Support NeoGAF

[Augemitbutter]

Collectibles aren't inherently bad, yet some complain about them no matter what, even when they're implemented well. So it's not a matter of people complaining about bad game design — some people just don't like collectibles.

Beyond the act of collecting them, the only purpose they serve is what they unlock. If it's optional to collect them, and what they unlock doesn't interest you, then that content is simply not for you. A game doesn't have to be composed entirely of things you yourself is interested in because not every game is tailor made for you.

yes, you will always see complaints, no matter what you do. you just can't tell people to watch youtube vids whenever they dislike collectibles or whatever else bother them or say: "it's not for you!" gotta talk about what's bad or what is good.

collect 5 of 10 items on this level = less people will complain. tell them to collect 1000 on this large open world map and i can assure you many more people will complain.

 

[SoundPulse]

"Just don't collect them!"

Well...

I can generally ignore them just fine as long as they're not tied to progression. I only cared enough about the animals in MGS5 to go punch a Zebra every now and then (This is what animal conservation is, right?) when I thought about it. Later, I looked up what you were supposed to do to get all the animals, and haha fuck that. My time isn't worth that.

Collectibles aren't inherently a bad idea: Banjo-Kazooie and Super Mario 64 are fine examples of how to do it (mostly) right. You don't need a half million differently colored bananas and coins and other such trinkets that serve no purpose other than to bloat out the game. If you're going to do it, stick to one or two types of collectibles and make them meaningful rewards for exploration and for completing challenges. Think stars and jiggies.

 

[grimmiq]

That's the whole point behind having different endings. Why bother having them if you can just save, watch #1, load watch #2, load watch #3? That annoys me. (Deux Ex, for example)

Multiple endings should be saved for choices the player makes saving an NPC or letting them die, going lethal or non-lethal in missions, dialog choices. Witcher 3 did this right, but it takes a lot more work to do that than check your save file for 100/100 feathers then play a cutscene. It's busy work so developers can say "There's hundreds of hours of content in this game!"

Some people hate collectables, some hate grinding, some hate both. I personally don't mind grinding (Playing Disgaea 5 now) but after 100%ing several open world collectathons I don't give a shit about those anymore.

 

[Silent Chief]

I'm not convinced about the 100 hours arguments. Reviewers don't pick the collectables. They blast through the game on easy.

InFamous has collectibles that are not too annoying and the games are still fairly short.
(I beat Second Son on extreme but I forgot to upgrade the concrete powers and it didn't make much of a difference. lol)

 

[silva1991]

Sounds to me like you enjoy collecting platinum trophies.

Not really. it's only souls games and Bayonetta since I still play these games to this day, and I was like why not platinum them since there are like 3-4 trophies lift lol.

never platinumed anything else and I played countless games.

 

[trikster40]

It's a cheap way to add 10+ hours to your game, and most gamers tend to be a little OCD when it comes to leaving things undone in games. I did the stupid pigeons in GTA IV 3 times. Once when I got the game, lost my save and had to do it again, and then again when trophies were inplemented. All for a stupid helicopter.

Saints Row 3 & 4 are great examples of having to get collectibles to get powers. If you don't get the 1,000+ (1,000?????) orbs, you don't power up.

 

[Alfredo]

I actually really like collectibles...if they're visible on an in-game map that lets you know which ones you have and have not collected.

Eff games that don't do that. Even using a guide, they're a nightmare to collect. I will forever be haunted by the one hidden orb I missed in Crackdown.

 

[Lackadaisicool]

I personally dislike trinket hunting in games. The last game I found them all was Infamous: Second Son. However, it was the only game I had at the time. I'm debating doing it in Sunset Overdrive.

 

[#sorrynotsorry]

I've not bought games solely because they have collectibles (even a relatively reasonable amount).

I doubt anyone ever buys games because they have collectibles that add nothing to the game but an achievement.

Seems they just lose sales to them.

