Platinum vs. 100% - What Really Matters?

[DARKB1KE]

Plat matters more, it's a plat. 

DLC is for rich people. 

DLC is extra that I can do but is not needed

Edited March 10, 2018 by DARKB1KE

[Elvick_]

I mean, I would prefer to have 100% on anything possible. But, I know that's not feasible. I'm not great at everything for one, so there's the skill and then there's things like Uncharted 2/3 where there's tons of competitive MP trophies. And I just don't enjoy competitive modes that much, it's stressful for me. I prefer co-op modes. So I'm fine having just the plat for those [on PS3]. I may never get 100% for them on PS4 either with the speed run and brutal trophies, but we'll see if I feel like it some day.

For me it's just what is fun to do. Sometime's it'll be fun to get plat and get the 100%, I enjoyed getting the DLC trophies in LBP1 and LBP2. It took me a long time to accomplish plat and 100% in both games, but it was a fun go. I thought those packs were great fun, and offered up some challenge. Sometimes it'll be fun to get platinum only. Or sometimes it won't be fun to even get the platinum, so I won't bother [The Last of Us/Tomb Raider reboot]. I enjoyed getting the DLC trophies in LBP1 and LBP2. I thought those packs were great fun, and offered up some challenge.

So I guess the short answer is neither really "matter". It's just about what you find enjoyable to achieve.

[mecharobot]

18 hours ago, Tusked-Lattice said:

 

But when I think now actually when I hear a brand new PS4 game doesn't have a platinum despite every other game having one it does make me do a double take.

Really what modern games don't have them besides walking sims and 10 minute long indies anyway? 

There are smaller games like Sonic Mania, Ducktales, which are some pretty legit and moderately difficult games to 100%. I don't think those games would truly benefit from getting stacked with 50 filler trophies just to have a plat, or have something lame like getting a gold trophy for beating the first stage.

[Happy]

Neither matter objectively. Any value is self-projected and thus entirely subjective.

[davidstubbs]

Platinum is the goal, any more is just bonus for a game I really enjoy. I platinumed the Middle Earth games but they werent good enough to be arrant dlc purchases and time sinks. 

[Cyvnyde]

It's very subjective - neither is right or wrong. It's about your preference to hunting. I personally prefer to get 100%.

 

However, what's more important to me is playing the game and earning the trophies as opposed to having a friend help me out by, for example, deliberately losing. Sure, it may take longer to obtain a specific trophy this way but I get a greater sense of accomplishment, which to me, is what it's all about. Sometimes it's not always feasible due to crazy luck-based restrictions or unreliable and/or dead servers but I will certainly do things the "hard way" where possible.

 

Another example is the Jak II debug mode workaround where people are now able to obtain the plat in like 5 minutes. When I do get around to the Jak series I will still play the game and earn the trophies the normal way because, to me, it'll always be about playing the game first and foremost.

[Salt_AU]

2 hours ago, Elvick_ said:

So I guess the short answer is neither really "matter". It's just about what you find enjoyable to achieve.

 

This.

 

10 minutes ago, Cyvnyde said:

It's very subjective - neither is right or wrong. It's about your preference to hunting. I personally prefer to get 100%.

 

However, what's more important to me is playing the game and earning the trophies as opposed to having a friend help me out by, for example, deliberately losing. Sure, it may take longer to obtain a specific trophy this way but I get a greater sense of accomplishment, which to me, is what it's all about. Sometimes it's not always feasible due to crazy luck-based restrictions or unreliable and/or dead servers but I will certainly do things the "hard way" where possible.

 

Another example is the Jak II debug mode workaround where people are now able to obtain the plat in like 5 minutes. When I do get around to the Jak series I will still play the game and earn the trophies the normal way because, to me, it'll always be about playing the game first and foremost.

 

and that.

 

14 minutes ago, davidstubbs said:

Platinum is the goal, any more is just bonus for a game I really enjoy. I platinumed the Middle Earth games but they werent good enough to be arrant dlc purchases and time sinks. 

 

DLC in the first Middle Earth was more challenging than the entire base game.

 

Edited March 10, 2018 by Salt_AU

[REAPER4536]

For me a platinum should be given when you have 100% in the game because that's my definition for a platinum. You don't have to do anything anymore and you are really done with everything ( DLC included). I'd rather not have a platinum in a game than a platinum without the 100% - it's like a Paradoxon in my account when I see e.g. A new Minecraft dlc since it kills the 100%.

 

So for me the platinum isn't meaningless - it's the definition for done and completion.

[majob]

For me Platinum is more than enough because most of the time I have no intention of buying DLC in the first place and I don't have a lot of free time so that's another hindrance right there,especially when I feel at that point I just want to start another game.Of course, this is coming from someone who has next to no plats compared to people here. It all comes down to preference in the end though so people really shouldn't place stock on the feelings of someone else. If you're satisfied at platinum, stay that way, if you're only satisfied at 100%, stay that way

[AJ_Radio]

More people should play as they see fit.

