While other sites may be content to cover the facts and figures of E3 in endless detail, GameCritics.com would like to take this opportunity to reflect on the experience from a larger perspective. Here are the viewpoints of Brad Gallaway, Scott Jones and Kyle Orland reading between the lines of the convention, the games, and the industry.

Nintendo Booth

Has E3 Become Pointless?
By Brad Gallaway

As much as I love going to E3, this year's convention was different from those in the past, or at least it felt that way.

I do my homework when it comes to new and upcoming titles, and I'd estimate that I already had fairly comprehensive knowledge of at least 90% (or better) of the games on the show. Such a small number of surprises hasn't usually been the norm. With very few games being unveiled for the first time, it follows that the second most important reason for being at E3 would be to get a hands-on evaluation and see things in motion. However, due to the prolific amounts of information and clips available on the internet, actually seeing things becomes less significant. That leaves hands-on evaluations.

Nintendo DS Kiosks

While it's true that a few minutes interacting with a game can potentially reveal many things, it's rare that this happens to a significant degree. It's just incredibly difficult for anyone to really "get" a game's intricacies within the span of ten or so minutes standing at a kiosk. Very often we have no idea of the control scheme before grabbing the controller, and such stumbling, short exposures prevent appreciation of the mechanics. You can also forget about any impact the game's story and holistic elements may add, as well.

How can someone quickly appraise fine details or artistic ideas, the things that will make or break a game when the average disc plays out over the course of several hours? You can't. The result is that unless something is egregiously bad (like last year's Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness) the average person is probably going to walk away knowing less about the game than if they had read a magazine or scanned a website, not to mention the fact that most of the games being shown are incomplete builds with months of development time ahead of them.

What does this mean for E3 and the people who attend? There's been lots of talk regarding the diminishing relevance of the event, but in all honesty, I don't want it to go away. It's a thing I look forward to, and believe it still has merit. How to fix it? Well, I don't mean to sound harsh but my first thought would be to reduce the number of fans walking in the door.

I don't mean to belittle them, but the fact is that E3 is a media and industry event, closed to the public. Unfortunately, the small hurdles set up to keep Joe Gamer out are laughably easy to vault, leading to immense, chaotic crowds and long lines for everything. In my opinion, if there were less people (or a way to let those people go to a separate event), there would greater opportunities to glean actual knowledge of the products and interact with the professionals eager to promote their works, leading to more productive and significant outcomes for

Halo 2 Video

everyone involved. When you've got the thickest concentration of the world's top game professionals under one roof, it's a shame that many of them spend the days inaccessibly locked behind doors, hiding from the crowds.

Besides that, I would also like publishers to debut more games on the floor, as opposed to exposing them months beforehand and bringing a short demo that's already been covered to death. If you're going to be in the spotlight, use the attention to launch something unknown and new; promote products that can really benefit from the intense concentration of media, rather than treating the event like any other ad op for something that's been on the radar for a while. In this respect, I have to tip my hat to Microsoft for not steamrolling the crowd with Halo 2 (which obviously does not need more press.) With its conspicuous absence, the focus was put squarely on a number of high-quality lesser-known games, where it was most effective. Hopefully this strategy or a form of it will spread to others, as well.

Honestly, I don't think E3 is going to go away any time soon. But, as someone who has devoted decades to games, I'd like to see the biggest event the industry can claim remain the robust and exciting opportunity it has been in years past. It might be a bit nostalgic of me, but I can still remember seeing pictures of E3 in a magazine, and viewing it as a major goal of my nascent reviewing career. If E3 can keep the magic, I think it should do so.