Both Nintendo and Microsoft draw for this year in my opinion. Both showed plenty of games that i actually want to play. Its a shame we have to wait awhile for some of the big hitters.

I voted for Chaos, because Stranger of Paradise: Final Fantasy Origin was my favorite announcement, and the game I'm looking forward to play.

But both Microsoft and Nintendo did a really good job. Lots of cool announcements.

Yep, both we're equally interesting. But as always, I'll be waiting for reviews.

This E3 has offered a great opportunity to poll the interest of respective fan bases. VGChartz still heavily leaning to Nintendo games. 2:1. while on Eurogamer it seems to be the other way around, 2:1 in favor of XBox games.

For me, simple, Halo Infnite, FH5, Botw2, Metroid, it's a draw. I voted Nintendo since their stuff is coming out sooner. But really, it was all pretty meh, E3 doesn't get me excited anymore. Too many years of announcements only followed by delays, downgrades and or cancellations. So perhaps I should have voted they all sucked. Indifferent.

Bring on the reviews, curious how FS2020 performs on XBox. It was stuttering like a .... over Florida today, too much detail. 23GB data streamed today and yesterday flying over Florida. About 4 GB per hour. Not evenly though, it can spike well up to 50 mbps or more which causes the stutters, and my max speed is under 200 knots with a tailwind. A jet plane would break my internet!

This is an amazing comment! I don't mean to dick suck but DAMN a reality where this is the case is just too amazing not to appreciate! 

You basically said the loud part very quietly: "objectivity" is, at best, just an appeal to popularity. And appeals to popularity are terrible arguments.

"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). " 

The kind of logic you're using is why Lou Reed stayed underground (hehehe) for years and didn't become popular till long after he had already contributed some of what is now considered the greatest music of all time. Objectivity isn't "objective" if it can change with the times so massively that artists who were once considered shit years ago are now among the most acclaimed of all time. That's literally just popularity, because "facts" don't change. You would have called a lot of artists who weren't considered good at their time "contrarian", too, because you wouldn't know just how beloved they'd be now. That is actually how you push most art forward, by changing (or at least expanding the boundaries of) standards. 

Edit: And further more, while I know I am guilty of this as well, I don't think that adding to the conversation whether people are answering objectively or subjectively actually adds anything meaningful to the thread. It just bloats the discussion because it's probably not going to change many people's answers (if at all) and is just putting to question the poll results for no real reason other than "this isn't a fact" ... surely there could be better arguments for why Microsoft won then just pulling out arguments from the objectivity book, no? Why not try to appeal to people with a real point? 

Indeed. It also had a limited edition with a fancy golden Wiimote with a Triforce and the 25th Anniversary CD Soundtrack. All of that for 59,99.

Now in 2021, the game alone (which let's remind ourselves: it's not a new game) costs 59,99, the fancy controllers cost 79,99 (sold separately) and the amiibo costs 24,99 (I'm still in disbelief about this one). Buying it all would make a grand total of about 164,99. Holy mother of God.

Honestly, I don't know what the hell is Nintendo even thinking anymore. But let's go back to the topic xD

What he said has nothing to do with popularity. Popularity is based around exposure people have to something. The reason many artists can remain unpopular for a long time but then suddenly become well-regarded, is becuase they lack exposure and the funds/means to spread their work early in their careers.

On the other hand, a car can be generally considered as ugly, but still be very popular and common because it's cheap and practical. Most people would generally accept the new Fast & Furious movie will be garbage, but it'll still rake close to a billion dollars in box office because it offers cheap fun and boasts enough name-talent to appeal to a wide number of people. None of that relates to objective value or quality though, just like your comment doesn't relate to his argument.

For the record: I watched both showcases in full and they were the only showcases I bothered to watch at all. I felt Nintendo won pretty easily. I didn't hate Microsoft's, but they didn't show me anything I wasn't already aware of, other than the new co-op shooter from Arkane. I also don't have much optimism in the new direction for Halo lately, but I'm keeping some hope alive.

Before to start, the following paragraphs are just a bit of reasoning behind my scores for all the E3 conferences that I've watched, so just feel free to ignore them if you're not interested. If you still want to know the scores, they are in the table at the end of this post, but one thing you should know before getting there is that, just like I do with movies, I've tried to rate these showcases according to what they are: I'm just not going to rate some indie conference in the same standards than a conference of a big publisher, just as I wouldn't rate an action movie in the same way than a romantic or an independent one. Also, I'm actually used to rate movies and I normally use a scale of 0,5 (0,5 - 1 - 1,5 - 2, etc.), because I think that using a scale of 1 is not enough to capture all the nuances, yet using less than that comes with the underlying risk of becoming somewhat arbitrary. In this case, however, since I'm not so used to rate E3 conferences and I think a scale of 1 is just enough for this purpose, that's what I'll be using. So no 7,5's or 6,5's or whatever. This is not too important, I guess, but I thought it was worth mentioning it.

