Support NeoGAF

[OmegaTreeFish]

Some of you guys are funny. You keep proclaiming that the Vita is a console in your hands (power, two analogs, dat screen, etc etc), but then get mad because it's games are evaluated on the same basis of console games?

That said, I'm definitely buying Killzone Mercenary next week. Loved the beta.

again thats kind of mixing up words.

Sony sold it as console gaming on the go. That doesn't mean its a ps3 on the go. It means its capable of the same types of games a console can play. Its basically Marketing BS because consoles play all sorts of games including many that don't need 2 analogues or high end graphics.

Truth is that it does offer those kinds of games that didn't really work on portables in the past because of its controls. The problem is devs have to be realistic about what they make. Going a little over 4 gig for this game plus patch is pretty huge on a system thats smallest card couldn't fit this game and biggest card is only 32gig.

They don't have the space they do with a ps3 and bluray disks.

All people want is for reviewers to not be unrealistic with what to expect from a system. They should know these things and some of the comments sound like it would literally be impossible to get them to give a AAA FPS a decent score.

You like IOS games. How would you feel if all reviews compared the games to all gaming consoles and the didnt take into account the price, file size, types of people the game is for, budget etc etc?

The problem isn't the low scores. Its the reasons for the low scores.

 

[lights]

Nowgamer - 5.5

We tried the multiplayer, and when it worked, which wasn't very often, it felt competent but lacking the spit-shine veneer of the single-player.

Its maps consist of six thorough re-workings of existing missions, several of which play out through multiple stories, but more than a hand fulof bugs and iffy matchmaking doesn't bode well for any real longevity.

Pocket Gamer - 8

Multiplayer is even better. This is a fully fledged online multiplayer mode, with various game types, different load-outs to play with, and some genuinely fun toys to help turn the tide of battle. Killzone's always had well-made and well-balanced online modes, and to be able to compete from your bed is just great.

Killzone: Mercenary is an enjoyable shooter, with an excellent online mode

Sigh.

 

[VeeP]

I'm amazed at some of the reviews and some of the comments in this thread. The PS Vita isn't meant to rival the actual consoles, it's meant to provide a console-like experience on a handheld device.

So instead of comparing Killzone to Console AAA Shooters, people should compare it too other shooters on the Vita, iOS/Android, and 3DS.

 

[Triggerhappytel]

Only to be lowered further by Polygon's 4/10

They won't go that low, because it'll look too obvious. They'll probably roil out a 6/10.

Rule of thumb suggests:

PC games get compared to other PC games
Console games get compared to console games
Mobile games get compared to mobile games
Handheld games get compared to handheld games.

It's not perfect but compared to the 3DS KZM is a 10/10 for graphics. Gameplay is a different matter but you have to have some perspective. Comparing the Vita to a console is just coming off as an excuse to mark it down.

I think it's best that consoles in the same category as the 3DS and Vita are reviewed solely on their own merits. The 3DS and Vita are too disparate in their capabilities to fairly compare their technical capabilities. And just because games like KZ:M are Uncharted:GA are impressive, does not make the achievement with the likes of Mario 3D Land any less impressive.

Scoring systems in reviews are stupid. I much prefer reviews that give you their personal pros and cons, without making up an arbitrary number as a score. Mark from Classic game room is a good example.

Game looks pretty fun.

I agree generally, although I imagine most publications do it so they can feature on Metacritic and will get more hits as a result.

Nowgamer - 5.5

We tried the multiplayer, and when it worked, which wasn't very often, it felt competent but lacking the spit-shine veneer of the single-player. Its maps consist of six thorough re-workings of existing missions, several of which play out through multiple stories, but more than a hand fulof bugs and iffy matchmaking doesn't bode well for any real longevity.

Again, seems very rough to judge the MP based on the pre-release setup. Almost all FPS MPs are shakey in the first few days or weeks, but again, is Call of Duty ever marked down for this? I'm guessing not.

 

[Live Free or Die]

I'm amazed at some of the reviews and some of the comments in this thread. The PS Vita isn't meant to rival the actual consoles, it's meant to provide a console-like experience on a handheld device.

So instead of comparing Killzone to Console AAA Shooters, people should compare it too other shooters on the Vita, iOS/Android, and 3DS.

Wow you're talking about using common sense! That's just crazy talk!

Spoiler

You're absolutely right. But that will never happen here on neogaf.

