Your opinion on unlockable items and achievements in multiplayer

B

brncao

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 4, 2013
Messages
231
What's your opinion on unlockable items and boost-type microtransactions in multiplayer? I.e. weapon unlocks and xp boosts. Things that come to mind are "P2W" and "grinding." Does it make the game more fun? More importantly, do the masses "want" unlockables in the game to be "satisfying"? Look at it from a psychological standpoint. What are your thoughts?

The same can also be said about achievements. The only difference is, achievements do not affect game play. Does having achievements improve the gaming experience?
 
Found something interesting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartle_Test
So there are people who are interested in achievements. You can take the test here http://www.gamerdna.com/quizzes/bartle-test-of-gamer-psychology

What I don't understand are the unlockable items and xp boosts implemented in multiplayer. What are they really for? Are they for achievers who want their character maxed out? That's fine for single player, but multiplayer? A maxed out player who has everything unlocked vs a player who is just starting out? How does that work? I haven't been playing online multiplayer for awhile so somebody please fill me in.
 
From what I've researched, many of them add unlockable items in there to justify "shortcut DLCs" for those who don't want to grind (achievers) or are just plain terrible at the game and want an "advantage" (killers). Unlockable items are sort of like achievements for the achiever types. Does that mean those who unlock them first are placed at a higher advantage? Not necessarily. DLC or not, the developers know that using a "P2W" or "advance-to-win" model will be disastrous (World of Tanks learned that the hard way), so they make sure all the weapons, armor, and any elements that affect gameplay are not severely impacted; everyone needs to play on a level playing field in multiplayer in order to retain customers. Some early unlocks can be gained quickly and you would be good to go even against an opponent who has unlocked the latter items. Unlockable items that require lots of grinding (usually common in F2P games) does not put you at a greater advantage against someone with the basics. That means those "shortcut DLCs" are really unnecessary and won't bring you any greater advantage. It's all smoke and mirrors just to make you "feel better", and some people will pay for it.
 
I see nothing wrong with Unlockables as long as the game stays balanced. A good example would be Team Fortress 2
 
Given the success of progression based games in the multiplayer FPS market, it seems like the majority enjoy them. Personally, I miss the days when games would have a fixed weapon set that was well balanced (UT, Quake, TF, Soldier of Fortune) and the only progression was your own personal skill at using those weapons.
 
drako said:
Personally, I miss the days when games would have a fixed weapon set that was well balanced (UT, Quake, TF, Soldier of Fortune) and the only progression was your own personal skill at using those weapons.
Click to expand...

This. It felt really rewarding playing a game like Starsiege: Tribes and learning new routes, improving weapon skills, without having to 'unlock' weapons/items or play to improve those weapons/items.

The game's gameplay should be rewarding enough on its own without having to put in item progression as a timesink.

As for achievements, I don't have any problem with them. They can be used to get players to play a certain way, improve specific skillsets or encourage teamwork (achievements for protecting your flag carrier, as an example.)
 
Eh the only fps multiplayer progression i liked was bf2, since there werent 7 billion ranks. when you actually lvled up it felt like an achievement.

nowadays it seems like they give you every thing for minimal effort, and to substitute that sense of achievement they throw heaps if meaningless ACHIEVEMENTS at you, in order to distract you from the fact that you have accomplished nothing.
 
shifty68 said:
Eh the only fps multiplayer progression i liked was bf2, since there werent 7 billion ranks. when you actually lvled up it felt like an achievement.

nowadays it seems like they give you every thing for minimal effort, and to substitute that sense of achievement they throw heaps if meaningless ACHIEVEMENTS at you, in order to distract you from the fact that you have accomplished nothing.
Click to expand...

Battlefield followed my exact point earlier. Any unlocks you received were your choice and they didn't overpower one or the other.
 
Last edited:
I also enjoyed BF2 leveling system, but I also enjoyed games like CS when you have access to all the weapons but you need to earn money ingame to purchase what you want to use I always thought that was a good way to balance it. I miss the days when you level to a new level and you got something new and cool, now most games you just level and thats it yay you get nothing but a ding good job.
 
shifty68 said:
Eh the only fps multiplayer progression i liked was bf2, since there werent 7 billion ranks. when you actually lvled up it felt like an achievement.

nowadays it seems like they give you every thing for minimal effort, and to substitute that sense of achievement they throw heaps if meaningless ACHIEVEMENTS at you, in order to distract you from the fact that you have accomplished nothing.
Click to expand...

What do you get awarded again for reviving in BF4? I believe it was 100 in BF3.
 
mdma11 said:
What do you get awarded again for reviving in BF4? I believe it was 100 in BF3.
Click to expand...

not sure but in bf2 you got 2 points. that's another thing i hate. all these new games have scoring systems that give you 50-200 times more points/xp than they used to.
 
