ZyroXZ2 said:
That's literally not... By the token that it's only what you care about, then every fan in each fanbase simply picks their own because that's what they like to play. That makes the question "who won E3" inherently flawed because people will simply pick their own system of choice. This becomes simply a matter of numbers wherever you ask it: if a forum or site is primarily Sony fans, and you ask who won E3, guess who wins? This is why the logic there is inherently flawed and why I can never succeed in gaming: I keep myself fiercely neutral to a fault. Whoever has a great game has a great game, whoever has the most powerful console has the most powerful console, whoever has the most exclusives has the most exclusives. Good is good, bad is bad. In this case, Xbox presented far stronger than Nintendo. And if you've seen my channel or know me, you'd know I love Nintendo... There is a bias in me that I have to suppress whenever I talk videogames because my bias is towards Nintendo (just look at the Displates I have on display!). I often have to take a deep breath and check myself because I love Metroid and Zelda so much, so I knock some sense into myself and looked at Dread compared to what's out there (even in terms of 2D games), and it targeting 60fps makes its graphics suffer with poor textures, poor lighting, low poly models, and surprisingly still framerate dips. I'm still going to buy it, but I'm subjective that those graphics are mobile game level, ESPECIALLY in light of a game like Monster Hunter Rise where you have four hunters, four buddies, and fighting Teostra with alpha effects popping off everywhere in a full 3D environment during online play. Capcom rose the bar, and Dread targeting 60fps and doing it poorly will no simply be washed away because I love Metroid. |
I have to respectfully disagree with your posts in this thread. I think your take -- that the E3 "winner" is the one whose brand and stock rises the most -- is totally valid. But it's not the one and true definition of "winner". This isn't a baseball game, where the team with the highest score is the winner. This is all subjective.
I think, in general, you're trying to make the conversation about video games objective and "neutral", which is totally admirable, but in my opinion something of a lost cause. When we approach things like art, objectivity largely goes out the window. Sure, we can measure frames per second and resolution, but can we assign an objective value to those things? Some people care more about graphics than others. In your posts you mention a "great game" and a "great movie", but who decides what is great? Again, with art, it's subjective.
I think taking bias -- meaning an unfair prejudice -- out of the equation is a noble and achievable goal, but taking subjectivity out is simply impossible.
Anyway, I do appreciate your enthusiasm on this topic and your contributions to this site in general. But I feel very strongly about this topic, and wanted to leave my two cents :)
