Does anyone else hate Time Limit Achievements/Trophies?

[Crimson]

Out of interest, does anyone else hate these achievements as much as me?

I really find it annoying that when I buy GTA IV for example, I spent £40 on it, only for the creators to tell me to try beat itn 6 hours (or 8). Honestly, if I want to spread it over 10, 14, 20 hours, doing nothing inbetween missions but looking round and seeing the world they've created I should be able to.

Buying the Beatles game today reminded me of it, having to beat in 24 hours for an achievement. With games like Rock Band I like to play a couple of songs when I feel like it, spreading it out over time.

Anyone else find it annoying that more and more we're encourged to rush through games we're spending more and more money on?

[Chris S.]

I agree that they are a bit annoying.

I think the reason they do them though is to force us to replay the game.

If you beat it in 30 hours verse the 24 hours you have to replay it to get the achievement for 24 hours.

I think games have gotten so short that adding challenges to make me replay them is a must.

[Venom]

None of my games have any time limit trophies to unlock. But who says you have to try and go for them on your first playthrough? I'd do it on my second so that I can enjoy and take my time on my first playthrough. If I ever get a game with a time limit trophy I'd happily go for it as I'm a speed run freak when it comes to me doing final playthroughs on games.

[Donald M.]

It helps not to give a crap about achievement points.

Maybe if there were prizes involved or something.

[StreetFighterRyu]

I don't care for achievements enough to actually go through it. Especially with stealth games. I only go for the easy ones. Or the ones I can do.

[glue]

I don't care about achievements to the point of it bothering me if I don't get them all. I'll check out all the achievements when I get a game and then decide which ones I want to get/feel like I can get without it becoming a chore. Those things where it says you have to beat a game in x amount of time are achievements that I don't care about getting becuase it wouldn't be fun.

[Cloudman]

I just hate time limits full stop.

[Fatguy]

I don't care about achievements to the point of it bothering me if I don't get them all. I'll check out all the achievements when I get a game and then decide which ones I want to get/feel like I can get without it becoming a chore. Those things where it says you have to beat a game in x amount of time are achievements that I don't care about getting becuase it wouldn't be fun.

Yeah, what makes achievements great is the FUN they add. After I beat a game, its great looking at the achievement list and going back through and trying to achieve certain goals. On X-Box, its like every game has a challenge mode :wink:

But once you start doing the ones that are basically CHORES, or playing games past when they're fun, you have an achievement whoring problem.

[carabas]

Absolutely everyhing in a game that is timed is a big annoyance to me. So if they're optional, I skip them.

I think collecting achievements is fun, but I don't feel the need to get all of them. The ones that require multi-play I can't get anyway.

The only game where the achievements really bothered me was Jericho. Not only where they tedious or hard to get (kill 250 folks in melee...), requiring multiple playthroughs, they also unlocked character and story information by Clive Barker which were kinda essential if you wanted to understand most of the story (and you know, if you buy "Clive Barker's Whatever", you are probably not all that interested in just a shoot'em up).

[StreetFighterRyu]

You know, the time limit achievements aren't that bad compared to killing 1,000 players and hosting/joining 10,000 matches. (G.R.A.W. and Gears of War anyone?)

[Jake V]

It depends if you bought the game for the experience of playing it, or for the achievements.

Xbox live's achievements screen constantly reminds me that of the games I've played, I only managed to get about a third of the possible achievements. This is all because I'd rather experience the games than try to win achievements that NOBODY cares about.

[sHayden]

If you're worried about beating a game in 6 hours just to boost your Nerd Point score, you have a problem.

Want to get really irked? Try to get some of the one's in Mega Man 9.

[Wolf-Man]

I don't really care about achievements, but I really hate games that only have 'save points' rather than the ability to save where you like.

[Chris S.]

It depends if you bought the game for the experience of playing it, or for the achievements.

Xbox live's achievements screen constantly reminds me that of the games I've played, I only managed to get about a third of the possible achievements. This is all because I'd rather experience the games than try to win achievements that NOBODY cares about.

Do you honestly think that there are people who buy games just for achievements?

