Kakadu18 said:
Ok, now putting all bias aside, I think a show that shows a bunch of games, all with gameplay, all except for a few coming this year and some showing a return of long dead franchises beats a show that does show a few more games, especially exclusives, but only shows gameplay for a few of those and most are releasing next year or don't even have a release window. Microsoft's showcase was fantastic and showed the value of Gamepass, but it was a showcase for the lineup for the next few years, not just this year and for many games the trailer was completely useless, since it didn't even give a basic idea of what the game is like. Nintendo's show had less exclusives and games overall, but it was all except for BotW for this year. Almost all the games shown are out in a few months and all of them got gameplay so that you can immediately decide wether it's for you or not. That makes Nintendo's show more worth my time than Microsoft's show. Therefore Nintendo wins. |
If you do put bias aside, the vast majority of games shown in the Xbox showcase were gameplay trailers lol
Kakadu18 said:
Yes right, I forgot to mention, Nintendo also had a bigger genre variety. |
Considering MS covered 2D sidescrollers, party games, FPS, flight sim, arcade racer, JRPGs, and strategy games, I would have to disagree here pretty strongly... I swear, most of the people (again globally) I talk to seem to have NOT actually watched the Xbox showcase and just looked for highlights lol
| Darashiva said: Since Elden Ring is the only game from the entire event that I would even remotely consider buying on release, I guess that means that for me FromSoftware/Bandai Namco "won" for me. Microsoft and Nintendo had probably the best conferences/showcases overall, but no game they showed has me nearly as excited as Elden Ring. |
You... you did see the Bandai Namco conference, right?! lmao... They didn't even cover Tales of Arise! 
Veknoid_Outcast said:
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 :) |
That's not my take, my take is that Xbox did all the things Nintendo did in their Showcase vs the Direct, AND MORE. The winner of E3 is the one that made the most use of the opportunity, and Nintendo JUST showed games. Microsoft showed games, and made a pretty clear point on the value of Game Pass (and both its future value and thus future of Xbox), and even added a little humor with the mini fridge.
Here's the funny part about art: my sister's the artist in the family (literally, liberal arts degree, artist and musician), and it's pretty clear there IS, indeed, a baseline artistic perception by which human brains function within. CAN someone like art no one else likes? Sure. But ever see a car that is generally accepted as ugly? Yea, of course you have. You've also seen a car that is generally accepted as good-looking, too. Art is MOSTLY objective, and it's often people who are aiming to be unique or different that purposely try to drive the bell curve outwards further and further (you know you've met contrarians: if everyone else loves it, they hate it, and if everyone hates it, they find a reason to love it). My sister is one of those people, she tries very hard to be different. That is the driving force behind the belief that art is subjective when it's actually GENERALLY not. This is why it's so easy for you to determine a hot girl from a not hot girl, so even though someone will still eventually find the not-hot girl attractive and love her the way she deserves to be (and could have their own reasons, and be all "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" sanctimonious), the fact that there is a far greater number of people hitting on or complimenting the hot girl drives home the point that the artists eye is still driven by baseline programming in the brain.
So in summary, removing bias is entirely possible in general because generally speaking, art is NOT subjective. It is subjective to a minority, ergo each fanbase is subjective to their own, but do not number the majority. It's not possible 100%, of course, but the idea that there can be eventually a "general" view of gaming isn't entirely a lost cause. It may just take another few decades to get there is all. 
The_Liquid_Laser said:
I mostly agree with you, but there actually are ways to make this topic objective. You can do things like make a poll (which the topic creator did). Each individuals opinion is subjective, but when you tally the results, then you can say, "most people preferred this", and that is an objectively true statement. Basically, "I think this is the best" is always a subjective viewpoint, but "the group prefers this" actually is objective. Of course, to know what the group prefers you have to ask the whole group though. |
I mean, this is why I'm going by the topic title, lol... If the OP asked "Who showed the most games you like", I would have answered this very differently. And the responses are base on "who showed the most games you like" as opposed to "who won E3", or that most people are answering this as "who won E3 for for me personally"... And unfortunately, most people (again globally!) seem to vote for their own and have not investigated or spent equal time looking at the opposition 
Someone might say, "well maybe I don't want to spend an hour and a half watching the Xbox showcase", and that's fine. Except, I'm finding a lot of those same people are the ones saying Xbox showed no gameplay (even though most of their games DID show gameplay trailers) or "had nothing interesting". I mean, how can you know if nothing was interesting if you never watched it, right? I've taken issue with that on Twitter, too... lmfao
