Tired of collectibles and video game developers

[HandsUp1992]

Really annoyed with the collectible craze which plagues about every AAA game. I'm going through most of the PS3 games I did not plat/100% before I get a PS5 in a year or so. These horrible things are the most tedious things I have willingly put myself through in my entire life. I look at collectibles as coded parasites infecting games. I find more enjoyment and accomplishment from washing dishes and flossing my teeth.

How many trophy collectors find collectibles without looking at a guide? The average gamer who doesn't trophy hunt doesn't care less about them and neither do I.

With the scale of games going into this gen, it's only going become more out of control. I feel most of us would rather plat games that encouraged skill rather than investing precious time into something we do not find enjoyable.

 

I was a lot more selective last gen with the games I did play. This gen 100% I won't be buying more than 6-8 games. Either I consider it a 10/10 at 'what it does' or I'm not playing it. If I look at the trophy list, figure the collectibles are time consuming and it's not a 10/10, then it'll be a definite pass.

 

I find it unforgiveable that the developers would even spend time adding collectibles to their game before ensuring it is ready to be released. Far too many games a few years into the 7th gen have been rushed for release and have a ridiculous number of updates to fix bugs that should not be there to begin with. Tired of modern developers with their microtransactions, unfinished games, bland DLC, copy and paste side quests, rinsed and repeats formulas they use, immoral treatment of staff, etc. There are some truly talented and passionate people in the gaming industry, but I feel greed is ruining it. Even seeing the likes of Ubisoft and EA turn me off from games. I don't look at Naughty Dog like I used to either.

 

tl dr: collectibles are a chore, they are stale and unimaginative. As a result I'm buying far less games. Majority of game developers ONLY care about filling their pockets.

Edited December 17, 2020 by HandsUp1992

[BlackSquirrell1]

I honestly hate collectibles.  The one thing I try to avoid is using a guide, and with the collectibles, it is almost a requirement unless you want to play the same game 5X.

[DrBloodmoney]

For me, the only problem collectibles are the ones where you need 100% of them for a trophy.

 

Changing the trophy to less than 100% - even just to 80 or 90%, instantly changes thrm from a chore to a fun distraction. The Far Cry games for example, do this - the trophies are collect X no of Y, where the total number of Y’s available is more than X.

 

when the trophy is ‘collect everything’ it just encorages guide use, creates anxiety in completionists about missable ones, and actually - in some cases discourages people from naturally exploring the game world, as almost no one could ever find every single collectible in a playthrough without looking at a walkthrough / guide.

 

When it is ‘collect some of, or even collect most of’ that actually does encourage exploration, as use of a guide is not seen as so necessary for the trophy, as it allows people to miss a few without punishing them for it.

 

[snakebit10]

Most of the time I try to find what I can and than I will use a guide for clean up. If it is collectibles that add to the game I don't mind. If it is a pointless collectible that is when it gets boring. A game like The Last of Us part II, I think it was done right. The letters you find add to the story and give info on what happened. 

 

I won't skip a game just because the collectibles are tedious. Might miss out on some fun games otherwise.

[DaivRules]

It's a character trait of most video game characters to be hoarders. We're just fulfilling their desires by chasing down their junk collectibles.

 

Then again, I enjoy Disgaea and Assassin's Creed games, so what do I know?

[Charizarzar]

I just wish they were fewer and actually useful in some way. Like skins/outfits or the Vault Boy bobbleheads you can display in Fallout 4.

[iGGTheEnd]

1 hour ago, BlackSquirrell1 said:

I honestly hate collectibles.  The one thing I try to avoid is using a guide, and with the collectibles, it is almost a requirement unless you want to play the same game 5X.

This is why I love Roguelikes, No collectables in most of them and the trophy lists are always straight forward.  You can look at the list normally and figure out how to do %90 of the list without a guide.

[AgentSmiz]

I don't mind collectables but when there's no way to track them, that's when I start to get annoyed. I've lost track of the game maps I've downloaded over the years and marked off in paint as to which collectables I've got. If the in game map gives some sort of indication which ones have been collected or a way to locate ones that I haven't, I'm more likely to put the time into collecting them. Likewise, I'm more likely to collect them if they actually give something worthwhile to the game. 

Take 2 open world games that I've played that are set in New York: Spider-Man and Prototype. Spider-Man has several different collectables but most of these can be tracked. The map divides the city in chunks and it shows how many objectives/collectables you've done in each area. Even for the hidden ones, you get an upgrade that lets you see them on the mini map. Prototype has 200 of one sort and no way to tell which ones you've gained and where. So it's a case of looking at a map on the computer, going to that point in the game and marking it off. Rinse and repeat.

