a counter argument to "they are dumbing it down for dem consoles!"

[NuclearKangaroo]

my argument is that these games COULDNT exist without consoles, we all know how freaking expensive AAA development has become, in my opinion, unless your game is a well recognized brand name along the lines of call of duty, gta, halo, etc, is unlikely the sales of one single platform are enough to cover up the expenses of developing your game

Not true. Budgets increase to whatever the market can bear. If publishers can have a game made for $100 million and make a profit, they will do that, because games with high production values stand out and generally grab the market share. Conversely, if they can't spend more than $5 million and break even, they will just make games with budgets less than $5 million.

if you want a game with as much money poured in as skyrim or something like that, being multiplat is almost mandatory

STALKER series begs to differ.
Gigantic games, with better graphics then Skyrim (BEFORE SKYRIM) and MUCH MUCH (as in a few times) better AI. No less buggy then Skyrim either. And MP modes.

ALso, one of them, the newest and biggest is fan made. It eclipses AAA games in many areas...

Also, Metro:Last Light. Technological masterpiece. On the level of Crysis 3 and BF 4.
Cost less then 10 million (Crysis 3 was 70)

im not arguing money makes a better game, i could write a graduate thesis on why i think skyrim sucks and my list of games that i think are better than skyrim would use enough paper to wipe the rain forest off the face of the earth

but, my opinion isnt really popular, skyrim is liked by a lot of people and there isnt a shortage of people who enjoy AAA games, those games however are known for being huge money sinks and having big production values, if you want something along those lines, multiplat becomes nessesary


im not saying games with less budget cant be just as enjoyable or more, im not saying games with lesss budget cant be better looking, but those games geenrally suffer in one area to compensate, and thats smart management, games with less budget might have better writing but worse graphics, or vice versa, no hollywood actors, no orchestral music, etc

you can argue with of those things are superficial, and i wont disagree

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

my argument is that these games COULDNT exist without consoles, we all know how freaking expensive AAA development has become, in my opinion, unless your game is a well recognized brand name along the lines of call of duty, gta, halo, etc, is unlikely the sales of one single platform are enough to cover up the expenses of developing your game

Not true. Budgets increase to whatever the market can bear. If publishers can have a game made for $100 million and make a profit, they will do that, because games with high production values stand out and generally grab the market share. Conversely, if they can't spend more than $5 million and break even, they will just make games with budgets less than $5 million.

if you want a game with as much money poured in as skyrim or something like that, being multiplat is almost mandatory

STALKER series begs to differ.
Gigantic games, with better graphics then Skyrim (BEFORE SKYRIM) and MUCH MUCH (as in a few times) better AI. No less buggy then Skyrim either. And MP modes.

ALso, one of them, the newest and biggest is fan made. It eclipses AAA games in many areas...

Also, Metro:Last Light. Technological masterpiece. On the level of Crysis 3 and BF 4.
Cost less then 10 million (Crysis 3 was 70)

im not arguing money makes a better game, i could write a graduate thesis on why i think skyrim sucks and my list of games that i think are better than skyrim would use enough paper to wipe the rain forest off the face of the earth

but, my opinion isnt really popular, skyrim is liked by a lot of people and there isnt a shortage of people who enjoy AAA games, those games however are known for being huge money sinks and having big production values, if you want something along those lines, multiplat becomes nessesary


im not saying games with less budget cant be just as enjoyable or more, im not saying games with lesss budget cant be better looking, but those games geenrally suffer in one area to compensate, and thats smart management, games with less budget might have better writing but worse graphics, or vice versa, no hollywood actors, no orchestral music, etc

you can argue with of those things are superficial, and i wont disagree

I agree somewhat. Basically here is how I see it:

*Technology is NOT necessarily more expensive.
-Graphics are not TOO expensive
- COntent is not Too Expensive
- AI is NOT expensive
- Sound is not TOO expensive

For heavens sake this is a 2008 PC EXCLUSIVE low budget game :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAYLHAPPkvw&list=PLD2B82E405CF9650C&index=3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkLR2tYRubw&index=2&list=PLD2B82E405CF9650C

What MAKES AAA games expensive:
- Stupid Hollywood voice actors that cost an arm and a leg
- Stupid PR campaigns that costs a shit tonne. More then the game...

- Optimization costs (for console ports)

pretty much, instead of complaining about dumbing down for consoles, people should complain about how the game was made so bloated in the first place that it needed to sell millions accross many platforms just to be profitable

on a semi-unrelated note, i wish stalker was on sale more often, i really want to play it

 

[The Lunatic]

I'm not sure I follow.

Sacred 2 was released on the consoles as well and had all the features (and some arguably better) that the PC counterpart had.

It isn't being "dumbed down" for consoles as much as it has a completely new developer, who may or may not have a grasp on what they're doing.

Well, the argument of dumbing down is the idea that a game series changes its core aspects to appeal to a wider "Console" audience.

The idea is that console gamers prefer simpler games, and thus games are made more "Dumb" to appeal to console players.

So, the argument with Sacred 3 is that, they aimed for a console audience over a PC one, despite the game having no market on the consoles.

 

[Zen Bard]

OP, your argument is wildly flawed. "Dumbed down" refers to gameplay, not interface. Whether or not someone is using a keyboard or controller is not the issue.

The issue is developers creating overly simplistic games that aren't interesting or challenging because they're afraid of alienating some market segment whom they feel are neither experienced nor intelligent enough to play a game that requires some level of cognitive skill.

Take Oblivion, for instance. While perhaps not the best of the Elder Scrolls series, it had some rather engaging and well written story quests that required some thought and offered a variety of possible solutions. Compare that to Skyrim's rather one-note quest menu of "Go here, kill that, retrieve this".

Dishonored "get's it right" because it's a well crafted game that doesn't insult its audience by hand-holding it through the levels. It allows the players to do enjoy the game however they want, but sets up consequences for their actions.

Sure, you can be a stealth killing murderous bastard who smokes everyone you encounter. Just be prepared to deal with more plague rats and zombie plague victims as a result.

Console or keyboard has nothing to do with it.

 

[The Lunatic]

Bullshit.
Could you be any more condescending?

If they are trying to appeal to a wider audience, that doesn't necessarily imply that it is due to consoles. Once again, Sacred 2 was on consoles.

By that logic, Dark Souls 2 was made simpler (or dumbed down) to widen the appeal to the PC market. Man, I sure wish they didn't need to dumb it down for gamers who couldn't grasp the complexities of the series.

Obviously that's a bit of sarcasm in order to show you how stupid your argument was.

PC elitism is a fucking cancer on this site.

I didn't mean to come across as condescending, I was just trying to explain my point.

Personally, I don't really know what to make of the "Dumbing down" argument. I don't personally believe that simple games are all consoles have to offer, and I think there are plenty of games that could do well on the consoles given more market exposure, etc, etc.

So, my argument is more of one of "Games are made more simple to appeal to an audience that doesn't exist".

But, anyway.

Sacred 2 wasn't designed with consoles as a lead format. Sacred 3 was. Sacred 3 was designed specifically for the PS3, and ported over to the other two platforms it released upon. This is reflected in the UI, and the quote I gave.

As for Dark Souls, I don't really know. The "Dumbing down" argument only really seems to apply to series which have established themselves on the PC, or as being complex. I also can't really compare the two too much as I simply haven't played enough of the first and second.

"Dumbing down" in my mind is the removal of spell crafting from Oblivion to Skyrim. It was a complex feature that allowed for more indepth players to make some unique spells, with a little know-how. And it was removed for the sake of "Simplicity", as far as I can tell. And this example has nothing to do with any format.