LOL, yeah you're prolly right there. Sorry, just said it because I really wasn't wanting the thread to go in "that" direction if you get me because it's not a critcism of the Vita but just the review stuff interested me, but yes you're right so my apologies for that.

Read the OP :)

I'm not complaining, quite the oppiste.

It's alright i understand, what you said completely made sense because when i was reading the review i was expecting like a 8.6 atleast and bam out of no where it was almost a full point lower. The reviews are really inconsistent with the score on vita games and apparently i wasn't the only one because even you and most of the comment section on ign said the same thing.

I'm never checking IGN reviews anymore as I always had the feeling they are biased!

GG Accent Core Plus R doesn't have any online modes, so I think it was lucky to even get a 7.9 since almost 0 fighters today have no online components.

ehhhhhh....http://www.ign.com/articles/2011/10/22/the-playstation-vita-is-set-to-succeed

Colina Moriarty is an asshole, Greg Miller is ok (I still disagree with the 10 he gave Uncharted 3, Uncharted 2 was far better)

I do not really trust review scores. A lot of games are rated to high and a lot to low.

Interesting topic. And I thank you for bringing it up, because as not-much-of-a-Vita-fan (that I know of!), it was interesting to read your thoughts.

Honestly, I've taken issue with multiple IGN reviews of Vita games, but I've always struggled with whether I was being fair on the review since obviously, I like the Vita a lot.

My most recent concern was actually something I discussed with Conegamer, and it was Colin's Soul Sacrifice review. Not that I overly disagreed with anything he said in his review, but comparing it to another IGN review of a game in the same genre (Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate) showed a world of difference. The MonHun review was by Kezza who spent 50 hours playing the game; went into detail about the online mode etc. etc. Colin's SS review was after about 20 hours of gameplay and he openly admitted he hadn't played the online mode that much/at all.

He just seemed to be the wrong person to be reviewing a game in this genre. Like other people have mentioned in the thread, he actually scored it above the Metascore so perhaps I'm just making a mountain out of a molehill from this. But even in the actual content of the review; it just seemed like Kezza was so much more invested and knew what she was talking about better than him.

Anyway, my second issue is to do with the way they review multi-plats on Vita. Specially, the two games which irked me were Need for Speed: Most Wanted and Sonic & SEGA All Stars Racing Transformed. Both of these reviews could be summarised as "Good, but not as good as the home console versions", making specific note of the graphics being worse And that's my issue with it. Yes, I know, Vita is advertised as "Console quality on the go". But that doesn't stop Vita from being a handheld console, and I just find their reviews un-necessarily harsh on titles like this.

The odd thing is that they're not consistent with this mantra. Dead or Alive 5+ scored extremely highly, exactly the same as the home console versions. And to be fair, it's a very good port. But it still received a visual downgrade that IGN were screaming bloody murder for on NFS & Sonic.

Anyway, rant over. But thanks for making the topic anyway, it was interesting reading your thoughts.

"Just had a look on IGN at the Vita reviews."

I stopped reading.

He's also the guy that reviewed Soul Sacrifice and gave it a 7.7, so at least he's not a blind fan. He's just bitter about the Wii like a lot of people lol.