Collection Progression

[John Scott Tynes]

Collection Progression

Let's reinvent the old standard sidequest of action games: The hidden object collect-a-thon.

Read Full Article

 

[stonethered]

I found the 'on the author' italics at the end of this great. On behalf of many millions of windows users, yes I fantasize about making progression bars go faster.

And I think a great example of using hidden objects to become more powerful than a game area was designed for is the Legend of Zelda series.
Maybe they do lock out a few of the collectibles until you have a particular item (coughcough*hookshot*cough). But in Ocarina of Time at least, I finished the fire temple before the forest temple. I went far enough into the forest temple to get the bow and I could collect dozens of heart pices and clear a whole dungeon without beating the boss. And in Link to the Past you could reach half of the dark world dungeons without properly finishing the first one.

Just thought a particularly well known offender should be called out as such.

 

[Mushroomfreak111]

Collecting stuff as a "side quest" in games has never caught my attention. I just do not see the fun in finding a number of flags, or killing 200 pigeons or whatever. I'm not even likely to do such a mission even tho it would result in me getting a flamethrower in Assassins Creed for example (or any other awesome/over powered weapon). The entire idea that publishers can "expand" their game just by throwing in some collectibles is to me laughable.

As for your solution, I'm not so sure. If I where to collect all those skill bonuses and only get the benefits for a few missions before being reduced to where I started and having to start all over again I'm sure I would feel unjustly treated. If you are to spend something like double the time of the story-focused player because you want to have higher skills, than they should no doubt be a permanent thing.

But in the end a system where you can get higher skills before a mission than "you should" would have sort of the effects cheating would. In Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy, you having Force Grip 3 right away will make you far too powerful for anything you might encounter, this would still be the case even if you would do some "collect the light-sabers to get an extra force-point" side quest. But then again, collecting stuff in a game for a reward like you get in Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood won't make people want to even do the side quest (you get pictures if I'm not mistaken... PICTURES!)

Hmmm...

 

[Dhatz]

I can see you put some interesting thoughts to this concept, because I like predictability of rewards(like mass effect skill trees) and also don't want the collectives to be dumbed down just because the developers think flat. Also mixing various types of collectibles was awesomely demonstrated in Psychonauts and we could even reduce all collection to scavange hunting for unique items that give information or minigames/missions/contacts to new people/cutcenes instead of (un)predictable bit of advantage(or disgustingly meaningless crap like mentioned the person above). using cloned objects even with tiers is still more boring than having more stuff to care about.

 

[Avatar Roku]

You know, this actually reminds me of Prototype. I usually don't go after collectibles, but I did in Prototype because there was a tangible, in-your-face reward. For going out of your way to find Web of Intrigue targets (more of a luck based thing, but still), you'd get more insight into the story. For going after Landmark Orbs, you get a bunch of Evolution Points. What makes that last part better, however, is that, after a certain number (10, 25, 50, etc) the amount of EP granted per orb increases, and you are told so in huge letters ("10 Landmark Orbs collected. Orbs now worth 10,000 EP each"). That makes it seem like there's actually a reason to do it, because you're constantly reminded that there is.

 

[Jared]

Borderlands is a great example of collecting things and then having to get rid of them. Although really in Borderlands its more collecting for collecting sake rather than actually for anyo ther purpose other than blowing stuff up in more spectacular fashion!

But, when it does come to collecting items and having to run around for stuff. I would much prefer the cash award too. That way I can spend it on finding bigger and deadlier stuff!

 

[ccesarano]

I found the 'on the author' italics at the end of this great. On behalf of many millions of windows users, yes I fantasize about making progression bars go faster.

And I think a great example of using hidden objects to become more powerful than a game area was designed for is the Legend of Zelda series.
Maybe they do lock out a few of the collectibles until you have a particular item (coughcough*hookshot*cough). But in Ocarina of Time at least, I finished the fire temple before the forest temple. I went far enough into the forest temple to get the bow and I could collect dozens of heart pices and clear a whole dungeon without beating the boss. And in Link to the Past you could reach half of the dark world dungeons without properly finishing the first one.

