badgenome said:
But the reason for that is that Nintendo doesn't try to play the power game, and so their software for the 3DS plays to the 3DS' strengths (which are also Nintendo's strengths). Namely, games with artistic charm and strong gameplay hooks. By working on a handheld that is so inferior to home consoles, Nintendo and third parties have to approach the 3DS as a specific device rather than just another platform which can act as a dumping ground for ports. So playing a 3DS exclusive game on the 3DS can create a sort of indelible experience, while - with very few exceptions like Hotline Miami - playing a port of some indie or PS2 game on the Vita doesn't. It's true that each game should be reviewed as a stand-alone product, but that's tricky business because there's a difference between a game that is clearly technically inferior but well adapted to a platform (some of the CODs on Wii) versus ones that are just flat out inferior (Pac-Man on the 2600 or Street Fighter II on the ZX, to name a couple of admittedly extreme cases). Porting games around as much as Sony does in such a short span of time naturally invites these kinds of comparisons. The big problem for reviewers' and the general public's perception of the Vita is that two years in Sony is still just throwing out these kinds of ports that would have been fine as stop gaps for that barren first year or to fill out an empty spot in an otherwise robust release calendar, but which seem instead to make up the bulk of their first party efforts on their own handheld. The next time some Sony guy mentions how it's hard to get third parties to invest in the Vita, the interviewer should remind him of the fact that Sony doesn't invest in it, either. |
I totally get what you are saying. But then when there is a Vita release that is exclusive (see Killzone) the reviews then all bemoan that fact they would rather play it on a home console. You don't see that for 3DS reviews. It's taken as a handheld title and left at that.








