"dumbed down for the console gamer"

[Korten12]

For example Morrowind made for the PC alone

Uh... I think ppl forgot that Morrowind was never exclusive...

It was out for PC and Xbox... >.>

 

[mrmash]

Lol, Morrowind wasn't "portet". Microsoft approached Bethesda about making a game for the Xbox when the console initially launched. Link [http://www.elderscrolls.com/news/press_050401.htm]

And I saw on an earlier page some person said mentioned Mass Effect 2 as a 'prime example' of a game being dumbed down. Haha, wow.

 

[Netrigan]

Another example is the choice of Bioshock removing the inventory completely

Only if you declare Bioshock a defacto sequel. Otherwise, it has an inventory system as complex as the vast majority of FPS. The SS2 system has been used like twice in 15 years. That's pretty much a system adopted by one person, the man who designed those two games.

And I would maintain the inventory management system of SS2 and Deus Ex were too complicated for a shooter. Having to play Tetris with my inventory was a poor design choice. Weight and size could be factors but the system would need to be more automated to work properly. Tell me I need to free up three size units to pick up a rocket launcher, not force me to drop half my items and physically rearrange them. It's a first person shooter, not a first person arranger.

The dumbdowned features of Bioshock are the map, golden arrow, and ressurection chambers. That it didn't rip off one element of SS2 that virtually no other game uses isn't dumbing down. Otherwise every FPS that isn't SS2 or Deus Ex is dumbed down like Half-Life. Complex inventories simply aren't a convention of the genre.

 

[TPiddy]

I've never pirated a game in my life.

Way to assume, hun.

What do they say - assuming makes an ass-of-u-and-me?

Like it matters whether or not YOU pirated. My point is... the more unscrupulous PC gamers that have been doing it for years are spoiling it for gamers like you as the PC is no longer being targeted as the main platform.

 

[TPiddy]

Man, this is one of the most -facepalm- worthy comments I've seen in a while. Let's take a look at a few assumptions you made here:

1) Most, if not all PC gamers are elitists who complain about everything.
2) Console gamers complain less, and are more grateful to developers
3) PC gamers refuse to financially support developers

Every single one of those is either morbidly exaggerated or flat-out wrong. I've seen console gamers ***** their brains out over Bungie changing a single weapon for the next Halo game. I've seen PC gamers spend thousands of dollars both in retail and digital distribution, all in support of developers. Finally, I've seen plenty of level-headed PC gamers who calmly ask the developer/manufacturer to explain their reasoning for *insert what people are mad about*.

Yes, it's a generalization. No, it's not an exaggeration. Here are some facts:

1. Piracy is rampant on PC. Look at MW 2, Spore, etc. It's a much smaller problem on consoles. This leads me to point #2:

2. I did not say anywhere that console gamers complain any less, nor are they more grateful. They just care less about things like graphics (read: Wii) and typically more of their money ends up in developers pockets due to less piracy / a more locked down platform.

3. Once again with the Piracy approach. Or how about the companies like 2D Boy who offered World of Goo for whatever people would pay. The results of tests like that show you just how cheap PC gamers are.

Now, not EVERY PC gamer is like this and I'm sure the vast majority of Escapist PC Gamers are not like this, but this is pretty much the majority of PC gamers. There are very few profitable PC games outside of WoW these days and developers are taking notice.

 

[AnAngryMoose]

Consoles don't. Developers do.

Yeah and Developers do because of Consoles

And people are stupid in general. Thats why most people bought a console for gaming. And since this is all about money the developers go for as much turnover as possible.

No, developers do because they are lazy.

And your presupposition that only stupid people buy consoles for games is beyond silly.
I can't believe anyone actually thinks that. You've got to be trolling.

But whether you are or you aren't, you're far from willing to have a serious discussion about this.
Especially with remarks like that.

Hilarious.

Am I supposed to believe that developers are lazy because you said so? Where's your proof?

More importantly, where's your proof that consoles dumb down games?

I never claimed that it was true, only that in my experience it seems to be so. For instance, CoD. The original CoD had leaning and dedicated servers. MW2 has no leaning or dedicated servers even on the PC version, nor can you have servers larger than 18 people. All of these make sense in the context of a console, but are horrendous for a PC game. I can still play the original CoD online because of dedicated servers, yet there are games Microsoft and Sony have cut off support for online.

Fair point, but I agree with Baby Tea. There was nothing stopping Infinity Ward from adding that to the PC Version of the game.

 

[tsb247]

What exactly does it mean?

For me, It's always been about a game's content. I have always HATED games that are developed on a console and ported to the PC. Consoles have far more limitations than a PC, and because of this, games developed on consoles will have far fewer features than those developed for the PC.

Just look at the latest Wolfenstein game:

No real graphics options.
No concrete save system.
VERY limited Multiplayer options.
Short campaign.

In fact, the hallmarks of console ports are generally:

-No concrete save system
-Very few or 0 graphics optimization options
-No dedicated server options for MP/
-No server browser... Only drop in MP play.
-Little to no ability to mod a game.

The list could go on.

