Support NeoGAF

[melkier33]

I think it's good sony allows this, firewatch doesn't seem like a game that needs a tin of retarded trophies. Look at the trophies for Everyone's gone to the rapture (another nara time game) they had trophies for doing nothing for ten minutes, do nothing for 3 minutes at a certain spot, walk back and forth through a door way 10 times, look at all the maps etc.

I'm glad I can play firewatch enjoy it get most if not all trophies and not have to do some retarded stuff cuz they had to meet a trophy count limit.

I don't understand.... I like trophies but yeah I don't understand..

 

[ghibli99]

Had there been achievements, how would that have changed the game?

It wouldn't have.

However, I'm sure there were people, plenty of them, who would have liked achievements.

I guess my whole thing is that I find it puzzling that it's something that affects whether someone will buy a game or not. Achievements and Trophies that have no bearing on... anything, really, but maybe it's just part of this gen and last that I simply don't think about. If I get them through normal gameplay, great. If I really like the game and some of them seem fun, sure. But to base a buying decision off of them? Again, I'm puzzled.

 

[Consumer]

One of my favourite thread topics on GAF; I've long thought about how devs decide on a game's trophies, and I always prefer that they include a platinum. Some argue that short enough story-driven games don't need plats, but I'm not sure I agree with that. A platinum shouldn't be a testament of a game's length & content, but merely a symbol that you've done everything there is to do in that game.

Great thread ruined by a lot of anti-trophy shitposters, unfortunately. If you don't care for them now, you probably never will, so there's no point to insult trophies (or their hunters) other than to troll.

 

[SolidusDave]

I thought trophies roughly correlate with price/production values and content of the game?

- Like, a small-ish indie game releasing with a <10/15$ price is only allowed to have a small-tier trophy list. No Platinum.
- Indie game with a lot of content or high production values that sells for 20-30€ gets a bigger/normal trophy list and they can request to have a Platinum trophy.
- AAA publisher game, very high content//production values or former full titles like HD remasters (e,g, 30+$) get the standard trophy list with a mandatory platinum.

Obviously those are not rules set in stone.


Note that trophy list means x amount of total points. Developers can freely choose the number of trophies as long as it adds up to the necessary total amount. The Witness doesn't have a high number of trophies but they are all Gold (and two silver) which gives you easily enough points/exp to be comparable to any game with a 50 trophy list (as most of them will be bronze).
Firewatch has 3 Gold trophies alone so that's why they can have a fewer trophies.


If you're asking why would you want to have fewer but more worthy trophies? Could be a design choice or people not wanting to put in the necessary code for a lot of trophies and the game needing to monitor that they unlock correctly (probably also more cert/testing?).

 

[Overside]

I thought trophies roughly correlate with price/production values and content of the game?

- Like, a small-ish indie game releasing with a <10/15$ price is only allowed to have a small-tier trophy list. No Platinum.
- Indie game with a lot of content or high production values that sells for 20-30€ gets a bigger/normal trophy list and they can request to have a Platinum trophy.
- AAA publisher game, very high content//production values or former full titles like HD remasters (e,g, 30+$) get the standard trophy list with a mandatory platinum.

Obviously those are not rules set in stone.


Note that trophy list means x amount of total points. Developers can freely choose the number of trophies as long as it adds up to the necessary total amount. The Witness doesn't have a high number of trophies but they are all Gold (and two silver) which gives you easily enough points/exp to be comparable to any game with a 50 trophy list (as most of them will be bronze).
Firewatch has 3 Gold trophies alone so that's why they can have a fewer trophies.


If you're asking why would you want to have fewer but more worthy trophies? Could be a design choice or people not wanting to put in the necessary code for a lot of trophies and the game needing to monitor that they unlock correctly (probably also more cert/testing?).

Oh holy fuck.

 

[xxracerxx]

I thought trophies roughly correlate with price/production values and content of the game?

That is some terrible thinking.

 

[WaterAstro]

I'm not saying 30 or 40, I'm just saying they should enforce a rule of "at least 13 trophies" for example, for every game, download only or not.

They do have a rule. It's just that a few gold trophies is equivalent to a dozen or more bronze trophies.

