411 Games Fact or Fiction 02.02.09: DLC, Blizzard, Fight Night and More

Posted by Ramon Aranda on 02.02.2009

This week two of our guys tackle some issues such as the latest Fight Night, a Starcraft MMO, the evolution of DLC as well as a PS4. Find out what Joe and Mark think in this week's Fact or Fiction.



I'm back. Yes the head chief has returned to take over the reigns of Fact or Fiction once again. Vacation is over, and well it's been over for 2 weeks now but I've finally come across enough time to get back into the groove of things so here we go.

This week, Joe Roche of The Full Circle enters the matrix (so to speak) to battle it out with former columnist and just plain ‘ol game reviewer Mark Salmela. They've been asking to meet each other in FoF so I figured I'd let them go at it to kick off the month of February. So let's get to it!

1. Bowser would thrash Donkey Kong in a fist fight.



Joe Roche: Fiction - The way this question is worded makes it impossible for me to say FACT. There isn't a single piece of evidence spanning twenty plus years that Bowser could thrash anyone. Of course there also isn't any evidence that Donkey Kong could pull off a victory in a fight between these two either. I just don't see this one ending in a thrashing. Sure Bowser would probably win the fight because Donkey Kong would tire himself out throwing barrels all afternoon, but I see it ending more like one of those cartoons where both sides are laying on their backs kicking their legs at each other because they're just so tired from trying to beat each other up.

Mark Salmela: Fiction - Judging from the little information that we have, Bowser's main attacks include using his shell as both a defensive and offensive weapon as well as his fire breath. Bowser is not known for using his fists when he fights. Donkey Kong on the other hand uses his arms pretty exclusively. Sure he can kick, but for the most part his offensive is straight up ground and pound. When it comes to a pure fist fight Donkey Kong would destroy Bowser. But if we're talking an anything-goes street fight, than Donkey Kong would get his ass handed to him. Although I think if the Hammer Brother's had any balls they could take Bowser in a mass rebellion. I mean come on, they throw hammers for Christ sake!

Score: 1 for 1 - Bowser getting no love!

2. You prefer the Final Fantasy series over The Legend of Zelda series.



Joe Roche: Fact - I'm going to get killed for this one aren't I? There is a simple explanation for my answer though; I have more of a history with the Final Fantasy series. I had a Nintendo, so when I was younger I loved Zelda, but I also loved Final Fantasy. If you were asking the childhood Joe Roche this would be a Fiction. But my reason for preferring the Final Fantasy series over the Zelda series is that I prefer the consoles that Final Fantasy has appeared on since Square made their break with Nintendo. It just so happens that throughout my formative years I followed Square to Sony and now to Microsoft and thus have always had a Final Fantasy game in my possession.

Sure they haven't all been quality game, some of them have downright sucked -- but the good far outweighs the bad in my mind and I can't wait for FF13 (on the Xbox 360 no less). My preference really does have less to do with the game, and more to do with the console. Having just picked up a Wii I've been opened to Ocarina of Time through the VC and I'm really enjoying that, so who knows -- maybe now that I'm back in the Legend of Zelda fold my mind will be changed.

Mark Salmela: Fiction - Actually, can I chose neither? I don't like either the Legend of Zelda or Final Fantasy. Both franchises are highly overrated although if I had to choose I'd have to go with Zelda. The Link to the Past was an awesome game, but after that Zelda screams overrated to me. I don't want to turn this into a flame war, since I admit this isn't a question designed for someone like me, but I don't care for either franchise. Link to the Past is awesome, but that's the only game out of either franchise. Don't worry Joe, I don't think anyone's going to want to kill you; they're too busy burning Triforces in my front yard.

Score: 1 for 2 - I'm sure the fanboys will have plenty to say about this! No Zelda love? Pffft!

3. Blizzard would make a killing if they came up with a Starcraft MMO.



Joe Roche: Fiction - I don't want this to be taken as an indication that I don't think Blizzard could be successful with a Starcraft MMO, but a killing? First and foremost how often does something actually qualify as making a killing? Blizzard already has the cash cow of all MMO franchises, and from what I am led to believe there aren't a lot of contenders for that crown. Lately there seems to be a rush towards releasing MMO's that come out strong, last a few months and then die off when everyone returns to World of Warcraft. Having never played WOW, or any other MMO for that matter (not really a PC gaming fan) I can't say whether or not WOW is ripe for the picking but Blizzard seems like the wrong company to go into business against WOW since -- well they own the franchise.

I could see a Starcraft MMO having a nice niche market, doing very well for awhile and depending on the support that Blizzard gives it (I imagine it would be substantial) lasting for some time. But at this phase I just don't see Blizzard pouring in resources to a game that will essentially just steal from their left hand to give to their right and in the end the Starcraft MMO might break even, but it won't make a killing.

Mark Salmela: Fact - Poor Joe, don't underestimate Blizzard. I'm not a fan of MMO's but Blizzard has been on fire lately and Starcraft in my opinion is a big enough franchise that the name alone would sell enough to make a giant profit. Hell, Blizzard's already trying to milk the Starcraft franchise for all its worth by splitting Starcraft 2 into 3 games, and I'd be willing to bet that it's going to work just because it's Blizzard making Starcraft. Hell it could be a card battle game and if it was named Starcraft and made by Blizzard it'd sell by the truckloads.

Score: 1 for 3 - Blizzard = $$$ Seems like Joe and Mark aren't seeing eye to eye!

SWITCH!

