Xbox huge in best of E3 nominations
Zackman
even me. But the Xbox did amazingly well in the Game Critics Awards best
of E3 nominations. (These are the "official" independent E3 awards,
voted on by three dozen judges from some of the major mags/websites.)
Three of the 'best console' nominees are console exclusive to the Xbox
(and one of the others is multiplatform.) Two of the 'best of show'
nominees are also console exclusive to the Xbox (again, with Prince of
Persia being on all platforms.) Gran Turismo 4 is the only PS2 exclusive
that shows up on either list.
Xbox also shows up in virtually every other category it could be
nominated for, like 'best original game' - which has no PS2 or GameCube
nominees at all.
Here's the link: http://www.e3awards.com/nom.html
The winners are announced June 10.
-Z-
Kevin Sullivan
Also, on gaming-age.com they did a poll before E3 asking who out of
Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo would have the best showing and Nintendo
was the winner. Then after E3 they asked what everyone thought again
and the Xbox won.
Android
"Kevin Sullivan" <ke...@beestung.netHERWORLD> wrote in message
news:k2ondvkg79hj28125...@4ax.com...
And during the show, those of us who were there thought Sony won. Go
figure...
Maniac
<andr...@NaOtStPbAiM.com> wrote:
>And during the show, those of us who were there thought Sony won. Go
>figure...
>
care to elaborate as to "why" you thought sony won?
Andrew Ryan Chang
>Sorry if this was posted already. I gotta admit, this kind of surprises
>even me. But the Xbox did amazingly well in the Game Critics Awards best
>of E3 nominations. (These are the "official" independent E3 awards,
>voted on by three dozen judges from some of the major mags/websites.)
"Aw, but the XBox has so many PC ports! What, you mean there's
more PC ports on the PS2? Then I mean it has a lot of multiplatform
titles! What, so do the others, by definition? Well, it has shovelware,
and that means the good games can't be that good!"
Did I miss anything?
--
Brad: Got a minute?
Lester Burnham: For you, Brad, I've got five!
-- AMERICAN BEAUTY (1999)
Android
"Stu" <o@oo.o> wrote in message news:29VCa.1112355$S_4.1142626@rwcrnsc53...
> x-no-archive:yes
>
> "Android" wrote:
> >
> > "Kevin Sullivan" wrote:
> _you_ would think that Sony won. Pretty damned
> disingenuous, and that's being kind, of you to claim
> that everybody who was there thought Sony won as well.
> If Sony had really done that well, I would've expected
> more of its upcoming games to appear on those Best Of
> lists, rather than relying on a vaporous handheld
> announcement to carry the show for them.
If you want to talk about being disingenuous, why do these "game critics"
choose games that were NOT PLAYABLE anywhere at the show? Halo 2 was shown
briefly at the Microsoft press conference. It was not on the E3 floor, and
yet this list has it under Best of Show, Best Console Game, and Best Action
Game. It isn't just Xbox games, but PS2 games as well. For example, Medal of
Honor: Rising Sun was shown in the EA booth, but it was not playable
(neither was Need for Speed: Underground). If they are going to nominate
games such as those, why not Metal Gear Solid 3? Once again, the trailer
drew the largest crowds at the show, but since it was not playable, I don't
think it belongs on such a list.
So, if you remove non-playable games from the list of nominations, you are
left mostly with multi-platform games such as Prince of Persia and Soul
Calibur II. I don't think any of the "big three" had a particularly strong
showing this year, but I wouldn't go basing my opinion on some anonymous
game critics' nominations of mostly alpha-stage software...especially if I
wasn't at E3.
Android
"Maniac" <man...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:fq6odv4f0asr0qhb9...@4ax.com...
None of the big three had a particularly strong showing this year. If you
looked around, most people were playing and talking about multi-platform
games. If I had to pick a "winner", however, IMO Sony wins by default. Since
they are so far behind in console sales, Nintendo and Microsoft had the most
to prove...and they didn't do it.
Without a Metroid or a Zelda to showcase this year, Nintendo showed GC
versions of old N64 games such as 1080, Mario Kart, and Pokemon Stadium.
Good games, but hardly system sellers. The focus of their booth was on a
game that wasn't even their own: Soul Calibur II.
As for Microsoft, their biggest title-- Halo 2-- is not being released this
year and it was not playable at the show. They, too, had to come up with
some big system-sellers. Maybe I just didn't notice, but Fable and Full
Spectrum Warrior, while on this anonymous game critics' list, didn't seem to
be on anyone else's mind all that much.
Meanwhile, Sony showed games such as GT4, Socom II, Syphon Filter: Omega
Strain, Maximo vs. the Army of Zin, Resident Evil: Online, the EA sports
games that are online for PS2 only (not Xbox), Sphinx, XIII, Starcraft:
Ghost, Baldur's Gate II, Prince of Persia, Beyond Good and Evil, Call of
Duty, and others. I realize that many of these were multi-platform
games...but that is why Sony wins by default! If the most talked about and
most played games are available on all three platforms, (or on both PS2 and
Xbox, anyway), then the "status quo" isn't going to change. It's like a
challenger and an incumbent in a political debate. If the challenger doesn't
offer any reason to dump the incumbent, and the incumbent doesn't do
anything stupid, the incumbent is going to be heavily favored.
