OK guys, last question. Some people tend to focus on the negative connotations of the Gamerscore – 'we’re playing too many games', 'spending too much money on games', 'we need more sun', etc. But can you make the argument that a lot of gamers who would normally buy a game and play it maybe halfway through and then run out and get their next fix at a local EB, are now actually trying to finish what they started – seeing these games from start to finish. Am I wrong in that assumption? Is reaching that 100% completion rate a lure to get you to see all there is to see in a product?

Mr. Binky: Absolutely. Getting 100% in GTA IV had me going places and doing things that I never would have done. Ditto for Fallout 3. If the achievements are done right, they can lead the player down paths they never would have gone down without them. Unfortunately, they're not all done right, but them's the breaks.

As for the negative connotations, people have to understand that we're not doing anything new here. The high score has been a hallmark of gaming since that first Pong game was set up in a bar. Hell, they made a documentary about the guys fighting over the Donkey Kong high score. Do you think that they just rolled out of bed, put a quarter in the machine and had the high score two hours later? No sir, they put time and money into it, all for a number which could very easily get erased the next time someone approached the cabinet. Taking this even further, look at the thousands, if not millions of people that spend weeks getting the right fantasy sports team ready just so that they can win some free-to-play Yahoo league, or win bragging rights in the work league.

Now, I'll admit that there is a particular brand of madness at play here with our Gamerscores, but I don't see it as being all that different than the madness inspired by leisure activities through the ages.

Petey247: 100% completion is certainly a lure, but that also assumes that the developer crafts the achievements to accomplish that goal. There have certainly been plenty of games that I played to 100% completion that required extensive exploration or exploitation of the game mechanics and environment, so it is certainly a factor.

Do I play too many games? Maybe, but that's my hobby. I don't build model airplanes, or ships in a bottle, or watch football, baseball, basketball, soccer, etc. If people think less of me because of how much I play video games, I would ask them how they spend their time. Do they waste the average of 4 - 5 hours watching the crap (and it is mostly crap IMNSHO) that is on television? Do they simply play Halo, Gears, or Killzone? All the time? What are they doing for the betterment of themselves or mankind? The TYPICAL answer will be to say I'm a moron and I have no life, but not to answer the actual question. Then I would tell them to kiss my ass and ask if they want to boost Burnout Paradise. That 8 player race achievement and 250 challenges are going to be a pain in the ass. MP achievements suck.

ScaryClown98: Like other game design decisions, the way the achievements are planned out can make the gaming experience better or worse. Going for 100% will definitely make me play more of a game than I would otherwise, often just because they make me try to play the game or do something I may not have considered doing at all.

Because I am often going for 100% I know I am playing a smaller quantity of games than I would have otherwise. From a negative point of view, there are probably games that I would have played and even had fun at, but that I didn’t pick up because the achievements looked annoying. Right now, having a 6 day old baby girl, I am just hoping to play at all. If she doesn’t learn to sleep soon, I am going to find out how dexterous my feet are.

I'd like to thank Brandon, Matt #1 and Matt #2 for their time to discuss their addiction. Are you an Achievement Whore? Have any Achievement Whore war stories? We'd love to hear from you