kupomogli said:
I think people use the term console quality because usually, handheld games aren't as good as console games when it comes to gameplay, so people usually compare handheld games to handheld games when it comes to gameplay quality. I don't know if I would say that. It implies an inherent difference in quality for "gameplay" between the two. What defines the quality of gameplay? Certainly graphics do not, so what else is there? It would mostly come down to the controls and the mechanics of the game. Both of those become extremely subjective, though. A very controversial topic would be Kid Icarus: Uprising's controls. A lot of people think the controls were bad and would have been better with a dual-analog control scheme. However, there are also those who were perfectly fine with the controls and actually preferred the way it was. I would say the difference would be akin to how different mouse vs game controllers work. It really depends on the person. I've never seen the reason to do so. To me though, whether a game is a dollar iphone game, or Killzone for the Vita, the quality is still going to be worse or better than [x]. Just because this game cost $1, $30, or $60 doesn't change the quality of the title, but people inflate scores for handheld games because they're under the assumption that because it's handheld, then it's allowed to get a higher score because it's worse. I am pretty sure handheld titles are judged based on the perception of the capabilities of the handheld. Occasionally based on the environment that it's set in (such as being multi-plat). The reason the score may seem inflated is because the handheld games are being held to a different standard when it comes to things such as graphics and audio. There is also different areas that are more important for a handheld than in a console. So in a console game, how long the game is before you're done may be more important than in a handheld. However, none of these things actually dictate the overall quality of the title itself. That is, at least, how I see it. The same goes for indie titles. Because [x] game is $14.99, and is really good for how much it costs, people will rate it higher than a $60 game that is only a little bit better. Because people also inflate games now based on cost, a game with an 8.5 at $10 MSRP is not going to be of the same quality as a game with 8.5 at $60 MSRP. Not sure if critics do this, but part of a user's review is also heavily based on if they feel like they got their money's worth. It only makes sense that this happens. I can see WHY a critic would do this as their job is to try and sell the game to other people. |
