• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

What do you, individual gaffer, think is the fairest way to review Vita games?

wrowa

Member
There is only one kind of fun and the fun isn't dependant on the plattform a game is released on. If a game isn't as much fun on plattfom x as it is on plattform y, it's a worse game. End of story.

"An amazing technical achievement for a handheld" isn't worth anything in my book. If you have to cut things out of a game in order to make it run on a technically inferior plattform you're already doing it wrong. A handheld game doesn't have to be worse than console games per se -- there are plenty of DS games that are holding a candle against most PS360 games, for example --, but if you downport a game on a handheld and cut features of gameplay element in the process, then the game is a worse game on said plattform and as such should be scored lower than its counterparts.

Of course, that doesn't mean that NfS Vita is a bad game or a bad idea. Quite the contrary, it's still a great piece of software, but nevertheless a less fun one.
 

jgmo870

Banned
Certain aspects should be compared like the writing, pacing, quality of the soundtrack, etc. Others shouldn't like how big the environments are or how advanced the AI is.

It doesn't matter if it's the hardware's fault, if a game isn't fun then it's not fun. That's all there is to it.

Just because the Vita is weaker than a PS3 doesn't make it acceptable that AC: Liberation is just a watered down version of AC3. If that's all you want out of the game, that's fine, and reviews usually say as much.

But the best handheld games are made specifically with those hardware limitations in mind.

I haven't played AC3 yet but I've never heard anyone say that. The biggest problems with Lib are that it didn't expand on its persona system (which is unique to the game), the odd/bad way the story flows, and the tech issues.
 

zroid

Banned
Scaling down one's expectations for different systems is pretty much BS in my opinion. Some obviously do disagree, and that's fine.

If a game on one platform is worse than it is on a different platform, then yeah, I don't want to be lied to; it doesn't matter if one is a handheld and one is a console. If I'm okay with a game being worse on a handheld, then that's fine, it's my own personal value judgement for the game. I don't need a reviewer to tell me what to feel.

The only way to get handheld games that transcend being compared to their console counterparts is to design to the strengths of the handheld. If pushing polygons is your main concern, then sorry pal, the handheld version is going to be worse. Just like the Wii versions of multiplatform games were generally worse.
 
Certain aspects should be compared like the writing, pacing, quality of the soundtrack, etc. Others shouldn't like how big the environments are or how advanced the AI is.



I haven't played AC3 yet but I've never heard anyone say that. The biggest problems with Lib are that it didn't expand on its persona system (which is unique to the game), the odd/bad way the story flows, and the tech issues.

I haven't played it either, actually. Really I was just using it as a stand-in for any handheld game that's just a console game forced to fit onto a handheld, and from information in this review.
 

jgmo870

Banned
I haven't played it either, actually. Really I was just using it as a stand-in for any handheld game that's just a console game forced to fit onto a handheld, and from information in this review.

GiantBomb has been negative towards every console-esque handheld game that has come out this year, giving them all 6's (RE: Revelations, Wipeout 2048, UC: GA, Gravity Rush, and AC3: L). They're very biased when it comes to those types of experiences.

And as a side note: Alex is as bad of a reviewer as Colin from IGN.
 

DiscoJer

Member
Scaling down one's expectations for different systems is pretty much BS in my opinion. Some obviously do disagree, and that's fine.

If a game on one platform is worse than it is on a different platform, then yeah, I don't want to be lied to; it doesn't matter if one is a handheld and one is a console. If I'm okay with a game being worse on a handheld, then that's fine, it's my own personal value judgement for the game. I don't need a reviewer to tell me what to feel.

But it does get scaled down for consoles as opposed to PCs. Graphics, control methods, depth, loading time, and so on are almost always superior on the PC. Unless it's a really bad port, but even those will offer much higher resolutions and frame rate.

Why is it okay that consoles get a free pass basically compared to PCs, which are vastly superior, but handhelds don't?
 

zroid

Banned
But it does get scaled down for consoles as opposed to PCs. Graphics, control methods, depth, loading time, and so on are almost always superior on the PC. Unless it's a really bad port, but even those will offer much higher resolutions and frame rate.

Why is it okay that consoles get a free pass basically compared to PCs, which are vastly superior, but handhelds don't?

It's not okay that they get a free pass. Comparing control schemes is extremely subjective so that's not really fair, but frame rate and all that other stuff should absolutely be taken into consideration.

