"dumbed down for the console gamer"

[Nerdygamer89]

It surprises me that nobody has mentioned the underlying issue that makes "console dumbing down" a real issue: money, both for games and to make games. Fact is, a casual gamer who wants to break out the controller an hour or two per week doesn't generally want to spend upward of $2,500 on a decent gaming PC when they can spend a tiny fraction of that on a ps3 or 360, thus we have a gigantic gaming demographic flooded with consoles. This isn't even an issue of PC versus consoles, this is an issue of casual versus hardcore.

A casual gamer who plays an hour a week doesn't want to sit around memorizing stat tables, resistance checks, armor rating and what have you, they just want to jump in and play the game. With such a huge demographic of casual gamers with consoles, what do you think the developers shoot for when designing a game that they depend on to make them money? They make their game specifically for the 30 year old guy with a job and kids, the guy with the money to actually buy their #60 game. It's just good business strategy.

Bottom line is, yes, games are being dumbed down for consoles absolutely. But it's not because console gamers are stupid, or the difference in hardware or whathaveyou, it's simply because games cost a fuckton of money to make and game companies have a habit of making their games for their largest demographic.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

Some PC gamers are butthurt because their favorite game was ported to console and you can't mod on a console. I've played plenty of ports and haven't seen much if any real significant difference. Control schemes on console are sometimes easier, but having been a PC gamer and a console gamer it makes no difference to me.

 

[Lunar Templar]

since i have both, a PS3 and a PC,
i avoid this
if theres a PC version of it, the the PC version is problly better
however, that only aplys if the game was on the PC release at first, consul ports TO PC do not count, i'm not about to buy Darksiders or Devil May Cry 3/4 for my PC the control set up inst really there for it, unless you getta 360 controller >.> and i've never liked those, the feel weird

 

[Something Amyss]

I think Mass Effect is a good example of this.

Mass Effect 1: Focus on RPG and number building, had inventory management which was more like what's usual on the PC.

Mass Effect 2: Focus on Third Person Shooter aspects, inventory gone, armour removed, weapons simplified.

Shooters sell better, and most shooters are designed for the consoles. Thus, it makes sense that if you want to appeal to more of your audience, you make your game more of a shooter.
Thus, dumbing down for consoles.

It's not the fault of the players, it's the fault of the market.

That has little to do with "dumbing down for consoles," though. It's more "dumbing down for casual fans who want too much RPG in their RPG."

 

[teebeeohh]

its true that games are being made simpler(dumbed down) for consoles but this has nothing to do with the less buttons you have on a console pad. If you want to you can make a game on any console as complex or as easy as you want to. I thinks the reason this is done is because consoles are the major market for video games today and the publishers hope to reach a wider audience, so we are talking younger and older people, casual gamers and in the mind of Activison executive those guys don#t like complex games.

 

[Vuljatar]

It surprises me that nobody has mentioned the underlying issue that makes "console dumbing down" a real issue: money, both for games and to make games. Fact is, a casual gamer who wants to break out the controller an hour or two per week doesn't generally want to spend upward of $2,500 on a decent gaming PC when they can spend a tiny fraction of that on a ps3 or 360, thus we have a gigantic gaming demographic flooded with consoles. This isn't even an issue of PC versus consoles, this is an issue of casual versus hardcore.

I take issue with this, because you are perpetuating the utterly preposterous myth of the "$2,500 decent gaming PC".

You can put together a PC that will run any modern game at low-mid settings for $400, less if you get lucky. You can put together one that will run any modern game at max settings on a huge monitor for under $1,500. $2,500 is simply a ridiculous number.

It's not an issue of casual versus hardcore, it's an issue of tech-savvy versus tech-ignorant.

 

[Baby Tea]

above all I blame the fact that the majority of the console audience prefers their games shiny and shallow.

Well if you're going to use these ridiculous generalizations then I obviously can't have a normal conversation with you about it.

snip

Looking at the way people played it, Dragon Age on the consoles had nothing tactical about it and the gameplay overall looked pretty shit due to the third person style camera. There, it was dumbed down.

Hahaha, this honestly made me laugh out loud.

'Looking at the way people played it' - So the way people play a game makes it tactical or not? I've watched people rush out in Operation Flashpoint and ArmA, but that doesn't mean the game isn't tactical. It means the person playing is a moron.

DA on the consoles is absolutely tactical, since it's the exact same game as the PC version, just a different control scheme and different viewing angle. So any tactics used in the PC version are just as viable and successful in the console version. And the gameplay was fine with that camera. I played through the whole game (Plus Awakening) with that camera, and the gameplay was a blast.

Thanks for coming out, though.

 

[xDarc]

It's true.

Multiplayer FPS games went from twitchy run n' gun to campy sniper fest right around the release of the xbawks 360, back in 2005.

They needed to introduce things like artificial cone of fire systems to force people to stop moving so much, auto-aim, etc.

Slowed down the gameplay and made it fun for everyone. This leads to MORE SALES from a larger pool of players.

FPS games were never a household item until consoles slowed them the hell down.

 

[CheckD3]

My guess is that the lack of combinations of buttons to click means that controls are boiled down to what's most necessary.

For example, a PC RTS would have more buttons to transfer to certain areas of the map, placing down easier, moving different, and there being quick links to place certain things or bring up certain menus, while for the console you'd have to manually scroll through the levels or a map of menus to find something you could one click on the PC

I think it's usually control wise, but I'm sure that it's used as a derogatory term to people who prefer the controller to the mouse, people sometimes getting delusions of grandeur make an entire group look stupid

 

[Odin311]

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.