 

[Chris Remo]

I know people have strong feelings about this, but the reality is we made the trophies the way we did because we didn't want the game to declare what is a "collectible" versus what's just a cool thing to stumble upon in the world, or to encourage players to choose one kind of conversation over another, or to try and explore specific areas rather than others, etc., etc. We really did consider just about every possible avenue, and we ended up on the simplest avenue we could think of, not because we don't care or don't think it's important, but because after laying out all the options, we think it makes the most sense for this particular game. Firewatch is a game with a lot of player choice and hidden stuff, but because of the overall vibe, we didn't want the sensation of trophies/achievements putting meta-commentary on top. And there are a number of conditions you have to satisfy for a platinum, and we just didn't end up with one.

It may well be that we're giving up some sales by not having trophies work a certain way, but on the other hand, we think that the design of trophies/achievements is a part of the game design itself and so it's not really appropriate to try and min/max sales by way of trying to guess the ideal way to incentivize people to buy the game for trophy-related reasons. The reality is, there are infinite reasons someone might buy or not buy your game, and you can't try and chase them all down; you just try and make the best game, and hope you do a good enough job marketing it that a bunch of people will know it exists and buy it if they think it looks compelling.

For what it's worth, I would love to make the kind of game some time that really takes advantage of the sorts of overlapping mechanical goals that trophies and achievements are suited for. I love that kind of game. It's just not what Firewatch is.

Edit: I also have to again state that people are free to disagree with any design choice we make (although preferably that's after playing the game). I just want to make clear that whether or not we're right or wrong about any given decision, they are all made in good faith, not out of obliviousness or financial idiocy.

 

[LiquidSword]

It's so weird to me that people care this much about trophies. I guess it's like a collect them all kind of thing but to dismiss a game because it has a small number is crazy. That post a couple up, wtf lol

Edit: ^ Whoa! Thanks for the insight Mr. Remo! Love hearing insight into why these decisions are made. It's a shame you had to share it in a context like this though ha
Also preordered Firewatch today! Excited to play it!

 

[Mass Effect]

Can't say it bothers me at all. I guess I can understand people's disappointment, but some here really wanted to play the game but won't over some trophies? Come on.

 

[Grover]

oh god no, not the trophies!

 

[Overside]

I know people have strong feelings about this, but the reality is we made the trophies the way we did because we didn't want the game to declare what is a "collectible" versus what's just a cool thing to stumble upon in the world, or to encourage players to choose one kind of conversation over another, or to try and explore specific areas rather than others, etc., etc. We really did consider just about every possible avenue, and we ended up on the simplest avenue we could think of, not because we don't care or don't think it's important, but because after laying out all the options, we think it makes the most sense for this particular game. Firewatch is a game with a lot of player choice and hidden stuff, but because of the overall vibe, we didn't want the sensation of trophies/achievements putting meta-commentary on top. And there are a number of conditions you have to satisfy for a platinum, and we just didn't end up with one.

It may well be that we're giving up some sales by not having trophies work a certain way, but on the other hand, we think that the design of trophies/achievements is a part of the game design itself and so it's not really appropriate to try and min/max sales by way of trying to guess the ideal way to incentivize people to buy the game for trophy-related reasons. The reality is, there are infinite reasons someone might buy or not buy your game, and you can't try and chase them all down; you just try and make the best game, and hope you do a good enough job marketing it that a bunch of people will know it exists and buy it if they think it looks compelling.

For what it's worth, I would love to make the kind of game some time that really takes advantage of the sorts of overlapping mechanical goals that trophies and achievements are suited for. I love that kind of game. It's just not what Firewatch is.

You mean you actually designed a game to have intrinsic play value, instead of a check list of extrinsic bullshit?

What a concept!!!!!

Its almost like, when I play a game that's worth my time, I KNOW when I accomplish something, and don't need some arbitrary list of extrinsic crap to waste my time on for points that mean nothing.

Trophies have to be the most disgusting form of behavior marketing to arise out of the 7th gen. The immediate and lasting effects and ramnifications its had on design are .... Vulgar to say the least.

And seeing in this thread just how effective it is literally makes me ill.

