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.

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

There's no need to say "console-like" if everyone already understands what is meant by "console quality."

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.

I pretty much agree with you. At a face value console games are obviously superiors to handheld games, but that's balanced out in a way by the portability. I'm not sure portability can be considered an actual advantage of quality, instead convenience, but non the less i get your point.

Yeah the context people use the term in rarely makes sense, since there is no unified "console quality" to measure from. To be honest i think a more appropriate statement would be "console style of quality". The PSP and Vita for example fall into that statement quite well, but their games are no better than those of the DS/3DS, the consoles themselves was just designed to give a more console like experiences.

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.

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.