Just thought a particularly well known offender should be called out as such.

I was actually going to bring this up as well. Not to mention that, since A Link to the Past, the method of doing the pieces of heart scattered about the world have only contributed a little bit to the overall health. At least, as far as my memory goes. If you only did the main dungeons throughout the game, you would have sufficient hearts to deal with the challenges as opposed to if you had collected them all. Sure there would be a power balance, and there are plenty of other hidden items that increase abilities and power, but it's only slightly incremental.

I think the real challenge is in rewarding the player just enough that they want to continue exploring while only giving them a slight power boost, say 1/4th or 1/5th stronger than if they ignored everything altogether.

Note I'm primarily thinking of A Link to the Past here. I never beat a 3-D Zelda and haven't been as obsessed, but even then what did you get? The ability to carry more cash, the ability to carry more bombs, a not-that-valuable Bombchu, the ability to carry more arrows...in the end, there was a lot of stuff that helped you, yes, but their improvements were minor. So someone doing all the sidequests by 50% of the game might only be at 55-60% max while the person following the storyline is at 45-50% power. The difference isn't that large overall, but enough to make the collector feel as if he's been adequately rewarded.

 

[ohgodalex]

And suddenly, I regained all the respect for this guy that I lost after his article about sex in videogames.

 

[BMWaugh]

As for your solution, I'm not so sure. If I where to collect all those skill bonuses and only get the benefits for a few missions before being reduced to where I started and having to start all over again I'm sure I would feel unjustly treated. If you are to spend something like double the time of the story-focused player because you want to have higher skills, than they should no doubt be a permanent thing.

This is what I was thinking as I read the last page of the article. It just wouldn't seem right that you'd put all that time in to get those boosts, then eventually get back round to the storyline, and, despite having put in all that time, possibly several hours or more, you'd get to the 'Silver tier' and be in the exact same situation as the storyline-focused player who got there in, let's say, half the time.

Of course, you put an achievement along with those collectibles, and some people will do it regardless of whether they get any benefit for any amount of time.

 

[stonethered]

I found the 'on the author' italics at the end of this great. On behalf of many millions of windows users, yes I fantasize about making progression bars go faster.

And I think a great example of using hidden objects to become more powerful than a game area was designed for is the Legend of Zelda series.
Maybe they do lock out a few of the collectibles until you have a particular item (coughcough*hookshot*cough). But in Ocarina of Time at least, I finished the fire temple before the forest temple. I went far enough into the forest temple to get the bow and I could collect dozens of heart pices and clear a whole dungeon without beating the boss. And in Link to the Past you could reach half of the dark world dungeons without properly finishing the first one.

Just thought a particularly well known offender should be called out as such.

I was actually going to bring this up as well. Not to mention that, since A Link to the Past, the method of doing the pieces of heart scattered about the world have only contributed a little bit to the overall health. At least, as far as my memory goes. If you only did the main dungeons throughout the game, you would have sufficient hearts to deal with the challenges as opposed to if you had collected them all. Sure there would be a power balance, and there are plenty of other hidden items that increase abilities and power, but it's only slightly incremental.

I think the real challenge is in rewarding the player just enough that they want to continue exploring while only giving them a slight power boost, say 1/4th or 1/5th stronger than if they ignored everything altogether.

Note I'm primarily thinking of A Link to the Past here. I never beat a 3-D Zelda and haven't been as obsessed, but even then what did you get? The ability to carry more cash, the ability to carry more bombs, a not-that-valuable Bombchu, the ability to carry more arrows...in the end, there was a lot of stuff that helped you, yes, but their improvements were minor. So someone doing all the sidequests by 50% of the game might only be at 55-60% max while the person following the storyline is at 45-50% power. The difference isn't that large overall, but enough to make the collector feel as if he's been adequately rewarded.

