Uncharted, yes. Killzone no. I have the game. It's a bullshot.

Graphics are worse, less players on multiplayer. It is a simpified version because it runs on a weaker hardware. You can say that you like it more because you can play on-the-go, but that's a trade-off: simplified game but with portability.

Thought I made it pretty clear I was talking about exclusives, seeing as I mentioned it multiple times in that post.  But to make it clear, I am talking about exclusives, games I really can't play anywhere else.

It also runs in a lowe resolution. Mercenary only render at 544p (full-res on Vita) when you are standing still, with a framerate around 25 fps. When you move, it decreases the resolution to reach 30 fps, but it isn't noticeable because, well, you're moving. Both Killzone 2 and 3 would run at 720p and 30fps. The MP is also different: Mercenary has 8 players, KZ2 has 24 and KZ3 has 16.

But the correct comparison for Vita is the PS4, because they are on the same gen. Shadow Fall looks waaaay better, has larger areas, 24 players on MP and runs at 1080p above 30fps, with the MP doing 1080@60 with temporal reprojection. While I love both games, it's clear that one of them sacrificed several aspects to become portable, which is fine. But we can't just say that they are on-par.

As for the loading times, I have the game on a physical card and it's like you said. I don't mind because it's a really great game with a fun MP and a nice history.

Why? It doesn't seems fair. You can't play most of these games on the handheld, so if we are comparing handhelds to home consoles using all games is a fair comparison. If you replaced the PS4 with the X1 the result would be the same, so his point is completely valid.

Comparing only first party games, this is no longer a comparison of handheld vs home consoles, but a comparison between Nintendo and Sony first party titles or Nintendo vs MS. I can play Red Dead Redemption on a PS3, it's a 97 meta game and I can't play it on any portable ever made. Why it is out of the comparison? Because it wasn't made by Sony? It's not like it makes difference. People care about which games they can play that are good.

If I we were arguing about PS4 vs X1, games like Street Fighter V and Rise of the Tomb Raider could be used as arguments to justify the preference for one or the other, even if they are on PC and can't be really deemed "exclusives". When you compare two platforms, it's only reasonable to use the "X has this game, Y doesn't".

Then you sentenced it wrong.

But ignoring every good game that ain't exclusive is the main reason why some people can't understand why platform A gets more popular than platform B, although B has a few more good exclusives.

I ask myself that question every day. Why are folks dumping all over handhelds? Why not celebrate more options and more games?

Maybe it's just the exclusionary machismo of the "hardcore" gamer. Or the lust for things bigger and shinier and thus more expensive and less sustainable.

Oh well. When the industry inevitably drives itself off a cliff at least I can take comfort in knowing we all packed handhelds for the long trip into the abyss.

Not invalidating his point, just stating that it isn't relevant to mine.  It's "fair" because this thread is discussing the validity of portable consoles, with many arguemnets in the case of their invalidity being "they're not as pretty".  My counter to that is portables(in this case the 3DS) stand alone/exclusive libraries are hard to rival.  But as I said in the original post, discussing this is a headache as the subjectivity and straw-manning slowly starts to creep in the more you talk about it(not that anyone has done so yet).

Sure.

You know there is one area in the PS4 which is a tiny tiny tiny bit of a let down for me, I was just going to say that you could directly compare the games of Shadowfall and Mercenaries both running on the Vitas sexy little OLED screen... but you can't, I'm not sure if you've used it very much but the remote play function of the PS4 which relies on the standalone processor for handling the video recording / sharing side of things inside the PS4 seems to be a piss weak processor. If you use it to remote play something really taxing like Drive Club, Infamous or Killzone you notice artifacts tearing up some frames pretty badly, I noticed it during remote play and put it down to the connection between Vita and PS4 but if you just record a video clip of something reallllly really detailed you'll notice on the playback you'll get weird artifacts on the PS4 even.

Here is some raw footage of a Driveclub clip for example (not added VO to it yet, been meaning to) but you can see what I mean in the bottom left portion of the screen where the water is pooling inside the hood of the car, that lil processor just makes a bit of a mess of it all.

I know it's off topic... but at this stage I think this thread has run its course of on topic chat about which is better from both sides haha.

Also if you add a blizzard into the mix... the chip just fucks right up lol, this looks marginally better before it went to youtube... but still not nearly as nice as it looked originally which was a thing of sheer beauty. EDIT - Seriously the lightning blasts around 2:30 in the video below are a thing of unmatched beauty in terms of a driving game (which I've seen) just how it lights up the whole mountainside for you to see... amazing.

Really hope the Neo gets an upgrade in those departments.

Just in case of confusion as to why I'd bring it up at all, the same processor in the PS4 which handles the capturing of video is the one which also does the lions share of the work of transmitting the image to the Vita for remote play.

You could also have learned to count, and not cut posts, but hey !