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

[NuclearKangaroo]

so im a PC gamer, i play almost exclusively on PC, and i admit falling a bit into elitism sometimes, but this particular PC mastah raiz argument never fully convinced me, after thinking about it a little more, ive come to the conclusion 90% of the time this argument is incredibly stupid

its true most games nowadays, atleast AAA ones, are designed with the lowest common denominator in mind, consoles, 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

skyrim may have been dumbed down for consoles, but without the console sales alongside with the PC sales, a game with the scope and detail of skyrim couldnt be funded, same with almost every other AAA game

now there is SOME validity to this "dumbed down" argument, that is, when the PC version of a game lacks some of the bare minimum optimization posible or even required for the platform

FarCry 3 comes to mind, excellent game for sure, but the controls were clearly designed for consoles and absolutely no effort was put into adjusting these controls to make the PC experience better, theres no reason why looting a body and picking up weapons should be done with the same key, theres no reason i shouldnt be able to equip more than 2 syringes at a time

Dishonred is a game that gets it right, it takes advantage of the keyboard, while the console versions of the game rely on a weapon wheel to select different weapons, on PC you can simply use the numberical keys no fuss


so my fellow PC gamers, lower your weapons and give your hand to your fellow console gamer, for he is part of the reason why so many of the lastest good games exist at all

plus PC is getting more console ports now than ever before, combined with the usual PC exclusives, the result is that PC has now more game releases than any console, so really you are pretty much complaning about having more games to play

 

[DoPo]

skyrim wasnt dumbed down for consoles because without the console sales alongside with the PC sales, a game with the scope and detail of skyrim couldnt be funded, same with almost every other AAA game

now there is SOME validity to this "dumbed down" argument, that is, when the PC version of a game lacks some of the bare minimum optimization posible or even required for the platform

Don't these two contradict each other? Well, not fully, but to an extent at least - you are saying that Skyrim has not been "dumbed down"[footnote]For reference, I really dislike the term but I'm just going on by what you said.[/footnote] but the console conformance it has only helps it. Yet you acknowledge that if a game is on PC it should also conform to PC standards. Well, Skyrim's menu is atrocious from PC standpoint. It simply is, and I'd like to see an actual study on it but at any rate that is Skyrim not conforming to PC standards.

 

[IceForce]

Dishonred is a game that gets it right, it takes advantage of the keyboard, while the console versions of the game rely on a weapon wheel to select different weapons, on PC you can simply use the numberical keys no fuss

That's hardly a compelling argument. If you're using this as an example, Far Cry 3 also does exactly the same thing (see below).

In any case, in Dishonored on PC, I preferred to use the weapon wheel instead of the number keys, as it pauses the action while I select the weapon I want, and I don't have to remember which number is assigned to which weapon.

FarCry 3 comes to mind, excellent game for sure, but the controls were clearly designed for consoles and absolutely no effort was put into adjusting these controls to make the PC experience better,

But Far Cry 3 does let you use the number keys (1,2,3,4) to switch between your 4 weapon slots.

So, the Dishonored example you gave above, directly conflicts with the Far Cry 3 example here.

theres no reason why looting a body and picking up weapons should be done with the same key, theres no reason i shouldnt be able to equip more than 2 syringes at a time

I agree with these two points though.

I can't count the number of times I accidentally picked up an enemy's weapon, when I meant to loot the body instead.
And having to switch out syringes all the time was a pain, so I ended up hardly ever using them.

 

[Bad Jim]

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.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

skyrim wasnt dumbed down for consoles because without the console sales alongside with the PC sales, a game with the scope and detail of skyrim couldnt be funded, same with almost every other AAA game

now there is SOME validity to this "dumbed down" argument, that is, when the PC version of a game lacks some of the bare minimum optimization posible or even required for the platform

Don't these two contradict each other? Well, not fully, but to an extent at least - you are saying that Skyrim has not been "dumbed down"[footnote]For reference, I really dislike the term but I'm just going on by what you said.[/footnote] but the console conformance it has only helps it. Yet you acknowledge that if a game is on PC it should also conform to PC standards. Well, Skyrim's menu is atrocious from PC standpoint. It simply is, and I'd like to see an actual study on it but at any rate that is Skyrim not conforming to PC standards.

well i didnt experience that much trouble with the menus

 

[gargantual]

You can say they're making it accessible for different types of gamers, which is well understood, but depending on the game and projected audience, optimization for different platforms in performance, usability and customization is still kinda important based on the type of game.