 

[PaulloDEC]

People need to let go of the "I MUST COLLECT EVERY LAST TRINKET" mindset. Same thing for people who complain about dull side missions. Sure, we'd all like it if that content was all fun all the time, but if it isn't, don't waste your life slogging through it.

 

[Mihos]

I don't mind them, but they can be done badly. You can take any great thing and count on someone making the stupidest shit ever out of it.... like an achievement that says "complete the game without leveling up"

 

[finalgamer]

It bothers me in Rayman 2 where you can't collect things without stalling your progression due to items being placed in locations that make you take two trips.

It bother me in Donkey Kong Country games because I am not a slave.

 

[UncleSporky]

I saw this on GAF quite a lot: "The only thing that bothered me were all the collectibles" etc.

I don't get it if you don't like collectibles then you know, don't collect them?

I pretty much only pick up the ones I find naturally, but why would I be bothered by them?

Looking at this argument at its core, you're basically saying "if you don't like X thing about a video game, ignore it."

Like "if you don't like the multiplayer, don't play it," but the devs put all their focus and attention into the multi and the SP is really short. Or "if you don't like the cutscenes, just skip them," when often the story of the game is one of the major reasons why some people play them. Or "if you think the game is too easy, just make it artificially harder for yourself," when it's still the developer's responsibility to make a properly-balanced game that doesn't require the player to limit themselves.

We shouldn't have to ignore certain aspects of games in order to enjoy them. If they're properly designed, we should be able to enjoy them as presented. Developer intent is that the player watches the cutscenes, or plays on normal difficulty, or collects the collectibles. If they did a bad job on these aspects, that's their problem, not ours.

 

[JeffZero]

When they feel like a replacement for stronger side content.

 

[Glass Rebel]

Beautiful thread backfire. You can't plan this shit.

Collectibles are shit 99% of the time but luckily they don't affect my enjoyment of the game (in general). That doesn't mean I can't call out developers for bloating their games with "content".

 

[Spring-Loaded]

gotta talk about what's bad or what is good.

Too bad that takes a backseat to people complaining about the mere existence of something they don't like.

If putting significant content that affects gameplay behind this stuff was common, I'd be more sympathetic to those people. If a cutscene missing a cutscene is the problem, then it's barely worth worrying about.

 

[Vitten]

You can just ignore them unless you're into trophies or if you have OCD and absolutely must 100% each game.

 

[Cave Johnson]

I don't recall any game that has story progression locked behind the collectibles.

AC2 onwards had their story pieces fragmented unless you collect certain items. Nothing wrong with collectibles, execution is the key unless you consider every collectible in every game is of equal value. You have to admit, that would be incorrect to assume as such.

 

[LincolnSixVacano]

These are the same arguments you keep hearing about microtransactions. You can just ignore them ?!

NO. it doesn't work like that. Often times games are designed with these systems in mind. Either they reward you with items, a sidestory or achievement. Which means to complete the experience they artificially lenghten their game with these things.

Certainly, I don't mind collectibles by default. They can actually make collecting fun. But the often cited example of AC1 is the obvious worst case implementation I ever saw.

A good ones are DKC returns, I liked retrying the levels to collect everything, and finding new routes.

 

[Lijik]

It bothers me in Rayman 2 where you can't collect things without stalling your progression due to items being placed in locations that make you take two trips.

It bother me in Donkey Kong Country games because I am not a slave.

this has never happened to me playing Rayman 2, are you talking about the cage bullshit in rayman 1 where you need to come back with new powers cus yeah thats actually bullshit

 

[Kucan]

It's seems an unwinnable situation for open world games, if the reward's too little, then there's no point to the collecting them, so why have them?

If the reward's too great, then they're obstacle to progression that people usually don't have time for.

If there's nothing to find, then what's the point in the big open world? It's mostly all scenery. Most devs are left spamming indenti-kit missions or dungeons across the map instead.

And if the side content is cut and the game has little content, then why pay £60?

 

[Sjefen]

I don't mind collectibles, but I do mind useless collectibles

 

[NeonBlack]

That bothered me, but then I just watched it on youtube and din't care anymore, great game.

