[Eddie Howe]

Well, no. I suppose not. There will always be a hype train behind Bethesda announcing a game ever since the huge success Skyrim was, and even more so with how long anticipated Fallout 4 was before it was even announced. But they had the right idea in announcing a game close to its actual launch. Just that it was inevitable there would be some ridiculous hype behind it because Fallout 4.

[Helen Quill]

It's cool that Bethesda listened to the fans and will let the PC join raiders. Taking settlements with raiders might be fun....just hope there isn't a raider version of Preston.

In Nuka world DLC, I mean.

[Mashystar]

For a lot of people, it was.

Not me personally. I've been let down by the last two Bethesda games in many ways.

[carley moss]

Here at Microsoft we acknowledge both genres of video games: Gun and Car.

Anyway, NINTENDO and I loved the indie games too.

[JUDY FIGHTS]

Only games I saw that involved that were Gears of War 4, Forza Horizon 3, Battlefield 1, and The Division. The rest were quite diverse in their genres.

[Ian White]

Overall, a good E3 this year.

I felt Sony won, while Ubisoft put me to sleep.

Regardless, lots of cool games coming, a limited amount of "meh," and OMG ZELDA looks amazing!! I'm so glad Nintendo still knows how to deliver when they need to.


Although I'm not interested in VR itself, it's still neat to see it being used well. If it's still around in a few years I might check it out.



Dishonored 2

The Last Guardian gets a release date

Zelda

Horizon: Zero Dawn

Kojima's new project.

even God of War looks new and interesting.

RE 7

Mass Effect



Scalebound.... nope, this looks bad.

No Metroid.

[Chris Ellis]

I think it's been alright. Honestly, I think Xbox did really well except once again they lacked gameplay in so many games. Sony did well in that they showed a lot of gameplay, but for some of the big games coming out there was nothing (No Man's Sky...was it even mentioned?).


I just don't think Sony was all that great this year, but then again, they didn't have any huge announcements like they did last year (it is really really really hard to top the hype that resulted from the FF7 Remake announcement). I'm surprised Ubisoft didn't get any more love, I think they did really solid all the way through. Put out some things I wasn't expecting, really didn't fail in anything (showed enticing trailers, had lots of gameplay, had a couple interviews). They had a real press conference because they actually had some discussion going on between two people (love Aisha Taylor...she is seriously awesome).


I'm not that interested in VR, but like you I think it's neat. See where it is in a few years, and then maybe I'll go for it. When Sony did the 3D stuff a few years ago, it was really good but it had some issues (need for a big TV to get full visual immersion). I was actually at a Verizon store yesterday and checked out their headset, and it was pretty impressive. Though first experiences usually are.

[Amber Hubbard]

E3 was surprisingly good this year. Aside from Dishonored 2, nothing from Bethesda had me hype, sadly.

Games I'm looking forward to,

Zelda. Yes. Duh, I mean, c'mon, really? I NEED THAT GAME.

Detroit: Become Human. I didn't know what to expect from this game, but it looks hella interdesting.

Dues Ex: Mankind divided. As a huge Dues EX fan, this was a no brainer.

Pokemon looked pretty cool. Still don't like that water starter......

Death Stranding. Kojima, yes. Horror game, yes. Silent Hills will be missed but in it's death I will gladly take this. Can't wait for more info.

Horizon Zero Dawn. Looks pretty darn cool.

Resident Evil 7 looks so much unlike 6 that I might end up getting it.

I think that's pretty much it.

Nintendo stole the show in my Bias as hell opinion.

[Laura-Lee Gerwing]

I'm going to say that 2016's E3 was good just like 2015's E3.

For E3 2016 the only video games I was interested in is.

Dishonored 2

Prey (2017)

And I guess Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare.

Sigh, how I wish all of these video games were sold on gog.com.

I forgot to say Mass Effect: Andromeda does look very good and so does Battlefield 1.

[Julie Ann]

This E3 has me counting 1,2,3

Battlefield1

Titanfall 2

Forza Horizon 3

[phillip crookes]

Dishonored 2 and Deus Ex preordered. Mass Effect not yet but I will decide which version when they announce a CE.

The show was mostly entertaining, but didn't convince me I want to buy anything else or play them asap.

[Racheal Robertson]

How dare you ruin my joke with logic.

Saw more of the stuff, RE7 looks really nice.

The Kojima thing looks awesome and a bit middle finger to Konami.

Pokemon!

Zelda won the show for me.

Of course as I said several indie games , and I'm happy that Masquerada got an interview.

[Batricia Alele]

Incredibly disappointing and dull E3 in my opinion. Only game that really interested me was BF1.

No cool new surprise announcement games. Seems they're all too scared to take the plunge now. Take two were meant to be there in a 'big way'. They weren't. No Red Dead, nothing special from Ubisoft. Watch dogs 2 looks as bad as the first with a slightly different skin. At least they aren't hyping the graphics this time. No AC which was to be expected. Was really hoping for a slew of new games, but they never appeared. This entire console generation has been disappointing really. Especially as it will cede its title next year to newer consoles with finally a decent amount of power.

