411 Games Fact or Fiction 09.30.08: Sackboy's Time To Shine, KOF XII vs. SF IV, Changing BioShock's Ending, Another Chance for Sonic to Shine, and More!

Posted by Tommy Coloma on 09.29.2008

411's Owain Brimfield and Dan Hirsch give us their thoughts on Sackboy's ability to go toe-to-toe with Mario and Sonic, how DRM can affect buying habits, whether The King of Fighters has surpassed Street Fighter in terms of graphics, 2K's decision to leave BioShock's weaknesses alone, avoiding Xbox 360 games when Live service is out, and how Sonic's next adventure will turn out in this edition of Fact or Fiction Games!

Welcome to another edition of Fact or Fiction. This week Owain Brimfield and Dan Hirsch return to once again discuss some of the week's most important video game news stories and issues.

About this week's participants:

For over a year, Owain brought us The Wonder Years, "the column where all gamers of a certain age come to wallow in 16-bit nostalgia." In his final two entries, he attempted to objectively rank the twenty finest games of the 16-bit era. Did he succeed? Find out by checking parts one and two here and here. Owain is also in charge of the 411 Movies Roundtable, so he'll still be around to help with this column when the need arises.

Dan currently does game reviews. His latest is one for the Xbox 360 version of Soul Calibur IV.

Let's go -


1. By the time this hardware cycle has ended, Sackboy will be as well known as Mario and Sonic.

Owain Brimfield: Fiction

Quite honestly, that is a joke of a statement. One good game and a bucketload of marketing does not an icon make. For all that Sony may harp on about defining characters and mascots for a new generation, the simple fact is that Mario, and to a somewhat slightly lesser extent Sonic, is untouchable. Call me when Sackboy has been the industry's primary representative for twenty years and then we'll talk. If you think about it, the only characters/mascots who have come anywhere close in recent years to achieving the level of renown that Mario and Sonic possess are Snake and Master Chief, and they have multi-million-dollar franchises backing them. Don't get me wrong - I hope Little Big Planet is successful as a game, and Sony could certainly do with some unique brand identity for the PS3, but this is an absurd suggestion.

Dan Hirsch: Fiction

Owain absolutely nailed it. Sackboy is the flavor of the week for this years holiday season. He's a cute mascot for a game that in its preliminary stages is being well received by critics and gamers alike. Many people are looking forward to it and I'm sure Sony is hoping to capitalize on it. But how many games have IGN, Game Informer, and countless other media outlets cried EPIC on only to see it fall flat on its face and drown in its own spit? Brute Force, Kane and Lynch, or Pirates vs. Ninjas: Dodge Ball ring a bell to anyone? Personally, I can't wait for Little Big Planet and hope it does well. It could be a definitive game not named Metal Gear Solid 4 that helps out the PS3, but is it the next big thing to hit the gaming world by storm? I'm no so sure about that.

Score: 1 for 1


2. DRM issues have caused you to refrain from buying certain games.

Owain Brimfield: Fiction

DRM never even crosses my mind - if I want a game, I'll buy that game (unless, y'know, it's an old DOS title I can download for free). If it turns out that DRM hampers a game's performance (as perhaps Spore will when I get 'round to finding somewhere that has it in stock) or it becomes annoying for whatever reason, it'll just go straight on eBay. I never give that particular concern any forethought. Admittedly, companies like EA could certainly do with taking a few principles from Stardock's "gamer's commandments" and make that side of things easier on the customer. In all honesty, I usually find myself playing a year or two behind the curve anyway (I haven't even bought Super Mario Galaxy yet), so I might start complaining about this a couple years down the line. Mind you, by that point I'll have probably regressed to the point where I don't play anything post-'95. Go go retro!

Dan Hirsch: Fiction

The best way to answer this for me is to explain that DRM issues don't bother me because I don't play computer games all that much. I'm a console gamer for a multitude of reasons I don't need to list. There's no need to kick off that flame war starter. I can understand the need for DRM standards to try to stop the ripping of games and freebie copies that make their way around the Web. After seeing what has happened to the music industry in regards to file sharing, I recognize a company's need for product keys, download limits, and other forms of security. But if a game I wanted had DRM protection, would I still buy it? Of course.

Score: 2 for 2


3. The King of Fighters XII's hand-drawn visuals look better than Street Fighter IV's 3D renders.

Owain Brimfield: Fiction

I'm not especially jazzed on either game really, given my general dislike for fighters. Having said that though, SF IV does look like quite a natural progression for the series and the screens are quite impressive (the background detail in particular, although the character facials look a bit odd). KOF XII looks ok, but there's nothing outstanding in my eyes. Of course, that has no bearing on which game is likely to play better, but if you're one of those gamers who prides style over substance, then my inclination would be to lean towards Capcom's effort.

Dan Hirsch: Fiction

To me, Street Fighter IV's graphics simply look better. It's not an issue of liking one fighting franchise over another, it's all about personal preference. I love the grittiness that SFIV visuals possess. The 3D graphics have nice pseudo-cell shading going on about them that gives them some real character. Plus, the unique ink styled fighting effects add a nice touch to the style of the game. Combine all of this with the over-the-top character designs, and the entire graphical end of SFIV just comes together really well. It may be over-the-top, but it comes together well and puts a new skin on a classic series.

