×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Were The "Winners" of E3 Enough To Ensure Survival?

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 4 years ago | from the long-in-the-tooth dept.

E3 101

Now that the industry is winding down after another E3, it's time to reflect on the relative success of the show. Paul Govan reflects with a GeekDad view of the "winners" of this years show. The question is, after the attempts to scale it back to a much more exclusive event, has E3 managed to escape obscurity and defeat at the hands of up-and-comers like PAX? Highlights of the show included Microsoft's new controller-less interface, a sexier PSP, and a myriad of releases from Nintendo.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

101 comments

Haven't cared much (4, Insightful)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 4 years ago | (#28224425)

As I doubt I'll ever have an opportunity to go. PAX on the other hand - I haven't made it yet but I will eventually. So e3? meh. PAX? yes- absolutely I am stoked it is doing well as I look forward to being a part of it in the future.

Re:Haven't cared much (4, Insightful)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 4 years ago | (#28224879)

That attitude is the one I share, and I think shows the difference between the two shows. After all, E3 is about game companies showing off to each other, PAX is about people who love gaming getting together. I belong to the second group, but not to the first.

Re:Haven't cared much (4, Insightful)

flitty (981864) | more than 4 years ago | (#28225721)

I think they both have their place. E3 is used by the consoles to show their latest and greatest reason for existing, and a chance for the gaming market to make a case to the public about it's wares, with it's best shirt on. NPR covered E3 this week, along with other news outlets. I've yet to hear any mention of PAX on national media, even though it seems to be much more appreciated by the gaming community. I think that E3 needs to exist separately from PAX, or else you'll only taint PAX, and kneecap the ability for these corporations to make their best marketing pitches.

Most gamers know that the claims put out during E3 are crap (my favorite this year "Only the PS3 has the power to run this 40' x 80' display!"), and everyone looks at any claims made during E3 with the appropriate skepticism. it's nice to have that kind of marketing speak segmented to it's own show, and I'm glad it's back to serve this purpose.

Re:Haven't cared much (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28225937)

E3 is old school marketing. PAX is new-age marketing. It's the difference between press releases and journalism and viral social networking.

Re:Haven't cared much (1)

ta bu shi da yu (687699) | more than 4 years ago | (#28229105)

Speaking of old school, the journalist uses TextPad to do his write-ups!

Textpad is the best editor I've ever used. On Windows, anyway.

Re:Haven't cared much (1, Insightful)

nschubach (922175) | more than 4 years ago | (#28226703)

Most gamers know that the claims put out during E3 are crap (my favorite this year "Only the PS3 has the power to run this 40' x 80' display!")

...anyone that thought that was not an attempt at humor or sarcasm anyway is a fool or a "fanboy."

You don't honestly think they wanted people to believe that, do you?

Re:Haven't cared much (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28227223)

Most gamers know that the claims put out during E3 are crap (my favorite this year "Only the PS3 has the power to run this 40' x 80' display!")

...anyone that thought that was not an attempt at humor or sarcasm anyway is a fool or a "fanboy."

You don't honestly think they wanted people to believe that, do you?

I think you're giving Sony too much credit....

Re:Haven't cared much (1)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 4 years ago | (#28226673)

The first however is what leads to you getting the second.

If Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo get a good response for their technology, the game developer wants to use it to make money selling games to those interested parties.

More of the same (4, Interesting)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 4 years ago | (#28224437)

From my personal view as someone who was not able to attend and was left with television and website coverage, 2009's edition was little more than 2008 with booth babes and more people in the background. Press conferences were lifeless as ever, with a few scant release announcement to cut the hum-drum of what looked like a stockholders quarterly fiscal meeting laced with flat corporate-approved jokes.

In short, can we have PAX yet?

Re:More of the same (1)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#28225051)

From my personal view as someone who was not able to attend and was left with television and website coverage, 2009's edition was little more than 2008 with booth babes and more people in the background. Press conferences were lifeless as ever, with a few scant release announcement to cut the hum-drum of what looked like a stockholders quarterly fiscal meeting laced with flat corporate-approved jokes.

In short, can we have PAX yet?

At least the fifth comment has any freaking hint as to what "E3" actually is. And this on a website that regularly explains in the summary what a logical XOR is. (Both links treat it as defined, too.)

Re:More of the same (1)

osu-neko (2604) | more than 4 years ago | (#28227157)

Well, yes, just as an entertainment news segment on TV might explain what a "MacGuffin" is but assume they don't need to explain what "Hollywood" is.

Re:More of the same (1)

kingturkey (930819) | more than 4 years ago | (#28231675)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Entertainment_Expo [wikipedia.org]

Christ, that was difficult. I suppose it also could've been "E-3 visa, a non-immigrant visa allowing Australian citizens to live and work in the United States", among other things, but it seems like the most obvious one given the context of the summary.

It's hard to believe you've never heard of it though... Your UID is lower than mine so you've been around on /. for several years; even back when E3 was huge, before they scaled it back.

Re:More of the same (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28229939)

I was there, it was vastly different. Last year was absolutely tiny. I guess the illusion created by TV was that it was a big deal, it wasn't. This year was back to a big exciting show once again. Night and day I tell you.

Heard of E3. Never heard of PAX (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28224441)

So I guess that E3 has managed to escape obscurity and defeat for now.

