No, that's not it though. If I simply hated the idea of collectathons in general, I would never have attempted them in the first place (AA wasn't dangling a carrot at the end of a stick like AK does). Saying that I disliked AC and later's collectathon elements is simply because I don't like collecting is like dismissing my criticisms of Uncharted 1 being a ridiculously tedious game as me simply not wanting to shoot people. There are ways to incorporate game elements into a game so that they feel like more than a chore or chacklist, and this is something that I feel the Arkham games have been getting worse at with each new entry.
I did enjoy collecting all the random stuff in AA... I liked returning to areas that I had otherwise just run through/past and paying them more attention as I looked for the trophies... however in AC onwards this is padded out by me simply looking for something tall to launch off, switching to bat vision and then gliding in a large circle until a bright green enemy appears on my screen. The aspects of collecting that I liked in AA is directly lessened, as I don't feel that I'm appreciating more of the environments... hell I basically don't even see them as I'm simply flying over the city... you may as well have just let me teleport to each one (which is practically what I started doing in Origins).
Furthermore, typically people like collectathons, because the things you collect represent some sort of a reward. Striking a balance between the collecting itself, and the interesting unlocks that you're rewarded with for doing so is also important, and feels very, very off in later Arkham games. I enjoyed every single side-quest type available in Arkham Knight initiialy... but by the time I'm doing my 11th bomb disposal mission that's all changed... if you're going to have this many side objectives then you've got to come up with better ways to hold the player's attention. The riddler trophies similarly just begin to feel like there's too much, with too little to make collecting them seem worth your time. Many people love watching bars fill in games like CoD, Destiny, random RPGs etc... but make those bars too long and fill too slow and even someone who buys games like this specifically because they like this aspect will probably find it boring as all hell... this is how I feel about the Arkham games as of late.
Oh, I will take back what I said about Arkham Knight being the worst though... that'd be Sunset Overdrive. I forgot about that one though, specifically because when I completed that game it didn't then go "now go get all the useless crap to see the full ending!"... and so I didn't.
Arkham Knight putting an epilogue ("ending" is stretching it) that's subsequent to the main Knightfall thing is a mistake only in that the game occasionally bugs out, forcing some people to get 100% to see the default ending at all. That sucks for everyone else, you get an ending that's moderately more conclusive/final than Arkham Asylum's or Arkham City's; understandably disappointing as it is, but it's an ending. You then get a a vague epilogue for getting 100%, like a post credits cutscene or what you see in Metroid Prime for getting all upgrades/collectables. It's also just a cutscene, so the only people who have a problem with it the way it is are those who, for whatever reason, perceive it as something they should just get by beating the main game merely knowing they're missing out on something is their problem. If it was labeled "secret vid!" and listed in a "bonuses" menu, no one would bat an eye. That it was ever called an ending (by the devs? can't even recall if it's referred as that in-game) is the mistake.
Saying the "dangling of a carrot" at the end of a sidequest is bad is really weird considering most would agree having something unlocked by completing a sidequest is a given, let alone a fair thing to have. If it was something related to gameplay, I'd empathize with the detractors more, or if it felt like an actual ending, since they'd be missing out on something that they couldn't ge the full experience of by watching in online (something they won't know on their own in advance, to be fair). The above video doesn't unlock any new modes, it doesn't unlock any abilities or even any skins. It's just a video, something other games have done in functionally the same manner this needed to be reworded or relabeled apparently.
On the subject of collectathons themselves: People generally don't do collectathons to fill bars. Or, at least, the people who do what they actually enjoy doing in a given game don't do that. They're a means to contextualize a given type of gameplay, one the player presumably enjoys doing.
You complain of having to glide around Arkham City or Arkham Knight grapneling/gliding/running around the city environments in those games is fun for me. I played those to completion because I liked playing the game I like moving around those environments, I like having to use the gadgets and abilities in clever ways and I enjoyed the contextualization and story justification for those Riddler sidequests (i.e. saving people from puzzle deathtraps and actually getting to see the Riddler get taken down).
Contrast that with running (and only running; virtually no other type of traversal was possible) through the empty halls of Arkham Asylum, devoid of anyone at all, which was deathly boring, even back in 2009. It's dull. There being only 240 Riddler things you had to get in Asylum compared to about twice that in City doesn't change that backtracking in AA was boring it was absolutely more of a slog for me to get them all in AA compared to AC. You're grounded virtually the entire time during the trophy hunt in Asylum and it's a distraction at best when done during the main path through the game and a true uneventful, braindead slog when backtracking.
City and to a lesser, yet comparable extent Knight have their completion tied to core types of gameplay. If you don't like the series' combat, you won't like beating up informants for info. If you don't like the traversal and/or the environments, you won'y like traveling around to find the McGuffins. If you don't like driving, the tank, the gadgets or the game itself, then you won't like doing everything in the game. And that's fine you can like a game, but not enough to want to play parts of it over and over. It's why all this shit is optional, even from a perspective of "well, video games are fundamentally optional." This is always side content in this series and to try to argue a collectathon that incorporates the main draws or main types of gameplay for a given game is somehow worse than a collecathon that involves none of the draws of a given game (e.g. only being able to run around an empty facility in a game about fighting and stalking criminals) is crazy to me.
Like, I get enjoying (or hating less) the latter, but to try to say that in any other way than "that's just how I feel," as if it's a reflection of the quality is baffling. Top to bottom, AC's and even AK's Riddler stuff is just better and more substantial in every way than what was in AA if the only thing someone who prefers AA's approach more can say is that AA's was simpler and less involved, then they're not concerned with how good it is, only how quick. That smacks of a completionist mindset, of someone who only wants to fill bars and checklists, the kind of person who plays games for 1000/1000s and platinums.
I don't object to their format in AC - I object to the sheer scope, which made it frustrating innately. Maybe there wasn't THAT much more work to put into AC (since I've never actually 100%ed it I don't know), but for whatever reason I did way more Riddler stuff organically when it was just riddles + chatterboxes basically than when I had to stop and do a puzzle that I may or may not have the equipment for in the middle of the open world when I'm basically efficiently bee-lining to the next objective, rather than having to slowly and methodically traverse the environment like in AA. I really don't believe the Riddler collect-a-thons ever translated well into the open world format, as opposed to the more conventional metroidvania layout of AA. Even then the 100%ing was hardly perfect, it was just attainable enough that I bothered doing it, unlike the sequels.
If it's enjoyable and quality, what's frustrating, and how is it overall worse than something that's... worse, but shorter or smaller? Is there a due-date for a game's completion after you start it? I could see that being a problem for game reviewers, but a even a long game can be done bit-by-bit if you don't have a lot of free time and if it doesn't get completed for whatever reason, then so what? That goes for games in general, let alone sidequests within games.