[Amelia Pritchard]

I did see not a lot of E3, but the "talk shows" I saw bits of seemed all "fluffy." Is it just me, or did they seem that way to others?

I realize that if these Twitch people "hit hard", they'll lose interviews. The stuff I saw was all, "OMG! WHAT A GREAT GAME! I CAN'T WAIT!"

[Ashley Hill]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06VGdUVfd98https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06VGdUVfd98

[RUby DIaz]

I think underwhelmed is an understatement, the manager at my local games store reminded me to to watch E3 he said they should announce alot of new stuff, uuummmmm, all i saw was additions to pre existing games, and nothing really new, how many actually new games were there, that arent game 2 or 3 or DLC or ongoing versions such as mass effect and deus ex, wheres all the new games, new names, new concepts, not one or two but a whole release of new games. Skrim remastered, you put a spit shine on on a pre existing game and that deserves a major announcement at E3, they could have posted that at anytime, its an old game with a glossy finish, and still no bug fixes, which would have been a more major acheivement than isnt the grass pretty.

I can honestly say there was nothing there, were id say hey that looks great and interesting, ill pre order that because, some ive already had pre ordered because it was announced last year, and nothing new or interesting.

[Hannah Whitlock]

Vampyr, Detroit: Become Human and Horizon: Zero Dawn were new titles that look good in my opinion.

[phil walsh]

Detroit: Become Human i saw the graphics for that way over a year ago, they seem to be working on that for awhile which isnt a bad thing, i remember seeing it the first time, and thought id like to play that pity its console only.

[RUby DIaz]

Completely agree. Was a very poor showing imo. A lot of uninspired sequels I don't care about. God of War or Gears for example. Nothing new and exciting, just preannounced games. The only new game that even slightly piqued my interest was that horde zombie one on PS4. But that'll probably get downgraded.

[Brian Newman]

Saw the RE7 trailer.

I'm impressed. The series has been EA'd without EA. Bad news for EA, since they are now no longer needed

[Markie Mark]

Out of all the games showcased at E3, there are only two that I know 100% I will buy: Pokemon Sun or Moon, and Horizon Zero Dawn. I don't own a WiiU, so I don't have the means to even purchase The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild (only that and Wind Waker HD could ever encourage me to get a Wii/WiiU).

[Erika Ellsworth]

Thank you. That was insanely funny to me. Near enough a spit take (TEA) and along chuckle.

(So do I dare put whats left of my hope in the res 2 remake basket)

[KU Fint]

The Base Game of New Vegas was one of the worst in the series, more specifically the main story was god awful. It could have been so much better. But the BIG blunder with new vegas was technical issues up the Wazoo. On PS3 and Xbox 360 it was poorly optimized tons of bugs glitches that rivals fallout 3.

Yes the DLC as I SAID multiple times in the fallout 4 forum(before it moved) and even on my youtube lets play of fallout new vegas I explicitly stated: "Fallout New Vegas had the better DLC's over Fallout 3 BUT the base game simply fails without it". There's a reason the overall ratings of new vegas on metacritic which simply takes all scores and averages them out has new vegas 84 where fallout 3, Fallout 4 and even Fallout 1 and 2 higher than new vegas. There's a reason for it, because new vegas was just a poor game. You can blame both OE and Bethesda for that but the proof is in the pudding.

It's silly to be upset towards me by posting raw facts like technical issues, how unplayable the PC version is even in Vanilla without mods, when people were streaming Fallout New Vegas on Twitch over the summer before it released in november is all you need to know about the state of the game. There's lazy designs in how factions were handled and how the main story was handled and I criticized those on my lets play.

Technical wise, Fallout 4 is without a doubt the most polished game ever made in the fallout games BUT it also has it's own faults as well. But after putting in 8 days worth of recording and having 18.58MB file size on my vanilla lets play and only having 6 issues is absolutely insane. If this was new vegas and fallout 3 I'd have 30 freezes and constant frames drops and being unplayable.

The DLC was the only thing redeeming about new vegas.

All they did this year was little to no talking, no goofy gimicks being done on stage and presenting game after game after game that got people excited and you call that dull?

It doesn't matter what was said by the description on steam and now on their site seems less beefy than Far Harbor, which is what people wanted more of. They should have NOT done work on any future DLC's until far harbor came out and then wait for the reception so they could gauge where to go from there because all this looks like is a slap to the face for gamers who wanted more DLC that had storyline involved in it, but instead got 2 blunder workshop dlc's that SHOULD be free or separated from the season pass and make 2-3 more $10 dlc's on the same vein as new vegas or fallout 3. Bethesda big mistake is moving away from that DLC model that was fantastic in the previous games. This model may have worked well for Oblivion and Skyrim because the games are vastly different and there's many things you could do.