I still haven't brought myself to do the trophy in the latter. There's over 50 in the Times Square area alone and they're all cramped up. Plus, if memory serves, there's no way to mark the map with a custom waypoint - another pet peeve in games with collectables.

[flugurnarrr]

I enjoy collectibles, but I think the majority of developers don't know how to truly pull them off in a meaningful/satisfying manner.

 

It's okay for me to look for documents and unique items that flash out the story or provide new abilities for my character, the problem begins when there are literally hundreds of them, they're repetitive, and there's no way to track them down efficiently on the map. It's also annoying as hell when you have different types of documents (relics, journals, tape recorders, you name it) and the game puts them all together without any logical system, so there's no way for you to know which type of object you missed and where. 

I'm currently playing Rise of the Tomb Raider and while they gave us a map and separate the collectibles by type/location, it's super annoying to go after all of them because some items require the player finding specific objects (backpack/archivist map) so they can finally appear on the map. There's also an excessive amount of junk to collect (between murals, documents, artifacts, monoliths and whatnot, you have more than 300 collectibles) and it gets tiresome really fast. It was a chore to get all of them, and at some point near the 100th ancient scroll or whatever I just gave up and used a guide for clean up. 

Edited December 17, 2020 by flugurnarrr
Typo.

[HandsUp1992]

3 hours ago, flugurnarrr said:

I enjoy collectibles, but I think the majority of developers don't know how to truly pull them off in a meaningful/satisfying manner.

 

It's okay for me to look for documents and unique items that flash out the story or provide new abilities for my character, the problem begins when there are literally hundreds of them, they're repetitive, and there's no way to track them down efficiently on the map. It's also annoying as hell when you have different types of documents (relics, journals, tape recorders, you name it) and the game puts them all together without any logical system, so there's no way for you to know which type of object you missed and where. 

I'm currently playing Rise of the Tomb Raider and while they gave us a map and separate the collectibles by type/location, it's super annoying to go after all of them because some items require the player finding specific objects (backpack/archivist map) so they can finally appear on the map. There's also an excessive amount of junk to collect (between murals, documents, artifacts, monoliths and whatnot, you have more than 300 collectibles) and it gets tiresome really fast. It was a chore to get all of them, and at some point near the 100th ancient scroll or whatever I just gave up and used a guide for clean up. 

I was a fan of Tomb Raider since the PS1 days, but seeing the trophy list for the second game and the amount of collectibles and grinding I would need to do put me off. I'm not sure if the Tomb Raider you're playing is the 3rd or 2nd but 300 collectibles is horrific. I seem to recall that you could explore the area after you complete the first game and I definitely would not have been happy. Some games are better than others for collectibles, I still cannot say that I like any game for them. Besides hundreds of collectibles, the worst thing is when they are missable or they are not accumulative, so you have to start a new game. Almost happened to in Horizon Zero Dawn which is an open world game, but I found a glitch to access an otherwise inaccessible area which saved 1-3 days of my life

6 hours ago, DrBloodmoney said:

For me, the only problem collectibles are the ones where you need 100% of them for a trophy.

 

Changing the trophy to less than 100% - even just to 80 or 90%, instantly changes thrm from a chore to a fun distraction. The Far Cry games for example, do this - the trophies are collect X no of Y, where the total number of Y’s available is more than X.

 

when the trophy is ‘collect everything’ it just encorages guide use, creates anxiety in completionists about missable ones, and actually - in some cases discourages people from naturally exploring the game world, as almost no one could ever find every single collectible in a playthrough without looking at a walkthrough / guide.

 

When it is ‘collect some of, or even collect most of’ that actually does encourage exploration, as use of a guide is not seen as so necessary for the trophy, as it allows people to miss a few without punishing them for it.

 

Interesting, I haven't played a Far Cry game since 3 which I seem to remember was collectible heavy but bearable unlike some games. Sounds like they have improved, Far Cry 2 was tough for collectibles, were diamonds in that game. Totally agree about anxiety, collectibles and missables may be the worst combination or a close second after multiple play throughs and grinding.

