A lot of people weren't excited to play TV games on their handheld either
Sony is still confused about that. They marketed it as a handheld Uncharted and Assassin's Creed machine. Now the only people who care about it are people who are into niche JRPGs and VNs.
But hey play some text-based games on your TV yaaay.
So Anakin kneels before Monster Mash and pledges his loyalty to the graveyard smash.
Where my friends and I usually get stupid:
https://www.twitch.tv/MUDWALLHOLLER - Come by hang and visit our Discord. The link for Discord is on the Twitch page.
A lot of people weren't excited to play TV games on their handheld either
Stuff like Ocarina of Time 3D says otherwise. Or other Nintendo console to handheld remakes.
Ya, but the type of quality people expect from a portable gaming system has changed since 1998. Gameboy had NES quality games, for the most part, GameBoy Advance had SNES quality games, DS had what I would consider PS1 type games, and now 3DS is pushing more towards GCN type games. The problem I think Sony has with their handhelds, is that they push the capabilities to the point where it's just not viable for developers to release games on it, aside from indie games.
They basically pushed it as a PS3 in your pocket, so that's the type of games bigger developers want to release on it, but it's just not easy enough, considering that basically everything else has hardly even dented 6th gen quality. Smash Bros. is probably the best example of a console quality game on 3DS right now, and it has come out almost 2 years after the PS Vita version of PS Battle Royal. That should tell people how different the tracks that Nintendo and Sony have made for themselves. I know PS All Stars isn't a core franchise for Sony, but Smash Bros. coming out 2 years after that is actually pretty telling about each console.
Qwest
3DS Friend Code: 4253-3737-8064 | Nintendo Network ID: Children
A lot of people weren't excited to play TV games on their handheld either
Stuff like Ocarina of Time 3D says otherwise. Or other Nintendo console to handheld remakes.
Ya, but the type of quality people expect from a portable gaming system has changed since 1998. Gameboy had NES quality games, for the most part, GameBoy Advance had SNES quality games, DS had what I would consider PS1 type games, and now 3DS is pushing more towards GCN type games. The problem I think Sony has with their handhelds, is that they push the capabilities to the point where it's just not viable for developers to release games on it, aside from indie games.
They basically pushed it as a PS3 in your pocket, so that's the type of games bigger developers want to release on it, but it's just not easy enough, considering that basically everything else has hardly even dented 6th gen quality. Smash Bros. is probably the best example of a console quality game on 3DS right now, and it has come out almost 2 years after the PS Vita version of PS Battle Royal. That should tell people how different the tracks that Nintendo and Sony have made for themselves. I know PS All Stars isn't a core franchise for Sony, but Smash Bros. coming out 2 years after that is actually pretty telling about each console.
I don't think hardware has a lot to do with it.
Sony badly misunderstood the audience for handheld gaming. They tried to push traditionally "console" games onto a handheld device, but people who are really into AAA console gaming generally don't care about handhelds. People don't want a PS3 in their pocket. They want a PS3 hooked up to their TV. The reason that Nintendo has had more success with handhelds is because Nintendo understands the audience and creates games that cater to it.
Problem is that big Western developers don't really "get" handheld devices either. Activision and Ubisoft are confused as to why nobody cares about Call of Duty or Assassin's Creed on handheld, but the answer to that is pretty damn obvious to any 3DS owner. Few Western devs will actually make games that work for a handheld device and are interesting to people who buy handhelds. Even Square-Enix, a company now so focused on pushing console hardware and making mega-budget AAA games, understands the handheld audience and makes games specifically for handhelds like Bravely Default and Final Fantasy Explorers.
So Anakin kneels before Monster Mash and pledges his loyalty to the graveyard smash.
@SpookyMeths
I think it does. Nintendo just released Super Smash Bros. for 3DS, when the PS Vita "equivalent" launched back in 2012. It's about hardware, because Sony didn't release as good of a game on PS Vita as Nintendo did on 3DS, even though the 3DS is graphically less capable. In that sense, Nintendo knows how to use their hardware better than Sony does, which goes back to the difference of support between the 2.
That's besides that the audience is different on handhelds than console, but that doesn't mean that console quality games are unable to exist on handhelds at this point. The portable versions of whichever franchise have almost always been essentially a pocket version of whatever was on consoles. I just think Nintendo and anyone that supports the 3DS does a better job at adapting console games to handheld or creating portable content.
Great examples from Sony are the God of War games on PSP, Killzone, PS Battle Royal(even though it gets beat by Smash, IMO), and possibly even Ape Escape on PSP. Monster Hunter is good, too, but now that's on 3DS, and even Persona is getting a game on 3DS. Those are what I would consider good portable adaptations on console games to portable, but Sony can't afford to do much of anything with PS Vita as a standalone console. They just moved on PS4 instead of dealing with PS Vita's support issues.
I think it does. Nintendo just released Super Smash Bros. for 3DS, when the PS Vita "equivalent" launched back in 2012. It's about hardware, because Sony didn't release as good of a game on PS Vita as Nintendo did on 3DS, even though the 3DS is graphically less capable. In that sense, Nintendo knows how to use their hardware better than Sony does, which goes back to the difference of support between the 2.
That's besides that the audience is different on handhelds than console, but that doesn't mean that console quality games are unable to exist on handhelds at this point. The portable versions of whichever franchise have almost always been essentially a pocket version of whatever was on consoles. I just think Nintendo and anyone that supports the 3DS does a better job at adapting console games to handheld or creating portable content.
In other words, it's all about software. Nintendo knows its audience and makes software with it in mind. Sony and western developers have no idea who the audience for handhelds are and their software lineup reflects that. Hardware is irrelevant.
