Topic: At E3, why does Nintendo explain gameplay more than Sony or Microsoft?

Rainbow Six Siege, The division,Assassin creed: Victory, H1Z1 can be added to the list of gritty shooters and superficial action games in my opinion.

So can Devil's Third.

And Bayonetta

I don't think it's as simple as saying that Nintendo does it this way and everyone else does it the other way. Or that Nintendo's games have good gameplay and the others don't. I think it's more a case of you show off the strengths of a game in your trailer. If you have a game like Bioshock Infinite you could show the gameplay but you'll get much more of a reaction if you show off the setting. It's not that it's a "bad game" it's just that the actual gameplay isn't the thing that makes that game stand out. When Nintendo is showing off a Mario game however, the mechanics of the game is the main thing that makes it interesting. So they'll focus on that.

Also worth noting that when companies are doing stage demos it can fail spectacularly. It's a huge risk. Which is why as E3 has become bigger companies have slowly moved away from live demos. Because the demo isn't live they can instead knock up a trailer and the best way to make a trailer look good is to show off the cutscenes. On the other hand Nintendo has moved towards a pre-recorded show which allows them to do more "live" demos.

And just to drive my first point home.....

Never mind the number of fighting, JRPGs, and niche games that do come out on the Xbox and especially Playstation systems.

I really wish people would stop with this argument that the only thing on Playstation and Xbox consoles are gritty, dark, interactive movies that you play from a First Person perspective while shooting things.

It's almost as bad as the fanboys who claim Nintendo platforms only have kiddy, cartoon games.

Yeah, that really annoys me. I own a PS3, and the vast majority of the games I play on it are JRPGs, Downloadables, fighters, and PS1/PS2 games from PSN.

Generalizing the X1 and PS4 is being very provincial when we all know they both have a variety of genres and not just the shooters and GTAs. Nintendo will always focus on gameplay because hands down, nobody can match how polished their games are. Very few publishers/developers do and when it happens they take a page from nintendo. Sony and Microsoft can do E3 like nintendo or do it their way. I don't care personally because I'm indifferent towards them right now. We shouldn't question why nintendo focuses on gameplay because it's their MO. Instead, lets enjoy all of their E3 presentations folks.

It depends on what you are looking for in a game. I feel like Nintendo emphasises games with lots of gameplay in a controlled space, while Microsoft is somewhere in the middle of that and cinematic experiences, where Sony puts emphasis on a lot of its games.

Sony probably just thinks you'll see a game like No Man Sky, and let your brain/imagination do the rest. A game like The Order is specifically supposed to be a cinematic experience, so there isn't really much question of what you are going to get in terms of gameplay, anyway.

Something like Quantum Break on Xbox One is also what I would consider a cinematic experience, as well, and there have been tons of games like that, that have been really fun to play. I would consider Resident Evil 4 to have been a movie like experience when that first came out, or how Gears of War had the shaky camera.

In those cases, the graphics actually effect the gameplay a lot more than something like CoD, but that also goes back into gameplay within a controlled space. An explanation isn't always necessary, while people can still be interested, so it can go either way.

Only? Not really, there's definitely other games. But for the most part, that's the kind of games they make.

Because trailers and lies are more exciting than Yoshi as a yarn creation killing a piranha plant and get more casual fans interested in a game. In the past I was honestly relatively fine with that, but recent disappointments put Nintendo in the right just by not being lying d****. I like Nintendo doing some more hype worthy stuff but I'd prefer to play an actual high quality video game.

Like many things, Nintendo's focus on just having fun gameplay puts them above many companies just because it's not the same exact thing as everyone else is doing. I think Xenoblade Chronicles X is perhaps the best example of that. There's no particular reason why I should care about characters or story in a game I have never played that has nothing to do with the previous game story-wise (unless you provide some particularly compelling intrigue like say, Bioshock Infinite did) so when they showcase story, I'm honestly meh. The story might be amazing, but until I have the game, I don't care. But the trailers showing off the gameplay are beautiful, a perfect mix of showing a return to what made the last game great (great combat and a beautiful and huge environment) while adding giant monsters and mechs!

I think it also has a bit to do with the fact that the Wii U even in the west is mostly known for it's Japanese developed games. And by that I mean Japanese commercial content is VERY different than what we get in the west. Not just because it's often absurd but also because they put a lot more of a focus on the actual product.

