It is good design only if it’s good. The prevalence of Indy games in modern gaming culture has taught me that games should stick to what they do well. If exploration is a meaningful and engaging element it can be excellent. Most of the time in RPGs it’s a drag. And even if you don’t like it, the influence on the parts of the game that are good means you can’t skip it. In an RPG, collectables is something I never interact with because it’s boring. I am however getting every usable item there is even though I don’t enjoy doing so.
[Any/All Pronouns]
- 0 Posts
- 3 Comments
Joined 3 days ago
Cake day: October 30th, 2026
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
I would even argue that this practice of spreading items in lesser important places is often bad design. It motivates a player to do things that are not fun. Why should this be in the game?
As a bonus it is easier to balance a game when the amount of items does not vary that much.


Pokémon is a good example. There is no item in the trash cans throughout the whole game (the originals). I and many others do check every trash can ever. And the reason is managing motivation. The game teaches you that there might be something of value and that is a heavy hitter on your dopamine. Directing the motivation towards disappointment is the essence of bad game design.