I find all this hard to understand. This whole winning E3 thing. Especially if winning E3 is based on showing or displaying games. Thats like saying a game company won E3 because they you know.... showed games.
I also read a lot of this stuff about the games nintendo showed, well... we all know that by no standard did they show the most amount of games, so it has to be that they showed the games people wanted to see. This can really be read as zelda, smash bros and splatoon cause in truth nothing else was "shown". Now if eventually having games to show when they are ready to show means that you have won E3, doesn't that mean that by default sony and MS will win next year E3 simply because they will then be in a position to show more games further into development?
Call me crazy, but I think a better way to gauge who wins E3 is by looking at who coming outta E3 garnered the most momentum. And that in turn is reflective in sales of the console or games shown. I mean, isn't that the whole point of E3 to begin with?
Having said that, I don't think nintendo won E3, they simply capitalized on the fact that they have been working on their games longer than anyone else and had those games to show. A game company finally coming out and showing games for their console isn't supposed to be a big deal. I feel MS won E3. Not only did they show games, they also shook off all the negativity surrounding their console. Nintendo would have won E3 for me if they dropped the price of the WiiU, cause obviously at its current price people aren't interested in the console.
Existing User Log In
New User Registration
Register for a free account to gain full access to the VGChartz Network and join our thriving community.
