First off, the link to what I'm discussing: 
http://www.destructoid.com/gdc-10-are-achievements-harmful--166646.phtml
Personally, I did not even think about this until I actually read the article. Now that I think about it though, in some games, especially the non-story driven ones, I can become more fixated on the achievements than enjoying the game. A perfect example would be some Steam games, I buy them, but if they don't have some sort of unlockable (or even if they do, since I don't care about steam achievements very much), I find it difficult to play for any length of time, while on 360 games, when I play, sometimes I'll play just for that next achievement, or push myself to get that next 15G. However, going back to play that game later, I find that I have more trouble playing it for any length of time. 
 
With the original xbox games, I never seemed to have this problem, I could play and replay games at my leisure without feeling like I wasn't achieving anything (for instance in racing games like PGR), but now it feels like if I'm not working towards an achievement or playing with friends, I'm wasting my time. Does anyone else feel the same way?

It's true. I think to an extent they have ruined games a bit. Like as you said, some Steam games like the Orange Box (Half Life 2 to be specific) are filled with things you can try and achieve. I think that i spent more time attempting to carry a damned gnome to a rocket ship, then actually enjoying the storyline. 
 
Where as with old games that don't have achievements i think you spend more time on them and try not to get through them as quickly. Some games have achievements that work i guess, and some don't.

I guess they could ruin games for some people, but for me personally, I always play the a game one or two times before I even check the achievement page, then go back for achievements if I enjoy the game a bunch.  So for me, they only add to gaming through replay value.

Nah I don't think so, I think it's fun for the most part, to give little challenges on top of the core game - but then I don't obsess over gamerscore.... 

Nintendo's Miyamoto has certainly said as much, but I'm not sure myself.  For one, I find it difficult to lump all achievements under the same banner, as there are several distinct types.
 
1. There are the natural achievements, which reward the player for normal progression through the game's story/levels.  In my eyes, these don't effect the gameplay experience at all.
 
2. There are the exploration achievements, which reward the player for venturing into areas/modes outside the main game/storyline.  This category includes achievements for entering multiplayer matches or performing sidequests. These may or may not effect the player's experience, depending the player's natural affinity for exploration. While these may occasionally be objectionable to players who would otherwise finish and toss a game, they serve a purpose by encouraging people to experience the full breadth of a game.
 
3. The third type are the grinding achievements, which tend to be the ones that bother folks most.  Whether its firing 10,000 bullets, driving 5,000 miles or shooting 100 pigeons, these encourage the player only to perform mundane tasks repeatedly, for no purpose other than the achievement.
 
4. The last type I would mention would be the unique achievements.  This category contains the wacky tasks, like carrying gnomes and remapping the 'Splode button.  It's generally stupid/silly stuff that exists only to add flavor.
 
While there is some overlap in these categories, I think it covers most of the achievement bases decently.  The only ones I'll say might hurt the game are the third type, which tend to be uninspired and unenjoyable.  The others are either innocuous or purposeful.

Achievements actually help me in considering whether I should replay a game I wouldn't have in the first place.  Sometimes I'll see through the faults of the game I saw the first time and appreciate it more then I did last time.  Not with FEAR and FEAR 2, I simply hated those games.

Extra objectives = Extra lifespan for your games Its not even a matter of discussion.

People just ruin games for themselves.  Achievements are alright but some people take it way too far.

Yes.

Yes, I've been saying this for while, achievements have ruined gaming... People care about the achievements way to much, and don't notice how crappy these games are...

I'm really torn on achievements. Part of me really wants to get the maximum amount of points on every game I own, but it usually doesn't take long until some annoying achievement ruins my enjoyment of the game.

Achievements aren't anything new. Achievement-like challenges have been built into games for decades. Now these challenges into a unified system outside of the game, but the challenges themselves haven't changed much. Anyone taking them too seriously only playing because they need points is ruining the games for themselves.

An achievement is an inanimate object, in fact its an incorporeal concept. The only way an achievement will ever ruin a game for anyone is if that person decides to lend it more importance than it deserves.
 
Remember, your gamer score is just a number.

