I would personally from playing it give it around B/B+ It's pretty bad ass for a handheld, Story, some of the touch controls and some framerate issues do hurt my score, but it is a treat to play. I am pretty impressed on how this game performs and looks on the Vita, and MP sessions have been very enjoyable. Hopefully more Developers that are looking to put more FPS's titles on the system, look at this as a source of what can be done on the PSVita's Hardware.

I completely agree with the bias thrown around depending on the console and depending on the game.

Shin Megami Tensei Nocturne received an 82 on Metacritic with 32 reviews while Shin Megami Tensei 4 received an 83 from 30 reviews.. I don't want to type out any comparison pointing out the major issues in SMT4 over SMT3, but if you've played both games, you'll know what I'm talking about. Just that SMT4 gets a pass with all the major flaws the game has because it's a 3DS title, but if this same game was exclusive for the Vita, it'd get slammed for not being as good as SMT3.

And the vita bias continues.

I compared New Super Mario Bros. 2 to New Super Mario Bros U.  :(

i totally agree, to an extent all handhelds are treated this way. though admittedly 3ds to a much lesser extent. 3ds games are usually reviewed for their own merit. How good they are on that platform. some even get padded scores for being nintendo games. just look at Zelda: OoT 3D, a re-released, 15 year old game with date gameplay mechanics, gets a 94 on meta.
then other high scoring games like
cave story: 93
Fire EmblemL 92
Super Mario: 90
Animal Crossing: 87
Luigi's Mansion: 86
Mario Kart: 85
kid icarus: 83
Star Fox: 81 (another 15 year old game.)

the only games im saying dont deserve those scores is Star Fox and espacially Zelda. the others do deserve thir scores.

then you have Vita games all punished for not being their higher resolution console cousins.
Uncharted: 80
Killzone: 78
Wipeout: 79
Need for Speed: 79
Fifa: 79
MLB the show: 76
MLB 13: 75

even LBP Vita, wasnt immune, it was a great score of 88, but if it were a ps3 game it definitely would be 92+

I'm not saying it's a ''valid'' way to look at things, but some ppl do look at it that way tho. Just trying to give a hypothesis on why the scores are low, not why the game deserve low scores.

A other explanation that came to my mind, and it's my main problem with the vita. For me, to really want a handheld game, it has to give me something unique to handheld games and that I can't get anywhere else on consoles. I have'nt played Killzone so I can't say for certain that this is the case, but it seems to me that it only gives you a console experience but on the vita. It may be a really good game, but you can get similar if not better on PS3. So when I see a 75/100 score I think ''This game is really good and worth playing, but if you can you might aswell pick up Killzone3 on PS3 instead. If you can't, that game is still a more than valuable option and you will be happy with it''

I love my 3DS games, but most of them if they were on my home console I would'nt be interested as much, same thing goes for games like bioshock or Arkham City, if they were on handheld I would'nt be as interested.

As much as I would love to lash out at reviewers for being too harsh on a handheld game, the truth is that the PS Vita is marketed and targeted towards console-like graphics, fidelity, and content. If Killzone Mercenary isn't as good as Killzone 3 (it isn't), then it will be scored lower than it. And that's exactly what happened. Same things can be said about Uncharted: Golden Abyss, Call of Duty, or the glitchy but otherwise fantastic Assassin's Creed Liberation. PS Vita games are scored against home console games because that's what the PS Vita is capable of.

Sony should have put it on iOS and Android. It would have scored an easy 93-94 overall.

That the two games were released a decade apart couldn´t  possibly have anything to do with it----

the bold is just laughable...but not surprsising, coming from you

The best fps -handheld game of all time and 77%.

there's something 100% wrong.

I wrote it before:Nintendo releasing such a game reviewers would kiss Nintendo Ass.
They would write:it is getting as close as 90% to a console shooter.That's amazing(and ignore the missing right stick and shitty graphics)
Sony releasing it:meh,meh it has lousy 90% quality of a console-fps.That's so dissapointing.(ignoring superior graphics and the comfort of right stick)

don't believe me?:We"ll just have to wait until another metroid is released on 3ds and take a look at the ratings