These types of comparisons are alway difficult, because there are so many variables. I've never eaten quail, but really like ruffed grouse. But I'd bet there are plenty of cooks that could screw it up. And as John Roberts notes, a bacon wrap will cover a multitude of sins.
I really believe that it makes a huge difference how game is prepared, beginning from before time it was shot. The diet of a game animal certainly has an effect upon taste and quality. A guy I know who raised very high quality beef for very expensive restaurants told me that it was very important to even do the slaughtering with great care. He fed his beef cows beer on the day of slaughter to have them as relaxed as possible before killing them. He said it was very important to not have them stressed in any manner so that there was no excess adrenaline pumped into their system when they died. And he told me that people who complain about wild game simply don't know how to care for it.
Ever since, I have done my utmost to kill my game as quiclky as possible. I'd rather pass up a shot than risk a poor shot that would mean wounding and trailing. I have tried to do most of my hunting near agricultural areas where there was higher quality feed. And I truly believe it makes a difference. Then there is the care in gutting, cleaning, bleeding out, and aging if the temperature cooperates. Spoilage never helps. So if it makes a difference with beef or venison, does it also make a difference with a grouse or pheasant? Would a runner with a broken wing taste different than a bird that was dead in the air?
One of the best and most memorable pieces of meat I ever ate was tenderloin from a young sow black bear. It was as good or better than any filet mignon I ever had. And one of the worst tasting pieces of meat was steak from a large boar black bear that had been shot and tracked for hours before being finished off. It was tough, and not all all enjoyable. I wanted to spit it out. So does that mean bear meat is good or bad?