First of all, I want to say that this E3 wasn't as bad (to me) as everyone is claiming, since almost all the showcases had more than one game that I found interesting and that I would like to play in the future.

That said, the worst for me was Bandai Namco, because they only showed one game and they didn't offer anything new about it, apart from a few details in the interview. It would've being nice if they would've actually shown some new gameplay or mode or something, like Warner Bros. Games did with Back 4 Blood. Capcom suffers from the exact same problem: there were no games that can be actually called new in their showcase. I know they already claimed before the event that this was going to be the case, but that doesn't make it better. As for Square Enix, they just dedicated too much time to just one game. If they would've done that after the conference or in a different stream outside the E3, their showcase would've been much better paced; also shorter, but a conference doesn't need to be long in order to be good.

And now, the positives, in which I include, yes, Ubisoft: their conference is a 6 to me and if either Mario + Rabbids: Sparks of Hope or Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora would've been ready for a release in 2021, that 6 would be a 7. Upload VR, for its part, didn't have any games as big as those two (obviously), but it had a few interesting ones that could've made that conference even better, if not for the lack of variety: around half (or maybe more) of the games shown there were shooters. Now, I know that VR is still an emerging technology and some genres are a better fit for it than others, but I would've liked to see a more varied line-up, honestly. Another joining the club of 6 is PC Gaming. This showcase actually did a good job in terms of games shown, but it was also exceeeeeeessively long. One hour is the longest that I'd consider nice for a conference of this kind... and with that length you're still playing with fire if you don't do it right. With such a long conference as PC Gaming did, they were indeed able to show a lot of games, but at the expense of making them look less relevant, which is not good. Also, I didn't like their attempt to make their conference funny, but I don't mind it much, because at least those gags helped keeping the conference at a good pace.

Another conference that also had some gags - but this time (way) better than the ones in PC Gaming - was Revolver Digital: it wasn't the greatest in terms of games shown, but it still had several that looked appealing and it was quite entertaining to watch. A showcase that made it better that Revolver Digital when it comes to games shown was the Indie Showcase, but the pace was just not good: they just put there a lot of games together, with only a brief pause in the middle, which was essentially an advertisement. I still liked it, but I think it had the potential to be a bit better. Which was the case with Yooreka Studio: they didn't show as many games as the Indie Showcase, but all of them felt important on their own and a few were appeling to me. And more or less at the same level we have Intellivision, which introduced their brand new console, Amico, with a nice variety of games and a bunch of cool features. The presentation itself was not the best, however, and the console should be cheaper, in my opinion.

And finally, the top three: Freedom Games, Nintendo and Microsoft + Bethesda. About Freedom Games, I'll only say that it was some sort of a beefed up Yooreka Studio: a better made showcase with a nice variety of games, which all felt important and looked even better than the ones shown in Yooreka. Overall, a quite enjoyable little show. As for Nintendo, well, they had a few unexpected games accompanied by other long expected ones and, besides that, some more, most of them scheduled for 2021. So in general, it was a solid conference and if the release date for The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Untitled would've been 2021, or if another heavy hitter would've had a 2021 release date, I'd give it a 9. Same with Microsoft: lots of appealing games and surprises, and lots of them exclusive, but lots of them also for 2022; if one of those games, let's say Starfield, was ready for a release in 2021, I'd give it a 9 too.

As for who "won" the E3, I'd choose Freedom Games just to give some love to which is (in my book) the best of the smaller showcases, but since that one is not in the poll, that leaves me only with Nintendo and Microsoft. Between those two, since Nintendo already has a large fanbase on this site and Microsoft (in spite of the lots of defensive love that it gets from its fans) is always getting huge amounts of excessive, undeserved and sometimes almost irrational hate, I'm going to choose Microsoft. I know, I know, this an entirely political decision what I'm making here, but that's what you get for not making Freedom Games available in the poll. =P

As a side note, I would've liked to watch something from Sony, even if it was technically not part of the E3. It's actually nice to have conferences of each one of the big three just one or two days apart from each other, so watching the E3 without Sony is like riding a tricycle with just two wheels (yes, I know that's called a bicycle, but you know what I mean).

And here are the scores:

Actually, did you even read his comment?

I was focusing on the part I highlighted, but if you'll remember he literally says: 

"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."

This is literally an appeal to popularity. The fact that he also uses generally here, also vindicates that this is what he meant earlier when he said "But ever see a car that is generally accepted as ugly". 

Again, I'd argue you can make appeals to popularity even in situations where something being discussed isn't "mainstream" because popularity can be analyzed in smaller communities or scenarios. But pretty much any way you chop it ... it was an appeal to popularity.