Microsoft had more to lose, and I think it comes out stronger than before. Many of those who were on the fence about acquiring a Series console because of it portfolio looking forward have now solid arguments to go ahead and make their purchase.

Well they need to release the games first, so no need for a Series before 2022

Because no one should get too crazy for a CGI trailer outside of confirming that a game is in development, Nintendo.

I'm not even really a Metroid guy, I'm actually more interested in Advanced Wars. I mean what can you ask of Nintendo beyond 'reviving the IPs that aren't in active use'. Warioware's debatable if it counts but Metroid and Advance Wars...

(New games in those franchises are a thing in most any discussion, along with trailers for the games in spec or confirmed that are MIA)

Not my favorite E3 direct I've seen, but it still works as one and this year isn't exactly a hard competition. In some years the E3 direct could have lost to someone....

Just took a look at that Intellivision and it looks interesting, but at 250 bucks that's a no.

Starfeild was in engine not CGI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcbbwpBJuX8

Thats like a cutscene from the start of the game.... ei. CGI?
Thats not what actual gameplay looks like.

Proof of it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfvAWjMzHlk

1:28 into this, you see the model dude putting together the scripted cgi parts, shown above, for the trailer.

Also why is in-engine not cgi?
If your useing character models or the engine, to do things that dont actually 100% represent gameplay or the game... isnt that cgi? reguardless of if its made with the engine?

I think it's a draw between Microsoft and Nintendo for me, but if I had to choose I'd probably give it Nintendo since Microsoft had Bethesda along but their new game felt cold and uninspiring : /

The trailer you linked literally says that’s all in game. A lot of these trailers are how the game looks but they use different camera viewpoints to get that more “cinematic” look. 

I know we're barely talking E3 at this point, but we ARE having civil discourse around who won E3, just in an analogous way.  I do also realize we're getting deep in the quote trees, BUT we have come full circle and you've come to my same conclusion perhaps without realizing it.  A few things:

1) Using "popularity" is not a measure of artistic perception because someone who buys a Civic for reliability will still sit it next to a Lamborghini and know inherently which one looks better.  Just because there are more Civics on the road (ergo, more popular) doesn't mean it looks better.  This also segues into the inherently inaccurate analogy you've made to popularity around a change in time.  But in order for your example to take place, all of the SAME subject matter must remain.  Ergo, you'd have to have the EXACT same songs still playing (remember, just because it's the same genre doesn't mean it's the same song!), and the same cars.  And even then, if I sat a Lamborghini Diablo Countach right next to a Civic of its same era, there's virtually no one that would say the Civic looks better!  So guaranteed if you took the modern day folks and presented all of the SAME subject matter from a bygone era, the same things that people generally liked then would still be liked now.  Instead, the times have changed and NEW subject matter has been presented.  And here's the other important part: people die.  For your example to conversely be accurate on the change in subject matter, all of the same people must be presented with both.  If the subject matter changes but the people don't, then you get a better comparison model.  But even then, I'm still guaranteeing similar results.

2) Your move to popularity only served to actually drive my point home: that IS the core issue with the "Who Won E3" question in terms of gamers.  Of all the things I do in my life outside of gaming, I find gaming to be one of the few places where there is so much loss of objectivity and just sheer, blatant, and willful ignorance WHILE arguing over a piece of plastic.  It's one thing to say, "I don't care about [console]", because I can respect that.  It's another thing to not care about [console], and ALSO hate it or mock the people that do care about it.  And so most of these votes become *dun dun dun* just a mere popularity contest!  Rather than being a proper look at the material and comparing it to answer "who won E3", gaming communities tend to just pick their own for a variety of reasons without taking the opposition into account, or discounting it (which is, again, what I see a lot of in general) while willfully ignoring anything about it.  You've come to the EXACT same conclusion I did, just in a very roundabout way lol

AngryLittleAlchemist said: Shaunodon said: 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. pop·u·lar·i·ty /ËŒpäpyəˈlerÉ™dÄ“/ Learn to pronounce noun the state or condition of being liked, admired, or supported by many people. His comment: "  But ever see a car that is generally accepted as ugly?  Yea, of course you have.  You've also seen a car that is generally accepted as good-looking, too. " His appeal is to popularity. Now, you're right that generally, the connotation of popularity derives from that thing also being very successful among a mass audience. And his comment didn't directly say that, for something to be good, it has to have a mass audience. At the same time, how popular something is can also be a microcosm of what kind of product it is, so it didn't really need mentioning (for example, being the most popular Jazz musician in America right now would be very different from being the most popular rapper, you'd still be popular in a certain criteria), because within the criteria he's expressing (the "general" people being referred to), it would be about popularity. It is an appeal to popularity, because within the fixed data size he's making an example out of, most of the people agree with a certain narrative (I mean that's literally what he means when he says "generally").  Even if we want to say that, for something smaller it wouldn't be an appeal to popularity because the data-size would be too small, none of my arguments change regardless of the wording. Walk up to someone, tell them their favorite thing isn't better than this other thing because the other 2 people in the room prefer something else. What kind of argument is that? Lol.  The funny thing is, even the argument you're making isn't correct: There are a ton of artists who could have made it big, because enough people examined their work to get them funding or some kind of push for mainstream success, and they didn't.

Walking up to someone and telling them their favorite thing is different is different than asking everyone on the room what their favorite thing is (ergo, this OP's poll).  Starting an argument with someone becomes an entirely different thing, and yet, can still pan out similarly to what I said: the other two people need to be factored in because one might say, "he's right, your favorite thing is weird, how anyone can like your favorite thing is beyond me".  Then, this becomes like us, hopefully: discussing the different reasons for favorite thing.  But either way, you're starting an argument in your example which is different than asking for their responses.  Your arguing example turns into a matter of attempting to convince or change other people's perception rather than just find out what it is (using a poll, for example).

The fact that a hot girl will have more people hitting on her and be more popular is a result, not what makes her hot (in other words, it's not an appeal TO popularity, but popularity is a RESULT of the appeal).  I think using the car was a better example so I shouldn't have mentioned girls lmao

Uhm, 2 seconds?  I mean, your bias is showing pretty hard, here lol

Also, Starfield wasn't CGI... CGI = Computer Generated Imagery, but Starfield was running in real-time within the game engine (though likely on a powerful PC).  Far Cry was also not CGI, and showed off gameplay segments...  But based on what you're going off on, there's no point in debating this with you because you're already decided Xbox lost simply based on handpicking what you want to justify your narrative (There were only four CG trailers, one of which entirely made fun of itself with delightful sarcasm, two of which were "indie stuff")

Well now i know you are being obtuse on purpose, gamepass gives the option to buy those games at a discount