3DS titles aren't getting a pass. 3DS just has better games.

That being said, it's pretty weak comparing a handheld game to a console standards.

wait a minute, hold up! I gave it a 9! one of the highest scores I've given! I think I rated it a bit too high (an 8.7 would do), but yeah.

I AM a reviewer and I agree with you. Far too many instances of comparing the Vita games to PS3 games. Happened with my assassin's Creed III Liberation review. personal score? 8.9. Professional score? 7.9. one whole point difference even though I honestly think it's possibly one of the best handheld games ever...why? it's not as good as Assassin's Creed III.

It scored up to 10% more on average than the console versions (82% 3DS vs 72% PS3 the other versions were in between but all below the 3DS version) which did not have any problems with requiring an add on for full analogue controls and had upgraded (modestly) visuals.

So no, it didn't get marked down for being a handheld game. It was marked up for being on a handheld. Unless you're of the belief that the 3DS version was significantly better.

Did you play KillZone? The general trend seems to be if you haven't played it, it's a fair score, if you have, it's noticibly lower than where most people think it should be. It's one of the best FPS releases this year on any format. The fact that it's on a handheld console and you can play it on a plane/train/bus is pretty spectacular.

On a similar note, Need for Speed Most Wanted on iOS scored better (much smaller, no open world, tilt controls) than the full fat Vita version which was everything offered by the home console version. It had the same "full great game you love on PS3/360/PC on Vita, but the graphics aren't as good so we give it X marks less".

Get used to it. So long as PS3 ports of games keep coming to the Vita, critics will keep comparing the two. Which is the stupid thing to do to be honest.

@Killzone Mercs:
I have not played Killzone Mercs for those wondering but from what I have seen, there is nothing to give it above an average score. Its campaign is only 5 hours long and when compared to other killzone games, there is a good deal of difference (10,8,7hrs respectively for KZ1,2,3 according to howlongtobeat). Additionally, Merc's multiplayer leaves little to write home about as it has only three modes (all typical) and six maps. If a game in a genre as highly saturated as the FPS genre wants to break the 80 review score barrier these days, it has to do something a little more different or exciting. When its defining feature is that it is a decent shooter on a handheld, a 78% is a pretty good score, especially when its console brethren are only sitting a few points ahead (84% for KZ3).

If I am wrong, tell me what makes KZ Mercs so special other than the fact that you love the game.

@Resident Evil Revelations:
First of all, the difference in scores between the 3DS version and the PS3 version was 82% to 75% respectively. Thats a 7 point difference which isn't a very big deal. When factoring in:
a. Late ports often score less when given an independent review
b. Graphical quality isn't up to par with other PS3/360 games (see my comment that graphics are the only thing that should be scalable by console)
c. Different reviewers. The 3DS version had around 50 more reviews meaning the radical low scores meant less in the overall picture and there were still sites that reviewed the PS3 version and gave it a low score that never reviewed the 3DS version.

EDIT: @ Kupomogli: That Xenoblade picture does a disservice to how good the game actually looks. Yes, the textures are often fairly flat but almost any of the locations at night are breathtaking and when factoring in the massive scope of the game, i think it deserves more than a 7 for the quality it is pumping out on the Wii (once again, I think graphics are the only part of a review that should be scaled to a consoles capabilities)

Crazy how we all keep forgetting your opinion is a natural/universal law.

The highest rated FPS on a handheld is Metroid Prime Hunters on the DS at 85% on metacritic. =3

The problem with the score is not that 77 or 78 is bad in a 0 to 100 scale, but the meaning of a 78 score to the game when Metacritic became such serious business that companies pay bonus if certain scores are achieved.

Reviews are always opinions, but they are also affected by external factors (publishers sending "gifts", or publishing their own "trusted review sources" to praise their own games). Besides, games from publishers and series with larger fandoms usually get better scores than the rest. For example, the chance of having a Mario, GTA or Final Fantasy fan reviewing and being more forgiving to an average game from his favorite series is much higher than other less celebrated series.

So, in a fair reviewing system, 77 would be okay and deserved, but for the average consumer, oblivious to those facts and hardly an enthusiast that hardly seek other information besides reading a magazine or visiting a gaming website will take it as bad when compared to the lots of 85, 90 and even 100 scores featured in each magazine edition or month in a review site because of the factors aforementioned. The impression a casual reader will get is that the game is average to bad with the comparatively low score and the insistence that the game is no Call of Duty Blops II or Halo 4.

The game still looks worse than a PS2 game.  Basides, ornilletter stated that Xenoblade had points removed because the graphics having a 7/10, and I referenced the IGN review of White Knight Chronicles, which graphically also scored a 7, and with the exact same style of exploration, beautiful looking landscapes, etc, and looking far and beyond better than Xenoblade, obviously since it's in HD, it coincidentally received the same  graphics score as a game that looks worse than many PS2 titles,  system much weaker than the Wii.  Doesn't that kind of prove that they're not coming the graphics of the Wii to what's on the PS3?

It's not a big mystery. Reviewers simply don't like handheld games. I've seen only a few handheld games getting over 90 in any platform.

Also, Sony doesn't pay to get better reviews.