4. The fact that Mike Tyson is in Fight Night Round 4 means that the game will ultimately sell more copies than FNR3 based on his inclusion alone.



Mark Salmela: Fact - Well I do think that plenty of other factors will be involved in FNR4 selling more than FNR3 such as market expansion but the addition of Iron Mike should definitely help the game appeal to the main stream. Few boxers have the drawing power that Tyson does, and the potential of having Tyson vs. Ali in what should be a good game should help FNR4 sell pretty damn well.

Joe Roche: Fact - I really tried to disagree with Mark here but I can't. Mike Tyson isn't the only reason FNR4 will sell better than FNR3, the hype behind the game will be immense, but he will be the focal point of that hype machine. For the generation of gamers that FNR4 will appeal to, Mike Tyson is either the most dynamic boxer that you ever saw, or the biggest enigma that you've ever heard of. Anyone who remembers Tyson as the boxer, and not the reality show without the cameras, will tell you that nothing was more exciting then a Tyson fight. It always felt special, and he had such a huge appeal that he's still popular today so far removed from ever being relevant in the boxing world it's not even funny. If you asked 100 people who Miguel Cotto is more then half of them wouldn't know, but I promise you they'd all know Tyson. He will be in every commercial, every print ad, and every demo that comes out for FNR4 and for that reason the sales will see a nice jump thanks to Iron Mike.

Score: 2 for 4 - Bout time they agreed again.

5. Given Sony's financial woes, the successor to the PS3 will most likely be the last one out of the gate (after the Wii and Xbox 360 successors).



Mark Salmela: Fact - To be honest I have no idea what's going through Sony's head as of late. Sony's been throwing curve balls left and right this generation such as removing PS2 backwards compatibility, so I wouldn't be surprised by anything at this point. I'd like to think that Sony's somewhat committed to the PS3 and this ten year cycle that it's on, which means that we probably won't see a PS4 until around 2012 at the earliest *the PS2 is only on year 9 of its 10 year life span*. So if they're really committed to the PS3 they're going to have to have it on the market for a while longer. But then again it's Sony, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if they rushed another console to the market so they could start fresh and be the first out of the gate.

Joe Roche: Fiction - This is a fact wrapped in fiction blankets which is how I think Mark answered the question as well. The PS4 or whatever it'll be called was always going to be the last one out the gate, so the fact that Sony is currently taking a massive hit financially won't change that. I do think that Sony has completely lost their minds lately with the approach they've taken, and I've been overly critical of the business model that they've employed for the PS3 almost since launch. The only way that I could see Sony releasing a new console prior to Nintendo or Microsoft is if they come out with a PS2.5 which will have the capacity of the Xbox 360 and turn back the clock on the technological improvements of the PS3.

Otherwise there is just no way that they'll invest in another expensive console before the other two developers release theirs because Sony is already playing from behind. Plus you need to keep in mind that with Blu-Ray in the PS3 already the next generation of consoles will have to catch up to the technology that Sony is already using. Some day we might look back on this era for Sony and say that they skipped the present generation of consoles and just got a five year head start on the next generation of consoles. But back to the question -- the financial situation won't be the reason the PS4 doesn't come out before Nintendo and Microsoft, Sony is.

Score: 2 for 5 - The attacks commence once again!

6. You're happy with the way DLC has been offered as of late. In terms of quality and most importantly, price.



Mark Salmela: Fiction - If you were talking about downloadable games than yes, I am happy. I've been happy with downloadable games since the beginning since there are tons of classics as well as short but fun games that just wouldn't have worked in disc format *such as Pixel Junk Monsters and Braid*. But I for one am old school when it comes to actual downloadable content. Capcom got it right when they said Devil May Cry 4 wasn't going to have any DLC because it's wrong to nickel and dime gamers for content that should have been in the game from the beginning. Well scratch that Capcom part actually, because they totally messed up with Mega Man 9. Now I like what GTA4's The Lost and the Damned is offering, but until that is out I do not like and often do not support DLC *with WarHawk being one of the few exceptions this generation*. A game should be released when it's completed, and DLC is just a funny way to say "Yeah we're actually charging between $70 - $80 for our game, we just have a funny way of labeling it".

Joe Roche: Fact - I don't necessarily disagree with anything Mark said. However, I'm still going fact on this one though because while there are a lot of companies messing up the DLC issue, there are enough doing it right that it tips the scales in their favor. Sure it's ridiculous to have to pay to download characters that are already in a game (I'm looking at you SVR09, and TNA Impact), and having to download weapons, or costume changes does seem a bit excessive (Mega Man 9). But, the beauty of all of those things is that if you don't download them, your game isn't really affected in a negative way. Until EA releases Madden AFC where you have to unlock the NFC with DLC I'm not willing to crucify companies who add extras for $5-$10 bucks after a month of release. On the other hand there are a bunch of companies doing great things with DLC -- try the Xbox Live Community Games (Weapon of Choice), or Braid, and then look at Criterion and all their FREE Burnout Paradise DLC. Sure sometimes Epic will release a map back that is overpriced, but it's usually a quality download that adds more longevity (hours of Horde) to a game. When you factor all of that in with episodic DLC like "Lost and Damned" for GTA IV, or the upcoming "Epilogue" for Prince of Persia you're looking at solid blocks of gameplay that extend the life of your favorite game for cheaper then if you rented something for the weekend.

Final Score: 2 for 6 - Truly, two guys who agree to disagree.

That'll do it for this week's edition of Fact or Fiction. Stay tuned to next week for a rather humorous rendition of our FoF. See you next time!