80 réponses à ce sujet

[Cathey]

If some achievements are multiplayer only, i'd like them to be obtainable on the same console. Split screen or whatever it is.

That way if I haven't gotten it by the time nobody plays the games online part anymore, I can invite a friend over to help me.


Ideally though I think it's best if all multiplayer achievements have a single player equivalent like some of ME3's did. That way, people who want to play the mp can and those who don't want to play it can still max the game out.

[Matchy Pointy]

Blair Brown wrote...

I'm having a hard time understanding the logic in the argument. Achievements are usually rewards for doing specific things related to the game in general, and THEN there are the "jump through 35 hoops in the chronological order of the developers kids ages" achievements.

As a completionist myself, I find those to be very annoying and "why do I have to do that to get the achievement" runs through my mind. But... that's the point, its an achievement, get 10 points for doing this random thing, I don't have to do it, some are fun some are not, but it's there if I want.

Grinding 1000 hours running zig zaggy to get that single player one isn't fun to me, but I do it.

So my question about the OP is this, most achievements are time sinks, how is playing a multi player match (I'M NOT CONFIRMING OR DENYING MP IS IN DA) for those 10 points, any different than running zig-zags for 30hrs? Is it because that is not fun for you? My follow up would then be, running the zig-zags for 30hrs isn't fun for someone else, but doing MP achievements would be.

When we make achievements we try to think of fun things (and some mean spirited ones too hehe ) that would appeal to all the different people that play our games, who enjoy many different things about our games.


----edit
To clarify, I agree with your example, a mainly single player game should have mainly SP achievements. Something like borderlands being 700/1000 MP specific achievements makes sense for them, but not for say, Far Cry 3.

For the X-Box mp achievements are different then SP achievments, in that you need to pay real money to be able to play mp in the first place, adn therefor need to pay to get the achievments.

[NoForgiveness]

Matchy Pointy wrote...

Blair Brown wrote...

I'm having a hard time understanding the logic in the argument. Achievements are usually rewards for doing specific things related to the game in general, and THEN there are the "jump through 35 hoops in the chronological order of the developers kids ages" achievements.

As a completionist myself, I find those to be very annoying and "why do I have to do that to get the achievement" runs through my mind. But... that's the point, its an achievement, get 10 points for doing this random thing, I don't have to do it, some are fun some are not, but it's there if I want.

Grinding 1000 hours running zig zaggy to get that single player one isn't fun to me, but I do it.

So my question about the OP is this, most achievements are time sinks, how is playing a multi player match (I'M NOT CONFIRMING OR DENYING MP IS IN DA) for those 10 points, any different than running zig-zags for 30hrs? Is it because that is not fun for you? My follow up would then be, running the zig-zags for 30hrs isn't fun for someone else, but doing MP achievements would be.

When we make achievements we try to think of fun things (and some mean spirited ones too hehe ) that would appeal to all the different people that play our games, who enjoy many different things about our games.


----edit
To clarify, I agree with your example, a mainly single player game should have mainly SP achievements. Something like borderlands being 700/1000 MP specific achievements makes sense for them, but not for say, Far Cry 3.

For the X-Box mp achievements are different then SP achievments, in that you need to pay real money to be able to play mp in the first place, adn therefor need to pay to get the achievments.

ooh good point, but id say blame Microsoft for squeezing out money whereever they can lol

[Fiddzz]

What i'm seeing is two parts to this, the "i'll never play multiplayer so they shouldn't have achievements for it" which I personally don't agree with ( that logic would then dictate the reverse argument ) Also that you could have them separate from SP achievements, (but then there would be 1300points, 1000 SP, and 300 MP, which would still leave a certain amount unfinished in some peoples eyes. If you had 1000/1000 single player achievements and then another 300 that were just there for MP... there would really be no drive for people to complete them, thus invalidating the point of having them, and were back to don't put them in which I don't agree with. (vicious cycle)

Second point is MP achievements having an available SP way to get them. Which is what ME3 had, and people seemed to have liked. Is that preferable? Or are there still people who don't want MP achievements at all? (once again I don't understand the logic)

My question now then is, what is the problem with having some achievements for MP only? Citing "I don't play MP so it's unfair" does not seem like a good enough answer to me. Would not MP players find it unfair that someone could get the same achievement as them without having to play MP?

Does it really take away from your gaming experience that you cannot get that last 50 points of achievements because they are for MP only?

