作者：Keith Burgun

尽管我对这个话题非常有感触，但我还是拖延了很长一段时间才着手撰写这篇文章。这是因为我认为，我在现存的成就系统中发现的问题会自动消失。然而，在新发布的游戏中，那些问题显然成功地将自己伪装成“我们期待现代电子游戏所具有的品质”。

我知道有许多人写过这个话题，但我想从另一个角度展开论述。例如，我知道Chris Hecker详尽地谈过外部激励因素。虽然我认为他的观点有道理，但我其实不太有兴趣赞成或反对外部奖励。我要反对的是成就本身，准确地说，是成就如何影响机制。

Lucas Blair就成就话题洋洋洒洒地写了三大节内容。他的文章的基本立场是“无论如何，我们都要做成就系统，所以不防参考以下实用的方法。”我不同意他的基本前提。

在这个世界上，永远不变的只有改变本身。我认为到最后，我们所看到的成就系统要么消失了，要么彻底改变了。如果这个预言听起来太疯狂了，那么我提醒你，有许多成功的iOS和任天堂主机游戏根本就没有成就系统。

我必须澄清和解释，我所说的“没有成就系统”是指它们没有普遍的成就系统的那种执行方式。我肯定你可以想出某一两款游戏似乎具有合理的、无害的甚至有趣的某种看起像是所谓的“成就系统”。要罗列现存的各种成就系统是不可能的，所以我只能从常见的类型入手。

你可能觉得成就系统现在的样子已经很不错了。如果是这样，那么请听我解释。也许我可以说服你转变看法，或至少给你一些将它们做得更好的建议。

《反恐精英：全球攻势》（以下简称《CS：GO》）就存在我所说的问题。这个版本发布于2012年——事实上，它是在8月份之后才发布的。这是一款全新的游戏，由最受欢迎、最被看重的AAA游戏开发团队Valve Software制作。但我可以肯定地说，它包含不少愚蠢的成就设计。另外，我还要从其他两款全新的游戏《XCOM: Enemy Unknown》和《生化危机6》中引用一些例子。

在我进一步解释以前，我要声明，我并不希望成就系统太快消失。不过，成就系统毕竟根植于我们的文化，要等它们彻底消失了，从现在算起大概需要数十年的时间。确实，你必须在微软和索尼游戏设备上设置成就系统（但显然，iOS、任天堂、Android和Steam都没有这种要求）。无论如何，我认为理解成就系统的陷阱对每个人来说都是有意义的，当然，不是所有成就系统都是陷阱。

最后，我还会解释我认为应该取代成就的变体。

主要问题

成就系统到底糟糕在哪里？“成就”系统的根源性问题可以表述如下：好的时候，成就系统没有发挥任何作用；坏的时候，它们影响玩家的行为。

你可能会问，影响玩家行为有什么错？影响行为是件坏事，是因为你只是耗费了一年半载的时间调整一套干扰正常行为的规则。记住，游戏是一套限制和刺激玩家行为的规则。你应该把时间花在修改、平衡、调整直到玩家行为被你想要的方式影响，全都围绕一个中心目标和玩法机制。

如果你没有这么做，那就另当别论了。在这种情况下，你并没有履行游戏设计师的职责。即使是再大的游戏，人们也会发现这个真相：你的游戏并没有向玩家展示有意义的选择和动态的、自然的、灵活的策略性。

我们假设你已经花时间为游戏制作一套动态的、平衡的、积极的规则。现在你准备用其他随意的激励因素作用于玩家？设计大量靠运气就能达到的额外的、可选择的目标？那你的做法无异于制作好一个钟，然后将各种零件倒进去，最后用胶水粘好，你觉得这样的钟能走吗？因此，成就系统其实从另一方面证明了游戏设计普遍缺少原则。

常见的成就系统

成就系统中，最常见的一个类型可以描述为“不可避免的”、“奖励的”、“聒噪的”和甚至“毫无意义的”。以下是取自《CS：GO》中的例子：

“Body Bagger：消灭25个敌人”

