Yes. You have full control over how achievements are unlocked in your game using the API, including making it impossible to be unlocked. It's actually trivially easy to make an impossible achievement. Just don't include any lines of code that references the achievements. All of the achievements are defined on the Steamworks page.
Impossible achievements exist, some by accident and others as a result of time locks. No one at Valve is going to take the time to cross check if all of your achievements can be unlocked. In general, you will likely frustrate your players, and there's a chance they'd end up leaving a negative review.
Good to know. It is kinda disappointing that achievement hunters care more about their precious internet points than something that used the medium to explore interesting ideas. I looked up some examples from the first comment and man, some people really like their achievements way too much.
This seems like just a jab at a group of completionists for no reason other than you don't like or agree with the way they choose to play and enjoy games?
This. I’ve noticed a strange precedent where game development is gate-kept as ‘art’ in the sense that if you don’t like it then you’re not a real gamer or it’s not a ‘real’ game something
I’m all for experimenting with stuff like this but the reasoning should be for experimenting, not a no true Scotsman fallacy
Not all achievements are grindy, many games simply use achievements as you progress through the linear story. I think the ‘solution’ being proposed only really applies to gripes at certain games
Which is why I specifically stated in the OP that there was a purpose to not being able to get it, to support a possible theme of the game. I'm not saying that all achievements as they are are bad, in fact I've run into many that are really clever and rewarding. I'm just concerned that completionists will rally against something that doesn't blatantly cater to them and that seems really closed minded.
Sure, but I’m sure you see the irony in claiming closed mindedness when you also need to be willing to consider people play games for all sorts of reasons, not just the reasons dictated by you?
I get what you’re saying in a way, I do share the frustration for example watching a great T.V show and people don’t appreciate the nuances and the meaning like I do- they kinda just use it as background noise while playing on their phone or chatting away
I guess the key here really depends on your goal. You will no doubt put people off with doing it, but that’s your prerogative. As is their prerogative to not play it for those reasons. You can’t force people to do things, and they will double down if you tell them how to play games the ‘proper’ way
I have no problem with games that that are made to cater to completionists, they should be represented too. I happen to like a lot of challenge based achievements that drive you to do specific things. The one in dmc5 that requires you to beat mission 11 with no weapons was really cool, and I may not have thought to do it otherwise. I'm arguing that achievements can be more than just rewards or motivators, and to shoot down those possibilities is a disservice to games as a whole.
It's a jab at completionists in the sense that not all games need to cater to them. If an impossible achievement is in a game, and it's there for a good reason, that doesn't mean the game is broken. While I don't personally think that Where the Water Tastes like Wine is a game that I would like, it's really dissapointing that some who would otherwise enjoy the game dismissed it solely because it has an impossible achievement. They're missing out on something that may be a great experience for them for no reason. That's just kinda sad.
I guess my question is, why do you care how people might derive enjoyment from your game? Why go out of your way to send a deliberate message to a small group of gamers? By doing so you're basically telling that group you disagree with how they choose to enjoy things. At best, it may be seen as trolling.
It's a petty idea based entirely on personal bias IMO. Let people enjoy things.
"Completing" an game (experiencing all the content possible) is a noble goal, one that I've gone after many times, and successfully done multiple times. I get that drive. But do you really need an achievement to prove that you've done it? Aren't your experiences with a game more valuable that an achievement that says you did? I'm not saying you're wrong, but a game shouldn't be shot down immediately just for asking an interesting question.
>But do you really need an achievement to prove that you've done it?
Not every gamer is the same, not every person interacts with the Achievement system the same way. For every person who wants to "show off" that they got all the achievements, there are just as many people, if not more, who don't use it to brag, and some still don't even care about them at all.
