| Runa216 said: to be fair, as a reviewer I've noticed that MOST reviewers tend to be much harsher on handheld games than they are on console games. No idea why, but I know that a game like gravity rush, if released for the same price on the PS3, would get a 90+ metacritic rating, but as it is, it got am 83. Resistance Burning skies was a solid 7/10 game, good gameplay, good graphics, good audio, good controls, mediocre story, good multiplayer (good everywhere basically) but got a 56 on metacritic, even though it was comparable in many ways to to Resistance 2 in pretty much every way save the co op mode, which got an 86. Pokemon, for crying out loud, is a better game than most console games, wit value almost on par with standouts like Skyrim and Fallout...yet it only got an 86-87 overall. Pokemon is clearly a 90+ game series. |
I've noticed that too.
I think it literally comes down to (as Chandler says) - Sony advertised Vita as a portable PS3, so reviewers compare all these games to PS3 games. Not really sure what other reason for it there could be.
As for the Nintendo stuff, I find that reviewers tend to be slightly more leniant on them. In Pokemon's case, it doesn't really have a console counterpart (and I'd agree with you that they tend to be better than most console games).
For things like Mario Kart & Super Mario 3D land though, in the 85-90 range, they literally seem to be graphically downgraded versions of console games. Keep the core mechanics and content the same, adjust the graphics a bit. Which is what I thought Vita games were to their PS3 counterparts. Which is why I assume reviewers are still living by the whole "portable PS3" motto when reviewing them.
Unfortunate, but hopefully it'll pass.