“Shot with their Pants Down：消灭正在装弹的敌人”

接下来的是《XCOM: Enemy Unknown》中的类似的例子：

“Bada Boom：用爆炸性武器消灭50个外星人”

《生化危机6》中也有一个基本相同的成就：

“Life Saver：帮助或拯救你的同伴10次”

这些成就是你必然会得到的。你肯定会杀掉25个敌人。你可能还没想到查看成就列表（如果你有想过查看）就已经消灭25个敌人了。

因此，许多玩家正玩着游戏，突然就弹出一个窗口告诉他“获得成就”。这是完全没有意义的信息，对游戏没有任何作用，除了暂时干扰玩家。

不过，这些成就还产生了另一个问题，那就是奖励玩家，你的游戏是不是已经自带奖励/激励系统了？如果是，那么突然地“吓”玩家一下是基于什么目的呢？消灭25个敌人？这有什么意义？游戏给的奖励是玩家已经得到的，而不是这个成就给的。你不妨放一个时间表，每15分钟少量发放随机的、无意义的成就奖励，如“你真迷人”或“你好有幽默感。”

为了不离题万里，我会很快说完下面的内容。根据斯金纳的研究，特别是关于操作性条件反射，即随机间隔发放奖励就是类似于这种成就模式——刺激大脑释放“快乐元素”到玩家的血液中，使玩家即使已经学不到任何东西了还继续玩游戏。我个人认为游戏能达到的效果应该超过操作性条件反射的实验箱，但即使你这么认为，你也应该意识到现在这种普遍的成就系统达到只是类似的效果。

激励

当讨论成就系统时，最常讨论的一个方面就是将其作为外部奖励——来自外部系统的奖励。我同意上文提到的Chris Hecker和其他许多作者如Alfie Kohn等的观点，质疑能否将这些激励运用于有意义的任务。我们的观点是，它们消除了完成任务的成就感，而任务本身就是有趣的和有益的。

我将从稍微不同的角度看待这个问题。首先，我们先看看《CS：GO》中的几个例子，这些例子就体现了我所说的问题：

“Three the Hard Way：用一个HE手榴弹消灭3个敌人”

“Aerial Necrobatics：在你自己空降的同时消灭一个空降的敌人”

《XCOM: Enemy Unknown》中的例子则是：

“Xavier：单个玩家对1个Ethereal进行心灵控制”

我们先想一想《CS》中的HE手榴弹是什么概念。当你购买一个这种烈性炸弹时，你感到兴奋，因为这家伙的威力很大。如果你正好把这东西放在合适的位置，谁知道能消灭多少敌人呢？你可能只会伤到若干人，你也可能杀掉一个人，或者你可能杀掉好几个人。这种灵活性使手榴弹的威力更富动态，更激动人心，你懂得。

当你投出手榴弹时，它确实能杀掉一个人，或者更好一点，两个人或三个人——总之是个大rush。你得到手榴弹但不使用，或使用但效果不大，所有时间都是为这个大rush作准备的。在使用手榴弹时感觉自己变强了——这种感觉才是令人兴奋的。你处于完全特殊的情形，你觉得自己创造了一个奇迹般的成功。

接着，一个小窗口弹出来告诉你，你刚刚取得了一些成就。突然间，那种做了某件了不起的事的感觉消失了大半。在一定程度上，你只不过是激活了一个小窗口——成百上千的其他玩家也做了同样的事。

《XCOM: Enemy Unknown》中的成就与之类似。原本可以让玩家觉得自己的战术了不起，现在这种战术变成了“应该做的事”。

我认为，开发者将这件事写下来供玩家查看，事实上导致这件事变得不那么特别了。而玩家的想法是：让我想象，让我发现，让我体验一些做了真正特殊的事的时刻，不要告诉我，我只是满足了开发者设定的要求。

为了让玩家意识到可以用手榴弹铁消灭很多人，所以那种成就如“Three the Hard Way”是必须的。有人可能会这么反驳我。但是，你应该知道原版的《CS》中并没有成就，并且使用HE手榴弹是非常流行的。玩家不需要有人告诉他这些显然可以自己发现的事。

