• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Top 5 E3 Myths(YoVideogames!)

U

unbias

Member
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NL9EtizUe1Q


Matt talks about some myths at E3 and goes on a bit of a rant about E3 game criticism(or the lack thereof). I thought it was pretty good, and definitely was agreeing with him during his little rant near the end. 2nd half of the video he talks about games shown at E3 and inferred how many act like criticism is a bad thing.

I never really payed much attention to myth number 4...but ha, he is right.
 
jschreier said:
Interesting video, but his complaints in #3 do make life a lot easier for those of us who go to E3 for work.
Click to expand...

Yea #3 isn't surprising - it's pretty much a fact of all business that certain people are going to get more and timelier access.

I kept laughing about how the narrator gave 10 examples of different kind of people who "don't know dick about games".
 
jschreier said:
Interesting video, but his complaints in #3 do make life a lot easier for those of us who go to E3 for work.
Click to expand...
Trojan said:
Yea #3 isn't surprising - it's pretty much a fact of all business that certain people are going to get more and timelier access.

I kept laughing about how the narrator gave 10 examples of different kind of people who "don't know dick about games".
Click to expand...

Well I found that part interesting because while I can understand why the publishers do it that way his specific example about Xenoblade X was something I have been thinking about since e3. No one that played it seemed to know much about it, and then not a lot of press around it after either.

So yeah, I get that you can't just let everyone on the show floor back to all the areas, but it would be cool if you let the people interested in specific games that aren't getting a lot of attention through to give it a bit of coverage.
 
theSlacker said:
Well I found that part interesting because while I can understand why the publishers do it that way his specific example about Xenoblade X was something I have been thinking about since e3. No one that played it seemed to know much about it, and then not a lot of press around it after either.

So yeah, I get that you can't just let everyone on the show floor back to all the areas, but it would be cool if you let the people interested in specific games that aren't getting a lot of attention through to give it a bit of coverage.
Click to expand...
Xenoblade X wasn't available to any press, as far as I know.
 
#2. Games almost never change from what is shown at E3
#1. Developers were very grateful for the feedback given... presumably so they can then go ahead and not change their game?

Not quite sure about those two.
 
ajb1888 said:
#2 is unfortunate but makes sense. Poor framerates in Bloodborne confirmed? :/
Click to expand...

The difference is that the games playable to everyone on the show floor are usually 6~ months out, and honestly are VERY similar to the final build. Games like Bloodborne that are behind closed doors or unplayable to even press definitely have a lot of polish and additions made before release. However, don't expect the combat or visual style to change much.
 
About the "game never changes from E3 to release", when speaking about content, I'd agree, but not when it comes to performance/stability.
 
What an annoying guy. List was good but he should learn to talk without getting a rage boner over someone getting treated better at E3 etc.
 
jschreier said:
Xenoblade X wasn't available to any press, as far as I know.
Click to expand...

That is pretty interesting as well since there was clearly a playable version there, with the treehouse people playing long portions of it right from the start of the game. The way that they were doing it was odd already since they had two guys that didn't seem like they knew much about the previous game just playing it from the start with one translating it to the person playing who couldn't even read what was going on. I just assumed that there was a luck of interest from the press when all the other games shown seemingly had more coverage.

Guess that all is more Nintendo being Nintendo then.
 
He keeps saying "schwag" and said "oogle" as in "Google", instead of ogle. Immediate turn off.

#2 is mostly a non-complaint. There are always more advanced builds than developers decide to show, probably they often don't even bring the latest build to the show. Come on man, of course they're careful about what they publicly show.

#3 is a hard lesson to learn your first time at the show. But he seems bitter, despite having been to E3s since 2001 (as he repeats often).

#4 is anecdotal, but in my experience, sometimes true. Again, a lesson to learn from covering games at cons.

#5 contradicts his points in #4. If the game is 95% of the time never changed from showfloor to release, why would criticism matter? I agree with him about giving feedback, but if you take his previous point as truth, then why bother?
 
JLeack said:
The difference is that the games playable to everyone on the show floor are usually 6~ months out, and honestly are VERY similar to the final build. Games like Bloodborne that are behind closed doors or unplayable to even press definitely have a lot of polish and additions made before release. However, don't expect the combat or visual style to change much.
Click to expand...

Makes sense. Hopefully TGS shows improvement.. I stress things too much sometimes. haha.
 
theSlacker said:
That is pretty interesting as well since there was clearly a playable version there, with the treehouse people playing long portions of it right from the start of the game. The way that they were doing it was odd already since they had two guys that didn't seem like they knew much about the previous game just playing it from the start with one translating it to the person playing who couldn't even read what was going on. I just assumed that there was a luck of interest from the press when all the other games shown seemingly had more coverage.