Re:Heard of E3. Never heard of PAX (4, Insightful)

2short (466733) | more than 4 years ago | (#28225531)


Well, what one random Anonymous Coward has heard of may not be the best standard. Just FYI,

The impressive E3 attendance being reported here: 41,000
2008 PAX attendance: 58,500

I'm not sure why E3 is described as trying to "escape" defeat at the hands of PAX. How about, Can E3 recover from the defeat PAX has dealt it?

More to the point though, E3 and PAX have different goals. E3 tries to generate press for it's exhibitors. PAX tries to generate enjoyment for it's attendees. So your having heard of E3 while PAX is better attended may indicate the success of both shows.

Re:Heard of E3. Never heard of PAX (1)

Cheeko (165493) | more than 4 years ago | (#28225663)

And thats not taking into account the fact that PAX has already planned to start holding 2 iterations per year. One on each coast.

Its really pretty simple E3=conference for game companies PAX=conference for gamers. The population of one is much greater than the other.

Re:Heard of E3. Never heard of PAX (1)

Pinky's Brain (1158667) | more than 4 years ago | (#28226389)

E3 was only ever a conference for game companies and the supply chain very very long ago and the last 2 years ... as the last 2 years showed game companies simply didn't feel the need for a conference like that any more. E3 as a marketing tool towards end users was a far bigger success, it generated lots of hype ... a success they are now trying to recapture.

Although PAX is in competition with them now, I don't think that will last as E3 moves back to letting the online "press" in (ie. any joe with a blog). Too strict admission standards were a failure, but completely open ones like PAX just don't work well for hyping products either. An alternative is mixed press/public days like the TGS, but because of their background I don't think PAX can really do that.

Re:Heard of E3. Never heard of PAX (1)

Cheeko (165493) | more than 4 years ago | (#28251985)

I think more importantly PAX doesn't WANT to.

They succeed at getting the community energized and just together having fun. A smart company would use that not to get media attention, but to target the people it cares about getting its message. I would hazard to say that the press coverage of a large newsbit at E3 generates as much new interest in a game, as a great demo at PAX that spreads word of mouth through the community there.

Its similar to why PA is such a success. Like minded people taking their information from among their own as opposed to from some talking suit. Sure the E3 info makes the mainstream press, but the people who really make up the gaming community more often than not aren't swayed by that so much as what the community says.

It just happens to be that E3 contains information that the community ways in on because of its hype, but I think they filter and digest it just as much as they do if it came out on any other day.

Re:Heard of E3. Never heard of PAX (1)

osu-neko (2604) | more than 4 years ago | (#28227285)

More to the point though, E3 and PAX have different goals. E3 tries to generate press for it's exhibitors. PAX tries to generate enjoyment for it's attendees. ...

The problem comes when one notes that generating enjoyment for attendees (and thus drawing huge numbers of them) is quite possibly the single most effective tactic for generating press for the exhibitors. With PAX, it's the primary goal, whereas with E3, it's just a means to the actual end, but it's irrelevant whether its a direct or indirect goal, the fact remains PAX will become more successful at both at this rate.

And that's without even considering the breakdown of centralized media and the rise of the blogosphere as an important place to "generate press", a trend that makes the rise of PAX and the fall of E3 even more likely to mean PAX will be more successful at achieving E3's goal, even if it's not PAX's primary goal.

Re:Heard of E3. Never heard of PAX (2, Interesting)

2short (466733) | more than 4 years ago | (#28228293)


"The problem comes when one notes that generating enjoyment for attendees (and thus drawing huge numbers of them) is quite possibly the single most effective tactic for generating press for the exhibitors."

I'm not sure that's true, though I agree that the rise of blogs moves things more in this direction.
    Industry big-wigs making a lot of announcements about the fabulous things they are going to do in the coming year, even if it is half vaporware, makes great fodder for people who want to talk about the game industry.
    Fun for attendees chiefly means playable games. Barring massive changes to the industry, Games aren't fun for lots of people to play on the same day the press first hears of them.
    PAX is great for letting people play your game and go tell the world how great it is. E3 is better for showing a mocked up demo and telling the world how great it will be. The former is perhaps a more honest strategy, but I don't expect marketing departments to reject the latter on that basis.

Myriad (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28224445)

"and a myriad of releases from Nintendo"

Note that "myriad" is a synonym for "many". This should be "and myriad releases from Nintendo" unless you mean to say "and a many of releases from Nintendo".

Brought to you by your local Grammar Nazi.

Re:Myriad (2, Insightful)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 4 years ago | (#28224663)

This makes for a good example of why the word 'Nazi' gets used...

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/myriad.html [wsu.edu]

Some traditionalists object to the word âoeofâ after âoemyriadâ or an âoeaâ before, though both are fairly common in formal writing.

Surely some of the comments offer better fodder for your zealotry...

Re:Myriad (2, Funny)

cheftw (996831) | more than 4 years ago | (#28226423)

Some traditionalists object to the word âoeofâ after âoemyriadâ or an âoeaâ

I object to those words certainly.
How would you even begin to pronounce them?

Re:Myriad (3, Funny)

arb phd slp (1144717) | more than 4 years ago | (#28226439)

Surely some of the comments offer better fodder for your zealotry...

Zealotry was originally a political movement in first century Judaism which sought to incite the people of Iudaea Province to rebel against the Roman Empire and expel it from the holy land by force of arms, most notably during the Great Jewish Revolt (AD 66-70). Zealotry was described by Josephus as one of the "four sects" at this time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealotry [wikipedia.org]

I don't see how that applies to the GP.