 

[h04felma]

My review for the swedish newspaper Dala-Demokraten: http://dalademokraten.se/2013/09/04/killzone-mercenary-3/

8/10

 

[Derrick01]

I'm amazed at some of the reviews and some of the comments in this thread. The PS Vita isn't meant to rival the actual consoles, it's meant to provide a console-like experience on a handheld device.

So instead of comparing Killzone to Console AAA Shooters, people should compare it too other shooters on the Vita, iOS/Android, and 3DS.

So a console-like game shouldn't be compared to what it's blatantly trying to emulate? Or should it be given certain passes because the hardware it's on can't do what the consoles can do? That doesn't seem fair to me. I don't think we should reward people for simply trying.

 

[Massa]

So a console-like game shouldn't be compared to what it's blatantly trying to emulate? Or should it be given certain passes because the hardware it's on can't do what the consoles can do? That doesn't seem fair to me. I don't think we should reward people for simply trying.

For the same reason PC-like games on consoles aren't compared to the PC versions, people should just use common sense. I get that it may be too much to ask of some though.

 

[EatChildren]

So a console-like game shouldn't be compared to what it's blatantly trying to emulate? Or should it be given certain passes because the hardware it's on can't do what the consoles can do? That doesn't seem fair to me. I don't think we should reward people for simply trying.

It should be judged on the grounds of what it accomplishes for its given directive on its chosen platform, limitations and strengths considered. The "console like" thing is a horseshit myth. What does it matter if it's "console like"? What does that even mean?

Either Killzone: Mercenary is a fun shooter with well designed encounters and interesting game design that just so happens to be on the Vita, or it's not. Whatever Killzone, Killzone 2, and Killzone 3 accomplish should be largely irrelevant, because none of those games are on the Vita, and Mercs is not on the PS3.

"It's trying to be like the console version and that makes it bad" is a lazy complaint that doesn't articulate why this is bad or why it is detrimental to the game design and stands in the way of having fun.

 

[Doctor Decimate]

Today I learned I'm crazy for thinking a game might not deserve a high score if you have add "for a handheld" when you talk about its quality

(Though if we're referring exclusively to graphics, sound, etc. that's a load of bull)

 

[Kaisersalsek]

For me, console like gaming on the go means that the vita is powerful enough to process graphics which wouldn't be amiss on the ps3. Never in a million years, before buying the vita, did I ever think the scope and length of it's graphically intensive games would be comparable to a console game...

 

[DigitalOp]

It should be judged on the grounds of what it accomplishes for its given directive on its chosen platform, limitations and strengths considered. The "console like" thing is a horseshit myth. What does it matter if it's "console like"? What does that even mean?

Either Killzone: Mercenary is a fun shooter with well designed encounters and interesting game design that just so happens to be on the Vita, or it's not. Whatever Killzone, Killzone 2, and Killzone 3 accomplish should be largely irrelevant, because none of those games are on the Vita, and Mercs is not on the PS3.

"It's trying to be like the console version and that makes it bad" is a lazy complaint that doesn't articulate why this is bad or why it is detrimental to the game design and stands in the way of having fun.

Thank you.

Why is it so hard to play a game and review it based on its own quality?

I can't take anyone seriously when they can't do something that simple.

 

[lights]

So a console-like game shouldn't be compared to what it's blatantly trying to emulate? Or should it be given certain passes because the hardware it's on can't do what the consoles can do? That doesn't seem fair to me. I don't think we should reward people for simply trying.

Games like Nova and Modern Combat are blatantly trying to emulate console games but are not judged directly on the hardware.

If you directly compared them to a full console title on graphics and controls I would give them a 2/10.

 

[Derrick01]

It should be judged on the grounds of what it accomplishes for its given directive on its chosen platform, limitations and strengths considered. The "console like" thing is a horseshit myth. What does it matter if it's "console like"? What does that even mean?

Either Killzone: Mercenary is a fun shooter with well designed encounters and interesting game design that just so happens to be on the Vita, or it's not. Whatever Killzone, Killzone 2, and Killzone 3 accomplish should be largely irrelevant, because none of those games are on the Vita, and Mercs is not on the PS3.

"It's trying to be like the console version and that makes it bad" is a lazy complaint that doesn't articulate why this is bad or why it is detrimental to the game design and stands in the way of having fun.

