The “big three” pressers are over! Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony strutted their stuff and kicked off E3 2011 with a bang. Which company did best? Kindly vote for your favorite press conference and discuss!
[poll id=”120″]
Today’s Poll: Who Had the Best E3 2011 Press Conference?
The “big three” pressers are over! Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony strutted their stuff and kicked off E3 2011 with a bang. Which company did best? Kindly vote for your favorite press conference and discuss!
I missed Sony's presser but read up on it this A.M.
Nintendo has me excited again.
Nintendo's was the best. I'd say that the opinion on Microsoft and Sony really depends on whether you care about handheld gaming or not. If you do, Sony was second. If you don't Microsoft was second.
What if you care about talking to your console?
I hate to say it, but Sony won this one for me. I don't own the 3DS, but the first-party announcements were nice. The biggest problems I can think of are that Nintendo showcased the controller instead of the console, and didn't show any good 1st party support. The lack of good 3rd party support was also annoying. Anyway, even though I'll probably still get the Wii U eventually, I didn't feel that impressed.
On the other hand, I don't have a PS3 either, but the NGP/Vita was still very interesting. I was anticipating the Vita information since back in February when the next system was announced. The 1st-party games were great, and it's a more recent release. That's why I liked Sony's conference the most.
Though, in terms of announcements, the Super Smash Bros spoil was my favorite.
PS: I love that nobody thinks Microsoft's conference was the best.
I'm still not 100% sure on an opinion (and keep in mind I didn't watch the Sony event) but MS is up for the top place for me simply because I can see myself buying the games and using the things they talked about, and I'm not 100% on that with Nintendo right now. It's not even that I'm a huge fan of any of the games in particular that MS presented, but I'll play Gears 3 and MW3 with people on here I'm sure (at some point, probably not right at launch). I've also been a huge Halo fan since the first one came out since one of my friends got it with his xbox (before MS realized how much of a hit it would be and still sold it as a bundle) so Halo 4 and the remake of CE are guaranteed purchases for me. For Halo Reach I went out and bought the whole special edition console, just to provide an example of the fact that I will definitely be buying the Halo games.
Nintendo's press release was fun to watch, and I've always been a huge Nintendo handheld fan, but MS is offering me things I have a higher chance of using.
Right. Microsoft was worst for me simply because I don't own any of their products and the Kinect seemed like the focus again. I saw the Disneyland and Sesame Street (no offense, Ray) titles and thought "So this is the future of gaming?" It just didn't do it for me. Though I do have to say that MW3 looks amazing.
Yeah I'm trying my best to ignore the Kinect part of the event and focus on the other games and features that they talked about. Youtube and live tv on xbox are pretty big, as are the games I already mentioned. If you don't really like those games or play them then I can definitely see how MS didn't really do anything for you. But again, I'm judging a lot of my opinions on all of this based on what I am most likely to buy. Nintendo always puts on a great show, and I simply loved the orchestra music in the beginning. Like I said in the liveblog, Nintendo has always been extraordinary with music, making a graceful transition from some of the best 8-bit music ever (which I still love) to spectacular orchestral pieces for games (especially ones as grat as the Zelda franchise).
Kinect was largely disappointing, but Halo, Mass Effect, Modern Warfare, and Gears of War are all good series. I just wish the best games they talked about weren't all shooters. When I was younger, I had the stereotype that the Xbox was mainly for shooters and sports games. After this conference, I'm not so sure I was wrong.
Live TV will not come here until late fall if ever through that system.
In fact I'm willing to bet what MS is touting as Live TV will be nothing more than the official use of your console as a STB for an approved provider. I don't foresee a la carte tv or them becoming a competitor in the video space.
Sesame and Disney aren't for gamers, but will be big with the mainstream.
Overall I'd say Sony. Both Sony and Nintendo showed off impressive new tech but with Nintendo it was the predictable Mario this and Mario that. For me it's all about games and Sony showed the most and best games. Nintendo came in second for me and MS at a very distant 3rd. Even the MS fans are very disappointed in MS's conference. All of that Kinect stuff was dreadfully bad and laggy. Kinect is not the future like MS wants us to believe.