收集

出于我的游戏哲学观，我认为“收集”本身就有问题。任何基于无空无尽的收集或任何没有明确目标的收集的系统，都是对玩家的剥削，是很无趣的（因此令人失望）。说它剥削玩家是因为它利用人类的“采集”本能，而没有用任何东西弥补我们花在收集上的时间。大多数游戏会挑战我们、激励我们、感动我们。而那些剥削我们的游戏给我们带来的体验是非常没有意义的。

在《CS》中，我到底为什么要收集所有成就？游戏记录我已经收集了百分之多少的成就。如果我的收集达到100%，会怎么样呢？记录这个信息的目的是什么？当我的朋友看到35%的收集率，他们会对我刮目相看吗？那他们看到95%时又会怎么样？

最后，当我的收集率终于达到100%，又怎么样？然后呢？这只是一个死系统。《CS》本来就是一款可玩性非常强的游戏，在游戏中添加这种剥削玩家的收集系统对提高可玩性有什么意义？

影响行为

这是成就系统的最大罪行。正如我前面所说的，游戏已经存在它自己的激励因素了——事实上，游戏设计师的目的是保持围绕着目标的激励因素的平衡，以产生预期的游戏体验。

但有些成就事实上干扰了玩家执行正常的行为。我记得在《军团要塞2》中就有很多这种例子。在游戏中，通常会出现这么一个情况：有一个医疗兵不去医治队友，反而忙着做一些相当愚蠢的事。真是令人生气，我大叫：“老兄，你到底在干嘛？救我啊。”

“我在做成就啊。”他是这么回答我的。

这种事没少发生，特别是在新游戏中。现在，我们会面临这样一种局面：因为成就的存在，玩家不积极地玩游戏，而是干扰或破坏游戏的体验。

一个普遍的错误就是责怪那名玩家。应该这么说：如果你责怪那名玩家只顾着做成就，那么你就证实了我的观点：成就系统必须消失。

《CS：GO》中也有一个影响行为的例子：

“Second to None：在爆炸时间少于1秒时成功地拆除炸弹”

很难想像，当玩家应该开始拆除炸弹时，明明只需要在炸弹的底部来一枪，他却非要一直等到时间少于1秒时。许多时候就是因为玩家错误地估算了时间，所以任务失败。这种行为显然是置其他玩家于危险的境地。记住，游戏的目标应该是所有参与方达成一致。

我的建议：变体

成就系统的烂摊子还有办法收拾起来吗？有的。某些成就——特别是影响玩家行为的成就，可能修改成有趣的变体。虽然我不希望成就系统消失或一夜之间面目全非，但变体提供了另一种值得探索的方式。

变体与成就之间的区别是什么？变体是一个新目标，玩家在游戏开始以前能主动选择，在当前游戏中，只有这个被选择的“目标”会被激活。“游戏”的基础之一是，规则和目标在游戏开始之就已经达成一致。在游戏正式运行中，允许玩家选择目标是不合理的。这只会鼓励玩家根据当前状况，选择最容易达成的目标。更糟的是，如果你允许玩家同时选择所有目标，那么有些目标的完成可能只是偶然的。

在《Nethack》中，变体被称为“conducts”。根据维基百科介绍的《Nethack》：

（尽管玩家可以在没有人为限制条件下完成《Nethack》，但高级玩家可以尝试用conducts增加游戏的挑战难度。）所谓的“conducts”就是对行为的自愿限制，如不使用祝福技能、素食或甚至绝对素食，或不杀死怪物。

在《CS》中，作为一款多人游戏，变体应该作用于所有玩家。如果恐怖分子的队伍胜利了，没有一个恐怖傻分子死亡因为他已经激活了一些特殊的变体，即他不会受到手榴弹的伤害。从技术上说，这没什么错，只要所有玩家事先同意，但这种变体似乎有些混乱和奇怪。

