"dumbed down for the console gamer"

Recommended Videos

Outright Villainy

New member
Jan 19, 2010
4,334
0
0
Serenegoose said:
Well, usually the controls are a pretty big distinction. As you've noticed, keyboard and mouse is generally a lot more precise and has a lot more buttons than a controller, which means games invariably end up 'streamlined' (euphemism for 'stuff taken out', it's not always bad, but the term has been coloured by it being used to describe the exorcism of generally a lot of good features.)

This means what you get on a PC game is usually a port of the more profitable console version, this often means a: the graphics are worse and b: the controls are WAY worse, because they're optimised for an analogue stick and other controller features which can take an unnecessarily long time to navigate with a mouse.

See, another reason for this is that the rise of consoles has kinda directly correlated with the fall of really hardcore PC titles. For example, take the RPG. The main example - the 'bioware RPG' as a kind of subgenre.

The bioware RPG used to be praised for its attention to detail, long and engaging stories, and complex gameplay - epitomised by the game 'Baldur's Gate' When consoles became more prominent, Bioware moved to a more KOTOR style - a lot of graphical flourish and voice acting, but still pretty solid gameplay mechanics, a complex plot, etc. Everyone (obv not EVERYONE but still) regarded this as a great step forward. Then along comes Mass Effect. Mass Effect is the dividing line. Obviously designed for both consoles and PC, Mass Effect rips out the complex combat mechanics of preceding bioware games and replaces them with point and click shooter mechanics and a very very simple conversation wheel with obvious, literally highlighted 'best options' in the form of renegade and paragon options.

The sound of a thousand hardcore RPG fans screaming out and being suddenly silenced can be heard about this point.

Before the persuade mechanic was a matter of luck and skill - a gamble that could pay off, or backfire, and this made it interesting. Paragon and Renegade are however 'win conversation free' buttons. It's a great game, but it's also a watermark title. EVERYONE (and again, not really everyone obv) jumps on the 'simplification' train to Mass Effectsville, and why? Because it worked for the console gamers. They lapped it up. Whereas the dry style of a Baldur's Gate or a Planescape torment is not something you'd ever see on a console, Mass Effect manifestly is. This means anybody who wants to make money had better cut out the idea of an old school RPG or be prepared to fling Bioware levels of money at it to 'triple A' it in other areas. See Dragon Age - Whilst a very engaging RPG with a huge plot, solid dialogue and expansive conversation arcs, interesting characters (matter of taste I guess, but this is personal opinion) and all sorts of other tropes the hardcore RPG fans identify as their own, one of the biggest problems people had with dragon age is that it takes a 'consoleish' approach to spells. A fireball is a fireball is a fireball. How much damage does it do? Not telling. This hex, what does it do? Well it decreases resistance. By how much? Not telling. Well that's gone down like a lead Hindenburg with the hardcore RPG crowd who once more see a truly promising RPG watered down to the simple standards the console crowd demand. Whether or not that's anything to do with the game being out on console has become irrelevant - the very act of 'not telling' is seen to be associated with the 'streamlined' nature of consoles, and so the blame lies at their feet.

Anyway, this rage reached apoplectic levels when DA2 was announced with the following news: More streamlining. Instead of those brilliant origins, they're gone, leaving you with Boring Mchuman-Chinpants III (or his invariably better voice-acted female counterpart who bioware won't acknowledge) So features = removed. What of the combat? Ah, well they seen how well ME2 done, and so now they'll be changing the combat to be more 'action oriented'. Features = removed. Instead of a branching, complex conversation tree, we're being given the fully misleading and voice acted wheel, where you have to hope for the best that what you click is actually what you end up saying. Feaures = removed. By this point, 'dumbed down for the consoles' has become the scapegoat of choice. every time a developer has noticed console games seem quite profitable, a complex game vanishes to be replaced with a point and click blast/gorefest.

And there you have it. A short story, incoherently told, through the medium of a single developers game creation process, of why we call console games dumbed down.
Whilst that's a well thought out post, I feel like you're missing the point somewhat. Most of what you said there were changed not because of limitations due to consoles, but because it's more popular in general, or easier for the developers. Sure, RTS games would have to make some sacrifices for a console port, but your general RPG could make the leap unchanged, number crunching and all.

