I don't want to sound like an MS hater or anything and I really like the Forza Horizon series, but it's not very good when a suuuper safe sequel of a long running series becomes the 'best' E3 game.
Why is it "not very good"? All of the other potential picks would essentially be sequels or entries in longer-running series: Halo Infinite, BoTW 2, Metroid Dread, Elden Ring (I mean it's spiritually a Souls game and that's an IP that's been around since '09), etc.
A very tasteless caveat to put there all things considered, like do you think there would be realistic chance for one of the super-indie games to take Best of Show? Or something like a literal reboot/remake in Advanced Wars or the absolutely shit-tier reveal for one of Square Enix's games? How about the literal nothingburger stuff from Capcom's show where a single new game wasn't even revealed?
If you're being honest in this assessment/opinion and not just trying to be contrarian for "reasons", there's very few games that would meet your criteria, and actually have a chance of winning, especially if you want to throw the caveat of "was there gameplay shown?" into the pot. STALKER 2, for example, is one of those few (personally it was between FH5 and STALKER 2 for me, anyway. But Halo Infinite and BoTW 2 are close seconds).
I demand a drugs test from anyone who thought there was a better presentation than MS/Bethesda this year. You'd have to be taking crack to think otherwise.
The only other presentation I really liked was not even for what it showed. I liked the absolute chaos trolling by Square Enix. The bait and switch of the FF I-VI part was my moment of E3.
As trashy as Square-Enix's show was, they at least revealed new games. IMO Capcom's was genuinely the worst; simply DLC and a damn eSports update (and I actually watch the SFV tournaments)
MS definitely had the strongest showing, that's for sure.
Yeah, this really shouldn't be up for debate. Gamers keep asking for new IP, and MS's show had more new IP shown than the other ones combined. They keep asking for visually impressive gameplay for games coming soon; MS's showcase arguably delivered that more than any other presentation.
Those are generally the two biggest complaints we keep seeing from gamers, especially towards Microsoft, and they delivered on those more than the other E3 presenters and even those from Geoff's show, more or less. But suddenly people want to say a show that mostly had sequels and reboots was better (Nintendo; and hey I am actually looking forward to some of those games too namely BotW 2, Metroid, Super Monkey Ball, SMT5)? Or try saying editors with their own opinions should've picked a game literally not at E3 as most anticipated?
It's kind of like the people saying Square-Enix had the worst show; yes some of their decisions are very dumb like the FF collection, but at least they showed off new games, including a few new IP, and not all of them had disastrous presentations like that game "insiders" kept saying was a PS5 exclusive only to turn out it's multiplat in actuality (just one of many things insiders got wrong with their rumors, as always). For the actual content shown I'd put Square-Enix's show somewhere in a third bracket following Nintendo's, who would follow Microsoft's.
The worst IMO was really Capcom's; outside of an update for Monster Hunter and a repackaging of older Ace Attorney games they really didn't have anything. An announcement for DLC to RE Village everyone could've assumed was already in some stage of development, and kind of a nothingburger of an eSports announcement/schedule update. They didn't need a press conference stream for what they had, considering no new games were revealed.