DEAR VIDEO GAME JOURNALISTS......

[F0X]

forevercloud3000 said:

F0X said:

forevercloud3000 said:

F0X said:

I suppose being compared to a first-rate, modern handheld is preferable to being compared to losing, aging consoles.

Meaning we must raise the standards for Vita games for the platform's own good.

what does that mean? The same way we judge an elementary student against his peers and not against college students. 3Ds is its only direct competition and psp is vita's benchmark. Thats how it should b judged. Not the top down method of rating it from a console pov. 

If u read the vita reviews u can see what fans r talking about. In comparison to 3ds vita  looks amazing.

No, no, no. You misunderstand - it's good for Vita games to be held to as high of standards as possible, so that only good games succeed. Therefore, Vita games must be held to the same unreasonable standards that Nintendo games are typically held, which is completely fair and beneficial to everyone in the long term.

I'm not seeing how that is benefitial to anyone. 3DS is never compared with Wii or god forbid the WiiU. It is compared to DS,PSP, and Vita whom are it's peers. When a reviewer says "This game could have been don on DS", that is a valid point to make if they feel that way. Yet if they were to start saying "This Mario game pales in comparison to Super Mario Galaxy WiiU", that is ridiculous.

Lets be honest here, when it comes to portable gaming, consumers are far more lenient on what is appropriate. Mostly because the games are much cheaper than full console games(or at least should be) and we only need them to amuse for shorter burst of time. So when consumers see these review scores, because we all know most don't even read them, they are guaging them for that basis. When you rate a portable game a 6/10 consumers thoughts go "Oh.......this must be a really bad game......for a handheld". The key part being "for a handheld", they think that score is propriated in relation to what handheld games should be, not console gaming.

The problem here is that games for Vita, in a perfect world, are a 8s and 9s for what they are in the portable arena, yet if you throw them against AAA titans they appear to be 4s and 5s. Not a fair comparison, and its almost being done on purpose in order to drum up hits from all the rage.

Good thing you qualified that statement with "in a perfect world", because I would tear it up more effectively than scissors on paper.

I was making something of a joke earlier, partly in hopes you'll go even further in defending your position so I can better understand it, and therefore better argue against it. It worked.

Anyway, Sony brought this on themselves. They're literally marketing the Vita as a provider of "console gaming on the go", which is pretty much an open invitation to console game comparison. To make matters worse, games like Uncharted or Assassin's Creed don't make full use (or improperly use) Vita's unique features, which in my opinion harms the case for their existence. Why make a Vita game that doesn't play to the platform's strengths? Simply trying to recreate a console experience is not enough. Instead, it would be much better for Sony to focus on exclusive games for Vita and then give them console-quality (or nearly so) presentation, and preferably not use an IP that's better off sticking to consoles. LittleBigPlanet is a great example of an IP that worked perfectly well with Vita's features and portability. It should be a model for all future Vita games to come.

Once Vita stops trying to be a "portable console" and really starts being a "dedicated handheld" like the 3DS, then I can imagine fairer comparisons made. If not, at least Vita will have better games.