True man I was really let down by M$. I knew most of the things there were going to show and I aint even in the business!
The only thing that was speaking to me during M$'s presser was live TV as I am looking to get rid of cable.
A lot more is going on with live TV than they said. I'm surprised they didn't talk about it. Wish I could say more.
That makes me want it even more if you can't talk about it haha.
I'm in a club like that. The first rule is, you don't talk about it.
The second rule is… you don't talk about it.
What say ye, Raymond?
I want to give it more thought and will post an article tonight with letter grades. Microsoft was definitely the worst for me.
Troll feeder!
(jk)
Nobody showed anything "new" this year as far as software was concerned. Sony showed off a bunch of stuff you knew was coming. MS did the same. Nintendo did more of the same but added their new Wii machine. I hate the name.
I give best show to EA. BF3 was more badass than anything else shown thus far.
If I have to pick a console maker…then Sony. The Vita sold me.
I wonder why Sony announced Starhawk a couple of weeks ago when they had little new announcements at E3. That didn't make sense. I thought they would have a plethora of new games to share since they gave up Starhawk out of the blue.
I missed most of Nintendo's presser, so is that a controller or a console or both?
@ All
Read above.
It was really unclear. I think they were showing off the controller and perhaps a console announcement will be later. The stuff they did shouldn't be possible on the Wii, so a new console must be in the works. Also, the system they had in the background in a couple of the shots didn't look like the Wii. My guess would be that the console isn't quite ready to be shown, but the capabilities and the controller is…? so that's what they showed us.
In the few screenshots I could find where the console was in the picture, it looked like a sleeker, rounded Wii lying on it's side. I was sorta creeped by the fact that it looks like an Xbox 360/Wii hybrid. The controller is certainly their focus this time around, but I hope they release some hardware info on the actual console next time. That's what everybody wanted to know. Heck, the surprise Smash Bros game confirmation got more cheers than anything else in their conference. It's a sad day when a new game beats out a new console in terms of the excitement factor.
Yea I did hear an uptick of volume when he announced SB. I saw that picture too but wasn't to sure what to make of it.
I heard that within seconds of being announced, SB was already trending on the top 10 list. If that's any indicator, people are stoked about the possibility of another SB game. As am I.
Ohhhh. I am really exited by this. I think I might be a sucker and get it on launch.
It's both. Nintendo created confusion here. I'm docking points for that.
Wtf now I am really confused lol. I'm about to head home from work so I am going to look at this some more.
@BB
Engadget has pics of the new console.
Sweet thanks Slick-e.
I liked Sony's the most, since it pertains more to my interests and things I own. Nintendo was a very close second.
Microsoft just sucks, the more I use my PS3 the more I hate my 360. How come I can use Netflix for free on my PS3, Phone and my PC, but I have to pay to use it on my XBOX????
@ALL
While I am bitching about my 360 I have an issue. I was given a new Slim 360. So I transferred all of my stuff via a thumb drive. I put it all on my new console. But I have to manually sign in with my profile each time. Is there a setting somewhere to make me the default like there is on the PS3??? I thought it signed me in on my old console, but I could be wrong.
Move the profile over to the machine.
I did. I put everything from the old console on the new one.
It sounds like you're looking for the auto sign in feature.
Without turning my Xbox on… I want to say it's in your profile preferences.
(screw it… I'm turning it on).
Okay:
Go to My Xbox, hit the pane that has your avatar and gamertag. Select "profile" from the list and select "Sign-In preferences" from the next list.
Turn "Auto-sign in" on.
Thanks N8. I figured it was somewhere. I just couldn't find it.
@ Slicky
Do what N8 says thats how I did it.
Whats your xbl gt? Do I already have it?
Yep VitriolicMass
Nintendo booth is the busiest by far. Good crowd for Sony. Microsoft is busy, but not like the other two.
MS also had a major launch with Kinect so yes, their E3 thunder might be lacking, but that launch was so huge that MS is still riding some of that momentum.
Wii U controller is way more comfortable than I thought it would be. The indents make it more comfortable than gaming on an iPad.
Vita is a little less comfortable than I thought it would be, but also lighter.
