I'm indifferent to the whole thing. I mean, it hasn't really affected my gaming experience to the point where they focus on it, so as long as it doesn't hurt me, I'm quite fine.

I totally agree. Achievements are lazy and stupid. Games shouldn't be about bragging about freaking pointless badges n' crap. They should be about fun.

At first I hated achievements. I knew many people who played games just to unlock them. I'd ask them "what happened to playing games for the fun of it?" and they'd just bring up gamerscore or trophies and so on. I thought back to days where there were no achievements, and you would play games because it was fun, or because it was challenging, or just playing a game because you liked said game. Not because you needed a "score".

I have seen some good from achievements though. Some have made me play games in a different way than I normally would have. Say making all 'good' choices over all 'evil' choices. Or a stealthy playthrough over an aggressive one. Or completing a game on the hardest difficulty. Sometimes, achievements give you that extra incentive to try out these other ways to play.

I do not think achievements should be your one "goal" when gaming, but I wouldn't have spent some extra time on certain games without them there to say "hey, why don't you try doing this..."  I guess I'm neutral on the subject of achievements now. I think they are good in the way they'll show you opportunities to play in a different way, but I don't think they should be the main focus for gaming. 

You and letterOne both seem to imply that getting achievements aren't fun. You are also implying that people only like to earn achievements just to brag.

Thats not it at all. People just like to succeed. People like the feeling of doing something hard and finally beat it. 

Also, I really don't like how you describe gaming. "Just to beat it." 

Thats not gaming at all. Gaming is about fun and creativity. 

I used to always goof off in Super Mario Sunshine. I didn't really do anything productive at all. Just enjoying the game. But I wasn't beating the game. Am I not a gamer then?

Also, that whole satisfied thing. Implying that people who usually get achievement don't feel satisfied with the game. 

Heres the thing. Let's just say you like strawberries for a moment. 

Let's also say it was your birthday. You would be perfectly satisfied with just a plain old cake right? But would't you also like to have a bigger cake with strawberries?

The point is, it's just something extra you can do. It's nothing really to get mad about.

I love to play games. I love to get achievements to. I'm not going to lie, there are times that I would get an achievement just to get it, but this would only be when I had nothing to do. Most games however I don't give a crap about achievements because I know that I will get well over half of them for just playing the games. Other ones, where they require a little more, I might do because it can add a challenge to the game.

Well those are my thoughts on the whole subject.

I think Lens and Babs pretty much nailed it down.

Playing to get achievements is not the way to play a game, and that's not how I roll unless I'm bored (in a game/stage I've played before, for example). But some of them can be pretty rewarding, as Lens mentions.

Plus, there are games that grant you achievements for dying or doing other ridiculous things. I find it funny to be rewarded for the most unexpected "deeds".

The only achievements I have a problem with are the ones that you get just by playing the game. I remember in FO:NV, there were like 4 achievements during the goddamn character creation, including one for learning how to move. I can understand an achievement or two for beating a game, but i don't like it when there's one for every little thing.

Also, plenty of game give achievements for doing challenging things, like HL2's "get through Ravenholm using only the Gravity Gun", which I really enjoyed getting. It's like a little badge saying "this guy knows what he's doing".

Like Feather, I also like achievements for ridiculous or silly things. For example, Guitar Hero 2 gave you an achievement for watching the credits, and I felt it was deserved because they're really long and they loop the same song 5 or 6 times.

@Lens: I get that some achievements are good because they encourage the player to play in a way they may not originally. But that is still skimping out on content. What about when games used to encourage you to play differently by giving you new weapons, armor, characters, etc. for doing so? A perfect example of this is The Binding of Isaac. It does use achievements,  but it also rewards what you achieve by giving you new items randomly added to the levels, new bosses, new characters to play as, and more. Sure, achievements are a carrot on a stick, but they're a styrofoam carrot on a stick when compared to better methods of extending a game.

@RaccoonBL: I really don't see gaming as "just to beat it". I was just saying that there should be in-game reason to complete the game instead of a dialogue box and a number going up on a profile. Otherwise, what I said to Lens applies to your argument as well.

Overall, I'm not denying that achievements can be used well. I've seen them used well. I'm just saying that they seem like quick-fix to add extra content with minimal effort.

Also, when it comes to the point people buy otherwise-terrible games because their achievements are easy to get (Lost: Via Domus anypony) then yeah, people are obsessed with achievements. Not saying everypony does that, but still, throwing that out there.

I don't exactly have a ton of money to spend on games, so I usually inflate my playing time and enjoyment in a game by going for some achievements. I Usually don't even look at the achievements for a game until i complete it once or twice because at that point, I may start becoming bored of it or just looking for something to do. I don't use achievements to try to prove "I'M A BETTER G4MER THAN U, LOOK AT MY 60,000 GAMERSCORE!!1!" I use achievements as a way to keep my interest up in a game while giving me something unusual or challenging to try. I DO think it's lazy and stupid when games give you achievements just for beating a game or (even worse) after every single mission. That's not an achievement, it's a giveaway.

^I understand what you're saying, and I kinda talked about it in my previous comment. It's just, before the existence of "achievements", games kept interest by giving you new content instead of a number increase and a dialog box. Examples would be: In Donkey Kong Country 3, the bonus coins aren't necessary to "beat" the game, but if you choose to go for them all, you can access more levels (Krematoa). There are also the banana birds, and the DK coins. If the game were released today, on the Xbox or something, the bonus coins would be achievements and the Krematoa content would be DLC.

tl;dr: Achievements are still a substance-less way of keeping the player's interest. The better alternative is giving extra content for playing the game. Like comparing fast food to real food: The fast food is quicker to serve, but real food is more filling.