IGN: Why Sony won E3

[Michael-5]

NYANKS said:

Michael-5 said:

NYANKS said:

scottie said:

leatherhat said:

scottie said:
IGN: Why PS3 won E3

Because we refuse to admit the existence of Nintendo, and because Sony's was slightly better than Microsoft's.

People can debate who won between sony and nintendo but the fact is sony showed more exclusives (but still barely any) and the wii U underwhelmed. It was a bust of an E3.

Indeed, people can debate it, and I will debate with anyone who actually made an honest assesment, which includes everyone posting in this thread, but does not include IGN writers.

 

Sony always show more exclusives than the others because they show games a long way ahead of time. What you saw at E3 was Sony's exclusives for the next 3-4 years and Nintendos for 1-2. The fact that you are more used to companies that announce years in advance is why you think the Wii U underwhelmed. This E3, they announced that the 3DS will have a bigger lineup than any console has ever had in its first year, barring the Wii's (Wii Sports and Wii Play alone make the Wii's lineup the biggest). Next year, they shall talk about the Wii U. Saying that the Wii U underwhelmed is as ridiculous as saying that the PS4 underwhelmed.

Wait, what games did Sony show that were 3 or 4 years away?  Everything seemed rather close, like 1 or maybe 2.

This E3, Sony didn't announce games 3-4 years in advance (and I think it's because the PS4 is comming). However Sony usually announces games far in advance from Nintendo and Microsoft.

Microsoft almost never announces a game more then 2 years in advance (Halo 4 is just over a year, Forza 4 was less then a year, Forza 3 was like 4 months, and Gears 2 was about 8 months, etc).

Nintendo is similar. The games Nintendo announces the most in Advance are Zelda, and Smash Bros. Even Zelda, at best Nintendo gives 2 years warning.

For Sony, Killzone 2 was announced 5 years before release. Same with GT5, and The Last Guardian was actually delayed by 2 years, nevermind when it was announced.

BAck to the topic at hand, I still feel Nintendo won. Yea Sony announced more 1st party games, but that's because PS Vita just debuted. Nintendo announced more games in general (over 10 for Wii U), and a lot of Nintendo's featured games are bigger in magnitude then Sony's.

Isn't there a problem there? If Vita games are reduced because it's because a console will be released in a few months, the Wii U games are even less important.  Sly Cooper 4, Starhawk, Uncharted 3 gameplay and a bunch of relevant, good looking, possible launch games, including Bioshock (Vita and PS3), Uncharted, Street Fighter X Tekken (both again), LBP, Modnation, Gravity Daze, Little Deviants, a probable Gran Turismo, Wipeout, etc. Oh, and Infamous 2 launched 3 days ago. Many might have been known, but the games are there for the playing.  And really, wasn't Mario Bros. for Wii U, Paper Mario, Smash Bros., etc. as good as announced anyway? 

It's just a difference in opinion, but I think Sony did more than enough.

Maybe it's just a difference in opinion. Niintendo had a lot of games already announced pre-E3, but 3DS's lineup is just freaken amazing. Also Smash Bros for 3DS and Wii U were new announcements this year, along with Luigi's Mansion 2, and some smaller titles.

I'm just not a fan of PS Vita, people are going crazy, but how is this any different then a graphics upgrade on the PSP? No major new IP's, but it's price is reasonable. I mean even the bigger games, an Uncharted, LBP, Mod Nation Racers, and 3rd party software. I'd rather just play PS3 with a better Uncharted and LBP.

Also PS3's lineup of announced games looks :P to me. Not 1 AAA title, nothing to get me excited for beyond 2011, no Last Guardian, FFX Versus, Agent, nothing great if you ask me.

To me this was one of Sony's worst E3's, but really all of them disappointed me.