440°
4.0

TGC Review: Call of Duty: Black Ops Declassified

Call of Duty on the go has been a longing wish for most players of the hit franchise. While there are portable iterations, Call of Duty: Roads to Victory, the DS titles and a couple of iOS and Android zombie games, none have provided the thrills that fans have come to expect.

Read Full Story >>
thegamescabin.com
psvitamanfan4178d ago

Shame because it looked like it mite have been decent. Suppose we have to wait till killzone...

Snookies124178d ago (Edited 4178d ago )

Yeah, I can't say personally whether it's any good or not, but I may give it a try at some point to see for myself. Even with "bad" games, there will be people who find they love them. I know I have many times on games that were poorly received.

ronin4life4178d ago

@snookies
I think that depends on why they were "bad". A game hampered by awful design choices or bugs and glitches is more a matter of a poorly made product, while some games can have unconventional designs that are not compatible with some people that result in "low" scores.

I'm not making a comment on this game in question in this reply. Just some thought on game quality discrepancy in reviews and opinions.

SilentNegotiator4178d ago

Two no-name sites give it a bad score before the game is released anywhere in the world.

Grain of salt.

Not that I'm expecting Declassified to be amazing. And lots of sites will attack it for simply being a portable, cheaper version of the game like so many Vita titles have been.

psvitamanfan4178d ago

actually the game came out the same day as Black Ops 2, plus the street date got broken

Awesome_Gamer4178d ago

Waiting for Killzone:Merc, it's the only first person shooter series i ever cared about anyway, CoD is trash.

NewMonday4178d ago

The user opinions mostly like the game, and the recent
videos look nice , and I just have a urge to get it despite not being a CoD fan.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 4178d ago
Raccoon4178d ago

Best FPS on a handheld....

bigbearsack4178d ago

I just watched a video on some multi and it looked cool

HarryMasonHerpderp4178d ago

To be fair I've never even heard of this site and I knew they were going to compare it to the console version which is dumb because I want to know what it's like on the Vita not on a console.
Anyway I'm still interested in this and hopefully we see some better scores, If not then I'll still rent it to see for myself.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 4178d ago
seanjohn0044178d ago

Screw these reviews. Coming from someone who spent the 50 bucks and has my WII U arriving in a few days, COD Declassified is the best handheld CoD ever hands down. If you enjoyed Black ops Multiplayer and want it anywhere at anytime, you should pick this game up.

SaffronCurse4178d ago

Right on!

I was surprised how good the mp was,considering these were the same guys who produced Burning skies (which was awful).

Gamer19824177d ago

Its practically the same as other COD games so if this one is really a 4.5 then the other games are too I say.

Muffins12234175d ago

Not really?All i said that both the 360 and the ps3 where holding it back.How am i a fanboy?For saying they where equal lol? wtf

Also blocking someone is the pussy way of saying "i lost the argument"

:)

belac094178d ago

i think it looks great, all these hipster reviewers on N4G are comparing it to console versions, without even playing it yet i can tell its the best COD handheld by far.

admiralvic4178d ago

While true, does it really mean anything if the other titles are for the DS, iOS / Android or PSP? 2 Thumbsticks + Online multiplayer = pretty easy best.

Kingthrash3604178d ago

Are u blaming the vita for being a better handheld? Are the people who reviewed the game right for giving this game a worse review than some of the other handheld versions if cod when this is clearly the best handheld version? Are they saying resistance is better? Please answer this post haste.

admiralvic4178d ago

You can compare random sites, but unless the same person says it... your point is moot. All I am saying is that it's not hard to be the best version when it's the closest to the console experience.

CanadianTurtle4178d ago

What do you expect from a junk developer like Nhilistic.

chrisarsenalsavart4178d ago

Did you even bother to play the game or are you just talking crap as always.
I did play the game and it s COD on the go and nothing comes close on any handheld.
So go and play with your 3ds and stop trolling about every single vita games.

swansong4178d ago

The game is much better than RBS, and I would personally give it a 7.5. Playing it all day, best FPS on any handheld system.

objdadon4178d ago

This shit is getting very repetitive! The vita game hate is insane! I had my fears when I saw the first trailer but since I've had it in the palm of my hand I now know that these reviews are just hate! This game is fun as Hell if u like cod! Trust me! Make your own determination!

