Consider This: Achievement Points Give Credence to Crap Games

I don’t know how old I was when I stopped playing games that were absolutely god awful. Call me over trusting of the gaming media, but I’m fairly sure it was around the time that I started getting an EGM subscription. With three separate opinions, it was easy for a young kid to look at the numbers and determine what game was worth their allowance. It was the ultimate tool in fact -- for many years.

Before EGM, it was easy to wind up with a game that felt broken, or was sold just on a Barbie license (Hannah Montana today). But, more often than not, it was a bombardment of commercials and in store displays that sold you on a new game. So, for a large part of the 80’s getting a quality title was a major crapshoot. The good news? Gaming’s meteoric rise along with the Internet has totally eliminated this guesswork.

Yup. It's called Gamerankings. I sure hope you use it, cause it's the true democratic tool of the modern gamer. With over 50 people's scores sometimes being averaged into one MASTER score, it's really tough to go wrong. After all, there are tons of games everyone agrees are good.

So, the question has to be asked. Why are these same kids – who are now adults (and hopefully know about Gamerankings)– voluntarily choosing to play games that they know suck?

Two words: Achievement Points.

Larry Hryb (aka Major Nelson) coined the term for individuals who play games explicitly for the purpose of unlocking achievements to add to their score: Gamerscore Whore. The Gamerscore system and the obsession with it has been the target of ridicule in parts of the gaming press, including an April Fools' Day edition of Game Informer. And I love every minute of it.

So why do I care? I'll try and be semi-brief.

It means that hardcore gamers are now voluntarily playing low quality titles to increase their Gamerscore. This isn’t really a problem for me personally per se, but it does pose an interesting ideological conflict. Hardcore gaming used to mean playing only the best titles, and being aware of stellar games that slipped passed the public eye. It's all about playing video games because you love the art, the story, that feeling you get when you're really into a game.

Yet, Gamerscore Whores have become a weird mishmash of the traditional hardcore gamer (playing a lot) and the average casual consumer (buying stuff with no former knowledge). They certainly don't embody what I just described. But, again you ask, why do I care?

This trend clearly encourages budget title developers to make their game's achievements easier to get, with hope of increasing sales to Gamerscore Whores. In a roundabout way, these gamers are directly supporting the continual flow of low quality games into the marketplace. It appears that the perpetual stereotype of uninformed parents buying games based on cartoon character licenses (e.g. Disney and Nickleodean) isn't the only reason for the flood of shovelware into the market.

That sure sounds like the polar opposite mantra from most hardcore gamers I know. You play because you want to have fun -- not to rack up points. Am I crazy here? Where's the fun in playing for a high score? That went out of style in the arcade during the mid 90's -- and there was good reason for it. The medium evolved and got rid of that years ago. Only Microsoft could bring it back and make it thrive again.

I’m proud of my extremely low Gamerscore (it's just about 4000). It reflects a diverse catalog of playtime on good, solid titles across multiple systems. I'm talking the whole shabang -- from NES, to Saturn, to the big three of today.

Why should I only enjoy just a small portion of the pie when I can eat it all at once? I might not digest much, but it's a helluva meal.

So, if you're an Achievement Whore, I'd love to know why. Are you in some kind of lifelong battle with your identical twin or is Xbox the only thing you're good at? Let me know, cause I'm damn curious to hear the justification.

CLICK HERE TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE CGC