610°

2012: Metacritic's worst rated console games

It's the end of the year, so GamesAsylum takes a look at Metacritic's worst rated games of 2012.

Read Full Story >>
gamesasylum.com
caseh4127d ago

Lol is BLOPS on the Vita really that bad?

Noticed WiiU already has its fair share of poor reviews, in my experience though thats just Nintendo for you. For every 10 items of shovelware produced on the likes of the DS and Wii theres an absolute gem that makes the system worth owning.

Cam9774127d ago

I really doubt it is THAT bad. I will be picking it up sub £10, no higher.

Slapshot824126d ago

Yep, Black Ops: Declassified on Vita is indeed a very poor game. The online mode is merely playable/passable and the single player is obviously thrown together in a few months time... tops.

There are much better Vita titles to spend your time/money on: Dokuro, Velocity, Tales from Space: Mutant Blobs Attack and MotorStorm RC are only but a few better ways to spend around $10 on Vita.

As for the developer of Declassified, I'm quite excited to see what they do now that they are no longer Sony's 'ugly duckling' that gets all the under-budgeted and over-hyped titles. I think the team has a lot of talent and I hope they do great things going forward.

ChronoJoe4126d ago (Edited 4126d ago )

Slap, you're mistaken. nStigate (Nhilistic software) only made 2 games for Sony. They were awful; yup. But the games Nhilistic made before that were terrible too.

The best game they've ever made was 'Vampire' which earned a 75 metacritic. I'm not sure what basis you have to believe their studio has talent, but frankly, they've produced little to nothing to show that over the last 10 years.

I'd be truly shocked if they ever produce a good game.

sdozzo4126d ago

It is that bad. You do get used to it, but just horrible. Sadly, I dropped $50 on it.

PATRIOT7ME4126d ago

Vita BLOPS ain't good. Nihilistic apparently didn't learn much from the Vita Resistance.

TheGrimOfDeath4126d ago

They did make the Multiplayer more fun, I have the game. It's great for 25-30$ not 50$.

Aggesan4126d ago

I doubt any developer could make a good shooter with single player and multi player within a few months.

EPIKgamer4126d ago

basically all the shovelware that 3rd parties are trying squezze out on wii and DS are on their, meanwhile WiiU and 3DS are having a pretty sexy dance party of success.

memots4126d ago (Edited 4126d ago )

Bad or not, I have no doubt that it sold very well.

When i got my Vita, Best buy was out of the Black Ops: Declassified bundle but they had plenty of Assassin Creed bundle.

Krimmson4126d ago

Apparently it has sold over 300k in retail alone. For a Vita game, that's not bad at all and considering that the game goes for $50, a handheld game making 15 million is pretty decent.

Too bad that the game itself sucked badly and if the game were to ever get a sequel, it'll probably do much worse because of how terrible this one is.

shutUpAndTakeMyMoney4126d ago (Edited 4126d ago )

BLOPS is Bad on any platform.

Sony should had let Dice make BFBC2.5 for vita.

IAmLee4126d ago

A reviewer completed it under an hour..

Apollosupreme4126d ago

Multiplayer is a whole lot of fun on BLOP. Campaign sucks. I'd give campaign a 1/10 grade but I'd give multiplayer a 8/10 when keeping in mind that this is a handheld and far exceeds any other handheld in multiplayer fun and game play.

Because I don't care about multiplayer I would give the game a 7 to 8 out of ten in terms of fun. I've logged over 30 hours of multiplayer and I still love it.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 4126d ago
freezola754126d ago

I'm very sure that there are worse games out there LOL. I have actually heard mixed views on BLOPS: Declassified. Peace

InTheLab4126d ago

I've also heard mixed reviews about Blops Declassified but the proof is Nihilistic's previous efforts, the 45 minute campaign, and the fact that the console version of the mp is generally broken, so I'm guessing the handheld version won't be much better...

And no zombies?

HalfNerdHalfAmazing4126d ago (Edited 4126d ago )

I don't understand why they didn't port BO2 for the vita, I'm not surprised declassified is a bad game

NonShinyGoose4126d ago

The amazing thing about Declassifed is that as soon as the bad reviews appeared, countless people jumped in to defend it. This was even as early on as launch day.

I can only assume a lot of people were duped into buying a Vita because of it, and thus felt as if they had to defend their purchase. Either that or people mistook the bashing it was getting as general "CoD hate" from Battlefield fans and the like.

Krew_924126d ago

Exactly how I feel too.

It only makes sense for someone to defend their purchase, especially if you just forked over the full retail price of $50 for it. If I would have bought it, I most likely would have done the same.

Good thing I didn't fall for it twice. I learned my lesson with Resistance: Burning Skies...

admiralvic4126d ago

I think it had to do with reviews coming in from 1 side and the fans coming from a different side and the 2 sides just so happen to conflict. Like you can't really review the online past a mechanical standpoint, which was less than inspiring. Not a ton of choices, maps are super small, 4v4, didn't work that well to start, where as fans view it as "true" to the series they love and automatically give it more benefit of doubt than reviews did. The online fans also write off the single player, so a number of people simply bought a $50 dollar Multiplayer shooter on the go, which admittedly Declassified does alright with. (not amazing, but enough to be playable when bored) This is completely untrue for reviewers, which have to look at the full package and single player is virtually nonexistentant. Best of all if you play the game on hard, you can clearly see how half assed the AI is. Even the side modes like enemy rush get boring, since almost every map has a choke point and if you don't use that, then you'll probably die the second the AI gets to hard difficulty.

This is where the conflict mostly comes from. People only looking at the good and in turn defending it and reviewers taking single player into account. Not saying there aren't people who did what you're saying, but I am saying it has more to do with what / how people viewed the game.

memots4126d ago (Edited 4126d ago )

Wow .. stop making sense. You almost made me forget that i was reading a post on N4G.

What you said is 100% fact. Fan loved it, Reviewer could not be bothered.

Bubble up for you, Need more post like this.

Show all comments (36)
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
cluclap988d ago

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

Amplitude988d ago (Edited 988d 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
MadLad1168d ago

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

VersusDMC1168d 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.

darthv721168d 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.

persona4chie1168d 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...

Neonridr1168d 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.

DarkZane1168d 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 1168d ago
ApocalypseShadow1168d 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.

persona4chie1168d ago (Edited 1168d 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.

Neonridr1168d ago

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

rdgneoz31168d 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.

ApocalypseShadow1168d ago (Edited 1168d 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 1168d ago
gamer78041168d 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.

persona4chie1168d 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”

gamer78041168d ago (Edited 1168d ago )

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

Knushwood Butt1168d 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.

Ulf1167d ago (Edited 1167d 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 1167d ago
badz1491168d 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

specialguest1167d ago (Edited 1167d 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 1167d ago
franwex1168d 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.

persona4chie1168d 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.

godofiron1168d 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.

1nsomniac1168d 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.

AnotherGamer1168d 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
ilikestuff1660d ago

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

isarai1660d 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.

Abcdefeg1660d 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

1660d ago