Guess that all is more Nintendo being Nintendo then.
Click to expand...

They had a playable version, but all in Japanese. You do not make people play a demo at E3 in Japanese, they won't understand shit, even with someone explaining as they go. Localization is probably not far enough, heck, it might not have even started yet. Have we actually seen anything of the game in English, yet?
 
#4 was true for WB games (Witcher 3, Batman). Still, as an enthusiast who is not in the industry, E3 was what I expected, loud, crowded (apparently it was less crowded this E3), lights everywhere, and very loud.

#3 isn't surprising. Just to joke with the class system, I couldn't get into a Nintendo fan waiting area (Smash Brothers on the giant screen) as an Xbox Fan. Actually it was because the place was packed with others also trying to get in, so I never had the chance.
 
BY2K said:
About the "game never changes from E3 to release", when speaking about content, I'd agree, but not when it comes to performance/stability.
Click to expand...

and he didnt say otherwise, what he was talking about was looks and general gameplay, except on some occasions
 
theSlacker said:
That is pretty interesting as well since there was clearly a playable version there, with the treehouse people playing long portions of it right from the start of the game. The way that they were doing it was odd already since they had two guys that didn't seem like they knew much about the previous game just playing it from the start with one translating it to the person playing who couldn't even read what was going on. I just assumed that there was a luck of interest from the press when all the other games shown seemingly had more coverage.

Guess that all is more Nintendo being Nintendo then.
Click to expand...
Two thoughts:

1) They didn't want press to play it since their build wasn't in English.

2) In general, RPGs are very difficult to demo. There's no way to get a feel for a role-playing game with a 20-minute session in a loud convention center. Makes sense that they'd keep that one off the list.
 
OnPoint said:
#5 contradicts his points in #4. If the game is 95% of the time never changed from showfloor to release, why would criticism matter? I agree with him about giving feedback, but if you take his previous point as truth, then why bother?
Click to expand...

because being critical, without acting like a douche always helps, even if these games are mostly finished, going around just saying game x is the greatest things ever, when theres these obvious flaws isnt helping anyone, and maybe, just maybe, if the developers notice this and take these criticisms to heart it can maybe become a better product for it
 
BY2K said:
They had a playable version, but all in Japanese. You do not make people play a demo at E3 in Japanese, they won't understand shit, even with someone explaining as they go. Localization is probably not far enough, heck, it might not have even started yet. Have we actually seen anything of the game in English, yet?
Click to expand...

Neg, nothing in English.

jschreier said:
Two thoughts:

1) They didn't want press to play it since their build wasn't in English.

2) In general, RPGs are very difficult to demo. There's no way to get a feel for a role-playing game with a 20-minute session in a loud convention center. Makes sense that they'd keep that one off the list.
Click to expand...

I'm not complaining that the press didn't push to get more info on a smaller appeal niche game, or that Nintendo didn't want to demo it to more people, just found it interesting that that was something he noticed and talked about when I too found it odd how little coverage it got when it was one of the few games shown in the Nintendo Direct. It was about the only thing I found interesting about that specific talking point of his since I really can understand why all the people attending e3 can't get full access to everything. Well that and how it tied into his previous "myth" of the games not being playable.
 
#1 seems like a product of the of the preview cycle that most people already have an issue with in terms of games writing.
 
ZenTzen said:
because being critical, without acting like a douche always helps, even if these games are mostly finished, going around just saying game x is the greatest things ever, when theres these obvious flaws isnt helping anyone, and maybe, just maybe, if the developers notice this and take these criticisms to heart it can maybe become a better product for it
Click to expand...

Right. I understand that. I cover cons frequently and often give the developers my honest two cents about what I liked, what I didn't, what worked, what I'd change... I mostly cover indie stuff though, and mostly of the time they're very open to hearing it, receptive to the details, and have even taken what I've said into account.

But that's not my point.

If you're going to assert that 95% of the games you've ever played at a convention are 100% unchanged from the showfloor builds, don't make it your next point to chide people for failing to offer criticism when your previous point would make it meaningful for literally 5% of the time. You could argue that the 5% makes it worthwhile (and I might not disagree) but such a stark contradiction (among other things) kind of tanks his credibility in my mind.
 
Here are the 5 myths listed in the video for people, like me, who are too lazy to watch the whole thing:

5. E3 is a land of shwag (sic) and booth babes
4. "This game is not playable"
3. There is a class system (But he argues this is true, so I guess the myth is "There isn't a class system")
2. "This will be fixed by release"
1. Games in development are immune to criticism
 
Setvan2734 said:
This video sounds like an 11 minute long rant, rather than a top 5 list. He needs to calm down a bit.
Click to expand...