I think there are still some instances of dumbing down in game mechanics. Like for CoD on PC. That should have been optimized differently for the PC gamer version. Better FOV, frame etc...all that on day one. I don't think people should've had to resort to workarounds to get all those standards of PC play running in the PC version but that's just me. instead of Activision going forget em, cause most of the people who pay us'll be on XBOX live.

I know some people have hot opinions on the skill gap of modern military shooters, but it never hurts to widen it a little bit, because that increases the margin of error for everybody online, and brings more spontaneity to competition, and its even why we complain about dlc, not wanting any pay-to-win to corrupt a match, like drugs in the olympics.

And in general well...patronizing gameplay or overtutorializing still happens too. Games are too corporately focus grouped and tested, and not in the way they SHOULD be.

Smart level design, and good control is how communication happens with us as players, even if the game is hard, if we get the rhythm of it all, we'll slug it out til' its impossible.

you know its gotten out of hand when Blood Dragon is making fun of over-tutorializing. I know it's courting nostalgia to bring up, how we didn't have so much of that stuff breaking up the flow of the gameplay in our youth, but necessity is the mother of invention.

In order to push people to figure things out for themselves, It should be inherent in the level design. Thats the whole art of it. If you have to over-tutorialize it for someone to get what they're doing or where to go. Maybe somethings up. Maybe the control scheme is too cumbersome, maybe the level and its challenges could be paced or positioned a bit better so folks'll tackle things more naturally. Maybe its too much information at once, or its bland...who knows.

 

[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

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

Dishonred is a game that gets it right, it takes advantage of the keyboard, while the console versions of the game rely on a weapon wheel to select different weapons, on PC you can simply use the numberical keys no fuss

That's hardly a compelling argument. If you're using this as an example, Far Cry 3 also does exactly the same thing (see below).

In any case, in Dishonored on PC, I preferred to use the weapon wheel instead of the number keys, as it pauses the action while I select the weapon I want, and I don't have to remember which number is assigned to which weapon.

FarCry 3 comes to mind, excellent game for sure, but the controls were clearly designed for consoles and absolutely no effort was put into adjusting these controls to make the PC experience better,

But Far Cry 3 does let you use the number keys (1,2,3,4) to switch between your 4 weapon slots.

So, the Dishonored example you gave above, directly conflicts with the Far Cry 3 example here.

theres no reason why looting a body and picking up weapons should be done with the same key, theres no reason i shouldnt be able to equip more than 2 syringes at a time

I agree with these two points though.

I can't count the number of times I accidentally picked up an enemy's weapon, when I meant to loot the body instead.
And having to switch out syringes all the time was a pain, so I ended up hardly ever using them.

the thing is, dishonored doesnt feel unconfortable to play on a keyboard, thts why its not like farcry 3, the devs did the bare minimum to adjust the controls to kayboard and mouse, of course the amount of effort needed can vary from game to game

 

[Bad Jim]

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

I'm quite happy with games that have more modest budgets, like Dark Souls, or Minecraft, or Crysis, or Mirrors' Edge, or Orcs Must Die, etc. What does the extra money get us, really?

 

[gargantual]

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

I'm quite happy with games that have more modest budgets, like Dark Souls, or Minecraft, or Crysis, or Mirrors' Edge, or Orcs Must Die, etc. What does the extra money get us, really?

True true. Maybe a bit of that bloat can come from the mo-cap resources, and how much programmer manpower they've got in the pit for a 2-3 year release window, but MOST of the bloat is excessive marketing, when there are cleverer, far less expensive ways to push a good game towards us. If its good enough, it'll go viral. Most other parts of a game design budget can be mitigated to reasonable degrees, or planned a bit better I think.

