@Killzone Mercs:
I have not played Killzone Mercs for those wondering but from what I have seen, there is nothing to give it above an average score. Its campaign is only 5 hours long and when compared to other killzone games, there is a good deal of difference (10,8,7hrs respectively for KZ1,2,3 according to howlongtobeat). Additionally, Merc's multiplayer leaves little to write home about as it has only three modes (all typical) and six maps. If a game in a genre as highly saturated as the FPS genre wants to break the 80 review score barrier these days, it has to do something a little more different or exciting. When its defining feature is that it is a decent shooter on a handheld, a 78% is a pretty good score, especially when its console brethren are only sitting a few points ahead (84% for KZ3).
If I am wrong, tell me what makes KZ Mercs so special other than the fact that you love the game.
@Resident Evil Revelations:
First of all, the difference in scores between the 3DS version and the PS3 version was 82% to 75% respectively. Thats a 7 point difference which isn't a very big deal. When factoring in:
a. Late ports often score less when given an independent review
b. Graphical quality isn't up to par with other PS3/360 games (see my comment that graphics are the only thing that should be scalable by console)
c. Different reviewers. The 3DS version had around 50 more reviews meaning the radical low scores meant less in the overall picture and there were still sites that reviewed the PS3 version and gave it a low score that never reviewed the 3DS version.
EDIT: @ Kupomogli: That Xenoblade picture does a disservice to how good the game actually looks. Yes, the textures are often fairly flat but almost any of the locations at night are breathtaking and when factoring in the massive scope of the game, i think it deserves more than a 7 for the quality it is pumping out on the Wii (once again, I think graphics are the only part of a review that should be scaled to a consoles capabilities)