I'm speaking about the 3 DLC as a whole being disappointing, the last DLC doesn't really seem interesting because it's the same old raiders as before.

What interested me about far harbor originally was a new area in Maine Synths and Children of Atom having conflicts with each other and then playing the game and experiencing these new enemy types that was pretty cool but CoA being pretty cool as a whole. Just not the High Confessor Tetkus.

I never expected to get a dlc involving the Children of Atom because I just thought they were a bunch of nut jobs that didn't add anything significant but they sure as hell were important in far harbor and we were able to join them. That's cool. After that I expected the next big expansion to delve deep into the gunners since they were the only faction I felt that were a mystery. Yes they were mercenaries but there's nothing with them that got expansion with. In fallout 3 You knew the Talon Company were a group of people that didn't like the goodie twoshoes people as it disrupted their business and regularly attacked you. OR the flip side to them were the regulators who regularly attacked you for being a evil jerk. THAT was amazing and changed the dynamic. This was what people wanted and what was missing. There's a reason why supposedly Todd Howard said "In Nuka-World you can finally become the bad guy" That's great BUT does IT CHANGE ANYTHING in the main area. Will merc's come and try to kill you because you're evil?

THAT's the question and quite frankly we just don't know. It's a mystery and not having the gunners involved and having us be able to join them is a opportunity lost by bethesda to rush to finish these DLC's to move on to the 3 other projects, no different to what happened with Skyrim.

I was surprised myself when I heard it and equally disappointed as well. Eidos Montreal should not have done it. I'd much rather have a new Deus Ex Game after HR, I feel like that i missed a great deal of progression after the events of Human Revolution. The other mistake I figured out with Mankind Divided is that the 3 other choices in the ending we were given by Eliza Cassan had no impact to the events leading to Mankind Divided. It defaulted into the choice with David Sarif so people got screwed over here

[Céline Rémy]

I had no idea an average score of 84 is indicative of a "poor game." Thought it was supposed to indicate something that's at least "good." By the way, http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/fallout-4, so it must be terrible by that logic too. And for all your grandstanding of how excellent the NV DLCs are, their ratings are pretty low, with the PC versions of Dead Money, Honest Hearts, Old World Blues, and Lonesome Road getting a http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/fallout-new-vegas---dead-money, http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/fallout-new-vegas---honest-hearts, http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/fallout-new-vegas---old-world-blues, and http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/fallout-new-vegas---lonesome-road respectively. And here's a fun fact: all three versions of FO4 have lower scores from Users than NV does (http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/fallout-4, http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-one/fallout-4, and http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-4/fallout-4 for PC, XB1, and PS4 respectively, as opposed to NV's http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/fallout-new-vegas, http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/fallout-new-vegas, and http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/fallout-new-vegas for PC, 360, and PS3). I'd be careful about using Metacritic ratings to justify your opinion about a game if I were you.

Things like story and factions are a matter of taste. If you don't like them and feel they brought the quality of the product down for you, that's fine, different strokes and all. But that's an opinion, not a fact. I, others, and I assume Casey differ in that view, loved them, and thought they were far better than everything Bethesda has offered, which would be in part why we and others prefer NV to the rest. You might have a point about the game's stability, but New Vegas was patched after release and after a while, became about as stable a vanilla Bethesda game could get on PC, in my experience at least. Can't comment on the console versions, but I am aware that the DLCs really exacerbated problems on the PS3 version. Bethesda was notorious for being terrible with their PS3 ports, which got progressively worse with every new game they released until it came to a boil with Skyrim (which, by the way, got a http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/the-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim despite those crippling issues, so if you think technical problems are a justifiable reason to dock points, then consider that).

Anyway...pretty ho-hum show overall, which I predicted it would be. Nothing grabbed my eye in particular (though one thing did disgust me personally, but I won't dare mention it, not on this forum). The only positive thing I can say is that E3 2016 was better than E3 2012, which was just...sad.

[GPMG]

I've never played any of the fall-outs, so I can't weigh in on how good or bad they are, but if you really believe that places like metacritic or any game rating site is a good indicator of how good or bad a game is, you are being a bit naive. [censored](or haters, depending on which crowd is larger), will artificially inflate(or deflate) a games score well beyond what it really should be, and quite frankly, every game magazine out there is likely paid off/bribed/encouraged to rate games higher then they really deserve.

I mean, you just have to take a look at any of the CoD games to see what I mean. There has barely been any innovation in that series in years, and yet it consistently scores high in metacritic ratings, and game magazines always give it glowing reviews, despite it's absolute mediocrity and stagnation. And while I hate FPS and don't play them, my best friend buys and plays every single iteration of CoD, so I've watched him play them over and over and over again, so I can safely say they are all more or less the same thing with just slightly different settings. Nothing that warrants an 81(Call of Duty: Black Ops 3 metacritic score).

Edit: Wow, Rabid fans of games that are boys is censored? that's kinda funny ^^