Who Won E3?

[triksR4rabits]

As the title suggests- who won E3 2006 in your opinion?

As far as I'm concerned, Nintendo is the winner with Microsoft at a close second. After reviewing all the coverage (I, like many others, could not attend ), it seems that Nintendo had the strongest display, mainly because most of their titles were playable. This years E3 made me believe that the Wii-mote, despite its absurd name, has a real shot at changing games as a whole and catching on like the DS.

Ninty showed a lot of their flagships, but their selection was limited. Some games also seemed gimmicy and dissapointing (Red Steel and Metroid IMO; it seems like they need more control tweaks if these are going to be as good as they hope). Also, no mention of price or a release date were given; my fondness of the Wii would evaporate if they priced it over 200.

Microsoft had a strong display, but many of their games were not playable (forza, halo, others I can't remember atm). It seems that this years E3 proved that the 360 is very powerful, and can go toe-to-toe with the ps3 graphically. Also, the fact that Live will be cross-platform (btwn 360 and computes) is very promising. But where was their hd-dvd drive announcement? this makes me think the drive will be a nice chunk of change...

Sony let me down. Some of the games (MGS!!!!!!!) looked fantastic, but few were playable and the ps3 has not met my expectations in terms of visuals. I realize this will be the first gen of ps3 games (as opposed to M$'s second), but still... Also, the $500 pricetag, which does not include wi-fi, HDMI output or data card inputs (as of now), is, quite frankly, mad loot. Also, where the hell was Killzone, and how could sonly so blatantly rip off ideas of their competitors!?

/rant over.

What do you guys think?

 

[epitaph]

As far as I'm concerned, Nintendo is the winner with Microsoft at a close second. After reviewing all the coverage (I, like many others, could not attend ), it seems that Nintendo had the strongest display, mainly because most of their titles were playable. This years E3 made me believe that the Wii-mote, despite its absurd name, has a real shot at changing games as a whole and catching on like the DS.

The technological advances of the DS (dual touch screens) still seem excessive and uninteresting to me. Nevertheless, software-wise it's nice little handheld, I might get one.

Microsoft had a strong display, but many of their games were not playable (forza, halo, others I can't remember atm). It seems that this years E3 proved that the 360 is very powerful, and can go toe-to-toe with the ps3 graphically. Also, the fact that Live will be cross-platform (btwn 360 and computes) is very promising. But where was their hd-dvd drive announcement? this makes me think the drive will be a nice chunk of change...

Microsoft might make "a SEGA" (see Sega/Mega CD), but that is yet to see. Imo they've always been objective and uninteresting when it comes to games - whereas Nintendo knows the gamer mind and use this in a more subjective way.

Sony let me down. Some of the games (MGS!!!!!!!) looked fantastic, but few were playable and the ps3 has not met my expectations in terms of visuals. I realize this will be the first gen of ps3 games (as opposed to M$'s second), but still... Also, the $500 pricetag, which does not include wi-fi, HDMI output or data card inputs (as of now), is, quite frankly, mad loot. Also, where the hell was Killzone, and how could sonly so blatantly rip off ideas of their competitors!?

Killzone is just another graphical showboat. Okay, so you're able to write great game engines. Fine, but where's the excitement? Where's the great experience in this? The graphics will be impressive, for about... ten minutes, 'til I've gotten used to them. Then it'll get boring.

Frankly the PS3's architecture is what's making it expensive, and I'm not really surprised. Considering what tech specs I've read about it, I'd say it'll be pretty hard to utilize fully -- you'll need to be a pretty damn good programmer. And as for stealing technology and/or ideas, Sony've always been doing that. No news there.

