If I can be a skeptical and frank jerk, because I know this sentiment will be met with harsh response, but I think the new Legend of Zelda has a problem that it's generally never faced before. That is to say, 3D Zelda in its previous iterations never really had competition. That is no longer the case.

The last 3D Zelda came out out in fall of 2011. What is important about that? Right at the time Skyward Sword was released, Dark Souls and Skyrim were released. In May of that same year, The Witcher 2 was released. Now, understandably, previous The Elder Scrolls, the original Witcher, and Demon's Souls existed prior to these games, but none of them really carried the gravitas that these games did.

Cut to today. We have several more From Software installments and the masterful Witcher 3. The Soulsborne series, the Witcher series, and Skyrim are all very highly regarded, and while they are all very different, they can all broadly be identified as Zelda-esque adventures. And that's problematic for Zelda, because it means it has competition, and it means it has to differentiate itself.

Zelda doesn't have Soulsborne's brilliant combat. It doesn't have The Witcher 3's phenomenal story telling prowess. And from what we've seen from the gameplay footage, it doesn't convey this broad sense of scope that Skyrim exuded. So the question really becomes 'what does Zelda have that sets it apart other than it being Zelda?' One could argue that it has its puzzles and I think that would be a good place for it to focus on. But I unfortunately remember Nintendo mentioning that Zelda will have more of a focus on combat and less of a focus on puzzling due to its open world nature, and that is worrisome.

This is really becoming a forum wide issue, and it's scary. 

Indeed Slade-San. Personally, I believe such opinions are becoming more systemic and toxic in nature as the days go by. 

I don't necessarily agree with ps3_sales, but let's not miss the point. When someone says that "X company" wins E3. That's an objective statement, it's not "I liked what they showed best". So stating they a company didn't show enough to compete with other companies is hardly invalidating an opinion, just asking people to qualify it. It's a bit semantics, but that's kinda what arguing is about. Precision of language.

I'll say to you what I'm saying to the other people who's threads I'm locking.

Nobody won E3. Nobody lost E3. Everyone had relatively good shows and did what they set out to do.

Stop the console war rubbish.

Locking.

Fair enough. To be clear: my post wasn't an attack on ps3_sales. It was a commentary on the state of this community. Take a look at the threads over the last few days. Someone can't post an unpopular opinion without being dismissed, doubted, or villified. It's a serious problem. 

About winning E3: if you want to talk about winning in terms of pre-order sales, comments on social media, YouTube views, and general mindshare, sure, Sony won. But that's so boring. I want to talk about which games looked the best to ME, and read about what games looked the best to others, and debate those finer points.

The problem is people never state their opinions as opinions.

"Nintendo won e3 for me" or "I think Nintendo won e3" is an opinion.

"Nintendo won e3" is a statement.