相反地，在《CS》的公共服中已经出现了一些更好的变体。比如，“无AWP/Auto”或“无限的金钱”或“打赌”都可以算是变体。这些变体对玩家构成新挑战——“当狙击枪不可用时，你还能赢得比赛吗？”还有其他服务器的变体，比如增加RPG元素、僵尸和其他规则。

看一下取自《XCOM》中的一个例子，然后告诉我这是不是一个成熟的变体：

“Lone Wolf：一名士兵清理UFO坠毁地区，难度为经典或不可能。”

为什么使用成就系统

作为开发者，我认为应该是“玩家喜欢成就，那我们就满足他们。”我想玩家的想法可能类似，即“好吧，开发者出由某些理由喜欢添加成就系统，那我们就迁就他们吧。”换句话说，其实没有多少人喜欢成就系统，但所有人都相信其他人喜欢成就系统，所以成就系统就一直存在着。

我还认为，成就系统始终存在是因为，坦白地说，现在的许多电子游戏本身没有那么有趣。开发者可以使用成就系统提供的低劣的、干扰的、无聊的收集功能给原本就无趣的系统创造乐趣。它们的主要功能，大多数时候是通过强迫玩家“收集”，用大量时间交换极少的乐趣。它们之所以突出，是因为它们出现在一款并不需要它们的游戏中——如《CS：GO》。

只因为成就系统已经存在许多年了，所以我们就要一直保留它们——我们不应该落入这种想法的陷阱中。现在，我可以肯定地说，我们确实可能一直保留它们，至少以某些形式，但值得注意的是，任天堂不使用这种系统是有道理的，并且似乎没有影响他们在商业或口碑上取得成功。正如我指出的，成就系统存在许多缺陷，随着时间流逝，我可以肯定地说，它们要么彻头彻尾地改变，要么消失。

如果你是成就系统的拥护者，那么我只想让你试着用新的角度审视它们，然后问问自己它们到底对游戏有什么作用，我提出来的问题有没有切中它的要害。

听着，人们喜欢“亚对策”，这点我理解。但如果你有很好的变体形亚对策，好的网络体系（如在线排行榜）和额外的玩法内容，那些因为你没“成就系统”而离开游戏的人应该会非常少。一定程度上，玩家很快就不会再期待成就系统了，就像他们当初那么期待成就系统的一样。（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，拒绝任何不保留版权的转载，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

An Alternative to Achievements

by Keith Burgun

Despite having strong feelings on the topic, I put off writing about achievements for a very long time. This was because I thought that the problems that I saw with the existing model would have gone away on their own by now. It’s clear though that for new digital game releases, they have clearly managed to lock themselves into the “set of qualities we should all expect in a modern video game.”

I know that there’s a ton of writing on this topic already out there, but I’d like to hit the question from a different angle. For instance, I’m aware of what Chris Hecker has talked about at length about regarding extrinsic motivators. While I think his views make sense, I’m actually not interested in arguing for or against extrinsic rewards in general. I’m arguing against achievements themselves, and how they, specifically, work on a mechanical level.

Lucas Blair wrote an extensive three-part piece on achievements here at Gamasutra. His article essentially took the stance of, “we’re going to be doing achievements no matter what, so here are some best practices for using them.” I don’t agree with his underlying premise.

The one thing that remains constant is that things always change. I think that in time, we’ll see achievements either go away or change dramatically. If this sounds crazy, keep in mind that there are a good number of successful games coming out today that don’t have achievements at all, on iOS and Nintendo consoles.

I need to clarify and explain that I’m referring to achievements as they are usually implemented. I’m sure you can think of one or two games that seem to have a sensible, inoffensive and even interesting application of something that looks a bit like what one might call “achievements.” It would be impossible to speak for every single case of achievements that ever existed. Instead, I’m speaking generally.

You may feel that achievements are great as they are. If this is the case, hear me out. Perhaps I can convince you otherwise, or at least, give you some advice on how to make them better.