It's not surprising that the first, and possibly unfinished, version would be slightly uncomfortable Vita-wise; companies rarely get those specs right on the first try. Even so, it's surprising and somewhat satisfying to know that the Wii U controller is comfortable. I'll be looking this stuff up elsewhere as well.
Wtf I hope the Wii U comes in black asap!
That's racist!
I'm reading a lot of stuff about how ppl are so happy about the Wii U's controller allows them to go to their bedroom to play a game or any other room besides their living room.
Maybe it's just me, and I very well could be in the minority, but who the hell only has one tv in their house unless they live alone? Even when I was dirt floor poor I had my own box to play games on when I lived with friends. Such an odd thing for me to hear.
Is a man cave that rare?
I feel you on that SG, but we have 3 tvs and only one gets used (it just so happens that it is the only HDTV in the house) so if she wants to watch tv I'm sol with HD gaming.
@BB
Well in your case you only have 1 tv then! SD only tvs don't count lol.
I honestly can't stand playing games in the living room since I live with a woman. I didn't care for it when I lived with friends either. I like to sit close.
I enjoy it more alone as well and we are getting to the point that she will sleep in the guest room (yes our apt hasa guest room) and watch dvds on the weekends so I can get my game on. She is fully aware of my desire to have a man cave when we get our own place so she tries to accommodate my needs lol.
After playing on a HDTV it's damn near impossible to play SD.
I'd literally shove those tube tvs out of a window and watch them bust on impact.
Not so fast.
Outdated media devices are becoming more and more collectible. I know several members of a community that swap laser discs and things like that. My brother collects 8-tracks. I feel that the better SDTV's will fall into this boat.
Not to mention that there are countless programs and films that will never be on DVD let alone Blu-Ray. If forced to watch a VHS tape, it will look even crappier on an HDTV. Not to mention that for a long time make-up and lighting was customized for SD and HD kind of puts a spotlight on things that were meant to get blurred out in the glow. Hell, I can barely stand watching SD cable or SD DVD's on an HDTV. Even with upscaling… poop. It's like how albums that were recorded with vinyl in mind still sound better on vinyl.
To this day the only reason's I see for HD being viable is videogames, sporting events, and really only a handful of movies that rely heavily on effects and were filmed digitally in HD.
Example: The masterful shots that Terry Gilliam oversaw in Monty Python and the Holy Grail just don't look as dreary and romantic in HD as they did in SD.
Def are some things not optimized for widescreen. Star Trek Next Gen comes to mind.
When it comes to music though some ppl swear by analog. That's a preference/image thing though.
I don't foresee a Sony Trinitron becoming a collectible though. You could perhaps get a hipster to buy an old console though. You know the kind I'm talking about.
Now that you mention it… all the people I know who collect like the laser discs and stuff are all pretty hipsterish.
No, the vinyl thing stands… and here's why.
When Pink Floyd recorded all their albums (including Darkside) the only medium available was analog. They were recorded on analog tape, and it was mixed and mastered on analog devices (mixing and mastering is it's own artform by the way). Therefore, when the artists (Floyd) sat down to create their art, they fine tuned it for a specific canvas. That is their artistic rendering in pure form, as they intended. If they could have done more, I'm sure they would have, but they couldn't, so they worked with what they had, and that added to the art as a whole.
This goes for just about everything recorded before 1990.
All that said… I honestly don't see how digitally re-mastering Darkside of the Moon and saying the CD is better would be any different from reprinting the Mona Lisa on cellophane and saying that's better because the light shines through it.
To me, it's like Star Wars Special Editions in comparison to the theatrical releases. Thay made history with what they DID… not with what they aspired.
Art is odd that way. I don't notice a difference a better product of Pink Floyd on analog compared to digital. Their old sound can be reproduced on a disc. Kinda like a reprint of the Mona Lisa. Perfect copy but just not the original.
Then again im hard of hearing.
Even with a pure copy from the vinyl, there's a warmth that's lost especially in the bass. Digital recording added a whole new low end range to the EQ as well as other things. I don't care what system you have your record player attached to, there won't be anything pretty coming out of the sub-woofer. It gets worse when copied digitally.