You missed the worst of it. Windwaker and Majora's Mask were both incredibly difficult without the sidequests. I'd go so far as to say MM was nigh impossible. Both had only 4-5 dungeons, and MM had it's most important bonus's (damage reduction 1/2 and magic bar x2) in dungeon collection rewards. Windwaker did make all of it's collectibles pretty easy to get to; but it was time consuming to sail around and complete all of the little puzzles, half of which only even gave you money. Although I must admit, the combat system in WW meant that a lot of your fights were more timing the A-button and less taking hits.

Don't get me wrong though, collectibles is why I love LoZ. But if you don't enjoy spending several hours getting everything; LoZ is going to be a hard and unrewarding series for you.

edit: I actually remembered something else from MM. If you collected all the masks and completed a set of minor dungeons it gave you what was essentially a god-mode mask for the final boss. That game really rewarded you for collecting everything.

 

[Fenixius]

As for your solution, I'm not so sure. If I where to collect all those skill bonuses and only get the benefits for a few missions before being reduced to where I started and having to start all over again I'm sure I would feel unjustly treated. If you are to spend something like double the time of the story-focused player because you want to have higher skills, than they should no doubt be a permanent thing.

This is what I was thinking as I read the last page of the article. It just wouldn't seem right that you'd put all that time in to get those boosts, then eventually get back round to the storyline, and, despite having put in all that time, possibly several hours or more, you'd get to the 'Silver tier' and be in the exact same situation as the storyline-focused player who got there in, let's say, half the time.

Of course, you put an achievement along with those collectibles, and some people will do it regardless of whether they get any benefit for any amount of time.

Oh hooray, some people noticed the same thing I did before me. Yes, you guys are right - that's highway robbery. Let's use an example with two players: Collectivist and Campaigner.

Let's say that the Collectivist spends, say, 2 hours grinding up to 100% Bronze power, then he/she does the bronze tier missions in 20 minutes. 2:20 to get to Silver 0%. The Campaigner spends an hour and a half doing all those Bronze missions, and gets to Silver 0%. Huh. Notice the disparity. Noone's had more or less fun than the other - both paths are valid for their respective players. But it looks to me like one will be much more efficient than the other - Campaigner got to the same power level as Collectivist, but spend 50 less minutes.

Obviously, those numbers are arbitrary and I just made them up. But surely they're in the right ballpark - you wouldn't make your missions so unforgivingly hard that you HAVE to grind if you're going to follow the dualistic philosophy that Mr Tynes (or is it Scott Tynes? I'm unsure) proposes.

So what I have to conclude is that we're not done yet. The proposed Hard Solution is not sufficient to solve the problem. Not quite, at least. But I think it can be salvaged in a couple of ways. Oh, please note that I'm thinking in a Singleplayer mindframe, not MMO.

BMWaugh proposed that we add in an Achievement for maxing out each Tier's stat. That's a great idea for balancing it out. And it's a great example of "mechanically empty" rewards, which I like. But not everyone is just after Achievements, which go into the tally. They're very abstract. So let's throw down some other rewards for maxing out a tier which won't diminish the enjoyment of Campaigner, but -will- reward Collectivist. That's our objective, right? Keep both paths fun for their own players.

So first up, Achievements, as mentioned. Lots of them. One for maxing out each Tier. One for finishing the game with -all- Tiers maxed out. These appeal hugely to Collectivist, because they transcend the boundaries of the game, and are affixed to his universal profile. GamerCard, PSN Account, Steam page, whatever. They're permanent, and they're -shiny-. They're -great- for players that way inclined. But I'm certain that there are Collectivists who aren't. So we need something else, as well.

Secondly, let's drop in some superfluous rewards. They don't make a difference in mechanical terms, but do in aesthetic terms. That is to say: unlockable skins. Trophy items for your base, if the game has such. Unlocking cheats, skins, music or minigames are all tried and true methods of making grinding more fun. But they don't quite do it by themselves - merged with Mr Tynes' solution, they begin to make the Collectivist's time input more valuable. And it's important to not underestimate how significant these can be - some concept art doesn't do much, but a new, slightly more badass skin, or unlocking an mp3 file for the battle theme, these are some wicked ideas for rounding out the Collectivist experience.

