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

Forums - Gaming - E3. How it has changed? Did noone win E3?

I would agree with that. I thought EA's press conference, and especially that of Ubisoft, was better than any of the Big Three's press conferences. Really, the only sure-fire way to "win" in most people's minds is to show a wide range of games, both existing and new, in a variety of genres, and have almost all of them look enjoyable. That's what Ubisoft did, and what frankly Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo and EA struggled to do.

Sony showed very little new material, Microsoft focused too heavily on Kinect, and Nintendo's conference was confusing and ignored the Wii. EA put too much emphasis on celebrity cameos and sports games, but it was mostly rescued by Battlefield 3 and ME3, I think.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

Around the Network

Iwas expecting a lot more, and feel dissapointed. Well, at least I get a Skyward Sword trailer...



Proud to be the first cool Nintendo fan ever

Number ONE Zelda fan in the Universe

DKCTF didn't move consoles

Prediction: No Zelda HD for Wii U, quietly moved to the succesor

Predictions for Nintendo NX and Mobile


Kantor said:
I would agree with that. I thought EA's press conference, and especially that of Ubisoft, was better than any of the Big Three's press conferences. Really, the only sure-fire way to "win" in most people's minds is to show a wide range of games, both existing and new, in a variety of genres, and have almost all of them look enjoyable. That's what Ubisoft did, and what frankly Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo and EA struggled to do.

Sony showed very little new material, Microsoft focused too heavily on Kinect, and Nintendo's conference was confusing and ignored the Wii. EA put too much emphasis on celebrity cameos and sports games, but it was mostly rescued by Battlefield 3 and ME3, I think.

people have to realize that time is limited.  nintendo has shown plenty on wii outside the conference.

what did you expect.  when you take into account it being the 25th anniversery for zelda so time for that.  Then BASICALLY TWO NEW consoles to talk about.  If they spent any moore time on the wii people would bitch about not spending enough time on the wii u.   nintendo should have extended at least another 30 minutes due to having essentially 2 new consoles to talk about. 



I agree. Now that I think about it, the only new games announced at e3 this year that I am anticipating is Overstrike. I also am thinking about getting into the Assassins Creed thanks to that amazing trailer. Gaming is certainly getting boring. :(



"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth." -My good friend Mark Aurelius

Lol at the fanboys in denial. With some gifs and screenshots. Sorry but the talk of the show graphically was battlefield 3 (including how amazingly real the console versions looked) and the technical achievement of skyrim. Its an insult to skyrim to compare its fully interactive realtime engine to a scripted game like uncharted. Technically the formed is much much harder to do well. There are plenty of videos around. ( I can't post I'm on my phone ). But the realtime dragon battle shown at e3 for skyrim was better than anything gears 3 or uncharted 3 showed.

 

moderated - Tor



Around the Network
irstupid said:
Kantor said:
I would agree with that. I thought EA's press conference, and especially that of Ubisoft, was better than any of the Big Three's press conferences. Really, the only sure-fire way to "win" in most people's minds is to show a wide range of games, both existing and new, in a variety of genres, and have almost all of them look enjoyable. That's what Ubisoft did, and what frankly Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo and EA struggled to do.

Sony showed very little new material, Microsoft focused too heavily on Kinect, and Nintendo's conference was confusing and ignored the Wii. EA put too much emphasis on celebrity cameos and sports games, but it was mostly rescued by Battlefield 3 and ME3, I think.

people have to realize that time is limited.  nintendo has shown plenty on wii outside the conference.

what did you expect.  when you take into account it being the 25th anniversery for zelda so time for that.  Then BASICALLY TWO NEW consoles to talk about.  If they spent any moore time on the wii people would bitch about not spending enough time on the wii u.   nintendo should have extended at least another 30 minutes due to having essentially 2 new consoles to talk about. 

Xenoblade and the last story are coming....  Take less than 30 seconds and would have made a lot of people happy :).  All three of them are spending way to much talking nonsense..

Like I mentioned before the MS E3 conference in 2006 was a great conference....It is ridiculous what they all announced and shown in 90 minutes;.



 

selnor said:

Lol at the Sony fanboys in denial. With some gifs and screenshots. Sorry but the talk of the show graphically was battlefield 3 (including how amazingly real the console versions looked) and the technical achievement of skyrim. Its an insult to skyrim to compare its fully interactive realtime engine to a scripted game like uncharted. Technically the formed is much much harder to do well. There are plenty of videos around. ( I can't post I'm on my phone ). But the realtime dragon battle shown at e3 for skyrim was better than anything gears 3 or uncharted 3 showed.


Yeah, great way to prove me wrong. Just call me a fanboy for disagreeing with you.

Battlefield 3 looks good. Yeah. I'm not denying it. I just think Uncharted 3 looks a step above it. Same goes for Skyrim. It's more than about how "Realistic" a game can look.

