Who Won E3?

[Rico]

you'll be anti "having an account here" in a minute!

 

[Vimacs]

go rico go!

 

[lintsniffer]

My personal opinion is that Nintendo won hands down.

Sony had some impressive third part titles shown (FFXIII and MGS4)

I watched MS press conference and ... I almost fell asleep. All they talked about was the 360 arcade and how I was going to pay $500 + the game cost to play Galaga.

I personally think 360 is going to pull a Dreamcast. They release too early, aren't very innovative, have hardware shortages, and are stranded while the big N and Sony make more and more changes that will leave the 360 in the dust. Not that the 360 is near as good as the DC, I would never give them the positive credit of the DC.

All MS has is Halo, which isn't appealing to me at all. In my opinion it was a 1995 game concept with 1998 graphics. All of the xbox fans thought it was mana from heaven because it was the first and only online FPS. I played the halo2 beta in some random conference room against the guys at Bungie, and I was the first person to play it in the world and go, 'this is crap'. Duke Nukem 3D has more originalness (?) and fun gameplay than halo 2 released 10 years later. If all you have is graphics (which aren't even good) it's pretty bad, considering graphics are the last thing I consider when I decide how good or fun a game is. I'd rather play Goldeneye on the N64 than halo 2 any day.

 

[Twimfy]

I voted sony but I'm far from being a sony fan boy. Something about the PS3 seemed very appealing after E3 this year, can't quite put my finger on what but it certainly isn't the price.

 

[x68000]

if you can't put your finger on what made it more appealing, then how can you come to that judgement??

I have to agree that Nintendo totally stole the show with the wii and second best console had to be the ds which had a very impressive line up of software over the coming months. Sony's big concern is that having decided to use a blu-ray drive in the ps3 and in their new high-def video format will either give them world dominance in the console and home video market or will lead to the collapse of the playstation and blu-ray video entirely.

 

[Twimfy]

if you can't put your finger on what made it more appealing, then how can you come to that judgement??

Well to be totally honest I just couldn't be bothered to explain.

If anything its the true next gen appeal. The release of the DC, PS2 and Xbox presented graphics and innovation still a step behind the PC market. It seems Sony are pulling out all of the stops this time and aiming for something truly special, which in effect explains the price.

I've never considered myself much of a graphics whore but can't deny that I'm not wowed by something new and shiny now and again, the PS3 has made me sit up just that bit straighter than the 360 did, and thats what e3 is all about, really, a glam show.

Don't think I can quite stomach the price but then I often find myself as an observational gamer anyway, I'll probably get more enjoyment from reading about and watching the PS3 rather than owning one.

 

[Angel]

I thought the PS3 was a let down. From what I saw of E3, give programmers some time and you will those graphics on the 360. I didn't see anything spectacular and mind blowing from Sony.

 

[deadlychicken22]

I thought the PS3 was a let down. From what I saw of E3, give programmers some time and you will those graphics on the 360. I didn't see anything spectacular and mind blowing from Sony.

Considering the games the ps3 is showing are first-gen for the system and the games the xbox360 are showing are second-gen for the system, I think the graphics on the ps3 were obviously better than those on the xbox360. The programmers have had a lot more time with the '360 than the ps3, and the ps3 looks better. If the '360 graphics will be eventually as good as the ps3 graphics shown, I am sure the ps3 graphics will eventually be better. That doesn't mean I don't like the '360 or won't be getting one. But if I were a "graphics whore" i would definitely be buying the ps3, if I had to get a console. Overall, for graphics I would actually get a top of the line PC because in less than a year you will be able to upgrade to a graphics card that is as good as or better than the next-gen consoles.

Overall, I have to agree that nintendo won. While many of their games didn't impress me, they at least managed to keep their show interesting and show some games that actually look fun (and let people play them!).

I think that sony came in second. While much of their stuff was boring, and a lot of technology showing rather than gameplay showing stuff, I really liked the look of some of those games.

I think that Microsoft came in last place because they were boring and didn't show anything new or interesting. Sure, there were some teasers for games, but not really enough to interest me or to show if the game is actually coming along well. The rest of the time they spent talking, and showing off their arcade stuff which didn't seem interesting to me. Bill Gates gets up there and talks about how he is once again on the cutting-edge of technology and that the xbox360 is great, and especially great with their new Vista operating system. BORING! I thought that the fable 2 trailer looked good, and the halo 3 trailer looked good, and that Gears of War looked good. However, the majority of the games that I saw for the '360 were also coming out on the PC (which was something they same to be striving for, given Bill's speech about connecting the two). Like the xbox before it, this makes the '360 more of a simplified super-computer, that will be outdated in a year or two.

 

[davey g]

I'm struggling to find any screenshots of PS3 games that look any better than your typical 360 game. Could someone give me a hand here?

Edit: Actually, I can see where this would lead so how about we forget I said anything.

 

[Goity]

I'm struggling to find any screenshots of PS3 games that look any better than your typical 360 game. Could someone give me a hand here?

Edit: Actually, I can see where this would lead so how about we forget I said anything.

look for FFXIII

 

[davey g]

Nothing leads me to believe the Final Fantasy XIII trailer was anything but pre-rendered. To me it looks blatently pre-rendered just based on the fight scene choreography. It was too complex to be in-game footage.

Of course I could be completely wrong in which case I'll eat my hat.

 

[Goity]

Nothing leads me to believe the Final Fantasy XIII trailer was anything but pre-rendered. To me it looks blatently pre-rendered just based on the fight scene choreography. It was too complex to be in-game footage.

Of course I could be completely wrong in which case I'll eat my hat.

The fact that a battle screen is shown says otherwise.

 

[davey g]

Are you joking? You must have seen a target render before?

 

[Goity]

Are you joking? You must have seen a target render before?

Yes, but it has been said that it as realtime, and usually Squenix don't lie about that.

 

[davey g]

I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

 

[deadlychicken22]

While I think the ps3 has better graphics, I would have to agree that the Final Fantasy XIII trailer looked pre-rendered. I thought it looked awsome, but before goity said anything I didn't even consider the possibility that it was actual game graphics. It just looked way too detailed and way too smooth to actually be running in real time.

 

[itsme]

While I think the ps3 has better graphics, I would have to agree that the Final Fantasy XIII trailer looked pre-rendered. I thought it looked awsome, but before goity said anything I didn't even consider the possibility that it was actual game graphics. It just looked way too detailed and way too smooth to actually be running in real time.

It's a part pre-rendered and a part in game as Square admitted already. What they can afford with high rez texture/poly next gen consoles is the ability to zoom into the details without disclosing ugly details. I expect to see a lot up closer camera in action games (i.e. Heavenly Sword) in the next gen games. So far, Gears of War was the only the next gen X360 game that actually pull the camera closer to the scene. Games like Too Human put camera miles away from the battle unlike their cut-scenes suggested. With small size on screen, they can cut a lot of corners in details.

 

[Goity]

Apparently Square have said the train scene before the battle was pre rendered, or something, but most of it was in real time.
Anyways, I think the forest was definitely realtime, because of the way the scene looked. It didn't seem like something Square would do in realtime.