Completely disagree. I think Golden Abyss is a totally competent addition to the series, I prefered it to Drake's fortune, and I can't wait to see where Bend go with the series next. 

I'm afraid to post in this thread after reading it, because it seems to attract people who only follow the console wars to wish bad things on their "rival" companies, but I just wanted to say that I believe that a lack of advertising is playing a huge role in Vita's poor sales - I've literally only seen one advert for it since it came out, and that was in an advert before a film at the cinema a couple of months ago.

yeah people agree with you, people who like you never touched a Vita (let alone played any game) ever in the lives before

you know it easy to make baseless bullshit statements when you've never touched something before

to be fair, as a reviewer I've noticed that MOST reviewers tend to be much harsher on handheld games than they are on console games. No idea why, but I know that a game like gravity rush, if released for the same price on the PS3, would get a 90+ metacritic rating, but as it is, it got am 83. Resistance Burning skies was a solid 7/10 game, good gameplay, good graphics, good audio, good controls, mediocre story, good multiplayer (good everywhere basically) but got a 56 on metacritic, even though it was comparable in many ways to to Resistance 2 in pretty much every way save the co op mode, which got an 86. Pokemon, for crying out loud, is a better game than most console games, wit value almost on par with standouts like Skyrim and Fallout...yet it only got an 86-87 overall. Pokemon is clearly a 90+ game series.

I go through all my, DS, PSP, Vita, and 3DS games and see a whole lot of games that are comparable to their console counterparts in every way (with the added value of being cheaper), yet they get lower scores, apparently just because they are on a handheld. Look at Kingdom Hearts 3D! most of the reviews straight up say it's the best in the series or at least comparable to the original PS2 games...yet it's barely breaking an 80 on metacritic! Birth by Sleep was a better game than the original AND was 20 bucks cheaper, and it's at an 82. These are clear cut 90+ games, yet there are very, VERY few games on handhelds that ever break 90. Hell, I think only the top 3 or 4 DS games broke a 90.

I think the most glaringly pathetic excuse for this is Uncharted: Golden Abyss. I own every uncharted game to date (all 4 of them :P) and for those who haven't played Golden Abyss yet, I can tell you straight up that in production value, story, gameplay, and length, Golden abyss is comparable to the other games in the series. The only thing it's missing is multiplayer, and the replacement of action set pieces with more exploration and adventure elements....and it worked!

Yet the PS3 games have an 89, 96, and 92, but Golden Abyss is barely breaking an 80, in spite of it being cheaper than those games.

No excuse for that.

Sony advertised the Vita as a portable PS3, you can't blame people (reviewers are people) that they tend to compare the handheld Uncharteds etc. to their console counterparts and feel disappointed. It will take some time before the portable PS3 thought gets out of their heads.

Oh and I have a Vita and I have beaten Uncharted GA (first Uncharted experience) and I thought it was a mediocre game that was somewhat saved by a mildly entertaining story. I have played (and beaten) Uncharted 3 since and the games are definitely not comparable in quality. UC3 is also a mediocre game but it gets lifted above UC:GA by an amazing storyline, breathtaking environments, deeper characters and just overall more variety. GA's 80 is perfectly fine compared to the other titles. It's like reviewing UC1 TODAY. It would also barely break 80.

I dont care what your interest is, this thread is about proving Vita having games and showing all the games coming out this year. To say it doesnt have any games in this kinda thread is ridicilous. I suggest you stop trolling and derailing my thread capiche?

 Monster Hunter started out on PS2 and got popular on the PSP, so if anything is a downgraded console experience it would be Monster Hunter. Your post doesn't make much sense. You're talking about MH being a killer app, and then talking about UC being a console experience. You probably meant to say: UC is not a big franchise like MH, instead of talking what kinda experience it offers.

I've noticed that too.  

I think it literally comes down to (as Chandler says) - Sony advertised Vita as a portable PS3, so reviewers compare all these games to PS3 games.  Not really sure what other reason for it there could be.

As for the Nintendo stuff, I find that reviewers tend to be slightly more leniant on them.  In Pokemon's case, it doesn't really have a console counterpart (and I'd agree with you that they tend to be better than most console games).  

For things like Mario Kart & Super Mario 3D land though, in the 85-90 range, they literally seem to be graphically downgraded versions of console games.  Keep the core mechanics and content the same, adjust the graphics a bit.  Which is what I thought Vita games were to their PS3 counterparts.  Which is why I assume reviewers are still living by the whole "portable PS3" motto when reviewing them.

Unfortunate, but hopefully it'll pass.

Disagree here. The game has great core mechanics, and decent graphics but everything sorrounding that is mediocre to bad. AI is terrible, the audio seems... weak. Gun sounds don't pack a punch at all, they sound plastic. The story is the worst part, expecially since it's a Resistance game, and I know you know what I mean by that because you loved R3s story just as I did... what a dissapointment. There's one major issue just with the setting. It's set in New York, a city that goes to shit in the blink of an eye in the main series, so why should I care about what happens to people in New York when they're going to die anyway? 

The IGN review nails it.

Djmax Technika Tune looks GREAT.