By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - "Console Quality" In Relation to Handheld Games

F0X on 03 February 2014
Zekkyou said:
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.


Ah, this is much closer to what I'm looking for. There are compromises to be made when developing certain kinds of games for handhelds, sure. It's essentally like developing games on older hardware, I'd say. Although, the gain is portability and the conievence of being able to stop and continue a game at virtually any time. From my perspective, these factors enchance the game and help make up for the defecit in other areas. So I do find it unfair to view one means of gaming as objectively superior to the other, because the trade-offs have a ton of potential subjective value tied to them, especially from a cultural standpoint (see: Japan's love for handhelds).

But, my problem is mainly with the term itself and how it's used, not the purported definition. As it stands, I see "console quality" being used as some sort of standard that handheld games should be striving for, and that drives me nuts. Quality is not dependant on hardware (or at least not hardware alone). You will get advantages and disadvantages on each platform, but creativity (and good game design) is born from placing restrictions on one's own capabilities. I'd much rather see terms like Killzone, Uncharted, or AssCreed being "handheldized" rather than imply that the overall quality will, by nature, take a hit.



3DS Friend Code: 0645 - 5827 - 5788
WayForward Kickstarter is best kickstarter: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1236620800/shantae-half-genie-hero

Around the Network
F0X on 03 February 2014
spemanig said:
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.


Then call it "console-like" and leave quality out of it. That would completely clarify your thoughts.



3DS Friend Code: 0645 - 5827 - 5788
WayForward Kickstarter is best kickstarter: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1236620800/shantae-half-genie-hero

F0X on 03 February 2014
Boutros said:
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.


As I said earlier, there's a much clearer term that already exists: "AAA game". Or to be unnecessarily specific: AAA handheld game.



3DS Friend Code: 0645 - 5827 - 5788
WayForward Kickstarter is best kickstarter: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1236620800/shantae-half-genie-hero

Boutros on 03 February 2014
F0X said:
Boutros said:
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.


As I said earlier, there's a much clearer term that already exists: "AAA game". Or to be unnecessarily specific: AAA handheld game.

I don't really like the term AAA since it refers a lot to the financial aspect of a video game (large development teams, big marketing budgets, broad appeal IPs, etc.) without much consideration to its quality (Epic Mickey 2 being a good example).

But it's probably a better term than "console quality".



F0X on 03 February 2014
Boutros said:
F0X said:
Boutros said:
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.


As I said earlier, there's a much clearer term that already exists: "AAA game". Or to be unnecessarily specific: AAA handheld game.

I don't really like the term AAA since it refers a lot to the financial aspect of a video game (large development teams, big marketing budgets, broad appeal IPs, etc.) without much consideration to its quality (Epic Mickey 2 being a good example).

But it's probably a better term than "console quality".


Oh, I'm sure you'll find several people on these forums who don't believe that AAA = quality. Or that high production values = quality, for that matter. The latter is, I suppose, one of my points as to why "console quality" doesn't make completele sense as a term.



3DS Friend Code: 0645 - 5827 - 5788
WayForward Kickstarter is best kickstarter: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1236620800/shantae-half-genie-hero

Around the Network
Slarvax on 03 February 2014

I thought it was used to damage control the Vita by saying "it has more console quality games than 3DS" which is true. And that's why it's selling bad.



Bet with bluedawgs: I say Switch will outsell PS4 in 2018, he says PS4 will outsell Switch. He's now permabanned, but the bet will remain in my sig.

NNID: Slarvax - Steam: Slarvax - Friend Code:  SW 7885-0552-5988

F0X on 03 February 2014
Slarvax said:
I thought it was used to damage control the Vita by saying "it has more console quality games than 3DS" which is true. And that's why it's selling bad.


Well, I wouldn't pin its sales on any one factor. But yes, I do see the term "console quality" occasionally used by a Vita owner. In order to defend Vita and belittle the 3DS library, it seems.