" Achievements aren't anything new. Achievement-like challenges have been built into games for decades. Now these challenges into a unified system outside of the game, but the challenges themselves haven't changed much. Anyone taking them too seriously only playing because they need points is ruining the games for themselves. "

I think achievements are a wonderful thing. First, if you don't like them you don't even really need to pay attention to them. But for me, at least, it helps structure a second playthrough of the game, and make me change the way I approach it. I've found, on occasion, that I being forced to play differently has made me appreciate some games all the more.
 
Some achievements are just plain insane, and require someone a little on the OCD side to finish. But, hey, some gamers like those kinds of achievements. While I'm sure that some people are a little too obsessive about them, I'm not sure how it ruins anyone else's gaming experience. Beyond the annoying bragging about gamerscore (and lets face it, it's not like bragging wasn't a problem in gaming before achievements) what harm does it do?
 
The fact is that nearly everything we do in life we do for one reward or another, even if the reward is something intangible like a sense of personal accomplishment or a gamerscore. Very few of us would go out of our way to, say, collect all the feathers in Assassin's Creed 2 without some kind of benefit or reward. The entire RPG genre is based on this: that's what grinding is. We do something seemingly pointless for awhile, and get a reward (experience points). So if you're going to call into question gamerscore, then you might as well call into question RPGs, any game that gives you XP for a kill, any game that gives you points for anything, or any game that keeps stats. That Nintendo execs tend to be anti-gamerscore always amuses me. Nintendo games are big on unlockables. You get unlocked items for doing all sorts of crazy things in their games. The principle is the same. You play, you get a reward. You play the game in a strange way, you get a reward. Gotta get all the unlocked characters!
 
So color me unconvinced. Perhaps it would be better if there wasn't a single number attached to the score, and it was instead just a list of accomplishments without a number attached. Who knows. But for most gamers, I think the score is a positive thing.

They're only bad for gaming if you decide to take them seriously.

nah, they add another layer to games. 
 
If you don't like em, don't try and get them

They can make online multiplayer very annoying if people are only going for achievements.   
 
When I play a game, I'll go through the first time not caring.  If I like it enough, I'll check out some of the achievements and try to go after them.  Its kind of nice to have a reason to go back and play other than just replaying the same game in the same way as before.  It at least makes you try new things. 
 
On the other hand, it is ridiculous that some people will buy a cheap game just because it has easy achievements. 

" For one, I find it difficult to lump all achievements under the same banner, as there are several distinct types.."

No. For developers, there are good ways to use achievements in addition to bad ways. The same goes for players and how they perceive achievements.

I am a big fan of achievements and can definitely say that they have added many hours of playtime into each of my games. I'm 150 hours into Forza 3, and I would probably have stopped at 50 were it not for the last achievement I miss in the game, which is for completing the entire event list. Forza 3 can be very tedious, with you driving on the same track over and over again. Still, I do it because when I get that achievement I know I will get an extreme sense of satisfaction and closure. It may seem pointless to you, but it makes me very happy.
 
However, I'm not buying games solely for achievements. It is the icing on the cake. If you put achievements on a piece of shit, it's still a piece of shit, but if you put achievements on a cake... It's delicious. This is a great analogy.

I really never ever got interested in them.
 
I don't see them having a negative effect, though.

Ruined?
So are games completely unplayable now just because you have some type of addiction to a meaningless score?
Yes, it is fun to see the number next to your name, and yes, it is cool when developers give you points for playing games a different way.  But adding this layer of games isn't causing games to no longer be fun because you have to do that weird thing to get the achievements. YOU have to show control around them and YOU can choose whether or not to play games which include them.
I like achievements but I sure as hell ain't going to play bad games for them or play a game 7 times over on harder difficulties. If there is something I can get easily or naturally as the game progresses, great! I'll get it. If there is something that requires me to give a little more effort, great! I'll get it that too, but I'm not going to bust my balls over ever achievement or play terrible games for them. There is a line.
 
And as for Miyamoto, I love the guy, but he seems to be missing the point about achievements. Also I wonder to myself does he even really consider other things in the game industry or just ignore everything and work in a vacuum? Does he play his competitors' games or just stay in that Nintendo bubble?

" Achievements aren't anything new. Achievement-like challenges have been built into games for decades. Now these challenges into a unified system outside of the game, but the challenges themselves haven't changed much. Anyone taking them too seriously only playing because they need points is ruining the games for themselves. "