Poll: War of the Collectibles/Side Stuff

[Evonisia]

Haven been pondering, I query to you (yes, you!) as to what distribution of collectible and side stuff you prefer.

I've found Ubisoft's tendency to have the maps littered with six million collectibles that you practically pick up by walking a few steps to be quite tiresome. The likes of FarCry 3 also just have a side activity or little hub every ten yards which I personally find less of an activity and more of a stepping stone to the next mission. I don't feel like I'm doing activities, I feel like I'm doing a check list. Good for achievements, I suppose, but I stop finding it fun after a while.

I like the idea of the new Wolfenstein games or the new Rayman games, where the collectible stuff is fewer in number, but often requires a little extra searching or work to find. Though admittedly, I think placing value on collectibles in general is a nice way to go about things. Saints Row IV did a combination of Ubisoft and usefulness, after all.

 

[DrownedAmmet]

Even though I don't like that they showed up on the map, I think the new Tomb Raider did it the best because I actually wanted to find all the little trinkets to hear what Lara had to say about them. I loved how you got to learn a little history and sometimes uncover more details about the island

 

[Guffe]

I don't quite like them the Batman way, i.e. everywhere all the time.
I like when there's a sudden mission and I'm like WOAH!! in stead of "not again...". That also pulls me more into it, in stead of thinking "well I just saved one guy from getting beat up, stop harrassing me game!"
Captcha sais "Spread the net", couldn't have said it any better myself!

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Don't show them on the map (Assassin's Creed's chests), but don't make them impossible to see (Assassin's Creed's feathers).

 

[dangoball]

Even though I don't like that they showed up on the map, I think the new Tomb Raider did it the best because I actually wanted to find all the little trinkets to hear what Lara had to say about them. I loved how you got to learn a little history and sometimes uncover more details about the island

Seconded.
Geocaches were slightly annoying but the eventual payoff was kinda interesting and I liked the various activities specific for each region, like lighting Himeko statues. Those were fun to search for and didn't show on the map.

 

[Diablo2000]

Give e single reason to care.

Like the Riddler stuff in the Arkham series that are it's own little storyline, or the already mentioned Tomb Raider ones where it helps build up the world a bit and help to develop Lara as a actual archaeologist or even stuff like in Darksiders that gave you the "Black Armor of Impossible to Die Now Unless You Are Actually Trying To".

Do not, have going around for either no reason or shit reason like Dragon Age Inquisition. However got the idea of the skulls deserve to get shot, hanged and shot again.(Or fired, whatever comes first)

 

[Aerosteam]

In games where collecting isn't the main focus (like Banjo-Kazooie), collectibles aren't worth shit if there isn't some sort of interesting unlock to getting them.

To me a short description of an object or a piece of concept art isn't enough for me. Something like revealing a secret of a character or the lore I'll always prefer.

 

[sXeth]

Really I'd like for them to be useful rather then trophy bait. Or at least contribute extra lore and detail.

Far Cry 4's missions at least levelled you up, and the journals gave you background info to the characters parents and why his mom left Kyrat. The Masks and posters basically did nothing. I was figuring the Masks would set up a mission vs the Goat, but it just kind of ends on the last one (although you do get an easter egg with one mask finding his hideout.

Alot of the Wolfenstein secrets were just "Oh here, you found gold, yay". Like, they couldn't even throw in a hidden gun in the spirit of the series they're based on.

The barrage of "secrets" shown on maps kind of contributes to the checklist too. They should design them so they're deductible without a big highlight. There was one in Wolfenstein: Old Blood, where you can sneak up on a guy, and he's commenting on an upside down book, that opens a secret door, which I'd give as a good example.

Generally, they could be a bit thinner too. Old Blood had 60 or 70 of the gold bits in 8 levels, along with the Nightmares (Wolf3d levels). Really, they could've just gone with the nightmares and been done. The Far Cry 4 stuff was 50-Over 100(posters, which were the most useless).

