In response to "Can't Catch 'em All" from the Escapist Forum: This is a great commentary! I've never completed a full pokedex without cheating; back in the Red/Blue days I did manage to get 150 and then we "duplicated" a Mew that a friend of mine had got at an event by doing some link cable voodoo. (In a sense this link cable voodoo was also a special kind of awesome.)
Kids everywhere were talking about a 3d pokemon adventure on the N64 and I'm sure if a decent one was released it would sell like crazy and probably shake the whole console market quite a bit. Sadly, all we got was Pokemon Stadium, in iself another of the games you could get pokemon from. All you'd get from completing the elite league was the opposite of the fossil you picked in that cave though, unless you disconnected your GBA connector thingie. I think it was possible to get the starter 3 in PS1. It was not a very great game though.
Then Gold/Silver came out and I got gold too. I don't remember how many pokemons were in the game, but I never had all of them. I did manage to voodoo myself a celebi though from another friend who had been to another event someplace. By this time the magic was still there, I still enjoyed playing Pokemon, and I think I made a sincere effort to get all of them, but I fell short by maybe 10-20 creatures...
Then Ruby/Sapphire came out and it just wasn't as fun anymore; I hastily jogged through the storyline, never really considering collecting all of the pokemon. Was it because I had grown up? Was it because the games had changed? Maybe both. After this I stopped playing Pokemon for a good while, but I recently picked up that Gold remake. I played it for some hours but I didn't even complete the storyline.
I kind of have a feeling this is related: http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_choice.html
Again, great(!) commentary.
Lemme bring up another point. When I "completed" Painkiller - that is to say, found every secret, obtained every tarot card, and killed every single enemy - I felt "empty". (As I described it on this forum.) I think part of the reason for it was that, because I had to use the Internet to do it, it didn't feel like a "proper" victory.
And yet some of those secrets are literally impossible to find without the Internet - "City on the Water", for example, requires you to jump out over a deadly drop, AROUND a wall that meets the edge of that drop, and double back into an alcove on the other side of the wall. Unless you actually try it, there is absolutely no clue to tell you that the alcove's there; and you can't look for it without, yes, jumping out over the deadly drop. If the alcove wasn't there, you'd die, instantly and unavoidably. And there is no way to know that the alcove is there without making a leap of faith.
It strikes me that that kind of game design is something of a flaw in Painkiller itself - why put in a "secret" that is impossible to find without using the Internet? But then this kind of thing has been happening since Doom and before that. (Anybody else remember how to get the rocket launcher on level 1 of "Doom 2"?) Why do you put something like that in your game? Just to make the people who actually know about it feel more "elite"?
In response to "Playing on Planet Google" from the Escapist Forum: Wow, so you could, say, play 'Missile Command' with your local cities or best friends' houses or whatever? That would be cool. Though I can see the issues around mapping conflict-based games onto the real world.