 

[Nanashrew]

nah, they can make a game more replayable and also add optional challenges you would never think of doing. they can be fun to get just like with high scores in leaderboards or finding the best loot. some people like them and that's okay.

Honestly, the best games I've played have spurred me to go after those without needed achievements to tell me what to do.

I don't really see achievements or trophies anything like scoreboards either.


EDIT: On the topic of intrinsic and extrinsic value, I remember me and Nyarnthrop (I probably spelled that wrong. Sorry if I did.) talked about this a lot in an older thread about achievements and trophies.

 

[3rdamention]

head over to playstationtrophies.org and read the forum for games which dont have platinums. You'll be surprised how many wont bother with the game if it doesnt include a plat.

Well that is a trophy enthusiast site, of course you will find some people that will not buy a game if it doesn't have a platinum.


But I dont think the number of people saying that on playstationtrophies.org is the data to prove a "lot of gamers" wont buy a game if it doesn't have a platinum.

 

[lasrmountedmoai]

People who play games and spend their time doing things besides griping about 60fps and trophy support on the internet > people who post on gaf > people who hunt trophies

I don't think campo santo have anything to worry about regarding those who desire dat plat

 

[Eusis]

They could have added 0 trophies, be thankful there are 5.

I wish, Sony wouldn't allow that now.

It's been covered but I DO have a beef still with forcing developers to include them. Some games are great with them and make perfect sense; it's something to strive for in an MP-focused game, though that might be better with a unique in-game system, and obviously arcade-style games to encourage different goals to work towards beyond the highest score. But then we get cinematic or immersive games where it could be jarring (fortunately those can be disabled on all platforms now) and there's really no good place for them, or might even make the player play in ways the developer doesn't want to actually encourage (Undertale would be an... interesting case there, if you mindlessly slotted into the obvious spots.)

I think what probably would've been best for Sony and developers/publishers is to have mandated them for a time to make sure it was supported, then eased up in case it was ever a problem or it got in the way of releasing something, IE an emulated retro game with pain in the ass code to work with. People were saying it'd just mean a lot of games would have no trophies, but I think they're too ingrained now that even if left optional they would be put in, just look at Steam. Most of the exceptions are because they go to Uplay or whatever... and use THAT system instead.

 

[Quote]

Had there been achievements, how would that have changed the game?

It wouldn't have.

However, I'm sure there were people, plenty of them, who would have liked achievements.

I would have cost resources and/or delayed the game for one.

There is an episode of Tone Control (an Idle Thumbs Network podcast) where they interview Jonathan Blow and he talks about how MS forced achievement integration for Braid and what that means. It's towards the end and it's a good episode regardless https://www.idlethumbs.net/tonecontrol/episodes/jonathan-blow

I don't mind trophies and I think about "going for the platinum" here and there. That said, if a developer decided that it's worth not implementing them for any number of reasons, that's fine too. I just have to trust them that the game is better for it.

 

[GamingOblivion]

who the fuck cares about trophies

it's a little number that goes up to make your e-peen look good

 

[SURGEdude]

head over to playstationtrophies.org and read the forum for games which dont have platinums. You'll be surprised how many wont bother with the game if it doesnt include a plat.

playstationtrophies.org say's it's a big deal?!? Well fuck it let's close the thread cuz it's settled. Now I see why Sony is doing so well. Them damn trophies. MS needs to learn the value of bling.

 

[oSoLucky]

Lording over people who like trophies and achievement is a huge waste of time and effort. Not a single person that cares about them will be convinced otherwise and most of the detractors are just jumping on a dogpile like assholes. Typical achievement thread though.

And yes, I realize the irony of how little I added to the discussion.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

So to everyone who laughs at the concept of trophies/achievements... Did you ever 100% games prior to trophies showing up?

If I did it's because I thought it would be fun, not because of an arbitrary checklist.

