• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF

famousmortimer
Banned
(11-08-2012, 09:49 PM)
famousmortimer's Avatar
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?
TwIsTeD
Member
(11-08-2012, 09:51 PM)
TwIsTeD's Avatar
NO......Yes

The Vita at this point will not equal current gen consoles (maybe years down the road) reviewers have no problem saying the PC version is superior when it truly is
Speevy
Member
(11-08-2012, 09:51 PM)
Speevy's Avatar
I think reviewers have learned to scale gaming experiences down to the hardware that's playing them.

Nintendo has now established a trend of releasing graphics cards that are a console generation behind the competition, yet receives objective and even favorable reviews for its games (and the game of third parties).
-Cade
Member
(11-08-2012, 09:52 PM)
-Cade's Avatar
a 0-2 scale
0 is for bad games
1 is for games
2 is for good games
SovanJedi
provides useful feedback
(11-08-2012, 09:53 PM)
SovanJedi's Avatar
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.
Rm88~
Member
(11-08-2012, 09:56 PM)
Rm88~'s Avatar
I think all handheld games should be compared to console games. Obviously not in the tech porn deparment, but there are plenty of cases where handhelds get better versions/entries regardless of that. Of course this is better for games that don't rely too much on tech to be good, but I just don't buy the "it's good... for a handheld" argument.
DidntKnowJack
Member
(11-08-2012, 09:56 PM)
I think the larger problem is most of these games are reviewed by people who wouldn't normally play games on a handheld, so that will invariably affect the scores or the written review. At least that's my perception of the situation.
famousmortimer
Banned
(11-08-2012, 09:59 PM)
famousmortimer's Avatar

Originally Posted by Rm88~

I think all handheld games should be compared to console games. Obviously not in the tech porn deparment, but there are plenty of cases where handhelds get better versions/entries regardless of that. Of course this is better for games that don't rely too much on tech to be good, but I just don't buy the "it's good... for a handheld" argument.


I think that's the rub right there. Some people do, some people don't. I'll admit to having played absolutely shit games on my iPhone because "this is amazing that it's on my phone." These experiences are never as good as games tailored for the device, but it is enough to carry it for a reasonable amount of time. Or unreasonable amount of time, depending on how you view the situation.
Eusis
Member
(11-08-2012, 10:01 PM)
Eusis's Avatar
At a quick glance: seems like you should just evaluate them like other handheld games in the past. Just keep in mind the limitations, IE don't go blasting something like Uncharted for graphics when it's clearly doing the best it could on that system. And the closer you are to specific console games the more comparisons are demanded.

But they also house very distinct experiences, which should be treated equally for entertainment, an extreme example being Mario & Luigi versus Paper Mario (before this generation anyway).
ShockingAlberto
Member
(11-08-2012, 10:02 PM)
ShockingAlberto's Avatar
If the review is negative, people are going to find some way to discredit it. This isn't true of just Vita games, but almost any game, but it does certainly happen with Vita games.

The "console experience in my hand" thing was a big talking point until a game failed to deliver on it, then it was that review was being unfair because it's not a console, it's a handheld. If the next big game gets a review stating "There's been no attempt to make it a handheld game," then the same people will be stating that the reviewer does not understand that the point is to have the console experience in your hand.

You can't change attitudes like this.
Aquamarine
GAF's Resident Waifu
(11-08-2012, 10:03 PM)
Aquamarine's Avatar

Originally Posted by -Cade

a 0-2 scale
0 is for bad games
1 is for games
2 is for good games

This is the true solution to all of the reviewing nonsense.

I don't see any difference between a "6.5" and a "7."

What we need is a simplified system. After all, review scores only exist to measure the general trend of the game's quality...not to objectively measure it to other games.
The Mana Legend
Banned
(11-08-2012, 10:04 PM)
The Mana Legend's Avatar
Graphically, review it based off from what you've seen the system be able to handle in the past.

The rest you judge solely based on how well you think it does in areas that you think are most important to yourself.
ohlawd
Member
(11-08-2012, 10:06 PM)
ohlawd's Avatar
review them just like how the Gameboy, GBA, and the DS games were reviewed in the past?
Derrick01
Banned
(11-08-2012, 10:06 PM)
Derrick01's Avatar
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".
El_TigroX
Member
(11-08-2012, 10:06 PM)
El_TigroX's Avatar

Originally Posted by -Cade

a 0-2 scale
0 is for bad games
1 is for games
2 is for good games


So it's either an A game, a C game or an F game. Is that about right?
hatchx
Member
(11-08-2012, 10:06 PM)
hatchx's Avatar
For me, it just depends how fun it is and the experience I have. I think reviews should (and for the most part, do) take the same approach.

