I really don't see the point in achievements. You got 50 kills in a PvP mode, or you completed the game on easy, or you found the super rare cheezeburger in the corner of the room that spawns once in a hundred times? Who cares?

Achievements looks like stamp collecting. Oh look at that page/wall of stamps... gee i'm so happy you got so many. I mean, i wouldn't do it, but i'm sure glad you got them...

This is true, which is why I recommend leaving out those "impossible" achievements. While yes I hunt achievements, those who are impossible I just leave behind. Usually these ones are the difficulty-related or multiplayer ones. I don't mind only having 75% achievement for example, if the rest are truly annoying to get. And neither should you.
So you mean like, having achievements are an indirect way to make people buy the game instead of pirating it? Like for example you want Half-Life 2, but since you enjoy collecting achievements and seeing them on your profile, you'll buy the game from Steam instead of getting a pirated copy?

I've often viewed things like secrets in Doom or Quake as being basically proto-achievements. They were little rewards for trying to get the most out of the game or going off the beaten path. Same thing with Easter Eggs like the bathing anime babes in Shadow Warrior or some of the odd titles you could earn in the Fallout games. The Ratchet and Clank games on the PS2 also had Skill Points which were little titles for doing odd things that would not have occurred to most players.

That said, most achievements are not made to be as clever as the aforementioned. Lots of them come down to "Beat Level 1-End" or "Jumped for the first time" or "figured out how to click the left mouse button." The presence of said achievements does not really hurt my feelings, but it feels like the devs only included them because they needed to have achievements.

Personally, I have preferred where the achievements were internal like in many Nintendo games such as Xenoblade or Metroid Prime 3. The developers could include them if they want, but there's no pressure to make up the obviously low effort ones.

This is a very specific issue that I don't think I've experienced in any other game yet apart from Quake Enhanced, but in the case of Quake Enhanced I fully agree that's it's annoying and also disgusting because the pop-ups are butt-ugly, low res atrocities that do not even fit the graphical style of the game. There should have been an in-game option to disable them. Thankfully, for me it was only two achievements popping up in each play session, so that the major part of my time spent with the game, I could just forget about them. Still, a glaring omission by the devs of the Enhanced version.

I never realized that those achievements resetting might have to do with me playing the game offline. Good call, OP.

I generally don't have much of a problem with achievements, but...

... IMO they are most often used to keep completionists engaged with generally unengaging games (or large games spread thin with content ie UbiSoft) and...

... I hate achievements used as content locks.

So while I don't hate achievements...

... I remember the days well when achieving in-game or in-story milestones was enough... when completing a game / story wasn't followed by...

... "but did you get all the achievements?

Achievements... It's like adding fetch quests to everything.

Ok, maybe in the time it's taken to write this... I hate them?

(although I can see them used in MP arena games where the monotony needs to be broken once-in-awhile)

While I'm sure someone else out there has said this better than I can, I would also add that I think achievements are highly anti-consumer tracking mechanisms that tell the developers how little they really need to do to make a profit. In other words, if they find that among 100,000 units sold, only 25% ever reach the halfway through the game achievement, it means that they can spend less time on their next game and make it that much notably shorter/smaller while charging the same if not a higher cost since they know most buyers aren't seeing the later game content anyway. It also encourages them to focus very heavily on graphics over gameplay since that's what everyone initially sees and buys for so you get an amazing-looking game that you buy for a gimmick that you're bored with in an hour, but at least you reach the end in only 3 hours. But hey, at least you got those achievements right?

edit: Also, and this is just anecdotal on my end, this kind of progress tracking is likely responsible for why the late/end game experience in so many modern games feels like a dull slog to the finish line. The effort was all spent on the early content and the late stuff was an afterthought whereas in several older games, I remember the ending dungeons, levels, bosses, and so on often (not always) being the best in the game, and it really made it worth earning your way to them instead of having to push yourself to just finish getting through the game.

If they are actually in-game achievements, then I welcome that even more. That means they will survive, should GOG ever go poof.

In order of preference for me:
1) In-Game Achievements with Galaxy Achievements
2) In-Game Achievements
3) Galaxy Achievements
4) No achievements

Game achievements:

I think of of a boardroom with executives twiddling pens. Arguing over the best way to bring to market glass hammers and sandpaper condoms.

Then a web forum full of people and bots arguing over the efficacy in changing such boardroom decisions.

...anyone else grinning like I am? :)

I never thought about it this way, but sadly you are possibly correct. I played games where the "finish game on any difficulty" completion is below 10%. And some newer games, are very good on the beginning but nearing the end it felt super rushed...

They also pretty much led to the end of the mainstream addition of unique in-game secret areas/easter eggs.

That stuff cost too much money/time to implement*, wasn't addictive enough*, and couldn't
be "run though" often enough**.....so many AAA game makers started moving to achievements instead.

(*compared to adding achievements)
(** once a game's achievements have been obtained, and shown off to
one's friends online, a gamer must buy another game to repeat the cycle)

Congratulations! You have earned the "Hate" achievement!

I think you just summed up my feelings on achievements better than I could have myself.

How bad does a person's self esteem have to be to feel good about "earning" "achievements" such as:

"Congratulations! You have earned the "Entering the Game Achievement!"

"Congratulations! You have earned the "Picking Up an Object Achievement!"

"Congratulations! You Have Earned the "Played the Game for Ten Minutes Achievement!"

Then there are the OCD achievements that can either cause OCD or make it much worse in someone who already has it. Imagine doing some boring and repetitive task in a video game for hours and hours just so you can get a video game to tell you that you have achieved something.

Definitely agree with you there. The "super easy" achievements are poorly done and very low-effort. The repetitive grindy ones are just as bad if not worse since it takes more time. But I saw variations of the "Picking Up an Object Achievement", usually it's quite a while in the game though. Involves finding weapons most of the time, and more of a story-based milestone one rather than simply do a menial task.

I found most achievements just to be a checklist of things to do in the game.

Oh yeah, just like in Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines, which is often considered to be one of the "best" RPGs ever made, even though the endgame of that game consists entirely of slogging through endlessly copy & pasted, identical-looking sewer tunnel mazes, and performing timed underwater swimming puzzles, all of which are the antithesis of "fun" and the epitome of aggravation.

Crap like that happens because devs run out of time & money to finish their games properly, not because of Achievements. Achievements have nothing to do with that.