While the drivers gear up for a fresh season of break-neck speeds, Vita owners are able to take the wheel of last year's Formula One recers on their new handheld. If you're not an F1 fan, it'll feel a decent game, but its difference to the PS3 version of F1 is noticeable and given the choice, you'll always reach for the non-portable equivalent.
While an improvement on the 3DS version, realism is far from its best, with play too stripped down for my liking, and thrills kept to a minimum. Still, all the game modes are there from trials to full Grand Prix events. There's a dignified multiplayer mode too for up to four Vita players, as well as a challenge system which sees users face tasks outside of the usual race format.
Plenty on the starting grid to tickle your fancy, then, but it's by no means a PS3 version in your pocket and lacks the va-va-voom of what we've come to know. Maybe I'm expecting too much, but the lack of Vita integrated features is perhaps another sign more could have been done to take F1 onto Sony's new powerful platform.
With Motorstorm RC offering cheap thrills for under a tenner, it's hard to justify F1's price tag. Those of you with a fondness for the sport should be kept happy until the 2012 refresh pulls up on the starting grid.
More info Codemasters
Fifa for Vita is essentially a stripped-down version of Fifa 11 with current player names and kits. This means that those of you who spent months adjusting to Fifa 12's latest defensive system and gameplay rejig will find yourselves nostalgically sent back in time. Unless that is, you opt to play with the new touchscreen controls.
On paper that sounds fantastic: tap a player to pass to him; shoot; lob, it's all there on the panel. In practice, though, it doesn't quite work and when you lose the ball, only to have to scramble fingers back to the regular button position, it's hard to keep up the pace. On the other hand, the odd splash of touchscreen shooting can be a blessing and for the right fingers, a potential handicap in accuracy.
The framerate feels a bit jittery and the imagery is certainly no match for the stunning graphics on HD home consoles. Nevertheless, the game translates fairly well and I can't stop playing it. With a plethora of connectivity options and the standard single-player selection, there's enough to keep fans on the pitch until an inevitable tweak and season update surfaces later this year.
Certainly beats Sony's free AR game, Table Football, which creates a Subbuteo-like match on an augmented reality background. Meh.
More info EA
Next page: Rayman Origins
The games seem to expensive for a portable console.
You can't compare Skyrim though, there are plenty of full-blown PS3 titles with 8 hours gameplay that cost £40 too. Apparently less than half of gamers even complete a game, so epic titles like Skyrim are becoming an expensive prospect most publishers aren't willing to take a risk on unfortunately.
Re: Re: 95% (for two of them)...
Uncharted is fun but extremely short. 95% at that price with maybe 6-8 hours of gameplay? Nah.
95% (for two of them)...
...seems awful high. I can't for the life of me remember which other games have scored that high but I'm sure they must have been pretty special.. Perhaps I am mistaken though and the score is more common than I seem to think.
Re: # cost of games
600 minutes on Uncharted 3
Bit more than that.
You miss a lot on one playthrough, so do another run, then might as well do it on crushing. Not many trophies left so why not? And that is before doing the multiplayer. I think it took me well over 20 hours getting towards 30 to finish all on the single player, not got so much into the MP as Uncharted 2 however. I worked out Uncharted 2 has cost me about 10p an hour including all of the DLC.
Last game I played with only 1 whole play through was Rage.