Yes and even many back then where it shit like this didn't exist. My trophies were beating Ruby Weapon or Omega Weapon in FF7 or getting Excalibur I + II in FF9, doing all optional things in FFX and beating Richter etc. I didn't need a stupid reward for things like this... I did them because they were fun

Sure thing. I got lvl 99 everything in secret of mana and plenty of other rpgs, while seeing all the content. I got every ending in Ogre Battle (which took a really long time) and had fun doing it. I did it for the experience of doing it, not because it was a checkbox on a list.
There's people out there playing games they don't enjoy because it's an "easy platinum". That's a compulsion.

Nah guys, games weren't fun before trophies. People enjoying games since Pong to the PS2/Gamecube were just pretending to enjoy themselves. How can it be fun without a "u so best *ding*!"?

Spoiler

/s

I wish every game had like 250 trophies. You would get one for starting the game, one for loading, one for saving. I'd have them go off all the time and you wouldn't be able to turn them off, just to annoy all of the whiners who come in and shitpost about how much they don't like trophies and achievements.

Whiners eh? Like those who complain about a game having too few trophies and call hard-working, creative, thoughtful developers "lazy"?

(Too bad your spiteful, petty idea won't work because you can turn off notifications...)

I talked to a guy at a wedding buffet one time, who wanted to eat the maximum monetary value of food available. He was eating tons of shrimp, even though he didn't like it, because it was just worth a lot.

Bet he was a trophy Hunter.

LOL

I know people have strong feelings about this, but the reality is we made the trophies the way we did because we didn't want the game to declare what is a "collectible" versus what's just a cool thing to stumble upon in the world, or to encourage players to choose one kind of conversation over another, or to try and explore specific areas rather than others, etc., etc. We really did consider just about every possible avenue, and we ended up on the simplest avenue we could think of, not because we don't care or don't think it's important, but because after laying out all the options, we think it makes the most sense for this particular game. Firewatch is a game with a lot of player choice and hidden stuff, but because of the overall vibe, we didn't want the sensation of trophies/achievements putting meta-commentary on top. And there are a number of conditions you have to satisfy for a platinum, and we just didn't end up with one.

It may well be that we're giving up some sales by not having trophies work a certain way, but on the other hand, we think that the design of trophies/achievements is a part of the game design itself and so it's not really appropriate to try and min/max sales by way of trying to guess the ideal way to incentivize people to buy the game for trophy-related reasons. The reality is, there are infinite reasons someone might buy or not buy your game, and you can't try and chase them all down; you just try and make the best game, and hope you do a good enough job marketing it that a bunch of people will know it exists and buy it if they think it looks compelling.

For what it's worth, I would love to make the kind of game some time that really takes advantage of the sorts of overlapping mechanical goals that trophies and achievements are suited for. I love that kind of game. It's just not what Firewatch is.

Edit: I also have to again state that people are free to disagree with any design choice we make (although preferably that's after playing the game). I just want to make clear that whether or not we're right or wrong about any given decision, they are all made in good faith, not out of obliviousness or financial idiocy.

Great post. Thanks for sharing your process.

I would hate having to do additional work to satisfy trophy hunters if I were to make a game, myself. I'd rather spend all that time and money in polishing the game and making it better.

That is incorrect.

Your logic is distorted and faulty.

The presence of trophies doesn't affect someone who doesn't care about trophies. The absence of trophies affects the people who care.

That's how logic works.

But that's not true. The presence of trophies does affect those who don't like them. Because developers have to do extra work to support trophies, so they spend dev and QA time and money, which could be spent on other things. Plus it apparently influences the market now, so everyone is affected.

You mean you actually designed a game to have intrinsic play value, instead of a check list of extrinsic bullshit?

What a concept!!!!!

Its almost like, when I play a game that's worth my time, I KNOW when I accomplish something, and don't need some arbitrary list of extrinsic crap to waste my time on for points that mean nothing.

Trophies have to be the most disgusting form of behavior marketing to arise out of the 7th gen. The immediate and lasting effects and ramnifications its had on design are .... Vulgar to say the least.

And seeing in this thread just how effective it is literally makes me ill.

*applauds*

 

[Atomski]

This makes me sad that this is such a big deal to someone..