 

[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

I'm quite happy with games that have more modest budgets, like Dark Souls, or Minecraft, or Crysis, or Mirrors' Edge, or Orcs Must Die, etc. What does the extra money get us, really?

honestly im on the same boat, but im just saying, if you want something with the production values of skyrim, then consoles need to be a part of the equation

not saying that consoles sell much more than PC, but more market means more clients which means you can spend more money on realistic dirt texture and shit like that

 

[DoPo]

skyrim wasnt dumbed down for consoles because without the console sales alongside with the PC sales, a game with the scope and detail of skyrim couldnt be funded, same with almost every other AAA game

now there is SOME validity to this "dumbed down" argument, that is, when the PC version of a game lacks some of the bare minimum optimization posible or even required for the platform

Don't these two contradict each other? Well, not fully, but to an extent at least - you are saying that Skyrim has not been "dumbed down"[footnote]For reference, I really dislike the term but I'm just going on by what you said.[/footnote] but the console conformance it has only helps it. Yet you acknowledge that if a game is on PC it should also conform to PC standards. Well, Skyrim's menu is atrocious from PC standpoint. It simply is, and I'd like to see an actual study on it but at any rate that is Skyrim not conforming to PC standards.

well i didnt experience that much trouble with the menus

Forbes had an article on it [http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/11/16/the-strange-frustrating-mess-that-is-skyrim-pc/] and Rock, Paper, Shotgun [http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/11/14/user-interfarce-skyrims-silly-choices/] did, too. Among others, of course. Also, Sky UI [http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/3863/?] which improves the interface is the top mod on Nexus [http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/top/?] with 120k endorsements 3 million unique downloads and ~7 million total. It's [http://www.toptiertactics.com/17601/best-skyrim-mods/] been [http://www.reddit.com/r/skyrim/comments/1ttgm1/comprehensive_list_of_the_best_mods_for_skyrim/] featured [http://www.pcgamer.com/uk/2012/10/28/the-25-best-skyrim-mods-2/3/] on [http://www.gamesradar.com/skyrim-mods-make-it-look-next-gen-game/][footnote]it's on page 3 because the website is annoying[/footnote] many [http://www.ronwoods.us/2014/01/the-comprehensive-list-of-must-have.html] mod [http://www.pixelspm.com/pixel-round-up/2014/2/8/sxgdtuugwzvzbwx61u474jti0t5bdi] compilations [http://www.pcmag.com/slideshow/story/307939/10-must-have-skyrim-mods/1]. I think this is suffice to show that many people had trouble with it.

Problem is, the menu is not designed for a PC at all. It's list based, as that is easier to navigate with a controller, which is all well and fine, but with a mouse and keyboard, you aren't going to be using a controller. Of the two, you should be aiming for the mouse - it's possibly the most distinctive feature a PC has, when it comes to input. When your UI doesn't play well with the mouse, you've seriously fucked up. And it doesn't - the mouse support is pretty much tackled on top of the console menu - you can also use it as an input - it's the equivalent of giving you motorcycle handlebars to use in a car

Spoiler: These

It's not really going to be comfortable if you have that instead of a steering wheel - certainly not in most cars, especially not in smaller ones where you don't have enough space to keep your hands that far spread...which is most of them.

But metaphors aside, the menu is simply not responsive enough with a mouse - some times it would fail to register the movement/hover, so if you have option A highlighted, but you want to go to be B, it's not going to be highlighted, however, since the click is still processed as "Go here" and your selection hadn't changed, you'd go to A. And sometimes it just fails to register a click as being on the label when you literally click inside the visible label. Apparently, the actual label is ~5% or so smaller on each side, so if you click on the outer side of an option the menu registers that as clicking outside...which it also interprets as "Go back" rather than "Do nothing", so it's frustratingly frequent you leaving a menu when you actually wanted to navigate further into it. Which makes me repeat and expand upon what I mentioned before - the menus are list based - you have a list of options which expand into more options of lists that expand into lists. On a PC you don't need that - sure, grouping stuff together is useful but remember: mouse. Text lists are not the best thing to navigate with a mouse. Especially when there is SO MUCH MORE SCREEN SPACE to use. It's actually less annoying for use if you drive it using a keyboard...but then that fact itself is annoying because it requires you to put down the mouse, assume a different mode for input and then quit doing that and switch contexts again once you leave the menu.