 

I see a good number of trophy hunters like to base the games they play on how much they have completed versus how many games they really enjoyed playing.

 

If you are torturing yourself to get every single game to 100 percent, then the effort is probably not worth it. Sure your account may be impressive and you have all those ultra rare trophies under your belt. That doesn’t mean every game you played was worth the effort especially if it was one you didn’t enjoy. 

 

On the the opposite end of the scale, I don’t consider people with 20 - 35 percent completion on their profiles to be actual trophy hunters. I consider hunters to go after the trophies in a game, at least 50 percent or more. I’m not saying you guys aren’t gamers, I just think you don’t really care for the trophies, and instead play a variety of games, whether you enjoy them a little or a lot. 

 

Play the games you want and enjoy. If you like a genre stick with it. Challenge yourself every now and then, that’s always a good thing. And happy huntin.

[REAPER4536]

5 minutes ago, majob said:

For me Platinum is more than enough because most of the time I have no intention of buying DLC in the first place and I don't have a lot of free time so that's another hindrance right there,especially when I feel at that point I just want to start another game.Of course, this is coming from someone who has next to no plats compared to people here. It all comes down to preference in the end though so people really shouldn't place stock on the feelings of someone else. If you're satisfied at platinum, stay that way, if you're only satisfied at 100%, stay that way

 

I often read something like I don't care about the dlcs because they are to expansive but what about every dlc is free would you and everybody else still stick with the opinion that the platinum is enough or would you go for the 100%?

[Undead Wolf]

If a game has DLC trophies, I don't feel satisfied just getting the plat. It's just another trophy at that point. All that matters to me is the 100%.

[CaptainMonkster]

I always try to get 100% in everything now, my backlog is huge and I'm slowly getting through it but tbh if I don't get 100% in everything, and I won't, then it won't bother me x)

[AiManiaTrophyhuntres]

it's personal but for me the plat is less worth in a game that has add ons to complete. A game is only complete to me when I see a full blue bar. it bothers me when the bar is not complete and so doas a number under 100%.

Thats why I am a completionist. But everybody can choose another goal. But I never decided that I can't say why I developed that aversion against half filled bars

 

That said I have a lot to do on my list since there are 50 games open and 5 of them are games where I got plat but have to complete the DLCs yet. I cant count them as complete, I did not completely beat them.

Most of the time I have to stop myself from torturing me with games I dont like to play at the moment just to reach that goal, so I still play what I like. And sometimes it takes time until I reach 100% But in the end it's what I want to accomplish.

 

I agree that some games throw out content as DLC that is bs and just to make some cheap money but so far I never experienced that in my games I liked all the DLCs I got and I hope it stays that way.

[Briste]

I personally shoot for 100% because I want to experience everything the game has to offer. I started trophy hunting a few years after they began, so I have been playing a lot of older games where the DLC is included, trying to catch up. However, with the newer games I have played, I'll buy the DLC for the 100% AND to see how they continued the game. So far, I haven't had a really negative experience with the DLC's outside of FFXV...this game simply won't end and the only DLC I've enjoyed in that game was the Ignis chapter.

 

I'm generally not OCD, but it bothers me when I don't see a 100% next to my games. I don't generally care how other people choose to play, but for me it is 100% or bust. I've seen plenty of profiles where I see a lot of very low % games and I'll wonder why they spent the money if they weren't going to play it. Or I'll see where they stopped in games that I have played too and think "bah, they quit before the game got really good and didn't give it a chance." While the end goal is 100% for me, I also have other things related to trophies I aim for that make them fun. I like to get multiple day streaks of trophies and see if I can keep them going. Since I generally only have one game going at a time and a full time job with small children, I may only get an hour or so a day to play so it is a really fun challenge. I also tend to appreciate the rarity of the trophy over whether it is a platinum or not. I will admire someone's sub 5% bronze trophy over their 75% platinum.

 

I guess to me there is more to it than 100% vs platinum because there are so many different ways to chase your trophy. I guess so long as you are enjoying the process it doesn't matter which you aim for but I definitely appreciate the rare and the 100%.

Edited March 10, 2018 by Br1ste

[KaKrackle]

Platinums mean nothing to me. What matters to me is quality and rarity. 

I will respect someone wayyyyyy more if they have a few ultra rare, super challenging trophies on there profile, rather than 300 shit platinums. Also, anyone that dismisses a game for not having a platinum is a fool quite frankly.

[willmill97]

On 3/9/2018 at 2:08 PM, madbuk said:

100%. A platinum to me is just another trophy, meaningless without the 100% to go along with it

 

100% agreed. 

 

I also always leave the platinum until last if there's dlc trophies so it feels like more of a completion, too. Until they add more *cough* Resogun ?

[Kyl542]

Well these days having 100% on a game means you gotta buy their DLC, almost every game now is doing that, in fact i probably have more game with plats that are not even 100% complete rather then having a game with a platinum + 100%. I never buy DLC, and probably never will (unless ofcourse if they are free)

[KiwiiPsicopata]

since i'm not a completionist and just think trophies are fun extra challenges in a game, i don't care much about 100%. There's a shot list of games i'd buy DLC to, and absolutely wouldn't buy just to have a full 100% in my trophy list.