Bear in mind that I'm not saying worse graphics should reduce a game's score by like 2 points out of 10. I don't necessarily even believe it should affect the scores at all, because it's often not a big deal. But in the text of the review, a critic should state quite clearly in what areas a PC version is better than a console version and a console version better than a handheld version.

It's also worth noting that reviewing games on PC is tricky since everyone has different PCs (so whom do you review for?). Consoles are standardized.
 

bede-x

Member
TLDR: Should vita games be compared against console games? And if so should console games be compared against their PC counterparts?

Yes to both. A game is a game. It doesn't matter which system it's for. If a system tries to pull something off that it can't quite handle, the game should be judged accordingly. There's no reason to make concessions because the system is weak or old. When judging a game if it's only good in comparison to other games on the same system and would otherwise be considered average or bad, the game is average or bad.
 
There's a marked difference between "can this game be prettier?" and "is this game diminished by its platform?" The answer to the prettier question will always be yes for console games, because PCs will always have the power to push more graphically. Dead Rising: Chop 'Till You Drop was a lesser version for reasons beyond graphics--the Wii supported fewer zombies, which screwed up the game. The game was an inferior port because it was designed around a flood of zombies and not having that messed it up. It shouldn't get an automatic bump just because it was the best the Wii could do, the Wii experience was lacking and should be noted as such. Twilight Princess was a game that could have looked prettier, but was designed around the hardware limitations (actually GameCube limitations) and didn't leave the player thinking it would play better on the HD twins. Look better? Sure, but not suddenly be a better game.

No because a port is a port.

But if A game is exclusive (such as red steel) then you judge it based off of its counterparts on the same hardware not on another title on another console.

I haven't played AC3 yet but I've never heard anyone say that. The biggest problems with Lib are that it didn't expand on its persona system (which is unique to the game), the odd/bad way the story flows, and the tech issues.

And those are reasonable reasons. Not to say that "Type" of game cannot be done. Simply that it can be done better. Some reviews come off as if the genre doesn't belong on a handheld.
 
They should review the games based on how enjoyable they are. That's how every game on every system should be rated regardless of price or technical restrictions. If you find a game less enjoyable on the Vita than the PS3, it should get a lower rating.
 
Yes to both. A game is a game. It doesn't matter which system it's for. If a system tries to pull something off that it can't quite handle, the game should be judged accordingly. There's no reason to make concessions because the system is weak or old. When judging a game if it's only good in comparison to other games on the same system and would otherwise be considered average or bad, the game is average or bad.

Should a game be judged on the basis of features it lacks that were never intended to be in the game in the first place?

For example, New Super Mario Bros Wii, or New Super Mario Bros U. These games don't have online multiplayer. Subtract a point from the score?

I mean comparing them to their contemporaries, they don't quite measure up in that respect, right?

I realize you aren't saying this, but I'm curious how you feel about it. I'm not trying to be argumentative. :p It just feels like a topic along similar lines.
 
More often than not for a multiplatform game it's usually the same reviewer for all versions.

vita version losing a little points is expected if stuff doesn't match up no?
 

Currygan

at last, for christ's sake
didn't Sony market it as a "portable console"? They wanted the bike, now they have to pedal
 

Agent X

Member
Does it look good for the system's capabilities? Does it play well? Is it of sufficient length and replay value? Does it feature all these other things you look for in games? Then that's how you review Vita games.

So, pretty much how every game is sensibly reviewed, ever.

This makes sense.

As far as reviewing Vita games versus their counterparts on home video game consoles (especially in the case of direct conversions): The scores should be weighed according to the system's capabilities, and also taking into account the price of the game (compared to the price on other systems).

I wouldn't dock points from a Vita game if it fell slightly below the PS3 version. The Vita's hardware power might approach the PS3, and it's the closest we have to "PS3 in your pocket", but it isn't actually "PS3 in your pocket". Any honest reviewer with experience and knowledge should understand that the Vita can't quite match the caliber of PS3.

If a game falls noticeably short of the PS3 version, to the point where it impacts gameplay, then yes, this should be taken into consideration when scoring the game.

I also want to detail two things that should be considered for reviewing portable games in general, which I've seen crop up annoyingly in reviews over the years (including so-called "professional" reviews):

1. I'm not a believer in scoring games "for a portable"--using the term "for a portable" as a qualifier to artificially inflate a score. Vita is a video game system that just happens to be portable, just like the Game Boy, Lynx, Game Gear, DS, and so on. I've seen reviewers say that a particular game is "good...for a portable", usually to justify a severely watered-down port (or a "port in name only") on a system that they personally like. That's nothing more than a crutch. If a game sucks, then it sucks, plain and simple. There should be no excuses.

