The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Ask who won E3 a week ago and I would've said Nintendo - no competition, but that IGN article SSX Pro showed me was a bit of an eye opener.
It wasn't unbiased in the way SSX Pro had claimed, it wasn't any more or any less biased than I normally am but it made me realise:
Whoever put on the best show depends on what you wanted to see.
I was looking forward to the Gamecube. I really wanted to see the games that it was capable off. It impressed me to no end. I didn't care about what Sony or Microsoft had. I didn't even look. I instantly thought that Nintendo had it all in the bag.
Reading, article however, showed me that not all people think the way I do. The writer clearly didn't care all that much about the new machines. It was clearly a PS2 fan (who hid this with comments like "I love Nintendo games but".
Want to know how I knew he was being completely biased? Let's just say that it takes one to know one ;-D ) but showed that even the PS2 that had relatively little to show at E3 had impressed people. This writer didn't care what a machine being released in a year could do. All he really cared about the machine he had there and then and it's future. (Like I was with the N64 when the PS2 was being unvieled).
After seeing footage from all 3 systems I could see why different types of gamer would prefer 3 different machines.
No one really owned the show. All 3 companies did what they set out to do. Impress their own fans.
It wasn't unbiased in the way SSX Pro had claimed, it wasn't any more or any less biased than I normally am but it made me realise:
Whoever put on the best show depends on what you wanted to see.
I was looking forward to the Gamecube. I really wanted to see the games that it was capable off. It impressed me to no end. I didn't care about what Sony or Microsoft had. I didn't even look. I instantly thought that Nintendo had it all in the bag.
Reading, article however, showed me that not all people think the way I do. The writer clearly didn't care all that much about the new machines. It was clearly a PS2 fan (who hid this with comments like "I love Nintendo games but".
Want to know how I knew he was being completely biased? Let's just say that it takes one to know one ;-D ) but showed that even the PS2 that had relatively little to show at E3 had impressed people. This writer didn't care what a machine being released in a year could do. All he really cared about the machine he had there and then and it's future. (Like I was with the N64 when the PS2 was being unvieled).
After seeing footage from all 3 systems I could see why different types of gamer would prefer 3 different machines.
No one really owned the show. All 3 companies did what they set out to do. Impress their own fans.
Page:
Probably.
Who cares? It's only an expo. As long as I find out what games are coming out on my console (PS2), I couldn't really give a flying...
As for the question, Who REALLY put on the best show at E3?
Then the answer is Nintendo put on the best show, it had the most response and anticipation, it had the viewers, and it certainly had the games, although Sony didn't actually do anything wrong and had a great E3 show to. Microsoft on the other hand had a demo that crashed, a non-working machine, and no actual 'stunning' games to show....
Yes they all attracted fans, but then again thats what fans are for, Bill Gates has his Monkey children, Shigeru Miyamoto has his millions of followers, and Sony have errmm... well Sony... still only have MGS2, which was the game at the last E3 which had the only significance from the Sony stand, don't you find this worrying that Sony really only have one hugely anticipated game on the PS2?
Sega just buzzed around, collecting applause and cheers from all the stands.
Then the answer is Nintendo put on the best show, it had the most response and anticipation, it had the viewers, and it certainly had the games, although Sony didn't actually do anything wrong and had a great E3 show to. Microsoft on the other hand had a demo that crashed, a non-working machine, and no actual 'stunning' games to show....
Yes they all attracted fans, but then again thats what fans are for, Bill Gates has his Monkey children, Shigeru Miyamoto has his millions of followers, and Sony have errmm... well Sony... still only have MGS2, which was the game at the last E3 which had the only significance from the Sony stand, don't you find this worrying that Sony really only have one hugely anticipated game on the PS2?
Sega just buzzed around, collecting applause and cheers from all the stands.
Ask who won E3 a week ago and I would've said Nintendo - no competition, but that IGN article SSX Pro showed me was a bit of an eye opener.
It wasn't unbiased in the way SSX Pro had claimed, it wasn't any more or any less biased than I normally am but it made me realise:
Whoever put on the best show depends on what you wanted to see.
I was looking forward to the Gamecube. I really wanted to see the games that it was capable off. It impressed me to no end. I didn't care about what Sony or Microsoft had. I didn't even look. I instantly thought that Nintendo had it all in the bag.
Reading, article however, showed me that not all people think the way I do. The writer clearly didn't care all that much about the new machines. It was clearly a PS2 fan (who hid this with comments like "I love Nintendo games but".
Want to know how I knew he was being completely biased? Let's just say that it takes one to know one ;-D ) but showed that even the PS2 that had relatively little to show at E3 had impressed people. This writer didn't care what a machine being released in a year could do. All he really cared about the machine he had there and then and it's future. (Like I was with the N64 when the PS2 was being unvieled).
After seeing footage from all 3 systems I could see why different types of gamer would prefer 3 different machines.
No one really owned the show. All 3 companies did what they set out to do. Impress their own fans.
It wasn't unbiased in the way SSX Pro had claimed, it wasn't any more or any less biased than I normally am but it made me realise:
Whoever put on the best show depends on what you wanted to see.
I was looking forward to the Gamecube. I really wanted to see the games that it was capable off. It impressed me to no end. I didn't care about what Sony or Microsoft had. I didn't even look. I instantly thought that Nintendo had it all in the bag.
Reading, article however, showed me that not all people think the way I do. The writer clearly didn't care all that much about the new machines. It was clearly a PS2 fan (who hid this with comments like "I love Nintendo games but".
Want to know how I knew he was being completely biased? Let's just say that it takes one to know one ;-D ) but showed that even the PS2 that had relatively little to show at E3 had impressed people. This writer didn't care what a machine being released in a year could do. All he really cared about the machine he had there and then and it's future. (Like I was with the N64 when the PS2 was being unvieled).
After seeing footage from all 3 systems I could see why different types of gamer would prefer 3 different machines.
No one really owned the show. All 3 companies did what they set out to do. Impress their own fans.
Page: