famousmortimer
Banned
As an enthusiast for the struggling device I find many "professional" reviews of Vita games to be frustrating because they are held to standards that the hardware just cannot attain. I don't think this is fully the fault of the reviewers... Sony has clearly positioned this as machine as "console quality games on the go." Their messaging is confusing though as I think a lot of people took that as "portable PS3" and whenever a game doesn't live up to the PS3 counterpart (spoiler: none ever will) it's a letdown and the score suffers.
Is this fair? I can honestly see arguments for both sides.
Let's take Need For Speed: Most Wanted for instance. I own it on the ps3 and the Vita. The PS3 version is superior to the Vita version for three reasons - more traffic, more cops, and better graphics (especially effects like sparks when rubbing). While it can be argued that less traffic and less cops actually makes the game more fun - that misses the point.
The PS3 metacritic score for NFSMW is 84. The Vita metacritic is 79. It's a five point swing, not huge, but fairly meaningful.
From my perspective though, NFS:MW is a very solid racer on a console... and it's an absolutely amazing achievement and experience on a handheld. While I admit that it's not as good as the PS3 version, it's absolutely incredible to see something with this large of a scope on a handheld. You can argue that the racing mechanics in Wipeout may be better or that the 'fun factor' of Mario Kart DS is higher and i would be likely to agree with you. But much like how GTA3 wasn't the best driving, shooting or action game that ever existed it succeeded because of the scope, the execution and overall experience. There is no portable racing game on the planet that is even half as ambitious as Need for Speed: Most Wanted is. Yet it's a 79 on metacritic?
Another game... MLB The Show. It is, without a doubt, the best sports simulation I have ever played on a handheld. The only game that comes close to it is FIFA, also on the vita, but that has some corners cut. MLB has everything minus online leagues (which probably isn't something someone on a handheld is looking for anyway, but i digress). The game looks great, it plays great, it is the BEST sports game that's ever been on a handheld ever. Metacritic = 76. SEVENTY SIX FOR THE BEST HANDHELD SPORTS GAME EVER?
I understand that the alternative is scoring games too high. MLB = 100 because it's the best handheld version of a sports game ever. NFS = 98 because it's so ambitious that it should be declared voodoo for working on a handheld. Assassin's Creed 3: Liberation = 90 because holy crap it's a full fledged AC game on a handheld, bugs and all! So, yeah, this doesn't make sense either from a scoring point of view. I'm not sure what the answer is, which is why I'm making this thread. I would like input from vita fans, haters and everyone inbetween.
Last point of contention: the PC. If I had to rank my gaming habits I would say that (lately especially) they go like this 1. PC 2. Vita 3. PS3 4. iOS (ipad mostly but phone when im out). So generally speaking if I'm home (and not in bed or on the couch with my wife) i prefer to play my PC. If I'm not in front of my computer/consoles I tend to be using my vita. What I'm seeing in games these days and I think most PC (cough elitists cough) gamers would agree is that the chasm graphically between the PC version and the console version of games is absolutely huge. I just started playing Sleeping Dogs on the PC (snagged it on a sale). I had previously played it on my ps3 for a few days before deciding that while I liked it... I was busy at the time and decided to return it. But my point is that the visual fidelity between Sleeping Dogs on the PC and on the PS3 is enormous. It *almost* looks like the difference between a PS3 and PS2 game. It's crazy.
So going by the reviewing logic of the world, lets say that Need for Speed is an 85/100 game, wouldn't that be for the absolute best version of the game? So the PC gets an 85, the PS3 gets a 75 and the Vita gets a, what, 65? Do you see where this is headed? Is this fair? Does it even make sense? Because honestly, the divide between PC games and PS3 games right now is much, much larger than that of PS3 and Vita games. Yet PS3 games don't get crap reviews because of the PC. But the Vita does because of the PS3. It just isn't consistent.
If you've read all of this, thank you, and I look forward to hearing what the general public thinks of this.
TLDR: Should vita games be compared against console games? And if so should console games be compared against their PC counterparts?
Is this fair? I can honestly see arguments for both sides.
Let's take Need For Speed: Most Wanted for instance. I own it on the ps3 and the Vita. The PS3 version is superior to the Vita version for three reasons - more traffic, more cops, and better graphics (especially effects like sparks when rubbing). While it can be argued that less traffic and less cops actually makes the game more fun - that misses the point.
The PS3 metacritic score for NFSMW is 84. The Vita metacritic is 79. It's a five point swing, not huge, but fairly meaningful.
From my perspective though, NFS:MW is a very solid racer on a console... and it's an absolutely amazing achievement and experience on a handheld. While I admit that it's not as good as the PS3 version, it's absolutely incredible to see something with this large of a scope on a handheld. You can argue that the racing mechanics in Wipeout may be better or that the 'fun factor' of Mario Kart DS is higher and i would be likely to agree with you. But much like how GTA3 wasn't the best driving, shooting or action game that ever existed it succeeded because of the scope, the execution and overall experience. There is no portable racing game on the planet that is even half as ambitious as Need for Speed: Most Wanted is. Yet it's a 79 on metacritic?
Another game... MLB The Show. It is, without a doubt, the best sports simulation I have ever played on a handheld. The only game that comes close to it is FIFA, also on the vita, but that has some corners cut. MLB has everything minus online leagues (which probably isn't something someone on a handheld is looking for anyway, but i digress). The game looks great, it plays great, it is the BEST sports game that's ever been on a handheld ever. Metacritic = 76. SEVENTY SIX FOR THE BEST HANDHELD SPORTS GAME EVER?
I understand that the alternative is scoring games too high. MLB = 100 because it's the best handheld version of a sports game ever. NFS = 98 because it's so ambitious that it should be declared voodoo for working on a handheld. Assassin's Creed 3: Liberation = 90 because holy crap it's a full fledged AC game on a handheld, bugs and all! So, yeah, this doesn't make sense either from a scoring point of view. I'm not sure what the answer is, which is why I'm making this thread. I would like input from vita fans, haters and everyone inbetween.
Last point of contention: the PC. If I had to rank my gaming habits I would say that (lately especially) they go like this 1. PC 2. Vita 3. PS3 4. iOS (ipad mostly but phone when im out). So generally speaking if I'm home (and not in bed or on the couch with my wife) i prefer to play my PC. If I'm not in front of my computer/consoles I tend to be using my vita. What I'm seeing in games these days and I think most PC (cough elitists cough) gamers would agree is that the chasm graphically between the PC version and the console version of games is absolutely huge. I just started playing Sleeping Dogs on the PC (snagged it on a sale). I had previously played it on my ps3 for a few days before deciding that while I liked it... I was busy at the time and decided to return it. But my point is that the visual fidelity between Sleeping Dogs on the PC and on the PS3 is enormous. It *almost* looks like the difference between a PS3 and PS2 game. It's crazy.
So going by the reviewing logic of the world, lets say that Need for Speed is an 85/100 game, wouldn't that be for the absolute best version of the game? So the PC gets an 85, the PS3 gets a 75 and the Vita gets a, what, 65? Do you see where this is headed? Is this fair? Does it even make sense? Because honestly, the divide between PC games and PS3 games right now is much, much larger than that of PS3 and Vita games. Yet PS3 games don't get crap reviews because of the PC. But the Vita does because of the PS3. It just isn't consistent.
If you've read all of this, thank you, and I look forward to hearing what the general public thinks of this.
TLDR: Should vita games be compared against console games? And if so should console games be compared against their PC counterparts?