:p

Why did they make it exclusive, anyway? (3, Insightful)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 4 years ago | (#28224493)

I don't really understand why E3 can't be more like Comic-Con. Make it a fun event for gamers. It's not like the press will find it any harder to get info. Create some panels, signings, big rooms for LAN games, etc.

Re:Why did they make it exclusive, anyway? (2, Insightful)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 4 years ago | (#28224529)

Because companies like 3D Realms and God Games made it an L.A. Strippers Convention for a few years there.

Re:Why did they make it exclusive, anyway? (2, Funny)

Tigersmind (1549183) | more than 4 years ago | (#28224589)

I fail to see the downside. Games + Strippers? /giggity

Re:Why did they make it exclusive, anyway? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28227083)

I recall there being a lot of discussion at the time about alienating female gamers. I don't want people thinking I'm a whore just because I enjoy games (and yes, I get those looks sometimes when I admit my hobby).

Re:Why did they make it exclusive, anyway? (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#28225233)

Because companies like 3D Realms and God Games made it an L.A. Strippers Convention for a few years there.

You're right, press, especially videogame press, could never find it's way into strippers.

Re:Why did they make it exclusive, anyway? (1)

Mex (191941) | more than 4 years ago | (#28227817)

That's what made it even more popular... The strippers and booth babes.

Re:Why did they make it exclusive, anyway? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28225463)

How bout anyone with a game in beta has to let people at e3 play it, so they can see how unprepared for release it actually is *cough Demigod cough*

Re:Why did they make it exclusive, anyway? (2, Informative)

ifrag (984323) | more than 4 years ago | (#28225645)

How bout anyone with a game in beta has to let people at e3 play it, so they can see how unprepared for release it actually is *cough Demigod cough*

Good idea, except that Demigod's problems are almost entirely connectivity issues. The base engine performance is actually really polished. On a Local Area Network, all the problems Demigod has in it's matchmaking wouldn't have been seen at all. All their local machines should in theory be able to connect without incident, and none of the little routing issues which it's having now would be shown. So yes, in general it might help, but in Demigod's case the game would have looked BETTER than it does now.

Re:Why did they make it exclusive, anyway? (1)

whiledo (1515553) | more than 4 years ago | (#28225643)

You basically just described PAX. Seriously, everything you just said is in there. They modeled it after comic conventions.

Re:Why did they make it exclusive, anyway? (1)

Cheeko (165493) | more than 4 years ago | (#28225681)

Basically make it PAX with press conferences?

Re:Why did they make it exclusive, anyway? (1)

osu-neko (2604) | more than 4 years ago | (#28227361)

At which point, they could just drop it and hold press conferences at PAX.

Re:Why did they make it exclusive, anyway? (1)

bickle (101226) | more than 4 years ago | (#28225931)

Because it is not intended for entertaining the fans. It is an industry event to drum up interest in their titles and get retailers to order copies.

Re:Why did they make it exclusive, anyway? (1)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | more than 4 years ago | (#28228297)

> I don't really understand why E3 can't be more like Comic-Con. Make it a fun event for gamers. It's not like the press will find it any harder to get info. Create some panels, signings, big rooms for LAN games, etc.

As someone who was there all 3 days, you're missing the point of its purpose: its targeted for publishers and the media, not gamers.
That said, I got a chance to play Silent Hill: Shattered Memories, Torchlight, and Jade Dynasty amongst many, many others.

The show is already big enough, that it doesn't need yet even more people of a different demographic.

Multiplayer Mario (1)

dontPanik (1296779) | more than 4 years ago | (#28224525)

Yeah okay, it would be entertaining to play a multiplayer game of super mario...

For about five minutes.

Then I would want to play a real game.
I don't understand how every person reviewing E3 needs to mention that. It's not that cool. It's not original.

Re:Multiplayer Mario (5, Funny)

sys.stdout.write (1551563) | more than 4 years ago | (#28224719)

Yeah okay, it would be entertaining to play a multiplayer game of super mario...

You could do this on Super Nintendo! This guy in green clothes named "Luigi" could be moved with another "controller" held by your "friend".

By friend I mean the kid down the block who always mooched off my Nintendo and smelled a little bit like pee.

I'm sorry, what were we talking about? Oh yeah, E3 is becoming obsolete. I agree.

Re:Multiplayer Mario (1)

whiledo (1515553) | more than 4 years ago | (#28225737)

That's not multiple players, that's alternating players.

Re:Multiplayer Mario (1)

osu-neko (2604) | more than 4 years ago | (#28227425)

Actually, if we're talking about Mario Bros, that's multiple players, not alternating players.

Multiple players is not something new. It was a standard feature of Pong and Tank in the early 70's. Naturally, it was also a common feature of early home consoles, well before GP's Super Nintendo came along. I remember many a fine day kicking sibling ass in front of the black & white in the basement (there was no point connecting those consoles to the fancy color TV, and mom wanted to be able to actually watch TV from time to time).

Re:Multiplayer Mario (1)

whiledo (1515553) | more than 4 years ago | (#28227729)

Actually, if we're talking about Mario Bros, that's multiple players, not alternating players.

I considered that he might be talking about that. But it doesn't really make a whole lot of sense since the play mechanic was totally different. Mario Bros showed up on the SNES in Super Mario All Stars. Might as well talk about Mario Kart, which came out before it. Yes, Mario Bros was released before then but the poster specifically said SNES.