 

[darkman]

I think Nintendo won also. They have the strongest push this year with the hardware and games. It seems that they are more ready for the next generation of gaming than anybody else. The high price tags of the other two will be far out of my reach. But as I have said before in another thread, I do not plan at this point to get involved in the next generation of gaming except in the handhelds. If I do, the Wii has the strongest appeal with the retro option. I really think the ball has rolled into Nintendo's court this time. I think the high price tag will prove to be a block to a lot of people. The magic number of the past has always been the $199 USD area. Here in the USA at least. I do not know if that has changed over the years with the change in the "age group" of gamers or not. With a lot of more mature gamers that have more money up front to spend, this could be the time of change in the gaming market.
One has to consider the price of admission into next generation of gaming even more so than in the past. What is it that I want out of my gaming? Do I want super duper hyper eye candy graphics? Do I want innovative game play? Am I willing to pay for what I want?
I would love to be able to draw my own decal, scan it into my computer, paint it up, load it into my game and place it onto my car in a ridge racer type game. (I love the old rage racer for ps1) Hey, I could go on and on with such an idea in using my own designs. You get the idea.

I like retro, but I do have an eye out for something new.

 

[davey g]

I voted that it was a tie between Microsoft and Nintendo. Nintendo's Wii looks promising and I can only imagine the games that will use its technology well but the games they showed didn't impress. Although Microsoft's lineup was somewhat predictable it still showed a fair few games that I'm really looking forward to.

Sony did nothing for me.

 

[slygamer]

I didn't know it was a competition. I guess if you look at it from the shallow perspective that gaming "news" websites offer and the majority of the public eat up, it might be perceived as such.

 

[davey g]

I wasn't aware that E3 was particularly "deep". What is it if not a bunch of companies competing for your attention?

 

[daclassicgamingmaster]

I heard both Sony and Nintendo made an impression to their specific field. I dont know for sure but i would say both companies did well and accomplished what they came to do. A tie? not positive.

 

[WrongEyedJesus]

It seems a fairly convincing win for Ninty so far. I can't confess to having followed the whole thing too closely but that possibly justifies my vote for Nintendo. THe fact that I have heard a number of people mention the same things about Wii and the competition suggests ther is something of note going on in that direction.....

 

[Huxley]

Nintendo by a country mile, even if the Wii probably isn't going to be as great as all the fanboys seem to think it is.

Oh, and Microsoft came dead last for my money. I liked the Xbox, but I'm not bothered about Halo so their lineup didn't hold much interest for me.

 

[Angel]

looks like i'm the lone Microsoft vote. I was not impressed with Nintendo at all, and after seeing their peformance on TV live from E3, I now have no interest in ever buying the Wii. Sony also sucked too i might add.

 

[no_skill]

nintendo wiins !

i'll buy a nintendo wii.
and a ds lite.

sony - 600 $$$. no, thanks.
xbox: not my games.

kthxbye.

 

[yaustar]

Judging from this video, I think nintendo did:
http://www.nintendoplayers.com/article.php?articleID=288

 

[Vimacs]

so, who are the two fanboys who voted sony and ms?

 

[Angel]

of course Nintendo would have the busiest booth, it doesn't take a genius to figure that out. And i guarantee if they didn't have the gimmick controller, they wouldn't have been as busy as they were. From the G4 coverage, they had mixed opinions of the controller. Especially for Metroid, they said it was great for aiming but horrible at everything else. And the games. I guess i'm a graphics whore, but when i think of next gen, i think of better graphics, and the Wii just doesn't get the job done. Every generation has been defined mostly about the graphical jump. From Atari 2600-5200, from Nes to SNES, from PS1-PS2, EVERY generation has been a dramatic graphical jump. XBOX 360 is getting better and the PS3 looks the same. In fact, looking at the games they covered on TV, the PS3 impressed me the least. I mean at least Nintendo admitted the Wii is not going to be much better than the Gamecube, but the PS3 was supposed to be this super computer gaming system and it really disappointed. I think PS3 will be in third place by this time next year. I actually hope that the PS3 is non existance by this time next year, i'm starting to get tired of hearing about blu ray and Sony trying to shove its media down peoples throuts, they should've taken a hint from UMD.

 

[itsme]

The Best Company at the Show: Nintendo - Wii and DS was the ultimate one-two punch.

The Best Console at the Show: DS - the amount of games coming out for the system is miles ahead of anything out there. It's totally PS2 of handheld. This Christmas, Ninty will seal the deal on handheld battle.

The Best Game at the Show: God of War2 - the game is amazing to show (as a PS2 game), and even more amazing to play. All those boss battles and what you can do with the guy in the game was simply fantastic.

The Best Graphics at the Show: Heavenly Sword - this game's got the style and animation that can rival Crouching Tiger & Hidden Dragon. It's beyond gaming and a step into art. It plays great with silky smooth control.

The Worst Conference: Sony - I almost fell asleep watching it.

The Biggest Disappointment at the Show: Too Human - I can't understand why they decided to show the game even. It came with looooooooooong loading time (longer than Midnight Club for PSP) and the game slowed down every step of the way. The didn't impress me, either.

It was a E3 for Nintendo in every way, although it doesn't mean the brightest future for them at the Christmas season necessarily. Sony had great looking games with $600 bombshell that is more shocking than the name, Wii. X360 seems to suffer from mid-child syndrome; it's better looking than Wii, but not as good as PS3. I can't help but getting the impression that it's a PC; it's games looks like pc games and plays like pc games and most of their games are some sort of FPSs.

[edit] I have to give Ninty credit for their Mario Galaxy. I was wondering how the next mario game will be like, and it seems a sucess this time, again. This is one of few titles that I bothered to play multiple times at E3, and I was enjoying it quite a bit. The whole gameplay on sphere and interactivity with pointing feature in regular gameplay and boss fights were innovative.

 

[Nintendo]

1st = Nintendo
2nd = SONY
3rd = GamePark

Last = M$

 

[NoidZ]

I think nintendo won, cause there was very much to show the the gamers. For example; nobody heard of Mario Galaxy for Wii untill the E3. Nintendo is the master in "secret developping" :lol:

1.Nintendo
2.Micro$oft
3.$$ony

Gamepark... didn't heard anything of them...

 

[nickspoon]

of course Nintendo would have the busiest booth, it doesn't take a genius to figure that out. And i guarantee if they didn't have the gimmick controller, they wouldn't have been as busy as they were. From the G4 coverage, they had mixed opinions of the controller. Especially for Metroid, they said it was great for aiming but horrible at everything else. And the games. I guess i'm a graphics whore, but when i think of next gen, i think of better graphics, and the Wii just doesn't get the job done. Every generation has been defined mostly about the graphical jump. From Atari 2600-5200, from Nes to SNES, from PS1-PS2, EVERY generation has been a dramatic graphical jump. XBOX 360 is getting better and the PS3 looks the same. In fact, looking at the games they covered on TV, the PS3 impressed me the least. I mean at least Nintendo admitted the Wii is not going to be much better than the Gamecube, but the PS3 was supposed to be this super computer gaming system and it really disappointed. I think PS3 will be in third place by this time next year. I actually hope that the PS3 is non existance by this time next year, i'm starting to get tired of hearing about blu ray and Sony trying to shove its media down peoples throuts, they should've taken a hint from UMD.

Use paragraphs, you graphics whore.

 

[Jarska333]

Who won E3? Gamers. B)

 

[Angel]

of course Nintendo would have the busiest booth, it doesn't take a genius to figure that out. And i guarantee if they didn't have the gimmick controller, they wouldn't have been as busy as they were. From the G4 coverage, they had mixed opinions of the controller. Especially for Metroid, they said it was great for aiming but horrible at everything else. And the games. I guess i'm a graphics whore, but when i think of next gen, i think of better graphics, and the Wii just doesn't get the job done. Every generation has been defined mostly about the graphical jump. From Atari 2600-5200, from Nes to SNES, from PS1-PS2, EVERY generation has been a dramatic graphical jump. XBOX 360 is getting better and the PS3 looks the same. In fact, looking at the games they covered on TV, the PS3 impressed me the least. I mean at least Nintendo admitted the Wii is not going to be much better than the Gamecube, but the PS3 was supposed to be this super computer gaming system and it really disappointed. I think PS3 will be in third place by this time next year. I actually hope that the PS3 is non existance by this time next year, i'm starting to get tired of hearing about blu ray and Sony trying to shove its media down peoples throuts, they should've taken a hint from UMD.

Use paragraphs, you graphics whore.

i'm anti-paragraph.