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

Who won E3 1997?

Square 6 20.69%
 
Capcom 0 0%
 
Nintendo 7 24.14%
 
Konami 1 3.45%
 
Rare 11 37.93%
 
Lucas Art 0 0%
 
Bethesda 0 0%
 
Valve 1 3.45%
 
SEGA 0 0%
 
Sony 3 10.34%
 
Total:29

Conker was really good. But 007 and banjo were just amazing. 4 player 007 back in the day was a marvel.



Around the Network
Chrkeller said:
Conker was really good. But 007 and banjo were just amazing. 4 player 007 back in the day was a marvel.

Yeah. I remember playing the multiplayer in Banjo Tooie just as much as Goldeneye. Moving walls, no one could be the jinga or whatever it was called (kind of like no one could be Oddjob lol).



Dulfite said:
The_Liquid_Laser said:
Square won, but that kind of means Sony won.

Yeah, but I really am focusing more on the developers and owners of the IP rather than who threw money to get timed exclusives.

First off...There were more moving parts in play in Sony becoming THE home for third party publishers/devs in gen 5 than "throwing money". Ease of development, the CD-ROM format, an exploding user base, and better royalty fees among them. One of the biggest games that year in the PS show was Metal Gear Solid. The only non-PS format that game ever appeared on was the Silicon Knights GC remake, 6 years later. That's a hell of a "timed exclusive".

There were 3 big conferences at the 97' show. Nintendo, Sega, and Sony. To not include Sony is absurd. You have Titus. TITUS. With their lone offering of Superman 64 in the secondary choices. Buy not Sony because because money hat and also, well, I've seen your posts on here regarding PS. You wear your allegiances, as well as your bias on your sleeve. It's not a knock per say, but I'm certainly aware of it.

Here are Sony's E3 games from their show. Well, at least the games that Sony showed that weren't acquired due to their pact with the devil.

  And of course, they showcased the PS hardware as well.

Anyway, as my last act of participation in this series of threads, I'm voting for Titus and Superman 64.

Last edited by COKTOE - on 30 June 2019

YOU WILL SERVE THE BRIGHT LORD!

COKTOE said:
Dulfite said:

Yeah, but I really am focusing more on the developers and owners of the IP rather than who threw money to get timed exclusives.

First off...There were more moving parts in play in Sony becoming THE home for third party publishers/devs in gen 5 than "throwing money". Ease of development, the CD-ROM format, an exploding user base, and better royalty fees among them. One of the biggest games that year in the PS show was Metal Gear Solid. The only non-PS format that game ever appeared on was the Silicon Knights GC remake, 6 years later. That's a hell of a "timed exclusive".

There were 3 big conferences at the 97' show. Nintendo, Sega, and Sony. To not include Sony is absurd. You have Titus. TITUS. With their lone offering of Superman 64 in the secondary choices. Buy not Sony because because money hat and also, well, I've seen your posts on here regarding PS. You wear your allegiances, as well as your bias on your sleeve. It's not a knock per say, but I'm certainly aware of it.

Here are Sony's E3 games from their show. Well, at least the games that Sony showed that weren't acquired due to their pact with the devil.

  And of course, they showcased the PS hardware as well.

Anyway, as my last act of participation in this series of threads, I'm voting for Titus and Superman 64.

1) Wow, I wasn't expecting to read this? I voted RARE in this thread, not Nintendo, and I think Nintendo only once in the other two (95 and 96). I have no problem not voting Nintendo, and while I don't play Sony devices I respect their games very much so. Please don't accuse me of something or imply something. These threads are for fun, not to get all serious and angry.

2) I would have no issue including Sony, like I did in the previous two, if they had their own first party games, not 2nd or 3rd party ones that other studios developed. I am going off the lists I found online.

3) As for their list of games you included, I will update the OP to reflect the major ones. I'm trusting they are all 1st party games? I also updated the poll to put in Sony instead of 3D games. It's still quite early in this voting process so who knows. Currently Rare is winning by one vote.

Seriously don't get the accusations. If Sony won every E3 I wouldn't care, I just find it fun knowing what this site mainly thinks for each year. I even said in another thread for people to update me with information on games if they find more on major ones I didn't post, and I still get this reaction...

Last edited by Dulfite - on 30 June 2019

Dulfite said:

1) Wow, I wasn't expecting to read this? I voted RARE in this thread, not Nintendo, and I think Nintendo only once in the other two (95 and 96). I have no problem not voting Nintendo, and while I don't play Sony devices I respect their games very much so. Please don't accuse me of something or imply something. These threads are for fun, not to get all serious and angry.

