About broken/unobtainable achievements

I buy a game that looks good and I think I would enjoy. I try to 100% if not endlessly long grind or over the top repetition/skills needed to get it right, in that case I go for achivements that I can get while still being sane and enjoying the game.

First one: Yes,

Second one: , Partially because I got into achievement hunting, but more importantly, if a dev has overlooked a broken/unobtainable achievement, it means he doesn't care enough to fix it, which to me shows a lazy/not caring dev who cannot be relied on for other problems/updates with the game itself.

Third one: If a game has no achievements and I would enjoy it, I go ahead and get it anyway. This only applies to higher-end stuff. If it comes to cheap stuff that is mostly bundled or just cheap in general, then there's often an alternative that has achievements.

And as a bonus, for giveaways (which are indeed mostly bundled games) then if I don't have enough points to get stuff I'm interested in, and it's about to end, then I go for stuff with achievements (unless I have something like 40P and a choice between a 4P and a 40P game)

Once upon a time. There were no achievements...
Just pulling your leg.

Unobitainable achievements irk me a bit but not to the point of decision on buying; However it shows lack of care or capacity that can add up to other things in making the decision.

Achievements would only make me not buy something, perhaps, if they were ridiculously boring and torturous but didn't seemed like so; That means players thinking/wanting to chase that and having a worse experience (or terrible) because of it; The complete opposite/antithesis of game design.

Heck, id say bad achievements would be an factor for me but i can't- unfortunally threres way more bad ones then good achievement design so if i stood to that starndard id have, idn, a quarter of my actual library at least.

Im in a neutral ground on achievements and cards: they can add to the game. Having more goodies is nice. Even the often criticized (that i disliked in the past) 'shallow achievements' for just going on are good for recording and showing progress in the game and stats (id rather have an API for scores but none the less, it works).

But often they don't add- and sometimes they even work against the good experience.

Id advise anyone to look less into then in te first playtrough/for awhile. I mean- starting playing and if you notice fun achievements then engaging on then; Otherwise leaving then for a second run or late game. They could be incredible features in the right hands but its so rare i wouldn't bother. The bar must be set low.

On the other hand a game praised for fun achievements should be a decision making pro. The opposite perspective, just my opnion.

Are broken/unobtainable achievements a criterium for you to not buy/play a game?

Broken no, unobtainable ones would make me think twice before buying it, but I have never actually bothered to check the achievements before.

And what is your general stance towards them?

I find the unobtainable ones kinda of a dick move from the devs part since it screws over anyone who wants to 100% the game. As for the broken ones, I think the devs should get their shit together, but personally they dont bother me to much since if I do complete the action required in game to unlock the achievement and it turns out is bugged I do check if it is for someone else too so I know its not just me doing something wrong I will just unlock it for myself with SAM since hey, I did actually do what it asked me to do, its just that the devs are incompetent.

And in a very minor aspect how about games with no achievements?

While I do prefer if the game has them, its not a deal breaker whatsoever.

Yeah, I hate games with broken achievements...I hate games with bugs in general. I like to get 100% or close to it when possible...I'm just a completionist in general. As for the trolling/impossible achievements, well, it doesn't endear me to it, but it's not a deal-breaker. I even won one on Steamgifts (Doors).
As for games with no achievements? I'm perfectly happy with that and in many cases prefer it because I can play without the (self-imposed) "burden" of worrying about achievements. The only problem is when they add achievements after release and either 1) I've already played the game or 2) they're super-hard and I'll never get many of them.
If I could voluntarily disable achievements for my account, I'd be happy to do so. And/or I wish that if you removed a game from your account, the achievements would go away also.

Are broken/unobtainable achievements a criterium for you to not buy/play a game?

Definitely yes. I even delete those games from library out of anger. I agree with your feelings about a developer not fixing the state of their game, it's unacceptable to me.

And what is your general stance towards them?