Skyrim also loses points because it's open world. It's more technical. It doesn't make it better looking though. It's gorgeous, yes, the dragon fight is amazing, yes... But I think Uncharted looks better. It has better water, it has better explosions, it has better facial animations, it has better hair, it has better environments, it has better lighting... Skyrim has better Dragonsand better swords.

By the way. You're also totally contradicting yourself. You say Battlefield blows everything away at one point, including Skyrim, then say it's insulting to compare anything linear and scripted to Skyrim. Read what you're writing, please.

A better game for you to claim as the graphic king would be Far Cry 3... Which also looks better than Battlefield 3 and Skyrim.



                            

Carl2291 said:
selnor said:

Lol at the Sony fanboys in denial. With some gifs and screenshots. Sorry but the talk of the show graphically was battlefield 3 (including how amazingly real the console versions looked) and the technical achievement of skyrim. Its an insult to skyrim to compare its fully interactive realtime engine to a scripted game like uncharted. Technically the formed is much much harder to do well. There are plenty of videos around. ( I can't post I'm on my phone ). But the realtime dragon battle shown at e3 for skyrim was better than anything gears 3 or uncharted 3 showed.


Yeah, great way to prove me wrong. Just call me a fanboy for disagreeing with you.

Battlefield 3 looks good. Yeah. I'm not denying it. I just think Uncharted 3 looks a step above it. Same goes for Skyrim. It's more than about how "Realistic" a game can look.

Skyrim also loses points because it's open world. It's more technical. It doesn't make it better looking though. It's gorgeous, yes, the dragon fight is amazing, yes... But I think Uncharted looks better. It has better water, it has better explosions, it has better facial animations, it has better hair, it has better environments, it has better lighting... Skyrim has better Dragonsand better swords.

By the way. You're also totally contradicting yourself. You say Battlefield blows everything away at one point, including Skyrim, then say it's insulting to compare anything linear and scripted to Skyrim. Read what you're writing, please.

A better game for you to claim as the graphic king would be Far Cry 3... Which also looks better than Battlefield 3 and Skyrim.


Art aside. Technically and power pushing battlefield 3 and skyrim take the cake. We can all say opinion all day. Referring to unreachable and painted scenery as the best environments is well like saying Australia is better than where you live yet you never been there.

Objectively battlefield 3 and skyrim visually look like they are pushing systems harder.

I want nothing more than to hope gears 3 juz showed a crappy part of the game. I want geara 3 to visually blow me away. But at e 3 it just didn't. And jn hatred 3 didn't either. Everything I've read about them as well from people at the show has been more gameplay orientated to from media not really check out the graphics. That's a different story with skyrim and battlefield.



selnor said:

Art aside. Technically and power pushing battlefield 3 and skyrim take the cake. We can all say opinion all day. Referring to unreachable and painted scenery as the best environments is well like saying Australia is better than where you live yet you never been there.

Objectively battlefield 3 and skyrim visually look like they are pushing systems harder.

I want nothing more than to hope gears 3 juz showed a crappy part of the game. I want geara 3 to visually blow me away. But at e 3 it just didn't. And jn hatred 3 didn't either. Everything I've read about them as well from people at the show has been more gameplay orientated to from media not really check out the graphics. That's a different story with skyrim and battlefield.


If you're saying all of this is fact, then I assume you have proof for your statement? Like, actual tech analysis of all the games or something? How much space they will all take on a Bluray? Anything at all?

Anyway. Judging by your spelling and random insult, you're clearly drunk. I wont be replying to you again until you're sober and making sense



                            

Carl2291 said:
selnor said:

Art aside. Technically and power pushing battlefield 3 and skyrim take the cake. We can all say opinion all day. Referring to unreachable and painted scenery as the best environments is well like saying Australia is better than where you live yet you never been there.

Objectively battlefield 3 and skyrim visually look like they are pushing systems harder.

I want nothing more than to hope gears 3 juz showed a crappy part of the game. I want geara 3 to visually blow me away. But at e 3 it just didn't. And jn hatred 3 didn't either. Everything I've read about them as well from people at the show has been more gameplay orientated to from media not really check out the graphics. That's a different story with skyrim and battlefield.


If you're saying all of this is fact, then I assume you have proof for your statement? Like, actual tech analysis of all the games or something? How much space they will all take on a Bluray? Anything at all?

Anyway. Judging by your spelling and random insult, you're clearly drunk. I wont be replying to you again until you're sober and making sense

lol. Damn phone typing. I gues we will juz agree to disagree.

Back to the topic. 3Rd party games this e3 were amazing. Goty In my prediction will be a 3rd party title. I'm predicting skyrim. It already has the most views on YouTube. However several gaming sites have voted battlefield 3 as game of the show. With the nearest exclusive game only garnering 5 % votes on some sites.

The year of the quality 3rd party. A hard year for exclusive games to go up against the 3rd party list.