What they did back in the day though was accomodate for that in their mix. They were focussed on having 2 speakers… and mixed for that… not a 5.1 surround sound.
Remastering brings alot out, but they best way for the best quality sound is to get the original master tracks and copy them individually to digital. Then remix, then remaster. When your done, the sound dynamic is awesome… but it doesn't sound like the original which in some cases, changed the world.
Honestly for the things that are not ever put on DVD or blu-ray, but were on VHS, either weren't that great in the first place or will be pirated. When I want to find something like that (my fiance wanted a disney called Zenon, for instance) it is usually found online. Not a great version to watch, but it can also be found on tv and someone could DVR it and rip it from that point to distribute it digitally. Not bringing everything up to a current format will (in my mind, and the opinion of many others I know as well) will only lead to pirating digital copies of things as the only way they are kept.
This discussion really only pertains to the film portion of what you said though, and I think anyone who would want to collect an SDTV is plain crazy (or hipster). My aunt has a very old SDTV in her living room and it is HORRIBLE to play anything post-N64 on that, and even regular tv is visibly blurry in plenty of cases. 8-track's and records I can understand because I see people in music wanting to find the purest form of the music to listen to, however that sentiment doesn't exist (in my opinion) with film buffs. No one wants to keep a fuzzy version of a tv show, you want it to be a clearer and crisper picture no matter how old it is. Also, SDTV can't really be compared to black and white. Black and white can still be used for artistic expression in different art forms (video games, movies, pictures) whereas SDTV vs. HDTV is a quage of quality. (I will have to admit though I don't have all the answers or a completely solid argument though as the love of 8-bit games that we as hardcore gamers tend to have could be a great argument to make against what I have said—though it's not one that I think would convince me with regards to film.)
-"Honestly for the things that are not ever put on DVD or blu-ray, but were on VHS, either weren’t that great in the first place or will be pirated."-
First off, you aren't thinking broadly enough. People's home recordings that they filmed of their now deceased loved ones that they recorded on VHS-C may not be that entertaining, but they are very important to some people. Then you have other historic events like live music performances and stuff like that.
Then… you have countless TV shows that were taped directly on video instead of film. Tape will look as bad as it did/does no matter what. Example… Married With Children was taped to VHS as well as all WCW events. No high-def available barring some technical breakthrough that will most likely suck.
The only way to smoothly upsize the definition of old movies is from film. The film captured everything it could and from there you can convert it from the projection. Other than that… it's basically the same principle as changing the image size in photoshop. Taking something big and making it smaller works. Taking something small and enlarging it looks ugly.
It's really hard for me to describe this without a live demo. So, I can only ask you to do this:
Take your Wii.
Play for a day on an HDTV
Then play for a day on an old school tube set (round screen).
Which one is just more comfortable to view?
The Wii isn't in HD and I personally think it looks worse on a TV it was never designed for. Same goes with films and TV. Granted, when remastered to HD from the film (Terminator, Matrix, etc) it works… but nobody can say it looks as clean as something that was recorded on an HD Camera with the intention of being in HD (anything coming out of Hollywood now).
Then there's my point of the HD shining a light on things that got washed out in the blur. I just got done watching a 6 hour documentary (in 6 parts) on Monty Python. So I have Monty Python on the brain. All their films were remastered for blu-ray. In this documentary (on Netflix), it's an HD stream that uses the HD footage from the films. When they showed the fish in the tank (a blue screened shot from the 80's), it looked double terrible. It wasn't well done in the first place, but it looked REALLY bad in HD.
Speaking of Disney movies you can't find… my mother-in-law wanted Song of the South (banned by Disney for being VERY racist). I found a digital copy and I have it… but it sure as hell ain't in HD and looks like an enlarged photoshop picture on 40". SD… it's watchable.
Now… what I really think is happening is that I'm viewing this subject from a different train of thought to begin with. I feel that the historical achievements in art should be preserved as is for future generations to learn from. I also feel that this is more important than "upgrading, remaking, or re-editing" for the purposes of newer audiences…. Look what happened to the Bible. There are about 6 versions in practiced religions today and the oldest we know of is the King James (which was edited for King James). We aren't even sure what Shakespeare's plays looked and felt like. Hell, the instruments Mozart and Beethoven wrote for are built so differently now, that they had to slow down their compositions to accomodate for the GREATLY increased sustain the instruments have now.