2. Similarly, I don't want reviewers to weigh scores too heavily on whether or not they feel a particular game is "suitable for a portable". It might be your opinion that a certain game is "great for portable play" or "not inclined for portable play", and I have no problem with someone expressing that opinion in a review--but don't make that the centerpiece of your review. Portable gamers are a diverse group with diverse tastes. If you despise long, involving strategy games or role-playing games and feel so strongly that simple "bite-sized" games make for vastly superior portable games, then you probably shouldn't be reviewing the strategy or role-playing games. The designers clearly intended their creative work to appeal to a different audience. If you're uncomfortable with that, then stick to reviewing the types of games that you like, and leave the other genres to other reviewers.
 
An interesting thought experiment: what if a brand new AAA NES game came out today, was reviewed by all the major sites, and made it to Metacritic? How would it score?

Let's say it's Kirby's Adventure. Nintendo didn't release it back then for whatever reason and they just came out with it today, they're assembling new cartridges and everything. What score does it deserve?
 

Skyzard

Banned
@Agent X, Definitely, those presumptuous reviewers forcing their play-style preferences into their game reviews can get on my nerves too.

Vita reviews in general need more video footage for sure.

Reading the full NFS:MW reviews from IGN for both iOS and Vita, it's all there, somewhat subtle digs on the vita as a platform. At least the users in the comment section help make it clearer.

At the prices they're asking for them I expect them to be scrutinised but also compared to the previous titles on the platform as well as what it is like as a standalone game, which imo should be the main focus. After all it is still a portable console, and if a game is setting a precedent then that should come across - probably does so better on mobile/handheld review sites...or at least you'd expect it to.
 

zroid

Banned
An interesting thought experiment: what if a brand new AAA NES game came out today, was reviewed by all the major sites, and made it to Metacritic? How would it score?

Let's say it's Kirby's Adventure. Nintendo didn't release it back then for whatever reason and they just came out with it today, they're assembling new cartridges and everything. What score does it deserve?

Well that game has hella slowdown, so I would probably be critical of that in my review. :p

But graphically, it holds up pretty well. Obviously it could use more colour (being hindered by the NES hardware), but the level design and variety is superb. As far as NES games go it's aged pretty well, so I would probably judge it quite positively, even today.

A good game is a good game. Even though expectations change over time, standards haven't really, in my opinion (for most things).
 

mujun

Member
The thing I didn't like was some of AC:L's reviews were knocking it for problems that are in all ACs, but not mentioned in those games. Like someone was complaining that the stealth sucked compared to Hitman and Dishonored....really? You're going to say that about the handheld game but not 3, which has some of the worst stealth ever (and sometimes forced on the player too!)?

It's like they choose to be more critical on handheld games because of the perception that "they don't matter".

So you would believe a (conspiracy) theory that they (all reviewers, right?) review games holding on to some sort of perception that their audience has of handheld games over possibilities like: 1) after so many AC games the problems have gotten so old that AC:L is the one to elicit the complaints, 2) the problems are more prevalent in this AC game than they are in previous ones, 3) AC3 might have so many other elements that make up for the flaw you pointed out that it isn't worth mentioning and that may not be the case for AC:L?

Seems like a real stretch (hence my use of conspiracy) to think that game reviewers decide their reviews based on public perception rather than the experience they had with said product or that they even let something like that sway them much at all.

Personally, I think the PSV is in a unique situation. It shares a lot of games with the PS3 unlike most other handhelds which usually get their own unique versions of games. The similarity between the PS3 and PSV versions are going to bring about comparisons, seems natural to me. Without companies going out of their way to tailor or add to the PSV version the games are going to suffer in comparison.
 

RM8

Member
An interesting thought experiment: what if a brand new AAA NES game came out today, was reviewed by all the major sites, and made it to Metacritic? How would it score?

Let's say it's Kirby's Adventure. Nintendo didn't release it back then for whatever reason and they just came out with it today, they're assembling new cartridges and everything. What score does it deserve?
Weren't Mega Man 9 and 10 pretty well received?
 

mujun

Member
But it does get scaled down for consoles as opposed to PCs. Graphics, control methods, depth, loading time, and so on are almost always superior on the PC. Unless it's a really bad port, but even those will offer much higher resolutions and frame rate.

Why is it okay that consoles get a free pass basically compared to PCs, which are vastly superior, but handhelds don't?