And so on and so forth, I can go on. I don't think "I didn't have trouble" means "It is flawless and fits perfectly within the platform it is released for". I didn't have trouble with the UI but I certainly disliked it and even if I liked the game, I am not going to give it a pass on just that account. The menu is atrocious by PC standards. I could say that the best feature it has is "it works" as in, "it is not broken beyond usability" but...seeing as, again, it doesn't handle a mouse, I am not even sure I'll be able to even say that. Were I a QA for the UI, I would probably not have given it a pass.

 

[fix-the-spade]

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

There's an irony to that, going multiplatform significantly increases the size of a budget. Suddenly that $15million games has become a $25million game because of the two extra dev teams or a $45million game because of the five extra dev teams (if taking the extreme of a PC, PS3/4/360/Bone/Wii U release) and you're suddenly paying licensing and 'certification' fees for five sets of hardware every time you want to do something with the game.

It's kind of a circular argument, you have a big budget so you must go multiplat, but you only need that big budget because you're going multiplat.

It's also completely dumb when things like Starcraft and the entire F2P market go nowhere near consoles and certain multi platform releases (read Battlefield) make many times more money on the PC than they do on console, whilst other series release on PC but may as well not bother (all 2500 people playing CoD:Ghosts must really be worth a lot of money).

Publishers seem to be assuming what they 'need' to do rather than looking at who is actually spending the money, focusing on too wide a market frequently ends up pleasing nobody.

 

[Ylla]

its true most games nowadays, atleast AAA ones, are designed with the lowest common denominator in mind

Indeed they are. The lowest common denominator is low-end PCs, and the bulk of PC population is concentrated there.

consoles, that however doesnt mean these games are being dumbed down because of it

Funny argument, respect to what? PC games? theres no big scale unique game that is only in PC. Well, Dwarf Fortress comes to my mind, and that just makes the whole thing even more fun.

my argument is that these games COULDNT exist without consoles, we all know how freaking expensive AAA development has become

AAAAAAH, BUT DOES MOAR MONEY = BETTER GAME? New Vegas, Dark Souls, Mirror's Edge, Minecraft, etc. beg to differ.

skyrim wasnt dumbed down for consoles because without the console sales alongside with the PC sales, a game with the scope and detail of skyrim couldnt be funded, same with almost every other AAA game

Skyrim is a terrible example because:
1.- Is not great, what people feels as "dumbed down" is actually a bad game (or if you prefer, a game not up to the hype).
2.- It lacked non repetitive content, impossible to blame consoles on this.
3.- The new engine basically sucked when it was released, have you tried to mod stuff like combat with the Creation Kit? Scripts take half to a full second to be executed.

There's an irony to that, going multiplatform significantly increases the size of a budget. Suddenly that $15million games has become a $25million game because of the two extra dev teams or a $45million game because of the five extra dev teams (if taking the extreme of a PC, PS3/4/360/Bone/Wii U release) and you're suddenly paying licensing and 'certification' fees for five sets of hardware every time you want to do something with the game.

Nonsense, some big games have been ported by 3 man teams over the course of a single year, Ubisoft said that once, you can Google it.

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.

Youre ignoring the base rule of executives. ALLWAYS WANT MORE.... YOU NEVER HAVE ENOUGH!!!!
Jim Sterling made a video about it i think.

Don't these two contradict each other? Well, not fully, but to an extent at least - you are saying that Skyrim has not been "dumbed down"[footnote]For reference, I really dislike the term but I'm just going on by what you said.[/footnote] but the console conformance it has only helps it. Yet you acknowledge that if a game is on PC it should also conform to PC standards. Well, Skyrim's menu is atrocious from PC standpoint. It simply is, and I'd like to see an actual study on it but at any rate that is Skyrim not conforming to PC standards.

