"Console Quality" In Relation to Handheld Games

[F0X]

prayformojo said:

F0X said:

prayformojo said:
Handhelds use to focus on pick up an play games. Games that don't require much of an investment time wise. Console games, on the other hand, required a person to sit down, get comfortable and dedicate large portions of time playing a game.

That's what "console quality" means.

Really? I've marathoned handheld games for 10+ hours before. Just because handheld games are structured to accomendate a pick up and play mentailty, doesn't mean that I'm forced to conform to that mentality. There's also no rule that says I can't play a home console game in 15-30 minutes sessions, and considering how different genres are structured, it's completely possible for the majority of console games.

Well, notice how I said "use to"? lol. Times have certainly changed and you can find more engrossing handheld experiences these days than the GBA days etc. But some things still remain such as what you said. Alot of handheld games ALLOW for quick sessions where as most big console games don't. Game like Infamous, Zelda or Halo can't really be played for 5 min because everything you did will be lost between saves.

That makes sense. For the most part, one has to schedule some time to devote to console gaming (5 minute intervals are unrealistic... these days, that's start-up time), while handhelds can be played for a relatively short amount of time without progess loss. Once Sleep Mode is factored in, one can feasibly stop playing at any time and come back several hours later. And until a Sleep Mode equivalent is standard in home consoles, there will be a disparity in convienece when it comes to game progress. Or maybe a quick save/quick reload option like some PC games...

Wait. Are you essentially saying that the difference is hardware-based? In theory, I can pick up and play any and all 3DS or Vita games in short bursts. :P None of those games must be "console quality", then... right?