next »

[gimymblert]

zelda 1 qualify because zelda 1 is basically the template for mario 64
zelda 2 have XP ... wait what is the definite metric of progression in this one? it's not even items ...
all zelda have quarter heart and heart container but there we are stretching it a bit because it's the reverse of banjo (power are mean to progress not the gate in themselves, collectible don't gate but help progression), however it's false to say that power don't gate in mario or banjo, they do gate progress (hence the like zelda).

BTW the main abstract difference is in the gating, collecthon are currency base (number of type of something) while adventure are key-lock base (type of key open type of lock). Outside that it's a consensus problem, I would say that collecthon also tie the progression to define object or class of object, also convention says that those object are in big number, but how big is big enough? it's arbitrary. Megaman is an interesting example, you gain a class of object (weapon) that double as power up but don't gate, only the number of weapon mark progress (collect them all).

It's a discussion that is entirely based on the appreciation of the scale and complexity of the tropes, arbitrary line will be drawn by everyone. However it pose some interesting question, what would a megaman be like if it used "abstractly" a banjo structure?

[Sik]

I don't agree at all, you need those coins to 100%

But you can easily ignore that those stars even exist and still have a good amount of margin to be able to beat the game (you only need 70 out of 120 stars, you'd still have 35 stars of margin). On top of that I think the only thing you truly gain (besides the true ending) if you 100% the game is finding Yoshi (correct me if I'm wrong). All this from the N64 version (not the DS version), that is.

Also I'm surprised nobody mentioned Earthworm Jim 3D as a collecathon. It's practically the same kind of collecting as in Banjo Kazooie.

[gimymblert]

yes but the difference is low threshold vs high threshold, not collection per say.



BTW here are roughly the different abstract model

1. Collect trinket >> end (pac man)

Traditional 3D collecthon
2. 1 + number gate >> end (mario 64)
3. 2 + power up >> end
4. 3 + power up gate >> end (banjo)

5. 1 + power up >> end (megaman)
6. 5 + power up gates >> end (zelda)

Leaving out pure lock and key (key are not powe ups)

Zelda have a massive amount of non mandatory object to collect though (example gold skulltulla)

[Alevice]

Your mom is a collectathon.

[gimymblert]

if banjo is considered the collecthon while being not fundamentally different from mario is because it has systematize the collection at a scale beyond mario.

Collect:
1. energy
2. energy extension

3. power up trinket
4. power up
5. power up resource
6. transformation

7. invincibility resource

8. progression trinket 1
9. progression trinket 2
10. sub progression trinket

11. ammo
12. lifes

then the various switch, temporary power ups (shoes), pad

it only got worse with tooie and dk64

[gimymblert]

Maybe collecthon have been supplanted by crafting game like minecraft 

[s0]

Zelda have a massive amount of non mandatory object to collect though (example gold skulltulla)

ya but that shit is optional. so the game is a collectathon if you want it to be but its not fundamentally one.

[gimymblert]

That's what I said ... collecthon is about collecting as progress, which you did do in zelda (key, big key, items are collectible)

[s0]

it only got worse with tooie and dk64

it got better with tooie

[gimymblert]

there is more to collect that's the argument, maybe better structured but also more complex overall

[gunswordfist]

i heard earthworm jim 3d is terrible. is that still true?

[joseph ¯\_(ツ)_/¯]

Okay, seriously, you don't collect any items that carry over from level to level.

vs banjo where there aren't even level ending goals, just collectibles of varying value.

wrt collcetion/progression banjo is by definition fundamentally different than mario 64, although in practice they feel pretty similar (since many players will treat a given puzzle piece as an end level goal, and ignore note collection until forced to backtrack.)

-----------------------------------------

This is a really dumb semantics argument because you're taking a term that only has utility if we agree on it and trying to push a weird alternative definition of it. Banjo and Mario64 are games that have very many things in common, and are kindof the textbook case of why someone coined the term 'collectathon' to distinguish the differences they do have.

I agree with your observations in so far as those are things they have in common, but the whole 'collectathon' label exists to distinguish two kinds of platformer games:

• Those which progress based on persistent collection and accumulation of items that fill up levels
• Those with more discreet, traditional, objective based progression.

[s0]

That's what I said ... collecthon is about collecting as progress, which you did do in zelda (key, big key, items are collectible)

i don't even agree with that. to me it refers to a specific type of collection: a large amount of functionally identical collectibles that have no purpose other than to aid progression and that are primarily collected through pure exploration.

there is more to collect that's the argument, maybe better structured but also more complex overall

the puzzles in tooie are more complex but the collectathon aspect (according to definition above) is streamlined & simplified, even tho there is on the surface more stuff to collect. they severely reduced the "combing the entire map for collectibles" aspect that is central to collectathons.

[valrus]

For me, a "collectathon" means that you have to collect a number of trinkets to pass, and those trinkets don't have a gameplay effect in themselves.  So Doom isn't a collectathon as it stands, even though items unlock a doors; if that door said "10 red keys" and I had to do go do a red key scavenger hunt, it'd be a collectathon. 

I'd say Mario 64 is a collectathon at a coarse level of granularity -- that is, the whole-game structure involves collecting numerous otherwise-meaningless trinkets as gate-coins, but at a fine level of granularity, you're not really doing a lot of collecting.  Whereas games like the DK64 or Fez or Jet Set Willy are collectathons at every level of granularity.

[Boreal]

Even Knytt is a collectathon - all you're doing is looking for items with no intrinsic value.

Knytt Stories is not, despite having almost identical gameplay.  The items in Knytt Stories are used for progression.