For example some commercials that were shown on TV,
Pokemon X&Y in the US: https://youtu.be/HnYjbSA15BI
Pokemon X&Y in the UK: https://youtu.be/gfoqkpN6B-g
Pokemon X&Y in Japan: https://youtu.be/3MXbriiM9Jk

They all show GamePlay in this example but the point I'm making is still pretty damn clear. The Japanese commercial is comfortable just showing gameplay, the US and UK ones have to have some sort of hook first. I think being a Japanese developer Nintendo are far more comfortable and used to putting out promotional content that's just game footage. Because advertising in Japan is more about literally showing what your product is.

edit: and anyone who has actually lived in Japan? Feel free to say I'm completely wrong

Sorry, but 40+ hours is simply nonsense. Two, maybe three hours can be enough to judge the direction of a game - if full-on changes to an introduced formula occur further into a game without any indication, that's flawed design.
Also, I was generalizing for the sake of keeping my post short. Nonetheless, Sony and Microsoft aren't the only ones showing stuff, since it's more about 3rd parties with them.
And the "they don't have time" argument is complete bull. As if showing gameplay takes longer than pre-rendered garbage. Problem is, they know how to manipulate, and they make undeniable use of that, even when a game has good gameplay.
Now, why do you think they don't show the gameplay? Look at pretty much every game that was overhyped and disappointed fans: they ALL focused extremely on developer interviews that revealed barely any reliable info on gameplay, and of course trailer cuscene galore. Either they know their gameplay is lacking, or they have no faith in it. Either way, it's intentionally misguiding.

as for the games you mentioned: Watch Dogs became boring after two hours, Infamous was too boring to even watch (meaning I didn't give the game a spin myself, but it turned out to be repetitive anyway), Unity broke down twice within an hour (and the gameplay was the same as ever, except companion app junk was added), and ever since 4, I've sworn to never touch a non-Bungie Halo again (Microsoft Studios doesn't know how to do it right).

It's actually quite simple.

Cinematic trailers sell games. Gameplay videos don't.

Why is it every time you say something this true, I lose a little more faith in gamers as a whole?

If it helps, I attribute this marketing practice mostly to Final Fantasy VII, which was tremendously successful and marketed almost entirely on its visually stunning FMV sequences. I think it's the first notable example where a console video game had such a successful marketing campaign that barely focused on gameplay at all.

But the marketing didn't change that FFVII is a really good game. There's still really good games, even if publishers are trying to tell us that they're actually movies.

Make no mistake. By no means do I assume a gameplay trailer means a bad game. It's a null tell. I learn very little from it. Not even how good the cutscenes are gonna look (thanks, SEGA). Two examples: 1) I was excited for Knack after the cinematic trailer and disappointed after having to search for gameplay. 2) I didn't really have a big reaction to Bloodbourne, but now that I've seen enough gameplay to know what to generally expect, I'm pretty hyped for it.

Lately this is a trend. I don't really follow this trend, personally, but other people obviously subscribe to it by how well mediocre games are selling using this cinematic-trailer method (coughdestinycough).

I much prefer gameplay trailers...but that's probably why I like Nintendo so much. They tend to focus more on gameplay...and gameplay trailers. Not to say games with great stories/graphics are bad...it's just baffling to me that so many "games" seem to be more movie than game...and often mediocre movies at that...I have not been impressed/suprised by single plot twist since Baiten Kaitos Origins or KOTOR....that's a long friggin' time O_O.

And the Reapers are...a star child...I hate you EA.
Lightning is...still not dead...huh, guess she outlived SE.
Elizabeth is now only a symbol, not a character...get your friggin' Pabst Hipster Meta out of my games...screw it, Imma play Mario Kart.

I disagree. Their games appeal to more people, but most are not lacking in varied and fun gameplay. Games that are good, are praised by the gaming community for a reason. It's why hyped games like The Last of Us, can get more praise over hyped games like Watch Dogs. If your a gamer, you play ALL types of games. And you RECOGNIZE if a game is good, even if it is hyped up.

A little off topic, but I'm kinda glad that The Order got a thrashing from critics. I got burned several times last gen because every major reviewer only rated games 7-10. "It works, no technical problems" automatically qualified every AAA release as a 7/10. Maybe The Order signifies a change, that "it works" isn't good enough anymore.

But even then, there were people outraged at 4/10 reviews for The Order, saying that kind of score is reserved for broken, unplayable messes. No, 1-2 is a broken, unplayable mess. 4 is just a bad game.

Well the problem was that the Order wasn't just a bad game, but a bad movie as well. The game part was short repetitive, and reussed various sequences and didn't have good sandbox combat that type of shooter should had. It also lacks any reputability which is key for a $60 shooter these days. The movie part is bad as well with a non nonsensical story that has no real conlusion and ends on a cliff anger and leaves various plot threads dangling. The world is just window dressing and the game doesn't even try to explain events and who people and factions are. The sound design and graphics are amazing but not enought to make it te sum of its parts.