Last, but not least, the biggest "news" of the show seemed to be the PS-P
announcement...even if it was only "specs" we were given. Neither Nintendo
nor Microsoft had any announcements of similar importance. That is why I,
and those I spoke to at the show, thought that Sony came out of it looking
the best (and I own and play all three systems).
Steven Hurdle
GameCube groups, thereby making it off-topic for the majority of potential
readers and making it more irritating than informing? I mean you already
have the Cygnus-esque "Sorry if this was posted already" comment in place!
;)
All kidding aside, thanks for the post Zackman. :)
Andrew Ryan Chang
>If you want to talk about being disingenuous, why do these "game critics"
>choose games that were NOT PLAYABLE anywhere at the show?
>If they are going to nominate
>games such as those, why not Metal Gear Solid 3?
Probably cause they were underwhelmed by MGS2? By contrast, the
most recent iterations of MOH, Halo, and NFS have all been critical
favourites IIRC.
Sam Altersitz
<ya...@victoria.tc.ca> attempted to sound witty, but instead came out
sounding like this... :
Phillip B. Kirshner has that handled, at least to a.g.v.gc and
r.g.v.nintendo. He posted it at least three times in a.g.v.gc
yesterday. I'd expect at lest 30 posts by him with it in
r.g.v.nintendo, since he is a regular troll there, and 95% of his
troll posts are just the exact same thing posted over and over ad
infinitum. And just a cut and paste of it as well.
Unless Zack really is Kirshner as well.... hrm.... Mayhaps the plot
thickens? Or mayhaps not.
------
Sam
Knowledge is power.
Power corrupts.
Study hard.
Be evil.
-Saying on a friend's T-shirt, author unknown to me.
Zackman
> None of the big three had a particularly strong showing this year. If you
> looked around, most people were playing and talking about multi-platform
> games. If I had to pick a "winner", however, IMO Sony wins by default. Since
> they are so far behind in console sales, Nintendo and Microsoft had the most
> to prove...and they didn't do it.
As one of "those of us" who were there, that seems like a pretty lame
reason to say Sony won. A console's installed base has nothing to do
with the quality of games that are coming out on it in the future. What
was Sony showing that you found impressive? I'd give them points for the
surprise PSP announcement, but beyond that, what? Sequels to MGS, SOCOM,
Gran Turismo ... the only really interesting games were coming from the
third party developers, and a lot of those are multiplatform.
> Without a Metroid or a Zelda to showcase this year, Nintendo showed GC
> versions of old N64 games such as 1080, Mario Kart, and Pokemon Stadium.
> Good games, but hardly system sellers.
Gamecube and system sellers can't be used in the same sentence. If Mario
Sunshine and Metroid Prime didn't help shift hardware, nothing will.
Nintendo had a decent lineup, but there wasn't a single Gamecube
exclusive that looked really intriguing. Maybe F-Zero, but then I like
those kinds of games.
> Maybe I just didn't notice, but Fable and Full
> Spectrum Warrior,
I saw a Fable demo, and at this point it's my most anticipated Xbox
game, even moreso than Halo 2. FSW looked amazing, though it's a bit too
simmy for a FPS for my tastes. Did you even see it?
> while on this anonymous game critics' list
http://www.e3awards.com/judges.html
N'gai Croal? Dan Hsu? Greg Kasavin? Mike Salmon? Geoff Keighley? Steven
Kent? Alex Pham? Tom Russo? Hardly 'anonymous game critics.' Hell,
you've even got notorious Xbox haters Kasavin and Shoe in there.
> Meanwhile, Sony showed games such as GT4
GT3 with slightly better graphics.
> Socom II
New maps and a rocket launcher. And still no way to control cheaters.
> Syphon Filter: Omega Strain
This will be sweet, no doubt.
> Maximo vs. the Army of Zin
Maximo? Come on. Jak II and Ratchet, yeah, but Maximo?
> Resident Evil: Online
Did you try playing it? It's ridiculous.
> the EA sports
> games that are online for PS2 only (not Xbox)
Bet you a fiver that EA starts charging in 2005.
> Sphinx
Didn't see it.
> XIII
Ubi Soft had Xbox and PS2 versions set up side by side, and it looked so
much better on the Xbox it was laughable. Much cleaner textures, better
character models, and way more of the comic book effects (like animated
vs. static pop-up panels) than the PS2 version.
> Starcraft:
> Ghost, Baldur's Gate II, Prince of Persia, Beyond Good and Evil, Call of
> Duty, and others. I realize that many of these were multi-platform
> games...but that is why Sony wins by default!
Except every one of these looked better on the Xbox. Then again, that
hasn't been able to change a lot of people's minds until now, so maybe
it won't in the future. All I know is anybody who has both a PS2 and an
Xbox will almost certainly buy these games for the Xbox.
> Last, but not least, the biggest "news" of the show seemed to be the PS-P
> announcement...even if it was only "specs" we were given. Neither Nintendo
> nor Microsoft had any announcements of similar importance. That is why I,
> and those I spoke to at the show, thought that Sony came out of it looking
> the best (and I own and play all three systems).
I would agree Sony came out looking marginally better than the other
two, mainly because of the shock value of the PSP announcement. But
certainly not because of their upcoming exclusive games. I think that's
why these 'anonymous game critics' from some of the biggest gaming (and
mainstream) mags and websites seem to be favoring the Xbox. YMMV.
