When you get your Vita, be sure to add me, my friend. I'm "d21lewis"!

absolutely*thumbs up*.but i sent you a friend request here on vgchartz.why no accept?

I accepted as soon as I woke up this morning!

oh.now i saw it.thanks for accepting.

sparkle 72 at meta.

now psv takes a solid lead with 5.3 points and 3ds is down with 0

Been a month since your last update...

Vita since 10th of Jan

TxK - 88
Dangan Ronpa - 82
Olliolli - 80
Surge Deluxe - 78
Dustforce - 77
Toukiden - 74
Age of Zombies - 74
Dragonball Z: Battle of Z - 68
King Oddball - 66

3DS since 10th of Jan

Bravely Default - 85
Inazuma Eleven 3 - 68
(Chibi Robo Photo Finder - 59 this was on 9th of Jan)
One Piece: Romance Dawn - 44

Damn, all those no gaemz!

If this thread is actually meant to be an unbiased comparison meant to show which system has a better library (this year at least)... you should do a few things...

1. Games should be weighted by price. In general, standards are lower for a downloadable game. We don't expect the graphical polish, length, audio quality, or story quality from downloadable games as we do from retail. Downloadable titles CAN have these things but can score very highly without them.

To put it simply, what would games like Harmoknight or Octodad have scored if they were $40-60 retail products? We expect less enjoyment out of downloadable titles, and rate them accordingly.

2. Games should not deduct points even if they get a 0. It's not like a bad game somehow diminishes the quality of a system's library. If a game is bad, you don't play it. It won't bite you.

3. Weight should be given to exclusives. If I need a certain system to play a game, that improves the value of the system on the whole.

Basically, by making no distinction between downloadable and non-downloadable, or exclusive and non-exclusive, the ratings system skews heavily towards the Vita for which Sony has courted indies in an attempt to plug holes in the retail lineup.

I think you have to be careful not to be too exact about it. Sadly Meta Scores aren't an exact science.

Do reviewers have higher expectations out of the Vita due to it's superior hardware? The multi format games generally seem to score a few % better on 3DS than Vita. Batman scored 68 on 3DS and 62 on Vita, yet they were identical core games which the general consensus was, the Vita was the better version of the two.

Zero Escape was 88 3DS 84 Vita. Lego Batman 2 was 72 3DS 62 Vita. Lego Harry Potter 71 3DS 64 Vita.

These are pretty much identical titles on both formats only. I'm yet to find a single cross format release with a better score on Vita than the 3DS.

I can understand differentiating between downloadable and non-downloadable. But again, how would you do it? A good chunk of Vita downloadable games in the West, had physical releases in Japan and carried full retail prices on PSN to download (Atelier games, Earth Defense Force, That Idol game SEGA are doing etc.) Terraria had a physical release in Japan. The price of a Vita download game also ranges from free to £44.99 (yes, the download versions can cost more than their retail counterpart) There have been a few £34.99 download only titles.

Exclusives, you could add a tally to say "X games were exclusive" on a system, but even if Vita is getting a port, it's still the only portable port of that game a lot of the time. Meaning if you're looking at it for handheld gaming, a PS4/PC release could be irrelevant.

Football Manager could be a big deal on Vita. The iOS/Android one is very popular, however it's severely cut back in comparison to the PC and Mac version. Vita ver is full experience (with 3D Match engine etc not on iOS/Android) and also has cross format save with the PC Mac version. Meaning it's a different proposition to either the iOS/Android offering or the PC/Mac version. It bridges the gap.

A mediocre exclusive isn't automatically more relevant because it's not on any other system.

Where would you draw the line with things?

PERFECT!