I think it's less a case of dumbing down for console gamers, and more dumbing down for everyone.

It's because games are becoming more prohibitively expensive nowadays, so fewer niche hardcore titles are made because of the risk. It needs a guaranteed sell. Pc gamers are guilty of this trend, particularly when you see the ironic comments of bitching about console ports meaning graphics not being as shiny on the pc.

Shiny graphics are what got us in this mess!
 

tzimize

New member
Mar 1, 2010
2,391
0
0
shootthebandit said:
this is a phrase i see alot on the escapist but what exactly does it mean, i think as a console gamer its a misrepresentation, the majority of console gamers are mature but there is a loud majority that gives us a bad name.

i can understand that keyboard and mouse is more accurate and your average PC can process alot more than a console which is fair enough but when you say "dumbed down for console audience" its implying that they will simplify the gameplay to suit us and suggests that we are not as mature

so i want to know why this phrase is used, i can accept if it relates to the control scheme or the processing power but its misrepresenting to say that its because we are dumb
It has nothing (well not everything anyway.......) to do about stupidity and mostly to do with tech. Console peeps play with controllers. Controllers are better than mouse and keyboard for SOME stuff, but extremely much worse at other stuff. Games that have been "dumbed down" for console audience are usually games that are either slower, with less focus on accuracy or simply literally dumbed down by removing/simplifying gameplay because of lack of buttons/control options/possibilities on consoles.

It is an abomination and I hate it. I wish developers could realize that some games simply belong on consoles and some on PC. I will never play an RTS or a FPS on consoles, I have tried, time and again but it never works. And I will never play a 3rd person game on PC. The thing is, you can use an xbox controller on pc by default. And some nifty dude from China I think has made a driver for the PS3 controller. This means PCs can do everything a console can and better, it just lacks the exclusive games that is on consoles. While a console being able to use keyboard and mouse will usually never take advantage of it because the control set will be made for people with controllers, because thats what most are using.

I dont judge players by their choice of platform. I have owned an xbox360 (RRoD) and own a PS3, have owned consoles since SEGA 8-bit and PCs since 486. I have no problem with either consoles, PCs or their users. What I DO have problems with is all the compromise being made in games to be certain that its "playable" on all platforms instead of AWESOME on only one or two.
 

shootthebandit

New member
May 20, 2009
3,867
0
0
Outright Villainy said:
Shiny graphics are what got us in this mess!
i agree, graphical fidelity is not the be all and end all

its good now that graphics are reaching thier peak (look at games like GT5), hopefully now they can focus on gameplay
 

Vuljatar

New member
Sep 7, 2008
1,002
0
0
Baby Tea said:
Bullshit yourself! (look, I can use italics and bold too!)
First of all, with Morrowind and Oblivion: how the heck is Oblivion dumbed down for consoles?
You surely can't be talking about gameplay, because all of that is developer choice, not console limitations.
So you must be talking about graphical or procedural differences! Well I'll point to the example I used in the blog post I made: Dragon Age. Dragon Age is very very different on the PC as it is on the console. The PC version gets higher resolution graphics, a totally different camera angle, and a completely different control scheme. The console version gets lower resolution graphics, and a controller-friendly control scheme. Both parties get what they want and get to play the same game.

That's proper multiplatform development.

If vanilla Oblivion looks like balls on the PC because of multiplatform development, then that's the developer's fault. I'm not saying PC's can't use higher-resolutions then consoles, or that consoles are just as powerful as high-end PCs. I'm saying that if a developer cheaps on the PC version of a multiplatform game, that's the developer's fault, not the consoles.

As for Supreme Commander, the gameplay changes are the developer's choice. Blame them, not the console. I'll be the first to say that some genres aren't quite suited to certain platforms. I wouldn't play a fighting or most racing games on the PC, and I wouldn't play an RTS (Except Endwar) or flight-sim on a console. If a developer is trying to 'cash in' and screws up a game by trying to pan it across too wide an audience, that's the developer's fault. That's how it works!