I think console iterations on handhelds often suffer because the big ideas and scale of the console version didn't transition well. MGS3:3D is a good example of this because of the complexity of controls and long cut scenes.

Pushmo is the perfect example of a great handheld game. It's priced appropriately, it's fun, ingenious, addictive, and has a good replay value. I'm sure one could even give it a boost in score due to the nice 3D effect. I don't think the game has anything to gain from HD visuals.

Mario Kart 7 is another example of a great handheld game for the same reasons. I'd rather play MK7 at 60fps and fast load times than a Vita kart racing game at 20-30fps and and load times.

At the end of the day it's about the experience. I don't think people are being unfair to Vita reviews, I think they just aren't enjoying them as much.
Goldenroad
Member
(11-08-2012, 10:07 PM)
Goldenroad's Avatar
If you're gonna price your games as though they are console games, be prepared for critics to review them as such. It's not fair comparing a $10 downloadable title to a $60 retail title, but a $50 Vita game should be able to hold up to the $60 console game, ala Uncharted or Call of Duty. And if it can't, that should probably be reflected in the review for that game.
videotape
Member
(11-08-2012, 10:07 PM)
videotape's Avatar
This is really only an issue when the reviewer gives the score like a teacher grades a test... +10 points point graphics, -3 points for story, etc. I'm more interested if the game is a good use of my time rather than if it checks the boxes of some metrics. That's why I find Tom Chick's one star review of Halo 4 more useful than most other sites. He explains his opinion that the game isn't worth playing, even with solid gameplay/graphics/etc.

Now in regards to the Vita, if the same game is on another platform and it's better, the reviewer should point it out and say whether it's worth picking up both versions. An example could be Lumines, where if reviewing say Lumines Live my opinion would be I prefer the game on the PSP.
Rm88~
Member
(11-08-2012, 10:07 PM)
Rm88~'s Avatar

Originally Posted by famousmortimer

I think that's the rub right there. Some people do, some people don't. I'll admit to having played absolutely shit games on my iPhone because "this is amazing that it's on my phone." These experiences are never as good as games tailored for the device, but it is enough to carry it for a reasonable amount of time. Or unreasonable amount of time, depending on how you view the situation.

The thing is, Vita has games that are good, period (stuff like UMvC3, Rayman Origins and what people are calling the best LBP yet, for example). So I don't think other games should get a free pass. Part of why I love handhelds is precisely because they get exclusive content tailored for them - for example 3DS getting a brand new 2D Castlevania instead of a downport that just wouldn't work on the hardware.
famousmortimer
Banned
(11-08-2012, 10:08 PM)
famousmortimer's Avatar

Originally Posted by ShockingAlberto

If the review is negative, people are going to find some way to discredit it. This isn't true of just Vita games, but almost any game, but it does certainly happen with Vita games.

The "console experience in my hand" thing was a big talking point until a game failed to deliver on it, then it was that review was being unfair because it's not a console, it's a handheld. If the next big game gets a review stating "There's been no attempt to make it a handheld game," then the same people will be stating that the reviewer does not understand that the point is to have the console experience in your hand.

You can't change attitudes like this.


While i agree with what you are saying... you are discussing the reader's reaction, not how the reviewer got to his/her conclusion. I do understand that vita fanboys are going to be unhappy with negative reviews (just as fans of all consoles are.... christ, remember UC3 getting an 8.5?). I'm not arguing, necessarily, that games don't deserve bad reviews, I'm just curious as to whether others think the process is flawed.

There are legitimate issues with Need for Speed, for instance. But I don't think the issue should be "the ps3 version looks better." Because... no shit.
sajj316
Member
(11-08-2012, 10:09 PM)
sajj316's Avatar
- Console games should be compared to other console games
- Handhelds compared to other handhelds
- iOS/ Android compared to other iOS/Android

Just because one says a console like experience on the go doesn't mean it's a console game. Tastes like chicken doesn't mean it's chicken.
TheFightingFish
Member
(11-08-2012, 10:11 PM)
TheFightingFish's Avatar

Originally Posted by famousmortimer

I think that's the rub right there. Some people do, some people don't. I'll admit to having played absolutely shit games on my iPhone because "this is amazing that it's on my phone." These experiences are never as good as games tailored for the device, but it is enough to carry it for a reasonable amount of time. Or unreasonable amount of time, depending on how you view the situation.