Generally PC gamers dislike those things

 

[bue519]

You say that and yet just because I like Fallout 2 people say its a terrible game. For me Fallout 3 is bad because it was buggy, they dumbed down the orginals survival in the wasteland, and Oblivion was a better version of Fallout 3. That is why I do not enjoy the game, its not because its new or anything the devs just didn't give a crap.

Who said Fallout 2 was terrible? I love it personally, in fact I was just playing it yesterday. I just hate the combat and much prefer the way it's done in F3.

What I'm saying is it's all down to taste, to me the 'miss, miss, hit, miss, miss, hit...', purely luck based combat of the originals feels much 'dumber' than the FPS shooting of the latter.

This is a quote from earlier in the topic to my first post :"Its all just in your head. I actually remember on multiple occasions this site voting fallout 3 as one of the best games out there. That should say something along the lines of just because YOU dont like a game doesnt mean its shit. I wont say it wasnt buggy because its bethesda and all their games are buggy as hell. I will say that I played both fallout 1 & 2 and thought them to be trash, oh and I did play them both before fallout 3."
Now, the reason that I just think that Fallout 3 is dumbed down is because it is just so lacking when compared to other Fallout games. There are just less quests, party members are near usesless. I have no problem with Bethesda making a post-apocolyptic game, can't they just make it out of their own franchise, I really don't even mind a spiritual succesor (but to ruin the name cmon)? But, don't worry you'll hear the same argument when the new crappy X-com game arrives, which should really just be called Bioshock 4.

 

[bue519]

Its probably because you have ruined every awesome franchise, EX: look at Fallout 2 compared to 3. One was awesome, the other was a dumbed down buggy piece of trash. Just please play Halo Wars, and leave the rest of the RTS's alone.

Since Fallout 3 is an absolutely fantastic game that I've almost never encountered serious bugs in, I assume you're talking about Fallout 2, an unfinished game full of half-implemented features. See? I can be unreasonable too.

Almost never encountered serious bugs? I'm not being unreasonable, it just when you call a game Fallout I expect more to it than an even buggier Oblivion clone. And "half implemented features?" atleast I wasn't a dick and gave examples of why I think this way, of course you'd actually have to read other posts. (and frankly I'm unsure if you have the ability to do that)

 

[MiracleOfSound]

Now, the reason that I just think that Fallout 3 is dumbed down is because it is just so lacking when compared to other Fallout games. There are just less quests, party members are near usesless. I have no problem with Bethesda making a post-apocolyptic game, can't they just make it out of their own franchise, I really don't even mind a spiritual succesor (but to ruin the name cmon)? But, don't worry you'll hear the same argument when the new crappy X-com game arrives, which should really just be called Bioshock 4.

I made a thread about this last year and I came to a similar conclusion:

Fallout 3 is not a bad game, it's a fantastic one. But it's a bad sequel.

 

[fulano]

Morrowind vs Oblivion. Enough said.

Morrowind was a freaking fantastic game, ESPECIALLY with mods. But it didn't play so well on consoles. Oblivion was a dumbed down POS single-player MMO, played well on on consoles if you were brain dead; NEEDED mods to be worth playing in the least.

Are you talking about what, exactly? How complex the game was, or what? That had it been made for consoles the game would have a had a higher learning curve ergo making it better overall? Better AI, better combat, what?

Unless you elaborate the comparison in useless.

Yes. Morrowind was far more complex and had a lot more freedom than Oblivion. It was made for PC and then ported to the Xbox. The Xbox version was inevitably terrible because of the limited control scheme, and inferior graphics.

After Morrowind, Bethesda decided there was more money to be made in the console market. So they designed Oblivion around the console control scheme, and then ported it to PCs. The result was a severely dumbed down game. None of the complexity of Morrowind, half the freedom and open-world element. Less freedom of customization. Literally dumbed down for consoles.

Now this isn't to say that console gamers are dumber, just that a certain amount of dumbing down is necessary when designing a game around consoles as opposed to starting at the PC platform.

Excuse me but what you said makes zero sense. How exactly are you measuring customization, or freedom, for that matter? Is it so much bother that now every town is a closed cell? Maybe you wanted more spells? Crafting wasn't to your liking, perhaps? The world area wasn't large enough? The levelling system was stupid (I thought it was)?

You don't specify what "dumbing down" even means within your context, or its properties or under what ideology you make your statements. Your oppinion is thus rendered useless, sadly.

If you wanted specifics, you should have asked for them. Stop attempting to invalidate me by changing your choice of words.

Morrowind: Had spell crafting system based around money sink. Larger game world. More possible class/spell customization. Entirely possible to break your character if you choose the wrong skill line. Fast travel system only works throughout certain main cities. Pause system to increase tactical feedback (IE Baldur's Gate).

Oblivion: Had no custom spell crafting system. Smaller, more linear game world (much fewer side-quests available off the beaten path). Less class customization/fewer pre-set classes available. Not possible to break your character, as damn near all skills were combat related. Fast travel system worked nearly anywhere. Quick-select wheel made game more action-based and more simplistic.

I can go on if you need me to. I realize that you may have enjoyed Oblivion, as many people did, but these are the facts of it.

I kind of enjoyed Oblivion but found Morrowing near unplayable. But yes, I played it on the Xbox, that by anyone's standards was the much inferior version, the graphics got botched and the voice acting was gonzo.

But from what I can gather from your oppinion is that you wanted "more" stuff somewhere and "less"stuff somewhere else. For example: you complain about there being fewer pre-set classes (less hand holding) but not about now being unable to break your character, or the game itself, or no more ransacking item shops ad infinitum until they're dry. Those are not bad things, I believe. On less class customization we agree.

Why the game was now more action oriented I really can't say as I'm not really a fan of the combat in Oblivion, but I don't see how that was a bad thing considering the combat in Morrowing was incredibly dull and uninspired. If you didn't like the wheel you didn't have to use it, though. The way I see it the game still needs more action and les standing about swinging and moving sideways. It is after all combat, right?

As for custom spell crafting thing: http://oblivion.wikia.com/wiki/Spellcrafting

So...yeah...maybe that wasn't to your likeing? maybe not as thorough, perhaps.

As for the default spells mostly being combat related, that's right. That's one real wrong thing with the game. But as for the world size? That's what Bethesda's been doing since after Daggerfall (making the world smaller), so Morrowind was a massive "dumb down," as it was, as not everyone was as hardcore so as to go through every ink and cranny of the whole game world. They had the same problem and so we ended with Oblivion which, to me, was as unispired and monotone in palces as Morrowind did, except shinier and less blocky.

The question should be: why do we need a bigger world, or a more complicated interface? How does that benefit the game, or the experience in general? More polish instead of more stuff would have been better, IMHO. Bethesda could barely handle a game of Oblivion's size without becoming repetitive, and Morrowing was no better. A smaller, more discrete environment can sometimes make for a better, more focused experience and not lose its sense of epicness if handled correctly.

Hell, the game was plenty open ended on my account, you could just walk around and spend hours on end just doing random, useless shit for joe shmoe that didn't benefit you in the long road, or even give you important plot related stuff (you could even kill joe shmoe), you could go tomb raiding, item hunting, recipe hunting, book hunting, etc...though we may have to agree if you nitpick the fact that items were scattered haphazardly.

You speak about subjective stuff as if it were objective when it isn't, even going so far as to use the word 'facts'. I mean, c'm on.

What exactly would have made the game less dumbed down? No item wheel? A bigger world? More voices? Uh...wait...

They're called open-world role-playing games for a reason. You're supposed to be free to do as you please, or play as a character that can be specialized or a jack-of-all-trades, and Oblivion limits that freedom to the point where it might as well be a NES Mario game. It's dumbed down based on the concept of its own genre.

Oh, I forgot there was some kind of axiom, some kind of self-evident truth, that clearly stated how long or what kind of stuff a game should have in order to be good within a certain genre. Care to point those axioms?

Also, Mario games are quite different from Oblivoin, FYI.

 

[veloper]

A game is dumbed down for consoles when:

the game cuts features or limits what the player can do, to make it work better with controllers and on low res displays (old TVs).

A game is just plain "dumbed down" when the gameplay has become more shallow and/or easy, compared to either the original, or what used to be the mean for the genre.

 

[Talshere]

Various actions and functions are more difficult to perform within the restrictions of a pad and so are removed, for example in dragon age on the PC, you can pause the game to issue commands to your party, if my house mates are to be believed, this function is missing on the console, because this reduces the "tactics" you can use the difficulty is also turned down so its not actually needed. They also tend to be less interested in platform and puzzle solving game-play then say, blowing shit up. Unless I missed the general genre demographic.

From a more technical standpoint, a lot of PC games either build their rigs themselves, had a hand in building it (IE picked hardware for someone else to build) or have a fair bit of knowhow in the software department, or any combination of the above. Console gamers buy a box, in the box is another shiny box, they plug it in and this magical tray comes out on which you put a shiny round thing. Tray thing then closes and it does what you want. End of user input in the setting up department.

 

[GloatingSwine]

Cut features plain and simple. For example Morrowind made for the PC alone had more skills and item types than its follow up Oblivion that were designed for multiplatform.

And Daggerfall had about twice as many skills as Morrowind.

The reason that they reduced that down to a much smaller skillset is because most of them were utterly pointless. IIRC Morrowind has three different armour skills plus unarmoured, but since there was no practical difference other than weight between armour types, there was no reason to have different skills for them other than to annoy the player by locking them down to a particular type based on what they'd managed to find early in the game or making them gimp their character whilst they ground out the new skill.

Another example is the choice of Bioshock removing the inventory completely and Dragon Age avoiding the issue of inventory mannegment completly by making it a list instead.

Or maybe those are just instances of developers realising that inventory management is dull, people play games to get away from dull.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

How about dumbed down for the average media consumer, thats more like it, forget console gamer they are aiming their sights even lower!

But what it means is the game or media is simply polished simplification to make the project easy to make or easy to sell either way it destroys quality and rapes mechanics/game play...