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive is a fantastic example that highlights the problems that I see. Now, this is a 2012 release — in fact, it was only released this past August. It is a brand-new game, by one of the most beloved and highly regarded triple-A video game development teams (Valve Software), and sure enough, it includes a ton of totally asinine achievements. I’ll also include some achievements from the also brand-new games XCOM: Enemy Unknown and Resident Evil 6.

Before I carry on: don’t worry. I don’t expect achievements to actually disappear anytime soon. They’re pretty well rooted into our culture now, and if they ever disappear completely, it will probably be decades rather than years from now. Indeed, you’re required to have achievements on Microsoft and Sony’s consoles (but notably, not anywhere else: neither iOS, Nintendo, Android, nor Steam make any such requirements). Regardless, I think it’s in everyone’s interest to understand the pitfalls of achievements; not all of which have been pointed out elsewhere.

I’ll also pitch something that I think should replace achievements.

Major Problems

What’s so bad about achievements? The mother-problem with any “achievement” system can be stated like this: at their best, they do nothing at all. At their worst, they influence player behavior.

What’s wrong with influencing player behavior, you might ask? Influencing behavior is a bad thing because you (ostensibly) just spent roughly six to 12 months fine-tuning a set of game rules to do exactly that. Let’s remember that a game is a set of rules that limit and motivate player behavior. You just spent a crazy amount of time tweaking, balancing, and turning knobs until player behavior was influenced exactly the way you wanted, all around one central goal and gameplay mechanism.

If you did not do this, well, that’s a whole separate issue. In this case, you’re simply not doing your job as a game designer, and no amount of metagame is going to distract people from the fact that your game isn’t presenting players with interesting choices and dynamic, emergent and elastic strategic possibilities.

So let’s assume that you have taken the time to create a balanced, dynamic, motivating set of rules for your game. Now you’re just going to throw a bunch (most times, a ton) of other arbitrary motivators at the player? A great number of extra, optional goals that can be met even by accident? It’s like spending years building a clock, and then just once you’re done, pouring in a bag of random-sized gears and slathering over it with a dressing of industrial glue. In this way, achievements are yet another testament to the culture-wide lack of regard for the discipline of game design.

Common Achievements

The largest category of achievements is of a type that I would describe as “unavoidable,” “patronizing,” “noisy,” and sometimes even just “nonsensical.” Here are a couple good examples from CS: GO:

“Body Bagger – Kill 25 Enemies”

“Shot with their Pants Down – Kill an enemy while they are reloading”

Here’s a similar one from XCOM: Enemy Unknown.

“Bada Boom – Kill 50 aliens with explosive weapons”

And again, basically the same achievement for Resident Evil 6:

“Life Saver – Help or rescue your partner ten times”

Ah, the achievements you cannot avoid getting. You’re going to kill 25 enemies. Chances are you’re going to kill 25 enemies before you even think to check the list of achievements (if you ever do).

Therefore, a lot of players are simply playing the game, and suddenly some information pops up on the screen telling you that you have just “gotten an achievement.” This totally meaningless information does not change the game in any way, except to temporarily distract you from the game.

These achievements also do one other thing, however, and that’s patronize the player. Did you already design the game to have its own rewards/motivation system? If so, then what is the purpose of having the game to pat me on the back at arbitrary moments? 25 kills? Why is that significant? The rewards that the game gives me are those that I ostensibly have to earn. Not the case for these achievements. You may as well have a timer that doles out a random nonsensical compliment every 15 minutes, such as “you are attractive” or “you’ve got a great sense of humor.”

Without going too far off topic, I want to quickly address this aspect. Those who are familiar with B.F. Skinner’s work, particularly in operant conditioning, probably understand that doling out rewards at random intervals, like the current achievement-model tends to, is a well-understood way to squirt happy-chemicals into a user’s bloodstream and thereby keep them playing long after they’ve stopped learning anything. Philosophically, I personally think that games have the capacity to do much more than just be unfulfilling exploitative operant conditioning chambers, but even if you don’t, you should be aware that this common system of achievements is causing a similar effect.