 

[Plywood]

I know people have strong feelings about this, but the reality is we made the trophies the way we did because we didn't want the game to declare what is a "collectible" versus what's just a cool thing to stumble upon in the world, or to encourage players to choose one kind of conversation over another, or to try and explore specific areas rather than others, etc., etc. We really did consider just about every possible avenue, and we ended up on the simplest avenue we could think of, not because we don't care or don't think it's important, but because after laying out all the options, we think it makes the most sense for this particular game. Firewatch is a game with a lot of player choice and hidden stuff, but because of the overall vibe, we didn't want the sensation of trophies/achievements putting meta-commentary on top. And there are a number of conditions you have to satisfy for a platinum, and we just didn't end up with one.

It may well be that we're giving up some sales by not having trophies work a certain way, but on the other hand, we think that the design of trophies/achievements is a part of the game design itself and so it's not really appropriate to try and min/max sales by way of trying to guess the ideal way to incentivize people to buy the game for trophy-related reasons. The reality is, there are infinite reasons someone might buy or not buy your game, and you can't try and chase them all down; you just try and make the best game, and hope you do a good enough job marketing it that a bunch of people will know it exists and buy it if they think it looks compelling.

For what it's worth, I would love to make the kind of game some time that really takes advantage of the sorts of overlapping mechanical goals that trophies and achievements are suited for. I love that kind of game. It's just not what Firewatch is.

Edit: I also have to again state that people are free to disagree with any design choice we make (although preferably that's after playing the game). I just want to make clear that whether or not we're right or wrong about any given decision, they are all made in good faith, not out of obliviousness or financial idiocy.

It's sad you had to make this post.

 

[Iastfan112]

Trophies and achievements can be fun little things to do on a replay of a game but of all the things I care about being included this has to be near the bottom. Doesn't effect my enjoyment of the game if they aren't included.

 

[Mega]

If I were a game developer I would make a game with zero trophies just to spite people like the OP.

 

[prag16]

Great thread ruined by a lot of anti-trophy shitposters, unfortunately. If you don't care for them now, you probably never will, so there's no point to insult trophies (or their hunters) other than to troll.

So people with legitimate points who don't agree with you are automatically shitposter trolls now. Okay, guy.

And by absolutely no conceivable measure could this thread possibly be considered a "great" thread. How anyone on either side of this debate could see this thread as "great" in any way shape or form is baffling to me.

IMO trophies and achievements can be fun. I even went for a platinum one time because I was fairly close just from playing the game a ton and decided what the hell.

But I swear it has become a sickness for a great many people. A buddy of mine bought Hannah Montana the Movie at/near its launch several years back. He was a mid/late 20s man. Who had never seen Hannah Montana, and even hates Billy Ray Cyrus for good measure. "Easy platinum, dude". He then made a youtube video of himself setting fire to the disc/case/manual/etc in a trash can in his driveway. I'd post the video, but I can't find it now.

 

[Coffee Dog]

We've had them for over a decade and it still blows my mind how attached some people are to their cheevo scores

 

[Psychoward]

I wish more devs did games with 0 trophies/achievements.

Ding ding

 

[Jolkien]

If I were a game developer I would make a game with zero trophies just to spite people like the OP.

And you wouldn't sell it on either Xbox or Playstation. I'm not sure why everyone need to always come in drove when a trophy is mentioned how they don't understand and let us know how they hate it.

I don't understand why grown man would buy figurine and display them, or why you would pay 150-200$ for a collector edition with a statue or god knows what but you don't see me barge in those thread berating those people. To each their own. Trophies add incentive for people who like them and do nothing for those like you who can't stand them. You can disable them and you are never forced to go in your trophy/achievement menu.

 

[Reset]

If I were a game developer I would make a game with zero trophies just to spite people like the OP.

Sounds stupid. There are people that buy games for easy trophies/achievements and ignore games without any, it'll just hurt you potential sales wise.

Ding ding

Why? You can go to the options menu and ignore them and hide the trophy list.

 

[Fat4all]

You can disable them and you are never forced to go in your trophy/achievement menu.

Sounds stupid. There are people that buy games for easy trophies/achievements and ignore games without any, it'll just hurt you potential sales wise.



Why? You can go to the options menu and ignore them and hide the trophy list.

If a player could easily ignore them, a developer should be able to just as easily not include them.