So to me this just sounds like the Vita games are being reviewed fairly. It's just more the case that many console experiences just don't work as well on the small portable screen as they do on a home system, regardless of if they are some of the best "home console" games yet available on a portable. I personally play very different games on portables than I do on the big screen. On my home systems I like more big but quick experiences, with online experiences a plus, I have less time to game at home so I detest filler and need stuff that gets right into it. But on portables graphics matter a bit less, I need something that I can play in small chunks on the bus, I'm willing to put up with a bit more grind / filler since I play on a commute and online is spotty. I know that I'd probably rate the console style games on the Vita lower if I was a reviewer and I don't really see anything wrong with that.
benny_a
extra source of jiggaflops
(11-08-2012, 10:11 PM)
benny_a's Avatar

Originally Posted by famousmortimer

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.

I don't agree with this premise. IMO PS3 to Vita is a bigger downgrade than PC to PS3.

And different versions (PS3/360) of multiplatform games are handled differently by Metacritic which means they don't always line up either.
And that's with console versions of games which are the defacto standard version of games (popularity, review copies).
360 and PS3 are often very close to parity.
Last edited by benny_a; 11-08-2012 at 10:13 PM.
Goldenroad
Member
(11-08-2012, 10:11 PM)
Goldenroad's Avatar

Originally Posted by sajj316

Tastes like chicken doesn't mean it's chicken.

But if it's priced like chicken and is advertised as chicken-on-the-go, I don't think you're wrong to still expect chicken.
LeroyPantwether
Member
(11-08-2012, 10:13 PM)
LeroyPantwether's Avatar

Originally Posted by -Cade

a 0-2 scale
0 is for bad games
1 is for games
2 is for good games

I would fully support this.
Jeff-DSA
(11-08-2012, 10:13 PM)
Jeff-DSA's Avatar
I play the game, and I decide whether or not I've had a good time with it. If the game feels cramped, like it belongs more on a console, that's having an impact on the fun I have. I don't care what the reasons are, but if experience suffers, the game gets penalized.

The Vita library is not well optimized for the platform, save for a few titles.
ohlawd
Member
(11-08-2012, 10:13 PM)
ohlawd's Avatar

Originally Posted by Goldenroad

But if it's priced like chicken and is advertised as chicken-on-the-go, I don't think you're wrong to still expect chicken.

You'd be wrong because it still isn't chicken :p

No matter how hard it tries to be like chicken, it won't be chicken.
Aquamarine
GAF's Resident Waifu
(11-08-2012, 10:13 PM)
Aquamarine's Avatar

Originally Posted by El_TigroX

So it's either an A game, a C game or an F game. Is that about right?

No. It's "good game," "average game," or "bad game." Anything else is superfluous and doesn't mean anything, as specific measures of quality are RELATIVE.

What could be an 8.3 to one person could be a 7.4 to someone else. It doesn't mean anything at the end of the day. It's still a good game.
Last edited by Aquamarine; 11-08-2012 at 10:16 PM.
sajj316
Member
(11-08-2012, 10:14 PM)
sajj316's Avatar

Originally Posted by Goldenroad

But if it's priced like chicken and is advertised as chicken-on-the-go, I don't think you're wrong to still expect chicken.

It's priced like 1/2 a chicken in most cases with few exceptions where the farmer thinks its premium chicken. It's chicken-like on the go .. so I don't expect it to taste like chicken ...

This is too fun. I can go on about chicken and Vita ..
Rm88~
Member
(11-08-2012, 10:14 PM)
Rm88~'s Avatar
Just an example: as a veteran fan of both series, I'd put Dragon Quest IX and Kirby Mass Attack at least in my top 3 games from their respective series, regardless of their platform. That's why I think there should be no division, a good game is a good game regardless of hardware - and if a game requires strong hardware to be good, then it shouldn't be on a weaker system.
sajj316
Member
(11-08-2012, 10:17 PM)
sajj316's Avatar

Originally Posted by Rm88~

Just an example: as a veteran fan of both series, I'd put Dragon Quest IX and Kirby Mass Attack at least in my top 3 games from their respective series, regardless of their platform. That's why I think there should be no division, a good game is a good game regardless of hardware - and if a game requires strong hardware to be good, then it shouldn't be on a weaker system.

So you are for no ports to the smaller scale .. right? Different argument.

I am all for reviewing games on its own merrit without comparisons ...
Ken
Member
(11-08-2012, 10:19 PM)
Ken's Avatar
I think portable games can be compared and contrasted against their console counterparts with the goal of helping the reader make a more informed purchase. I also don't think they should use the differences as a knock against each other in the actual review of the games.

Ex. Game A on portable has a simple map select while Game A on Xbox has an actual world hub. The review should say whether or not the simple map select works and not say that the portable version gets -5 points because the console version has a world hub.
iammeiam
Member
(11-08-2012, 10:20 PM)
iammeiam's Avatar
"Does this game I'm playing feel like it's been handicapped by its platform?"