 

[Treeberry]

Even though I don't like that they showed up on the map, I think the new Tomb Raider did it the best because I actually wanted to find all the little trinkets to hear what Lara had to say about them. I loved how you got to learn a little history and sometimes uncover more details about the island

I agree with this. Although collectibles also showed in the Core games they were just kind of...there. Whereas in 2013 you hear Lara's thoughts on the trinkets she found and even examine some of them for more information. They were pretty interesting in Anniversary too.

Also if I'm collecting physical collectibles in a game, I want somewhere to store them that isn't in my normal inventory space.

 

[Qvar]

I don't think it's really about the numbers of them, but about the quality instead. They have to feel like there's some importance or reason to collect them. If not, it's just a chore.

I feel that the new Thief (haven't played the old ones) did it extremely well. Every collectible is unique, has it's own flavour text and is carefully placed (generally, somewhere you won't just stumble upon). Skulltulas at Zelda: OoT, for example, there were 100 of them, but they still had a reason to be hunted down, and it was really difficult to get them all, even if many were right at plain sight.

I hate games where they've added collectibles to mindlessly keep you occupied a couple hours more.

captcha: the big easy

 

[happyninja42]

Dogs > Cats, but cats are cool too.

I personally hate easter egg hunting quests in games. I can't stand them as they are so much busy work for no reason. If the game incorporates them into the storyline in a meaningful way, yes I'm glaring at you Ubisoft, fuck your feather hunting shit, then it's fine. But when they are just so blatantly tacked on to simply pad out the run time of the game, and compel the players to explore every inch of the 3D world they created, I stop giving a shit.

I've said this before, but games like inFamous do it in a way that I like. The gather quest for the core shards made sense in game, and there was a tangible benefit for doing it. If I take the time to gather these shards, I will be more powerful than if I didn't. Also, the game gave me a radar pulsing effect to know when they are nearby, so I can just cruise around town, and when I get a ping, I can veer off course and go pick it up. I like that.

 

[Evonisia]

Dogs > Cats, but cats are cool too.

Blasphemous. There shall be pistols at dawn, sir.

 

[happyninja42]

Dogs > Cats, but cats are cool too.

Blasphemous. There shall be pistols at dawn, sir.

Have at thee knave! *slaps you with a glove*

 

[LaoJim]

Like in Arkham City. The Riddler trophies are all little puzzles.

Don't show them on the map (Assassin's Creed's chests), but don't make them impossible to see (Assassin's Creed's feathers).

I all prefer collectables where there is a puzzle or task to it - in AC it could be climbing to the top of a building. In which case showing them on the map is fine, the puzzle is still there However if you are not going to show exactly where they are on the map, you need to be clear about how many are in a given region. I don't want to collect 399 from the huge world map and then have literally no idea which square mile the last one is in.

Another alternative is to have some kind of sensor mechanic which indicated when a collectable is close, but doesn't necessarily tell you exactly where.

 

[Ronald Nand]

I think the best way to handle collectibles is to emphasise quality over quantity. Make each collectible something interesting like a 3D model (like the Shadow of Mordor/Tomb Raider), parts of a side story (but not just text that most players will ignore, make a small animated film or something and split it into bits), give it some interesting/funny flavor text (like Blood Dragon), or have it unlock some side mission or some powerful weapon.

But the most important thing is to reduce the amount of collectibles and focus on making collecting them fun (for example the treasure hunts in Red Dead Redemption). I think maps of collectibles should be supplied in game, possibly in the later stages of the game, definitely not from the start. However keep the numbers low (like 20 or less in the whole game world) so its reasonable to get them all without a map.

 

[RJ 17]

Doesn't the addition of a "joke" choice in a poll completely negate the entire purpose of doing a poll?

Oh well, I'll agree with Ezekiel. I liked Arkham City's way of doing collectibles: don't just hide stuff in obscure places, make a little challenge out of getting them. That way even with an in-game map that reveals their locations it's still tricky to get them all and it provides a greater sense of accomplishment for getting them.