Decker

Every time I play an action game these days, I keep coming back to this same thought : Collectables are ruining the gaming experience. Now I'm not saying they ruin the game, just that they break the fourth wall for me.
It seems whenever I play an action game and am being funneled from one area to another, instead of just feeling free to move on up, I feel somewhat obligated to explore every corner and behind every door like an absent-minded dad who misplaced his keys, looking for some silly collectable that a programmer might have hidden there. If there is clearly one way they want you to go, but there is another side path your character can go instead, then the only reason that it's there is for you to go and grab the dog-tag/scroll/GPS cache/package/gramophone/golden bolt/audiolog/comic book page/thermos/etc.

Certainly I like looking for collectables in the right sort of game. In the Batman games where you're a detective, searching for collectables and figuring the puzzles to solve them is the best thing about the game. In an open world game like inFAMOUS or Crackdown, it's part of the fun of using your new powers. In the Assassin's Creed games, being a thief makes perfect sense to seek out treasure. In platformers, collecting things is sort of the entire point of the game. None of that is what I'm talking about here.

I'm talking about the action game, FPS and the like where you have to move from point A to Point B and there really isn't a reason to go looking for stuff except that you know a designer has hidden something there for you to find and get ever so much closer to a trophy or Achievement.

It was never more obvious than in Ryse where literally every branching path was only to grab a scroll (or shield) and then come back. There is never any other reason to go in a different direction. That feels SO artificial and takes you out of the gameplay.
In Uncharted you play as a treasure seeker, so it's sort of natural to be looking for collectables (and the way you can scrutinize them after finding them is especially cool), but even then there are times when you're supposed to be running away from attackers as fast as possible, yet the game designers instead are getting you to deviate from the exit to look for collectables (even as you virtual life is endangered). It's the one thing that broke the reality for me in that game.

Now I know that you don't have to get any collectables; that they're usually just for popping Achievements. Still it's not easy to completely ignore them - especially when it's painfully obvious from the level design that they're right there. It's bothered me for years and I was just wondering if others felt the same way about these virtual Easter Egg Hunts.

DthRdrX

I primarily play games for the story lines anymore, and therefore are kind of sick of any achievement boxes popping up.

fumanstan

I don't really care for them either, it would be kind of neat to have a mode where they're turned off completely. I remember commenting about it for Tomb Raider, where your friends are captured and facing death but you're running around an island picking up old junk.

dsa_shea

I'm playing Tomb Raider now and I would agree. If it were just Lara Croft on her own exploring then I wouldn't mind as many collectibles. However, having her pickup what seems to be an inordinate amount of things while people lives are depending on her is a bit silly.

MoviePage

The only time collectibles bother me is when they're in a game or level that's timed (whether it's an actual timer or a chase/escape of some sort) or when there's an NPC nagging you to move forward on a dialogue loop ("Hurry up!" "We need to go this way!" etc.). Make up your minds, developers.

Otherwise I usually enjoy them for the challenge of finding hidden things and the fact that they can add replayability.

Groucho

I say "Nay" yet I can't help but pick these up. It would be nice if they saved the collectables for the second run-through, and not had them at all the first time you go through so you could enjoy the story without going through every side-corridor and breaking every crate.

chess

Depends on how it's done.

In Uncharted, they are purely a side quest, and I ignore them on the first playthrough and stick to the story, and then I collect them on the individually selectable chapters. GTA, Burnout Paradise and Saints row are open world examples of the same thing. They are an added thing to do in the game but with no actual consequences to the core gameplay or the story.

In other games, the items are needed for leveling up, which is fine as long as it's done in a way that's additive and doesn't feel too tacked on. Games like Infamous come to mind, where finding the collectibles adds to your power. It can feel grindy if it's done wrong, but I generally enjoy the easter egg hunt.

Voted "who cares", but that's more dismissive than I'd mean to be.

Decker

So you're the a-hole who voted for that!

I had considered including a "Depends on the game" choice in the poll, but eventually decided against it because it's too easy a cop-out answer.

dsa_shea

Tomb Raider essentially forces you out of the rhythm of the game by making collectibles absolutely necessary for needed XP and salvage. This is why I wish they would go back to the old exploring mostly with some enemy encounters here and there. I also don't believe you have to make games where weapons need to be upgraded. Just introduce the new weapons at specific times that are appropriate to the story and gameplay.

Decker

The counter-argument to that is that at least in TR, finding some things during your play-through gives you some sort of a tangible gameplay bonus. For me, nothing is more frustrating than hunting for a bunch of collectables only to find that I won't even get an Achievement if I don't find every single one. What a waste of time that is.

Brack

Hasn't the Super Mario franchise been doing this for almost two decades? Is it necessary to find all the big stars on each level? No, but it can be fun knowing you accomplished something so pointless. There are a lot of other things that break the fourth wall that are more annoying if you ask me, such as a lack of environmental interactivity. I know there are limitations with do that with games, since they are finite universes.

Decker

Again, platformers are different. If you weren't hunting down stars and collectables in a Mario game, what would you be doing?
I meant more like in a FPS or a third-person shooter. Something like Gears of War or Call of Duty where the point is to advance, take cover and shoot things. To stop the action of battle and start searching the back corners of the environments to try and find a hidden collectable in a game like that seems to me to be pretty much counter to the actual point of playing that sort of a game

Brack

Princess Peach would be mighty mad if she ever found out about Mario's obsession with stars.

mhg83

In Mario it's not really pointless. Collecting the stars opens new levels.

Brack

Which games, the newer ones? The first Mario game I played after 64 was The New Super Mario Bros (which I need to work on, I've neglected my Wii U somewhat). The N64 was the last system I owned, so I'm out of the loop.

fujishig

Right. I like finding power ups; one of the best games with this is the first Crackdown, where you'd see an orb and have to figure out how to get it. On the opposite end of the spectrum, screw the flags in Assassin's Creed.

At least most games these days allow you to replay levels or have an open world you can backtrack in... I remember back in the day you either found it when you first played it or forget about it.

mndtrp

I don't know about the Xbox, but the trophy popup can be stopped on the PS3.

I typically play through a game without worrying about collecting things too much. If I really liked the game, I might go back through a second time to get the collectables.

Dan

I think it depends on the game for me.
I didn't bother in any of the Uncharted games because it felt like too much of a deviation.
In Tomb Raider, I actually enjoyed going back to the different areas and searching things out.
In Ryse, I hate it, because the game is very much "on rails" and it's a pain to search that shit out in the heat of a battle.
In Dishonored, I didn't care for seeking out Runes on my first playthrough, but made a significant effort the second time. With that one (and Tomb Raider), it's more about the love I have for the game and wanting to "get" everything than anything else. Sure, it's kind of a chore, but in games that I really enjoy, I'm willing to stick around and find stuff.

So I'm somewhere in between. If it's a game that really grips me, then I'm more interested in collecting all the crap. If it's a game that's fun, but I ONLY care about progressing through the story, then I'll usually skip the collectibles aside from the ones I just happen to find without trying.

DRG

I tended to over-explore games even before collectibles came into the mix, so they really don't change my playing style much.

redbill

I'm so used to it now, it doesn't really bother me. But I do notice the relief of not having to look for items in open-world mission games (Infamous, GTA). Sure they have other collectibles, but not in the middle of missions, so dont have to worry about "missing" an aztec headress.

Mike86

I generally only bother collecting them if it gains me something extra in the game (like a bonus mission or character or something). I don't really care about getting achievements or trophies though.