 

I feel they should do something different. If they want people to explore a game, give them a reason to want to explore the game. Some games do this well, RDR2 comes to mind, but I hated the trophy grinds in that game

Edited December 18, 2020 by HandsUp1992

[AJ_Radio]

The OP is basically the reason why I’ve given up a lot of open world games, particularly stuff like Assassin’s Creed that is seemingly never ending with a laundry list to complete. 
 

I appreciate modern storytelling. Assassin’s Creed Origins, despite some issues I had with it, brought out a quality story with Bayek looking for the people responsible for killing his son. The side activities are a chore and I feel we have reached the point where AAA developers think more is obviously better. 
 

There are three modern era AAA open world games I want to get. Ghost of Tsushima, Red Dead Redemption 2 and Mafia: Definitive Edition. But playing through those games, they will be just yet another experience where I play through the story, then spend several hours watching a bunch of boring ass videos from mute @PowerPyx or Brian @PS_4Trophies (now PS5Trophies on YouTube). Those two guys are basically the main source for looking up collectible videos because everybody fucking does that at this point, because they get their new PS4/PS5 games shipped early by the game developers. 
 

Neither PowerPyx nor PS5Trophies really bother to play interesting or different sort of games as they’re the same AAA kind of games that I just watch a boring collectible video. In Mafia: Definitive Edition I literally just have to watch PowerPyx as he collects a bunch of collectibles in that game, and I have the platinum trophy afterwards. Not exactly engaging gameplay. 
 

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is still the single best game I have ever played that managed to captivate its audience with a grand open world while still providing unique side quests and engaging plot lines. Searching for all those Gwent cards in the open world was a lot of fun, and using those cards to help win a tournament was even more fun. Nothing in the open world genre has captivated me with its side content as much as The Witcher 3 did. It’s a sign that the game is to put it short, a masterpiece that will still be played for years to come. 
 

While I love both LA Noire and Mafia II, I don’t know if I have the stomach to do them again on the PS4 and find those collectibles a second time. They added even more collectibles for the remasters, making an already annoying and tedious task even worse. 
 

These days, I prefer linear games and smaller indie titles. The open world has gotten old for me.

[HandsUp1992]

6 hours ago, Charizarzar said:

I just wish they were fewer and actually useful in some way. Like skins/outfits or the Vault Boy bobbleheads you can display in Fallout 4.

Fallout bobbleheads were not so bad, I remember Fallout 3 only had 20. If some of them weren't missable it would have been one of few games I don't mind. Would have been my first ever platinum if it wasn't for this. Instead I finally platinumed it 10 years later

[HandsUp1992]

21 minutes ago, Spaz said:

The OP is basically the reason why I’ve given up a lot of open world games, particularly stuff like Assassin’s Creed that is seemingly never ending with a laundry list to complete. 
 

I appreciate modern storytelling. Assassin’s Creed Origins, despite some issues I had with it, brought out a quality story with Bayek looking for the people responsible for killing his son. The side activities are a chore and I feel we have reached the point where AAA developers think more is obviously better. 
 

There are three modern era AAA open world games I want to get. Ghost of Tsushima, Red Dead Redemption 2 and Mafia: Definitive Edition. But playing through those games, they will be just yet another experience where I play through the story, then spend several hours watching a bunch of boring ass videos from mute @PowerPyx or Brian @PS_4Trophies (now PS5Trophies on YouTube). Those two guys are basically the main source for looking up collectible videos because everybody fucking does that at this point, because they get their new PS4/PS5 games shipped early by the game developers. 
 

Neither PowerPyx nor PS5Trophies really bother to play interesting or different sort of games as they’re the same AAA kind of games that I just watch a boring collectible video. In Mafia: Definitive Edition I literally just have to watch PowerPyx as he collects a bunch of collectibles in that game, and I have the platinum trophy afterwards. Not exactly engaging gameplay. 
 

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is still the single best game I have ever played that managed to captivate its audience with a grand open world while still providing unique side quests and engaging plot lines. Searching for all those Gwent cards in the open world was a lot of fun, and using those cards to help win a tournament was even more fun. Nothing in the open world genre has captivated me with its side content as much as The Witcher 3 did. It’s a sign that the game is to put it short, a masterpiece that will still be played for years to come. 
 

While I love both LA Noire and Mafia II, I don’t know if I have the stomach to do them again on the PS4 and find those collectibles a second time. They added even more collectibles for the remasters, making an already annoying and tedious task even worse. 
 

These days, I prefer linear games and smaller indie titles. The open world has gotten old for me.

Absolutely agree, I finished with the AC series for this reason after Black Flag. I couldn't keep up with them to begin with, then the amount of time you need to invest for 100% and the filler activities/side missions.