Don't blame the platform. That's retarded.
I'm sure as hell not talking about graphics. Oblivion was a beautiful game, but it had no depth. Compared to Morrowind, it's dumbed down in the extreme. Of course that was Bethesda's decision, and of course they made that decision because >50% of their target market was console-based.

Same with SupCom2. Like Oblivion, it's predecessor was ported to consoles and was successful, so they decided to develop the next game with console technology and the console audience in mind. What resulted was a castrated version of the predecessor's gameplay, with faster resource gain, cheaper, weaker units, and a completely shit interface.

Why shouldn't I blame the platform when it's the primary reason why the developers make the decisions that they do?
 

Serenegoose

Faerie girl in hiding
Mar 17, 2009
2,016
0
0
Outright Villainy said:
Whilst that's a well thought out post, I feel like you're missing the point somewhat. Most of what you said there were changed not because of limitations due to consoles, but because it's more popular in general, or easier for the developers. Sure, RTS games would have to make some sacrifices for a console port, but your general RPG could make the leap unchanged, number crunching at all.

I think it's less a case of dumbing down for console gamers, and more dumbing down for everyone.

It's because games are becoming more prohibitively expensive nowadays, so fewer niche hardcore titles are made because of the risk. It needs a guaranteed sell. Pc gamers are guilty of this trend, particularly when you see the ironic comments of bitching about console ports meaning graphics not being as shiny on the pc.

Shiny graphics are what got us in this mess!
Yeah, I did kinda wildly tangent away from the 'hardware' point into the philosophy point. And you're right about the risk being a problem - however, I don't believe graphics are the problem. I'm more of the opinion that sound is actually the big deal when it comes to RPG games at least. Expansive winding dialogue trees have died because that's SO MUCH DIALOGUE! and whilst before you could just write it down, now it all needs someone to say it, and at least try and say it convincingly, too. I also don't believe that graphics are the problem because the idea that we can either have style OR substance I think is letting creative types off too lightly. I want both. I can have both, there's no reason why not. The argument that 'it's either graphics or content' is a rubbish excuse and we do ourselves no favours by pretending it has credence.
 

Vuljatar

New member
Sep 7, 2008
1,002
0
0
RhombusHatesYou said:
Vuljatar said:
Why shouldn't I blame the platform when it's the primary reason why the developers make the decisions that they do?
That sounds a bit "She was dressed like a slut, your honour."
...the fuck?

Seriously, what?
 

Baby Tea

Just Ask Frankie
Sep 18, 2008
4,687
0
0
Vuljatar said:
Why shouldn't I blame the platform when it's the primary reason why the developers make the decisions that they do?
Because they didn't have to do those things.
Dragon Age sold like free Beer on the consoles, and it wasn't dumbed down. It was totally an Old school RPG. Morrowind was on the Xbox for Pete's sake, they didn't have to dumb down anything! Though I'm extremely thankful they changed the combat, since Morrowind's combat was dreadful. They could have made it with just as many spells, characters, quests and areas, but they chose not to. So blame Bethesda! They screwed up! It wasn't the console's fault, that's ridiculous.

Same with SupCom 2! We can both agree, probably, that the RTS genre isn't great on consoles, and developers know this too! So who is to blame for them trying to 'cash in'? The console just for existing, or the developer trying to shoe-horn a square box into a round hole?
 
Apr 28, 2008
14,634
0
0
Baby Tea said:
Well I'll point to the example I used in the blog post I made: Dragon Age. Dragon Age is very very different on the PC as it is on the console. The PC version gets higher resolution graphics, a totally different camera angle, and a completely different control scheme. The console version gets lower resolution graphics, and a controller-friendly control scheme. Both parties get what they want and get to play the same game.

That's proper multiplatform development.
And what sucks is that it seems Bioware's treating the PC and consoles the same with DA2's development. This frightens me because instead of playing to each platform's strenghts, as they did with Dragon Age, they're just making it all the same, which could negatively affect all platforms.

OT: I find it to be blown way out of proportion. If a game is "dumbed down", its the developer's/publisher's fault for believing console players are too stupid to handle it all in the first place.