And let's face it, the platform that "won" E3 was clearly the PC.
-Z-
Zackman
> If you want to talk about being disingenuous, why do these "game critics"
http://www.e3awards.com/judges.html
> choose games that were NOT PLAYABLE anywhere at the show?
http://www.e3awards.com/rules.html
"In order to compete, a game be shown in playable format. Playable
format is defined as the ability for the judge or a developer to
manipulate a game in real-time while running on its native platform.
Games that are only demonstrated on videotape or through screenshots,
concept art, rendered movies or pre-scripted (i.e. non-interactive)
gameplay sequences are automatically disqualified from consideration in
the major award categories."
Next time, try reading a little more before you make a fool of yourself.
> Halo 2 was shown
> briefly at the Microsoft press conference.
Being played in a real time by a Bungie employee.
> It was not on the E3 floor
Um, did you somehow miss that MASSIVE theatre with the giant line-up in
front of it at the Microsoft booth? That was Halo 2.
> For example, Medal of
> Honor: Rising Sun was shown in the EA booth, but it was not playable
> (neither was Need for Speed: Underground).
Just because the unwashed masses didn't get to play a game on the show
floor doesn't mean it wasn't there in playable form for certain members
of the press and/or E3 judges. You're familiar with the term "behind
closed doors" yes?
> If they are going to nominate
> games such as those, why not Metal Gear Solid 3?
http://www.e3awards.com/rules.html
> So, if you remove non-playable games from the list of nominations, you are
> left mostly with multi-platform games such as Prince of Persia and Soul
> Calibur II.
So I guess since you're 100% wrong about non-playable games qualifying
for these awards, that means you now agree the Xbox had the best lineup?
-Z-
Zackman
> Phillip B. Kirshner has that handled, at least to a.g.v.gc and
> r.g.v.nintendo. He posted it at least three times in a.g.v.gc
> yesterday. I'd expect at lest 30 posts by him with it in
> r.g.v.nintendo, since he is a regular troll there, and 95% of his
> troll posts are just the exact same thing posted over and over ad
> infinitum. And just a cut and paste of it as well.
I sometimes hate to post stuff like this for that reason. I'm surprised
this very thread didn't get crossposted.
> Unless Zack really is Kirshner as well....
Only on the days when I'm not Billy J. Danceloor.
-Z-
Android
"Zackman" <zac...@SPAMISEVILearthling.net> wrote in message
news:3EDCA6DE...@SPAMISEVILearthling.net...
> Android wrote:
>
> > If you want to talk about being disingenuous, why do these "game
critics"
>
> http://www.e3awards.com/judges.html
>
> > choose games that were NOT PLAYABLE anywhere at the show?
>
> http://www.e3awards.com/rules.html
>
> "In order to compete, a game be shown in playable format. Playable
> format is defined as the ability for the judge or a developer to
> manipulate a game in real-time while running on its native platform.
> Games that are only demonstrated on videotape or through screenshots,
> concept art, rendered movies or pre-scripted (i.e. non-interactive)
> gameplay sequences are automatically disqualified from consideration in
> the major award categories."
>
> Next time, try reading a little more before you make a fool of yourself.
Well, then they broke their own rules, because Medal of Honor: Rising Sun
was on the list, yet it was shown on video rather than in playable form.
> > Halo 2 was shown
> > briefly at the Microsoft press conference.
>
> Being played in a real time by a Bungie employee.
>
> > It was not on the E3 floor
>
> Um, did you somehow miss that MASSIVE theatre with the giant line-up in
> front of it at the Microsoft booth? That was Halo 2.
>
> > For example, Medal of
> > Honor: Rising Sun was shown in the EA booth, but it was not playable
> > (neither was Need for Speed: Underground).
>
> Just because the unwashed masses didn't get to play a game on the show
> floor doesn't mean it wasn't there in playable form for certain members
> of the press and/or E3 judges. You're familiar with the term "behind
> closed doors" yes?
As one of those people who got to go behind closed doors, I am familiar with
the term. IIRC, Need for Speed: Underground (shown behind closed doors) was
not being played in real time either, yet it made the list. Call of Duty, on
the other hand, made the list as a PC title even though the PS2 version was
playable behind closed doors.
> > If they are going to nominate
> > games such as those, why not Metal Gear Solid 3?
>
> http://www.e3awards.com/rules.html
>
> > So, if you remove non-playable games from the list of nominations, you
are
> > left mostly with multi-platform games such as Prince of Persia and Soul
> > Calibur II.
>
> So I guess since you're 100% wrong about non-playable games qualifying
> for these awards, that means you now agree the Xbox had the best lineup?
>
> -Z-
Nope, although I do appreciate your clarifying their criteria.
However, even if Halo 2, Fable, and Full Spectrum Warrior were all playable
at E3 (and I don't remember that to be the case), I don't think Xbox's
line-up is any better than PS2's. That's a subjective opinion, of course,
because I'd rather play GT4, Syphon Filter, SOCOM II, R&C:Goin Commando, and
Jak II than any RPG or sim-style game. But, as I said before, the games that
people were playing and talking about were mostly multi-platform titles like
Prince of Persia, Soul Calibur II, Tony Hawk Underground, etc. Some of those
games might look a little better on the Xbox, but none of them give a leg up
to either console.
