There is only 1 review of the Vita version and the guy just plain didn't like the game. Vita ver is identical to the PS3 and Wii U version. But it just shows how skewed the review scores can be, especially in Vita's case where it gets a couple of reviews at best meaning there is less contingency for extremely negative or positive reviews.

3DS ver meta is just below 82% so higher rated than the PS3 version.

Please let's not play the victim's card...

There weren't that many multiplats between those consoles and home consoles but I'm sure I could find a lot within 5 points of difference between Vita and the rest.

The Mutant Mudds situation is a anomaly surely. I just wonder what caused it.

Ahh ok so that explains it. If there is one review, the meta won't show up though. It is an aggregate, 4 reviews at the least. Did the same guy, or site review the other versions? What was the score on those?

No, I'm talking about the double standards the industry has towards the Vita.  How often have we heard "I wish this came out on console instead." or "This game would be better on console" in reviews?  Yet you have other titles on the other handheld getting praised for the same thing instead.  I referenced Resident Evil as an example of a handheld title which would have benefitted as a console title, being overly rated because it was on the 3DS (console ports haven't reviewed all too well).  

But there usually is no double standard. It's simply hard to draw conclusions from metacritic because usually Vita & 3DS have way less reviews so scores can often get skewed.

And of course games will get reviewed with the potential of the platform in mind. RE Revelations was impressive for a 3DS game, the HD edition is not for a PS3 game. We have a similar case happening right now. Assassins Creed Liberation scored a 70 meta on Vita, the HD edition just launched, it's currently 66 on the PS3 and 59 on the 360, where is the double standard in this case? 

Some may have wanted Liberation as a console title before they have actually got, the game. Now reviewers aren't impressed, maybe they'll stop begging for console ports, cause they see first hand that the games usually are inferior to the console games, given the platform limitations.

Most review sites don't bother to give a score for the Vita version, even when it is released in the same week as another version and they could test both versions together:
http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-4/flower
http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-vita/flower

I think that we, as gamers, should be the first ones to end this metacritic thing once and forever.

Personally, as soon as I spot an high meta score, I grow immeditely suspicious, as it is usually sign of a mediocre american game getting hyped because of a variety of non legitimate reasons.

The single own vote of the player is the only one that counts. Nowadays, in addition to borrowing the game from a friend to check it out, we have downloadable demos, and hours of gameplay videos on the tube. I think that we can (and we must) judge games on our own. The times of journalists and reviewers making the taste for us should be gone, at least in games.

Assassin's Creed Liberation was also reviewed mediocre in general.  70 on Vita vs 66 on PS3, not much point difference.  Revelations is sitting on an 82 for 3DS and sitting on a 74 for PS3, quite the downgrade.  Though that's not what I was trying to get at.  What I was getting at is the mentality reviewers go into when reviewing Vita games.  Hell go ask Runa, no one even wants to review them on Gammreview so he ends up doing them.  It's always "This would be better on consoles so I'll take off a few marks" vs "They managed to make a great experience on handheld I'm gonna give it a higher mark".  Note which portable gets which mentality.

michel3105 said:
"I think that we, as gamers, should be the first ones to end this metacritic thing once and forever.

The single own vote of the player is the only one that counts."

I beg to differ. The MetaScores aren't perfect, but they are a big help to separate the wheat from the chaff for a single platform. And Metacritic is only the starting point, the original reviews are conviniently linked... just click on one of the good and one of the bad rated reviews and read them both. Then you have a lot of pros and cons from very different perspectives and you can decide, which aspects of them matter to you personally... there is a lot of context behind each number.

Comparing between different systems is a bit skewed, because the expectations for each platform influence the rating. Vita and PSP games get punished in most cases, since they don't look as good as systems with a power consumption 10 to 50 times. Nintendo handheld games usually don't are compared to home consoles and don't get punished for being a handheld game.

Smartphone and tablet games even get plus points for being mobile and don't get punished for worse controls or graphics... the expectations in that area are really low, so good games get highest marks. As a rule of thumb, I add 5 points to the Vita-scores and subtract 10 points of the iOS-scores for myself to counterbalance the apparent expectation-handicap. But even without that adjustment at the back of my mind, the slightly skewed review average is A LOT better than the totally biased user scores.

Oh man iOS Need for Speed Most Wanted meta being so much higher than the Vita one was perfect for highlighting how much expectation weighs on a review.

I remember constantly being told the iOS version was the definitive portable version of the game due to higher meta ranking. It was just like, you clearly haven't seen both versions...