Explain to me how PS3 and Wii had better E3 than 360

[mibuokami]

Michael-5 said:

S.T.A.G.E. said:

selnor said:
The thread is rediculous because we are on vgsony. I mean vgchart
Anything against Sony is met in force by 80% of the sites users.

The consensus all around is that Microsoft lost E3. They marketed it to the core and most sites and people rated it Nintendo> Sony> Microsoft or Sony> Nintendo> Microsoft. It's not just this site. If we're talking about the general audience of people who dont really game and would game casually then Nintendo>Microsoft>Sony. It's that simple.

Consumers all around said Microsoft had a worse E3 press conference then Sony and Nintendo, but you're bending the truth to make the PS3 look better then it is.

Nowhere online does it say the PS3 and Wii portion of Sony's and Nintendo's Press conferences were better then MS's press conference (remember Sony and Nintendo have 4 consoles to talk about, MS only has the 360). In fact when you watch Bonus Round, or any other major websites, people say the Wii portion of Nintendo's press conference was just an all out dissapointment, and most people say 360 > PS3. Just look at this thread too, you are one of the few people arguing PS3 > 360.

So in conclusion Sony/Nintendo >> Microsoft, but 360>PS3>>>Wii

I don't get this....

Let's review the title: Explain to me how PS3 and Wii had better E3 than 360

Now this statement: Nowhere online does it say the PS3 and Wii portion of Sony's and Nintendo's Press conferences were better then MS's press conference

Sooo.... you want people to explain how the PS3 / Wii had a better conference than the 360, then claim no one is actually making a statement indicating that PS3 / Wii had a better conference than the 360.

Who are you trying to refute then?

Who are these people specifically singling out 360, PS3 and Wii performance and claiming that the 360 had worst showing?