No one was blaming the platform in any of the posts. They were simply pointing out examples of games they felt were being "dumbed down". If a game get's "dumbed down", it is obviously the developers choice. The real question, is why they think they have to.

Your responses and comment of:

insecure PC elitist's

and your subsequent posts. Indicated to me that you are primarily a console game, who is more interested in starting a argument, than actually being involved in a constructive discussion.

 

[vallorn]

I am PC Gamer and a Console gamer, unfortunately like you said little twats on the Xbox mic's give us a bad name.

fixed it for you. ive NEVER met one on PSN EVER

 

[Atmos Duality]

What started as a console limitation eventually became popular; and thus extended its influence into most of mainstream gaming.

This is why the PC version of Fallout 3 had an absolutely awful inventory and options menu; Borderlands' was even worse.
The question is: Is it because The developer was too fucking lazy to change the interface, or because the console market share is so much greater than the PC's that they figured they didn't have to?

 

[Okysho]

This thread intrigues me, because I always thought games were dumbed down for the Personal Computer (I say that because I'm a Mac user and YES I HAVE GAMES ON MY MAC). When I look at other game reviews which get computer ports, they tend to be lower than the console ratings. Also, graphics seem to be dumbed down for the most part (unless your computer is brand-fucking-new) and there's always at least ONE issue with the functionality of the game (lower framerate, choopy because of max graphics, etc) Being a Wii owner (AND PROUD OF IT DAMNIT!) I don't normally get play the console versions of most games (halo 1 and 2, Call of duty 4, saints row 2 etc) and it seems like the ports we do get for the Wii are also dumbed down. (CoD 4) Gaming consoles are for gaming! Their technology should be the epitome of affordable gaming technology am I wrong?

 

[BreakfastMan]

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.

I thought that Bioware had stated that they were making the console version of Dragon Age 2 more action-oriented, but keeping the PC version more strategy oriented. Where did you hear any different?

OT: "Dumbed Down" just seems to be a very odd complaint to me. It seems to be mostly used when elitist PC gamers complain about the lack of hotkeys or mod support on consoles. It, quite frankly, does not make sense in the slightest.

 

[Baby Tea]

No one was blaming the platform in any of the posts. They were simply pointing out examples of games they felt were being "dumbed down". If a game get's "dumbed down", it is obviously the developers choice. The real question, is why they think they have to.

No, the majority of posts have said 'Dumbed down for consoles'.
I've bolded the important qualifier there for you.

By stating something was 'dumbed down for consoles', you are, in effect, blaming the consoles for the dumbing down. Numerous replies I've received in this thread have only solidified that.

you are primarily a console game, who is more interested in starting a argument, than actually being involved in a constructive discussion.

I do game primarily on the console, though I'm not interested in prolonging an argument, only refuting this ridiculous notion that console gaming brings down PC gaming when it comes to multiplatform development.
Consoles don't. Developers do.

 

[Lerxst]

Take a sociological perspective on it. The average console costs $300-$400 w/at least one game. The "un hip" parents can at least figure out which cables get plugged into the TV and which get plugged into the wall outlet. After that, any 10 year old with a partially functioning brain can stick a CD/DVD/Cartridge in and flick the power button on. 10 seconds later, they'll be playing a game.

Compare that with a PC:

The costs for a "gaming" rig costs $700 and up. Basic knowledge of a computer is required to make it function. Familiarity with a standard "QWERTY" keyboard is also a requirement in order to perform most tasks, even play games. The ability to install and click "install" "next" "ok" and read instructional screens is also required if one wanted to play a game.

Even if the parents do all of that, the number of parents willing to go through those lengths as opposed to option #1 - console - is sure to be a whole lot less. Therefore, you get many less whiny little 10 year olds playing PC games as opposed to console games.
The fewer little kids playing a platform, the more intelligent it comes across.

 

[Arkham]

This thread intrigues me, because I always thought games were dumbed down for the Personal Computer (I say that because I'm a Mac user and YES I HAVE GAMES ON MY MAC). When I look at other game reviews which get computer ports, they tend to be lower than the console ratings. Also, graphics seem to be dumbed down for the most part (unless your computer is brand-fucking-new) and there's always at least ONE issue with the functionality of the game (lower framerate, choopy because of max graphics, etc)

These days it seems like a lot of games release for PC are ports of console versions with control schemes that just don't work. I'm generalizing of course. Another problem that faces the PC gaming market is that you have a lot of different systems with a wide range of hardware options that make it difficult for everything to work on every PC or Mac. (I really don't know much about Macs to be honest.) When developing for a console you know exactly what hardware every user has.

 

[ryo02]

2 trigger buttons
2 shoulder buttons
start and select
4 regular buttons
8 way d-pad
2 analogue sticks ... that are also buttons

seriously how many buttons do you need before you say it isnt dumbed down?

 

[Netrigan]

I see things covered by the "dumbing down" phrase.

First, the streamlining of controls when making the jump from PC to console led to a lot of this. Games Deus Ex and Thief were noticeably nerfed when their console-minded sequels came out. Halo (much as I don't like the game) managed to streamline and expand the controls proving a good FPS was possible on a console. Bioshock pretty much drove this point home.

Secondly, the wider the customer base, the more compromises slip into gameplay. These trends have always been there as devs looked for ways to make their games newbie friendly. A trend magnified when certain genres jumped to consoles where games are designed to be finished by just about anyone, whether it be recharging health, reanimation chambers (ala Bioshock), HUD assists, etc. Consoles didn't create the trend, but the larger customer base magnified the trend.