Zackman
> Well, then they broke their own rules, because Medal of Honor: Rising Sun
> was on the list, yet it was shown on video rather than in playable form.
Some games were *only* shown to E3 judges (since they're all press,
you're killing two birds with one stone that way), many of whom get
shown the games a few weeks before E3 even begins. I doubt there were
any exceptions made.
> As one of those people who got to go behind closed doors, I am familiar with
> the term. IIRC, Need for Speed: Underground (shown behind closed doors) was
> not being played in real time either, yet it made the list.
See above. (And just for clarification, I'm not one of the E3 judges,
but I know several of them.)
> Call of Duty, on
> the other hand, made the list as a PC title even though the PS2 version was
> playable behind closed doors.
Maybe there was a PC version being shown to some, or maybe the game only
has to be shown on one platform to qualify on all.
> However, even if Halo 2, Fable, and Full Spectrum Warrior were all playable
> at E3 (and I don't remember that to be the case)
Halo 2 was obviously playable, since it the demo was being played in
real time. Fable was most certainly playable, I saw it with my own eyes.
(Maybe you heard about the belching demonstration? Very funny.)
> I don't think Xbox's
> line-up is any better than PS2's. That's a subjective opinion, of course,
> because I'd rather play GT4, Syphon Filter, SOCOM II, R&C:Goin Commando, and
> Jak II than any RPG or sim-style game.
Well there ya go, to each his own. The very thought of Gran Turismo 4
puts me to sleep and SOCOM is a Ghost Recon/Counter-Strike wannabe with
the added feature of rampant cheating. (There's simply no way for Sony
to guard against Gameshark hacking, especially without a hard drive in
the system to download updates.) Jak II and Ratchet looked great, yes.
So the PS2 has another great round of platformers coming up and one good
racing game. The Xbox has Halo 2, two of the most innovative RPGs ever
(Fable and Deus Ex 2), some fantastic online stuff (Crimson Skies,
Counter-Strike, Conker's, PGR2), a MMORPG with voice chat (TFLO), the
console exclusive version of a Star Wars RPG from Bioware (KOTOR),
digital jukebox software, a full-service online sports league and the
best versions of multiplatform stuff like Prince of Persia and MOH:
Rising Sun. (PS2 definitely gets the nod for Tony Hawk Underground
because of online play and the PS2 controller.)
> But, as I said before, the games that
> people were playing and talking about were mostly multi-platform titles like
> Prince of Persia, Soul Calibur II, Tony Hawk Underground, etc. Some of those
> games might look a little better on the Xbox, but none of them give a leg up
> to either console.
Yet you seem to be assigning them to the PS2 by default.
Here's another interesting stat from these Game Critics Awards:
http://www.e3awards.com/nom-stats.html
Microsoft - who, in Skye's opinion, have never made a good game - had
way more nominations than any other developer/publisher. But the PS2 got
21 nominations total, vs. 20 for the Xbox. Take away the EyeToy
(hardware), and they're dead even.
-Z-
Robert P Holley
Just so you know, Philip the war hero is re-posting this entire article
verbatim in the gamecube ng.
Robert P Holley
news:EQXCa.28014$DV.5...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
> > > And during the show, those of us who were there thought Sony won. Go
> > > figure...
> >
> > Well that's gotta be the surprise of the century that
> > _you_ would think that Sony won. Pretty damned
> > disingenuous, and that's being kind, of you to claim
> > that everybody who was there thought Sony won as well.
> > If Sony had really done that well, I would've expected
> > more of its upcoming games to appear on those Best Of
> > lists, rather than relying on a vaporous handheld
> > announcement to carry the show for them.
>
> If you want to talk about being disingenuous, why do these "game critics"
> choose games that were NOT PLAYABLE anywhere at the show? Halo 2 was shown
> briefly at the Microsoft press conference. It was not on the E3 floor, and
> yet this list has it under Best of Show, Best Console Game, and Best
Action
> Game. It isn't just Xbox games, but PS2 games as well. For example, Medal
of
> Honor: Rising Sun was shown in the EA booth, but it was not playable
> (neither was Need for Speed: Underground). If they are going to nominate
> games such as those, why not Metal Gear Solid 3? Once again, the trailer
> drew the largest crowds at the show, but since it was not playable, I
don't
> think it belongs on such a list.
Didn't stop the critics before from nominating MGS2 best of teh show two
years in a row when it was non-playable.
Robert P Holley
Or Bligmerk
Longhorn
"Zackman" <zac...@SPAMISEVILearthling.net> wrote in message
> Microsoft - who, in Skye's opinion, have never made a good game
Remember when Skye's opinion ever mattered? Me neither.
Kevin Sullivan
<andr...@NaOtStPbAiM.com> wrote:
>
>"Maniac" <man...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:fq6odv4f0asr0qhb9...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 03 Jun 2003 03:37:53 GMT, "Android"
>> <andr...@NaOtStPbAiM.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >And during the show, those of us who were there thought Sony won. Go
>> >figure...
>> >
>> care to elaborate as to "why" you thought sony won?
>
>None of the big three had a particularly strong showing this year. If you
>looked around, most people were playing and talking about multi-platform
>games. If I had to pick a "winner", however, IMO Sony wins by default. Since
>they are so far behind in console sales, Nintendo and Microsoft had the most
>to prove...and they didn't do it.