Unfortunately going back to the Mario example since I can't think of a better one: 3D Land is a game which is on a handheld and must have been designed with 3DS limitations in mind. At no point in playing it did I feel like the game suffered for being on a handheld. I never went "The extra processing power of a console would have made this so much better!" Disgaea 3 Vita kind of feels the same, despite being a console down port--its conversion to portable didn't hamper the game.

I think this contrasts with a game where you're playing a console game cut down to Vita size--if the experience feels lacking, the game shouldn't get bonus points just because it's handheld, the game should be designed with the handheld nature in mind.
hayguyz
Banned
(11-08-2012, 10:21 PM)

Originally Posted by El_TigroX

So it's either an A game, a C game or an F game. Is that about right?

No it's a must-play, this-is-okay, and it-sucks
sajj316
Member
(11-08-2012, 10:21 PM)
sajj316's Avatar
Just had a brilliant idea, poultry induced ..

Rotten Egg - avoid
1/2 Chicken - ok
Full Chicken - yum yum

Could do a 3/4 chicken in there as well ...
KojiKnight
Member
(11-08-2012, 10:21 PM)
KojiKnight's Avatar

Originally Posted by iammeiam

"Does this game I'm playing feel like it's been handicapped by its platform?"

Unfortunately going back to the Mario example since I can't think of a better one: 3D Land is a game which is on a handheld and must have been designed with 3DS limitations in mind. At no point in playing it did I feel like the game suffered for being on a handheld. I never went "The extra processing power of a console would have made this so much better!" Disgaea 3 Vita kind of feels the same, despite being a console down port--its conversion to portable didn't hamper the game.

I think this contrasts with a game where you're playing a console game cut down to Vita size--if the experience feels lacking, the game shouldn't get bonus points just because it's handheld, the game should be designed with the handheld nature in mind.

This post wins.
Goldenroad
Member
(11-08-2012, 10:22 PM)
Goldenroad's Avatar

Originally Posted by sajj316

It's priced like 1/2 a chicken in most cases with few exceptions where the farmer thinks its premium chicken. It's chicken-like on the go .. so I don't expect it to taste like chicken ...

This is too fun. I can go on about chicken and Vita ..


Chicken-on-the-go should still be chicken. Don't feed me pigeon and tell me it's chicken-on-the-go is all I'm saying. And if you're gonna feed me pigeon, then damn well give it to me for $5 like pigeon should be priced.
dickgumshoe
Junior Member
(11-08-2012, 10:29 PM)
I don't like numerical scores, just briefly list the pros and cons. Game quality is subjective, numerical scores appear objective, so they'll always be used to compare games, which is ridiculous.
staticneuron
Member
(11-08-2012, 10:33 PM)
staticneuron's Avatar

Originally Posted by ShockingAlberto

If the review is negative, people are going to find some way to discredit it. This isn't true of just Vita games, but almost any game, but it does certainly happen with Vita games.

The "console experience in my hand" thing was a big talking point until a game failed to deliver on it, then it was that review was being unfair because it's not a console, it's a handheld. If the next big game gets a review stating "There's been no attempt to make it a handheld game," then the same people will be stating that the reviewer does not understand that the point is to have the console experience in your hand.

You can't change attitudes like this.

It has to be within reason though.

I will use AC:Liberation as an example. Knocking it for technical faults is fine and understandable. Knocking it because it doesn't match up the grandiose scale of a console game (cost and power) or about other technical issues such as amount of people on screen or amount of simulations versus AC3 (technical limitations), is when it just gets to the silly zone.

Originally Posted by iammeiam

"Does this game I'm playing feel like it's been handicapped by its platform?"

Unfortunately going back to the Mario example since I can't think of a better one: 3D Land is a game which is on a handheld and must have been designed with 3DS limitations in mind. At no point in playing it did I feel like the game suffered for being on a handheld. I never went "The extra processing power of a console would have made this so much better!" Disgaea 3 Vita kind of feels the same, despite being a console down port--its conversion to portable didn't hamper the game.

I think this contrasts with a game where you're playing a console game cut down to Vita size--if the experience feels lacking, the game shouldn't get bonus points just because it's handheld, the game should be designed with the handheld nature in mind.

Backwards logic. Because it always falls into the same trap of skewed opinion. Any game that is expansive should always make you wonder how it wold look or perform on a stronger system. Same goes for all the console exclusives. If people really thought that way scores would actually never make it that high.