Well to me most of these types of games like Killzone, God of war and Uncharted don't really excel in gameplay they excel in graphics and impressive set piece moments. The problem is those are things that are directly tied to the power of the system you're working on so games that try to emulate that on PSP/Vita are putting themselves in a spot they can't overcome. It's hard to be impressed with Uncharted GA after being in the building collapse in UC2 or the plane crash in 3, at least past the "I'm playing this in my hands" feeling.

That's why I'm questioning why it's a good idea to try and copy these games on to Vita. Even more so with Killzone since it has not a PS3 game, but a PS4 game coming soon. The gap is going to be even larger now.

 

[edgardavids]

One of the biggest concerns i have about some of the reviews is the complaining of only 8 players online. I didn't see the 360/ps3 versions of battlefield get marked down because they don't have 64 players like its pc brethren, christ even splinter cell blacklist released like a week ago on consoles only has 4 v 4. It did not alter any enjoyment out of the game. You can only work to the limitations that you have and the maps feel great with only 8 players.

I think the biggest crime the game commits is that its a killzone game and thus comparisons to its console counterparts (KZ2 and 3) are inevitable.

 

[I Wanna Be The Guy]

That's a load of horse shit to excuse bad games. If a game is bad its bad, if its crippled by budget, hardware platform, or bugs it doesn't matter. A game that's bad is bad.

Platform doesn't matter, quality does.

Did you even read my post? Where did I say a bad game should be recieved well because it's on a specific platform? I said you should judge a game based on what the platform is capable of. Here's an example. Resistance PSP. Amazing game, right? For a PSP game absolutely. Judge that game by console standards and I dare you to sit there and tell me it's a good game. It's a great game by the standards of what the platform is capable of, and should be judged accordingly. Like it or not there's a big difference between a bad console game and a bad handheld game.

Platform does matter. Quality also matters. Quality judged by the standards of the platform in question. In the case of Killzone that's the Vita, and for a Vita game Killzone is damn high quality. That's not just in comparison to other Vita games. It's high quality for what the platform is capable of in general. Call of Duty Declassified is a bad game. I don't just excuse it because it's on the Vita, because the Vita is capable of much better than that turd. It has low quality based on what the platform is capable of. Killzone does not.

 

[shandy706]

I would give it a 7/10 if it were JUST multiplayer.

I'd say the single player is worth at least 1 point. So 8/10 here...lol

 

[casmith07]

"Gaping hole in your Vita's library." -- EGM.

So Dragon's Crown, Muramasa Rebirth, Gravity Rush, Guacamelee!, ACIII Liberation, Uncharted Golden Abyss, just to name a few, aren't good?

Like someone said on page 1 -- these guys don't know how to review Vita games.

 

[Live Free or Die]

It should be judged on the grounds of what it accomplishes for its given directive on its chosen platform, limitations and strengths considered. The "console like" thing is a horseshit myth. What does it matter if it's "console like"? What does that even mean?

Either Killzone: Mercenary is a fun shooter with well designed encounters and interesting game design that just so happens to be on the Vita, or it's not. Whatever Killzone, Killzone 2, and Killzone 3 accomplish should be largely irrelevant, because none of those games are on the Vita, and Mercs is not on the PS3.

"It's trying to be like the console version and that makes it bad" is a lazy complaint that doesn't articulate why this is bad or why it is detrimental to the game design and stands in the way of having fun.

 

[casmith07]

It should be judged on the grounds of what it accomplishes for its given directive on its chosen platform, limitations and strengths considered. The "console like" thing is a horseshit myth. What does it matter if it's "console like"? What does that even mean?

Either Killzone: Mercenary is a fun shooter with well designed encounters and interesting game design that just so happens to be on the Vita, or it's not. Whatever Killzone, Killzone 2, and Killzone 3 accomplish should be largely irrelevant, because none of those games are on the Vita, and Mercs is not on the PS3.

"It's trying to be like the console version and that makes it bad" is a lazy complaint that doesn't articulate why this is bad or why it is detrimental to the game design and stands in the way of having fun.

The first Medal of Honor suffered from the same thing in reviews: "it doesn't have killstreaks and perks like Call of Duty" was an oft-quoted "failure" of the game in reviews.

I agree with you 100%.

 

[nampad]

It should be judged on the grounds of what it accomplishes for its given directive on its chosen platform, limitations and strengths considered. The "console like" thing is a horseshit myth. What does it matter if it's "console like"? What does that even mean?

