There are two points I think need to be made here. One is simply that a lot of the games (mostly by Ubisoft) that give you collectibles and tell you where they are do tend to mix it up a bit. For example in Ubisoft games where some of the collectibles are obvious, in other cases simply moving to the area where the icon is doesn't mean you can get it, indeed the area where the collectible is might not be obviously approachable at all. Granted in the scope of each game there are only so many tricks they can use (such as needing to find a cave to get under where your standing if you just go to the icon), but I wouldn't say it's 100% a matter of just grabbing the stuff. The problem is mostly when they add so many collectibles that finding that cave becomes old hat. For example in Far Cry 3 I don't think they really needed to put 120 bloody tribal relics into the game.
The other thing I'd point out is that right now games are made for "filthy casuals" to use a popular term. Indeed one of the reasons why gamers get so offensive about it is because it was predicted what was going to happen if casuals were not kept out of the hobby, or given a greatly reduced role in it. Simply put in the interest of making games enjoyable to all they really can't make much about them truly complicated, or introduce much in the way of true failure states. To do these things drives away casual gamers who will say "well, we have lives and can't put in the time to actually master a game, but we feel we're entitled to succeed at them and see all the content as well". Sort of like the old MMO argument that arguably started with Everquest where the rank and file players became upset that so much content was put into the game that could only ever be seen by a dedicated few players. The idea being that casuals pay the same money so should be entitled to everything the game offers. Some MMOs then decided "hey let's make a game with all levels of content accessible to everyone", "Theme Park" games were then arguably born, they made lots of money, and so they became the default ways of doing MMOs. Since they made so much money by catering to the casuals it became anathema to do it any other way and pretty much every "hardcore" MMO development eventually wound up selling out due to publishers wanting the biggest pile of money available, not a dedicated audience of serious gamers. The same applies to single player games, at the end of the day Ubisoft realizes that making serious games for serious gamers simply won't make them the same kind of money as churning out a predictable EZ mode theme park that can give people the illusion of being good at a game with a bit of persistence (which doesn't require dedicated persistence as you can take breaks as long as you want, unlike say an MMO where you need to keep up and work constantly). As I have pointed out for a long time a lot of the current games, like most shooters, are fundamentally just as casual as "Farmville" and other "clicker" games, they are just created with higher budgets and aimed at a different audience. Something like "Farmville" is aimed at people who don't seriously think of themselves as gamers and actually feel relieved to be so obviously casual in such a "weird" hobby, on the other hand a lot of AAA gaming right now including most Ubisoft titles is just as casual but created in such a way that it's supposed to convince the people playing it that they are "hardcore".
Now, before people take this the wrong way, to be honest I'm not a "serious gamer" anymore, it was years ago that I was an uber-raider in WoW or did any MMOs very seriously. Due to RL issues related to medication, tendonitis, and slowly developing arthritis I simply cannot move and play games like I used to. I'm actually glad for serious, high-quality, casual games, especially since the industry has moved so far away from true RPGs which were largely an intellectual exercise. That said, when I play something like "Assassin's Creed" nowadays (even if I'm not a serious fan) it looks pretty awesome when I say have Edward Kenway cutting through the entire crew of a British Man O' War, but I've played enough games to say flat out that it's not in the least challenging, it's incredibly easy compared to a lot of the games that I used to play, I mean cripes, if I can do it even when my wrist and fingers are having a rough moment that says something.
The sad truth is that today the majority of people playing games are the kinds who will generally get stuck, or not receive immediate gratification, or not be made to feel like they are properly uber, and then claim the game blows chips because of their own failures as opposed to working through them to get better or find work arounds. If a quick trip to say Gamefaqs won't help, the reviews get bombed, and people will take it out on a bad game, probably claiming bugs and other assorted problems are responsible, even if it was just the game kicking their butt since they didn't want to practice.
To an extent I think it's still kind of fair to blame the casuals who caused this trend, since really the greedy corporate suits are just doing what greedy corporate suits do. We as gamers sort of failed to defend our turf, especially the gaming media which did the easy thing in pushing for casual acceptance. We went for "hey there will be enough games for everyone of all play styles" to the reality check some people saw coming of pretty, but easily winnable games, that largely just take a time investment and not even a dedicated one. Something defended constantly by story trumping gameplay (where a game should include both) which ironically reminds me of a parent telling a child a story, and in this case it's a lot of older folks regressing to childhood.
Cruel, and I guess I'm increasingly bashing myself, but that's how I feel, and the opinion I've come to over the years. It's literally like a theme park, spend enough time waiting in line, and then you'll get to see the awesome event/ride, at which point you go stand in line for the next one. Single player, MMO, it's all the same thing, as long as you put in the time to get through the line you'll get to the payoff... unless the ride breaks (which is in this metaphor a shoddy game with legitimate bugs).