Its not the console's fault, or the audience's fault(although the pricks on XBL aren't exactly helping things...), its whoever made the game's fault.
 

tehroc

New member
Jul 6, 2009
1,293
0
0
Well it's going to a new level, soon games will be dumbed down for the iPhone or iPad. Take Civilization 5, they streamlined so much of the game you could probably control it with a NES controller, a confirm button, a cancel button and two utility buttons and go through 95% of the game with a simple menu system. Watch within a year or two Civ 5 will come to your phone graphically stripped down but otherwise good to go.
 

tzimize

New member
Mar 1, 2010
2,391
0
0
ciortas1 said:
gl1koz3 said:
tzimize said:
/brohug

-snip-

If you really need obvious examples of it, just look at the upcoming Crysis 2 and give me one good reason they had to merge the suit powers. That which used to take skill to use properly is now effectively dumbed down to 2 basic modes.
Thanks for the brohug!

Also, I've never gotten people that play fps on consoles. YUCK!
 

C117

New member
Aug 14, 2009
1,331
0
0
Personally, I take it as a pun to the fact that when using an ordinary controller, you've got about 16 buttons to work with, counting the two analogsticks as well. That's a slightly limited number, so many games for consoles have a pretty easy control scheme in order to make the most of the controller.

But when playing with a keyboard and mouse, you've got roughly 50-60 buttons to work with, meaning that many PC-exclusive titles tend to be more complex in their control scheme, since there is no risk of them running out of buttons to use. If you'd like, you could probably take all your abilities in, say, Devil May Cry, and hotkey them to seperate buttons without using all of them.
 

GiantRedButton

Senior Member
Mar 30, 2009
599
0
21
shootthebandit said:
lol i was waiting for you to make that comment, have you seen the weapon wheel on Resistance: fall of man

seriously this is the developers fault, if there is a will theres a way. if the developer wasnt lazy they would find a way to add a simple command on a controller
Yeah wheel is the way to go for consoles i think. Loved them in mass effect on the 360 and ratched on ps2.
The problem is that it pauses gameplay since your stick is occupied and you have a menu infront over your character which breaks immersion.
Still its only on screen for a extremly short time since selecting is so damn fast.
Btw another example for games getting dumbed down because of consoles is Dragon age 2.
The tactical view was removed because only pc users saw the textures required for it. Also mod support was scraped. Because budgets aren't unlimited those cases happen and devs only give us the lowest common denominator that all platforms can handle. 360 couldn't handle high res textures in dao because it stores the least data. They made the high res textures because they cared in the first one.
But if theres budget pc players suffer under console limitations.
 

Ampersand

New member
May 1, 2010
736
0
0
Well that's a missleading phrase. One of the goals of a game designer is to make thier interface intuative and easy to use. The challenge in a game is supposed to come from the actual gameplay not from the interface. Console's do this a hole lot better then PC's do ( it's because they're forced to, working inside the confines of the controller as they are, but still).

RTS could be discribed as the exception to the rule, because they kind of need to be complicated for them to be any fun, but in almost any other type of game I can think of, if you can't fit everything you need for the interface into a controller then you're doing a very poor job.

Also if people are saying that console gamers are less mature then pc gamers, then it's just a matter of them being snobs who need to get over themselves.
 

Vuljatar

New member
Sep 7, 2008
1,002
0
0
Baby Tea said:
Vuljatar said:
Why shouldn't I blame the platform when it's the primary reason why the developers make the decisions that they do?
Because they didn't have to do those things.
Dragon Age sold like free Beer on the consoles, and it wasn't dumbed down. It was totally an Old school RPG. Morrowind was on the Xbox for Pete's sake, they didn't have to dumb down anything! Though I'm extremely thankful they changed the combat, since Morrowind's combat was dreadful. They could have made it with just as many spells, characters, quests and areas, but they chose not to. So blame Bethesda! They screwed up! It wasn't the console's fault, that's ridiculous.

Same with SupCom 2! We can both agree, probably, that the RTS genre isn't great on consoles, and developers know this too! So who is to blame for them trying to 'cash in'? The console just for existing, or the developer trying to shoe-horn a square box into a round hole?
Of course I blame Bethesda. I also blame the fact that consoles don't come with a keyboard/mouse, and above all I blame the fact that the majority of the console audience prefers their games shiny and shallow.