Attempts to Script The Emergence

The one way that achievements are commonly talked about is with regards to them being an extrinsic reward — a reward that’s coming from outside the system. I join the aforementioned Chris Hecker and many others such as author Alfie Kohn in being skeptical of these kinds of motivators when applied to interesting tasks. Our view is that they take away from the feeling of accomplishment for a task that’s already interesting and naturally rewarding.

I’d like to look at this problem in a slightly different way. First, let’s take a look at a couple of CS: GO achievements which exemplify the issue I have in mind:

“Three the Hard Way – Kill three enemies with a single HE grenade”

“Aerial Necrobatics – kill an airborne enemy while you are also airborne”

Here’s a good one from XCOM: Enemy Unknown:

“Xavier – Mind Control an Ethereal. Single player only.”

Let’s think about the concept of an explosive grenade in Counter-Strike for a moment. When you buy one, it’s exciting, because of the possible destructive potential. If you happen to put one in just the right place, who knows how many people you might kill in one slickly placed move? You may just damage a few people, you may kill one, or you may even kill several. This elasticity makes grenades dynamic and dramatic, and you feel it.

When you throw a grenade, and it actually does kill someone — or better yet, two, or even three people — it’s a huge rush. All of those times that you got a grenade and didn’t use it, or used it but to no effect were all leading up to this moment. A feeling of having gotten better at using grenades — a grokking of the system of grenades — is thrilling. You were in a totally unique situation and you made a call that resulted in an almost magical success.

Just then, a little window pops up and tells you that you’ve gained some kind of achievement. Suddenly, part of that thrill of having done something dynamic and unique is taken away. On some level, you’ve merely checked off a box — the same exact box that thousands of other players have also checked off.

The XCOM achievement is similar. What would otherwise feel like a clever “giving you a dose of your own medicine” turns into a “thing you were supposed to do.”

I argue that the fact that the developers wrote this thing down for you to check off of a list has a subtle effect of making the event less special. Let me imagine. Let me discover. Let me experience a moment of having done something truly unique without telling me that I’ve met some developer expectation.

To those who might argue that achievements such as “Three the Hard Way” are needed to get people to even realize that you can kill multiple players with a grenade, you should know that the original version of Counter-Strike didn’t have achievements, and HE grenades were very popular. Players don’t have to be verbally told everything; some things are obvious and natural enough for players to discover.

Collect Them All and… What, Exactly?

As part of my philosophical view of what games are, I have a problem with collection for its own sake. I think that any system that is based on endless collection, or any system where there is collection without a larger purpose is exploitative and uninteresting (and therefore unfulfilling). It’s exploitative because it’s taking advantage of the biological human need to “gather”, and not giving us back anything in exchange for our time. Most games challenge us, stimulate us, move us. Those that exploit us do nothing for us but the cheap.

In a game like Counter-Strike, why exactly do I want to collect all of the achievements? The game keeps track of what “percentage” of the achievements I’ve collected. Does something happen when I get 100 percent? What is the purpose of keeping track of this information? Is it supposed to impress my friends when they see 35 percent? When they see 95 percent?

And then what about when I do finally get 100 percent? Then what? It’s just a dead system hanging off the side of the application? Does it make sense to have a game like Counter-Strike, one that can potentially be played forever, have some exhaustible collection system attached to it?

Influencing Behavior

This is the worst offender of the whole achievements system. As I previously stated, a game already has its own motivators — in fact, the purpose of a game designer is balancing motivators around a goal to create the intended gameplay experience.

But some achievements actually influence players to act in ways that they would not normally act. I remember this kind of thing happening a lot in Team Fortress 2. Often there would be a medic doing something really stupid instead of healing teammates. Angrily, I’d ask, “What the hell are you doing, dude? Heal us.”

“I’m going for an achievement”, he’d reply.

This is really not that rare an occurrence, particularly when a game is new. We now have a situation where players are actively not playing correctly and disturbing or ruining the game experience for other players because of achievements.