Broken achievements should be fixed, people constantly pleading to the developer for fixes should not be ignored. Unobtainable achievements are something I don't want to deal with, I pass on games like that. While I despise them, I understand that it's what they wanted to add to their game to mess with completionists like me. They just lose me and others as customers. It's more of their loss than mine. I already have lots of awesome games to play. I won't lose anything by not playing their games but they will lose potential customers.

And in a very minor aspect how about games with no achievements?

I am a completionist and an achievement hunter but that doesn't mean I think every single game should have achievements and I am definitely not one of those who think games without achievements are worthless. To me it depends on the game. I respectfully disagree with the following "If it doesn't have achievements, it is not worth my time" notion.

Well... There are games I own that have an interesting concept. But if they have only one achievement that is not attainable it just creates an dissatisfied feeling. One achievement, not one out of 30 or so and it's impossible to get. Ugh. I do like achievements. I like secret achievements and challenging ones. But too know you won't be able to get it makes a game into a bad experience.

I will continue playing a game that annoys me if there are achievements. World Keepers is a good example. The plot annoyed the heck out of me, but I kept playing to get my 100% achievements and because the graphics were pretty.

Turns out that there's one achievement that only SOME people can get... I was one of the "lucky" ones who hit the glitch that makes it impossible to get one of the achievements (which is towards the END of the game, by the way), so the game left me feeling grumbly and dissatisfied, 'cause in the end I wasn't even able to say that "At least I got another Perfect Game!"

I don't care about nor think about achievements in 99% of the cases. And I certainly don't make any attempt to get them all. I always saw it more of an annoying little box that pops up randomly and disappears before I have a chance to read what it said. :P and thanks!

I find playing games for achievements a bizarre concept.

Eh. I'm not an achievement hunter most of the time. Only if they're tied to interesting self-imposed challenges, and the game itself is interesting enough.

If one's really broken/unobtainable by mistake, I do consider that a bug in the game, but not really a dealbreaker/gamebreaker.
On the other hand, if getting an achievement means paying the "developer" extra money for it (see http://steamcommunity.com/app/519930/discussions/0/217691032430905828), that's just bullshit that makes me not want to support the game or it's creator at all.

I would rather spend my time to play more games instead of trying to get all these achievements.

Are broken/unobtainable achievements a criterium for you to not buy/play a game?

Normally I do not lknow it before I buy a game/bundle, but if I hear there are achievements what are not obtainable then I wouldnt buy/play this game till its fixed.

And what is your general stance towards them?

Towards what? Isnt that the same question?

And in a very minor aspect how about games with no achievements?

No achievements = no buy. If it was in a bundle then I start it only for the trading cards. Playing games without achievements? Only a few games I played in the childhood.

And that is why I still haven't played The Stanley Parable despite people telling me it's "good". It can be as good as it likes but if the trolling developer has so much contempt for achievement hunters as to put at least two achievements meant to mess up getting 100% then there are a lot of other good games that don't pull that. :D

I'd say I most definitely hate broken achievements. I had experience with a game that is like that and, honestly, it made me real angry since the game was a gift from a friend and I wanna say good things about it (since, gameplay wise, it's a good game) but the broken achievements just make me unable to recommend it to anyone...
That game is GALAK-Z, btw. Just... I don't get it- how hard could it be to fix an achievement for getting X in-game currency... It's literally one single check of a variable. Heck, most of the achievements in that game are barely functional, even the ones that do work. It was overwhelmingly disappointing on that front. :/

I'd still play games without achievements, of course, but achievements are always a bonus. :)
(That is- actual achievements... not mindless grind-fests or the stuff that the Walking Dead pulled where you get them for advancing the story normally- those games may as well not have achievements if they aren't gonna put any thought into them.)

Are broken/unobtainable achievements a criterium for you to not buy/play a game?
And in a very minor aspect how about games with no achievements?

This answer kind of answers both questions - It bothers me a great deal when achievements are broken/unobtainable/missing, but I can't think of a game I really wanted and then avoided solely because of achievements

And what is your general stance towards them?