Score: 3 for 3



4. 2K had a chance to improve what many consider to be the biggest flaw in BioShock - the finale. In the end, it chose not to. That was the right thing to do.

Dan Hirsch: Fact

Just because a game gets released on a different system, it doesn't mean a developer can go about changing story related content. BioShock is a fantastic game despite the fact that some people didn't enjoy the ending. That doesn't give the developers carte blanche to change anything they want when the game gets ported over to a new system. Fixing bugs and problem areas is fine by me. Do what needs to be done in order to make a game function. If you can improve the functionality of the game, then by all means I am for it. But to actually change the story crosses the line. The developers shouldn't change the game just because some gamers didn't like the way it went or want to change some snippets of story. It's like what George Lucas did with the Star Wars re-releases in the 90's, and we all know how well that was received. If the developers change the actual in-game canon, then BioShock ceases to be BioShock.

Owain Brimfield: Fact

Fact, but for completely different reasons. The reason that not changing the ending was the right thing to do was purely down to the fact that it was the developers' decision, and nothing else. Of course the developers have carte blanche to change anything they like, whenever they want - it's their creation. It's the same for Lucas - he absolutely had the right to make whatever changes to the Star Wars movies he wanted, as they're his films. Just because the majority of fans disagreed with the majority of changes he made, it doesn't mean he didn't have the right to make those changes. Would you argue that Ridley Scott didn't have the right to make any changes to Blade Runner after its original release? Of course not - the director's cut of that film is vastly superior. And despite those changes, that doesn't mean it ceases to "be" Blade Runner. If 2K decided that they didn't want to make any changes to BioShock, that's their prerogative, and that makes it the right call.

Score: 4 for 4


5. If access to Live was unavailable, you would actually stop playing Xbox 360 games just so that you wouldn't miss getting your achievements.

Dan Hirsch: Fiction

If Xbox Live was unavailable, I probably wouldn't play my 360 altogether! A large component of my gaming experience revolves around playing on Live, not for achievements, but for fun. I simply love playing multiplayer games on Live. It adds a lot to the replayability of games once the single player campaign has been complete. Plus, it adds a whole new dimension to gaming, not to mention the social aspects that Live offers. I do like achievements for the added challenge and reward of playing games in a particular way or attaining a difficult goal. It's a lot more fun and interactive than the good old "percentage complete." It's a virtual cookie/ribbon for a player. But to say I would stop playing because I wouldn't be able to unlock an achievement is a bit ridiculous. Achievements are a nice feature that adds some depth, but they are not the reason I play video games.

Owain Brimfield: Fiction

I should add the caveat that this is a hypothetical answer, as I don't own or really wish to own a 360. I'm pretty sure, though, that online goodies like achievements, despite the fact that they seem to have become somewhat of a minor gaming phenomenon, wouldn't be anything like a prerequisite for me playing a console. I'd still play the Wii if I wasn't downloading new Miis or VC titles, and I'd still play the PS3 if I wasn't getting a hold of new Guitar Hero tracks. The bottom line is that achievements simply represent a way to extend the gaming experience. They don't define the gaming experience, and I can't imagine more than a handful of gamers so devoted to the concept that they'd abandon the console itself if they were unable to unlock the odd tidbit. Dan pretty much hits the nail on the head in his final sentence.

Score: 5 for 5


6. Sonic Chronicles: Dark Brotherhood will be the best Sonic game since the 16-bit era ended.

Dan Hirsch: Fiction

To me, Sonic will always be the classic 2D side-scroller on the Sega Genesis. It's a quintessential platformer right up there with Super Mario Bros. But the only difference between the two is how Mario evolved and improved over time and Sonic stagnated. I haven't played a Sonic game I liked since Sonic 3. Heck, I liked the TV show more than any of the games that have come out since 1994. Though to be fair, I'm not counting his cameos in Super Smash Brothers Brawl and Sonic and Mario at the Olympics. To me, it felt like the whole franchise just hasn't progressed well, and I don't think an RPG is the right way to go to rectify that. Though BioWare has certainly put in some great work in the past (Knights of the Old Republic, Jade Empire, and Mass Effect), I don't think Sonic Chronicles will come through in the end.

Owain Brimfield: Fiction

Like Dan said, unlike Mario, Sonic has been mostly unable to break free of his 16-bit shell, and while Dark Brotherhood doesn't have a whole lot of competition for the title of "best Sonic game since the Genesis," it doesn't look all that great, and to be honest, there have been numerous Sonic titles since the mid-90s that have been average-to-good. I don't see Dark Brotherhood excelling and breaking that trend.

Score: 6 for 6



We end this week with a score of 6 for 6.

Now, some guy with a red baseball cap keeps asking us if we're ok. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like he's waiting for a response. If we can get past him without incident, we'll be back next week.