The PC version vs console version situation has been going on forever and everyone knows that the PC version always looks superior and runs better so it's pointless mentioning it in every review whereas the PSV vs PS3 version situation is a new thing for handhelds and until it becomes as common as the first situation reviewers are going to continue pointing it out?
 
Would be so cool if there were video out cables or capture kits for vita.

Seriously.

If Sony doesn't put 100% into their system, why should reviewers?
 
Would be so cool if there were video out cables or capture kits for vita.

Seriously.

If Sony doesn't put 100% into their system, why should reviewers?

This is kinda OT but the 3DS doesn't have video out either but it is still possoble to capture direct feed footage via modding. Why is this not the case with the vita?
 
This is kinda OT but the 3DS doesn't have video out either but it is still possoble to capture direct feed footage via modding. Why is this not the case with the vita?

at the very least there are official 3ds capture kits from nintendo for pretty much all the big gaming sites like GB and GT and ign.

I'd be super surprised if nintendo doesn't give some to the press for wii U gamepad in the next year.
 

zroid

Banned
This is kinda OT but the 3DS doesn't have video out either but it is still possoble to capture direct feed footage via modding. Why is this not the case with the vita?

I guess it's cause capture kids actually exist for the 3DS, so it was possible to reverse engineer them or something.

Seems like there just isn't any way to do it with Vita at all, unless you have a dev kit with HDMI out. It's pretty bad.
 
9 yes, 10 got mixed reviews

Did game reviewers say that they were good in comparison to NES games, but don't hold a candle to modern shooters...or did it seem like they fairly compared them to other games at that price point?

I guess nostalgia can complicate things.
 

Salsa

Member
oh man, we have reached desperate-vita-owner levels to the point where people are saying reviews aren't as fair as ones for other consoles?

shit is getting hilarious
 
They're subjective opinions the reviewer has about the game. If they want to mark it down because it's a handheld game, they have the right. Just like you have every right to ignore them.
 
If the NFS core game is essentially the same as the console/pc versions it should score the same. Unless the gameplay is hampered by the hardware basically. Actually from what i've read, doesn't NFS Vita have a more stable framerate than the console one? You could argue if that's the case that it should be scoring higher (if it wasn't offset by other possible negatives like the traffic density). The graphics, in terms of gameplay aren't significantly changing the overall game so it should just be mentioned in the review text for people who do value the visual flair, for whatever reason - but the actual visuals score for it should be in respect to the system limitations.

A good example of a Vita game that should be scoring lower than it's console counterpart is WRC3. It's missing several tracks and cars for no reason other than limited development resources or attention. Something like that, affecting gameplay, should adversely affect the overall score.

I read a review the other day blasting Super Monkey Ball Vita for being more expensive than the IOS version. That's a valid point to raise of course, given the games are probably very similar (I haven't played the IOS version). But the lack of analog control significantly affects the gameplay and in my mind not only makes the price hike worth it, but the game going from incredibly frustrating and difficult, to precise and fun.

And for the OP, i think you need to play Pro Yakyuu Spirits 2012 before you sign off on MLB The Show!
 

mujun

Member
If the NFS core game is essentially the same as the console/pc versions it should score the same. Unless the gameplay is hampered by the hardware basically. Actually from what i've read, doesn't NFS Vita have a more stable framerate than the console one? You could argue if that's the case that it should be scoring higher (if it wasn't offset by other possible negatives like the traffic density). The graphics, in terms of gameplay aren't significantly changing the overall game so it should just be mentioned in the review text for people who do value the visual flair, for whatever reason - but the actual visuals score for it should be in respect to the system limitations.

A good example of a Vita game that should be scoring lower than it's console counterpart is WRC3. It's missing several tracks and cars for no reason other than limited development resources or attention. Something like that, affecting gameplay, should adversely affect the overall score.

I read a review the other day blasting Super Monkey Ball Vita for being more expensive than the IOS version. That's a valid point to raise of course, given the games are probably very similar (I haven't played the IOS version). But the lack of analog control significantly affects the gameplay and in my mind not only makes the price hike worth it, but the game going from incredibly frustrating and difficult, to precise and fun.

And for the OP, i think you need to play Pro Yakyuu Spirits 2012 before you sign off on MLB The Show!

It's harder to play on a Vita than on a DS3, right? Or isn't the difference in control quality as substantial as the difference in frame rates?
 
