By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Super_Boom said:
DonFerrari said:

Having Zelda as your preffered game is certainly enough to say it was the best game on E3, but if you end up playing the other 10 games show while waiting for Zelda then it's hard to say Nintendo won E3 by showing that single game.

It's not hard to say anything when you're arguing opinions. Your criteria for winning E3 doesn't necessarily align with everyone else's. Some might argue winning has to deal with market impact, variety of the show, release date of the games involved, or just having the most games they want to play. In other cases, someone might decide that having their favorite game is enough to win E3. 

There's no right or wrong answer, despite what some people might claim. It's what makes this argument so asanine to begin with honestly.

Personal win is quite different than saying they destroyed all competition with one game. But I do agree people may decide by different standards  who won or not.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."