A common mistake would be to blame this on that player. Let’s put it this way: if you’re blaming a player for wanting to make use of the system of achievements, then you’re proving my point even further that they need to go.

Here’s an example of such a behavior-influencing achievement in CS: GO:

“Second to None – successfully defuse a bomb with less than one second remaining”

It’s not too hard to imagine that many a game have already been lost by a player miscalculating when he should start the defuse and having it take too long, or by waiting a few seconds before defusing only to be shot right at the end of the defuse. This sucks for the other players on the team. Remember, the goals of a game should be agreed upon by all participating parties.

My Suggested Replacement: Variants!

Is there anything salvageable to this whole mess? Yes, there is. Some of the achievements — those most-offensive ones that influence behavior, specifically — have the potential to be interesting variants. While I don’t expect achievements to vanish or dramatically change overnight, variants provide an alternative route that should be explored either in their place, or in addition to achievements.

What’s the big difference between variants and achievements? A variant would be a new goal that you actively choose before the game begins, and only that single chosen “goal” is active during this session. One of the fundamental aspects of “a game” is that the rules and goals are agreed upon before the game begins. It doesn’t make any sense to allow players to choose what their goals are on the fly, in the middle of the game. This will just allow them to choose whichever goal is most doable based on “how things are going”. Worse, if you allow all the goals to be active at once, goals are going to be met by accident.

In Nethack, variants are referred to as “conducts.” From the Nethack Wikipedia page,

These are voluntary restrictions on actions taken, such as using no wishes, following a vegetarian or even vegan diet, or even killing no monsters.

In Counter-Strike, being a multiplayer game, variants would have to affect all players. It would be strange if the Terrorist team won, but one of the terrorists lost because he had activated some special variant that said he wasn’t allowed to take grenade damage, or something. Technically, there’s nothing wrong with this, as long as all players agree to it beforehand, but it’s messy and strange.

Instead, better Counter-Strike variants are already seen on public servers. Things like “No AWP/Auto”, or “Infinite money”, or “Betting” would all count as variants. These pose a new challenge to players — “can you win this match when the AWP is disabled?” There are other more otherworldly server-variants that add RPG elements, zombies, and other rules.

Look at this achievement from XCOM, and tell me that it isn’t a full-fledged variant waiting to happen:

“Lone Wolf – Clear a UFO crash site with one soldier on Classic or Impossible difficulty.”

Why We Use Achievements

As a developer myself, I think that there’s this feeling like “the audience expects achievements, so let’s humor them.” I suspect that players probably feel a similar way; something like “oh, well, the developers like to put in achievements for some reason, so let’s humor them.” In other words, few people actually like achievements, but everyone believes that everyone else likes them, so they continue to exist.

I also think that it’s continued to exist because, if we’re being honest, a lot of video games these days are not terribly interesting on their own. The thinking is that developers can use the cheap distraction / lame collection-game that achievements provide to create interest in an otherwise uninteresting system. Their primary function, much of the time, is to stretch out what little interest there is over a larger amount of time by compelling the player to “collect”. They stand out the most when they’re in a game that doesn’t need that – a game like Counter-Strike: Global Offensive.

It’s important not to fall into the trap of thinking that just because we’ve had achievements for over half a decade that we will always have them. Now, I’ll definitely acknowledge that there is indeed a chance that we will always have them, at least in some form, but it’s worth noting that Nintendo has made a point of not using such a system, and that hasn’t seemed to affect their commercial or critical success. As I’ve pointed out, there are a number of flaws with the achievements model, and as time goes on, what I am certain of is that they will either change drastically or disappear.

If you’re a fan of achievements, I would simply ask that you try to look at them with a fresh perspective and ask what it is they really do for your software, and whether or not the points I’ve raised creates issues for it.

So look — people expect “metagame,” and I understand that. But if you have great metagame in the form of variants, great networking (such as cutting-edge, smart online leaderboards), as well as additional gameplay content, the number of people who flip out because you don’t have “achievements” will be negligible. At some point, people will stop expecting them, as quickly as they learned to expect them in the first place.(source:gamasutra)