I have never found these imaginary P2W games that everyone complains about on here.

The closest I guess would be Hearthstone, but that is a card game and well... welcome to the world of TCG/CCGs.
 
XvMMvX said:
I have never found these imaginary P2W games that everyone complains about on here.

The closest I guess would be Hearthstone, but that is a card game and well... welcome to the world of TCG/CCGs.
Click to expand...

Battlefield heros and many MMOs. You may have already played some
 
Dumb and pointless.

Whatever happened to just trying to get the highest score?
 
I enjoy having a goal to work toward. But this system shouldn't be leveraged for P2W situations.

For me, though, I guess it depends on the type of gameplay and if having an unlockable system is conducive to it. In a game like Titanfall and BF4 I would prefer for there to be no unlocking scheme in place. I think it works in CoD, though.
 
shifty68 said:
not sure but in bf2 you got 2 points. that's another thing i hate. all these new games have scoring systems that give you 50-200 times more points/xp than they used to.
Click to expand...
The idea is to give a greater number of points so less skillful (or just less contributory) players don't feel as though they're doing poorly. If players receive a low score at the end of a game or round, they feel dissuaded and tend to stop playing. And, yes, some AAA developers do have psychologists in their employ to better understand this kind of stuff.

When you have high-margin DLC to sell, the last thing you want to do is dissuade players.
 
"Carrot on a stick" as they call it. There's nothing wrong with unlockable items, but they were better implemented in single player mode. When you progress and unlock newer weapons, they were powerful, meaningful, and had impact. You can't do that in multiplayer so they had to be subtle and well-balanced, especially for weapons that unlock at the last tier. I'm just not feeling it. The logic is, if you unlock the last tier weapon, you should be more powerful, but you're not. It doesn't give you any real advantage, understandably.
 
i enjoy unlocks, it gives you a reason to keep on playing.
for instance in bf4 i have made it my goal to unlock all the camos, engi guns + attachments, support guns + attachments and carbines + attachments
which i have 80% done.

achievements i really dont care for.
 
Don't really care much, but it tends to just bloat the game pointlessly.

Look at BF4 -- there may be 83745812312^3.4151e combinations of shit to equip, but 95% of that is going to go unused. You have tons of items trying for the pedestal spot in that given niche instead of a lower number of things that are diverse in meaningful ways.
 
I don't like games where I have to play for 100 hours just to compete with everyone else. If I pay $60 for a shooter, I don't want to be bombarded with ridiculous F2P unlock elements. I'm looking at you, BF4.
 
Multiplayer games should first be based on balance before anything else. The leveling systems in these games are not designed with balance in mind. They are designed to keep you grinding so when they release the next DLC you are enticed to buy it.

P.S. Kill streak perks are my biggest pet peeve.
 
I want my 200 quid I spent in Rift!! Wish I never bought XP boosts don't even play the game now REALLY EZ to get sucked into it.
 
Comixbooks said:
I want my 200 quid I spent in Rift!! Wish I never bought XP boosts don't even play the game now REALLY EZ to get sucked into it.
Click to expand...

Haha ya its easy to get sucked in. i got sucked into stronghold kingdoms and don't even want to know how much money i spent on it.
 
I don't have a problem with achievements if they're just that and don't have ANY impact on the play.

Unlockables are one of the things I hate the most. They completely ruined racing games for me. As for FPS, I am not interested in pay2win or any of the "modern warfare" cesspools.
 
I miss the BF 1942 days. I put in more hours in that than any other online multiplayer FPS. Balanced weapon sets that you can just jump into the game and play. Plus there was tons of mods to keep you playing. The only reason game studios need to find carrots to keep you playing nowadays is because they took the other things away from us. When we can make our own content, skins, maps, game modes, and full on game mods like desert strike we can get tons more to do compared to what a small dev team can produce.
 
jojo69 said:
I think is lame...but that's just me
Click to expand...

socK said:
Don't really care much, but it tends to just bloat the game pointlessly.

Look at BF4 -- there may be 83745812312^3.4151e combinations of shit to equip, but 95% of that is going to go unused. You have tons of items trying for the pedestal spot in that given niche instead of a lower number of things that are diverse in meaningful ways.
Click to expand...

I second these opinions. I just wanna play the game. That I have to grind for better guns or accessories and wonder which Rubic's cube of combos I need make me play less.
 
I agree with just about everyone here. Achievements are something I don't care about; it's just nice to have but it doesn't affect my attitude towards the game. Unlockables however does, and it depends on gameplay. If the game would have been a failure without the aggressive unlocking system, or the unlocking system made up the majority of gameplay hours, then we have a problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top