This all goes back to my point that when we are making up achievements we try to hit something for everyone, as there are many people who play our games for different reasons.

Would console specific ones work better, ie. for xbox have MP specific achievements that don't effect the overall achievement "total" due to it being a pay to play service?

[Fredward]

I am INCREDIBLY disappointed that someone already made the multiplyer joke. Like really. My day is RUINED.

[M3_RedLionAle]

I can't overstate how happy I was that the Mass Effect 3 multiplayer achievements could be earned in single-player as well. I earned them playing multiplayer, but multiplayer is tricky in that the # of people playing can drop to near nothing in a month, depending on what other games come out in the same time frame and how much people like the MP to begin with. As a bit of a trophy hunter, nothing is more frustrating than having a "Hit Max Level" trophy for the multiplayer in a game where so few people play it you have to wait 1/2 an hour for a game. With the ME3 trophies, if that multiplayer were to have died (which it thankfully didn't), I still would have been able to get the achievements in the SP if I didn't get the game right at launch. I think that's my favorite handling of MP trophies in any game I've played yet.

[SeismicGravy]

Blair Brown wrote..

I'm having a hard time understanding the logic in the argument. Achievements are usually rewards for doing specific things related to the game in general, and THEN there are the "jump through 35 hoops in the chronological order of the developers kids ages" achievements.

As a completionist myself, I find those to be very annoying and "why do I have to do that to get the achievement" runs through my mind. But... that's the point, its an achievement, get 10 points for doing this random thing, I don't have to do it, some are fun some are not, but it's there if I want.

Grinding 1000 hours running zig zaggy to get that single player one isn't fun to me, but I do it.

So my question about the OP is this, most achievements are time sinks, how is playing a multi player match (I'M NOT CONFIRMING OR DENYING MP IS IN DA) for those 10 points, any different than running zig-zags for 30hrs? Is it because that is not fun for you? My follow up would then be, running the zig-zags for 30hrs isn't fun for someone else, but doing MP achievements would be.

When we make achievements we try to think of fun things (and some mean spirited ones too hehe ) that would appeal to all the different people that play our games, who enjoy many different things about our games.


----edit
To clarify, I agree with your example, a mainly single player game should have mainly SP achievements. Something like borderlands being 700/1000 MP specific achievements makes sense for them, but not for say, Far Cry 3.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that because of the huge amout of cheaters and sore losers out there (across all platorms), It's just not as fun as it was to go online and try for those MP achievments.

Take Chromehounds for example (old game I know, but bear with me on this).  Alot of people stopped playing the MP mode because people had exploited a glitch which made their machines pretty much unstoppable.  It got that bad that SEGA permanently shut down the servers.  Now if memory serves, at least 500g was devoted to the multiplayer section, which means that's 500g that can never be awarded. 

Now I'm not saying don't put them in, I'm just asking that they be limited.

Blair Brown wrote..
Second point is MP achievements having an available SP way to get them.
Which is what ME3 had, and people seemed to have liked. Is that
preferable?

To be honest I thought the ME3 route was almost perfect.

Modifié par SeismicGravy, 07 janvier 2013 - 08:11 .

[Sanunes]

Blair Brown wrote...
My question now then is, what is the problem with having some achievements for MP only? Citing "I don't play MP so it's unfair" does not seem like a good enough answer to me. Would not MP players find it unfair that someone could get the same achievement as them without having to play MP?

My problem with multiplayer achievements isn't the idea behind the achievement, but the fact that I could be limited from completing (or even trying) it for reasons beyond my control.  My internet connection isn't the best and I am stuck playing bronze matches in Mass Effect 3 because of the lag I encounter and most of the time I am soloing that.  The other problem I have with online gaming in general is the abuse that happens in online games from the hands of the other players.

At the end of the day I am accepting of multiplayer only achievements, I just prefer if they were available in multiple ways.

Since we are talking achievements I would like to mention I really enjoy the odd-ball ones that Valve put into the episodes of Half-Life 2.  For I played episode one only using a single bullet and episode two carrying the garden gnome all the way to the rocket, for they challenged me to play differently then I normally would.

[Fast Jimmy]

Blair Brown wrote...
Would console specific ones work better, ie. for xbox have MP specific achievements that don't effect the overall achievement "total" due to it being a pay to play service?