 

Red Dead Redemption 2 is a terrific game that I almost gave up with due to the slow pacing at the beginning. The platinum trophy is one my proudest platinums, I only stuck with it because it's an all time favourite, but grinding for platinum temporarily made me hate the game. To call it frustrating is an understatement. Witcher 3 and RDR2 are my games of the gen. Witcher 3 edges it now I think about it.

 

I don't understand why they added further collectibles in the LA Noire remaster, definitely unnecessary.

 

It's a shame the gaming industry is moving away from linear games in favour of open world games, i.e. Metro Exodus and Mirrors Edge Catalyst. Quality > quantity.

Edited December 18, 2020 by HandsUp1992

[AJ_Radio]

1 minute ago, HandsUp1992 said:

Absolutely agree, I finished with the AC series for this reason after Black Flag. I couldn't keep up with them to begin with, then the amount of time you need to invest for 100% and the filler activities/side missions.

 

Red Dead Redemption is a terrific game that I almost gave up with due to the slow pacing at the beginning. The platinum trophy is one my proudest platinums, I only stuck with it because it's an all time favourite, but grinding for platinum temporarily made me hate the game. To call it frustrating is an understatement.

I can get behind older open world games. inFamous 1 has absolutely horrid collectibles, but it came out back in 2009 so I understand it was a product of its time. Older games were more unforgiving with their collectibles.

 

What I can’t accept so much is when developers paste the same cliche formula of collectibles over and over. We’ve had the same sort of collectibles for over a decade, and it’s getting really old. 
 

If this was 10 years ago I would accept a lot of these collectibles. But today they’re just tiring and it’s become a habit that I watch one of PowerPyx’s videos to collect them all. 
 

Most of them don’t offer any challenge or skill. For me to be truly engaged they either have to have some skill involved or be interesting. Good example is the Batman Arkham games. Yes, they got more annoying and aggravating in later games, we can all agree on that. But they made you think for a possible solution. There were several Riddler collectibles to be grabbed that I thought would be easy, only to realize I had to destroy a bunch of Riddler robots and/or solve a convoluted puzzle that would involve Batman’s batarang. The lore was generally enough to make them worth it. 
 

I don’t need to explain The Witcher 3. Its collectibles are rich in lore, CD Projekt Red did a phenomenal job. Red Dead Redemption 2 in contrast just sounds like a massive laundry list, which is what everyone tells me if you’re aiming for the platinum. 
 

I can get behind the original RDR because again, it came out back in 2010. Nowadays collectibles just bug the crap out of me. 
 

I’ll be starting GTA San Andreas and I’m thankful that you do not need to grab all the collectibles in that game.

[Rozalia1]

Collectibles vary game to game depending on how catalogued they are in game and the type of the game it is. For example I played Daymare 1998 recently and that requires you to get all the collectibles. The game is level based and you can't replay levels for collectibles, worse it is very common for you to when proceeding through a level to get previous sections locked out so if you missed a collectible in them too bad you can't go back... which means I had to play it with a collectible guide to make sure I don't miss anything. Like most I'm sure, I really dislike having to constantly reference a guide. 

 

By comparison something like Doom Eternal does collectibles nicely. It notes how many are on the map and you've gotten and collectibles themselves show up on your map (might need an upgrade I forget but pretty sure it's cheap if so) and once you reach the end of a level it'll tell you the level is done and you can now teleport to previous sections of the level (no enemies around) to look for collectibles. 

 

Infamous that was mentioned was a pretty, yes yes, Infamous, case of bad collectibles in that you had shards all over the map. They do strengthen you from what I remember so not completely pointless, but still annoying as you're picking up all these rocks. Game does not mark on the map which you've found or tell you how many remain in a section of the city... so I remember printing out a map and tracking down all them, marking stuff off when I found it/found nothing there. Funnily enough when I was done... didn't have the trophy so that was fun. From what I recall what happened was 2 collectibles are very close together on the map but they're on different vertical plains so I went to place, got the collectible and then crossed both out in error. Later games made Blast Shards much less annoying to get all of.

 

In conclusion I'm not against collectibles, but some developers should really consider if their game is at all collectible friendly, and if not and they still want them, maybe add some features in to make it more friendly. Also, do try to have them be meaningful is some manner. Lore is one way. Upgrades to your character is... okay. Literally nothing? Why do this? Sometimes like in the case of the feathers in Assassins Creed 2 I can I suppose see the logic of the collectibles being put in to promote you into really seeing all the work they put into making the game's areas... I can see that and still dislike they put them in. 