 

[prag16]

Trophies add incentive for people who like them and do nothing for those like you who can't stand them. You can disable them and you are never forced to go in your trophy/achievement menu.

They also vacuum up a nonzero amount of dev time/money/resources. And many (including myself at times) would also argue that they promote lazy game design in various ways.

 

[Overside]

Why? You can go to the options menu and ignore them and hide the trophy list.

Doesn't change the fact you now have a shitty game designed with an arbitrary extrinsic shit list in mind and completely devoid of intrinsic value.

 

[Jolkien]

If a player could easily ignore them, a developer should be able to just as easily not include them.

That makes no sense. It's better to have a sytem you can opt out, then a system you can't opt in because they are not there.

 

[Fat4all]

That makes no sense. It's better to have a sytem you can opt out, then a system you can't opt in because they are not there.

You'd argue this with a developer that simply doesn't want to include them, full stop? Even if they are fully away they may lose a few sales?

 

[Reset]

Doesn't change the fact you now have a shitty game designed with an arbitrary extrinsic shit list in mind with no intrinsic value.

Er no, just because it has trophies it doesn't mean the games have to be designed with a trophies in mind. Look at the first Uncharted, Metal Gear Solid 4, or any HD remaster.
You could have simple trophies/achievements which don't affect the gameplay at all like start the game and beat the game.

It pleases people that play games for trophies, and people who hate stuff like this can hide them.

 

[Quonny]

People hating totally optional things that in no way impact their gameplay, enough to want them to be removed.

The fuck is going on.

 

[Catdaddy]

Im still trying to Plat Pitfall on the Atari 2600...how many times do you have to beat the game??


I've never really cared about them to the point if going out of my way to get a Platinum, but I guess its nice after you beat a game to get the "hey you beat the game" notice but other than that it is what it is.

 

[Jolkien]

You'd argue this with a developer that simply doesn't want to include them, full stop?

I wouldn't argue. They just wouldn't distribute it. As I understand you can't publish game on PSN or XBL without them. The developer can then make the choice on how to distribute their game. It's then up to the developer if they don't wanna include them but also exclude their game from the console storefront.

I understand and agree with the reasoning the dev for Firewatch provided in this thread. I personally wouldn't skip a game without trophy/achievement but I certainly appreciate them. Strangely I don't care about achievement or steam achievement, I mostly only care about trophies. And I have all three console, and a gaming PC.

I just don't see the reason for shit posting from some people in every single thread achievements of any kind are mentioned. (Not targeting you, talking in the broad sense)

 

[Overside]

Er no, just because it has trophies it doesn't mean the games have to be designed with a trophies in mind. Look at the first Uncharted or Metal Gear Solid 4.
You could have simple trophies/achievements which don't affect the gameplay at all like start the game and beat the game.

It pleases people that play games for trophies, and people who hate stuff like this can hide them.

You do realize you named two of the earliest games with trophies... No... Of course you dont.

Maybe you should take a look at the the post from the dev whoms game this very thread is about, and how th ty said it absolutely effects the DESIGN process of the game.

Also, I am well aware the effects successful behavioral marketing has on its targets. You don't need to remind me.

 

[Reset]

You do realize you named two of the earliest games with trophies... No... Of course you don't.

Maybe you should take a look at the the post from the dev whoms game this very thread is about, and how th ty said it absolutely effects the DESIGN process of the game.

Also, I am well aware the effects successful behavioral marketing has on its targets. You don't need to remind me

Uncharted and MGS 4 didn't have trophies at launch, since there were no trophies during that time. MGS 4 received a trophy patch after 4 years after its release, but ok you're right. Trophies ruined both games and affected their development process.

 

[Overside]

Uncharted and MGS 4 didn't have trophies at launch, since there were no trophies during that time. MGS 4 received a trophy patch after 4 years after its release, but ok you're right. Trophies ruined both games even though they didn't exist.

And that changes the fact those games were not designed with trophies in mind how?

You really have no idea what you are arguing about do you?

When you design a game, with an extrinsic check list in mind, you are designing an extrinsically oriented experience, as opposes to an intrinsically oriented experience. A fucking Skinner box.