As petty as this sounds... yes? That would work for me. lol

[Fiddzz]

Sanunes wrote...

Since we are talking achievements I would like to mention I really enjoy the odd-ball ones that Valve put into the episodes of Half-Life 2.  For I played episode one only using a single bullet and episode two carrying the garden gnome all the way to the rocket, for they challenged me to play differently then I normally would.

Those are the really fun ones to think up too

---------------

I would like to thank everyone for the input on this, and please keep it coming, from what I keep hearing, the ME3 way of blending them together seems to be the most acceptable way to make most people happy.

[HydroFlame20]

Cartims wrote...

I like MP in ME, I don't care much for the achievements, I just like to dress my Krogan in bright rainbow colors, my geth is hot pink and my Asari looks like a bumble bee, I don't give a crap what my score is...I LOOK GOOD!

lol I like that I want to go big and bold too:O.

[devSin]

As long as none of the single-player achievements require you to play multiplayer, it doesn't bother me how many they have for either.

ME3 in particular had an achievement about delivering assets to the final battle that was unachievable without multiplayer (with the number of assets available in the game, there was no way to attain the requisite amount with the default readiness). It likely would have eventually opened up even for single-player, assuming you bought all the DLC (as I suspect was also the plan for the hokey breath scene), which just makes it worse.

That is something I do not want to see.

Modifié par devSin, 07 janvier 2013 - 10:09 .

[Fast Jimmy]

I'd like to see less Achievments tied to the main story. If everyone has to get through the Landsmeet or slay the Archdemon, there's not a lot of value to it.

Getting through an intro and beating the game should be really the only two achievements (in my mind) that are required for the main plot.

Times challenges (getting done with under X hours) or hardcore challenges (beating the game without ever reloading after a combat death, for example) are cool ones. I'd also like to see some achievements for success with weird party make ups (clear a dungeon with an all-rogue group or finish the game solo).

[Ruairi46]

I think multiplayer achievements are imo, but you have to think about the fact that the multiplayer won't allways be popular so there should be ways around getting these achievents if you say buy it 3 years after. Also there needs to be an achievement around cheese if not I will kill you, you fereldon turnip.

[Sanunes]

devSin wrote...

As long as none of the single-player achievements require you to play multiplayer, it doesn't bother me how many they have for either.

ME3 in particular had an achievement about delivering assets to the final battle that was unachievable without multiplayer (with the number of assets available in the game, there was no way to attain the requisite amount with the default readiness). It likely would have eventually opened up even for single-player, assuming you bought all the DLC (as I suspect was also the plan for the hokey breath scene), which just makes it worse.

That is something I do not want to see.

I am not sure what you are referring to, for the only piece of single player content that required multiplayer is the destroy "Breath" ending which doesn't have an achievement attached, everything else that was part of single player was attainable through singleplayer.  It has been fixed by lowering the required amount for that ending with the Extended Cut, as far as I can tell that number was off by so much that all the War Assets in Mass Effect 3 DLC still wouldn't allow for the "Breath" ending without multiplayer.

[Babaganoosh013]

I don't play online multiplayer, because I don't want to spend $100 to get and install a satellite that for $60 a month, I get to pay $2.50 per GB after 30GB. In otherwords, I would have had pretty much nothing left after I downloaded DAO:UE on Origin.

How the heck was it 27.6GB, and why didn't they compress it?

[BonFire5]

Multiplayer achievements are really hit and miss to me. Sometimes it is handled well, Black Ops had the Level up to 10 in combat training, watch a video with a friend, and win three wager matches. Mass Effect 3 had the dual get system.
Then, there are the things that just make me say "why?". Black Ops II has win ten matchs in Combat Training, win ten Party matches, win 5 matches in League Play after playing through ten matches to get into a league. Mass Effect 3 had the get 100% in all systems (though, this was mostly just a pain in the ass because the servers completely sucked for the first 6 months).

Say if it's nothing too important, I can handle it, just sort "test the waters, we'll reward you for it, but if you don't like it after that that's cool" instead of "play it, play it now, and play it a very long time!" (like Resistance 2's 10, 000 kills trophy for Multiplayer).

Edit:
There's also the fact that not everyone can have access to Multiplayer and still enjoy themselves. People with bad connections (or people living on isolated reservations, like me). Internet is scarce, costs a fortune, and very slow (can take up to thirty minutes on some days to download something that's 10 mega bytes). If you just want to platinum a game, Multiplayer makes it that much more harder for no reason. I had to play as my buddy's account once when I was in a city to help him Platinum Black Ops just because of the whole internet issue.