It's an opinion thing I guess… and I'm probably just seeing the art less as an entertainment device and more so as an accomplishment made by humans. I think it's rather rude to take one of these artists works and say "you made history with what you did… but now I'm gonna make it sleeker and hipper for the younger generation". If somebody would have said that to James Brown in his lifetime… James Brown would have shot that bastard.
The home video argument is a valid one, but easily fixable. They make tons of technology for transferring video from VHS to DVD (not sure about blu-ray, but I suppose through buring the DVD to digital and then to blu-ray would work). This tech. has been around for years, I've seen people do this stuff religiously for quite a while now, and I don't see a problem with it. My thoughts on this are the same as other material people could possible want in a newer format, but isn't made publicly available for purchase. If you want something that badly then the tech. is there and relatively simple to work. My basis for that statement is that my mom is able to do it. If she can do it, almost everyone else should. She can do hardware on a computer without a problem, and has her moments with modern tech., but on the whole has problems with all sorts of new things. If she can figure out how to do this stuff cheaply then I guarantee other people should be able to as well.
As far as quality goes, I would have no expectations of it being pristine quality. Whenever I download something that I really really want to watch, but can only find a lower quality version of I simply decrease the screen size that I watch it on. This isn't ideal for a mass viewing of a video, but it works quite well in most cases. I understand what you are talking about with something like Married with Children, but again, the simplest of solutions is to decrease the screen size. I wouldn't plan on watching a low quality video on a 40" HDTV and expect it to look good, but I realize that is the price to pay for wanting to watch something that old or low quality.
I think there are big differences on how these things should be handled depending on whether they are video or music, what the intended use of the item in question is, and what the expectations/possibilities for upgrading the quality or way they are played are. The Pink Floyd example you gave above is a good reason not to mess with something. If a film can be cleaned up a little bit and remastered so it is more enjoyable for people to watch, then why not do it? And if you have any disagreements with something that is remastered because it is no longer in it's purest form (let's assume for the sake of the discussion that the item is identical to the original) then you have a lot of things to decide on. In music for instance, you would have to examine how you feel about autotune. Good or bad? Is it better to have a good voice in the first place, or have an average voice that can be produced and autotuned to sound just as good or better than the first person? What has to be real and what can be fake? Look at hip-hop and rap, most of those beats are synthetically made, versus a band like The Roots which uses real instruments. So which is better? Which sounds better to you, and why do you prefer that?
I'm not expecting an answer to all of that stuff, but those questions are meant to show that there are so many specific scenarios that are all unique and can require a specific answer from each individual. Simply put, there is no easy answer for all of this, and like you said, it's an opinion thing. Personally, I like to see as few changes as possible from the original and it is extremely tricky to give an answer on these things. Another example straight from the art world I can give on how delicate these kinds of issues are (and how long they have actually been around for. hint: a lot longer than flim has existed). There is a painting titled "girl with a dead canary" from the 1700s which is held in a European musem which was created using a specific type of pain common in that time. This paint was not meant to take sunlight well, and did not contain many lasting qualities as far as hue is concerned. In this painting a girl sits with her dead canary laying in front of her, meant to convey her anguish over death at an early age. The entire painting is meant to showcase her facial features and expressions. What has happened to the canary is what makes this painting an example of ethics in the art world. The yellow paint has worn away from the canary and it is now white. Anyone who has seen a canary anywhere knows that they are yellow, especially someone who is examining art. This small detail constantly draws attention away from the focal point of the piece, but no one can come to a common decision on what to do. Do you restore the painting to it's original color in order to convey the meaning of the girl's expression of anguish? Or do you leave the painting as it is in order to preserve its authenticity? This one problem extropolates to every piece of music and film and game that could be remastered (far too many to hold the attention of many people for very long). In most cases I like to see the original kept true, but remastering can be a great help to media. Most media isn't on the same level to me as "girl with a dead canary" so remastering doesn't seem like a big deal to the majority of things we could discuss—but what I can tell you is that Han shot first.