Hah yeah, I swear the pitch of his voice went up as the video went on. Was kind of hard to listen to his points when he couldn't keep his cool
 
OnPoint said:
If you're going to assert that 95% of the games you've ever played at a convention are 100% unchanged from the showfloor builds, don't make it your next point to chide people for failing to offer criticism when your previous point would make it meaningful for literally 5% of the time. You could argue that the 5% makes it worthwhile (and I might not disagree) but such a stark contradiction (among other things) kind of tanks his credibility in my mind.
Click to expand...

As someone pointed out above it seems like the assertion is that content shown in the demo areas will remain largely unchanged, because those areas are completed for the show. But technical issues can be fixed.
 
PensivePen said:
As someone pointed out above it seems like the assertion is that content shown in the demo areas will remain largely unchanged, because those areas are completed for the show. But technical issues can be fixed.
Click to expand...

That's not really how it came off to me. Devs will often say that things the player says are "broken" will be fixed before release, and not just based on performance (Sonic 2006 was just as broken at E3 as it was at release, but I digress). But seeing as it's a matter of perception as to what the presenter meant, I won't argue it.
 
OnPoint said:
Right. I understand that. I cover cons frequently and often give the developers my honest two cents about what I liked, what I didn't, what worked, what I'd change... I mostly cover indie stuff though, and mostly of the time they're very open to hearing it, receptive to the details, and have even taken what I've said into account.

But that's not my point.

If you're going to assert that 95% of the games you've ever played at a convention are 100% unchanged from the showfloor builds, don't make it your next point to chide people for failing to offer criticism when your previous point would make it meaningful for literally 5% of the time. You could argue that the 5% makes it worthwhile (and I might not disagree) but such a stark contradiction (among other things) kind of tanks his credibility in my mind.
Click to expand...

It reads to me like he's saying that these games don't change 95% of the time and part of the reason for that is because often times they remained not criticized because of the perception that they will be fixed by release causing a perpetual cycle if you will.
 
flintstryker said:
It reads to me like he's saying that these games don't change 95% of the time and part of the reason for that is because often times they remained not criticized because of the perception that they will be fixed by release causing a perpetual cycle if you will.
Click to expand...

He is 100% not saying that. First off, they're wholly individual points. But more importantly he even asserts that the developers finalize the sections of the games before E3 and pluck them out for demo purposes because developers hate making E3 demos.
 
OnPoint said:
He keeps saying "schwag" and said "oogle" as in "Google", instead of ogle. Immediate turn off.

#2 is mostly a non-complaint. There are always more advanced builds than developers decide to show, probably they often don't even bring the latest build to the show. Come on man, of course they're careful about what they publicly show.

#3 is a hard lesson to learn your first time at the show. But he seems bitter, despite having been to E3s since 2001 (as he repeats often).

#4 is anecdotal, but in my experience, sometimes true. Again, a lesson to learn from covering games at cons.

#5 contradicts his points in #4. If the game is 95% of the time never changed from showfloor to release, why would criticism matter? I agree with him about giving feedback, but if you take his previous point as truth, then why bother?
Click to expand...

2. I think he might have been infering that the builds are hiding behind walls for the VIP or that he thinks those build should be on the floor. He probably should have stayed on that one a little longer to explain why he mentioned it.

3. Sounds like you are reaching. Sounds like to me, he just thinks that because of this fans of certain games dont get to cover it vs random journy wandering around via VIP status.

Your point 4 is...odd, of course its anecdotal, but I'm assuming he is saying it becasue most people wont be able to specify which games it wasnt true with(beyond the ones he mentioned or in scenario he pointed out).

And 5 doesn't mean you still don't critique and it also doesn't mean that just because the majority dont change doesnt mean saying something wont lead to a change or that it's not worth doing. Also I disagree that those last 2 points are wholly their own thought, they are, I think following a train of thought. Also, if more people mentioned something similar each time, it probably would be changed.

Easy_D said:
Hah yeah, I swear the pitch of his voice went up as the video went on. Was kind of hard to listen to his points when he couldn't keep his cool
Click to expand...

If you watch him and Max regularly you would notice they try and "hype up" everything they talk about. Hell, if you watch their twitch video's where they watch events with fans they hype more then they are actually hyped.
 
unbias said:
2. I think he might have been infering that the builds are hiding behind walls for the VIP or that he thinks those build should be on the floor. He probably should have stayed on that one a little longer to explain why he mentioned it.