2) I would have no issue including Sony, like I did in the previous two, if they had their own first party games, not 2nd or 3rd party ones that other studios developed. I am going off the lists I found online.

3) As for their list of games you included, I will update the OP to reflect the major ones. I'm trusting they are all 1st party games? I also updated the poll to put in Sony instead of 3D games. It's still quite early in this voting process so who knows. Currently Rare is winning by one vote.

Seriously don't get the accusations. If Sony won every E3 I wouldn't care, I just find it fun knowing what this site mainly thinks for each year. I even said in another thread for people to update me with information on games if they find more on major ones I didn't post, and I still get this reaction...

This is where people may differ though. Personally I consider "winning" E3 to be 100% down to the press conferences. So it doesn't matter who developed the games for me, if they're shown at one company's conference, then they count for that company. I can't remember E3 '97 but I doubt Rare had their own conference so I'd count every game they had that year as one of Nintendo's.

I know that means I'll consider the "winner" of E3 to be one of the console manufacturers 90% of the time, but I think that's fair anyway. They're the big draw for me, they're the main reason I pay attention to E3 in the first place, and since they include both their own and 3rd party games they usually have the most to show and the most new announcements. That's what makes them worth watching. A 3rd party would really have to have a ridiculously good show for me to consider them the "winner".



Around the Network
Ka-pi96 said:
Dulfite said:

1) Wow, I wasn't expecting to read this? I voted RARE in this thread, not Nintendo, and I think Nintendo only once in the other two (95 and 96). I have no problem not voting Nintendo, and while I don't play Sony devices I respect their games very much so. Please don't accuse me of something or imply something. These threads are for fun, not to get all serious and angry.

2) I would have no issue including Sony, like I did in the previous two, if they had their own first party games, not 2nd or 3rd party ones that other studios developed. I am going off the lists I found online.

3) As for their list of games you included, I will update the OP to reflect the major ones. I'm trusting they are all 1st party games? I also updated the poll to put in Sony instead of 3D games. It's still quite early in this voting process so who knows. Currently Rare is winning by one vote.

Seriously don't get the accusations. If Sony won every E3 I wouldn't care, I just find it fun knowing what this site mainly thinks for each year. I even said in another thread for people to update me with information on games if they find more on major ones I didn't post, and I still get this reaction...

This is where people may differ though. Personally I consider "winning" E3 to be 100% down to the press conferences. So it doesn't matter who developed the games for me, if they're shown at one company's conference, then they count for that company. I can't remember E3 '97 but I doubt Rare had their own conference so I'd count every game they had that year as one of Nintendo's.

I know that means I'll consider the "winner" of E3 to be one of the console manufacturers 90% of the time, but I think that's fair anyway. They're the big draw for me, they're the main reason I pay attention to E3 in the first place, and since they include both their own and 3rd party games they usually have the most to show and the most new announcements. That's what makes them worth watching. A 3rd party would really have to have a ridiculously good show for me to consider them the "winner".

I get that, but I was trying to make a standard because more recent E3s many of those 3rd parties do have press conferences and some of them have had extraordinarily good ones. For instance, I though Ubisoft had the best conference a couple years ago. And Bethesda had an amazing one a bit back too that was probably the best that year. Since that is possible now, I don't want to penalize those third parties by not giving them the opportunity to win in the past. I suppose I could have made it the other way, but I'm hoping this way the dev teams get the glory rather than mega corporations.



Based on the games listed here, hard to pick between Nintendo and Rare.

Ocarina of Time and Banjo Kazooie were two of the best games ever made at the time, Goldeneye helped pioneer the ascendancy of FPS games on console, while Starfox 64 and F-Zero X are both classics.

I ended up choosing Rare simply cos Banjo was my favourite game of all time for a decade.



Bet with Liquidlaser: I say PS5 and Xbox Series will sell more than 56 million combined by the end of 2023.

Out of the poll choices, I'd opt for Rare. I love Banjo-Kazooie and Goldeneye

Was Tomb Raider II shown? That'd sway it in Core Design's direction for me.



Bethesda of 1997 has nothing to do with iD Software and Quake II.

Also. E3 1997 had Fallout.



curl-6 said:

Based on the games listed here, hard to pick between Nintendo and Rare.

Ocarina of Time and Banjo Kazooie were two of the best games ever made at the time, Goldeneye helped pioneer the ascendancy of FPS games on console, while Starfox 64 and F-Zero X are both classics.

I ended up choosing Rare simply cos Banjo was my favourite game of all time for a decade.

This was a tough one, as I played Star Fox 64 so many times as a kid, but I voted Rare as well.