>
>Without a Metroid or a Zelda to showcase this year, Nintendo showed GC
>versions of old N64 games such as 1080, Mario Kart, and Pokemon Stadium.
>Good games, but hardly system sellers. The focus of their booth was on a
>game that wasn't even their own: Soul Calibur II.
>
>As for Microsoft, their biggest title-- Halo 2-- is not being released this
>year and it was not playable at the show. They, too, had to come up with
>some big system-sellers. Maybe I just didn't notice, but Fable and Full
>Spectrum Warrior, while on this anonymous game critics' list, didn't seem to
>be on anyone else's mind all that much.
Fable? It's in everybody's top 5 that I've seen. Usually at the number
one or two spot. Where are you looking, PS2 sites?
>Meanwhile, Sony showed games such as GT4, Socom II, Syphon Filter: Omega
>Strain, Maximo vs. the Army of Zin, Resident Evil: Online, the EA sports
>games that are online for PS2 only (not Xbox), Sphinx, XIII, Starcraft:Ghost, Baldur's Gate II,
>Prince of Persia, Beyond Good and Evil, Call of Duty, and others.
You forgot to mention Castlevania:Lament of Innocence which is one of
the few PS2 games I'm actually looking forward to this fall. Most of
the good games you mentioned won't even be out until Spring 2004 or
later. And of course when the majority of the games you mention are
multiplatform and will most likely be better on the Xbox (and likely
on the Cube as well), that's not much of a feather in the PS2's cap.
> I realize that many of these were multi-platform
>games...but that is why Sony wins by default! If the most talked about and
>most played games are available on all three platforms, (or on both PS2 and
>Xbox, anyway), then the "status quo" isn't going to change. It's like a
>challenger and an incumbent in a political debate. If the challenger doesn't
>offer any reason to dump the incumbent, and the incumbent doesn't do
>anything stupid, the incumbent is going to be heavily favored.
OK, how about these Xbox exclusives: Fable, Deus Ex 2, Sudeki, Star
Wars: KotOR, Arx Fatalis, Midtown Madness 3, Counter-Strike, BC, True
Fantasy, Ninja Gaiden, Half-Life 2, Thief III, Doom III.
>Last, but not least, the biggest "news" of the show seemed to be the PS-P
>announcement...even if it was only "specs" we were given.
That has nothing to do with the current generation of systems though.
The PSP won't even be out before NEXT E3 and nothing but the specs and
media were shown at the show. That's not exactly enough to give Sony
the crown.
>Neither Nintendo
>nor Microsoft had any announcements of similar importance. That is why I,
>and those I spoke to at the show, thought that Sony came out of it looking
>the best (and I own and play all three systems).
>
I've got all three as well and up until recently I've favored the GC
and PS2 but the Xbox even has better RPG's than the PS2 this year.
I see myself buying 3 PS2 games this year(and I haven't even bought
one yet this year): Silent Hill 3, FFX-2 and Castlevania (none of
which you even mentioned). For Xbox I want most of the games I listed
above and then quite a few I didn't list.
Zackman
> Or Bligmerk
Speaking of the pasty-skinned inbred devil, I thought for certain he'd
be back in full effect after Half-Life 2 was the toast of E3, bragging
about how he's going to play it on his coffee table PC with TV output.
Maybe he's back in juvie. Or the psych ward.
-Z-
Maniac
<andr...@NaOtStPbAiM.com> wrote:
>
>"Maniac" <man...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:fq6odv4f0asr0qhb9...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 03 Jun 2003 03:37:53 GMT, "Android"
>> <andr...@NaOtStPbAiM.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >And during the show, those of us who were there thought Sony won. Go
>> >figure...
>> >
>> care to elaborate as to "why" you thought sony won?
>
>None of the big three had a particularly strong showing this year. If you
>looked around, most people were playing and talking about multi-platform
>games. If I had to pick a "winner", however, IMO Sony wins by default. Since
>they are so far behind in console sales, Nintendo and Microsoft had the most
>to prove...and they didn't do it.
sound rather like bias.. rather than judinging on the merits on
upcoming titles, you already had a pre-conceived notiion that nintendo
and xbox couldn't simply "win" with better titles, but they had to do
be "substantially" better simply because they haven't sold as many
consoles as sony?
doesn't seem you are judging using the same scale...
>Without a Metroid or a Zelda to showcase this year, Nintendo showed GC
>versions of old N64 games such as 1080, Mario Kart, and Pokemon Stadium.
>Good games, but hardly system sellers. The focus of their booth was on a
>game that wasn't even their own: Soul Calibur II.
true, hence their lack of nominations.
>As for Microsoft, their biggest title-- Halo 2-- is not being released this
>year and it was not playable at the show. They, too, had to come up with
>some big system-sellers. Maybe I just didn't notice, but Fable and Full
>Spectrum Warrior, while on this anonymous game critics' list, didn't seem to
>be on anyone else's mind all that much.
personally i am more excited about fable than halo2.. and popularity
does not ensure quality. criteria for these awards are based on things
like innovation and quality, not popularity.
as an example, it's very rare that the the winner of an oscar for
"best picture" is also the most popular.