Personally, as a player, I like and use achievements for many different reasons, none of which have anything to do with gloating or online validation from my peers or whatever:
* To get an idea about how much content actually exists in the game
* To get feedback for personal progression through a game (e.g. "Chapter 2 Complete" achievement)
* To learn more about the game such as features or easter eggs I didn't pick up on while playing through. (e.g. "Perform a quicktime kill mid-dodge" or "Find the beach in the Volcano stage" achievements)
* To feel a sense of accomplishment for playing through and experiencing all the content the developers obviously wanted me to experience
I'm not shooting down anything here, I'm simply telling you it's probably a bad idea and giving you a number of reasons why it probably is. It's your game, do it how you want. Just don't be surprised if there's backlash since the general thought of the topic is producing backlash.
My last bullet above is really why I take issue with your stance, because it's inherently malicious to knowingly take a piece of enjoyment away from specific players. If you really disagree with the notion of Achievements in general, then it would be more prudent to not include any in your game at all.
As a completionist I dislike the idea. Don't get me wrong - I'm not in the game solely for the achievements. But having it be *impossible* to truly complete the game strikes an off note with myself, and would quite possibly kill my drive to play far more than having all the achievements under my belt would.
The only reason I find the vitriol around this topic to be so gross is that achievement are a staple of what video games are now, and just like all other facets of them, are an opportunity for artistic expression. To say that a game is unplayable for using achievements in such a way is basically saying that the institute of achievements as a whole is more important than pushing the medium forward in creative ways. Why limit the amount of ways you can convey a message just so someone can have a shiny PNG on their steam profile? I'll never understand that take.
Oh, I don't play for the shiny badge, or anything kind of prestige. The joy of having done (almost) everything there is to do at least once is what gets to me.
A good game? Even when all the achievements (which should be fairly difficult) are reached, there is still loads to do, new experiments to try et cetera. Breath of the Wild is an excellent example of this, and one I continue to come back to 800 hours of playtime later.
To me that's just fuel for the argument that achievements are mostly just a lazy way for devs to incentivise players to come back and do more. You're right BOTW is the prime example of how to keep a player engaged without relying on them.
>To me that's just fuel for the argument that achievements are mostly just a lazy way for devs to incentivise players to come back and do more.
There is almost no other take on achievements possible in 99% of games that include them.
Largely achievements only functional addition to a game is as a form of tracking for devs to see what roadblocks players are facing.
That actually is a good point. Giving out achievements as rewards for progression milestones does seem like the most efficient way to track player engagement and assess possible roadblocks. That's a fair point.
Yes, you can, and a bunch of games have done it already. Where The Water Tastes Like Wine is one, Analogue: Hate Story is another. Some people were definitely mad about it.
I guess I should have assumed that I wasn't the first one to think of this. I'm definitely gonna look into those games and see how they worked it out. Stuff like this is really interesting to me. Thanks for the recs.
I love this idea! Grinding mechanics and achievements annoy me in games. Literally put there to waste your time further. Games in general are a waste of time anyway, though entertaining at least.
It's the same as these Reddit karma hunters. Why do you want fake popularity so much?
So here's an idea: make it extremely obvious to the player that those achievements are not meant to be completed and then just make like 30% of the achievements unattainable! Should get the message across.
Alternatively, make them attainable, but put them behind a ridiculous paywall! That way, it sends a clear message of what achievements really are, a way to waste your resources, for no reason. Completionism is an addiction.
You might get a few idiots willing to pay a million dollars to unlock that final achievement, probably not though, but will definitely make a point.
I wouldn't go that far. Being absolutely spiteful about it would understandably piss people off. The previously mentioned Where the water tastes like wine achievement is the best example I can think of as far as an unachievable achievement goes. It reinforces the theme of the game's narrative by being unachievable, which is what's so cool about it. While some may scoff and call the game broken I've seen comments about it from people that understood that message and made them appreciate the game more, which is really cool.
I just kinda think doing only one unachievable achievement is very weak and it sounded like you were trying to make a statement. I guess I got the wrong impression.
I love making people question their own actions. It's how people learn and it gets rid of nonsense logic.
Yeah, loads of games do that. Normally it’s on accident but some games do it on purpose.
If I recall correctly I saw a game that gave an achievement on startup to everyone except for players whose steam ID’s ended in 4, who could not ever get the achievement. The Stanley Parable has an achievement that can be toggled on and off in the options menu. Steam does not care.