Okay… I see what happened.
I was always talking about the quality change. It is absolutely possible to transfer analog copies to digital copies. In fact, from the stance of preserving art, it's absolutely recommended so that the canaries don't turn white. I'm with you there, but that's not what I was talking about.
Star Wars is probably the best example, even though the blu-rays have yet to be released. George Lucas and Steven Spielberg made film history in 1977 with the original theatrical release… not the special edition. When this feat was accomplished, Greedo didn't even shoot. Han shot his green ass in cold blood. Years later, the afterthought occurs to Lucas about it. Greedo shooting first… did not make history the way Star Wars did in 1977. If anything, it tainted it.
For the musical questions (no pun intended), to me I see the different arts carried out different ways. It's like the difference between an oil painting, a sketch, and a mosaic. In your rawest form, you have the sketch or the solo singer/songwriter. There is alot to be said for guys like Paul Simon, Bob Dylan, Springsteen, Woody Guthrie, etc. Guys who can be solo performers and still entertain stadiums. Then you have your oil paintings or full bands. Like Parliament, Floyd, INXS, Gwar, Pantera, Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band, etc. Full force and bright. Then the mosaic people. Like a mosaic, they take pieces of things and create a new bigger picture. RZA, Jam Master J, Dre, even Floyd to an extent, etc. If you want to get technical, writing, performing, recording, mixing, and mastering are 5 different art forms that go into one recorded song.
In a nutshell, I see them as different styles of art and can respect them separately. They may all fall under the realm of "music", but sketches, paintings, murals, mosaics, photography, and tattoos all fall under the realm of "picture" and yet are achieved in completely different ways.
As for auto-tune… I know Taco Bell ain't real beef… but I eat it anyway. I think it displays less talent, but not everyone can be Michael Jackson. I do think that if you took an old Billie Holiday record and ran it through auto-tune in order to say "Now, it's in better tune for better quality" is disgraceful to a legend. But anything new… free game. Same goes for motion pictures. Use the new for the new and keep the old around for educational reasons.
What I would do with the canary painting… leave it white. The paints used that did that are a sign of the period and what the artist could afford. The deterioration is a whole other history lesson. Learn from it… and move on.
I have an earlier example though. Ancient Rome had many statues with nudity all over the place. One day well after Christianity had taken over Rome, the Pope thought it would be best to hide the shame of these nude statues and defaced HUNDREDS of ancient artworks by chiseling off genitalia and adding fig leaves and stuff like that. We have a record that that happened… but we have no record of what these statues actually originally looked like and therefore in a sense are missing out on a view of what early Rome as a whole was like. All of those statues were originally painted too, but that wore off centuries ago and now you just get the stone color.
Now… as screwed up as that event was… would it be right to "restore" these statues with the genitals and the color they were? Or is the screwed up event yet ANOTHER turning point in history that should also be acknowledged and learned from?
Damn… with all that, I still forgot to reiterate a point to make sure we are on the same page.
Transferring an analog copy to a digital copy does not increase the quality of the art, in fact it will take away some quality. Not half as bad as an analog to analog transfer, but you still lose quality. With music it's difficult to hear, but the sound waves tell a different story. In video, you can see a change in the color. it fades a little. It can be touched up, but it's not going to upscale the resolution. the resolution will be what you import it at and going bigger than the original is stupid. It will definitely look like crap.
SD is something like black and white, right?
So true. Nowadays, the average american home holds 3 TVs. Mine has at least 4. No longer does the number of seats in a car matter; now, it's how many screens are inside. There's no way most people, especially the people who actually game, have just 1 TV. Though, usually, the gaming TV is the one everybody wants to watch stuff on. Here's a thought; stream your videogame to every TV in the house at once, so you can play from any room. Wouldn't that be cool?
There are 5 TV's in my house, and my personal TV (i.e. gaming TV) is definitely the best in the house.
I think the hype is more about the functionality in a market where you can DL a game from say… Xbox Games On Demand and not play it anywhere else except the system you purchased it from.