ever seeing an end screen. The other two examples tend to undermine your point. Fail states have been methodically stripped from games because people hate them. Scores are more neutral; nobody cares one way or the other. But they're disappearing too. (Mostly they've already disappeared.) You have a score in Super Mario Brothers because arcade games have scores. Arcade games have scores that people care about because the machine displays a high score list that other people will see. But nobody has ever cared about score in Super Mario Brothers - there is no high score list, and if there was one it wouldn't matter because the machine is in your home. There are "scores" in King's Quest and Return to Zork that track your completion of the game (including optional parts). That is the same function that achievements serve today, except that achievements do it better by allowing you to tell which ones you've completed. Which of three optional two-point events you completed in King's Quest is information you can't extract from a score of "perfect minus four".

YurgenJurgensen 3y ago

Surely even the notion of 'completion' is the same kind of extrinsic motivation? If the game is intrinsically fun, why have a score, or an end screen, or a fail state?

thaumasiotes 3y ago
> If the game is intrinsically fun, why have a score, or an end screen, or a fail state? The end screens stick around because people really do want them. But it's very common for people to enjoy games without ever seeing an end screen. The other two examples tend to undermine your point. Fail states have been methodically stripped from games because people hate them. Scores are more neutral; nobody cares one way or the other. But they're disappearing too. (Mostly they've already disappeared.) You have a score in Super Mario Brothers because arcade games have scores. Arcade games have scores that people care about because the machine displays a high score list that other people will see. But nobody has ever cared about score in Super Mario Brothers - there is no high score list, and if there was one it wouldn't matter because the machine is in your home. There are "scores" in King's Quest and Return to Zork that track your completion of the game (including optional parts). That is the same function that achievements serve today, except that achievements do it better by allowing you to tell which ones you've completed. Which of three optional two-point events you completed in King's Quest is information you can't extract from a score of "perfect minus four".