I considered suggesting that we add in story-related bonusses for questing about and grinding to 100% on each tier. You'd get a "better" (or just different) ending, perhaps. But that's a really -bad- thing to do, because it hurts Campaigner. Not giving a reward is the same as a punishment, in this case. But if we stick to these ethereal, incorporial rewards, some players will miss out on that surge of power they get under that method of rewarding. So it'd be best to maintain something like that. But then we run into balance issues. I believe I have a fix; it's an iteration on the advancing difficulty model of compensation.

With the collection of the one hundred orbs scattered across the land, you gain the power of the world, but the seals on the evil monster's prison weaken. Or perhaps, when you were off collecting orbs, so too was the enemy faction? So when you do fight at the end of the tier or game, the boss is stronger. But so are you. It's a more epic fight, which has the same narrative outcome. This is going to be difficult to balance. Players have to know what they're doing, and they have to -see- the difference in power between the villains before and after they got their powerups. Otherwise, it's just harder and the time spent gaining power meant nothing. But like I said, the balance is very hard to get. Because now, Campaigner might be missing out. So it has to be handled delicately.

So, with the addition of "aesthetic rewards" and "transcendental rewards", if we balance the numbers right, Collectivist will have the same amount of enjoyment for time invested as Campaigner. And by making the time invested more than mechanically meaningless, but at the same time not at all detrimental to those who don't, we prevent people from considering their exploits a meaningless endeavour. And -that's- the real goal, right? Campaigner, who cares only for the story, is rewarded by the story. Collectivist, who only cares about collecting stuff, is rewarded by more non-essential stuff, and a more "mechanically powerful" experience, befitting the time spent.

That's my iteration on your Hard Solution, Mr Tynes. Thanks for writing - these articles are always very interesting thought exercises.

 

[Supernaut565]

Usually I don't bother with collection quests but I really liked how Brutal legend handled it you can find lots of different things which almost always rewarded you with new music, fire tributes(money)/ special ability's and information on it's back story.

 

[Bootbunny]

Quite a good read indeed, however the one thing I don't like about your "solution" is that once you progress through the story all progress you made through collecting becomes completely and utterly meaningless (other than knowing that you did it, of course). You say that people who like collecting are going to collect regardless of the reward, but I disagree.

For example, whenever I play a Legend of Zelda game I always feel the need to go searching for some pieces of heart so that the game will be not as difficult, but I NEVER get all that are possible simply because I don't care enough. This way I have an incentive to go and collect once in a while, and I am rewarded with a less difficult main quest. If I were to play a game with your method then I would surely not even bother collecting, seeing as all progress I made wont effect the game any further than the few last missions of the tier which doesn't seem that worth it to me.

However I could be wrong, in which case it was still a fantastic read and yes, I do agree with you about the progressive form of collecting. Well done .

 

[Smokescreen]

You know, this actually reminds me of Prototype. I usually don't go after collectibles, but I did in Prototype because there was a tangible, in-your-face reward. For going out of your way to find Web of Intrigue targets (more of a luck based thing, but still), you'd get more insight into the story. For going after Landmark Orbs, you get a bunch of Evolution Points. What makes that last part better, however, is that, after a certain number (10, 25, 50, etc) the amount of EP granted per orb increases, and you are told so in huge letters ("10 Landmark Orbs collected. Orbs now worth 10,000 EP each"). That makes it seem like there's actually a reason to do it, because you're constantly reminded that there is.

Exactly. This idea has been done and done well. The game opened up quests as the player proceeded through the game. You didn't have to do them, but you got bonuses when you did and you got bonuses based on your skill (bronze, silver, gold) so certain tasks became easier but they were probably always manageable. I wouldn't know though because I did a lot more tasks in that game than I did in GTA(x) because I knew there was a reward. Now it just needs to be adopted.