As far as achievements ago I tend to get around 700 of the 1000. That is a good number and ussually has me doing the fun ones. With Fable 2 I got them all. It was a blast and furthered the experience of the game which some do. Others are just lame. If there are honestly people playing Gears 2 attempting to get 100000 or whatever kills they need help. Those kind of achievement kinds of kill the drive to get any when they are impossible.

In a game like Arkham Assylum though I could see myself trying to get all the achievements. If my XBox ever comes back from support....

[StreetFighterRyu]

Do you honestly think that there are people who buy games just for achievements?

Achievement whores do exist, you know. There are some people that would sell the game back after they get all achievements. Not even caring about having fun in multiplayer with your friends. I mean, really, if the game sucks than I understand. 'Cause I did the same thing with King Kong. (After playing a few times) I was going to do the same with Wanted, since I beat it in two hours, but decided not to waste my time with it. If you knew the game sucked to begin with, then why even bother? I've heard people bought the Avatar game just to get the combo achievements. Not even caring about finishing the story.

Regarding multiplayer achievements, I don't mind the hosting/joining 100 or 200 matches. 'Cause with games like Rainbow Six Vegas or COD4/5 that has ranking systems, you do kinda need to join in 100 matches. And besides, if multiplayer is good, you might end up joining in more matches anyway. 10,000 is insane and required playing it for more than a whole year. (Asuming you take breaks) By then you'll probably be bored of the game not to bother.

All in all, I don't mind the time limit achievements if they're pretty simple.

[Farealmer]

I don't mind achevements per say, as they are generally add-ons that aren't necesssary and give you motive to play the game more. However i dislike almost all time limits. They are all too often used as cheap alternatives when they want to make the game harder.

[Arvandor]

I don't really care about achievements, but I really hate games that only have 'save points' rather than the ability to save where you like.

I disagree with that. The ability to save anywhere makes adventure games too easy. Save points are necessary to present at least some kind of challenge.

[Donald M.]

I don't mind achevements per say, as they are generally add-ons that aren't necesssary and give you motive to play the game more. However i dislike almost all time limits. They are all too often used as cheap alternatives when they want to make the game harder.

True. I have no problem with optional time limits like in GTA IV though.

Speed runs are nothing new, why not offer up some achievements for 'em.

[StreetFighterRyu]

I disagree with that. The ability to save anywhere makes adventure games too easy. Save points are necessary to present at least some kind of challenge.

Yeah, with some games, I don't mind save points. They're irritating, but don't bother me. But there are some games, like Splinter Cell, that makes save points aren't needed.

[Crimson]

Do you honestly think that there are people who buy games just for achievements?

As far as achievements ago I tend to get around 700 of the 1000. That is a good number and ussually has me doing the fun ones. With Fable 2 I got them all. It was a blast and furthered the experience of the game which some do. Others are just lame. If there are honestly people playing Gears 2 attempting to get 100000 or whatever kills they need help. Those kind of achievement kinds of kill the drive to get any when they are impossible.

In a game like Arkham Assylum though I could see myself trying to get all the achievements. If my XBox ever comes back from support....

There defientely are. I've got friends who own games that give them an easy 1000 points, just so they can add it to their score.

I use achievements to extended the life of my game. Using them as tasks to complete, extending the life of my game, which is why I don't like time limit.

[glue]

I've got some buddies that have played games just to get the achievements. Not so much for th easy points but just to see how quickly they could get all achievements for a game.

And if I see some super easy achievement I'll do it just for the points. NCAA 10 is the perfect example. You get achievements for uploading a highlight and for hosting or joining an online dynasty. I uploaded my first highlight and created an online dynasty with no intention of ever using it.

[Aziz Abbasi]

Achievement missions are annoyingly hard until one is used to them
In "G.T.A Advance" & Spider-Man 3 on my PC i work on achievements, my favorite achievements in the latter are for the "Combat Tours"

[Bruce Wayne Jr.]

You usually can't get EVERY trophy/achievement in one play through.

So, unless you're willing to play through the game more than once, don't bother chasing trophies.