Achievements and Side-quests

I was playing The Darkness on my PS3 earlier, and I was looking at my achievements. Now, The Darkness has an in-game achievements system on the PS3. It's the same as the XBox 360 version, but without any of the fancy "XBL Achievements" features. And it got me thinking about the Achievements system on the XBox 360. So, I just want to know, what is the point?

I want to know what the big deal is. Some XBox 360 owners swear by Achievements, and some PS3 owners wish Sony would copy it (and not just with the trophy room in Home). But I don't get it. To me, it seems like a way to artificially lengthen the gaming experience. And when I see the gaming experienced lengthened in such a way, it tells me that the game itself is lacking. That's not always the case, but it bugs me that developers would rather plug in extra stuff you can do instead of make the main story experience longer.

Why do I make such a comparison? Think about it. To get all the achievements for a game, you often have to play the game multiple times. Now, I'm all for replaying a game, but I want something to make the experience different. Not just so I can get some extra junk.

It would be nice if Achievements got you anything in the game, but unless the game has its own unlockables tied with achievements, you don't get anything. Oh, you get points added to your gamerscore, and a little badge or icon on your XBox Live profile. But that's it. All it does is show how much of a "hardcore gamer" you are for doing all that stuff. Other than bragging rights, they're worthless.

Sure, I don't own a 360. So I'm basing this off of second-hand information. But something tells me I'm not too far off. I remember there was a magazine or website editor that did a retrospective on Donkey Kong Country (for the SNES), and mentioned that the game isn't as good as everyone thought it was, because you had to go around collecting items to get 100%, and that the item collecting artificially lengthened the game experience by making you play multiple times. I think about that, and I wonder if that same editor is praising XBox Live Achievements, despite the fact that they make you do the same thing.

Which brings me to my next rant, which was partially sprinkled in that last part. Side-quests. Games like Grand Theft Auto and others (including some RPGs) have a lot of side-quests. Now, I'm fine with side-quests if they give me a really powerful item or weapon or something. If they don't, then I don't bother with them.

The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, and the earlier games in the series (like Morrowind), use side-quests in a neat way. The side-quests help mold your character, along with giving you gold and/or useful items, weapons, spells, and so forth.

But games like GTA use them in ways that annoy me. In order to get 100%, you must complete all side-quests, all collectibles, everything. Plus, you don't really get anything for getting 100%, and you usually don't get anything of worth for your trouble.

A lot of times, I'm left wishing that more time was spent on extending the story, instead of other junk. I'm a big fan of stories in games. I like a deep, intriguing story. And I like for it to be a good length. So, if the game has a story of decent length, I can forgive side-quests. But if the side-quests are almost half the game, then I start to get annoyed. I get even more annoyed when I must get 100% to get the "real" ending. Why make them "optional" side-quests if you're required to complete them for the ending? Why not put them in the story? Give me a reason to do it, other than Person X wants me to do it for them?

So those are just a couple gaming annoyances. Thank you for reading.