I think it's only fair to compare it to consoles since Sony seems adamant to do that themselves. "it has console power guyz, it's more than just a handheld, we're not like the PSP at all (*even though it sold 70 million units)". It's a good example of marketing backfire imo. You can't go around saying you've got a huge penis and then go all defensive when it doesn't fit inside a magnum.
 
oh man, we have reached desperate-vita-owner levels to the point where people are saying reviews aren't as fair as ones for other consoles?

shit is getting hilarious

Has nothing to do with desperation, just pointless reviews. I will point out IGN's view of AC liberation well explained. Despite scoring it higher than IGN, I can't help but wonder about CVG review and exactly where the faults lie. Under negatives the reviewer lists....

Looks rough compared to consoles - and it invites the comparison
The three hubs aren't as big as Rome, Venice or Boston

You don't question the logic at all in this?

I think it's only fair to compare it to consoles since Sony seems adamant to do that themselves. "it has console power guyz, it's more than just a handheld, we're not like the PSP at all (*even though it sold 70 million units)". It's a good example of marketing backfire imo. You can't go around saying you've got a huge penis and then go all defensive when you it doesn't fit inside a magnum.



Having a console like experience/= exactly like PS3/360. Console like fits the bill because while it doesn't compare to the current gen beasts directly it sure is much more powerful than last gen full sized consoles and toe that line between generations. Because of that increased power you can expect better offerings than the PSP for sure but it isn't reasonable at all to expect PS3/360 power from the handheld.
 
It's harder to play on a Vita than on a DS3, right? Or isn't the difference in control quality as substantial as the difference in frame rates?

It's not like a fighting game on a 360 dpad :) Besides that's something the person reading the review would know in advance if they owned the systems so it's basically irrelevant to mention it in a review.
 

The Crimson Kid

what are you waiting for
Console games should be compared to console games. Handheld games should be compared to handheld games. Simple.

WipeOut 2048 and Most Wanted are, in aggregate terms, probably the two best racing experiences you can find on a handheld platform. Both of those games have flaws with frame rate and load times, and neither of those games' career modes are as strong as they could be, but when compared to other racing games on handheld systems, the scores of these two games should be higher than they are now by a fair margin.

Sony messed up by consistently framing the Vita as a "console on the go." This made too many people, including many reviewers, compare the Vita's output graphically to what the PS3 could do. It's pretty unreasonable, but Sony set them up for it.
 

mujun

Member
It's not like a fighting game on a 360 dpad :) Besides that's something the person reading the review would know in advance if they owned the systems so it's basically irrelevant to mention it in a review.

Oh, so like the PC vs console game comparison mentioned and the less people/foliage/detail in the Vita version of MW?

I agree, OP has no valid point.
 
Did game reviewers say that they were good in comparison to NES games, but don't hold a candle to modern shooters...or did it seem like they fairly compared them to other games at that price point?

I guess nostalgia can complicate things.

9 is a legitimately great game in any era, and got reviewed as such.
 

Laughing Banana

Weeping Pickle
If Sony themselves position Vita as a machine that provides portable-console-like experience, then why is it unfair for reviewers to treat their games as such?
 

AwRy108

Member
Sony messed up by consistently framing the Vita as a "console on the go." This made too many people, including many reviewers, compare the Vita's output graphically to what the PS3 could do. It's pretty unreasonable, but Sony set them up for it.

Whether SONY "messed up" by framing the Vita as a "console on the go" or not, the comparisons are inevitable b/c of how similar the Vita experiences are to console experiences in every aspect. That said, the fact remains that the games are both cheaper and portable, so why don't reviews off-set their negative comments by pointing out these perks.

Case in point: people reviewed the iOS version of Bastion well, despite the fact that the game would be severely gimped on a touchpad, especially when compared to the 360/PC versions. So why do iOS games get positive bias because their "console-like" experiences are cheaper and portable, but Vita games do not?

The fact of the matter is, the Vita has become the media's whipping boy; yet they'll be the same people crying when the only places that big non-Nintendo publishers will put half-assed portable versions of their games is on iOS.

I've been a Vita owner since day one, and it has become my favorite device to game on b/c of exactly the same reasons it was designed for: console-style experiences--in all their glory--that I can take with me. I understand that not every person is in the market for these types of experiences, but that doesn't automatically mean that this bleeding-edge gaming handheld deserves to get shat on at every turn.
 

Agent X

Member
I think it's only fair to compare it to consoles since Sony seems adamant to do that themselves. "it has console power guyz, it's more than just a handheld, we're not like the PSP at all (*even though it sold 70 million units)". It's a good example of marketing backfire imo.