Really, I'm just taking them far too seriously, as it's obvious that their comment was a throwaway joke that wasn't meant to actually be viewed logically. Still, they could have constructed it a bit better.

Re:Multiplayer Mario (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28224953)

Yeah okay, it would be entertaining to play a multiplayer game of super mario...

For about five minutes.

You've obviously never played a multiplayer game of Zelda on the Gamecube.

Okay, granted, it's phenomenally unlikely you would have, given the requirements (four people, each with GBAs, plus four GBA-to-GC cables), but still, the one time I could pull that off with my friends, it was an insane amount of fun for a few hours. A deceptively vicious combination of cooperation and screaming obscenities at each other in less-than-cooperative points. And it would've been fun the next time, too, if we could ever get that stupid setup together again.

This makes me wonder if they'll try making a DS-and-Wii based Four Swords game. At the very least, it would remove the cable element. But still, I'm not discounting the idea of a multiplayer Mario game. I mean, Nintendo has a decent idea of what they're doing. Sounds like it could be a lot of fun.

Re:Multiplayer Mario (1)

MAD R (1570369) | more than 4 years ago | (#28225801)

You haven't played Super Mario War [72dpiarmy.com], have you? the game its based on is basically a simple death match mode of Super Mario where you try to jump on the other player, and this updated version adds power ups from the various games into the mix. It's probably what this new super mario bros game will devolve into after a few minutes of "friendly co op gameplay", though hopefully Nintendo will include a death match mode too.

Re:Multiplayer Mario (1)

osu-neko (2604) | more than 4 years ago | (#28227443)

Ah, Mario returns to its roots. One of the most compelling gameplay elements of the original Mario Bros. was knocking an enemy back right-side up as your friend attempted to get it. XD

Still, Joust was a lot more fun...

Summary != Article (4, Informative)

Trojan35 (910785) | more than 4 years ago | (#28224673)

Is it just me, or did the article have absolutely nothing to do with the E3 question in the summary? I was expecting an article on E3's success/failure/survivability, and instead I got a Wii-Sports love-fest.

Re:Summary != Article (1)

GigaHurtsMyRobot (1143329) | more than 4 years ago | (#28224927)

Wow, you actually RTFA?!

Re:Summary != Article (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 4 years ago | (#28226779)

Heck, I just read the first two and last three paragraphs, looked a the photos and gleaned enough information from those to determine: The article seemed to me to be slanted toward Nintendo. ;)

Re:Summary != Article (1)

7Prime (871679) | more than 4 years ago | (#28243227)

I agree, the article was crap. However, I think Nintendo won E3 still the same, but because it actually paid attention to hardcore gamers this time around, instead of just ignoring them and appologizing for it later. Honestly, I haven't seen any attention given to WiiSports Resort, and everyone I've talked to thought Project Natal was a complete joke. Metroid, Golden Sun DS, and Super Mario Galaxy 2 did it for me. Sony had "Trico" (unfortunately leaked early), and Microsoft had just about nothing (save a possibly awesome new Not Castlevania). The guy reviewing this seemed only interested in the non-gamer crowd. Terrible article, he just randomly happened to be correct in his opening statement.

Re:Summary != Article (1)

Painted (1343347) | more than 4 years ago | (#28226349)

Agreed, the author clearly "knew" there was one winner, Nintendo. Personally, both the MS and Sony info was far more compelling. Having the article be 80% "boo-yah! Nintendo" and 20% "oh yeah, there were some other companies there too" makes a complete lie out of both the headline and the summary...

Re:Summary != Article (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#28228663)

And yet, it spookily echoes the real world profits. Yeah, profits, I went there. I'm so all about the 1998.

Re:Summary != Article (1)

sietecuadrado (1569805) | more than 4 years ago | (#28227403)

Remember, the media throws things like, "Who won E3?" into their headlines in order to grab readers. No one actually wins or loses the event. The media is here to report the news and, at times, give their opinion of an event. Some things you'll agree with; some things you'll disagree with. Some do a good job of summarizing; some do not. However, the point of the article is to give you information while giving you another perspective to take into consideration while forming your own.

PAX is unlike E3 (5, Informative)

trevorrowe (689310) | more than 4 years ago | (#28224791)

I live in the Seattle area and have attended the last 4 PAX events. PAX won't replace E3. Don't missunderstand, PAX is probably much more fun of an event than E3 ever will be. PAX is for the community of gamers, not for the publishers and developers. Sure, there is some spill-over, but PAX is overwhelmingly a gamer convention.

Re:PAX is unlike E3 (1)

arb phd slp (1144717) | more than 4 years ago | (#28226543)

I don't even know why people ever thought that a convention for game makers and retailers would be suited for game players or vice versa. Some overlap where the gamers can interact with the people who make their hobby possible, sure. But it sounds like E3 had turned into a circus where it was impossible to get any real work done.

Watch and decide for yourself (1, Informative)

moon3 (1530265) | more than 4 years ago | (#28224891)

Press conference videos of the big 'three' (Microsoft,Sony,Nintendo) are here:

http://e3.gamespot.com/press-conference/microsoft-e3/ [gamespot.com]

Microsoft won it for me, big time. Do not miss the project Natal introduction in Microsoft video (even with Steven Spielberg, pretty amazing stuff).