 

[Nateman742]

As I read your idea I started thinking of how I like to get through games with collection bonuses, like Crackdown. If I find a mission is too difficult, I'll go cool off by collecting orbs, which is fun and relaxing in and of itself, increase my character's ability, and come back to kick the mission's butt. Sometimes I like to overlevel; In an age of games almost entirely without cheat codes, it's a lot of fun. The reward for all that searching around is free god mode through the next level, and that's dandy.

Though I could be getting the gist of it wrong. As long as it's possible to take a break from orb collecting long enough to smash some heads and break through to the next tier, then go back to the orbs and bend the game to my will with a bit of extra effort, I'm all for it. It's not like the mission-based player can't do the same if he really wants to take the time.

 

[copycatalyst]

I'm not sure I would like this progression system in a game. First, since I like collecting but never get obsessive enough to collect all the items, I wouldn't like to see them disappear at any point. If I'm running through a previously unexplored area, I don't want to have the feeling that exploration is now pointless until I reach the next tier, and that I'll have to come back later. Second, even if it improves balance, I wouldn't want upgrades gained by collectables to be negated at every tier. The carrot would be gone.

I think there are other ways to make sure that the collecting-obsessed player isn't rewarded with an unbalanced game.

In an open world game, items that are available to all players (weapons that are scattered around) could show up at your start point once you have collected enough. GTA3 did this years ago. Players who haven't collected need to drive to the scattered weapons or spend money at the gun shop, but players who have collected aren't any more powerful -it's just more convenient for them. Convenience is worth a lot in this kind of game.

Or how about the ability to purchase new moves that don't necessarily increase power, but add variety? So you get the option to, say, use a different combo finisher, one that looks cooler than your default, but doesn't really do any more damage. This can feel a bit more like progression than a purely cosmetic item unlock, and adds variety to the game as you play longer. As an added bonus, if you are replacing previous abilities you can add a strategic choice if each ability has enemies it is good against and weak against. The collecting player would have the most choice, and a bit of an advantage because of that, but they still have a tradeoff to prevent unbalancing later missions.

 

[edthehyena]

I found the 'on the author' italics at the end of this great. On behalf of many millions of windows users, yes I fantasize about making progression bars go faster.

And I think a great example of using hidden objects to become more powerful than a game area was designed for is the Legend of Zelda series.
Maybe they do lock out a few of the collectibles until you have a particular item (coughcough*hookshot*cough). But in Ocarina of Time at least, I finished the fire temple before the forest temple. I went far enough into the forest temple to get the bow and I could collect dozens of heart pices and clear a whole dungeon without beating the boss. And in Link to the Past you could reach half of the dark world dungeons without properly finishing the first one.

Just thought a particularly well known offender should be called out as such.

I was actually going to bring this up as well. Not to mention that, since A Link to the Past, the method of doing the pieces of heart scattered about the world have only contributed a little bit to the overall health. At least, as far as my memory goes. If you only did the main dungeons throughout the game, you would have sufficient hearts to deal with the challenges as opposed to if you had collected them all. Sure there would be a power balance, and there are plenty of other hidden items that increase abilities and power, but it's only slightly incremental.

I think the real challenge is in rewarding the player just enough that they want to continue exploring while only giving them a slight power boost, say 1/4th or 1/5th stronger than if they ignored everything altogether.

Note I'm primarily thinking of A Link to the Past here. I never beat a 3-D Zelda and haven't been as obsessed, but even then what did you get? The ability to carry more cash, the ability to carry more bombs, a not-that-valuable Bombchu, the ability to carry more arrows...in the end, there was a lot of stuff that helped you, yes, but their improvements were minor. So someone doing all the sidequests by 50% of the game might only be at 55-60% max while the person following the storyline is at 45-50% power. The difference isn't that large overall, but enough to make the collector feel as if he's been adequately rewarded.