That's what people don't like, not specifically the trophies. Hiding the trophies does nothing.

 

[Fat4all]

I just don't see the reason for shit posting from some people in every single thread achievements of any kind are mentioned. (Not targeting you, talking in the broad sense)

I can understand this, but I still find it ridiculous people would mock a game for having less achievements than any other game, no matter how similar or different. It reeks of judging something for how good it can make you look instead of how it can effect you on any other level, whether for fun or for artistic merit.

I can't think of another medium that has something like this as well, it seems to be something inherit in gaming at the moment.

 

[Demoskinos]

You'd argue this with a developer that simply doesn't want to include them, full stop? Even if they are fully away they may lose a few sales?

Yes, because thats the entire point of console gaming having parity across all games for system level features like Trophies.

 

[Quonny]

And that changes the fact those games were not designed with trophies in mind how?

You really have no idea what you are arguing about do you?

When you design a game, with an extrinsic check list in mind, you are designing an extrinsic experience. A fucking Skinner box.

That's what people don't like, not the trophies.

Nowhere in the developers post did he say this. The game was made then they went back and thought about where to put in trophies, unless I read it wrong.

 

[OrbitalBeard]

I know people have strong feelings about this, but the reality is we made the trophies the way we did because we didn't want the game to declare what is a "collectible" versus what's just a cool thing to stumble upon in the world, or to encourage players to choose one kind of conversation over another, or to try and explore specific areas rather than others, etc., etc. We really did consider just about every possible avenue, and we ended up on the simplest avenue we could think of, not because we don't care or don't think it's important, but because after laying out all the options, we think it makes the most sense for this particular game. Firewatch is a game with a lot of player choice and hidden stuff, but because of the overall vibe, we didn't want the sensation of trophies/achievements putting meta-commentary on top. And there are a number of conditions you have to satisfy for a platinum, and we just didn't end up with one.

It may well be that we're giving up some sales by not having trophies work a certain way, but on the other hand, we think that the design of trophies/achievements is a part of the game design itself and so it's not really appropriate to try and min/max sales by way of trying to guess the ideal way to incentivize people to buy the game for trophy-related reasons. The reality is, there are infinite reasons someone might buy or not buy your game, and you can't try and chase them all down; you just try and make the best game, and hope you do a good enough job marketing it that a bunch of people will know it exists and buy it if they think it looks compelling.

For what it's worth, I would love to make the kind of game some time that really takes advantage of the sorts of overlapping mechanical goals that trophies and achievements are suited for. I love that kind of game. It's just not what Firewatch is.

Edit: I also have to again state that people are free to disagree with any design choice we make (although preferably that's after playing the game). I just want to make clear that whether or not we're right or wrong about any given decision, they are all made in good faith, not out of obliviousness or financial idiocy.

Thank you

Looking forward to the game next week

 

[Reset]

And that changes the fact those games were not designed with trophies in mind how?

You really have no idea what you are arguing about do you?

When you design a game, with an extrinsic check list in mind, you are designing an extrinsic experience. A fucking Skinner box.

That's what people don't like, not the trophies.

It changes the fact because the trophies system didn't even exist when they were released, so how were those games designed with trophies in mind?

I guess those PS2 game developers also had trophies in mind when the games were initially released, huh? Damn it, trophies ruining games since the PS1 days!!!

 

[ironmang]

And that changes the fact those games were not designed with trophies in mind how?

You really have no idea what you are arguing about do you?

When you design a game, with an extrinsic check list in mind, you are designing an extrinsic experience. A fucking Skinner box.

That's what people don't like, not the trophies.

Can I get some examples of these games? I really have no idea what you're talking about. Most games I play have difficulty and story progression trophies.

 

[Overside]

Nowhere in the developers post did he say this. The game was made then they went back and thought about where to put in trophies, unless I read it wrong.

Good lord.... Gamers....

Then... Its exactly what they said, isn't it?

The reason they DIDNT design the game with trophies in MIND is because it would have changed the design of the game from an intrinsic experience, to an extrinsic experience.

That's why they simply went in afterwards to put a few trophies in neutral places, because they absolutely had to.

 

[nded]

I guess people care about this.