Modifié par BonFire5, 07 janvier 2013 - 11:39 .

[devSin]

Sanunes wrote...

I am not sure what you are referring to, for the only piece of single player content that required multiplayer is the destroy "Breath" ending which doesn't have an achievement attached, everything else that was part of single player was attainable through singleplayer.

As I said, the achievement for delivering most of the assets to the final battle.

There may have been one specific path where you could get this at the default readiness, but for all intents and purposes, it required multiplayer (despite being an achievement for delivering most of the single-player war assets to the end of the single-player campaign). I can't remember if the requirement was changed as well in the extended cut or with a patch, or if there's simply enough assets with Leviathan and Omega now.

There's another achievement about attaining maximum readiness, but since readiness is only gained in multiplayer, I don't consider it to be a single-player achievement.

[Infomouse]

As something of an achievement addict, or more of an completionist, I rarely enjoy grinding out achievements in multiplayer. More popular games tend to have a few games going every now and then where people are trying to earn the more unorthodox achievements at the expense of playing the game.

If you do intend to include multiplayer with Dragon Age: III, my only hope is that you cut out any luck based achievements/intense grinding achievements in place of something more traditional like play X number of games or get X amount of kills as Y class.

[OMTING52601]

Blair Brown wrote...

What i'm seeing is two parts to this, the "i'll never play multiplayer so they shouldn't have achievements for it" which I personally don't agree with ( that logic would then dictate the reverse argument )

That argument could work for a game that was a balanced MP/SP from the get go, but I kind of think arguing that "I'll never play SP so they're shouldn't be achievements for it" is out of place in a DA discussion, since DA is an SP game. Not saying your point isn't valid, just not in this case, IMO, FWIW (which is likely little, lol).

Second point is MP achievements having an available SP way to get them. Which is what ME3 had, and people seemed to have liked. Is that preferable? Or are there still people who don't want MP achievements at all? (once again I don't understand the logic)

Absolutely! Having equivalent achievements, similar to ME3, would be a good way to balance wants of both crowds. I played a single game of MP in ME3 - pre EC, so that should explain why - and nailed all the achievements save for the 'nightmare' ones, which I wasn't interested in to begin with.

To your second question, the only reason why I don't 'want' MP achievements is because I'm not interested in a DA MP in the first place. So having no achievements would indicate no MP and I'd be thrilled. If, however, MP is a given, then equivalent achievements is the way to go.

My question now then is, what is the problem with having some achievements for MP only? Citing "I don't play MP so it's unfair" does not seem like a good enough answer to me. Would not MP players find it unfair that someone could get the same achievement as them without having to play MP?

Does it really take away from your gaming experience that you cannot get that last 50 points of achievements because they are for MP only?

This all goes back to my point that when we are making up achievements we try to hit something for everyone, as there are many people who play our games for different reasons.

Would console specific ones work better, ie. for xbox have MP specific achievements that don't effect the overall achievement "total" due to it being a pay to play service?

The 'problem' as it were with MP, from my POV, is that DA isn't an MP game. I understand things change, ideas morph, projects evolve, but putting MP in DA doesn't strike me as an evolution, but frankly as a money grab - looking to micro-monetize something that doesn't need it. There are PLENTY of quasi-MMO's out there, RPG's with MP (Fable jumps straight to mind). I'm not interested in that type of game. And I'm not alone there, either.

In fact, the greater overarching issue seems to be the idea that all games need an MP element to be profitable, which is ludicrous. Certainly, games based on a MP idea (CoD, WoW, etc) are profitable, but they are built and designed to be multi-player. Look at the success of Skyrim. That game is wildly successful (actually the entire franchise is pretty dang successful) because it sticks to what it's good at: a massive, SP, open-world RPG.  Sure, there's Elder Scrolls: Online yet to be released, but this MMO isn't a Bethesda project. Why? Because Bethesda is sticking with what they know they do well and they're trying to make sure that the Elder Scrolls remains as popular with its customers as ever. 

