"Console Quality" In Relation to Handheld Games

[F0X]

kupomogli said:

F0X said:

I agree with you in that price has no bearing on quality. It may have an effect on subjective value, but not much more (and quality is still a big factor there). However, I don't believe that quality is 100% relative to the platform a game releases on. Consoles and PC may be a better fit for some genres (like FPS) because of fewer hardware limitations, but that doesn't preclude, say, a high quality platformer, RPG, or action/adventure game from being released on a handheld. A smaller, more focused title doesn't inheriently make for a worse one. A title with lower production values can have better gameplay and level design than a title with better production values. And, even when gameplay is still not up to par with console games, I still think that the convient nature of handheld hardware (now more so than ever) is a balancing factor.

But, ultimately, determination of quality is most often based on extremely subjective notions in addition to the objective ones (and, potentially, outweighing them on a person-by-person basis). I can name several handheld games that I've played in the past several years that are among the best games I've ever played. Better than most home console games I've played, and I've touched hundreds of them. In my mind, they're equal, and that's where the term "console quality" begins to break apart for me.

What you said is correct.  I wasn't trying to say there are no quality portable titles.  There are a lot of high quality RPGs and platformers as you said, and there are some quality shooters as well.  If Uncharted Golden Abyss wasn't held back by its forced touch screen/touch pad implementation, I'd say it's very nearly as good as the first one.  Wipeout 2048 is better than and includes HD/Fury as DLC.  LBP Vita is better than LBP2.  Bravely Default is better than Final Fantasy 13, etc. 

What I mean is that games  like Killzone Mercenary, will be rated higher than if it was a console game simply because it's portable and isn't expected to be as good as a console game.  You know, instead of rating the game how it should be rated.  Killzone Shadow Fall got a 73 compared to Killzone Mercenary's 78.  I haven't played Shadow Fall, but my experience with the FPS last gen was CoD, Halo, UT3, Killzone, Battlefield, Borderlands, Duke Nukem Forever, and Chronicles of Riddick.  I think Mercenary is worse than every FPS I've played last gen. 

Oh yeah, now I see what you mean. That example does smack of having different standards based on the platform a game is on. :P  I felt the same way when Metroid Prime Hunters came out. I didn't understand why anyone was calling it a great FPS (much less a great Metroid game). It's as if extra points were given just because it's a somewhat competently made FPS on a handheld, which usually doesn't get any notable shooters.

The idea that a game can be considered innovative "for a handheld" when it could've been done many times better on a home console... that doesn't sit well with me.