I agree that the game could do better at showing what we’ve found. It’s often easy to miss whatever has started shimmering. At the very least, it should carry on shimmering until we’ve interacted with it, but there may be a better way.
As to showing failed checks, I actually like that. It can be frustrating to know that you’ve missed something, but I think it would often be more frustrating in another way to not see the checks. Eg if there’s some statue and you think you can’t try to work out who it is, when actually you have in the background but you’ve failed, or similarly it looks as though there might be a secret door or as though someone might be lying, but it feels like you’re not even trying to find out. Okay, the game could give us the ability to manually actively roll checks when we as players decide to instead, but that’s making a big change.
Obviously there’s stuff around the world where you might not even have thought to roll if the game didn’t do it for us, but I just imagine that this is the game as DM describing the surroundings in such a way as to pique our interest enough that we’d decide to roll.
(EDIT and from the post Ragnarok published while I was drafting this, Larian have clarified that we should indeed interpret these rolls as active checks that the DM suggests/hints we make, in which case it definitely makes sense we know we’ve tried to find something interesting and failed.)
I know some folk might save scum to pass the checks, but it that’s what they want to do that’s fine and it seems mean to deprive them of the ability to find everything by just not letting them know it’s there to be found. Personally, in addition to what I’ve already said above, I like the D&D flavour of ongoing rolls, the mini-tragedy of failing, and the anticipation I get of finding something different in other runs when I might pass instead.
Of course, a toggle to turn off displaying failed rolls would do me no harm, but there’s no way I’d use it if it were there.
