DEAR VIDEO GAME JOURNALISTS......

[forevercloud3000]

F0X said:

forevercloud3000 said:

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.

Your statements prove you have not played Assassin's Creed III: Liberations, Uncharted:Golden Abyss, or probably any of the recent Vita games.

ACIII:L is built around short burst missions, doesn't do too much dueling with ACIII's story as not to cause continuity issues, uses touch for only the most effecient of things (like swiping the back pad to pickpocket, touch targeting enemies for chain kills, and menu options), Aveline is a well crafted character with a lot of personality, doesn't dwell on a lot of exposition so gameplay isn't impeded. Not to mention adds an entire new layer of mechanics with the Personas. Only downside I can say of ACIII:L is the ridiculous camera use where you have to put it up at a light but no light in my house seems to be bright enough, or small glitches every now and then with enemy/treasure placement.

Uncharted GA is similar and i would put them at the same level. Missions are short burst, concentrates on puzzles and collectables much more than console versions (which I like), etc. Dislikes would be the less than ND level story,same camera/light trick crap, pulling doors open with tough way to often.

Both of these games are assuredly in 8 range for a portable system, especially when taking into consideration that they do almost look like console games visually.

...............

As for it bbeing Sony's fault for the confusion, I call false. Yes, Sony's advertisments claim "Console like quality on the go", but that doesn't say treat it like it's a console game, because it obviously isn't. There is that "like" in there, does not say it "IS".This could mean many things. I think it refers most with the fact Vita can have almost any input the PS3 could have and then some, as well as the graphics are comparable. Meaning the system doesn't have to sacrifice design quality due to silly handheld limitation like lacking a second analog.

You see names like Uncharted and Assassin's Creed and you immediately deem them as wannabe console games, when both are very fair attempts at the portable design philosophy and retaining the originals charm. Mario/Zelda started on console as well, but it doesn't get lambasted every time it moves to handheld.