As to fairness for MP players, I think the better question to ask isn't whether or not an MP player would think it 'unfair' that an SP player could get the 'same' achievements, but rather is there really a demographic large enough to project high enough profits from an MP only crowd for Dragon Age. In other words, is there really a large pool of potential consumers who would play an MP only Dragon Age game? If not, then likely the potential consumers would be coming for the SP and perhaps engaging in an MP to extend their enjoyment of the world/characters/story but not as their primary motivation for buying. And as such, I doubt there would be much, if any, complaints about any 'unfairness' in regard to MP/SP equivalent achievements.

Having MP only achievements CAN take away from my gaming experience, if I feel like it's being 'forced' on me. I'm not sure how to say that less confrontationally, as it were, but IMO if I'm picking up a game for its campaign/SP experience, and not for MP, then seeing MP only achievements w/o an equivalent of the same for SP only games, I tend to feel... slighted, I suppose is the proper word. Sometimes, it's all about perception, so if I come away from an SP game feeling lackluster about the experience, I'm more likely to be negatively affected if said game also has MP elements with rewards only for those who play it. I'll feel like my SP game was cheapened because someone thought microtransactions was a good idea. Of course, this is only my opinion and I'm not attempting to infer it's any one else's, nor that it is 'right', so to speak. Just trying to honestly answer your question.

As to console specific achievements, I think that's the road to folly. If you start actively separating your demographics with 'individualized' achievements, that can really feed into deeper divisions between each console as well as pc gamers. Better to stick to equivalent achievements - if you do this in MP -or- do this in SP then you get this - in order to ruffle as few feathers as possible. For what it's worth, of course.

[OMTING52601]

devSin wrote...

Sanunes wrote...

I am not sure what you are referring to, for the only piece of single player content that required multiplayer is the destroy "Breath" ending which doesn't have an achievement attached, everything else that was part of single player was attainable through singleplayer.

As I said, the achievement for delivering most of the assets to the final battle.

There may have been one specific path where you could get this at the default readiness, but for all intents and purposes, it required multiplayer (despite being an achievement for delivering most of the single-player war assets to the end of the single-player campaign). I can't remember if the requirement was changed as well in the extended cut or with a patch, or if there's simply enough assets with Leviathan and Omega now.

There's another achievement about attaining maximum readiness, but since readiness is only gained in multiplayer, I don't consider it to be a single-player achievement.

Pre-EC, the only way to get the 'breath' as to play the MP. Post-EC that is no longer the case. The achievement for delivering most of the assets was attained at something like 3750 EMS - which WAS achievable out of the box IF the player used an ME1>ME2 imported Shepard and made all the 'right' decisions in the previous two games.

However, the maximum readiness achievement is ONLY available with MP/iOS play, which was a downer, IMO. Honestly, whilie I understand why it wasn't, I still feel like there should have been a way, in the SP, to up the 'galactic readiness' to 100% across the board. It irked me, that glaring 50%, as if somehow I was 'wrong' not to want to play MP in the game, in a series, that up until that point, had always been SP. Of course, just my opinion.

[Fiddzz]

OMTING52601 wrote...

Blair Brown wrote...

What i'm seeing is two parts to this, the "i'll never play multiplayer so they shouldn't have achievements for it" which I personally don't agree with ( that logic would then dictate the reverse argument )

That argument could work for a game that was a balanced MP/SP from the get go, but I kind of think arguing that "I'll never play SP so they're shouldn't be achievements for it" is out of place in a DA discussion, since DA is an SP game. Not saying your point isn't valid, just not in this case, IMO, FWIW (which is likely little, lol).

Second point is MP achievements having an available SP way to get them. Which is what ME3 had, and people seemed to have liked. Is that preferable? Or are there still people who don't want MP achievements at all? (once again I don't understand the logic)

Absolutely! Having equivalent achievements, similar to ME3, would be a good way to balance wants of both crowds. I played a single game of MP in ME3 - pre EC, so that should explain why - and nailed all the achievements save for the 'nightmare' ones, which I wasn't interested in to begin with.

To your second question, the only reason why I don't 'want' MP achievements is because I'm not interested in a DA MP in the first place. So having no achievements would indicate no MP and I'd be thrilled. If, however, MP is a given, then equivalent achievements is the way to go.

My question now then is, what is the problem with having some achievements for MP only? Citing "I don't play MP so it's unfair" does not seem like a good enough answer to me. Would not MP players find it unfair that someone could get the same achievement as them without having to play MP?

Does it really take away from your gaming experience that you cannot get that last 50 points of achievements because they are for MP only?