Watching the ending on YouTube is not a fix for mindlessly collecting. It's not that collectibles can't be fun but the amount of them can change someone's attitude completely. Collect 20 riddles to get the ending, ok. Collect 100, fuck off.

 

[Fitts]

"Collect X number of things to access this area" is bullshit. Collectibles are at their best when they reward you with non-essential insight into the world, though. (really enjoyed the historical facts tied to Valiant Hearts')

If you're going to artificially lengthen your game with collectibles, keep them tied exclusively to trophies/achievements. They're a waste of time anyway so give the masochists what they want.

 

[eXistor]

It's badly implemented collectibles that bother me. You can't just ignore a part of the game, it lessens the overall quality of the game so of course I'm bothered by it.

 

[DrArchon]

A lot of people say "ignore the useless collectibles" or "forget the boring sidequests", but there's a problem with that.

When you play a game for the first time (espcially at launch), you often don't know which collectibles you need and which sidequests have effort put into them to make them good. So, at least in my case, I went out of my way in these games to get everything and do everything and only realized afterwards that I wasted my time. But I had no idea I was gonna waste my time until I already did it!

 

[Mman235]

Because writing it off as "it's just collectibles" is an excuse for bad design that ignores all the games that put effort into collectibles to make them enjoyable to find and a way to add genuinely well thought/more challenging optional extra content.

 

[Brandon F]

Uncharted trilogy could have done something really unique with them by tying them to the context of the setting, mystery lore, or just adding flavor to the proceedings given as a reward for actively exploring the confines of the area. Instead they are pointless baubles scattered illogically. A gold urn sitting on top of a lampost? Usually I am not bothered by them, but this is one case where they feel shoved in for the sake of trophies in the most haphazard and lazy manner.

 

[visiblemode]

Some people feel the need to find everything on their first playthrough. This OCD makes finding collectables unfun instead of a little bonus.

Ding ding ding.

Completionists, are what you aren't considering.

Sure you can ignore them, but some games heap so many on it comes to feel pointless and disrespectful of your time, and without scratching a completionist itch, they are just hollow. Looking at you Far Cry 4.

Other games, collectables are just background noise and feel very optional, something like Uncharted, which is just as fun to play if you ignore the collectables, imo.

 

[TriniTrin]

It's always amazing when an OP shoves their foot so far in their mouths they disappear! LOL

Anyway, I agree with a lot of the posters who say it's not a big deal as long as it doesn't lock out major content. I didn't even know about the batman ending being locked away!

 

[Fractal]

I don't think they're inherently bad, they can be done right if the number is reasonable and going after them feels rewarding.

But these days, most notably in Ubisoft games, the numbers are overwhelming and there's no point to them aside from providing filler and artificially inflating the length of the game. For example, AC games have great looking open worlds, yet the best incentive they can come up for you to explore is to fill the map with a bunch of busywork, while also providing time saver microtransactions to shorten the process. That's absurd if you ask me... sure, I can ignore them, but is it really a good thing if I have to purposely ignore a sizable part of the game to have fun with it?

 

[iconoclast]

I, for one, like to complete games and have fun in the process. Collectables make this an exclusive choice without adding anything to my experience.

This. But sometimes I'll enjoy (or at least won't mind) going for a game's collectibles. Some examples:

Sunset Overdrive - SO is one of those rare open world games where traversal is actually fun instead of being a chore, so I enjoyed going around and grabbing all of the junk.
Gravity Rush - Ditto.
Danganronpa Ultra Despair Girls - Toko & Komaru will comment on some of the collectibles. Story & characters is DR's main draw, so this works.
Mafia II - Vintage titties.

 

[TheDanger]

It's always amazing when an OP shoves their foot so far in their mouths they disappear! LOL

oh fuck off I have a job. LOL

I didn't think about Arkham Knight when I created the thread, but how many other games are there that won't let you finish the main missions/story without collecting everything?