Re:Watch and decide for yourself (3, Interesting)

nutshell42 (557890) | more than 4 years ago | (#28225587)

Project Natal is useless and the way everyone's going gaga over it is ridiculous.

It's in no way precise enough for precision input (just look at the breakout demo). It's not bad but lacks that last bit that would make it useful. Add the lack of a button-containing controller (oh yes, you can just use gestures...well, the demo of the UI and the paint stuff shows why that doesn't work. You have to flail around like crazy for everything) and the fact that many people have neither the space nor the physical ability for kickboxing in their living room and you will realize that Natal Sports is gonna be like Wii Sports. Timing games with a few exaggerated gestures for the casual demographic.

I don't go gaga about celebrity appearances and imho the voice acting in the Alan Wake demo was just awful (pity, I *really* looked forward to that game). The one moment of brilliance in MS' press conference was the Modern Warfare demo. Holy shit I need that game.

OTOH Sony's blinkendildo could actually be useful if their accuracy claims are true. It might enable RTSes on consoles that don't suck or table tennis where you can actually put some spin on the ball. I'm also a sucker for Last Guardian (kitty dragon ftw.) but the PSP Go didn't deliver (too ugly, too expensive).

I couldn't care less about Nintendo.

Re:Watch and decide for yourself (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28226391)

Your lack of vision is a personal problem, not a technological issue with Natal. Shame you don't get it, but as you imply that you are one of 'the hardcore' you're going to be left behind anyway so it's all good.

To everyone but you and your vanishing kind, anyway.

Re:Watch and decide for yourself (0)

nschubach (922175) | more than 4 years ago | (#28226869)

I'm in total agreement with just about every point you made. I just don't think the technology is there to be able to do what Microsoft claims (without some frustration and oddity.) If they do manage to get it working flawlessly, I'll be surprised but I'm not holding my breath.

Is it just me or is there an abundance of overly zealous and wishful thinking people in the past year or so? Obama, Microsoft Natal... it's like someone put the world on "uppers" and they all think that somehow magic things will just start happening.

Re:Watch and decide for yourself (0)

webheaded (997188) | more than 4 years ago | (#28228511)

Pretty much the same here for me. All I see from the guy at wired is a bunch of gushing over more shovelware. Microsoft's conference was ho-hum and I guess the camera thing is cool but I think Sony really kicked ass.

Re:Watch and decide for yourself (1)

rbarreira (836272) | more than 4 years ago | (#28229865)

Project Natal is useless and the way everyone's going gaga over it is ridiculous.

100% agreed! It's like everyone turned off their brains and started preaching "Natal is the future of gaming".

People don't realize that what makes the Wii remote work is the combination of motion controls, IR aiming and buttons/analog stick for things that motion doesn't do well. Essentially Natal will turn every game into something similar to the worst Wii software, which doesn't use motion judiciously. Either that or they'll add buttons/triggers/sticks to Natal, which will make it largely useless (the value of tracking your whole body is greatly diminished when your hands are too occupied).

It's hilarious when you realize Nintendo has been taking shit for 3 years due to motion controls. A competitor does the same and suddenly it's the big thing.

I'd say... (2, Interesting)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#28224919)

I'd say no one "won" E3. Nintendo's releases were "meh" at best, sure the new Metroid looks good, but Wii Sports and the rest of the "Wii" series are glorified tech demos. The multiplayer Mario game looks sort of OK, but it reminds me too much of LoZ: 4 Swords which wasn't that great. Sony shot itself in the foot with a UMD-less PSP, and their motion control like most things by Sony will be a decent implementation... But far too expensive and supporting only a few games (just look at how little the Six-Axis controller is used). The new motion control for the 360 looks interesting, but like most things done by MS, its going to have a terrible implementation.

I'd say everyone "lost" at E3, other then perhaps the new Golden Sun DS game I won't be buying anything demoed unless they get really, really, great reviews.

Re:I'd say... (1, Insightful)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 4 years ago | (#28226153)

Wii Sports and the rest of the "Wii" series are glorified tech demos

Wii Sports and Wii Play are still widely played among the people that I know. Wii Fit is extremely well selling. Wii Music is the only flop that I can see off the top of my head from the "Wii" series. All told, even if they are just "glorified tech demos," they're still more popular than any game that I can think of on the other systems. Between that, the new Metroid, and a co-op version of their most popular game on their systems, they had something for everybody this year. I would say that 3 games which are practically guaranteed to be hits would qualify them for something slightly better than "meh".

Re:I'd say... (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#28226457)

Sure, but there are a lot of people who play solitaire on Windows computers. Yet its not really that much of a game when compared to, say, Halo or Oblivion. Sure, they will be hits but as a loyal Nintendo fan for many years I can't help but feel disappointed. I played Mario rather than Sonic, defended the N64 from Sony fanboys, even got a Gamecube on release day, along with waiting till midnight to get a Wii. Nintendo has almost abandoned its true fans. The last real hardcore Nintendo game was Brawl for the Wii and that was released a year ago. Sure, Metroid and Golden Sun are good, but Nintendo has way more IP that they could release to appeal to us loyal Nintendo customers. Earthbound has a huge following here in America, yet they haven't even released the original (Mother 2) on the Virtual Console, let alone releasing Mother One which was even translated in English. With digital distribution the worst you lose is some space on your server. The days of "we can't release this because its too much of a gamble" are gone. Other series haven't received games in years such as Kid Icarus.

