Now that I give it some thought, you do make a good point. I sometimes argue that the Vita and psps main shortcomings are/were their focus on console quality experiences, which i don't find particularly enjoyable on a small screen, or on the go. Considering the literal meaning of the word, that seems a bit silly, heh. Perhaps "console level," or simply console-like would be a better term to use, but even that isn't particularly descriptive without some universally accepted meaning for each.

In the end, I guess it  does really boil down to semantics, though. Some people will care, others won't. I can't say this even crossed my mind before reading this thread.

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?

High budget for audiovisuals.

It wouldn't have crossed my mind at all if I didn't believe that I recently saw it being used in an argument that appeared to be downplaying the quality of a large number of handheld games. :P

But isn't there already a good, clear term for that? "AAA game"

"Console quality" still makes no sense. It's not like every console game has a high budget for audio and visual presentation, either. Actually, where is the cutting off point for a high budget? Maybe I need to make another thread just to address that issue.

It means handheld cannot provide the same experience as consoles. The best experiences on general, each year, are on consoles.

I can understand that. If this is the case, it would make zero sense to refer to a handheld game as "console quality" whatsoever. It would also make zero sense to use that term in any other context, because it would make zero sense to compare the quality of console and handheld games, as they are inheriently different.

I've always considered "console quality" a reference to the compromises necessary with a handheld. When you make a handheld console you are restricted by a lot of aspects. You need to fit everything from the screen to the controls into a small device, which has always resulted in a product with worse graphics and controls than a home console.

A good example is Killzone: Mercenary, which both does and doesn't fit the term. Graphics wise it's certainly deserving of the title "console quality", because it really does look as good as many PS3/360 games. On the other hand it's controls are unable to match those of it's home console equivalents, thus can be considered to have "handheld quality" controls.

To put it in simple terms, a PS3 could do almost anything a 3DS can (except the touch controls obviously), but the 3DS wouldn't be able to mimic a lot of what modern PS3 games do. Imagine TLOU on the 3DS :P it would be rather different that's for sure.

Don't think of it as an expression of quality, but of what each can normally accomplish.

I would use "console quality" as in higher production values. As people have mentionned it's a flawed term considering PCs can offer even higher production values but in general handhelds and consoles are oft compared one another since they're both dedicated to gaming unlike PCs.
It rarely pertains to the gameplay although some genre clearly befits stronger hardware specs like open-world games or online experiences.
It could mean (but not always for the best) better visual effects (and resolution), voice over, CGI cutscenes, motion capture animation (or lip synching), better sound editing, etc.
I personally don't require high production values but it's always welcome and appreciated.

When I say "console quality," I'm actually referring to a game that is either a 1st person or 3rd person game on a handheld. It's less of a "quality" thing, and more of a "game type" thing. I use "console quality" because when I see games in those perspectives, I just instinctually imagine them on home consoles first.