Well, Again Skyrim is a terrible example. In this case the UI is also terrible in the console version. They should have added more radial menus, and less long lists (LISTS SUCK IN CONSOLES TOO), you only have 2 item bind keys instead of 8 like in previous Bethesda games, and wasting 75% of the screen in fancy graphics just makes the list stutter in consles.... Unless you install the game on the HDD, which created horrible texture issues originally (it was fixed later with a patch)...
Skyrim UI might not suck more in consoles than it does on PC. But it sucks in both nonetheless, again, what you see is bad design decision not "dumbing down". And dont forget it can be fixed with mods in the PC version, not the console.

Dishonred is a game that gets it right, it takes advantage of the keyboard, while the console versions of the game rely on a weapon wheel to select different weapons, on PC you can simply use the numberical keys no fuss

That's hardly a compelling argument. If you're using this as an example, Far Cry 3 also does exactly the same thing (see below).

In any case, in Dishonored on PC, I preferred to use the weapon wheel instead of the number keys, as it pauses the action while I select the weapon I want, and I don't have to remember which number is assigned to which weapon.

FarCry 3 comes to mind, excellent game for sure, but the controls were clearly designed for consoles and absolutely no effort was put into adjusting these controls to make the PC experience better,

But Far Cry 3 does let you use the number keys (1,2,3,4) to switch between your 4 weapon slots.

So, the Dishonored example you gave above, directly conflicts with the Far Cry 3 example here.

theres no reason why looting a body and picking up weapons should be done with the same key, theres no reason i shouldnt be able to equip more than 2 syringes at a time

I agree with these two points though.

I can't count the number of times I accidentally picked up an enemy's weapon, when I meant to loot the body instead.
And having to switch out syringes all the time was a pain, so I ended up hardly ever using them.

the thing is, dishonored doesnt feel unconfortable to play on a keyboard, thts why its not like farcry 3, the devs did the bare minimum to adjust the controls to kayboard and mouse, of course the amount of effort needed can vary from game to game

This could take the discussion in the wrong direction. I mean take Metro Last Light and Witcher 2 for example, both have control schemes that work better in controls.... Would you claim that anything in the game (besides of the controls) was "dumbed down" for consoles? the answer is no. Then the problems lies in making the controls different, NOT DUMBED DOWN, different, And its a very interesting subject, programmers of PC games making PC focused games with control friendly schemes...

I want to think thats an entirely different phenomena.

MOST of the bloat is excessive marketing, when there are cleverer, far less expensive ways to push a good game towards us. If its good enough, it'll go viral. Most other parts of a game design budget can be mitigated to reasonable degrees, or planned a bit better I think.

THIS

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

skyrim wasnt dumbed down for consoles because without the console sales alongside with the PC sales, a game with the scope and detail of skyrim couldnt be funded, same with almost every other AAA game

now there is SOME validity to this "dumbed down" argument, that is, when the PC version of a game lacks some of the bare minimum optimization posible or even required for the platform

Don't these two contradict each other? Well, not fully, but to an extent at least - you are saying that Skyrim has not been "dumbed down"[footnote]For reference, I really dislike the term but I'm just going on by what you said.[/footnote] but the console conformance it has only helps it. Yet you acknowledge that if a game is on PC it should also conform to PC standards. Well, Skyrim's menu is atrocious from PC standpoint. It simply is, and I'd like to see an actual study on it but at any rate that is Skyrim not conforming to PC standards.

well i didnt experience that much trouble with the menus

Forbes had an article on it [http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/11/16/the-strange-frustrating-mess-that-is-skyrim-pc/] and Rock, Paper, Shotgun [http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/11/14/user-interfarce-skyrims-silly-choices/] did, too. Among others, of course. Also, Sky UI [http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/3863/?] which improves the interface is the top mod on Nexus [http://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/top/?] with 120k endorsements 3 million unique downloads and ~7 million total. It's [http://www.toptiertactics.com/17601/best-skyrim-mods/] been [http://www.reddit.com/r/skyrim/comments/1ttgm1/comprehensive_list_of_the_best_mods_for_skyrim/] featured [http://www.pcgamer.com/uk/2012/10/28/the-25-best-skyrim-mods-2/3/] on [http://www.gamesradar.com/skyrim-mods-make-it-look-next-gen-game/][footnote]it's on page 3 because the website is annoying[/footnote] many [http://www.ronwoods.us/2014/01/the-comprehensive-list-of-must-have.html] mod [http://www.pixelspm.com/pixel-round-up/2014/2/8/sxgdtuugwzvzbwx61u474jti0t5bdi] compilations [http://www.pcmag.com/slideshow/story/307939/10-must-have-skyrim-mods/1]. I think this is suffice to show that many people had trouble with it.