I can't help but be disappointed in Nintendo ever since the Wii became a huge success. They have totally abandoned the Nintendo fan and prefer to cater to the super casual gamer. Even with no risk.

Re:I'd say... (1)

sdsichero (859332) | more than 4 years ago | (#28227645)

What do you mean by "[solitaire is] not as much of a game when compared to, say Halo"? It is possible that Halo will be around in 100 years, but I am pretty sure solitaire will be. Don't get me wrong, I love my videogames... but sadly I am also one of those who cannot dedicate large chunks of time to one nowadays. I see Nintendo still working on their IP (Mario, Metroid, Zelda, Excite, etc) and trying to build new ones (Sports, Brain, Pikmin, Chibi Robo)... Of COURSE I wish they could do more, but I'd rather them do good stuff than push out volume.

Re:I'd say... (1)

Burpmaster (598437) | more than 4 years ago | (#28229921)

The multiplayer Mario game looks sort of OK, but it reminds me too much of LoZ: 4 Swords which wasn't that great.

I'm guessing you haven't played Four Swords Adventures for GameCube. That one was a full-blown adventure game compared to what came with the GBA Link to the Past, which was essentially a mini-game. It even includes a really fun battle mode.

New Super Mario Bros Wii will probably be closer to the second Four Swords, so I expect it to be a lot of fun...

There are more than a few "winners" at E3 (5, Interesting)

BaShildy (120045) | more than 4 years ago | (#28224929)

All of us on the floor who were making deals, and making important contacts all won this year as opposed to last year where it was very difficult to meet everyone due to how spread out it was.

E3 in its current form is far more likely to succeed than its previous form. Booth babes and glam weren't the only things brought back this year. E3 was slowly becoming Gamestop-fest where more than 50% of the attendees were game players as opposed to game makers. The ratio was far better this year, with all of the infrastructure that was lacking in the E3 Santa Monica model.

Re:There are more than a few "winners" at E3 (1)

whiledo (1515553) | more than 4 years ago | (#28225869)

Basically, PAX defeated what E3 was trying to become. It was trying to mutate into a gamers convention, but it was only doing it half-heartedly because it also needed to be a press/developers convention. They were seeing some success (in terms of attendance, at least) with this, until PAX came around and provided a full-on convention for gamers. This pretty much stole the market that E3 was lurching towards serving. As your post shows, this will turn out to be a good thing for E3 The Press/Developer Event and a bad thing for E3 The Gamer's Convention, as those two goals conflict with each other.

Re:There are more than a few "winners" at E3 (2, Interesting)

BaShildy (120045) | more than 4 years ago | (#28225999)

Exactly, this is a win-win situation for publishers/developers and gamers as they each get their own dedicated conventions. E3 and GDC were losing focus and trying to do too many things at once. Now its very clear what each convention represents.

PAX - For the gamers, Concerts/Fan Events, Game Announcements and Betas.
E3 - Vendors, Publisher Press Conferences, Developer networking, Private Meeting Rooms, Lineup annoucnements
GDC - Process sharing, Education, Job Fair, Tech Demos

None of these conferences are perfect, but I did see a marked improvement in the latter two that I attend compared to a few years ago. GDC was starting to have press conferences, E3 was having hour+ long lines to play games due to the tens of thousands of gamers in attendence, and gamers just wanted a convention of their own to attend. It seems all three conferences are learning their niche and will hopefully flourish as the industry gains value by holding these annually.

Re:There are more than a few "winners" at E3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28227891)

i wouldnt say E3 was "trying" to become PAX, infact i think just the opposite. PAX was meant to pacify the gamers that wanted to go to E3 because from the prospective of developers, store purchasers and other industry people, fans get in the way of business. dont get it twisted. the E3 has _always_ been about business. it builds hype for the consumers as they see the videos and products _from afar_ . E3 is not for gamers, never has been and never will be. its OK that such is the case, PAX is for gamers. a lot of gamers are tech savvy and therefore they think E3 is for them because there is a lot of good tech info that you wouldn't normally get from a consumer oriented expo... but... dont think that they're talking about pixel shaders or video cards for your sake, they're talking about these things with and to other professionals that use and manipulate them for a living, its not their hobby. E3 booth babes and the glitz and glamor arent for the fat kid in the basement drooling over the videos either, again the show is for the pros, the execs, the marketers, and the media gets to hype it to you as a byproduct. just enjoy it for what it is, the two are not in competition.

Re:There are more than a few "winners" at E3 (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 4 years ago | (#28230549)

PAX was meant to pacify the gamers that wanted to go to E3 [...]

So is your name secretly Jerry Holkins, Michael Krahulik, or Robert Khoo? How do you know what PAX was 'meant' to do? Speaking as somebody who was at the original PAX in 2004 for every hour it was open (including sleeping under the tables in the BYOC), I can say with certainty that PAX had little to do with E3. Jerry and Mike were very clear, PAX was a product of simply imagining the convention that they wanted and then making that happen. Why else would there be tabletop games? No such thing at E3. A huge elimination tournament the culminated in a 1v1 match of Pong? Never at E3. Movies and musical acts that would speak to gamer culture? Not what E3 is about. BYOC? Please.

PAX was never intended to be just some kind of public E3 analogue (like the dismal failure that E3 spun off to compete with PAX, E for All), otherwise it would be an expo floor and little else. PAX has always been about gamer culture, and if more and more game designers and publishers are onboard each year as well, that's fine too.