[gimymblert]

@CA
1. I use zelda as a contrast, not as an example, yet your definition don't help more because that's exactly what key in zelda do, they have no gameplay effect and the number of key is required to progress, although the number are presented differently the effect is the same, it could have been money the mecanic would remain the same.


Trinket collectible MUST have (intrinsec) progression value, else it's like the coin in mario or ring in sonic, their value is optional, collectible trinket is non optional in volume.

It's also different than ammo and other resource who have intrinsic value but have no direct relation to progression (especially if there non ammo form of doing damage).

@catguy
It's more like a contrast the similar use of a similar mechanics, look at my grouping, 2 3 4 is under traditional collecthon and separate from other group. each group (1 et 5 6) are defined by different permutation of the mechanics. However I don't remember a game where the gating is a threshold of trinket, in which you collect power up that don't gate (the number 3) ... if you have something like that?

@overall
Also implicit is the non linearity, because galaxy would be more of a collecthon than mario 64 (star bite are necessary to progress, fucking purple coin, green star, star piece, plain star).

[s0]

@CA
1. I use zelda as a contrast, not as an example, yet your definition don't help more because that's exactly what key in zelda do, they have no gameplay effect and the number of key is required to progress, although the number are presented differently the effect is the same, it could have been money the mecanic would remain the same.

ok but in zelda (lttp and beyond anyway) the keys arent really a "resource". usually it's like, you find a key and its already pretty clear where the level designer wants you to use it. i don't have the design of zelda dungeons memorized and am too lazy to look it up just for the sake of this post, but you usually see the lock before the key right? also most of the time there are only 1 or 2 choices of what to do with a key you find and you have to collect all the keys to beat a dungeon (correct me if im wrong on this), so the nonlinearity is minimal at best.

Trinket collectible MUST have (intrinsec) progression value, else it's like the coin in mario or ring in sonic, their value is optional, collectible trinket is non optional in volume.

It's also different than ammo and other resource who have intrinsic value but have no direct relation to progression (especially if there non ammo form of doing damage).

yeah i can agree with that

[s0]

anyway i am about to start goemon 64. will write some shit on it later.

[SirNiko]

Earthworm Jim 3D is okay to good. It has a lot of issues with poor polish (like terrain you can climb on that seems unintentional, for example) and unclear objectives in levels, and the bosses are all the same thing (race around an arena trying to collect all the marbles while not dropping them). On the other hand, the levels are varied and silly with lots of unique decorations and humorous events, like one level where you have to kill multiple kings (King Gherkin, Elvis "the King" Presley) to make a King Sandwich for one of the "stars". It uses marbles (as in "Jim has lost his marbles") to gate levels like Banjo 1 does with notes, but adds a silly thing where every fifty marbles or so you get an update on how intelligent you've become, with classifications like "You are smarter than a potato" or "You are as smart as Cher's hairdresser", that make it kind of fun to see what the next rank will be.

If you like collectathons and the humor of the EWJ series, you'll probably find it amusing, but not great.

Mario 64 does have items that carry over between levels - the stars. Individual levels don't have a collectathon element, but the game as a whole does. All Banjo and DK changed was they made the individual levels have a collectathon aspect to them too, so it just has another layer. Suggesting Mario 64 isn't a collectathon is silly.

I also agree that the original Knytt (not Knytt stories) is a collectathon.

La Mulana (and Zelda, and D*Souls) has lots of items to collect, but they give various upgrades and many of them are mandatory for collecting specific other items. It's far different from Banjo or Mario 64 where the items are collected as generic 'currency' to buy into new levels. La Mulana (and Metroidvanias in general) do scratch some of the same itches as collectathons, but the mechanics of the games are distinctly different since many items you collect simply can't substitute for any of the other items. On the other hand, Mario 64 has no mandatory stars except the one for Bowser's Sub.

I do think there's something to feeling arbitrarily scattered significant items (eg, notes, bananas but not banana coins or eggs) are a part of a 'true' collectathon, though.

[gimymblert]

@CA
1. I use zelda as a contrast, not as an example, yet your definition don't help more because that's exactly what key in zelda do, they have no gameplay effect and the number of key is required to progress, although the number are presented differently the effect is the same, it could have been money the mecanic would remain the same.

ok but in zelda (lttp and beyond anyway) the keys arent really a "resource". usually it's like, you find a key and its already pretty clear where the level designer wants you to use it. i don't have the design of zelda dungeons memorized and am too lazy to look it up just for the sake of this post, but you usually see the lock before the key right? also most of the time there are only 1 or 2 choices of what to do with a key you find and you have to collect all the keys to beat a dungeon (correct me if im wrong on this), so the nonlinearity is minimal at best.

I wish you had a better argument because this one don't stand either on keys they can open many doors, you often have the choice in zelda, in fact dungeon works through exploring and figuring out how to get key and how to reach doors. It's not just linear, even though the generally limit the number of choice or have short turn around when they have many, it's very clever that in general you can see more doors than you can reach as a kind of forewarning, so the feeling of choice exist.

But how is that different from mario 64, the game present you with many accessible doors you can't access until you get enough star and funnels you to that one doors with no star, assuring the player see the door before the key (star number is the key rather than star themselves think pacman), banjo is similar, you see the painting with missing piece before you can access them, or goal (star or puzzle piece) before you get the relevant power up unlocked. The main castle is literally one big dungeon and level are challenge room.

Ultimately trinket is an evolution on the key mechanics (one per locks) by abstracting its requirement by turning key into progression resource (threshold per locks). It's a bit different than pay for access (I don't remember collecthon that use this) as you lose the resource when unlocking access