>Meanwhile, Sony showed games such as GT4, Socom II, Syphon Filter: Omega
>Strain, Maximo vs. the Army of Zin, Resident Evil: Online, the EA sports
>games that are online for PS2 only (not Xbox), Sphinx, XIII, Starcraft:
>Ghost, Baldur's Gate II, Prince of Persia, Beyond Good and Evil, Call of
>Duty, and others. I realize that many of these were multi-platform
>games...but that is why Sony wins by default! If the most talked about and
>most played games are available on all three platforms, (or on both PS2 and
>Xbox, anyway), then the "status quo" isn't going to change. It's like a
>challenger and an incumbent in a political debate. If the challenger doesn't
>offer any reason to dump the incumbent, and the incumbent doesn't do
>anything stupid, the incumbent is going to be heavily favored.
why are rehashes reason to dis nintendo, but reasons to think sony
won? not only that, many of the titles you mentioned are also
available for release on all platforms. how can you give merit to sony
from cross-platform games but not for other systems it is available
for?
>Last, but not least, the biggest "news" of the show seemed to be the PS-P
>announcement...even if it was only "specs" we were given. Neither Nintendo
>nor Microsoft had any announcements of similar importance. That is why I,
>and those I spoke to at the show, thought that Sony came out of it looking
>the best (and I own and play all three systems).
as with your removing halo 2 from consideration, the psp is not being
released this year either, and is further away from release than halo
2.
while this is indeed major news, there is little to no information
available to determine what it is, let alone judge the quality of it
in consideration for an award. i would think tho that it would garner
nomination at next years e3.
Maniac
<andr...@NaOtStPbAiM.com> wrote:
>If you want to talk about being disingenuous, why do these "game critics"
>choose games that were NOT PLAYABLE anywhere at the show? Halo 2 was shown
>briefly at the Microsoft press conference. It was not on the E3 floor, and
>yet this list has it under Best of Show, Best Console Game, and Best Action
>Game. It isn't just Xbox games, but PS2 games as well. For example, Medal of
>Honor: Rising Sun was shown in the EA booth, but it was not playable
>(neither was Need for Speed: Underground). If they are going to nominate
>games such as those, why not Metal Gear Solid 3? Once again, the trailer
>drew the largest crowds at the show, but since it was not playable, I don't
>think it belongs on such a list.
yet you argue the psp was one of the reasons sony "won" in your
opinoin? it's further out than halo2
>So, if you remove non-playable games from the list of nominations, you are
>left mostly with multi-platform games such as Prince of Persia and Soul
>Calibur II. I don't think any of the "big three" had a particularly strong
>showing this year, but I wouldn't go basing my opinion on some anonymous
>game critics' nominations of mostly alpha-stage software...especially if I
>wasn't at E3.
but PRE alpha stage hardware deserves recognition?
also, you are forgetting:
- Fable (Big Blue Box/Microsoft for Xbox)
- Full Spectrum Warrior (Pandemic/THQ for Xbox)
- Dead or Alive: Online (Tecmo for Xbox)
also, fanal fantsay x2 was nominated, however (correct me if i'm
wrong) i don't recall a playble demo of that; in fact, very little
informion has been available for it, tho i do hear rumors it's nearing
completion.
Jordan Lund
> Sorry if this was posted already. I gotta admit, this kind of surprises
> even me. But the Xbox did amazingly well in the Game Critics Awards best
> of E3 nominations. (These are the "official" independent E3 awards,
> voted on by three dozen judges from some of the major mags/websites.)
The list is more even than you might think. Once you remove all the PC
and multi-platform titles you are left with 10 Xbox nominees, 8 PS2
and 6 Gamecube.
They must not have shown True Fantasy Live Online either. That's the
only reason I could think it wouldn't make the RPG or the MMO
categories.
Xbox
- Full Spectrum Warrior (Pandemic/THQ for Xbox)
- Halo 2 (Bungie/Microsoft for Xbox)
- Fable (Big Blue Box/Microsoft for Xbox)
- Deus Ex: Invisible War (Ion Storm/Eidos for PC/Xbox)
- Ninja Gaiden (Tecmo for Xbox)
- Dead or Alive: Online (Tecmo for Xbox)
- Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic (BioWare/LucasArts for
PC/Xbox)
- Project Gotham Racing 2 (Bizarre Creations/Microsoft for Xbox)
- Amped 2 (Microsoft for Xbox)
- Xbox Music Mixer (Microsoft for Xbox)
PS2
- Gran Turismo 4 (Polyphony Digital/Sony Computer Entertainment for
PlayStation 2)
- Jak II (Naughty Dog/Sony Computer Entertainment for PlayStation 2)
- Onimusha Blade Warriors (Capcom for PlayStation 2)
- Virtua Fighter 4: Evolution (Sega for PlayStation 2)
- Final Fantasy X-2 (Square-Enix for PlayStation 2)
- The EyeToy Games (Sony Computer Entertainment Europe for PlayStation
2)
- Karaoke Revolution (Harmonix/Konami for PlayStation 2)
- Final Fantasy XI (Square Enix for PC/PlayStation 2)
Gamecube
- Viewtiful Joe (Capcom for GameCube)
- F-Zero GX (Amusement Vision/Nintendo for GameCube)
- Mario Kart: Double Dash!! (Nintendo for GameCube)
- Pikmin 2 (Nintendo for GameCube)
- Mario Party 5 (Nintendo for GameCube)
- Nintendo Puzzle Collection (Nintendo for GameCube)
Jordan Lund
> As for Microsoft, their biggest title-- Halo 2-- is not being released this
> year and it was not playable at the show.
