well, i think he explains very well why it didn't get a higher score. maybe it's no problem for you but it seems the reviewer saw it as problem.

"AC+R's menus seem indistinguishable from those of AC's console release at first. The fully featured, but confusing-to-navigate training mode is back, and still lacks the detailed move descriptions that Arc System's newer games sport. This may sound like a minor detail, but in a game where moves can have so many unique properties, it's actually quite valuable. As is a combo trial mode, another staple of modern fighters that AC+R lacks. But easily the biggest omission in this port is that of online play. Despite being the most competitively tuned version of the title available in the West, the only option you have for fighting other people is an ad-hoc connection. Needless to say, this is hugely disappointing, since human competition is the beating heart of one-on-one fighters. The substantial single-player content is identical to the console in every way, but the inability to reliably play against others puts a considerable damper on the experience. "

"But every other fighting game on Vita offers netplay, and without it, you're stuck hunting for someone else with a system and a copy of the game if you want a real fight. It isn't enough to kill all the fun, but it does make AC+R feel incomplete compared to some other portable brawlers."

But games that only have one "minus" are not set to be incredible fun.

This.... actually makes sense, I never thought of it that way.

I just checked ign and it has 19 games above an 8 and 29 games 8 and above for the vita if you don't just count retail games.

Or that. Or, just ignore the number and read the damn review.

Yeah, a fighter in this age without online play at all--hell, even if it had it but it sucked like KOFXIII--is a huge minus in my book. And I've long hated how inconsistent fighters are about providing detailed, thorough tutorials and move properties (like frame data and the like). Between those two things and the game being the umpteenth revision of a fighter that first came out 11 years ago, I can understand someone who isn't a diehard GG fan giving it less than an 8.

And as much as I'm loving Soul Sacrifice right now, I can also see why the repetition can be an issue. You have to do a lot of grinding in SS, both to stand a chance against the tougher enemies and to either level up stuff in your inventory or craft new weapons/items from existing stuff. Thus having to fight the same enemies and scenarios several times is unavoidable. That kind of thing isn't going to appeal to everyone.

Most people care especially about retail games, downloadable games are just a nice afterthought.

Yeah, but it still has 19 games retail at 8 and above. I do agree with the inconsistancy in the reviews, I read them and what they say contradicts the final score every time by at least 1 full point. Everyone else in the comments seems to think that too.

Well the metacritic score of the game is currently at a 76 so Ign were bang on the money with that. I reviewed the game and gave it an 85. I think it is a great and original game.

Oh sorry, I was a bit confused by this formulation. 19 retail games with eight and above actually is really nice, I think the real reason Vita isn't doing so well is the stigma of "downgraded ports" attached to it (which isn't true to the degree some people think it is), even among the Sony fanbase.