3. Sounds like you are reaching. Sounds like to me, he just thinks that because of this fans of certain games dont get to cover it vs random journy wandering around via VIP status.

Your point 4 is...odd, of course its anecdotal, but I'm assuming he is saying it becasue most people wont be able to specify which games it wasnt true with(beyond the ones he mentioned or in scenario he pointed out).

And 5 doesn't mean you still don't critique and it also doesn't mean that just because the majority dont change doesnt mean saying something wont lead to a change or that it's not worth doing. Also I disagree that those last 2 points are wholly their own thought, they are, I think following a train of thought. Also, if more people mentioned something similar each time, it probably would be changed.
Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing with him about point 2. I'm saying it's not a secret of E3 that there are hidden builds that not everyone gets to experience.

I'm not reaching for number 3, though I don't disagree with it. There IS a social hierarchy, it SUCKS the first time you experience it by being walked past and walked over in line, and he DOES sound bitter about it despite over a decade of E3 experience. Seriously, with over 10 years of experience, he shouldn't sound this mad.

My point for number 4 is not odd. Sometimes I've played games at shows that have remained unchanged. Dirge of Cerebus was a big one that stayed largely the same. Super Time Force was one that I remember changing quite a bit over the years. Again, it's anecdotal, but sometimes true, and sometimes not.

Four and five are inarguably separate bullets on his list, and while I agree that they're related ideas, what he says is contradictory. Again, I'm not saying people shouldn't offer feedback, I'm saying that HIS specific suggestion of it is undermined by things he said, all by himself, in a previous point in the same video. If his point 4 is to be believed, then his point 5 is 95% pointless.

My point, overall, is that this video does not do a good job at presenting him as a credible personality. But I'll await the next person arguing with me that offering feedback is valid despite not pushing a contrary agenda.
 
plexcide said:
What an annoying guy. List was good but he should learn to talk without getting a rage boner over someone getting treated better at E3 etc.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. I wanted to like the video, but his ranting distracted me from listening to the content. He probably needs to have Max be the on camera person, and focus more on writing/scripting and editing.
 
Oof, good points and it's good to voice your mind but turn down the whiney. It makes people take you less seriously and get annoyed quickly.

OnPoint said:
#5 contradicts his points in #4. If the game is 95% of the time never changed from showfloor to release, why would criticism matter? I agree with him about giving feedback, but if you take his previous point as truth, then why bother?
Click to expand...

Because folks aren't giving these criticisms when warranted so these games never do change greatly upon release.
 
Are these myths or complaints? Sounds like a guy that went to E3 and walked away bitter because it wasn't what he thought it was?
 
Man, this guy is definitely salty.

Trying to pretend that Disney Infinity has been giving out toys for years is just wrong. They started in 2013. It started last year.

Also, why in the hell does he add an "H" into swag?
 
ajb1888 said:
#2 is unfortunate but makes sense. Poor framerates in Bloodborne confirmed? :/
Click to expand...

He's mostly talking about games that have playable demos on the show floor, though, which are generally games that are coming out that fall, so it makes sense for those to not change much between then and release. Games that aren't due for another year to a year and a half are more likely to see a lot of changes before release (and are less likely to be playable by the general public at the show.)
 
Nothing being immune from criticism is fine, but advice like, "Hey, you know what? Frame rate kind of sucks here, I wish it was a little better" and "Hey, you know what? The controls are a little sluggish here, is there any way to tune up the responsiveness of it?" is basically 'tighten up the graphics on level 3' level stuff.

Also, the contrast between the claims of professionalism and his choices of wording and such seem a bit hypocritical:

Matt said:
If you're a professional, which you're SUPPOSED to be at E3- it's for professionals only. If you're a PROFESSIONAL and you're playing a game that isn't done yet, you should have the wherewithal to say "You know what? This is what needs work, this is what needs to change." You shouldn't just go there and lick these people's assholes and then complain about when the game when it comes out and it's not as good as what you expected it to be.
Click to expand...

Matt said:
You're supposed to offer criticism of these games. Now don't be a huge dick about it. You can't say, "hey this game sucks my cock."
Click to expand...

You've gotta be a professional to know you ought not tell a dev at a trade show that their game sucks your cock, damn it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Your Top 5 Indie JRPG's
46
58
Plies replied
Top 5 games in 2025 on PlayStation exactly the same as 2024
0
150
cormack12 replied
Rank your top 5 best and hardest roguelike games
35
3K
drotahorror replied
Ever wondered if the 'official' history of gaming is actually just a bunch of myths and lies?"
2 3
126
1K
Geometric-Crusher replied
Your Top 5 PSOne JRPG's
2
83
4K
Plies replied
Top Bottom