You should tell that to the people handing out the awards then.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
In hindsight, did Nintendo make the right decision with ONLY Zelda at E3 2016?
- Thread starter Hylian7
- Start date
You should tell that to the people handing out the awards then.
CaviarMeths
Member
Or all the journalists who wrote articles about the several games Nintendo demoed at E3 last year.
Spaced Harrier
Member
I'll have to talk to them about Titanfall first.
When that one game is an all time great, yes it does.
Mihael Mello Keehl
Banned
Exactly.
According to Rule 325 in section B IV. in the book. "How to Win E3" It clearly states citations needed, "X company will be disqualified from the E3 winnings if they fail to provide more than 1 game demonstration."
Smh, cant believe people dont know the rules to E3 wining yet. How many E3s have there been? like 40? Sheesh.
Love the guy doing the Praise the Sun emote from Dark Souls as the masses flock to Zelda
I'd say it was a good decision.
TheMoon
Member
They did not have "just one game" at E3 last year. I love how everyone is ignoring this simple little fact.
zenspider
Member
Where are those games? Sony's reel was sizzle, Nintendo brought the steak.
Sony had a great show, and definitely "won" in terms of my entertainment watching the conference - I didn't even bother watching Zelda (blackout) - but yes, you can win e3 with one game. The enthusiast press seemed pretty unanimous in that regard.
NOLA_Gaffer
Banned
Was God of War even playable at E3 last year?
My big issue with most E3 presentations is that it's usually pre-rendered or scripted sequences of games that are a year away (or longer, in some cases)
Nintendo generally shows off games that are playable at the show so everyone can immediately get impressions of the software instead of just going by canned footage.
SporeCrawler
Member
given that zelda was the best game by a long shot in a year full of extremely well received titles i would say they did the best they could and overachieved
Tell that to everyone handing out the awards and writing about E3. Tell that to social media, which was almost all Zelda hype all the time. Hell GAF had a bunch of BotW threads that got ridiculously huge. Everything else got eclipsed by BotW. If that isn't winning I don't know what is.
NipplesAndToes23
Member
Yes. That treehouse was incredible many people including me watched for hours.
rochellepaws
Member
Honestly, I don't really think it would have made a difference if they had skipped it entirely last year. Zelda is a huge brand and didn't need to be showcased to gather attention or become a system seller for the Switch.
geordiemp
Member
Like Zelda in 2011 first announcement, or again in 2014....?
Was it shown in 2015 as well ? whatever man.
The answer to the OP is if Swicth continues on its trajectory and sells 15 million in a year, then yes it was right. If it slows down, then no it was not.
foreal
not taking anything away from the other presentations but Zelda eclipsed everything. there were hours upon hours of footage from hands on playthroughs with so many cool unique things discovered. that one bit with the guardian shooting a laser at Link riding on horseback, the laser lighting the grass on fire, and then Link using the updraft from the fire to glide up and shoot off an arrow was the single most iconic thing from that E3.
PeakPointMatrix
Member
You say decision like they had a choice.
Zelda was all they had worth a damn. And the NX barely hobbled out in time for launch, you think they would have had anything close to presentable for E3 2016 purposes?
Zelda was all they had worth a damn. And the NX barely hobbled out in time for launch, you think they would have had anything close to presentable for E3 2016 purposes?
TheMoon
Member
BotW, if we're being generous, was first announced in 2013 (Nintendo Direct in January with a vague "'we wanna do X,Y, Z with the next Zelda game"), then first actually shown in 2014 at E3 with that brief cutscene clip.
You're trying to pass of that Wii U Zelda HD tech demo in 2011 as BotW being first announced and shown but that won't fly
BotW, if we're being generous, was first announced in 2013, then first actually shown in 2014 with that brief cutscene clip.
You're trying to pass of that Wii U Zelda HD tech demo in 2011 as BotW being first announced and shown but that won't fly
they won E3 in 2014 too, hmmmm :scratches beard:
basically BotW is great
I like how you are implying everyone that gave it an award are simply fanboys and nothing else. I guess it's easier waive away people's reactions and opinions if you assume they are below you to begin with.
The fact of the matter is that Breath of the Wild commanded attention at E3 2016, fanboy or no fanboy. Everyone had something to say about it. If we want to go by your metric for the "E3 winner" then we can also discuss the fact that people were actually willing to buy the game en masse even before they even got the console in their hands as well. But even this is a digression, as the OP was asking it was the right decision to headline with a one major game. Considering the massive attention they got, and how that basically started the switch momentum, I'm inclined to say Yes it was.
PeakPointMatrix
Member
Good thing Zelda was revealed with a playable- oh wait
geordiemp
Member
BotW, if we're being generous, was first announced in 2013, then first actually shown in 2014 with that brief cutscene clip.
You're trying to pass of that Wii U Zelda HD tech demo in 2011 as BotW being first announced and shown but that won't fly
Zelda released in 2017 you know, so even 2013 is no different than any other pub for a big scope game that takes 4 years to make.
sleepwalkcapsules
Member
It worked because BotW is crossgen.
It was a E3 for Switch before the Switch.
It was a E3 for Switch before the Switch.
I don't think what Nintendo did would have worked for any other game. They showed hours upon hours of the starting area and still gave almost nothing about it's story relevance away. I can't think of another game where that would be possible.
The whole thing was lightning in a bottle and anyone else who tries it will probably get zapped.
They had huge lines of people waiting to play the game last year. In what universe was the game not playable?
TheMoon
Member
Point is, stick to facts if you wanna argue/compare.
geordiemp
Member
If your a sales guy, do you go to an event and come back and say hey. it was so successful it got tweeted 100 times.