Either Killzone: Mercenary is a fun shooter with well designed encounters and interesting game design that just so happens to be on the Vita, or it's not. Whatever Killzone, Killzone 2, and Killzone 3 accomplish should be largely irrelevant, because none of those games are on the Vita, and Mercs is not on the PS3.

"It's trying to be like the console version and that makes it bad" is a lazy complaint that doesn't articulate why this is bad or why it is detrimental to the game design and stands in the way of having fun.

When is your review releasing? Based on the preview, you actually played the game in different ways.

 

[Dragon]

So a console-like game shouldn't be compared to what it's blatantly trying to emulate? Or should it be given certain passes because the hardware it's on can't do what the consoles can do? That doesn't seem fair to me. I don't think we should reward people for simply trying.

Why do you care whether it's a console-like game? LBP on Vita is the best LBP ever and yet wasn't judged as if it's a console game. There's no reason to. The multi-player on the beta worked for me every time and even though I was terrible at it, was one of the best multi-players I've ever played and the best one on handhelds ever.

We're not rewarding GG for trying, we're rewarding them for succeeding and trying something that almost no one else has been able to accomplish (a competent FPS on a handheld).

Well to me most of these types of games like Killzone, God of war and Uncharted don't really excel in gameplay they excel in graphics and impressive set piece moments. The problem is those are things that are directly tied to the power of the system you're working on so games that try to emulate that on PSP/Vita are putting themselves in a spot they can't overcome. It's hard to be impressed with Uncharted GA after being in the building collapse in UC2 or the plane crash in 3, at least past the "I'm playing this in my hands" feeling.

That's why I'm questioning why it's a good idea to try and copy these games on to Vita. Even more so with Killzone since it has not a PS3 game, but a PS4 game coming soon. The gap is going to be even larger now.

Have you played Killzone on Vita? If not, it's really hard to take you seriously. I really wonder if such complaints have been leveled against a game like Mario Kart 7, which by all accounts is one of the best Mario Karts ever (I've only played a very insignificant amount).

And btw, the God of War games on the PSP were fantastic games.

That's a matter of taste and timing. Gravity Rush and Uncharted came out more than a year ago and AC:L is approaching the 1 year mark (and it's also really bad). 2 of those other games are ports I believe, I played Guacamelee on PS3 for instance. So for someone like me yeah I need something to fill the huge gap in my Vita library. I haven't even turned the thing on since late April.

Guacamelee is not a port. It was released on Vita day and date. It's a cross buy game.

 

[Derrick01]

"Gaping hole in your Vita's library." -- EGM.

So Dragon's Crown, Muramasa Rebirth, Gravity Rush, Guacamelee!, ACIII Liberation, Uncharted Golden Abyss, just to name a few, aren't good?

Like someone said on page 1 -- these guys don't know how to review Vita games.

That's a matter of taste and timing. Gravity Rush and Uncharted came out more than a year ago and AC:L is approaching the 1 year mark (and it's also really bad). 2 of those other games are ports I believe, I played Guacamelee on PS3 for instance. So for someone like me yeah I need something to fill the huge gap in my Vita library. I haven't even turned the thing on since late April.

 

[Commanche Raisin Toast]

Some of the reviews sound like they don't like the Killzone series and were annoyed they had to review it.

"Doesn't dare to be different" even though it does???? It doesn't have the CoD sp/mp structure, and allows you to tie your sp find with mp. It's already different by default. That's before realizing that it breaks away from the way console Killzone games have always been.

Smh

 

[lights]

I hope they don't waste any time on Vita. It's a dead system, it's over. Let it go.

So for someone like me yeah I need something to fill the huge gap in my Vita library. I haven't even turned the thing on since late April.

Yet there's plenty of people who own a Vita who game on it daily. Maybe it's just not for you?

 

[Moobabe]

"Gaping hole in your Vita's library." -- EGM.

So Dragon's Crown, Muramasa Rebirth, Gravity Rush, Guacamelee!, ACIII Liberation, Uncharted Golden Abyss, just to name a few, aren't good?

Like someone said on page 1 -- these guys don't know how to review Vita games.

Surely that means the "hole" is the FPS genre? We have CoD and Resistance - and the less said about both the better.

Some of the reasons behind the scores seem a little weird - though now it's in my hands I certainly don't think around 7/10 is an unfair score.

It looks great and it's good, solid fun.

 

[dreamfall]

I'm looking forward to playing this Online! And it'll be nice to have a proper shooter on the Vita- although I also think the Right Analog stick takes some getting used to.

