Like I said, There can be some good achievements out there and some clever designers behind them. I don't doubt that. I just don't like the idea of them being mandatory.

I can see a lot of lazy designers using them as a cheap way to add "re-play" value to their game as you pointed out with FEAR.

But I also know they can be ignored. And I do ignore them. They are the modern version of a high score list. That is all. Some people play to get their initials on the board, others play to have some fun wasting a few quarters or in this case some time.

My only fear is that more developers will feel obligated and their designs will suffer because of it. I don't think developers should add anything to their game that they don't think adds to the experience. Which I guess just makes me sentimental for the "good old days".

So I am out.

There is a huge difference between encouragement and forcing someone to do something. Encouraging would be Sony saying that they have the Trophy feature and listing all the positives of using it while still keeping it optional from a development standpoint. Here they are forcing it for good or bad. They have made it a binding part of the licensing contract.

I know that achievements can be a great addition to a game and improve their re-playability, but I have to admit, many achievements do seem tacked on and not a serious design decision.

I also have to stand by my opinion that forcing developers to include them is a bad move. There have been many great games with real re-playability built in that did not revolve around achievements. It seems that some developers may be more inclined to use achievements as a short cut to re-playability rather than good game design.

So I guess that would be my major concern. By forcing developers to include a feature, you could be inadvertently hampering good game design.

This is what bugs me. What if I don't want to include awards for performing arbitrary tasks? It's not like any of the Xbox achievements actually progress you through the game. Most consist of "Kill 1000 bad guys without injury." or "Complete the last level in under 2 minute." Pointless. What is the ratio of players actually completing every achievement in every game they buy? I doubt it is not enough to warrant making it mandatory.

Also, from some of the achievements I have seen, many of them come across as afterthoughts. The developers complete the game and then say, "Oh crap. We forgot the achievements. What pointless tasks can we have players perform to get the points?"

Forcing game developers to include something like this is not okay in my book.

You're right. If you really wanted to make a game that asks a question about current events, yes you want to make is short and to the point.

But there are also plenty of good questions to ask in large blockbuster games. Questions that transcend time and context. Such as democracy. You can tie in the question of "Are we really a democracy when we are limited to two choices?" into an game rather easy.

That is only one question.