Those damn achievements!

Since ever, videogame fans have had the idea of better and worse outcomes when playing a game. Defeating the final boss without having been hurt not even once isn't the same as coming out totally screwed. The idea of a game with handicaps is also known: defeating the final boss without jumping or without using certain weapon, etcetera.

Some video games include a recognizement if that happens. As an example, in various fighting games it's possible to fight a secret boss only if the game end is reached without losing at all and with good results. The next video explains how to fight Shin Akuma in Street Fighter Alpha 2.

That's the first kind of achievement, the easiest to understand. Of course, some examples are especially difficult. For example, all those about finishing the game without dying once. The necessary training is made up for if the player is really interested in the game.

Next comes the one that could be called "curious": you do something that is somewhat unusual, because it's outside the normal course to progress in the game. Such it was in some Final Fantasy games, where monsters under the category undead died if the object to revive is used on them.

The third is a derivation of the Easter egg: a secret hidden somewhere in the game. It's easy to miss it because it's pretty well out of sight, but if you find it, it's an achievement for you. The very first Easter egg ever is perfect to illustrate this point (9:32).

And then there are... the stupid achievements, to be fair. Achievements that make no sense, to be honest, and almost impossible to get without a guide. Some are so nonsensical as, like a certain visual novel, to leave certain scene open during an hour and a half. Seriously? Who is so patient? It's clearly thought for the guides, it's also as uncomfortable as a pain in the ass.

The other modality of vain achievement, though not stupid, is ligated to get achievement just for advancing in the story. I find them logical if the gameplay has diverse routes to follow, but when it's linear, what sense does it make? It'd make sense to include one achievement for finishing the game, because it's obvious you need to surpass the first levels, am I right? I only found it sensible when the game has an open structure, without levels, which can give players an idea of how much they have advanced... It may not be welcome, though.

And, of course, it may happen that the player isn't interested in those achievements, specially if they're too strange. I don't know, but do I really want to go drinking with one of the developers IN REAL LIFE?

Of course, everyone can play as each likes. Ignoring achievements is a way as any other of playing. But it wouldn't be bad if some developers considered just for a moment their ideas before implementing them...