 

[Deadbeat]

I heard the Singleplayer is 3 and a half hours long.

Confirm/Deny?

 

[EatChildren]

Well to me most of these types of games like Killzone, God of war and Uncharted don't really excel in gameplay they excel in graphics and impressive set piece moments. The problem is those are things that are directly tied to the power of the system you're working on so games that try to emulate that on PSP/Vita are putting themselves in a spot they can't overcome. It's hard to be impressed with Uncharted GA after being in the building collapse in UC2 or the plane crash in 3, at least past the "I'm playing this in my hands" feeling.

That's why I'm questioning why it's a good idea to try and copy these games on to Vita. Even more so with Killzone since it has not a PS3 game, but a PS4 game coming soon. The gap is going to be even larger now.

Right, but even then the quality metric should still be on a per-game per-system basis, including those games that are on PS3 that you don't like. I mostly fucking hated Killzone 2, for example, because I thought the encounter design was rubbish, and the game had little to nothing to ride on except those encounters (being such a traditional, simple shooter).

Mercs, on the other hand, despite being obviously scaled down in battle and presentation scope, I'm enjoying more for what it does with shooter gameplay over its bigger console brethrens.

I guess the long and short of it is that I don't think size matters, except in the cases where size is paramount to the game design. For example, taking a game that relies on scope and density and downscaling a port for Vita or 3DS would be poor design. Same goes for taking said formula and sticking it on a weaker system that is forced to make concessions, and not making up for those limitations elsewhere. That to me is what downscaling to weaker hardware is about. If the formula cannot be retained in full, redesign certain areas so make up for those limitations.

When is your review releasing? Based on the preview, you actually played the game in different ways.

Not for a few days. I'm at my folks until tomorrow afternoon, so I haven't had access to the multiplayer and don't want to push a review through without giving it a workout.

 

[dallow_bg]

I heard the Singleplayer is 3 and a half hours long.

Confirm/Deny?

Depends how fast you can blow through it without doing any of the other objectives. (I believe each mission has 3 styles you can play - assault, stealth, and something)

So you can probably blow through it at least once in 3.5h if you're fast and not do anything else.
9 missions, designed to be 30-60 mins long each but people are different.

 

[EatChildren]

It is indeed short, probably 3 - 4 hours to complete nine missions. Those who like to run and gun with little interest in collecting intel or exploring the levels will lean closer to 3 hours.

Those who like to explore and wish to make the most of the game and its presented challenges will get a lot more out of the campaign, as not only is there intel to find and acquire (some of which requires stealth interrogations of high ranking enemies, which means you'll need to silently isolate them), but every stage also has three optional challenge modes that present you with a set of completion criteria. For example making your way through stealthily with X weapon while collecting Y intel, or getting X kills with Y weapon and performing several triple kills. The themed challenges spice up the campaign kind of like GoldenEye's extra objectives.

If you're a hit-and-quit style player who won't stick around for replays, the campaign has less value.

 

[shimrra]

To many games I am still tacking thru, eventually I will pick it up and hopefully when i do it should be around $20

 

[x3sphere]

Took me more like 7-8 on Normal. If you rush through the levels then I could see it easily being half that. I spent some time to try out the different weapons and vanguard equipment. KZ3 length was in the same ballpark for me, so I was satisfied.

 

[nampad]

I heard the Singleplayer is 3 and a half hours long.

Confirm/Deny?

My playthrough on normal was around 5:45 hours and I already felt like I breezed through (abused vanguards on many encounters). I would say 3:30 hours is way too fast on your first playthrough.

 

[mullet2000]

"Gaping hole in your Vita's library." -- EGM.

So Dragon's Crown, Muramasa Rebirth, Gravity Rush, Guacamelee!, ACIII Liberation, Uncharted Golden Abyss, just to name a few, aren't good?

Like someone said on page 1 -- these guys don't know how to review Vita games.

Well half of the games you listed aren't exclusives, Uncharted is average and ACIII Liberation is straight up bad so....

Gravity Rush is pretty good though, I'll give you that.

That's coming from a Vita owner who owns all the games you listed. (Except ACIII, sold that shit as soon as I could)

 

[Cha]

Oh wow, that does sound rather short for the single player campaign. I wonder if you can finish the SP on a single full charge. Good thing there are alternate ways approach each mission and different routes you can take. Picking this up on Friday. Wasn't supposed to play it until I've finished some college work, but some reviews make the game sound so enticing that I don't think I can help myself

 

[Triggerhappytel]

That's a matter of taste and timing. Gravity Rush and Uncharted came out more than a year ago and AC:L is approaching the 1 year mark (and it's also really bad). 2 of those other games are ports I believe, I played Guacamelee on PS3 for instance. So for someone like me yeah I need something to fill the huge gap in my Vita library. I haven't even turned the thing on since late April.