There's no problem comparing Vita games to their counterparts on home consoles. In fact, I welcome it! However, I do have a problem with people expecting that console conversions on Vita should be an exact match for the home console (particularly PS3 and Xbox 360).

We all know that the Vita cannot exactly replicate PS3/Xbox 360 games. There are differences in CPU power, GPU power, screen resolution, and physical game media capacity. PS3 and Xbox 360 are relatively similar to each other in all of these aspects (except for media capacity--but even that isn't a frequent issue), so it's expected that multiplatform games appearing on these two systems should be close. Vita is a different beast altogether, and as such can't be reasonably expected to reproduce the exact experience.

Vita is a video game console...but it's one that has a lower spec than PS3/Xbox 360, just like Wii has a lower spec than PS3/Xbox 360. You don't automatically dock points from a Wii game merely because it doesn't match the PS3/Xbox 360 visuals or performance (as that's expected from knowledge of the hardware)...you'd only take off the points if its shortcomings make for a noticeably reduced gameplay experience. Same thing applies to the Vita.

If Sony themselves position Vita as a machine that provides portable-console-like experience, then why is it unfair for reviewers to treat their games as such?

It's not unfair to compare Vita games to those home consoles. It's only unfair when the system is held to some impossibly high standard that it cannot possibly live up to.
 
oh man, we have reached desperate-vita-owner levels to the point where people are saying reviews aren't as fair as ones for other consoles?

shit is getting hilarious

If you mean my OP then you clearly didn't read it. I gave examples and asked a question, I didn't present any answers.


Thanks for the thoughtful contribution though. And to think I listed you in that gaf circle jerk thread as someone whose posts I look forward to....
 

Oersted

Member
Like many already mentioned, Sony including many Gaffers, stated the Vita would give you a PS3 experience. That is, more and more obvious, not the case. I guess, what Sony has to learn, is to bring dedicated games to their handheld. Look at Nintendogs, Resident Evil Relevations or Super Mario 3D Land. Limited? You can bet your ass off. Taking perfect use of the hardware? Indeed. Vita on the other hand, gets mostly the cutted down PS3 titles treatment. But Little Big Planet looks like a indication that they learned.

So what is a fair way to review Vita games? I would say, it depends on the game´s philosophy I tried to describe above.


Console games should be compared to console games. Handheld games should be compared to handheld games. Simple.

WipeOut 2048 and Most Wanted are, in aggregate terms, probably the two best racing experiences you can find on a handheld platform. Both of those games have flaws with frame rate and load times, and neither of those games' career modes are as strong as they could be, but when compared to other racing games on handheld systems, the scores of these two games should be higher than they are now by a fair margin.

Sony messed up by consistently framing the Vita as a "console on the go." This made too many people, including many reviewers, compare the Vita's output graphically to what the PS3 could do. It's pretty unreasonable, but Sony set them up for it.

Mario Kart? Is it that bad?
 
Did game reviewers say that they were good in comparison to NES games, but don't hold a candle to modern shooters...or did it seem like they fairly compared them to other games at that price point?

I guess nostalgia can complicate things.

Uhhh, Mega Man 9 is an incredibly good game.
 

ryushe

Member
Great OP

Honestly, I think this largely depends on the genre.

Racing games and sports titles will almost always get shunned on a portable device only because the graphics are as big a part of the experience as much as gameplay is, while things like RPG's, platformers, puzzle games, and the likes usually fare better in reviews because those types of experiences thrive on portable platforms, at least for me.

And I think that's where the disconnect lies.

Just look at the reviews for Disgaea 3 for the PS3 and then the Vita version. While I already feel the Disgaea games should only be made for portables in the first place, it's pretty unanimous that the Vita version is the way to go if you want some Disgaea action.

While I do love the idea of playing Uncharted and NFS on the go (and I really do, as Golden Abyss is my second favorite Uncharted game and I've already logged 10 hours into NFS MW for the Vita and I barely scratched the surface), I can't help but always have the idea in back of my head that those games would play and look a lot better on my TV.
 

zoukka

Member
It's a very important topic about vita the op brought up. I see titles aspiring to be "console quality" and I am immediately put off by them. Sony tries to paint this image that Vita is a portable home console not realising devs aren't going to push it like they did PS3. They don't have the resources nor the fanbase on vita that is needed for those kind of games.

So we are left with titles that are "almost there" stealing the attention from genuinely fresh and good games that are true portable games.

Maybe they realise this before Vita 2.
 
Top Bottom