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.bue519 said:
"dumbed down for the console gamer"
- Thread starter shootthebandit
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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.Xzi said:
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...
I'm not trying to let developers off lightly. Far from it, they've been lazy in developing for the Pc for a while now and games in general seem to be getting more samey.Serenegoose said:
Time, and money.
This generation's standard of high poly graphics demands both. A lot more than before. In fact, I remember seeing an article recently (could've been on the escapist even) that showed the costs increasing on a near logarithmic scale every 5 years. Not having high poly doesn't mean not having good graphics either. A good art direction is more imporant than anything; I think Wind waker is a lot prettier than Killzone 2.
Developers can be more resourseful with their budget instead of blow it all on the shiny for a safe return. But it's we the gamers who demand the shiny graphics.
Neither side is blameless.
What I mean when i say that its dumbed down to consoles is that due to the lack of proper key-layout and only a limited amount of buttons and controls you have to make the game more simple so that it works for consoles and such. Thus the game suffers some depth and thus its dumbed down.
That and I play both PS3 and Xbox 360 as well as PC. And I generally hate console players as they are either loudmouths (few ones about) and in general douchebags and poor teamplayers.
That and I play both PS3 and Xbox 360 as well as PC. And I generally hate console players as they are either loudmouths (few ones about) and in general douchebags and poor teamplayers.
To me part of the problem is not that PC players view their titles as infinitely superior when compared to console titles, but its that console players view their titles as infinitely superior when compared to other titles, but they dont even know the name of those PC games they are generally reffering to anyway.OhJohnNo said:
What I mean is accept it or not consoles (at least the 360) are just made up by so many dumb, dumb people. I use my 360 for the majority of my playing and...well people are just trash.
I know its probably really unfair to sort of seem to easily hate a huge group of people like that, but at least when a PC gamer insults a console gamer because of their games, they usually have some idea of what they are talking about.
Of course, insulting someone because of what device they play software on a disc on is very silly anyway, I dont dislike the majority of players with mics online because they play Halo or whatever, I dislike them because they are just trashy people.
Ok lets face it, games are dumbed down. Everyone who played games for about 10 years knows how bad it is. Some genres are better, some are worse. Compare the old Doom games or Wolfensteins with a modern shooter. When i play older games i die a lot on but when i play a new shooter the is not even challenging. Usally with newer games its hard --> normal people who play a bit, normal --> people who never played, easy --> people with a missing brain half.
Back to topic. Is it the fault of consoles? I would say yes, but only because most "casual" gamers have consoles. The "western" games are usally console games ported to PC and regardless of genre they are damn easy. Compare it to "eastern" games (just an example russian) these games are way better concerning difficulty and balancing. And apart from mentality, budget, marketing and all that i would say the main reason is that these "eastern" games are often made for PC exclusive.
My point. Stupid weaklings who dont want a challenge when playing games, often refered to as casuals (which is wrong), are responsible for the games being dumbed down. And yes they usally use consoles. Yes they dont care whether a game has good gameplay as long as it has nice explosions and gore. And yes they print money since many oldschool gamers just dont buy the crap produced these days.
Back to topic. Is it the fault of consoles? I would say yes, but only because most "casual" gamers have consoles. The "western" games are usally console games ported to PC and regardless of genre they are damn easy. Compare it to "eastern" games (just an example russian) these games are way better concerning difficulty and balancing. And apart from mentality, budget, marketing and all that i would say the main reason is that these "eastern" games are often made for PC exclusive.
My point. Stupid weaklings who dont want a challenge when playing games, often refered to as casuals (which is wrong), are responsible for the games being dumbed down. And yes they usally use consoles. Yes they dont care whether a game has good gameplay as long as it has nice explosions and gore. And yes they print money since many oldschool gamers just dont buy the crap produced these days.
I play games on both consoles and PC's. And honestly, when I play games on the consoles, I sometimes feel restricted to adjust the controls to my preference depending on the game.
There is just a lot more freedom available with a keyboard and mouse, and I prefer those over controllers.
But aside from that, there are some games that seem to focus on PC's and some that should focus on Consoles. RTS's for example, are pretty dull on the Console, most common example would be Halo Wars, while RTS's for the PC such as Starcraft 1 and 2, and Age of Empires are much more complicated and grant more replay value. However, I prefer platforming and fighting games on the Console, as the buttons seem more accustomed to those games. Fighting games have console controls down flat, and plat-formers using the Analog Stick make it feel more free and awesome.
FPS's can go either way. Though I normally prefer to play TF2 on the PC, some Console Shooters are still fun to play.
There is just a lot more freedom available with a keyboard and mouse, and I prefer those over controllers.
But aside from that, there are some games that seem to focus on PC's and some that should focus on Consoles. RTS's for example, are pretty dull on the Console, most common example would be Halo Wars, while RTS's for the PC such as Starcraft 1 and 2, and Age of Empires are much more complicated and grant more replay value. However, I prefer platforming and fighting games on the Console, as the buttons seem more accustomed to those games. Fighting games have console controls down flat, and plat-formers using the Analog Stick make it feel more free and awesome.
FPS's can go either way. Though I normally prefer to play TF2 on the PC, some Console Shooters are still fun to play.
And would promptly start bitching about graphics and level design instead of getting a clue and/or perservering.Xzi said:
That's not entirely fair. I can't hold a controller for more than a couple of hours without my hands starting to hurt but that's mostly my fault from all the damage my hands have taken over the years.Archangel357 said:
Then again, I'm not using my own injuries as the basis for my opinions on control schemes.
They are talking about the controls, not the content. As has been said, they have more buttons, and if you can use the mouse for better aiming (we still get better walking IMO though.) But yea, they don't mean they're gonna make it special for us or something, lol.
It's not dumbed down for consoles because they want kids to play it.
It's dumbed down so all the controls and gameplay are roughly the same. Aiming works better with a mouse than with a controller. RTS works better on a pc, too.
So if they keep the level of pc quickness and comfortable control, the console version would be harder because of it.
It's dumbed down so all the controls and gameplay are roughly the same. Aiming works better with a mouse than with a controller. RTS works better on a pc, too.
So if they keep the level of pc quickness and comfortable control, the console version would be harder because of it.
With a mouse and keyboard you can turn click on things a lot faster, with a conroler you pan around slower so you have a chance to hit something, That is one reason to simplify a game stightly.
Other than that there is no excuse...I supose you got more casual gamers on consols and it not insult them games need to be simpler for them, where as PC gamers know more about what they are doing, system spec, installation etc etc so we are there more for the challenge i dont know.
Maybe there is no average pc gamer, as soon as you play a pc game you become part of the super elite and if you are good you automoticly become pro and such we need more complex games, with unforgiving enermies and crash hazzards.
Other than that there is no excuse...I supose you got more casual gamers on consols and it not insult them games need to be simpler for them, where as PC gamers know more about what they are doing, system spec, installation etc etc so we are there more for the challenge i dont know.
Maybe there is no average pc gamer, as soon as you play a pc game you become part of the super elite and if you are good you automoticly become pro and such we need more complex games, with unforgiving enermies and crash hazzards.