Problem is, the menu is not designed for a PC at all. It's list based, as that is easier to navigate with a controller, which is all well and fine, but with a mouse and keyboard, you aren't going to be using a controller. Of the two, you should be aiming for the mouse - it's possibly the most distinctive feature a PC has, when it comes to input. When your UI doesn't play well with the mouse, you've seriously fucked up. And it doesn't - the mouse support is pretty much tackled on top of the console menu - you can also use it as an input - it's the equivalent of giving you motorcycle handlebars to use in a car

Spoiler: These

It's not really going to be comfortable if you have that instead of a steering wheel - certainly not in most cars, especially not in smaller ones where you don't have enough space to keep your hands that far spread...which is most of them.

But metaphors aside, the menu is simply not responsive enough with a mouse - some times it would fail to register the movement/hover, so if you have option A highlighted, but you want to go to be B, it's not going to be highlighted, however, since the click is still processed as "Go here" and your selection hadn't changed, you'd go to A. And sometimes it just fails to register a click as being on the label when you literally click inside the visible label. Apparently, the actual label is ~5% or so smaller on each side, so if you click on the outer side of an option the menu registers that as clicking outside...which it also interprets as "Go back" rather than "Do nothing", so it's frustratingly frequent you leaving a menu when you actually wanted to navigate further into it. Which makes me repeat and expand upon what I mentioned before - the menus are list based - you have a list of options which expand into more options of lists that expand into lists. On a PC you don't need that - sure, grouping stuff together is useful but remember: mouse. Text lists are not the best thing to navigate with a mouse. Especially when there is SO MUCH MORE SCREEN SPACE to use. It's actually less annoying for use if you drive it using a keyboard...but then that fact itself is annoying because it requires you to put down the mouse, assume a different mode for input and then quit doing that and switch contexts again once you leave the menu.

And so on and so forth, I can go on. I don't think "I didn't have trouble" means "It is flawless and fits perfectly within the platform it is released for". I didn't have trouble with the UI but I certainly disliked it and even if I liked the game, I am not going to give it a pass on just that account. The menu is atrocious by PC standards. I could say that the best feature it has is "it works" as in, "it is not broken beyond usability" but...seeing as, again, it doesn't handle a mouse, I am not even sure I'll be able to even say that. Were I a QA for the UI, I would probably not have given it a pass.

alright dude i was just talking from my experience, i guess i found the entire experience so utterly mediocre that the bad UI on top of it all was like pissing in the wind

no offense if you liked the game tho'

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

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

There's an irony to that, going multiplatform significantly increases the size of a budget. Suddenly that $15million games has become a $25million game because of the two extra dev teams or a $45million game because of the five extra dev teams (if taking the extreme of a PC, PS3/4/360/Bone/Wii U release) and you're suddenly paying licensing and 'certification' fees for five sets of hardware every time you want to do something with the game.

It's kind of a circular argument, you have a big budget so you must go multiplat, but you only need that big budget because you're going multiplat.

It's also completely dumb when things like Starcraft and the entire F2P market go nowhere near consoles and certain multi platform releases (read Battlefield) make many times more money on the PC than they do on console, whilst other series release on PC but may as well not bother (all 2500 people playing CoD:Ghosts must really be worth a lot of money).