Bad luck for you. I play my Vita daily, more than my PS3 now. Recently I've bought Hotline Miami, Stealth Inc. and Spelunky brand new, as well as picking up older games like Everybody's Golf, Resistance: Burning Skies, LBP Vita, etc.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

This is why I think the vita won't be getting games of this caliber anymore. People who clearly enjoyed the beta are making the decisions based on review scores.

Sadly I have to agree. I really enjoyed the Beta and I want to support great games on the Vita. The console has so much damned potential.

The game is very accessible and easy to pick up and play. The entry price is low enough at $40 and even sub 40 bucks at some places. $40 bucks for 48+ hours of entertainment is a good deal since thats the cost of 2 90-minute blueray movies. If you enjoyed the beta, you need to purchase this game to show the developers that we appreciate their efforts.

It's a game I know I'll enjoy. I've been waiting on a decent FPS on the Vita. Resistance broke my heart. I'm trusting Killzone to mend it...

 

[fantomena]

Got my review copy today. Very awesome game.

 

[lights]

Well half of the games you listed aren't exclusives, Uncharted is average and ACIII Liberation is straight up bad so....

Gravity Rush is pretty good though, I'll give you that.

That's coming from a Vita owner who owns all the games you listed. (Except ACIII, sold that shit as soon as I could)

He did say to name a few, there's plenty of other excellent exclusives like Soul Sacrifice, Wipeout 2048, Dynasty Warriors Next, DJMax or Super Stardust Delta to name a few more.

There's also a lot of exclusive Vita titles coming to the west soon like Ys, Valhalla Knights 3 and Demon Gaze.

 

[Lonely1]

So, how long is the SP?

 

[MackAttack]

Good thing I played the beta, or these reviews would dissuade me from getting it next week.

 

[Moobabe]

Good thing I played the beta, or these reviews would dissuade me from getting it next week.

That's the thing that worries me. Merc is good, I don't think it's great, but it's certainly not as bad as some of these reviews are painting it to be - but some people will pass it up because of these scores.

 

[dallow_bg]

So, how long is the SP?

Last few posts above you talk about it.

 

[B.O.O.M]

Some of these reviews are downright embarrassing. And I don't care about the scores (metacritic is a broken system anyways)

One day some of these reviewers will wake up and understand this is a handheld. THis contant bitching about how it must stand toe to toe with the home console versions does a lot of disservice to the quality of these games. The hardware capabilities as well as the gaming environments are just too different.

Will any reviewer complain how you can't have your console KZ, COD etc on the go? Because they should as comparisons should go both ways.

If this game was on smartphones I bet most of the same reviewers will be all over it with joy. Sad state of modern day gaming journalism

 

[VeeP]

So a console-like game shouldn't be compared to what it's blatantly trying to emulate? Or should it be given certain passes because the hardware it's on can't do what the consoles can do? That doesn't seem fair to me. I don't think we should reward people for simply trying.

The game is a hand held game. Pure and simple. And it does more (and probably better) than any FPS on a handheld did before it. It controls better than Modern Combat/NOVA/Coded Arms/"Insert FPS on Handheld Here", looks better, sounds better, and has far better production values.

Color me a negative nancy, but for the multiplayer mode, it seems as though things like persistent connection issues, a limited set of game modes and balancing issues go beyond merely saying that it's not as good as console-based AAA shooters. Those are the sorts of things mentioned in the less positive reviews, and they're certainly specific to the game experience.

Mind you I'm grabbing this as soon as it's available in the US because I enjoyed the beta and I want a fun action-game for my Vita, but I feel like you're oversimplifying the criticisms. Go in the beta thread, and you see regular players saying some of the exact same things.

This will stray slightly off topic, but saying you can't compare it to other games that play the same way because they're not on the same platform leads to a line of thinking where the launch-titles on any platform "deserve" to be given 10s. It's the same reasoning that Kolibri is a "10" because it's the best hummingbird-based shooter on the 32x.

If the game has bugs in online play, balance issues, etc. and the reviewer marks points off for that its fine. The game has problems and that affects the score.