Show all comments (78)
90°

Was Call of Duty: Black Ops Declassified Really That Bad?

PP: Was Call of Duty: Black Ops Declassified really that bad on the PS Vita?

Read Full Story >>
pureplaystation.com
cluclap996d ago

In comparison to its console counterparts at the time? Yes. Yes it was. In comparison to DS versions? It was god like

Amplitude995d ago (Edited 995d ago )

I got tons of fun out of it.

Killzone was better, yeah. Heck even Resistance online was better. But CoD Resistance and Modern Combat and such were all fun to change it up a bit when you've grinded too many hours into Killzone.

If i had to review them, yeah, all those games would get a low af score except Killzone. But i had fun plowing through the Resistance campaign and playing online and goofing off with CoD online while travelling. Not everything has to be a masterpiece but they were all fun enough for what they were lol

250°

Why The PS Vita Ultimately Failed (And How The Switch Did It Right)

How is a system so loved within its community considered a commercial failure, and how did the Nintendo Switch take its idea and run with it?

Read Full Story >>
thegamer.com
MadLad1175d ago

Highly overpriced proprietary memory, and Sony showing it little support, themselves?

VersusDMC1175d ago

Agree with the support but the overpriced memory was always overblown. The switch is an handheld charging 60 for games instead of 40 as they always had before...yet that cost hike is fine.

darthv721175d ago

As someone with both a Vita and PSP GO, it really made me curious why Sony felt the need to make a dedicated memory card when they already had one that was more than adequet. The M2 format (that the Go uses) is virtually the exact same size and shape as the vita... just flipped. It would have made things so much easier for people to buy into it, especially if they were able to insert their existing memory card with their purchased games on it.

I really like the vita, I also think they had a huge missed opportunity with not having TV out. I like to pop my Go onto the TV dock and play some games now and then (doing the switch thing before the switch). Doing that with a vita would have been awesome, especially with full DS4 support.

persona4chie1175d ago

The only thing is the Switch isn’t a handheld, it’s a hybrid of both. So there isn’t really a “cost hike” sure you get an overall lower quality or “handheld” quality when playing portably, but you do get better quality and performance when playing in “console mode”

And yes I know people are gonna say “bUt thE sWitCh iS wEAk” and compared to the PS4 and XOne absolutely, but it’s still console quality games. And the quality is much higher than on any handheld before.

The Vita was a great system, but people’s expectations were too high. It was definitely a capable system, but not as capable as people thought it would be. I don’t remember if Sony said this, but it was said that the Vita would be able to deliver PS3 quality games and it ultimately couldn’t.

And yes the memory cards were definitely an issue. There are countless complaints about it. Nobody wanted to pay $120 for a 32gb memory card https://www.gamespot.com/ar...

Neonridr1175d ago

I mean compare the scope and size of a 3DS game (Link Between Worlds) and compare that to Breath of the Wild and tell me that the additional price doesn't warrant itself.

DarkZane1175d ago

The overpriced memory was not overblown, it's the only reason why the Vita failed.

You had 4, 8, 16 and 32GB cards, but anything below 32GB was too small and a 32GB was $100 at launch, which was way too expensive. A SD card of the same size was like $25.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1175d ago
ApocalypseShadow1175d ago

$249 was a great price for the OG PSP. PS Vita launching at $249 years later for what it did was a steal compared to PSP. Nintendo dropped their price because it made 3DS seem expensive against it for inferior hardware. It worked.

Yeah. The cards were expensive. But look at the flip side. Many gamers stole games on PSP by downloading them from online. Just like they did with PS1 and PS2 games. And we see how DRM gets cut through in software so fast that that wouldn't have been enough. SD Card would have guaranteed theft immediately. They tried something different. Didn't work out.