Publishers seem to be assuming what they 'need' to do rather than looking at who is actually spending the money, focusing on too wide a market frequently ends up pleasing nobody.

well with game engines nowadays designed around multiple platforms, the idea is that the total revenue from the sales accross all platforms can offset the initial investment on porting

but if you dont sell squat yeah, it totally defeats the point


like i said before, in recent years ive distanced myself from AAA games, right now, besides TF2 and XCOM, i struggle to find big game releases this gen that have entertained me as much as FTL, Mark of the Ninja, Antichamber, Legend of Grimrock, among others, i seriously look foward to medium and small sized projects way more than big name games

but i know not everyone thinks like me, some people are really into AAA games, and in my eyes when those people complain about dumbing down, well, they dont see the whole picture

 

[axillarypuma]

Seriously these arguments are just cancer, and quite frankly make the gaming community toxic , we all play games, can't we just get along?

 

[Alterego-X]

honestly im on the same boat, but im just saying, if you want something with the production values of skyrim, then consoles need to be a part of the equation

Well, that's just the point. The people who complain about series and genres getting dumbed down, didn't ask for the production values of Skyrim, they would much rather have the complexity AND the graphics of Morrowind.

I think it's fair to say, that AAA games are being dumbed down, whenever they are simplifying gameplay to be able to afford shinier graphics. "Dum" is not just a general insult for "low quality", it specifically refers to a type of streamlined simplicity and removal of audience agency. Something can be high production values and "dumb" and vice versa.

Historically, PC gaming originates from tabletop gaming's principles being transported to the desktop PC that traditionally ran utility softwares, and thus the first PC genres were defined by having lots of spreadsheets, and menus, and strategizing, pausing, designing.

Console gaming has originated from the Arcade's principles being transported to the home television screen, and thus it was a combination of reflexes, flashy visuals, and action.

Nowadays a the line is a bit more blurred, but you can still sense it when a PC RPG gets more console-esque, or a console series gets ported to PCs.

 

[BaronVH]

Games certainly are dumbed down for consoles, but things may be changing. Twenty years ago the serious gaming was on a PC. You had hardcore RPGs and serious wargames. In the wargames (and even the original Wolfenstein) characters spoke in their native language. Dialogue trees were brutal. When a game said it was difficult, it really was. I clearly recall those damn snipers in Half Life. Consoles became more powerful, and you didn't have to be a programmer to patch a game. It was harder to pirate, and consoles came to the masses. I recall being somewhat upset at Knights of the old Republic and Return to Castle Wolfenstein since KOTOR had dumbed down controls and in Wolfenstein the Germans spoke English. I think with consoles being the dominanant form of entertainment, we are seeing a shift. You see brutally hard games appearing. Thenk goodness the Germans did not speak English in the New Order, and we are seeing some deeper games. Sure you are still limited to a controller, and we really don't have the crazy, deep wargames, but it is certainly much better than the PS2 and original Xbox days. I still think the deepest, most intelligent games are on PCs. Divinity Original Sin, the Stanley Parable,and a few others come to mind. So, I am more than fine with console gaming. Phone and tablet gaming is another matter. The freeium model may be the ruin of the industry.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

honestly im on the same boat, but im just saying, if you want something with the production values of skyrim, then consoles need to be a part of the equation

Well, that's just the point. The people who complain about series and genres getting dumbed down, didn't ask for the production values of Skyrim, they would much rather have the complexity AND the graphics of Morrowind.

I think it's fair to say, that AAA games are being dumbed down, whenever they are simplifying gameplay to be able to afford shinier graphics. "Dum" is not just a general insult for "low quality", it specifically refers to a type of streamlined simplicity and removal of audience agency. Something can be high production values and "dumb" and vice versa.

Historically, PC gaming originates from tabletop gaming's principles being transported to the desktop PC that traditionally ran utility softwares, and thus the first PC genres were defined by having lots of spreadsheets, and menus, and strategizing, pausing, designing.

Console gaming has originated from the Arcade's principles being transported to the home television screen, and thus it was a combination of reflexes, flashy visuals, and action.

Nowadays a the line is a bit more blurred, but you can still sense it when a PC RPG gets more console-esque, or a console series gets ported to PCs.

is a fair point, but im pretty sure not ALL of the people complaining about skyrim dont care for production value, many of them in fact critize the graphics of the game, arguing they are bad because of consoles, which is kind of true, but i already explained why it has to be that way