It seems like some people want this game to be Killzone 2 or 3, but thats not gonna happen. It's just not. Your not going to be able to port an experience like that onto a handheld device.

I don't buy iOS games like Nova and compare them to Crysis. Asphalt 8 recently came out, is it being compared to the Need 4 Speed games, and getting marked points because its not good enough?

In the future I plan on buying Super Smash Bros 3DS. But I know full well that it won't be the same or equal to the Wii U version. The Wii U version will have better graphics, controls, frame rate, sounds, virtually everything. It just seems odd to me that people feel that Killzone Vita should match the console games.

 

[Gestault]

So instead of comparing Killzone to Console AAA Shooters, people should compare it too other shooters on the Vita, iOS/Android, and 3DS.

Color me a negative nancy, but for the multiplayer mode, it seems as though things like persistent connection issues, a limited set of game modes and balancing issues go beyond merely saying that it's not as good as console-based AAA shooters. Those are the sorts of things mentioned in the less positive reviews, and they're certainly specific to the game experience.

Mind you I'm grabbing this as soon as it's available in the US because I enjoyed the beta and I want a fun action-game for my Vita, but I feel like you're oversimplifying the criticisms. Go in the beta thread, and you see regular players saying some of the exact same things.

This will stray slightly off topic, but saying you can't compare it to other games that play the same way because they're not on the same platform leads to a line of thinking where the launch-titles on any platform "deserve" to be given 10s. It's the same reasoning that Kolibri is a "10" because it's the best hummingbird-based shooter on the 32x.

 

[B.O.O.M]

Color me a negative nancy, but for the multiplayer mode, it seems as though things like persistent connection issues, a limited set of game modes and balancing issues go beyond merely saying that it's not as good as console-based AAA shooters. Those are the sorts of things mentioned in the less positive reviews, and they're certainly specific to the game experience.

Mind you I'm grabbing this as soon as it's available in the US because I enjoyed the beta and I want a fun action-game for my Vita, but I feel like you're oversimplifying the criticisms. Go in the beta thread, and you see regular players saying some of the exact same things.

This will stray slightly off topic, but saying you can't compare it to other games that play the same way because they're not on the same platform leads to a line of thinking where the launch-titles on any platform "deserve" to be given 10s. It's the same reasoning that Kolibri is a "10" because it's the best hummingbird-based shooter on the 32x.

It's not just a matter of platform but also the 'type' of platform. Handhelds are a much different ball game compared to console games. Do you see any reviewer ever pointing out how lack of portability a negative to a home console game? No, because they will never even consider comparing the game to handheld games and their advantages over console gaming. But for some reason the other way around is fine, especially for vita games.

Handheld games should be compared to other handheld games while ditto for console games as well.

As for the limited number of game modes..it makes sense doesn't it? Vita isn't selling all that well and the market is smaller. Less modes will mean more people to play each one of them. I think that's a smart choice by GG Cambridge. When making the game such things should always be taken into consideration and I don't see that as being a negative at all.

As for connection issues I agree that's a topic that should dock points absolutely. Weird thing is different reviewers are saying the exact opposite of the same aspect of the game. Might have to do with different internet connections or something but yes I agree with you on that point

 

[AgentOtaku]

It is indeed short, probably 3 - 4 hours to complete nine missions. Those who like to run and gun with little interest in collecting intel or exploring the levels will lean closer to 3 hours.

Those who like to explore and wish to make the most of the game and its presented challenges will get a lot more out of the campaign, as not only is there intel to find and acquire (some of which requires stealth interrogations of high ranking enemies, which means you'll need to silently isolate them), but every stage also has three optional challenge modes that present you with a set of completion criteria. For example making your way through stealthily with X weapon while collecting Y intel, or getting X kills with Y weapon and performing several triple kills. The themed challenges spice up the campaign kind of like GoldenEye's extra objectives.

If you're a hit-and-quit style player who won't stick around for replays, the campaign has less value.

Loving what im hearing

 

[Lonely1]

As for connection issues I agree that's a topic that should dock points absolutely. Weird thing is different reviewers are saying the exact opposite of the same aspect of the game. Might have to do with different internet connections or something but yes I agree with you on that point

Judging by the Beta, the multiplayer was nearly unplayable until I set the DMZ to the Vita, on recommendation by a GAFer. However, needing DMZ is not optimal and I'm not sure if I'm willing to give it to the Vita for an extended period of time.