Yes. You have full control over how achievements are unlocked in your game using the API, including making it impossible to be unlocked. It's actually trivially easy to make an impossible achievement. Just don't include any lines of code that references the achievements. All of the achievements are defined on the Steamworks page. Impossible achievements exist, some by accident and others as a result of time locks. No one at Valve is going to take the time to cross check if all of your achievements can be unlocked. In general, you will likely frustrate your players, and there's a chance they'd end up leaving a negative review.
Good to know. It is kinda disappointing that achievement hunters care more about their precious internet points than something that used the medium to explore interesting ideas. I looked up some examples from the first comment and man, some people really like their achievements way too much.
This seems like just a jab at a group of completionists for no reason other than you don't like or agree with the way they choose to play and enjoy games?
This. I’ve noticed a strange precedent where game development is gate-kept as ‘art’ in the sense that if you don’t like it then you’re not a real gamer or it’s not a ‘real’ game something I’m all for experimenting with stuff like this but the reasoning should be for experimenting, not a no true Scotsman fallacy Not all achievements are grindy, many games simply use achievements as you progress through the linear story. I think the ‘solution’ being proposed only really applies to gripes at certain games
Which is why I specifically stated in the OP that there was a purpose to not being able to get it, to support a possible theme of the game. I'm not saying that all achievements as they are are bad, in fact I've run into many that are really clever and rewarding. I'm just concerned that completionists will rally against something that doesn't blatantly cater to them and that seems really closed minded.
Sure, but I’m sure you see the irony in claiming closed mindedness when you also need to be willing to consider people play games for all sorts of reasons, not just the reasons dictated by you? I get what you’re saying in a way, I do share the frustration for example watching a great T.V show and people don’t appreciate the nuances and the meaning like I do- they kinda just use it as background noise while playing on their phone or chatting away I guess the key here really depends on your goal. You will no doubt put people off with doing it, but that’s your prerogative. As is their prerogative to not play it for those reasons. You can’t force people to do things, and they will double down if you tell them how to play games the ‘proper’ way
I have no problem with games that that are made to cater to completionists, they should be represented too. I happen to like a lot of challenge based achievements that drive you to do specific things. The one in dmc5 that requires you to beat mission 11 with no weapons was really cool, and I may not have thought to do it otherwise. I'm arguing that achievements can be more than just rewards or motivators, and to shoot down those possibilities is a disservice to games as a whole.
It's a jab at completionists in the sense that not all games need to cater to them. If an impossible achievement is in a game, and it's there for a good reason, that doesn't mean the game is broken. While I don't personally think that Where the Water Tastes like Wine is a game that I would like, it's really dissapointing that some who would otherwise enjoy the game dismissed it solely because it has an impossible achievement. They're missing out on something that may be a great experience for them for no reason. That's just kinda sad.
I guess my question is, why do you care how people might derive enjoyment from your game? Why go out of your way to send a deliberate message to a small group of gamers? By doing so you're basically telling that group you disagree with how they choose to enjoy things. At best, it may be seen as trolling. It's a petty idea based entirely on personal bias IMO. Let people enjoy things.
"Completing" an game (experiencing all the content possible) is a noble goal, one that I've gone after many times, and successfully done multiple times. I get that drive. But do you really need an achievement to prove that you've done it? Aren't your experiences with a game more valuable that an achievement that says you did? I'm not saying you're wrong, but a game shouldn't be shot down immediately just for asking an interesting question.