3DS Friend Code: 0645 - 5827 - 5788
WayForward Kickstarter is best kickstarter: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1236620800/shantae-half-genie-hero

kupomogli on 03 February 2014
F0X said:

I think people use the term console quality because usually, handheld games aren't as good as console games when it comes to gameplay, so people usually compare handheld games to handheld games when it comes to gameplay quality.  I've never seen the reason to do so.  To me though, whether a game is a dollar iphone game, or Killzone for the Vita, the quality is still going to be worse or better than [x].  Just because this game cost $1, $30, or $60 doesn't change the quality of the title, but people inflate scores for handheld games because they're under the assumption that because it's handheld, then it's allowed to get a higher score because it's worse. 

The same goes for indie titles.  Because [x] game is $14.99, and is really good for how much it costs, people will rate it higher than a $60 game that is only a little bit better.  Because people also inflate games now based on cost, a game with an 8.5 at $10 MSRP is not going to be of the same quality as a game with 8.5 at $60 MSRP. 



F0X on 03 February 2014
kupomogli said:
F0X said:

I think people use the term console quality because usually, handheld games aren't as good as console games when it comes to gameplay, so people usually compare handheld games to handheld games when it comes to gameplay quality.  I've never seen the reason to do so.  To me though, whether a game is a dollar iphone game, or Killzone for the Vita, the quality is still going to be worse or better than [x].  Just because this game cost $1, $30, or $60 doesn't change the quality of the title, but people inflate scores for handheld games because they're under the assumption that because it's handheld, then it's allowed to get a higher score because it's worse. 

The same goes for indie titles.  Because [x] game is $14.99, and is really good for how much it costs, people will rate it higher than a $60 game that is only a little bit better.  Because people also inflate games now based on cost, a game with an 8.5 at $10 MSRP is not going to be of the same quality as a game with 8.5 at $60 MSRP. 


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.



3DS Friend Code: 0645 - 5827 - 5788
WayForward Kickstarter is best kickstarter: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1236620800/shantae-half-genie-hero

MDMAlliance on 03 February 2014
kupomogli said:
F0X said:

I think people use the term console quality because usually, handheld games aren't as good as console games when it comes to gameplay, so people usually compare handheld games to handheld games when it comes to gameplay quality. 

I don't know if I would say that.  It implies an inherent difference in quality for "gameplay" between the two.  What defines the quality of gameplay?  Certainly graphics do not, so what else is there?  It would mostly come down to the controls and the mechanics of the game.  Both of those become extremely subjective, though.  A very controversial topic would be Kid Icarus: Uprising's controls.  A lot of people think the controls were bad and would have been better with a dual-analog control scheme.  However, there are also those who were perfectly fine with the controls and actually preferred the way it was.  I would say the difference would be akin to how different mouse vs game controllers work.  It really depends on the person.  

  I've never seen the reason to do so.  To me though, whether a game is a dollar iphone game, or Killzone for the Vita, the quality is still going to be worse or better than [x].  Just because this game cost $1, $30, or $60 doesn't change the quality of the title,

but people inflate scores for handheld games because they're under the assumption that because it's handheld, then it's allowed to get a higher score because it's worse. 

I am pretty sure handheld titles are judged based on the perception of the capabilities of the handheld.  Occasionally based on the environment that it's set in (such as being multi-plat).  The reason the score may seem inflated is because the handheld games are being held to a different standard when it comes to things such as graphics and audio.  There is also different areas that are more important for a handheld than in a console.  So in a console game, how long the game is before you're done may be more important than in a handheld.  However, none of these things actually dictate the overall quality of the title itself.  That is, at least, how I see it.

The same goes for indie titles.  Because [x] game is $14.99, and is really good for how much it costs, people will rate it higher than a $60 game that is only a little bit better.  Because people also inflate games now based on cost, a game with an 8.5 at $10 MSRP is not going to be of the same quality as a game with 8.5 at $60 MSRP. 

Not sure if critics do this, but part of a user's review is also heavily based on if they feel like they got their money's worth.  It only makes sense that this happens.  I can see WHY a critic would do this as their job is to try and sell the game to other people.