The Official E3 2010 Thread

**Flare** · 06-16-2010, 11:04 AM

Yes, and also, most of the 360 exclusives end up showing on the PC anyways...

**javierdlopez** · 06-16-2010, 11:23 AM

I pretty much agree with most of the sentiment here. It's funny, but after looking at Flare's list, I realized that although Sony had a much stronger showing than Microsoft, the majority of the games I'm interested are multiplatform.

There wasn't much Nintendo showed that didn't interest me. Just Dance 2 and Kirby's Yarn are two games that I have no interest in. Everything else they showed looked great.

Sony's inFamous 2 and Sorcery were interesting.

Microsoft's Fable 3 intrests me.

Aside from that...

BulletStorm
Medal of Honor
Dead Space 2
MGS Rising

Are all games that I like...

**javierdlopez** · 06-16-2010, 03:02 PM

Pac-Man CE DX announced coming this fall!

http://www.joystiq.com/2010/06/15/pa...psn-this-fall/

**So Cal Mike** · 06-16-2010, 08:21 PM

Thought you may like to see some photos from the show floor

**TechMaster** · 06-17-2010, 05:06 AM

Originally Posted by So Cal Mike

Thought you may like to see some photos from the show floor

Very cool. thanks Mike.

**Demolition Man** · 06-17-2010, 09:34 AM

Yeah Sony showed a ton of games. This however is where one of my biggest problems with Sony lies is in that they show you at best 2-3 seconds of many games to the point of where it all blurs together after two hours. One thing you have to give Nintendo credit for is focusing on a few games but making the presentations on those videos so strong that you remember it at the end instead of needing to take cliff notes of the entire conference just to remember everything. Yeah Nintendo had a montage or two but at least it wasn't like Sony when most of the time they showed games it was yet another montage.

That along with the feeling of Sony once again shoving yet another format upon people when the vast majority of people are just now starting to understand HDTV. Yeah 3DTV might look nice but to me it feels like an overhyped gimmick that most average people aren't going to care about - at least they won't care about until there's more 3D tech out there that glasses less (ie: 3DS).

**javierdlopez** · 06-17-2010, 10:10 AM

Originally Posted by Demolition Man

That along with the feeling of Sony once again shoving yet another format upon people when the vast majority of people are just now starting to understand HDTV. Yeah 3DTV might look nice but to me it feels like an overhyped gimmick that most average people aren't going to care about - at least they won't care about until there's more 3D tech out there that glasses less (ie: 3DS).

Yeah, and I think that there's a common feeling that 3DTV will not be widely adopted. A couple of years back when the 3D tv wave started gearing up, I assumed they'd finally figured out a way to do 3D without the use of glasses. Considering that after you purchase your 3D ready tv at $3k and your PS3 for another $300, you're then forced to buy $300 3D glasses for the set. Are you going to hand over a pair of $300 glasses to your 5 year old? And if you have a family of 4, it's going to cost you an additional $1200?

How long has HDTV been around and how long did it take for HD to become widely adopted? And that adoption was only pushed forward because of the goverment killing analog TV and the fact that tube TVs are actually more expensive to produce than your average LCD.

3D tech is kind of cool, but not if it's going to cost me $5,000 for admission. If anything, I'd imagine that 3D monitors will become prevalent since a lot of PS3 and 360 players use monitors (including myself) as their primary gaming display...

**alexjlopez** · 06-17-2010, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by javierdlopez

Yeah, and I think that there's a common feeling that 3DTV will not be widely adopted. A couple of years back when the 3D tv wave started gearing up, I assumed they'd finally figured out a way to do 3D without the use of glasses. Considering that after you purchase your 3D ready tv at $3k and your PS3 for another $300, you're then forced to buy $300 3D glasses for the set. Are you going to hand over a pair of $300 glasses to your 5 year old? And if you have a family of 4, it's going to cost you an additional $1200?

How long has HDTV been around and how long did it take for HD to become widely adopted? And that adoption was only pushed forward because of the goverment killing analog TV and the fact that tube TVs are actually more expensive to produce than your average LCD.

3D tech is kind of cool, but not if it's going to cost me $5,000 for admission. If anything, I'd imagine that 3D monitors will become prevalent since a lot of PS3 and 360 players use monitors (including myself) as their primary gaming display...

Kevin Butler put it best: "Gaming is about a gigantic TV in a tiny one bedroom apartment". He should have said "Sony gaming...".

And sadly, that's what Playstation as a product has become; a niche product catering to young, single males who have expendable income to blow on being early adopters of tech toys. It doesn't mean a family guy can't squeeze a PS3 into his lifestyle, but the "single guy in the apartment" doesn't have to worry about the points Javier brings up. Handing a $300 set of glasses to your kid and hoping for the best. Or spending over a thousand dollars on glasses alone for a typical family. Or telling Aunt Margie she's f*cked when she comes over, because you're short on glasses and the kids want to see a movie in 3D.

Personally, I tried to focus on the games themselves when watching Sony's presser, which presumably can be enjoyed without the 3D effect. It remains to be seen if the games will take the framerate, resolution and other performance hits first indicated by the opening batch of 3D enabled games. But to be honest, with as much cash as I spend on this kind of crap, I don't see myself getting a 3DTV as long as glasses are required and until as every major TV channel broadcasts in 3D as a standard. You know, the way HDTV is now. That may never happen with 3D.

I really amazes me that Sony learned nothing from the billions they lost by pushing tech on customers before they wanted it. Blu-Ray, while widely accepted, still has not replaced the DVD standard for movies/video, and digitally downloaded movies are likely to leapfrog Bu-Ray and into second place before it does.

The reason why Sony thinks PS3 and 3D are a good match is because when they think of their customers, they think of that guy in the 1 bedroom apartment. Maybe it's for the best, and in that gamer's best interests that they continue to cater to that niche rather than do what Microsoft has done with their $150 webcam.

**billwabo** · 06-17-2010, 11:56 AM

You now, it's a fact that very few people will have what is necessary to enjoy 3d within their home but it is nice for the rich mother****ers to have the option available, don't you think? I know for a fact that i won't have anything to do with that for a long while seeing i just bought a new TV 2 years ago, but the option is there for those that want to shell out the dough.

With my luck, i will lose an eye before this stuff becomes becomes mainstream ( i lost an ear just around the time 5.1 sound theater systems became mainstream) and i do have some trouble with an eye that appeared last month.

**TechMaster** · 06-17-2010, 12:01 PM

Originally Posted by billwabo

You now, it's a fact that very few people will have what is necessary to enjoy 3d within their home but it is nice for the rich mother****ers to have the option available, don't you think? I know for a fact that i won't have anything to do with that for a long while seeing i just bought a new TV 2 years ago, but the option is there for those that want to shell out the dough.

With my luck, i will lose an eye before this stuff becomes becomes mainstream ( i lost an ear just around the time 5.1 sound theater systems became mainstream) and i do have some trouble with an eye that appeared last month.

Dam Bill, might want to stay away from tech all together. It's too hazardous for you. :P