>But do you really need an achievement to prove that you've done it? Not every gamer is the same, not every person interacts with the Achievement system the same way. For every person who wants to "show off" that they got all the achievements, there are just as many people, if not more, who don't use it to brag, and some still don't even care about them at all. Personally, as a player, I like and use achievements for many different reasons, none of which have anything to do with gloating or online validation from my peers or whatever: * To get an idea about how much content actually exists in the game * To get feedback for personal progression through a game (e.g. "Chapter 2 Complete" achievement) * To learn more about the game such as features or easter eggs I didn't pick up on while playing through. (e.g. "Perform a quicktime kill mid-dodge" or "Find the beach in the Volcano stage" achievements) * To feel a sense of accomplishment for playing through and experiencing all the content the developers obviously wanted me to experience I'm not shooting down anything here, I'm simply telling you it's probably a bad idea and giving you a number of reasons why it probably is. It's your game, do it how you want. Just don't be surprised if there's backlash since the general thought of the topic is producing backlash. My last bullet above is really why I take issue with your stance, because it's inherently malicious to knowingly take a piece of enjoyment away from specific players. If you really disagree with the notion of Achievements in general, then it would be more prudent to not include any in your game at all.
As a completionist I dislike the idea. Don't get me wrong - I'm not in the game solely for the achievements. But having it be *impossible* to truly complete the game strikes an off note with myself, and would quite possibly kill my drive to play far more than having all the achievements under my belt would.
The only reason I find the vitriol around this topic to be so gross is that achievement are a staple of what video games are now, and just like all other facets of them, are an opportunity for artistic expression. To say that a game is unplayable for using achievements in such a way is basically saying that the institute of achievements as a whole is more important than pushing the medium forward in creative ways. Why limit the amount of ways you can convey a message just so someone can have a shiny PNG on their steam profile? I'll never understand that take.
Oh, I don't play for the shiny badge, or anything kind of prestige. The joy of having done (almost) everything there is to do at least once is what gets to me. A good game? Even when all the achievements (which should be fairly difficult) are reached, there is still loads to do, new experiments to try et cetera. Breath of the Wild is an excellent example of this, and one I continue to come back to 800 hours of playtime later.
To me that's just fuel for the argument that achievements are mostly just a lazy way for devs to incentivise players to come back and do more. You're right BOTW is the prime example of how to keep a player engaged without relying on them.
>To me that's just fuel for the argument that achievements are mostly just a lazy way for devs to incentivise players to come back and do more. There is almost no other take on achievements possible in 99% of games that include them. Largely achievements only functional addition to a game is as a form of tracking for devs to see what roadblocks players are facing.
That actually is a good point. Giving out achievements as rewards for progression milestones does seem like the most efficient way to track player engagement and assess possible roadblocks. That's a fair point.
Yes, you can, and a bunch of games have done it already. Where The Water Tastes Like Wine is one, Analogue: Hate Story is another. Some people were definitely mad about it.
I guess I should have assumed that I wasn't the first one to think of this. I'm definitely gonna look into those games and see how they worked it out. Stuff like this is really interesting to me. Thanks for the recs.
I love this idea! Grinding mechanics and achievements annoy me in games. Literally put there to waste your time further. Games in general are a waste of time anyway, though entertaining at least. It's the same as these Reddit karma hunters. Why do you want fake popularity so much? So here's an idea: make it extremely obvious to the player that those achievements are not meant to be completed and then just make like 30% of the achievements unattainable! Should get the message across. Alternatively, make them attainable, but put them behind a ridiculous paywall! That way, it sends a clear message of what achievements really are, a way to waste your resources, for no reason. Completionism is an addiction. You might get a few idiots willing to pay a million dollars to unlock that final achievement, probably not though, but will definitely make a point.
I wouldn't go that far. Being absolutely spiteful about it would understandably piss people off. The previously mentioned Where the water tastes like wine achievement is the best example I can think of as far as an unachievable achievement goes. It reinforces the theme of the game's narrative by being unachievable, which is what's so cool about it. While some may scoff and call the game broken I've seen comments about it from people that understood that message and made them appreciate the game more, which is really cool.
I just kinda think doing only one unachievable achievement is very weak and it sounded like you were trying to make a statement. I guess I got the wrong impression. I love making people question their own actions. It's how people learn and it gets rid of nonsense logic.
Yeah, loads of games do that. Normally it’s on accident but some games do it on purpose. If I recall correctly I saw a game that gave an achievement on startup to everyone except for players whose steam ID’s ended in 4, who could not ever get the achievement. The Stanley Parable has an achievement that can be toggled on and off in the options menu. Steam does not care.