You missed the worst of it. Windwaker and Majora's Mask were both incredibly difficult without the sidequests. I'd go so far as to say MM was nigh impossible. Both had only 4-5 dungeons, and MM had it's most important bonus's (damage reduction 1/2 and magic bar x2) in dungeon collection rewards. Windwaker did make all of it's collectibles pretty easy to get to; but it was time consuming to sail around and complete all of the little puzzles, half of which only even gave you money. Although I must admit, the combat system in WW meant that a lot of your fights were more timing the A-button and less taking hits.

Don't get me wrong though, collectibles is why I love LoZ. But if you don't enjoy spending several hours getting everything; LoZ is going to be a hard and unrewarding series for you.

edit: I actually remembered something else from MM. If you collected all the masks and completed a set of minor dungeons it gave you what was essentially a god-mode mask for the final boss. That game really rewarded you for collecting everything.

Majora's Mask is actually not an offender here. The game was ABOUT collecting the masks and doing side quests. And they were the best side quests I've ever seen in a game. The Couple's Mask had more story in it than the actual storyline.

 

[Newbiespud]

If I might add yet another perspective to the discussion...

We're talking about two extremes here, aren't we? The junkie who wants to collect everything and the cynic who wants to keep his hands clean of the whole business (the "Collectivist" and "Campaigner" respectively in Fenixius' post)?

What about the unimpressive MIDDLE of the spectrum? Those who wait until the Silver tier before thinking, "Hey, maybe I'll start collecting stuff now." Or the people who tried to get all the Bronze-tier collectibles and only got 92 out of the 100 before giving up and going back to the main story?

How would you BACKTRACK with this kind of collection structure? Maybe it's really simple and I can't get my head around it, but... I think the problem is the scale of the rewards at that point. If you're already at the Platinum tier with those abilities and whatnot, would the Bronze-tier collection rewards still be worth it?

 

[Tears of Blood]

Rubbish, if you ask me.

I mean, certainly there could be a game or two that works this way, and it'd be fun, but that type of progression has too much personality attached to it. If you were to put it in all kinds of games, it'd be terrible!

Personally, I am okay with the way it is now for the most part. Even better, I like it when a game does something similar to what is described in the first half of the article. I am tempted to say "Well, screw them. They're lazy." but I know that is not necessarily the case.

I have a feeling there's a reason that no games have done this yet. Not because they didn't think of it, but because they thought the idea sucked. I don't mean to be a jerk, this is just what I think.

I want to make this a little more friendly. Let's say there are lots of different kinds of collectibles in the game, not just one kind. Now, let's say that each of these collectibles has a theme, or a purpose. Each type of collectible upgrades a certain aspect of your character. Now, let's not make this the only way to go about it. When a player completes a story or side mission, let's have the game check how many collectibles they have. Depending on the player's progress, he's given a certain amount of exp toward certain skills/abilities/aspects. More if he has fewer collectibles, and less if he has more. That way, it can be artificiall capped/tiered as it is in the article. Furthermore, the developer can now put all kinds of twists and spins on the process to make it their own.

Other games have played around with this idea to a degree. GTA: SA comes to mind with it's smattering of different collectibles.

Of course, my idea probably is just as bad as the writer of this article's idea, because if it WAS a good idea, someone would've already put it into a game, I think.

Like I said, I think that what's described in the article could be good for, like, one game. If this got re-done over and over it'd be tedious and unoriginal.

 

[IronCladNinja]

I'm on a big fan of all the collecting in metroid games, simply grabbing missile expansions and energy tanks and such has always been the most worthwhile collection quest for me. Plus most of the expansions, which you don't necessarily need all that many of if you have a decent degree of skill, are placed in such a way that you have to advance in the story line if you want to get more stuff. Plus, they have the alternate ending screens(in the side-scrollers)and the extended endings (in the prime trilogy) and all the other junk like bobble heads, concept art, etc to go with it. Out of all gaming corporations and all their third party buddies, nintendo definitely takes the cake for the whole "extraneous item collection questy thing" component of gameplay.