The games were coming. Problem was, gamers weren't supporting it like they were with PS4. Gamers either complained the games were expensive or that the games were hand me downs or lesser than console like Uncharted. And with mobile phones powerful enough to play games that looked just as good as portable consoles for cheap or free with ads, something had to give. Sony even gave gamers the ability to stream PS4 games at home or anywhere in the world. Even that wasn't enough for some.

Nintendo has ruled the mobile market for decades. It's why they can weather the storm of challengers and mobile. And with new customers being born all the time, Nintendo rides its same properties like Disneyland. But new in house IPs are almost non existent.

The only thing Switch did was have no opposition. No competitor. Microsoft was too cowardly to try ever and Sony gave it a shot. TWICE. Now, if we flip the article around, we can ask how Sony had been successful with PS4 and PS5, while Nintendo failed at dedicated home consoles and ran to mobile.

persona4chie1175d ago (Edited 1175d ago )

Except they didn’t run to mobile? They’ve always had “mobile” devices, and they’ve proved in the past, gimmick or not that they can have a hugely successful system.

They literally just took the best part of the Wii U and made it independent. The Switch is a home console as well as a handheld, not just a handheld but people like that as an added option.

And while Nintendo has definitely had a few poor selling home consoles they haven’t failed by any means, “mobile console” or not it’s still successful.

Plus money is money. It doesn’t really matter if Nintendo is making it with a home console or a handheld. Just like Sony saw the handheld wasn’t viable so they dropped it to focus more on PS4.

Neonridr1175d ago

they failed once, with the Wii U... so you could say that but you'd be reaching Apocalypse.

rdgneoz31175d ago

@persona4chie "And while Nintendo has definitely had a few poor selling home consoles they haven’t failed by any means"

What would you call the WiiU? Nintendo ditched that pretty fast and went to a new console after a few years. WiiU (came out Nov 2012) had 13.56 million sales as of December 31, 2019. Switch has around 80 million and it came out just under 4 years ago.

That said, they learned from their utter failure with the WiiU and came out with the Switch.

ApocalypseShadow1175d ago (Edited 1175d ago )

Nintendo has failed more than once. Home and portable consoles. But name a portable console competitor to the Switch? I'll wait...still waiting...still waiting...

What some fail to mention, is that Nintendo has/had no direct competition to Switch. Zero. They also fail to see that Nintendo has been the dominant portable console maker since Gameboy. Not one portable has won against Nintendo since then. Targeting Vita is foolish as the market leader has always been Nintendo.

As for home consoles, Nintendo basically abandoned the formula of building a dedicated home console. They built a hybrid that's really a portable that replaced 3DS and happens to connect to a TV. But we all know its use and tech specs is mobile. Trying to spin that it's a home console is ridiculous when it can't even play certain games on home consoles. That's why it's streaming certain games. Why? It's a mobile platform. That just happens to have no competition. And Nintendo has been riding on underpowered products while selling the same properties without new IPs for years. At least we can say with Sony, they make new franchises EVERY GENERATION. Something Nintendo doesn't do.

Summary: Nintendo has always been portable market leader for years. And now, they have no competition. Not even from 3DS. So, of course Switch is going to sell unopposed. Vita would have been destined to be second fiddle to Nintendo with portables regardless. Even if Sony would have stuck with Vita.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1175d ago
gamer78041175d ago

No first party support, end of story, they set it up to fail. I still have mine but after launch there was third party support only. They left it to die.

persona4chie1175d ago

Yeah I had a vita on two separate occasions, and I loved it. But like you said, they created this great system and then said “alright go die”

gamer78041175d ago (Edited 1175d ago )

@persona. Right I really liked the system. I even bought the pstv thingy to play my vita games on the tv too

Knushwood Butt1175d ago

It did get a lot of first party support for the first couple of years, but what happened is that third parties didn't know what to do with it. Toned down ports on the cheap, or risky new IPs or AA spinoffs,

They all held back and waited to see someone else take the plunge but it never happened and sales of the Vita didn't pick up, leaving Indies and slowly dwindling first party support.