This all goes back to my point that when we are making up achievements we try to hit something for everyone, as there are many people who play our games for different reasons.

Would console specific ones work better, ie. for xbox have MP specific achievements that don't effect the overall achievement "total" due to it being a pay to play service?

The 'problem' as it were with MP, from my POV, is that DA isn't an MP game. I understand things change, ideas morph, projects evolve, but putting MP in DA doesn't strike me as an evolution, but frankly as a money grab - looking to micro-monetize something that doesn't need it. There are PLENTY of quasi-MMO's out there, RPG's with MP (Fable jumps straight to mind). I'm not interested in that type of game. And I'm not alone there, either.

In fact, the greater overarching issue seems to be the idea that all games need an MP element to be profitable, which is ludicrous. Certainly, games based on a MP idea (CoD, WoW, etc) are profitable, but they are built and designed to be multi-player. Look at the success of Skyrim. That game is wildly successful (actually the entire franchise is pretty dang successful) because it sticks to what it's good at: a massive, SP, open-world RPG.  Sure, there's Elder Scrolls: Online yet to be released, but this MMO isn't a Bethesda project. Why? Because Bethesda is sticking with what they know they do well and they're trying to make sure that the Elder Scrolls remains as popular with its customers as ever. 

As to fairness for MP players, I think the better question to ask isn't whether or not an MP player would think it 'unfair' that an SP player could get the 'same' achievements, but rather is there really a demographic large enough to project high enough profits from an MP only crowd for Dragon Age. In other words, is there really a large pool of potential consumers who would play an MP only Dragon Age game? If not, then likely the potential consumers would be coming for the SP and perhaps engaging in an MP to extend their enjoyment of the world/characters/story but not as their primary motivation for buying. And as such, I doubt there would be much, if any, complaints about any 'unfairness' in regard to MP/SP equivalent achievements.

Having MP only achievements CAN take away from my gaming experience, if I feel like it's being 'forced' on me. I'm not sure how to say that less confrontationally, as it were, but IMO if I'm picking up a game for its campaign/SP experience, and not for MP, then seeing MP only achievements w/o an equivalent of the same for SP only games, I tend to feel... slighted, I suppose is the proper word. Sometimes, it's all about perception, so if I come away from an SP game feeling lackluster about the experience, I'm more likely to be negatively affected if said game also has MP elements with rewards only for those who play it. I'll feel like my SP game was cheapened because someone thought microtransactions was a good idea. Of course, this is only my opinion and I'm not attempting to infer it's any one else's, nor that it is 'right', so to speak. Just trying to honestly answer your question.

As to console specific achievements, I think that's the road to folly. If you start actively separating your demographics with 'individualized' achievements, that can really feed into deeper divisions between each console as well as pc gamers. Better to stick to equivalent achievements - if you do this in MP -or- do this in SP then you get this - in order to ruffle as few feathers as possible. For what it's worth, of course.

Trying to stay away from the MP/SP as a feature debate and focus on just the achievements.  I'm really just trying to get an idea of what people like/don't like about how MP ones are obtained.  This has been a really informative discussion so far 

I want to understand peoples reasoning behind their opinions on a deeper level then, "i don't like it because i don't like it"  It helps us make better decisions.

Keep it up! 

This thread has also had me think to start up a general achivements thread when we get farther down the development line, not so much for a "what specific ones do you want" but, what TYPES do you like, what KINDS of achivements are fun/not fun. ..... already my brain is running a mile a minute. (another thread for another day)

[Plaintiff]

I think achievements are a stupid idea anyway. You perform a boring, repetitive, thankless task for five straight days and all you get in return are bragging rights, as if wasting all that time is something to be proud of.

At the very least, they should offer tangible in-game rewards. Equipment, for example. Or currency.

[Fast Jimmy]

The one thing I dislike about Achievements is the "Secret Achievements" that do not correspond to the plot. There a probably hundreds, if not thousands, of random things that could activate an achievement that is frustrating to try and figure out. I can understand not having the title of a spoiler Achievement that is tied to the plot being out there for the world to see... but as I said above, I think the least amount of achievements tied to the main campaign as possible, the better.

Still, a Secret Achievement is not going to remain a secret with online guides (again, if the player won't be tripping over it in their sleep). So keeping it labeled as such is only making a player ignore it or look it up. Not that Bioware games have been particularly bad about this, it is still a good thing to keep in mind.