I will put up twilight princess for example. The game ran fine and looked great for the system it was on. I still was thinking about how much better it would have been on stronger machines.
Last edited by staticneuron; 11-08-2012 at 10:39 PM.
OldJadedGamer
Banned
(11-08-2012, 10:33 PM)
OldJadedGamer's Avatar

Originally Posted by Goldenroad

If you're gonna price your games as though they are console games, be prepared for critics to review them as such. It's not fair comparing a $10 downloadable title to a $60 retail title, but a $50 Vita game should be able to hold up to the $60 console game, ala Uncharted or Call of Duty. And if it can't, that should probably be reflected in the review for that game.

I agree with this.
hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
(11-08-2012, 10:42 PM)
hey_it's_that_dog's Avatar
If a Vita game is intended to be basically the same game as the console version, then it seems fair to knock it a little bit if it's worse. However, if there's some value added by being able to play it on the go, then bump the score up a little. Just make it clear in the review text what your reference point is, and whether the benefits of portability cancel out the small differences between the handheld and console versions.

If the Vita game has no direct console counterpart, then I guess it should be reviewed like all games are - by comparison to other games.

Basically there is no specific "fair" way to review Vita games. Reviewers should just be articulate about their points of reference and philosophy about what handheld games should be.
D_prOdigy
Member
(11-08-2012, 10:43 PM)
D_prOdigy's Avatar
they should give the high scores to the good games.
Stumpokapow
Currently AFK. Please ask another moderator for help or support.
(11-08-2012, 10:55 PM)
Stumpokapow's Avatar
A five point difference, given the number of reviews, is probably within the margin of error.
Vlodril
Member
(11-08-2012, 10:56 PM)
Vlodril's Avatar
I don't know why people bother with reviews any more. What is bullshit about them is that there is no standard whatsoever. It will dock points from the vita for being inferior from the console but not from the console from being inferior from the pc ports. It will deduct points from a game for whatever reason (unoriginal or whatever) but not from another game with the exact same problem.

I usually just watch videos. Also see what people at gaf are saying and if i like it ill get it.
P90
Member
(11-08-2012, 10:58 PM)
P90's Avatar
As a VitaBro, I think that all Vita games should be rated 8/10 or higher whether they deserve it or not. Just protecting my investment.
BomberMouse
Member
(11-08-2012, 11:01 PM)
BomberMouse's Avatar

Originally Posted by -Cade

a 0-2 scale
0 is for bad games
1 is for games
2 is for good games

I'm partial to the 5 points scale:
- Bad
- Below Average
- Average
- Above Average
- Great

Games should be reviewed on it's own merits, not comparatively.
iammeiam
Member
(11-08-2012, 11:14 PM)
iammeiam's Avatar

Originally Posted by staticneuron

I will put up twilight princess for example. The game ran fine and looked great for the system it was on. I still was thinking about how much better it would have been on stronger machines.

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.
chickdigger802
Banned
(11-08-2012, 11:20 PM)
chickdigger802's Avatar
With handheld games being priced at $40 to $50 these days, the excuse for missing features or what not shouldn't really be tolerated no?

Sony already says vita is played mostly in the house, so comparing an experience of similar nature to a console game isn't completely off base no?

But on the other hand, games should be criticized for being on a handheld as well. Let's use your examples. Most Wanted is a great mp experience, but a mediocre single player one. Vita as a portable should mean you are away from internet most of the time right? (I'd ding points off mario kart 7 too due to the shit sp content).

MLB the show has major framerate and loading issues on vita, and long loading is infinitely worst to the end user on a handheld than on console due to perception, but yes it is still the best baseball game on handheld.

Every game is naturally case by case and how a reviewer played the game (on commute, at home etc).

Owning a dozen retail vita games, I can't think of any that I've though "Wow, this game was made just for the vita". Instead most of them I'm thinking "This game is ok, but I kinda wish this was on ps3 or pc with better framerate and visuals".

Maybe i'm just buying the wrong games, don't know.

Ragnarok Odyssey is probably the best vita game i've played in a while, which is a bit saddening in a sense.

Pick up and play, quick load times, native resolution, solid high framerate. Why so rare :(

Someone should have told me that was gonna be the case before I invested in this. Bah.
RealDeadOne
Member
(11-08-2012, 11:21 PM)
RealDeadOne's Avatar
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.
Takao
Hello friend!
Have you heard the good news about Medabots?!
(11-08-2012, 11:22 PM)
Takao's Avatar

Originally Posted by chickdigger802

With handheld games being priced at $40 to $50 these days, the excuse for missing features or what not shouldn't really be tolerated no?

When the console version is $60, yes?

Thread Tools