According to this thread, a lot do.

p.s

I wasn calling reviewers who haven't picked up on facts stupid not anyone specifically.

I have the game already 2 days and its the best handheld shooter ever. In that case the game should be given at least a 9 or something like that. If I'm honest the game would be an 85/100. The only thing that I still want to see is some improvement in matchmaking because 4v4 MP is really fun and works great. The SP could have been longer but you can replay all the missions with contracts and challenges. Great game on Vita

gamrReview gave it a 9/10 (written by our very own Runa, infamous for underrating Vita games).

I like the look of it, and I'll pick it up when I do get a Vita, but it's not going to convince me to get one by itself, or even along with the existing library.

i have to decide between kz for vita or rome total war 2.... damnit. i was leaning to kz until this..... damnit.... first world problems!!! fucken ahe.

I think it's less about "console graphics" down to the pixel, more about an overall "console experience". They hold it to a PS3 standard of production value, gameplay style, content, etc.

It is console quality on a handheld, which is why it shouldn't be judged harshly due to not being AS good as a console title but rather judged due to a handheld coming so incredibly close to that which is found on a home console.

The reviewing system when it comes to handhelds lately is so backwards thinking. It seriously is like the Vita gets way over criticizes because it's NOT a home console. How does that make sense?

A constant complaint I find is: "This game isn't as good as it would be if they developed it on a home console" or "This game isn't as good as it's home console counterpart".

Nowhere else do I see this constant complaint with a handheld. Heck, they can put console quality games on the iPhone and it gets praised, even though it isn't as good as it's home console counterpart.

Even then, common sense should come into play. No matter what Sony or anyone tries to tell you, a handheld will not give you the exact level of experience a console will.

That should be obvious.

I agree, but the way Sony and devs have approached the Vita generally seems to shoot for this unattainable goal.

So...I aim my arrow at the bullseye worth 10pts, I say I'm gonna hit 10pts but you and I both know I'm only capable of hitting 8 on a good day no matter how many times I've said I could hit 10 and boast I can...If we both know this, why are we surprise when I do hit the 8 as predicted?

Surely the smart move would be to ignore my boasts and expect an 8 each an every time?

I guess I'm just not getting this because to me, it sounds like if Sony's PR told everyone that the sky was filled with onions and a unicorn farting out rainbows, we should believe them regardless of the fact that we can see for ourselves that isn't true.

If you are going to criticise a game, criticise it because you think it's not good in its own right, not because it's not good when compared to a console counterpart. that is just stupid.

A 3ds game will get 90% ratings as soon as it reaches 80% console quality.Amazing a miracle-wizards created this game.Even the missing right stick will be ignored as something negative.

A vita game reaching 95% console quality will get 75% ratings,because the losers still didn't managed to reach 100% console quality.

Deal with it.

It's the same what we gave seen in terms of graphics.Games on Wii,no matter how ugly were never criticized because of lousy graphics.Noone cares wether there is AA ,frameratedrops or not.Games on ps360 can run smooth ,look good with antialiasing,they will be criticized for not having 2x AA,for not running with 60fps,,for not having super high res textures.

Somehow Nintendo managed it to be judged in a different way than others.