[flugurnarrr]

7 hours ago, HandsUp1992 said:

I was a fan of Tomb Raider since the PS1 days, but seeing the trophy list for the second game and the amount of collectibles and grinding I would need to do put me off. I'm not sure if the Tomb Raider you're playing is the 3rd or 2nd but 300 collectibles is horrific. I seem to recall that you could explore the area after you complete the first game and I definitely would not have been happy. Some games are better than others for collectibles, I still cannot say that I like any game for them. Besides hundreds of collectibles, the worst thing is when they are missable or they are not accumulative, so you have to start a new game. Almost happened to in Horizon Zero Dawn which is an open world game, but I found a glitch to access an otherwise inaccessible area which saved 1-3 days of my life

 

Same thing here, Tomb Raider fan since the PS1 days and honestly, the classic games had collectibles done in the right way: you had to collect keys and relics to progress in the levels, which acted like giant puzzles that you had to solve. Yes, sometimes they were hidden in ridiculous places, but every single item had a purpose and you knew once you picked it up, you'd have to use it. In the new games (I'm playing the second one from the reboot trilogy right now) it's just a bunch of crap that supposedly flashes out the story and gives you XP, but it's actually useless—the writing is mediocre so flashing it out only makes the main story dumber, and the XP system is stupid and it's only there so you can say that Lara is "evolving". the game would work just fine without all of it. 

 

I'm cleaning up my (very modest) list and planning on getting the Horizon Zero Dawn plat next after putting it away for years, so good to know that there's a collectible issue there. 

[Maverick6146]

I am ok with collectibles as I do have certain level of OCD in finishing games

[Lava_Yuki]

I'm not a fan of them either. I don't mind it if it's something like complete 90% like the way Tales of Xillia 1 and 2 had, but the 100% ones are a pain in the butt, especially if they are in combination with a bunch of missable ones like Tales of Vesperia, where literally every single thing in the game is missable, and the titles, monster and item book trophies are all linked to each other via some missable side quest or another. Tales of Vesperia and FF13 were the two games that I played that were a nightmare for collectible trophies. Persona 4 Golden also has a lot of annoying trophies too with maxing social links and the hard core risette trophy. 

 

However, I found that the David Cage games like Detroit and Beyond, and lIfe is strange games did collectables pretty ok. They were all pretty easy without anything missable with the chapter select, which was handy. I found that I was able to enjoy the games more than compared to when I was under pressure and having to be vigilant of so many missables typical of RPGs

[AJ_Radio]

19 hours ago, flugurnarrr said:

 

Same thing here, Tomb Raider fan since the PS1 days and honestly, the classic games had collectibles done in the right way: you had to collect keys and relics to progress in the levels, which acted like giant puzzles that you had to solve. Yes, sometimes they were hidden in ridiculous places, but every single item had a purpose and you knew once you picked it up, you'd have to use it. In the new games (I'm playing the second one from the reboot trilogy right now) it's just a bunch of crap that supposedly flashes out the story and gives you XP, but it's actually useless—the writing is mediocre so flashing it out only makes the main story dumber, and the XP system is stupid and it's only there so you can say that Lara is "evolving". the game would work just fine without all of it. 

 

I'm cleaning up my (very modest) list and planning on getting the Horizon Zero Dawn plat next after putting it away for years, so good to know that there's a collectible issue there. 

 

The graphics and game mechanics are very dated. The old Tomb Raider games were all about puzzle solving and moving from one area to the next, with the occasional enemy placed somewhere to be an annoyance.

 

From what I've seen in the newer games it's basically more about story and grabbing a bunch of collectibles over solving puzzles that were intriguing and took some brains to pass. Having to do all that multiplayer in the first reboot game turns me off quite a lot, and the two games afterwards (Rise of the Tomb Raider and Shadow of the Tomb Raider) look like they just added a bunch of padding and other crap so we can go and find even more collectibles. Ugh. Definitely too much DLC and other stuff when there are other games that interest me more.

Edited December 19, 2020 by Spaz

[ladynadiad]

10 hours ago, Lava_Yuki said:

I'm not a fan of them either. I don't mind it if it's something like complete 90% like the way Tales of Xillia 1 and 2 had, but the 100% ones are a pain in the butt, especially if they are in combination with a bunch of missable ones like Tales of Vesperia, where literally every single thing in the game is missable, and the titles, monster and item book trophies are all linked to each other via some missable side quest or another. Tales of Vesperia and FF13 were the two games that I played that were a nightmare for collectible trophies. Persona 4 Golden also has a lot of annoying trophies too with maxing social links and the hard core risette trophy. 