 

[Marcepan24]

Only 100%. Regards.

[MMDE]

4 hours ago, REAPER4536 said:

 

I often read something like I don't care about the dlcs because they are to expansive but what about every dlc is free would you and everybody else still stick with the opinion that the platinum is enough or would you go for the 100%?

 

For me that would still depends on the trophies. It's more like, eh, would want 100%, but plat is enough if the DLCs are super expensive or too time consuming or just complete bs in some way.

[Matto_lsi]

I am a completionist.  I always have been.  I do everything I can in a game, even if there's no trophy involved, because that's how I've always done it.  I have memory cards with GT and GT2 saves that are at 100%, which took me forever, and not a single trophy was earned (obviously).  To me, completing everything the game has to offer is just something I do.  This is also why I always get the Plats in my games or 100% them if they have no plat.

 

So now the question, what counts as everything?  To me, the base game is the game.  It's the whole story, everything is there from the start, and nothing else is needed.  If the game gets DLC down the line, that's nice if it's free.  Or if it comes with a GOTY/Complete edition and I don't yet own the game.  Then I will earn 100%.  Otherwise, it doesn't matter.  DLC is almost always random content unrelated to the original game, and even if it is integrated nicely into the base game, the price gouging employed by most devs/pubs is beyond criminal.  I've purchased games on sale, years after they came out, for well under $10, yet the DLC is still $60-80, and in total is less than 20% of the content of the original game.  In some cases it's barely a couple hours of content.  On top of that, like I said before, it's usually unrelated and completely irrelevant to the game it's been added to.  There's some DLC I really enjoyed, like the Borderlands 2 DLC for instance (which if you look at my profile, you'll see I 100% that game, twice, as well as the first game, and the pre-sequel on ps4, lol).  Some games are worth it, the DLC is affordable or included, and getting the 100% makes sense.  Then there's games like COD where the DLC is a shameless cash grab that usually offers nothing relevant to the main game.  In those instances it's not worth it, in any context of the phrase, to purchase, play, and 100% that DLC.

 

So long story short, some games have DLC that is worthwhile, and others don't.  Due to the vast differences in quality between most DLCs (whereas I'd argue most games don't have nearly as severe a swing in quality, hell most games are so formulaic they're nearly identical these days), saying 100% in the DLC is needed to feel the game is complete is usually an inaccurate statement.  I'd like to think that most games I've played where the DLC is worth it, I have it 100%.  For the games it's not, then I don't.  But in the end I always get the Plat, so that obviously trumps 100%, since Plat is a must have for me to feel I've completed the game, whereas 100% counting DLC isn't always.

 

Final point, I got my first 360 free from this Microsoft rewards program called Live Search Club (played some games here and there, couple hours a week, earned points, free Xbox).  That was in 2008.  I didn't buy my PS3 until 2010 (still had PS1 and PS2 and didn't feel the need to jump in at the original price tag).  Over time I began to sway more towards PS3, and eventually, in 2013 I think, gave up on 360 entirely.  It's not that I didn't like the system, it's that I would 1000G a game, then come back months or years later and find new DLC had been added and I no longer had a 'completed' game.  This happened with Rage, and was more or less the final straw for me.  With PS3 however, I found the Plat to be that marker that said 'you completed this game'.  It felt more finite.  Even if more DLC came out later, that Plat still said I had done it.  To me that was always the intent of a Plat, to be the difference between completing a game or not.  100% is what it is, but I don't think it takes anything away from a Plat's meaning, which is and always will be 'This is my trophy for finishing this game.'  Since the exact definition of a plat is 'the trophy earned for earning all other trophies', and it's not unlocked from any singular in-game action, only completing all other trophied in-game actions, it's meaning is pretty obvious.

[olliebear66t]

I get not doing the dlc if it's expensive but if it's free like in a remaster then there is really no excuse, given as how you put the effort in to get the platinum in the first place. One thing I can't help but not stand is seeing an uncharted game platinumed from the ps4 collection but not 100%. Brutal is the best way to play those games IMO and you didn't even put yourself through it?

[MoneyBagMav]

Personally, I originally started out caring about full 100%. But after coming to realize how much the dlc cost for some games as well as how some of the dlc trophies were designed as just additional grinds I started to back off of that. Examples being Starwars Battlefront's reach lvl 100 trophy or the remastered Uncharted series on ps4 having you do multiple runs. I've come to just care about getting the platinum as a trophy hunter goal in games, any dlc I do now is purely because I liked the game enough to buy it and go for them purely out of additional content/enjoyment of the game. A good example being Horizon Zero Dawn's dlc which added a significant value of content in my opinion. 

Edited March 10, 2018 by LordSlashington

[jpmelville]

To each his own.  Live and let live.