Poll

Best Conference?

EA
0 (0%)
Bethesda
2 (5%)
Microsoft
0 (0%)
PC Gaming Show
3 (7.5%)
Ubisoft
2 (5%)
Sony
18 (45%)
Nintendo
15 (37.5%)

Total Members Voted: 40

Author Topic: E3 2016 Megathread  (Read 51987 times)

They're not remaking Crash Bandicoot, they're only remastering Crash 1-3.

Sony is forgetin A no goddamn questions asked.
Now time to see how Nintendo does tomorrow, Zelda U might be really good but I'm not putting my hopes up too high.


So far so good. Although I might be far too permissive for some mishaps like Ubisoft and EA.

Today was comfy too. Doritos & Mountain Dew for the Microsoft one.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2016, 10:58:45 PM by LeetZero »

PC Gaming was boring AF and had very few interesting games shown. While I agree with Mount and Blade looking rad, why the "SS" Grade?

You gave pc gaming an SS but Sony an A, not even an A+????

Weird

You gave pc gaming an SS but Sony an A, not even an A+????

Weird
Sony didn't have much to offer. Most of the things I noted in green were just for 'interesting' but otherwise they're all PS exclusives. I don't own a PS. Hence hopes and expectations were for 'who cares?'. I valued the games themselves for the platform, atop of the all the VR stuff for Sony also took a role in that grade. It was a B before HIDEO KOJIMA

PC Gaming was boring AF and had very few interesting games shown. While I agree with Mount and Blade looking rad, why the "SS" Grade?
PC Gaming had a lot of interesting VR stuff; Killing Floor, Serious Sam. Then there was Dawn of War 3, the Space Engineers-alike game Dual Universe but it looks even more rad, the new Arma 3 map, Day of Infamy for Insurgency, Magic Chivalry, and heck everything else there was looked pretty darn rad to me. The biggest shortcoming was Vampyr. It's the only thing that did not pique my interest.

Also part of me combined the PCGamingShow with the Microsoft ones, as most of the Microsoft things are also coming to PC.

It's pretty weird to grade those when they cross-showcase. Like FF showed up on both intermissions with Square Enix but also on Sony, so like ok. And Infinite Warfare showed on Sony yet it's obviously also coming to Microsoft and PC so ???

Heck a lot of those intermissions ARE for PC.

Maybe those report cards should be made per-platform(s) as opposed as to per-showcase.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2016, 11:22:20 PM by LeetZero »

The PC Gaming conference was incredibly boring to me. Tons of interviews with devs (including the ceo of amd!), not enough gameplay, and every other game seemed like an edgefest. My favorite part was the ted talk at the end about the history of pc gaming.

stuff, I realized I forgot to poll you guys on Ubisoft.
http://www.strawpoll.me/10480226


Thank God it's over. I'll check up on Nintendo tomorrow anyway see what's up.
Good night anyone not watching from US and are glad to sleep at least.

stuff, I realized I forgot to poll you guys on Ubisoft.
http://www.strawpoll.me/10480226
I apparently decided to change my grade from B to C

Sony poll when

I admit that I'm really weird for thinking this, but I feel like E3 conferences shouldn't be judged on the strength of the individual game titles themselves, but rather on the presentation as a whole.

I totally can get behind picking favourites, and giving golden stars to games that happened to shine through terrible conferences, but I feel like when people rank the conferences they should be doing so on the strengths and weaknesses of the presenters, the trailer composition, the technicality of the conference and so on. People don't cheer, laugh, cringe or cry during these events just because their game's trailer got played, but because of the way the rest of the conference builds the hype and engages you.

For that reason, my ranks are so:

1) Sony: Extremely high class presentation with great pacing; no interviews and the hosts said only the minimum that was needed to be said. Good unveil of the hardware to boot. Only problem was that they ended the conference on the wrong thing (new IP based on the zombie-fad which is on the way out), but it was still an amazing conference overall.
2) Microsoft: At the time, this was just amazing after Day -1 failed to impress; after seeing Sony, it feels like they were so close, but just spent a tiny bit too much time faffing about and their indie games killed the atmosphere for certain other trailers.
3) Ubisoft: Bethesda with a little less disappointment and FAR more energy. Showcased much more EXCITING gameplay but they indulged in being a little too chatty at times (especially in regards to the movie).
4) Bethesda: So little energy between presenters; it felt like any momentum the game/trailer footage generated was instantly killed. Hell, Pete Hines looked basically dead and Todd Howard had lost his soul. There was also a bit too much time spent on slower (card) games, and far too much chatty-chatty. Compounded by technical problems during the event.
5) PC Gaming Show: THEY KILLED ALL THE MOMENTUM THAT MICROSOFT GENERATED! This only beat EA because they showed some gameplay. Otherwise, a complete waste of time and would have been better as standalone one-on-one interview videos between the other EA conferences. No big announcements or hype generated (in fact, I heard there was massive backlash to the Killing Floor 2 update).
6) EA: There's very high expectations for the company that goes first, and EA completely fumbled the ball and lost it. This was a conference designed for investors, not for media and consumers (like everybody else), and so they focused on features that they couldn't possibly build hype with. They also have failed to taken note that just because FIFA and Madden sell a lot of copies every year, doesn't mean those are the people watching E3.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2016, 12:31:36 AM by McJob »

mcjob literally waited months for this to shove trials of the blood dragon in my face and for that I'm literally going to kill him

im still extremely pissed by the way

I apparently decided to change my grade from B to C

Sony poll when

As usual, Sony grade report:
http://www.strawpoll.me/10479860



I admit that I'm really weird for thinking this, but I feel like E3 conferences shouldn't be judged on the strength of the individual game titles themselves, but rather on the presentation as a whole.

I totally can get behind picking favourites, and giving golden stars to games that happened to shine through terrible conferences, but I feel like when people rank the conferences they should be doing so on the strengths and weaknesses of the presenters, the trailer composition, the technicality of the conference and so on. People don't cheer, laugh, cringe or cry during these events just because their game's trailer got played, but because of the way the rest of the conference builds the hype and engages you.

For that reason, my ranks are so:

1) Sony: Extremely high class presentation with great pacing; no interviews and the hosts said only the minimum that was needed to be said. Good unveil of the hardware to boot. Only problem was that they ended the conference on the wrong thing (new IP based on the zombie-fad which is on the way out), but it was still an amazing conference overall.
2) Microsoft: At the time, this was just amazing after Day -1 failed to impress; after seeing Sony, it feels like they were so close, but just spent a tiny bit too much time faffing about and their indie games killed the atmosphere for certain other trailers.
3) Ubisoft: Bethesda with a little less disappointment and FAR more energy. Showcased much more EXCITING gameplay but they indulged in being a little too chatty at times (especially in regards to the movie).
4) Bethesda: So little energy between presenters; it felt like any momentum the game/trailer footage generated was instantly killed. Hell, Pete Hines looked basically dead and Todd Howard had lost his soul. There was also a bit too much time spent on slower (card) games, and far too much chatty-chatty. Compounded by technical problems during the event.
5) PC Gaming Show: THEY KILLED ALL THE MOMENTUM THAT MICROSOFT GENERATED! This only beat EA because they showed some gameplay. Otherwise, a complete waste of time and would have been better as standalone one-on-one interview videos between the other EA conferences. No big announcements or hype generated (in fact, I heard there was massive backlash to the Killing Floor 2 update).
6) EA: There's very high expectations for the company that goes first, and EA completely fumbled the ball and lost it. This was a conference designed for investors, not for media and consumers (like everybody else), and so they focused on features that they couldn't possibly build hype with. They also have failed to taken note that just because FIFA and Madden sell a lot of copies every year, doesn't mean those are the people watching E3.
See, I have the exact opposite opinion. Presentation is totally and completely irrelevant to me, and I can't imagine how it could matter at all. E3 (and life in general) is about content, not fancy glitter on top.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2016, 12:40:22 AM by TristanLuigi »

Also looking forward to the new Monster Hunter...

MHX lookin good

See, I have the exact opposite opinion. Presentation is totally and completely irrelevant to me, and I can't imagine how it could matter at all. E3 (and life in general) is about content, not fancy glitter on top.
If all you want to see is the trailers and announcements, why bother with the presentations in the first place? You might as well as you just watch the trailers on YouTube as they pop up.

It's the personality and charm of the company culture that brings these things together. The point of the conferences is for these companies to sell to us why we should be excited for what's coming up, and being all slow and drab is an easy way to turn people off.