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

Market target.

From what I saw, the Order actually isn't a bad game, though. Mediocre, yeah. Same goes for the movie elements. And the QTE's. From what I can tell, the biggest problem people have with The Order is that it was so hyped and in the end it's just SSDD. Another clunky TPS with QTE's and cover-based progression.

Nintendo knows that the gameplay is the best part of gaming and sony and Microsoft show off the graphics

The Order just can't compete with Gears of War without multiplayer and a coop campaign, period. That's like buying less than half of a game for the same price by default, and it's the same reason why PS Battle Royale is practically a buried game, while Smash Bros. is not.

As some folks already said, different markets really.

A good majority of Playstation and Xbox owners are easily impressed by a cinematic trailer where as Nintendo owners prefer at least some gameplay in the trailers. Personally, I like Nintendo's approach because gameplay is what I care about most obviously. I just can't get hyped for a game immediately when the general buzz is "it's like a movie!!1!" or praising the high production values. I mean non gameplay/cinematic footage is cool but you need the gameplay as well.

Personally, I like a good mix of a some cutscene footage and gameplay in a trailer. Like the new Fire Emblem for 3DS they revealed in the Jan. ND showed what looked like it would be the opening cut-scene(like FE:A had) and then they mixed in some gameplay footage with the grid based movements and some tidbits of the battle scenes. The TV commercial for Bloodborne mixes gameplay with some non gameplay footage as well which is cool.

Whether a game is cinematic, depends on a lot of factors, actually. If you are good at a game of Super Smash Bros, I would consider a heated free-for-all to be cinematic, or a tough race in Mario Kart 8, where you don't know whether you will win or not. Both the graphics AND gameplay determine whether a game is cinematic.

There is a place for "interactive DVDs" on every console, like Dark Dreams Dont Die, King's Quest, etc, but even those take emphasis on puzzle and communication skills, instead of cinematics. A reboot of King's Quest would destroy Grim Fandango, D4, AND The Order, IMO.

@Kaze_Memaryu

I'm sorry, but I think you're being very short-sighted and openly obvious about your biases. Why should putting lots of hours into a game matter if you want to judge it? Because games, commonly, evolve the further you get in. New gameplay elements emerge. New settings. New puzzles. New everything. MMOs have end games, RPGs have game-changing unlockable abilities, and adventure games introduce movements, strategies and tools that open up entire areas of the environment and gameplay that were previously unreachable.

So when you tell me you can pass judgment on a big game like Watch Dogs from about two hours of play, I chuckle. When you think you know if The Order is good or bad just because you watched some Youtube videos, I mourn what our hobby has become.

It is very disheartening that so many people mindlessly equate Nintendo=gameplay and Sony/Microsoft=graphics. You're just going by a stereotype perpetrated by the internet at large. Don't you all get bent out of shape over the "kiddy" stereotypes placed on Nintendo by the internet? You're committing the same gosh-darned offense.

Er they're rebooting King's Quest this year. Honestly it wouldn't it might be a better game but it would probably sale a fraction of it. There's a reason why after The Walking Dead season 1 telltale sort of stripped all the puzzles out of their games. To be fair the counterpoint is Life is Strange that has puzzles (nothing to complicated) but even that's still a game that sells mostly on asthetic and story.

QFT

It's all about the target market. The type of folks who get PS4/XBO like cinematic trailers. And hey, they're fun to watch. I like them as much as the next guy. But that doesn't mean it'll be a good game. But it does mean people will buy it, just because it looks pretty.

For anyone defending those types of games (overly hyped, highly "cinematic" games that end up being crap), well, I don't know what to tell you. Destiny had one of the biggest marketing budgets, development budgets, and look at the end result. All hype, no content. Same with AC:U. A broken game, but hey, at least it's pretty, right?

I like that No Man's Sky trailer though. It doesn't tell me anything about the game, but it's nice to watch. Same with the Zelda trailer. Really pretty to look at, exciting, but tells me nothing. For all we know, both games could actually end up sucking.

Honestly having cinematic trailers only can lead to disasters like Alien: Colonial Marines. If there are more A:CM, then consumers will eventually get wise and stop buying the hype.

