Quantification and it's consequences: video game achievements edition
In economics and sociology it's a well known that anything you quantify and measure is affected by the act of measuring it. Not directly, this isn't quantum mechanics, but because so, the very choice of measuring something is inherently affected by bias; measuring something will be followed by trying to affect it. Take something that might seem neutral at first glace, collecting statistics about the height of the population. It's just a distribution of heights right? A closer look at when this started to be tracked, in the 19th century, will quickly reveal that it's the height of conscripts that this practice started with, leading to health measures to improve height. Another one is the fertility rate, how many children women have on average. For a variety of reasons, a highly political statistic. From nationalism in the 1920s (to ensure the replenishment of war losses and out-competing rivals), to racism (not enough white babies, too many brown and black babies, the myth of overpopulation; all of the above), and policies to change it. Or the great boondoggle of our times, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and the obsession with growing it, which only came to be around WW2 and despite its name, does not include unpaid domestic and care work (overwhelmingly done by women), or the informal economy, or the negative effects economic activities may have ("externalities").
Video game achievements exist on a spectrum. From a very matter of factly sort ("beat World 3", "found the secret exit in stage 2-5") to very complex and obtuse. In deciding what achievements to include or not, the very same process as I spoke of above happens: the act of quantifying is not neutral. Obviously, the effect is smallest at the matter of fact end of the spectrum. Getting an achievement for beating a boss is a nice pat on the back, but it is not something that only happens because there's an achievement for it. On the other hand of the spectrum you can make a solid argument that doing what those achievements require would not happen if the achievement did not exist.
At this point you may be saying, "sure, but you don't have to get achievements you know?". And you'd be right. Challenging ways to play games have existed for as long as games have been a thing. Getting all the items in Zelda, beating all the exits in Super Mario World, beating games without dying, or as fast as possible, or the vaunted 1cc clear (beating the game on a single continue) in arcade games. Most importantly, these are all completely voluntary and self-imposed. However, remember that quantifying something is inherently affected by bias: exactly what merits an achievement for starters. Followed by, and this is where games start to be affected regardless of your interest in achievements, that the game's design and structure start to be adapted for the sake of them. It does not have to be a conscious act either. Game developers don't exist in a vacuum and create their games ex nihilo and are very much a product of their environment and greater video game culture; a noted part of that culture entailing what can be broadly described as valuing achievements for achievements' sake. At which point there’s no ignoring achievements anymore, you can ignore the achievements itself, but much like closing your eyes to not see the sun will not stop its effect on the space-time continuum, the game itself will still be affected and that can’t be ignored.