I have a confession to make

I am a borderline completionist. In some games more than others, and especially those that offer a bonus for getting 100%.

Now, I will often cheat my way to 100%. Or at the very least, unlock all content, which usually includes a 100% rank. But if I can't, I do make an attempt to get 100% by myself.

I think the only game I got 100% in without cheating was Jak & Daxter: The Precursor Legacy. That's because no cheat device codes had been made for the game at the time. What was nice about that game was it allowed you to miss one Precursor Orb, and still get 100%. Which was like a godsend, because there was one timed mission that I just could not beat. But I didn't have to, as I got 100% by getting all other orbs. It gave me an overwhelming sense of satisfaction.

Now, this is the reason for my hate of Grand Theft Auto. Don't get me wrong, I love the games, and I really wish I could afford GTA4 when it comes out this week. I'm dying to get my hands on it. But my major complaints of GTA has been the optional side-quests. They rarely have anything to do with the story, and they're just there to give small bonuses or give you something to do on your way to 100% completion. The reason I hate them is they are annoying tasks like racing, or those atrocious RC Plane missions in San Andreas. All of which I routinely fail in spectacular fashion. (Though, I must say the San Andreas racing missions were a lot better than the games before it.)

That's why I hate those damn things in GTA. I want 100%, but I'm simply no good at those buggers, and for the life of me, I can't complete them. And they're the same bull crap in each GTA game. Plus, there's just so much of this crap that I can't keep it all straight.

Another game that's really bothering me is Super Smash Bros. Brawl. In SSB Melee, when I wanted all the trophies, I just used Action Replay. I can't do that in Brawl. I do have almost all the challenges complete, however. All that's left are the impossible "Beat Boss Battle mode on Hard/Very Hard/Intense," "Play for 50/100 hours," "Collect all Stickers/Songs," and Multi-Man Brawl challenges.

But that's not the bad thing. If I want all the trophies, I have to capture every single enemy type AND boss character with a Trophy Stand in the Subspace Emissary mode. Not only do I consider that an impossible feat (at least for me), but Nintendo decided to give the bare minimum of story in the SSE, and the only way to get the whole picture is to grab the enemy and boss trophies. Oh sure, the Smash Bros. Dojo website gave some back story, but they didn't explain the background of the SSE boss characters. Like why Petey Piranha was involved, or what Duon or Galleom are.

The problem is that there is no cheat device for the Wii. There is a Powersave device, but I've been told that downloading the SSBB Powersave gives you a new Brawl Friend Code. Not that I use that anymore (no one is ever on), but still...

I guess what I'm saying is that it annoys me when companies make the player jump through hoops just to get 100%. Because they know there are obsessives out there who desire 100% completion in every single game. I know people who even go as far as to want to acquire every single item in an RPG, no matter how useless it is. Like in Suikoden II, there are people who want to get every Recipe, every Sound Set, every Window Set, complete Clive's side quest (which involves getting to certain locations within a specific time limit, and the final area of the game in under 20 hours), along with every other side quest, all 108 characters, and get the best ending. Not to sound insulting, but that's just insane. That doesn't even include the very hidden color intro in Suikoden II (the sepia-toned intro can be full color if you fight approximately 100 battles on the cliff of the Unicorn Brigade camp at the very beginning).

Ok, to get off that tangent and back to my original rant. It annoys me that if I want 100%, I have to go through an enormous amount of other work beyond the main quest/story. With some games, like the Elder Scrolls series, I don't bother, because I'm not interested in the other quests. I just don't do them. Those games are all about being one with your character, anyway.

In conclusion, I suppose I come off like I'm whining about not being "good enough" to get 100% in games like Grand Theft Auto. But, personally, I hate games that have you collect X number of objects hidden in obscure places, or perform Y number of actions in specified locations. Grand Theft Auto has been known for the crap hidden around the place, and San Andreas was the worst offender of the bunch. I just wish games didn't add so much "extra" content just for the sake of making the game longer for those wanting 100%. Yes, some think that it "extends" gameplay, but if a game is good, I'm going to replay it regardless. I don't need 30 hours of side-quests to keep myself playing the game. If it's good, I'll keep playing. I can't even count how many hours I spent in the three PS2 GTA games just goofing around the city, not even doing anything of any importance. That's just how fun it is. I fail to see how the lure of "more content" is more entertaining than running around a GTA sandbox like an idiot with a death wish.

Genre-defining games

In the history of games, there have been many genres. But with each genre, there is bound to be a game that creates it, and a game that perfects it. Those two aren't always the same.

Let's take the Platformer genre, for instance. To the best of my knowledge, Pitfall for the Atari 2600 is the first Platformer. But Super Mario Bros. was the first game to define the genre. In fact, the Mario series has been the leader in Platforming innovation. Super Mario Bros. introduced the concept of a scrolling screen to the genre. Only a handful of games used scrolling screens; Defender comes to mind right away. But no other Platformer had used a scrolling screen. Future games, such as Castlevania and Mega Man, borrowed elements from Super Mario Bros., but didn't do a lot to innovate the genre. Super Mario 64 didn't exactly create a 3D platformer (Jumping Flash! on the original PlayStation was a 3D platformer, but it used a first-person view), but it defined it in a way that very few games have yet to replicate. However, I tend to fault Mario 64 for having too few levels, and making players repeat those levels several times each.

The "Open World/Sandbox" genre, created and defined by Grand Theft Auto, is possibly the most popular genre for game developers. In fact, many have taken the "open world" concept from this genre, and attempted to apply it to all kinds of games, with mixed results. As Grand Theft Auto IV, coming later this month, attempts to redefine the genre yet again, one has to wonder if anyone else can perfect this genre like GTA has.

Of course there is the Console FPS genre, which is arguably defined by Halo. This is both a good thing, and a bad thing. The good is that Halo is a pretty good game. Certainly not the "perfect" and epic game that rabid Halo fans and mainstream game reviewers portray it, but a good game. The bad is that companies are trying too hard to be like Halo. Since the success of Halo, it seems like the imagination of FPS developers has deflated. Suddenly every FPS protagonist is a space-faring military soldier on an alien planet. Even Turok, who had some originality in being a time-traveling Native American, has been reborn as a generic soldier on an alien planet populated by Earth-like dinosaurs. So now the FPS genre is divided into three categories: Historic FPS, Alternate History FPS, and Generic Halo Rip-off FPS. That isn't to say that all "space marine" games are bad. Just unoriginal. I know Halo didn't start the "space marine" thing, but it sure did popularize it.

Finally we have the RPG genre. This is an interesting genre in that it seems virtually impossible to define. Every game and/or series has its own different take on gameplay to the point where little seems to be shared. To further confuse things, Japanese-made RPGs and American-made RPGs are based on two completely different concepts. Japanese RPGs seem to be defined by the first of its kind (as far as I know), that being the original Final Fantasy. Turn-based battles, magic, inventory, chatty villagers, and the like were all created by Final Fantasy. Those seem to be some of the few common characteristics.

Almost all American RPGs, on the other hand, are based on Dungeons & Dragons, a tabletop Role Playing Game. I can't say that D&D "originated" or "defined" the genre, as it isn't a video game. But it has provided the inspiration for almost the entire American RPG market. Even if ARPGs don't use the D&D races, skills, etc., they likely use one of the D&D rule sets. Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, for example, used a d20 rule set from D&D Third Edition.

I hope you enjoyed this look into a few of the many game genres out there.