Great examples from Sony are the God of War games on PSP, Killzone, PS Battle Royal(even though it gets beat by Smash, IMO), and possibly even Ape Escape on PSP. Monster Hunter is good, too, but now that's on 3DS, and even Persona is getting a game on 3DS. Those are what I would consider good portable adaptations on console games to portable, but Sony can't afford to do much of anything with PS Vita as a standalone console. They just moved on PS4 instead of dealing with PS Vita's support issues.
Monster Hunter and Persona don't count because they are not made by Sony or a western dev (though I consider MH an anomaly). And if God of War, Killzone, and Battle Royale are the best Sony can do for catering to a handheld audience, it's no wonder the 3DS outsells the Vita 10 to 1 in the west.
So Anakin kneels before Monster Mash and pledges his loyalty to the graveyard smash.
I think you missed the point. Sony advertised the Vita as a handheld that can play console games. Sales numbers suggest that few cared that much
Few care when it has mostly been console ports with few AAA console quality exclusives. So far, the Danganronpa games are the only appealing exclusive for me. And Tearaway.
I think you missed the point. Sony advertised the Vita as a handheld that can play console games. Sales numbers suggest that few cared that much
Few care when it has mostly been console ports with few AAA console quality exclusives. So far, the Danganronpa games are the only appealing exclusive for me. And Tearaway.
Pretty much the same story for everyone, perhaps swap out Danganronpa for <your JRPG or VN of choice>. Nobody buys the Vita for handheld "console" games anymore. That fad died quickly in early 2012.
So Anakin kneels before Monster Mash and pledges his loyalty to the graveyard smash.
Vita having a "solid" library is quite subjective since a majority of it is niche Japanese games. If you don't like those, you probably don't want to get it...
Solid titles are solid whether someone likes them or not. There are technical aspects that make a title solid, so it definitely is not completely subjective.
As for your "if you don't like [insert category here], you won't like the system" statement..The same can definitely be said about the 3DS due to the fact that platformers and JRPGs (generally) seem to be the system's most prominent games.
Except the 3DS has a much larger library than the Vita does. The statement still stands
Current games: Everything on Switch
Switch Friend Code: SW-5075-7879-0008 | My Nintendo: LzWinky | Nintendo Network ID: LzWinky
I have both and definitely prefer the Vita OS and hardware, but for me, the better original games are on the 3DS. I only use my Vita to play older downloaded games (PSP, PSOne, indies, etc) though, and in that respect the 3DS cannot compete with their poor VC selection and lack of PSN-like sales.
Vita having a "solid" library is quite subjective since a majority of it is niche Japanese games. If you don't like those, you probably don't want to get it...
I disagree. I don't play many of the niche Japanese games but I still think the Vita is a great console and I value it pretty much the same as my 3DS.
It depends on your position on the various ports, remasters and indie games. These are what sell the Vita for me. If you've played them all fairly recently or have a ps2/pc/ps3 instead, it's probably not worth the purchase. But I don't have a PS2 anymore and prefer to play games while I'm travelling than when I'm sat at home. So while my 3DS library is 90% exclusives and my Vita library is 90% non-exclusives, I don't really mind. Games like the FF10 remaster, the Ratchet&Clank collection, the Metal Gear Solid collection, the Sly Cooper collection, The Walking Dead etc are just as valuable as Fire Emblem and Zelda for me.
On top of that, the games are generally cheaper and there's a far superior downloadable catalogue (by far).
Vita having a "solid" library is quite subjective since a majority of it is niche Japanese games. If you don't like those, you probably don't want to get it...
Solid titles are solid whether someone likes them or not. There are technical aspects that make a title solid, so it definitely is not completely subjective.
As for your "if you don't like [insert category here], you won't like the system" statement..The same can definitely be said about the 3DS due to the fact that platformers and JRPGs (generally) seem to be the system's most prominent games.
Except the 3DS has a much larger library than the Vita does. The statement still stands
Much larger library?
The 3DS has 16 pages of game listings, versus the Vita's 14 pages:
The Dreamcast only has 9 pages yet that system has arguably some of the greatest games ever made. Subjective, see?
well on that list i didnt see any of the hundreds of ps1 games that u can get on the vita. i think if u count every single game available, vita might have more. i personally have a vita and a 3ds and lately i play my vita more. but i know when pokemon comes that will change. and the vitas got some pretty awesome games coming this year too, so i personally think your missing out if u dont have a vita.
playing mostly - fantasy life, sword art online: hollow fragment, pokemon x&y, solatorobo, freedom wars, dragon ball z battle of z, futuridium. just got & about to play soon - shin megami tensei IV, one piece romance dawn & unlimited world red, muramasa rebirth, gundam seed battle ...
3DS Friend Code: 1590-4913-8635 | Nintendo Network ID: 3DCALEB
Ah, but how do those compare in terms of quality. The 3DS has a lot of those awful shovelware kids games that the Vita happily avoids getting.
So for example: If you count the number of games that have above 80 on metacritic, the Vita actually has more than the 3DS. I count 53 to the 3DSs 44. As someone who tends to use metacritic in such a way (I never even bother trying a game below 70), this is an important difference!
i like how the thread was pretty much over within the first two responses and yet no one could just let it die. come on, play what you want, guys. as far as any of you are concerned the only console that's 'won' anything is the one able to play the games you want to play (dismissing all else as 'low-quality' or 'shovelware' regardless of actual quality or reception by target audience) and we all know that's far too subjective a thing to try to claim as fact, right?
tl;dr: this has already been argued to death. quit chasing your tails and go play some games.
BEST THREAD EVER future of NL >:3
[16:43] James: I should learn these site rules more clearly
[16:44] LztheBlehBird: James doesn't know the rules? For shame!!!
Forums
Topic: 3ds vs vita
Posts 21 to 37 of 37
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.