 

Tales of Vesperia was nothing compared to Tales of Symphonia though.  At least with Vesperia, it's doable to get everything in one playthrough and then just do the speed run and low level run.  With Symphonia, you have missables locked behind a choice made late in the game and have to do a minimum of four runs to get all the needed ones for everyone's titles.  Honestly as far as Tales of games go, I much preferred Hearts' trophy list.  It's a good challenge, but it doesn't require getting all the missables and everything can be done in one playthough, it's just easier to do two for the max level one.  Zestiria's also wasn't bad other than the snack making, but really as long as you have people set on making snacks all game it's not that bad.  But I definitely don't ever again want to do a plat where I have to do three additional playthroughs just to get some extra scenes that give a new title.

 

And I will say, nothing in a Tales of game compares to the sheer grinds in collectables in the more grindy Compile Heart games.  The worst is collectables that have conditions like beating thousands of monsters to unlock.  MeiQ requires beating 30k monsters to finish unlocking its collectables.  Sorcery Saga also required a huge grind for getting all the weapons and shields.  Though supposedly the worst is Mugen Souls and the grind to collect all the Shampurus needed for the last trophy.

 

I'll also say that collectables locked behind excessive amounts of playthroughs are annoying too.  Playing Sengoku Basara: Samurai Heroes and the trophy for collecting all accessories requires beating the story mode with each of sixteen heroes four times.  That's 64 playthroughs in total.  While the story modes aren't too long, it's rather excessive and the majority of the time spent for the plat.

 

Honestly though, I'd take collectables over pointless grinds any day.  However, I do definitely prefer collectables that add to the story, world building or character development, like the character notes in the Trails of Cold Steel games. 

[StraightVege]

Totally agree, and I've felt that way since the PS3 era. Hopefully, the way games like Control approach collectibles is a sign that developers are catching on to the fatigue. In that game, they're mostly in plain sight, and you only need to pick-up around half of them to earn the associated trophy.

[Jelly Soup]

I'm one of those old tools that got most of his kicks from ancient N64 collect-a-thons, so I feel a tad different here. I'm for collectables that are actually thought out. There's a strong difference between:

-Having a pile of junk to pick up that makes sense, enriches the experience or is just fun for a variety of reasons.

and

-Just spewing crap all over a world map for the purposes of adding another 10 hours to a short game and no other reason.

You can really tell when time and care went into developing the shopping list and when it's phoned in.

[AJ_Radio]

On 12/19/2020 at 2:42 PM, ScarecrowsFate said:

Totally agree, and I've felt that way since the PS3 era. Hopefully, the way games like Control approach collectibles is a sign that developers are catching on to the fatigue. In that game, they're mostly in plain sight, and you only need to pick-up around half of them to earn the associated trophy.

They’re not as aggravating as they used to be because they virtually all have a tracker making them easy to spot. 
 

Most collectibles are still boring with no real lore or purpose behind them. Open world games are utterly plagued with them, it’s basically bread and butter at this point. 
 

It feels refreshing when I don’t have to grab collectibles for a platinum. GTA San Andreas has a very decent trophy list, I don’t have to spray tag every piece of graffiti in Los Santos or collect those stupid horseshoes in Las Venturas. 
 

Newer games have done much better in making collectibles more accessible, but there is still the problem of having too many of them.

Edited December 21, 2020 by Spaz

[Shua_J]

If collectables make sense to both story and mechanics...I go all out no matter how many hours it takes on my own. If I don't get it...I don't get it...and most of you know how much that kind of thing can urk your soul to the core.

Having said that...playing for as long as I have...its painfully obvious how much this crap is used to extend gameplay. If I'm collecting 100 million feathers just because and the protagonist is a hardcore Assassin...said hypothetical game can *&%$ right off and it's time for a guide to put a dagger in the platinum. It's also time to move on from the series.

[StacFace92]

Going to go against the grain here and say I actually enjoy 100% collectibles trophies. I just find it really relaxing to wander round an open world in post-game picking things up, and I've done both inFamous shards and Assassin's Creed 2 feathers.

 

The only time I don't like them is if they're missable, or if you have to use chapter select to replay entire chapters for them.