Kind of like when a video of Metal Gear Solid 2 won "E3 Game of the Year"? ;^)
- Jordan
Zackman
> The list is more even than you might think. Once you remove all the PC
> and multi-platform titles you are left with 10 Xbox nominees, 8 PS2
> and 6 Gamecube.
And if you remove the Eye Toy (hardware), the Xbox and PS2 each received
20 nominations total. Quite even.
I'm surprised Amped 2 is in there. I didn't even give it a second look
at E3... couldn't imagine it would be much more than a slight overhaul
of the first game.
> They must not have shown True Fantasy Live Online either. That's the
> only reason I could think it wouldn't make the RPG or the MMO
> categories.
They did show it. I guess either the judges weren't impressed and/or the
PC has way more to offer in the MMO genre. I'm a little surprised they'd
nominate FFXI and not TFLO though.
For what it's worth, TFLO looks *very* Japanese. It's sort of a MMORPG
mated with Animal Crossing, and has a very anime look to it. Combat
looked good though, and the visuals were really impressive.
-Z-
Scott H
news:k2ondvkg79hj28125...@4ax.com...
> <zac...@SPAMISEVILearthling.net> wrote:
>
> >Sorry if this was posted already. I gotta admit, this kind of surprises
> >even me. But the Xbox did amazingly well in the Game Critics Awards best
> >of E3 nominations. (These are the "official" independent E3 awards,
> >voted on by three dozen judges from some of the major mags/websites.)
> >
> >(and one of the others is multiplatform.) Two of the 'best of show'
> >nominees are also console exclusive to the Xbox (again, with Prince of
> >Persia being on all platforms.) Gran Turismo 4 is the only PS2 exclusive
> >that shows up on either list.
> >
> >Xbox also shows up in virtually every other category it could be
> >nominated for, like 'best original game' - which has no PS2 or GameCube
> >nominees at all.
> >
> >Here's the link: http://www.e3awards.com/nom.html
> >
>
> Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo would have the best showing and Nintendo
> was the winner. Then after E3 they asked what everyone thought again
> and the Xbox won.
Dreamcast won E3 2000 by a land slide, nobody even tried to contest it,
and it didn't matter. This e3awards page seems very PC centric, at a
glance.
Scott H
>
> "Kevin Sullivan" <ke...@beestung.netHERWORLD> wrote in message
> news:k2ondvkg79hj28125...@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 02 Jun 2003 15:24:04 -0600, Zackman
> > <zac...@SPAMISEVILearthling.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Also, on gaming-age.com they did a poll before E3 asking who out of
> > Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo would have the best showing and Nintendo
> > was the winner. Then after E3 they asked what everyone thought again
> > and the Xbox won.
>
> figure...
Says the "unbiased" PS game mag reviewer, again. This time in the Xbox
newsgroup.
--
My Multipurpose Page O Doom: http://home1.gte.net/res0zjb2
Fact based console history starting from the 8-bit days, quality software
lists for Genesis, SegaCD, 32X, Saturn, PS1, Dreamcast and PS2, popular game
comparison pics and articles, a few game reviews, and I'm always accepting
more gamer's perspectives on the facts and comments on the site via E-mail
or Usenet.
Phil
> "Kevin Sullivan" <ke...@beestung.netHERWORLD> wrote in message
> news:k2ondvkg79hj28125...@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 02 Jun 2003 15:24:04 -0600, Zackman
> > <zac...@SPAMISEVILearthling.net> wrote:
> >
> > >even me. But the Xbox did amazingly well in the Game Critics Awards best
> > >of E3 nominations. (These are the "official" independent E3 awards,
> > >voted on by three dozen judges from some of the major mags/websites.)
> > >
> > >Three of the 'best console' nominees are console exclusive to the Xbox
> > >(and one of the others is multiplatform.) Two of the 'best of show'
> > >nominees are also console exclusive to the Xbox (again, with Prince of
> > >Persia being on all platforms.) Gran Turismo 4 is the only PS2 exclusive
> > >that shows up on either list.
> > >
> > >Xbox also shows up in virtually every other category it could be
> > >nominated for, like 'best original game' - which has no PS2 or GameCube
> > >nominees at all.
> > >
> > >Here's the link: http://www.e3awards.com/nom.html
> > >
> >
> > Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo would have the best showing and Nintendo
> > was the winner. Then after E3 they asked what everyone thought again
> > and the Xbox won.
>
> And during the show, those of us who were there thought Sony won. Go
> figure...
LOL, priceless.
Bugman
"No Time" <omare...@aol.com> wrote in message news:b8ed4b07.03060...@posting.google.com...
> "Longhorn" <ProjectB...@01h01o01t01m01a01i01l01.com> wrote in message news:<LYGcna90TKN...@giganews.com>...
You sound like Omar. So sad for you.
Daniel Trotter
Maniac
it's even sadder that it is ;p
Jordan Lund
> I'm surprised Amped 2 is in there. I didn't even give it a second look
> at E3... couldn't imagine it would be much more than a slight overhaul
> of the first game.
There's a movie for it on the Brute Force disk and I checked it out
last night... It looks, well, craptacular. But then I don't care for
that style of game.