Success is about adoption, plain and simple, that is what wins. However, I dont like mobile games so I dont care, but I recognise some of them as successful in what they do. Maybe Switch will sell 15 million a year...maybe it wont, we shall see.
Also your ad hominem is cheap..
Facts ;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arHNcSMXaBk
And your facts are what exactly ?
I don't think it really mattered. If the Switch was ready to be shown I feel like they could have shown it and also had a really successful show, and had huge lines to play it if Zelda was playable on it as well, but I don't think it would have impacted the success of the Switch itself much. Showing only Zelda worked well in that one instance though.
I don't think we'll ever know if the Switch was actually ready to be shown or not. I don't think doing a reveal nine months before the console's launch would have hurt it at all though.
I don't think we'll ever know if the Switch was actually ready to be shown or not. I don't think doing a reveal nine months before the console's launch would have hurt it at all though.
are you really trying to downplay visibility on social media platforms like twitter and youtube?
I always hate this meme but it's 2017, that kind of stuff is important marketing and wouldn't you know it that's what E3 is all about
SoundPulse
Banned
Personally speaking, I tuned out after the first demo. Didn't really need to see more, but I'm not really someone who really watches much of the treehouse streams in general.
They chose the perfect game to do this with, though.
They chose the perfect game to do this with, though.
TheMoon
Member
No. I explained that to you above.
You're doing the opposite of using facts lol.
Don't dig that hole. It leads nowhere.
And they didn't ...
I love this gif so much
I'd say it was a good decision.
KZXcellent
Member
For me and a lot of other people, "Winning E3" is a subjective thing. Just because something gets a lot of pop here on GAF and the critics adore it doesn't mean it's going to mesh with a person. Nintendo didn't win E3 because the only game they had on display that I was into at the time was Zelda. I base who wins on quantity and quality.
It was actually playable, that's why you see that gif of people running to play Zelda everywhere in this very thread. They were running to avoid waiting for hours to play the damn thing.
TheMoon
Member
BotW was revealed in 2014 with a pre-scripted teaser video. It was first playable two years later at E3 2016.
edit: tip for geordiemp - this is how facts work, btw
Huge Succeeded
Banned
I understand your perspective, but, just to inject a little bit of context into this conversation -
in a thread about whether Nintendo made the right decision showing only Zelda at e3 2016
in a reality where this approach to E3, built on a shaky foundation, resulted in Breath of the Wild generating more discussion and interest than any other game at E3
making the assertion that 'Nintendo won E3' is making the assertion that 'Nintendo's weird E3 2016 was successful enough to blow Zelda the fuck out', which it did.
geordiemp
Member
We agree, I never claimed anyone won any E3 as its what you like, journos are the same (some like RPG's, some like shooters, some like strategy).
E3 is one of many marketing functions that is partly measurable in its outcome, its called NPD, and it can measure the success of the eco system follwing the big marketing event.....I would like someone to refute that.
I bet Nintendo, Sony and MS actually measure their changed sales trajectory over 6 months or so following E3 and analyse to death using statistics and complex projections as its a big investment. On GAF people just shout we won...
Clearly E3 was good for Nintendo as Switch is off to a great start. But its too early to say they won lol
Mbolibombo
Member
Not sure how anyone could question it.
It was a great E3 for Nintendo. They delivered what was promised and more, they dominated social media and got huge exposure.
It was the right choice.
It was a great E3 for Nintendo. They delivered what was promised and more, they dominated social media and got huge exposure.
It was the right choice.
KZXcellent
Member
Yeah I'm not denying that Nintendo did have a good showing and made what was basically a "one game show" work really well for them.
bobbychalkers
Member
It worked out in the end but they had just enough to show to have a mainly 3DS focused full Direct.
Treehouse was the real meat of their showing.
Treehouse was the real meat of their showing.
Huge Succeeded
Banned
That's awfully selective thinking, and we've been refuting that idea the entire time. It's interesting that this is the only thread in which I've ever seen an argument over what constitutes 'winning E3', even though that phrase has been understood to be less of a definitive proclamation and more of a loving joke for years, and the terms for having that phrase applied to a company's conference, all too clear. The reason why we're even having that argument is pretty transparent as a result. The BoTW showing alone was enough for discussion surrounding E3 to trend in BoTW's direction. People talked about that game and about Nintendo in a way that many people hadn't, for years. Instead of pretending like anyone's ever judged the efficacy of an E3 conference based on how a future console performs (a weird metric to choose considering Switch's success so far), maybe you should try and understand why people have been saying positive things about Nintendo's surprisingly successful E3 conference since their E3 conference, since it seems like you haven't yet.
That doesn't change the fact that Nintendo's E3 conference generated buzz and dominated discussion, which has been the go-to measure of success for E3 conferences for a long time. And at any rate, you came into this conversation with the claim that Nintendo's '16 conference was not the right decision to make. In the absence of other options, and in accordance with your chosen judgement metric, why do you believe that, when Switch is successful and people are still interested in Switch?
Tarextherex
Banned
Yeah, it was still more interesting than past e3s like 2013 or 2015
They finally showed the game everyone wanted to see and it delivered. Pokemon had great presence too. Other games were from much more varied genres compared to most of their past output, especially e3 2015(sidescrollers and multiplayer spinoffs that no one asked for)
They finally showed the game everyone wanted to see and it delivered. Pokemon had great presence too. Other games were from much more varied genres compared to most of their past output, especially e3 2015(sidescrollers and multiplayer spinoffs that no one asked for)