The one big thing I (as well as critics and others alike) appreciate from Nintendo is how honest they are when presenting their games. I have yet to play a game I didn't know about beforehand. Nintendo presents their games as they are without any undesirable secrets hidden.

Well showing gameplay wouldn't have helped with Aliens. One of the big parts of the Law suit that is still ongoing around it, is that Gearbox allegdlly made a vertical slice demo that had all of the polish and great gameplay, but than outsourced development to tmegate and used Sega's money to fund Borderlands 1&2. So while the Game was being marketed down to release date Gearbox was still selling it off of content they made to dupe Sega and consumers.

http://kotaku.com/5984024/the-aliens-colonial-marines-demo-lo...
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/07/gearbox-responds-to-ali...

As for gameplay in general most other companies usually show a Demo alongside their cinematic trailers at trade shows and than throughout the week show gameplay demos at the various media outlets livestreams. There may be graphical downgrade but usually the gameplay is about the same like in the case of watchdogs.

I suppose you are right, but my last point still stands either way

microsoft and sony aren't gaming companies and you can't compare what they do at a place like E3 compared to nintendo.

cinematics only sell games to idiots. remember back at that E3 when "everyone" wanted a "realistic" zelda and then we got a "cartoon"? that was awesome. that weeded out all the mindless morons, they went off to their boring but "realistic" (so important) xboxes, they lost interest in zelda by judging a book by its cover. those with brains picked up wind waker and enjoyed one of the greatest games of all time. that separated the wheat from the chaff right there.

But they are gaming companies by the very fact that they have a gaming division. Its like saying that Amazon isn't a TV studio.

I wouldn't call the Xbox Boring at. It had Morriwind, Fable , Jet set Radio future, Mech Assault, Panzer Dragoon Orta, just to name a few. The system worked in part because it was pretty much a dream cast Successor. Halo 1 and 2 were and still are incredible games.

As an aside there's nothin wrong with Dark my favorite three Zelda Games are Link's Awakening, Twilight Princess, and Majora's Mask all of which are somewhat dark than other games in the series.

Unfortunately, said morons make up the majority of the market.

Not true, the majority of the market in terms of people are people who woudn't buy a 60 dollar game more than once or twice a year (instead focusing on their phones or something) and the majority of the market in terms of buying things are gamers who can afford to buy all the games.

i mean, I do agree that being sold on a game based on cg trailers is a stupid idea, but it isn't quite the majority people think it is. If I blame anyone, it's probably the annoying teenagers (or older people still acting like teenagers) that are desperate to be adult so reject anything colorful and only want to play TEH HARDCORE CALL OF DUTY in some pathetic attempt to be cool. Which leads to them needing to play the hot new game to keep up with the cool kids, so it must be that over marketed, super advanced looking hardcore serious game, right? They also pretend the game is way better than it is so that they don't have to admit to themselves how awful their purchasing choices are.

That's my guess anyway.

And what are your thoughts on the self-righteous and sanctimonious Nintendo gamers who only play rainbow and gumdrop colored platformers and speak as if their tastes in gaming are above all others and feel that they need to put down people who enjoy different games?

Oh please, Nintendo actually has some semblance of variety, unlike the dudebro market that can barely go one game without a guns or gritty realism. Nintendo has quite a few platformer IPs, but they also have RPGs, shooters, racing, fighting, almost any genre you can think of. That's more than I can say for Microsoft, and Sony hasn't been utilizing theirs extensively.

http://i.imgur.com/HCxDILQ.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/BBmhhdm.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Q4Lf5fn.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/kuyFt2R.jpg

Ori and the Blind Forest, Xbox One's heavily marketed exclusive for March.

Because gameplay is their core-business. Only after that comes the graphics, cutscenes, etc. However, sometimes they go to far. Like their explanation with the Luigi's mansion mini-game from Nintendoland: Everyone understood the concept in a few seconds.

By the way: I always prefer a proper gameplay trailer over some pre-rendered stuff. That said, I hate it if mister Iwata talks straight through the Nintendo Direct trailers. Personally I hope they do it at E3 as follows: First show a epic Zelda u trailer, then Iwata can talk a bit about the game while showing some footage. Talking through the demo (and basically telling what we are seeing) is absolutely not needed and totally pulls you out of the moment!