Name the big third party games on Vita. Assassins Creed Lady Liberty? That CoD game?
Nothing from Capcom.
Nothing from Konami.
Koei Tecmo supported it well but all ports.
Bandai Namco had Ridge Racer that got slammed due to weird content behind paywalls.

Also didn't help that the media slammed anything that wasn't breaking new ground. Strange how the Switch gets a free pass on that.

Anyway, it did get Darius Burst CS, which is also on PS4, but is portable shmup excellence.

Ulf1174d ago (Edited 1174d ago )

This isn't true. There were a ton of (very well done) first-party Vita games in the first couple years -- Unit 13, Killzone Mercenary, Uncharted, Little Big Planet, etc.

They did choose to cater to an older audience, which may have been a mistake.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1174d ago
badz1491175d ago

Nope. Games. Plain and simple. It didn't even have the games like the PSP did. Such a shame for such a wonderful hardware

specialguest1174d ago (Edited 1174d ago )

Even today people are still not willing to accept that what you stated with the overpriced memory and Sony showing little support was a big factor leading to the Vita failure. I remember wanting to a Vista, but was really turned off by the proprietary memory price. Sony abandoned the PS eyetoy on the PS2, the Vita, and PS Move. The PSVR got more support, but Sony could definitely do more

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1174d ago
franwex1175d ago

Pretty much Sony ditched it to focus on PS4. Can’t say I blame them, but it is disappointing. If Nintendo can manage to put out games for handhelds and main consoles-I would assume Sony could too.

persona4chie1175d ago

Oh definitely and the Vita would have been the perfect system for it. The PSP sold how much? 80m? That’s really damn good. If the vita 1. Had more first party support from Sony. 2. Had cheaper memory cards or used SD cards (the 32gb card cost and eye watering $120 at launch) and 3. Maybe launched at a cheaper price, maybe $50 cheaper it would have easily been a success.

godofiron1175d ago

I personally skipped the vita because memory was just so damn expensive - then eventually, Sony gave up on supporting it.

it got nowhere near the love that the PSP got, which is an absolute shame cause it paired pretty well with the PS4.

1nsomniac1175d ago

The only thing Sony cared about was protecting its image against piracy. They were willing to destroy it for the sake of saving face to its investors after the PSP. Same approach they took with not allowing external storage on the ps5.

AnotherGamer1175d ago

The overpriced memory cards easily.

Show all comments (45)
90°

10 PlayStation Vita Software Missed Opportunities

VGChartz's Adam Cartwright: "Many would argue – and I wouldn’t really disagree – that the PlayStation Vita never really had a killer app. There wasn’t that one piece of software that helped change the console’s fortunes. The closest we got was arguably Persona 4 Golden, an early release that received huge critical acclaim, but it was part of a niche series and as such its sales impact from a hardware perspective was muted.

There were missed opportunities along the way, as certain titles had the potential to change the Vita’s fortunes, but the way the final product was delivered (if indeed it was delivered at all) left a lot to be desired and so they didn’t reach their full potential. It’s these games I’m aiming to look at this in this article – 10 games that were missed opportunities on Vita. I’m not saying that every release I’ll be talking out here had the potential to be a “killer app”, but if they had been executed a little better they would have undoubtedly been a key factor in helping the console reach a wider audience."

Read Full Story >>
vgchartz.com
ilikestuff1667d ago

Still thinking about the that last of us 2 multiplayer missed opportunity

isarai1667d ago

My soul still aches over the idea of making 3D Dot Game Heroes a Vita series never happening after the dev studio expressed interest in doing so. Could've been a flagship for it, or at least carried it a bit further.

Abcdefeg1667d ago

The vita contributed to the ps3 having less support from Japanese devs. I hope sony keep focusing on one console at time like they are now in the future

1667d ago