- Jordan
Nick Soapdish Jr
>From: Maniac man...@nospam.com
>Date: 6/3/2003 1:32 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <vvppdv8jl30hdr2av...@4ax.com>
FFX2 is out in Japan, I believe. MGS3 might be the big hyped game that has no
playable demo available that you're thinking of.
Jim Gordon
"I've got a fever...and the only prescription...is more cowbell!"
-Christopher Walken
"Rule 10- Tuning a mellotron doesn't."
-Robert Fripp
Android
"Scott H" <Weapo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:J5dDa.13417$JW6....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> "Android" <andr...@NaOtStPbAiM.com> wrote in message
> news:lKUCa.47481$M01.30738@sccrnsc02...
> >
> > "Kevin Sullivan" <ke...@beestung.netHERWORLD> wrote in message
> > news:k2ondvkg79hj28125...@4ax.com...
> > > On Mon, 02 Jun 2003 15:24:04 -0600, Zackman
> > > <zac...@SPAMISEVILearthling.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Also, on gaming-age.com they did a poll before E3 asking who out of
> > > Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo would have the best showing and Nintendo
> > > was the winner. Then after E3 they asked what everyone thought again
> > > and the Xbox won.
> >
> > And during the show, those of us who were there thought Sony won. Go
> > figure...
>
>
> Says the "unbiased" PS game mag reviewer, again. This time in the Xbox
> newsgroup.
Says the "unbiased" guy working on a objective list of notable games...just
so he can prove that the Dreamcast had more notable games than the PS2 in
its first year. Is that why you are in the Xbox newsgroup? Tired of getting
shouted down in the PS2 newsgroup?
What can I say? As a writer for a PS2 magazine, I'm happy with the current
situation. We backed the winning horse for two hardware generations in a
row...soon to be the handheld market leader as well. As an Xbox and GameCube
owner, I'm disappointed with both of those systems.
Robert P Holley
>
> "Scott H" <Weapo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:J5dDa.13417$JW6....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> > "Android" <andr...@NaOtStPbAiM.com> wrote in message
> > news:lKUCa.47481$M01.30738@sccrnsc02...
> > >
> > > "Kevin Sullivan" <ke...@beestung.netHERWORLD> wrote in message
> > > news:k2ondvkg79hj28125...@4ax.com...
> > > > On Mon, 02 Jun 2003 15:24:04 -0600, Zackman
> > > > <zac...@SPAMISEVILearthling.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Also, on gaming-age.com they did a poll before E3 asking who out of
> > > > Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo would have the best showing and
Nintendo
> > > > was the winner. Then after E3 they asked what everyone thought again
> > > > and the Xbox won.
> > >
> > > And during the show, those of us who were there thought Sony won. Go
> > > figure...
> >
> >
> > Says the "unbiased" PS game mag reviewer, again. This time in the Xbox
> > newsgroup.
>
> Says the "unbiased" guy working on a objective list of notable
games...just
> so he can prove that the Dreamcast had more notable games than the PS2 in
> its first year.
I don't think he needs to prove it, since everyone knows it to be true.
> Is that why you are in the Xbox newsgroup? Tired of getting
> shouted down in the PS2 newsgroup?
>
> What can I say?
You're a blind fanboy?
> As a writer for a PS2 magazine, I'm happy with the current
> situation. We backed the winning horse for two hardware generations in a
> row...soon to be the handheld market leader as well. As an Xbox and
GameCube
> owner, I'm disappointed with both of those systems.
Let me guess, you bought a PS2 at launch, didn't you?
Scott H
>
> "Scott H" <Weapo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:J5dDa.13417$JW6....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> > "Android" <andr...@NaOtStPbAiM.com> wrote in message
> > news:lKUCa.47481$M01.30738@sccrnsc02...
> > newsgroup.
>
> Says the "unbiased" guy working on a objective list of notable
games...just
> so he can prove that the Dreamcast had more notable games than the PS2 in
> its first year. Is that why you are in the Xbox newsgroup? Tired of
getting
> shouted down in the PS2 newsgroup?
Actually I'm over here because I bought an Xbox recently, after owning a
PS2 for 1.5 years already. Since you mentioned it, I am not too happy with
AGVS-PS2, since all I did was ask for simple gameplay details about a list
of games, and got absolutely nothing from the group but whining, bitching,
and smug quips about their current console's "superiority". It's kinda odd
to me that I can ask for the same thing in this group, or the Sega groups,
and get what I asked for.
> What can I say? As a writer for a PS2 magazine, I'm happy with the current
> situation. We backed the winning horse for two hardware generations in a
> row...soon to be the handheld market leader as well. As an Xbox and
GameCube
> owner, I'm disappointed with both of those systems.
>
No doubt, and since you're so much less biased than me, that must mean
that the Xbox and GameCube actually have less to offer than the PS2.
--
My Multipurpose Page O Doom: http://home1.gte.net/res0zjb2
Fact based console history starting from the 8-bit days, quality software
lists for Genesis, SegaCD, 32X, Saturn, PS1, Dreamcast and PS2, popular game
comparison pics and articles, a few game reviews, and I'm always accepting
more gamer's perspectives on the facts and comments on the site via E-mail
or Usenet.
Smile, you're a star of the Usenet fanboy section.