First of all, i bought a PS: Vita just for this game and was in love with it as soon as i played the beta. The full game was even better.
Playing the beta i thought this game would get at least 85-90% on metacritic, most of my friedns on psn who played the beta also, thought so, too.
So, after the first few reviews went in, i was shocked, everything from 50%-100% was there, averaging at 77% atm on metacritic.
After reading a few reviews i asked myself why the f**k do they review the game the same as a full ps3 or 360 console game?!
Thats something thats only common for sony (or microsoft consoles but as they got no mobile handheld device its irrelevant here), i mean, its a 40$ game on a handheld, not a 60$ game on a homeconsole, so why is it treated as such? ive never seen something like that for Wii or 3DS games, i mean if a game like Killzone: Mercenary gets 8/10 for its 'presentation' despite having the best graphics just because it doesnt look exactly the same as Killzone 3 on PS3, there has to be something wrong.
Why do 3ds (and wii before the wii u came out) games get reviewed differently? Never are they compared to there bigger console brothers or to the hd twins, neiter technically nor gameplaywise, so why is it different with games on sony platforms? It just seems unfair to me, and the user reviews, you know the people who actually bought the games and are most of the time not biased, share my views just looking at the user reviews on amazon or metacritic:
User reviews for KZ:M
Metacritic: Average 9,2/10.
On the Playstation Store (you have to buy the game before rating it): 4,8x/5 (just for comparison thats higher than Uncharted, Gravity Rush and so on, Call of duty got 4,0 btw)
on amazon us,germany,uk,jp (yes even japan) at least 4,5 stars most of the times 5 out of 5.
Seems a little high for a game rated average 77/100 from 'professional critics', doesnt it?
Fedor Emelianenko - Greatest Fighter and most humble man to ever walk the earth: