"Game X was dumbed down for consoles"

[Waaghpowa]

Hang on, hang on, hang on... I'm just trying to better myself by seeking understanding. Nothing wrong with that, right?

Anyway, I'll keep this relatively short. I'm not a PC gamer, or rather not enough of one to really qualify myself as such. I hear the term "[insert game here] was dumbed down" used quite a bit by PC gamers. Given that the stereotypical - please note the term right there: stereotypical - PC gamer is a high-and-mighty "I'm smarter than you because I can multitask better" type of person (and I greatly apologize for that image), this led me to believe that the term meant [insert aforementioned game here] was essentially a "Complete Idiots" version... "for Dummies". As a console gamer, I'm sure most can understand why I'd be upset. However, many people like to "kindly" inform me that my assertions are unfounded, downright incorrect even.

So, here's my question: WHAT THE FUCK DO PEOPLE MEAN WHEN THEY SAY SOMETHING WAS "DUMBED DOWN"?!

Key binding is key here.
You know that you have a heavy attack, light attack, jump and grab for GoW, but for Crysis 1 you have at least 19 different key bindings of walking, suit powers and weapons.
Damn, 'The Witcher 2' made a wheel instead of key binding because there was a RIDICULOUS amount of items to bind (Signs, Items, swords, meditation - amounts to about 14), so they used a 'wheel' instead that you choose while you slow down time, eh - pause the game.
The aspect of graphics is also crucial. Take the example of Crysis 2, PC gamers thought that it would be the second coming of Christ, and it would be depicted in the game more realistically than real life. But the game was for consoles(Xbox?), therefore the minimum requirements were considerably lower than expected.
I worse cases they might even REMOVE content because there aren't enough damn keys on the Xbox, (While on the PC you have a KEYboard) or simplify it.

As far as the Crysis 2 bit goes, not sure if you, or many people before Crysis 2, have played the first one, but the fact that they removed so many functions of the suit actually made the game poorer. In C2, Strength and speed are one mode and sprinting takes energy, which in the first it didn't. Because of that streamlining, some of the more interesting uses of the suit modes from the first one disappeared. With speed, you switched weapons faster, reloaded faster, and could sprint faster than a car for short periods of time which was AWESOME if you had a shotgun and darted in and out of cover to peg enemies. Strength used to enhance your jump height, physical strength (duh) and when active would absorb recoil from weapons which helped quite a lot when firing at long distances.

Obviously this is my opinion, but you can understand how I feel about how the changes they made for consoles sake make the game worse for me. Don't get me wrong, I love Crysis 2, but it will never have the same value as the original did.

 

[Continuity]

I don't think blame should necessarily be put on consoles but more-so a shift in the gaming demographic. I believe a much larger portion of the gamer demographic prefers games to have less depth than say a hardcore gamer. I'm pretty much a pure console gamer and I hate the dumbing down of games as well; I hate shooters with health regen, 1 button nading and knifing (you should have to switch from your gun to your nade or knife), there's no leaning in FPSs anymore, etc. If the gaming demographic was the same as 10 years ago, then a game like Vanquish would be selling millions of copies during the 1st week instead of COD.

truth!

Though unfortunately the dumbing down often corresponds with a console port or multiplatform release, so its easy to draw the conclusion that consoles are to blame. But really its 90% the demographic rather than the platform.

Over here in the PC camp though it does sort of feel like we're under siege, there are changes and evolutions taking place that have little to do with making things better for the PC gamers, usually actively the opposite. There's a lot of multiplatform one-size-fits-all going on these days.

 

[Speakercone]

Usually I see this argument when PC users get a poorly ported console game. It then feels like the developers didn't put any effort into the PC version, prefering to deliver something worse than what was promised or expected.

FYI, I am primarily a PC gamer.

 

[EzraPound]

I think it's really a game by game situation. One could argue that Crysis 2 was dumbed down for consoles, because they had to make levels smaller/less open since consoles don't have enough power and RAM to load up great big open and sprawling levels.

Uhhh. . . Far Cry 2 already managed to render sprawling environments pretty effectively in a console FPS. Had Crysis 2 featured a sandbox the graphics would've probably had to have taken a bigger hit, but I wouldn't blame the linear levels on console limitations per se.

 

[DustyDrB]

As a guy who is trying to play Baldur's Gate for the first time (Knights of the Old Republic was my first BioWare game, in case you're wondering where I started with them), I can definitely see where people are coming from with the term "dumbing down". The term is synonymous with "streamlining" or "simplifying", with "dumbing down" being the pejorative way of putting it.

I don't agree that Mass Effect 2 was dumbed down from the first game. The first game had more RPG elements, sure. But they were shallow, not offering much meaningful choice. They were more of a hindrance than anything, with the exception of armor and weapons upgrades. But it was even straightforward most of the time which of those you would want to use.

But with a case like Dragon Age 2 (a game which I love, and just finished my second playthrough of) and even Dragon Age: Origins, I can definitely see why fans would call it dumbed down. This is the series that was pushed as being a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate by the developers. For the current play of Baldur's Gate that I'm attempting (it's frustrating, and not very rewarding), I feel I need to do actual homework before playing the game. I have absolutely no experience with D&D, so I'm unfamiliar with much of the terminology and the numbers. I can see how people who grew up with that sort of thing would get into it heavily, but it's not for me. So while I'm glad that developers are making simplified RPGs for people like me (yeah, go ahead and call me a simpleton. I don't really care), I can sympathize with the people who feel jilted because they are not getting what they were told.

 

[Waaghpowa]

I don't think blame should necessarily be put on consoles but more-so a shift in the gaming demographic. I believe a much larger portion of the gamer demographic prefers games to have less depth than say a hardcore gamer. I'm pretty much a pure console gamer and I hate the dumbing down of games as well; I hate shooters with health regen, 1 button nading and knifing (you should have to switch from your gun to your nade or knife), there's no leaning in FPSs anymore, etc. If the gaming demographic was the same as 10 years ago, then a game like Vanquish would be selling millions of copies during the 1st week instead of COD.

truth!

Though unfortunately the dumbing down often corresponds with a console port or multiplatform release, so its easy to draw the conclusion that consoles are to blame. But really its 90% the demographic rather than the platform.

Over here in the PC camp though it does sort of feel like we're under siege, there are changes and evolutions taking place that have little to do with making things better for the PC gamers, usually actively the opposite. There's a lot of multiplatform one-size-fits-all going on these days.

I have to agree as well, though I see it as a money issue. One size fits all games are easier and cheaper than tailored games.

 

[Wolfram23]

I think it's really a game by game situation. One could argue that Crysis 2 was dumbed down for consoles, because they had to make levels smaller/less open since consoles don't have enough power and RAM to load up great big open and sprawling levels.

Uhhh. . . Far Cry 2 already managed to render sprawling environments pretty effectively in a console FPS. Had Crysis 2 featured a sandbox the graphics would've probably had to have taken a bigger hit, but I wouldn't blame the linear levels on console limitations per se.

Well my evidence for that is an interview with Crytek CEO

Whether that's the reason why, all this time later, I don't know.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

How dare you talk about Game X! I take offense. That is a great game that was certainly not dumbed down.
OP: A simplified control scheme used to accommodate a gamepad. That and the simplifying of things in game to appeal to a wider audience.

 

[funguy2121]

Hang on, hang on, hang on... I'm just trying to better myself by seeking understanding. Nothing wrong with that, right?

Anyway, I'll keep this relatively short. I'm not a PC gamer, or rather not enough of one to really qualify myself as such. I hear the term "[insert game here] was dumbed down" used quite a bit by PC gamers. Given that the stereotypical - please note the term right there: stereotypical - PC gamer is a high-and-mighty "I'm smarter than you because I can multitask better" type of person (and I greatly apologize for that image), this led me to believe that the term meant [insert aforementioned game here] was essentially a "Complete Idiots" version... "for Dummies". As a console gamer, I'm sure most can understand why I'd be upset. However, many people like to "kindly" inform me that my assertions are unfounded, downright incorrect even.

So, here's my question: WHAT THE FUCK DO PEOPLE MEAN WHEN THEY SAY SOMETHING WAS "DUMBED DOWN"?!

Well, if they mean "dumbed down for consoles," you have to consider the source. Other than Sims fans, most PC gamers are much better acquainted with their PC than with their television, stereo, radio, DVD player, etc. The majority of them are techies, at least compared to laypeople such as you and me. If you were to ask one of the people who claim that console games are the gaming equivalent of a Michael Bay film, for example, for some assistance with Excel or Mozilla, they would probably laugh and say, "silly normal person."

Make no mistake, Farmville and the Sims aside, PC gaming is hardcore as it gets - which isn't to say it's any more hardcore than console games, with the exclusive exception that they are not as easy to pick up and play. What we console gamers to consider a brief, intuitive tutorial, many PC gamers consider hand-holding and coddling. For a console owner, a game might present itself as if they had never played a game in the series, or even genre, before, since this is the best way to enlarge a fanbase. PC games assume that the gamer has played all of the games that preceded it.

None of this is always true, of course, but it's true often enough to persuade some of the more snooty PC gamers that they're better or more hardcore than console owners. This, of course, is the most pathetic form of elitism there is.

That being said, there has been a growing trend over the past few years of dumbing down the medium in general. One of the most challenging, dynamic and diverse trilogies in gaming history, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, was followed up with a game wherein all of the complex fighting was turned into a one-button system, the fighting and the platforming were clearly separated, and you literally could not die. During production the developer bragged that with this new game it was easier to be a badass, as though that doesn't contradict the inherent nature of badass-ery. But this is true of all genres and all formats, except maybe freeware.

 

[Kotep]

But the combat in PoP '08 wasn't one-button only, the fighting and platforming wasn't combined at all in Sands of Time, and you could 'die', you just never got a game over.

There are some solid reasons not to like it (light seed collection for instance) but I think the whole no death thing was done a lot better than in, say, Fable 2/3. At least you'd die fairly often in PoP, in Fable 2/3 you'd never even cone close to death.

 

[Mr. Omega]

7/10 times: It's just PC Gamers bitching about the fact that a game can even be PLAYED on a console. There are a large variety of reasons, but I'm not here to start a flamewar. It's just them bitching and moaning.

2/10 times: It genuinely has been dumbed down, but more of a case of the devs being lazy, not the fact that it's on consoles. And once again, PC Gamers bitching about it, blaming consoles.

1/10 times: It really has been dumbed down because of limitations of the console and controller.

 

[Netrigan]

I'd wager that most of the dumbing down is for mainstram audiences, not consoles.

Does Mass Effect 1 have infinite ammo because console players can't wrap their heads around the concept of ammo? More likely the assumption that RPG players can't handle proper combat... as if most of them don't dabble with shooters from time to time.

Consoles have shaped how these games are played, but time and time again console players have proven they're not mouth-breathing idiots.

 

[Kungfu_Teddybear]

It's pretty much just a way of saying things have been made simpler.

Personally I think it's a bullshit excuse that developers use to cover for laziness.

Gearbox further gave me reason to think that when they said that Duke Nukem: Forever has been dumbed down for consoles because there isn't enough buttons on a controller to support more than 2 weapons. Bullshit, if that's the case why does Saint's Row's selection wheel that holds about 10 weapons only use one button and an analog stick? Why is Duke Nukem 3D on the Xbox 360 able to scroll through loads of weapons using only the right and left bumpers? Know why? Because it is in fact possible to have a game on a console have more than a 2 weapon limit.

Duke Nukem: Forever being "dumbed down for consoles" was nothing more than Gearbox's bullshit excuse for not considering all the possibilities to handling the weapon selection.

I'm sick of consoles being used as a scapegoat for developers laziness with all this "oh it was dumbed down for consoles" crap.

But that's just my take on it.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Over here in the PC camp though it does sort of feel like we're under siege, there are changes and evolutions taking place that have little to do with making things better for the PC gamers, usually actively the opposite. There's a lot of multiplatform one-size-fits-all going on these days.

I kinda feel the same, there's just less and less games that really interest me. The way things are going doesn't look very promising either, all the games that I do really like don't sell well or barely sell enough for a sequel. I understand certain interfaces don't crossover well from PC to console like RTSs and some RPG systems, but I really feel most games can be as deep on the console as the PC. I also think the PC "elitism" has to do with that there hasn't been that demographic shift in PC gaming as the gamers that prefer less depth have picked up consoles, not PCs. Therefore, the PC gamer community has pretty much remained the same and are more vocal than the console hardcore gamers because pretty much the entirety of PC gamers are hardcore gamers.

I just got into online gaming this gen and that to me is already in the dumpster, I've been playing Metal Gear Online for 3 years because most online shooters are crap; Metal Gear Online is a 3rd-person shooter with 1st-person shooting that allows you to lean as well, if a TPS can do FPS leaning then there's no reason a straight FPS can't do it. I was hoping SOCOM4 would be really good but it's just fucking COD in TPS form. I really hate matchmaking and much prefer a lobby/room system instead, but all we're getting are online games with matchmaking and no dedicated servers.

