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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - To the Wii u owners who thought zelda was enough for E3...

DonFerrari on 18 June 2016
Bandorr said:
Wait wait wait. Did someone pass a law that if you have a Wii U - you can't have any other systems?

God I am going to get arrested. I mean I have a PC, vita, 3ds, Xbox, AND ps4 - I'm going to do life in jail.

Errrrrr... if to play Zelda you end up also having to rely on the output of the other companies you can't really say that Zelda alone win E3.



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."

Around the Network
Super_Boom on 18 June 2016
DonFerrari said:

Errrrrr... if to play Zelda you end up also having to rely on the output of the other companies you can't really say that Zelda alone win E3.

If you like Zelda more than anything else that was shown, you most certainly can say so. It's called having an opinion. If someone weighs their favorite game as their highest interest factor, then that could easily determine their preference. That doesn't mean they can't enjoy anything else, it simply means their favorite game is that much more important to them in deciding on this arbritary winner.

Though honestly, I don't know who decided that "winning E3" is anything more than that in the first place. 



NNID: Zephyr25 / PSN: Zephyr--25 / Switch: SW-4450-3680-7334

DonFerrari on 18 June 2016
Super_Boom said:
DonFerrari said:

Errrrrr... if to play Zelda you end up also having to rely on the output of the other companies you can't really say that Zelda alone win E3.

If you like Zelda more than anything else that was shown, you most certainly can say so. It's called having an opinion. If someone weighs their favorite game as their highest interest factor, then that could easily determine their preference. That doesn't mean they can't enjoy anything else, it simply means their favorite game is that much more important to them in deciding on this arbritary winner.

Though honestly, I don't know who decided that "winning E3" is anything more than that in the first place. 

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.



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."

Super_Boom on 18 June 2016
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.



NNID: Zephyr25 / PSN: Zephyr--25 / Switch: SW-4450-3680-7334

PwerlvlAmy on 18 June 2016

I plan on playing some Paper Mario :O

then i'll pick up TMS #FE when i find it on ebay for cheaper

getting Minecraft on Wii U as well mainly due to the mario upgrade



NND: 0047-7271-7918 | XBL: Nights illusion | PSN: GameNChick

Around the Network
midrange on 18 June 2016
Versus_Evil said:
midrange said:

What do you plan on doing for the rest of 2016?

Since no third party games were announced and zelda is coming in 2017, what is there left for 2016? At least ps4 players, xbox one players, and pc players have many third party games that will be padding out the year (along with some first party games like the last gaurdian). How can one game that won't come out this year be considered a successful E3 for Nintendo when nothing else was shown for the wii u for this year?

 

midrange said:
I hope many people aren't getting the notion that I am trying to downplay the wii u.

Personal opinions aside, the wii u still has upcoming games (like FExSMT and paper mario). However, this thread is focusing on what was shown at E3 (because E3 just happened of course).

Personally I am frustrated with the wii u E3 lineup (if we can call it a lineup), but that is not the same as saying that the wii u has no games.

Let's face it OP, you didn't watch NN E3 did you? And you just massively contradicted yourself.

What third party title was announced for 2016 at E3? If you are referring to SMTxFE, that's long been announced



curl-6 on 18 June 2016
midrange said:

What do you plan on doing for the rest of 2016?

Play my Xbox 360, Wii, SNES, N64, and PS1.



melbye on 18 June 2016

I am still waiting for the Shantae-game i Kickstartered.



160rmf on 18 June 2016

I will be watching the grass grows, while thinking on that trailer



 

 

We reap what we sow

DonFerrari on 18 June 2016
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."