What industry? (3, Interesting)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#28224967)

Pretty bad summary. It was like a past-tense German sentence (apologies to native German speakers), where I didn't know the verb until the end of the sentence. Until PSP and Nintendo were mentioned, I didn't know they were talking about a computer gaming conference. The second to last sentence made my mind race (Controller-less interface for Windows/Office? Neat!). Then I came down to earth; oh, just console gaming.

Microsoft for the... win? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#28225023)

I have a Playstation 2, the Eyetoy camera, and most to all of the Eyetoy titles. I was assuming that Nintendo's next generation would pick up the no-controller torch, but it looks like it's going to be Microsoft. I, for one, will probably give them my money and do the nerd walk of shame back to the car with the box. So far my newest console is a Wii...

Amy Riadof? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28225137)

Anyone else look at the tags and google for 'Amy Riadof'? Was really hoping slashdot had found me a new good looking gamer geek girl.

Re:Amy Riadof? (1, Interesting)

nschubach (922175) | more than 4 years ago | (#28227061)

Any good looking gamer geek female will soon develop a superiority complex due to all the attention she will obtain. They are not worth getting worked up over. ;) Just about every "hot gamer girl" I've seen has turned into a snotty or self absorbed brat.

Re:Amy Riadof? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28230809)

Snotty or self absorbed brat describes just about any woman in the US, doesn't it? How are gamer geeks different?

PAX != E3 (4, Interesting)

pcgabe (712924) | more than 4 years ago | (#28225375)

The question is, after the attempts to scale it back to a much more exclusive event has E3 managed to escape obscurity and defeat at the hands of up-and-comers like PAX?

E3 is about games.
PAX is about gamers.

They're fundamentally different, and not really in competition with each other. I'm not sure where the submitter even got this question; E3 battling obscurity isn't mentioned in the article, nor is PAX, nor other expos at all.

Nintendo wins? (1)

Reapman (740286) | more than 4 years ago | (#28225883)

Was a bit suprised that it seems like in the article he goes with Nintendo.. for me I think Sony and Microsoft showed technology that surpas anything Nintendo has. Most of the news and excitement seems to be for one of those two, not Nintendo.

Nintendo's new hardware was last E3's Motion Plus and a Vitality Sensor (wtf?). I'm not saying it was all bad, the new Mario and the new Metroid games sound VERY impressive, almost enough for me to buy a Wii again. But I think the winner would have been Microsoft or Sony.. honestly I'd give more of an edge to Sony simply because their game announcements to go along with their motion tech was more exciting to me then Microsoft's. I'm very excited to see what MS and Sony do now with their motion tech, I have high hopes.

Re:Nintendo wins? (0)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 4 years ago | (#28227097)

Was a bit suprised that it seems like in the article he goes with Nintendo.. for me I think Sony and Microsoft showed technology that surpas anything Nintendo has.

That's a load of BS. With the Motion Plus addition, the Wii controller is every bit as accurate as the others. The only difference is it's an add-on.

No one company had surprising huge announcements. At least Nintendo's announcements are guaranteed to be quality (ie SM Galaxy) and Vitality Sensor is at least innovative and new to gaming.

Natal is not new or innovative. It's an Eye-Toy camera with a mic on it and it cna expect about as much success as the Eye Toy.

Impressions... (1)

MaWeiTao (908546) | more than 4 years ago | (#28226471)

I feel fairly strongly that Nintendo has dropped the ball with their motion technology. They certainly had a great idea and it has helped reshape gaming, Microsoft's and Sony's motion control systems are evidence of that. However, they failed to capitalize on the technology. Too many of their games, while fun, were limited in scope and felt a bit too much like tech demos. Too many third party games were crap. And I think in too many cases the controls felt forced, like there was an obligation to feature motion control. And I think it's becoming apparent that the limited processing power of the Wii is a hindrance. Certainly, the low cost of the console was a huge asset initially.

The problem is that Sony and Microsoft are catching up, and because their systems are more powerful they can offer a more satisfying gaming experience. At this point I think more dedicated gamers are shaping the market. It's amazing how the Wii appeal to casual gamers and even non-gamers. Friends of mine who had virtually no interest in games ended up getting a Wii. But like so many other people the only game they own in addition to Wii Sports is Wii Fit. This market is quite fickle.

In that light, Nintendo's performance at this E3 was almost as weak as last year's. Fortunately they still have a few decent games to fall back on, which will more likely appeal to more dedicated gamers. Super Mario Bros certainly looks fun, but it looks too much like more of the same. I'm actually somewhat disappointed by the graphics. I expected them to feel more exaggerated and juicy, instead they almost come off as a fan remake. The new Metroid was another high spot, but at this point it's little more than announcement and there isn't much to see.

Project Natal is very impressive, but at this point it feels too much like a concept. There are too many questions that need to be addressed. Sony's system, on the other hand, was nearly as impressive but actually seemed like a practical application of the technology. It definitely looked like it was ready to go to market. As for the PSP Go, although I don't like the slider format on any device, I think it's decent. It's a logical next step for the PSP.

As is the case every year E3 ultimately ends up being irrelevant from the consumer's point of view. Many, if not most, games featured aren't released before the following E3. And despite all the fanfare regarding the announcement or demonstration of any game at the event ultimately what matters is what the game is like upon release. At that point reviewers refer to E3 only as a comparison on whether or not the game lived up to initial hype. So from that standpoint I pay attention to see what's coming, but for little more than that. I see no point in getting excited, year after year, over games that are still years off from being completed or too often end up as a disappointment.