 

[mavkiel]

Or sometimes a game gives painful details on how to do things. (And then compounds this by reminding you every bloody chance it gets).

As for the mass effect comparison some have made, I'd say the ammo/weapon/armor/mod choices is a good example. Oh my god, they might actually have to read some item descriptions and decide the pro/cons of something? Better streamline it.

I think the average console developer thinks console users are in danger of eating their shoes if the anything is to complicated or presented with to many choices.

 

[loc978]

Basically, those who are explaining it as a simplification of game mechanics and controls are correct. Imagine trying to map all of the controls for TIE Fighter [http://strategywiki.org/wiki/Star_Wars:_TIE_Fighter/Controls] to a console controller... can't be done, you don't have 52 buttons, which is what it would take at a minimum.

 

[Gildan Bladeborn]

It's a little hard not to resent consoles somewhat when the sequel to an excellent PC exclusive ends up being a shitty and extremely obvious port with most of what we liked about it stripped out in the name of "accessibility".

But bullshit like that has absolutely nothing to do with consoles and everything to do with certain choices made by developers.


Basicaly the term dumbed down is used by a bunch of uptight assholes who want somebody besides the developers to blame for choices that the developers made. That developer you have been busy blowing made a change you didnt like? Well better blame it on the consoles because heavens no the developer isnt allowed to try something different. Hell half the time the reasons the developer made that change is people so many people bitched about the previous system.

I'll assume you were composing this rather adversarial and rude response while I was editing my original post and therefore missed the bit I added where I explicitly blame developers for the phenomenon and not the inanimate objects whose only sin is mainstream popularity. It is one thing for a developer to change something - maybe it makes things better, maybe it makes things worse; change in an of itself is neither good or bad.

It is however quite another thing entirely when one can directly attribute the design changes to a shift in primary development towards consoles - if a sequel to a PC game suddenly has an interface that only makes sense on consoles where they don't have a bloody mouse, it's pretty clear why that is. The problem isn't consoles, it's the absurd "one size fits all" approach to multi-platform releases so many studios take these days that leaves us with cursory and insulting ports.

The existence, hardware limitations, and typical audience proclivities of consoles all directly lead to games developed for them (and this is key here) that did not start out on consoles to begin with being "dumbed down", but what your overly defensive response overlooks is that we don't actually care if developers "dumb down" their games for consoles. Really, they can do whatever the hell they want or need to to make their bloody games work in the console market, more power to them - PC gamers are only going to care if what we've been handed has obviously suffered due to the entire focus of a multi-platform release resting on say... the X-Box 360.

If developers didn't simply excise features that wouldn't work so well on a console from all versions of the game, but took the time to actually differentiate their titles in accordance with the relative strengths of each respective platform, well PC enthusiasts would probably still point and laugh and act superior regardless (it's kind of what we do after all), but we certainly wouldn't have any reason to resent the existence of a larger demographic. The problem has never been about designing games to fit the lowest common denominator, it's when designers only do that and then expect us to enjoy the results that we cry foul.

In this day and age though the development focus for major multi-platform releases rests so squarely on the console side of the equation that the phenomenon of "dumbing it down" barely even exists, since games tend to start on the console side of things and then "maybe" get ported to the PC, if we're lucky. Or in the case of most multi-platform releases, the version we receive from day 1 was an obvious console port with all the baggage that entails, but at least we never got a taste of what it might have been like if it had been developed with our platform in mind from the beginning, so it's harder to be bitterly disappointed with the result.

 

[gerrymander61]

Bioshock vs System Shock 2
Thief: Deadly Shadows vs Thief 1 and Thief 2
Deus Ex vs Deus Ex: Invisible War
Oblivion vs Morrowind

Sequels that have less content, depth, and complexity than the games that came before them because they were primarily designed for consoles rather than for the PC. More often than not the game is much worse than its predecessor as a consequence of this. An exception is Bioshock which is only slightly worse (but still an excellent game, it's just that System Shock 2 was amazingly brilliant).

That's usually what people mean when they say "dumbed down." One could also say "simplified" but that lacks the negative connotation since games that are "simplified" in such a way are usually worse.