I like them, especially when they encourage different play-styles. Additionally, many games include achievements for doing stupid/silly actions which increases the enjoyment of said action.

TL;DR version at the bottom.

Are broken/unobtainable achievements criteria for you to not buy/play a game?
And what is your general stance towards them?

Depends on how broken they are: I can tolerate things like Civilization V's mod achievement which became obsolete (and never updated) after the addition of Steam Workshop functionalities, or Age of Empires II's preorder one (which can now be obtained by buying a new DLC within a week or so from release), or odd (yet achievable) ones like The Stanley Parable's, as they aren't broken by design - and in the first two cases, a very small percentage (1 out of almost 300).
Those that are intentionally locked (like that borderline scam auction one), or unobtainable by design (GAUGE's "don't fill the gauge") are a definite no-go.

And in a very minor aspect how about games with no achievements?

Why should I pass on a good game just because it doesn't have achievements?
I did just fine playing games with no achievements, no cloud saves, and worse DRMs than Steamworks for several years, that won't bother me.
On the other hand, games with hundreds or thousands of "achievements", a.k.a. showcase baits, are the real issue, as they devaluate the true meaning of the word achievement, which implies skill, while those typically don't.

Cards are another sensitive topic, since lately, they have pretty much became the "mascot" of shovelware games, and their only mean to exist (and make profits).
Like achievements, they should be considered a bonus for a game, not a major selling point.

TL;DR version:

1. I like achievements and I try to 100% all games I play, but I won't make it a top priority if they're too grindy, too hard, or just too boring;
2. if a game is good, I'll play it regardless of achievements, I'll just take screenshots to document my progress;
3. if a game has achievements that are unobtainable by design, I typycally add it to the ignore list, and eventually forget about it;
4. if a game has "showcase baits" achievements, I put it at the bottom of my backlog: "I'll play this... eventually... maybe. But not for achievements."

I honestly don't care as much. If you did the achievement and it didn't trigger just use SAM. Not to excuse devs being dumbasses but at the end of the day they only matter to you and if you did that and you know you should have gotten it, there's no point to not having it.
A dev not implementing achievements or doing it poorly doesn't matter to me as I can set my own goals and if an achievement is an un-fun chore I wouldn't bother with it anyway, like games that require N playthroughs of basically the same content.

I don't see the point to steam achievements, at least in xbox and psn they translate to something while in Steam they are just a meaningless pop up which, at most, makes you feel a hollow sense of accomplishment.

I can see the value in having suggestions for what can be done in the game, but that can be done in-game just as well.

I expect, DLC-only ones are a bit annoying if you are obsessed with chasing that 100%.

Multiplayer ones are bullshit IMO, since they are often way too tien consuming and once a server goes offline you are fucked.

Not an achievement hunter here. I do side quests etc. and therefore gain more achievements than if I'd only go for the story, but I rarely do further sessions after the story ended. Thus achievements aren't a purchase criterion for me.
Though it annoyed me when I played a SG won game with just four attachments, had 3/4 and had to notice in the discussions that the 4th is bugged since the release.

The only time I really cared about achievements was when I played Deus Ex Human Revolution. I'm that Metal Gear Solid pacifist guy so whenever It's possible I avoid killing, and since there was achievement in Deus Ex for that, I wanted to have it.

I wouldn't not play a game because of an achievement i can't get, but it is definitively annoying seeing that one achivement you haven't unlocked.

Are broken/unobtainable achievements a criterium for you to not buy/play a game?

No, though it pisses me off when there are broken achievements in the game.

And what is your general stance towards them?

I like achievements and always try to get 100% if it is not too ridiculous (e.g. in Incredible Adventures of Van Helsing I gave up on last achievement because it would require ~50 hours of grind). It is great if achievements are awarded for for side quests or different approach for the game as this motivates me to replay the game in different way, or to goo through all of the content of the game.

And in a very minor aspect how about games with no achievements?

To be honest recently I look on them as a relief. Trying to get all achievements is often too exhausting (and it causes my backlog to grow).