Worst E3 ever (1)

Latinhypercube (935707) | more than 4 years ago | (#28226935)

How about reducing the console prices so normal people can actually play these games ? Nintendo = more of the same. PS3 & Xbox = check out our useless gimicy controllers (cue lots of waving of hands, it's really brilliant, honest) Yawn. No money for you guys.

This year was horrible (0)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 4 years ago | (#28227013)

Microsoft unveils their Wii market grab Sega Activator clone which can, at best, only achieve Eye-toy like success.They unveil "awesome" facebook and twitter integration while not mentioning they have to do this because they're the only console without a browser and therefore lack the freedom and choice of the others.

Sony unveils a new PSP, something people have been talking about for nearly a year so it's not be surprise and they unveil a load of predictable games. Anyone really surprised that there are Gran Turismo games on the way? We're still waiting on Rockstar's first PS3 exclusive, so don't hold your breath for Agent.

Nintendo does enough just to get by. They don't have to try because they earn so much money they don't have to try. But they annouce new Mario games and we hear that a Zelda game is in the works. Again any real surprise?

Imo, Nintendo did win it closely followed by Sony. They all had predictable boring, uninspired announcements. But you know the new Mario Galaxy game will kick ass. So at least they get bonus points for quality predictability.

MS is the loser, imo, no decent games announcements and the worst motion control of the lot.

Re:This year was horrible (1)

Minimalist360 (1258970) | more than 4 years ago | (#28237979)

I'm not stalking you, but Facebook integration will be in individaul games, as in send your friends a challenge, and it can update your wall when you get achievements, etc. Having a browser built in doesn't get you that.

I'm jonsing for Crackdown 2, and have been for like 2 years. About time. However, there's nothing sadder than the Beatles out there talking about being "androids" and how the Beatles rock Band has "great graphics." Ew.

Deals Don't Get Made at PAX (1)

Kagato (116051) | more than 4 years ago | (#28227511)

The thing about PAX is it's a consumer marketing show. It's a great show to generate buzz for not a lot of money. But it's not a show where deals are going to be made. EA isn't going to ink a deal with a major retailer a swank suite at PAX. E3, sure.

On the other hand, since I'm not in the industry I'd much rather go to PAX vs E3.

E3 is a godsend and will stay (1)

johncandale (1430587) | more than 4 years ago | (#28229347)

To be blunt, you guys are delusional. E3 is at least twice as important as all other events combined. It basically works all year long as a marketing device and the industry loves it. Every game magazine and web site runs months of pre E3 speculation and sneak peeks and rumors. The coverage takes up at least twice the amount of space in pages then any other event. Then for months afterwords the announcements are talked about. There is no better place to announce a new title or accessory if you want the most people to see it or talk about it. Of course it's for the press and industry. Having a few thousand press there is much better for your product when they go write about it then a few thousand fans. Any one who follows game news, lurks game forums, knows E3 is THE event of the year to wait for. Whether by merit or just recognition, E3 is here to stay. Millions of people are not watching the PAX videos. Millions watch the E3 videos. To restate, it is a industry event. Not a fan event with some industry people coming along, like comiccon.

Re:E3 is a godsend and will stay (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 4 years ago | (#28230685)

E3's relevance is receding. This year is a desperate attempt after two years in the wilderness. E3 is an old paradigm. Sure it was the king of the North American game design/publishing world for over a decade, but in terms of size, it's second fiddle to PAX now. Next year there will be TWO PAX events, one on each coast, which will turn PAX into a direct point of contact for (I would wager) more than 100,000 people a year. PAX is the new paradigm, reaching people directly, virally, and relevantly with no middleman. Gamers don't trust the 'big' media anymore, just look at what happened to Jeff Gerstmann, rather Penny Arcade gets millions of unique hits every day because they have built a reputation for being an honest source of information and opinions about the industry. And while at E3, some stupid journalist who wouldn't know an XBOX from his toaster might go to a press conference and ask a designer/publisher, 'so, would you say your next game is awesome or just plain amazing?' Conversely, at PAX, somebody who cut his teeth on the Atari 2600, NES, or PC games from Microprose and knows everything that the industry has done right and wrong for decades might go to a panel and ask a designer/publisher, 'why did your game suck so hard?' and rather than being thrown out by security, might in fact receive a standing ovation from a group of his peers. Considering how far your tongue is up E3's rectum, I wouldn't be surprised if you worked for SOE and are worried about facing that sort of scenario.

PAX is immeasurably greater than E3, and it's growing so fast and vigorously that Khoo is worried that Seattle will sell out this year because the largest convention center in the state is too small. Unfortunately for the media, they're creatures of habit, and it will take them a while to wake up to the fact that they're now largely ignoring the largest event simply because they don't really know what's going on, which is why the generations of gamers largely ignore the mainstream media already. (Which further explains why so many game designers and publishers attend PAX, so many that this year they are turning many smaller entities away, which is sad, but space is finite.)

E3's reign ended in 2006, it's just history and momentum that's keeping it barely alive (especially with major companies leaving the ESA and E3 behind, like Vivendi Universal and id Software). In a few more years everybody will realize it's second string.

SCRIBBELNAUTS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28230225)

why dont yous talk about the scribbelnauts game on th NINETENDO DS it looks fantastic!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...