 

[Archaix]

I like collectables when they're the point of the game. If you're just exploring the world and finding things and you aren't distracted from some other goal, they're great. I have a problem with them in open world games where they aren't the point but they offer some sort of benefit, so you are compelled to grab them. Either they are all visible on the map (which is a pain in the ass and distracting, not to mention taking any exploration whatsoever out of the collectable hunt and rendering it meaningless) or they aren't visible on the map (which is a pain because you don't want to ignore one when you see it because maybe you won't come by this exact way to see it again later) and they just sidetrack you from trying to get to the next mission.

Some people are also just driven to 100% games all the time so they get angry because of self-imposed requirements but that doesn't bother me because I'm not the sort of crazy person who needs to "complete" every game I touch. But I guess if you care about achievements and trophies that's another complaint. But don't care about achievements and trophies, people.

 

[UncleSporky]

oh fuck off I have a job. LOL

I didn't think about Arkham Knight when I created the thread, but how many other games are there that won't let you finish the main missions/story without collecting everything?

People gave a lot of examples in the thread. Not needing to collect EVERYTHING but needing to collect just enough stuff to progress that they're annoying/wear out their welcome.

 

[Jeremy]

Some people feel the need to find everything on their first playthrough. This OCD makes finding collectables unfun instead of a little bonus.

I didn't realize that I had this problem until now and it's probably hurting my enjoyment of games overall... Sometimes all I can think about after finding out a game has collectibles is that I don't want to continue playing until I have a guide in front of me so that I can make sure I collect all of them.

 

[TheDanger]

I didn't realize that I had this problem until now and it's probably hurting my enjoyment of games overall... Sometimes all I can think about after finding out a game has collectibles is that I don't want to continue playing until I have a guide in front of me so that I can make sure I collect all of them.

I can't even fathom this.

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

Arkham Knights ending was locked behind all the hundreds of riddler trophies.

This was he absolute worst. I didn't even bother. Fuck that.

 

[Vitor711]

Uncharted trilogy could have done something really unique with them by tying them to the context of the setting, mystery lore, or just adding flavor to the proceedings given as a reward for actively exploring the confines of the area. Instead they are pointless baubles scattered illogically. A gold urn sitting on top of a lampost? Usually I am not bothered by them, but this is one case where they feel shoved in for the sake of trophies in the most haphazard and lazy manner.

They also ruining the pacing if you're a completionist. I *know* that I should ignore stuff like that but I just can't. Suddenly, I'm in a chase scene and I'm spending time stopping my character and turning the opposite direction I was meant to because I just know that there will be a collectible there.

This was worst in Alan Wake where those stupid Coffee Thermos' would have Alan running in the obviously wrong direction when both the gameplay and story where pushing him the other way.

 

[Mugaaz]

Because collectibles are bullshit filler content that require zero effort and serve no purpose other than to pad gameplay time. They're so artificial and stupid, they don't reward exploration, they make exploration a boring chore dilutes to a pure x/100 progress meter.

I don't want to search for 100 flags. I want to play an actual game.

 

[Battlesmurf]

Some really good points here already.

*collectibles themselves aren't a bad thing- unless:

-they're not fun to collect. Birds in GTA4 for a heli. No way to track them. Hard to find. 2xx of them, if memory serves. Also heard about the Riddler stuff in Arkham Knight- perhaps that fits here?

-stuff is locked behind them. Concept art- superficial stuff- cool. Heck, even the postcards from Splatterhouse (360/ps3) was cool enough as nothing was too hard to find and it didn't really matter if you found them all. There's a limit as to what can be hidden behind them that affects how much fun they are.

- it doesn't fit the story. Call of Duty 4 has a few parts that stand out to me. "intel" was a neat idea in a few places- but others it didn't make a lick of sense. "Quick, the world depends on us. The missile is going to launch!. Better run the opposite direction and grab some laptops". If you want me to be immersed, don't purposely remove me from the immersion.

SO yeah, just because they are in the game doesn't make it a bad thing. The reward has to be worth the time spent, though. Sometimes that is a harder thing to accomplish than it seems, apparently.

 

[TheDanger]

People gave a lot of examples in the thread. Not needing to collect EVERYTHING but needing to collect just enough stuff to progress that they're annoying/wear out their welcome.

Maybe I'm blind, but Arkham Knight seems like the only game mentioned here where it's actually story that is locked behind the collectibles.

I remember in Far Cry 3 it was fun collecting stuff because it made me discover really cool locations I probably never would have seen otherwise.

 

[Steverulez]

Arkham knight riddler stuff was a ridiculous mandatory thing for the full ending but generally speaking I have no problem with collectibles

I was playing gears ue and I like going round looking for the cog tags, I do prefer it when games have collectives that flesh out the world/lore than just "pick this thing up" though. The comics were OK for gears but the later ones were Intel reports etc which I liked.

 

[Jeremy]

I can't even fathom this.

Yeah I know! I'll have to be more conscious of it I guess. It was really bad when achievements were a big part of the Xbox 360.

Also, is there a total on the amount of collectibles in DK64? I can never find a number.

 

[Mockingbird]

Ever try collecting a Black Liver Bean? It's annoying.

 

[Yoday]

I can understand people being frustrated with collectibles that block story progression such as needing all of the riddler crap in Arkham Knight for the full ending, but for the most part I agree that there really isn't a need to get as angry with collectibles as many here do. The vast majority of collectibles in games are there to further exploration of the games world, be it literal world exploration, or further exploration of a games lore beyond the main story. I think it is perfectly acceptable to gate expanded lore behind collectibles.

 

[Steel]

When they're in an expansive, aimless, open world map and tied to reward and/or progression, then yeah it's totally understandable why'd they'd bother someone.

 

[TheDanger]

Yeah I know! I'll have to be more conscious of it I guess. It was really bad when achievements were a big part of the Xbox 360.

Also, is there a total on the amount of collectibles in DK64? I can never find a number.

I understand if you really love the game and want to 100% it, but I would just never turn my first playthrough in a chore and only do it if I still felt compelled to do so after finishing the game once.

 

[nullref]

Even if they have no functional purpose and can be freely ignored, they can have a couple of downsides. As mentioned, even if you intend to ignore them, they can prod at completionist compulsions (if you have these tendencies) in a way that's distracting.

They can also undermine the atmosphere and art direction of a game – using Arkham City as an example, I have no idea why you'd want to spend so much care and attention on such a detailed environment, only to then sprinkle glowing green question marks and lame puzzles all over the place.

"I've got to stop the Joker... oh wait, is that a glowing question mark down there? Should I stop and grab it?" Kind of undermines whatever reality the game is trying to create.

 

[autoduelist]

In general, collectibles do nothing but take me out of the game.

For example -- I'm on a mission to save my loved one! I must hurry! But first, let me explore every nook and cranny of this area, and listen/read to lots of stuff.

I'm happy for those that don't feel the need to collect stuff, but I tend to see one, grab it, and then go 'eh, I might as well get these as I go', not realizing I just signed up for finding 300 things I no longer care about.


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

That said, collectibles can be done right:

1) Game must allow you to 'see'/'find' them somehow -- put them on the mini-map, for example. Perhaps a perk does this.

2) Game must tell you how many are in each area so you know when you are done.

3) Make collecting them fun. Either great lore, or put them behind puzzles or other 'mini-games' -- like ramps in a driving game, they're fun to find.

4) If a trophy is linked to them, do not require 100% -- 90% or so is a better number, let people miss a couple.

5) Not too many. Nobody wants to search for hours.

6) Solid rewards for finding them.

Driver San Fransisco nailed all of the above [except 4 i think]. You unlocked them on your minimap mid game. Most were hidden alongside cool things -- like you needed to do a cool jump to grab it. There were only 100 or so on the map, iirc, and every 10 unlocked a 'movie' race based on a real film (Bullitt, Blues Brothers, etc)