"Dumbing down for consoles."

[tnu]

I've seen this phrase used over the years to describe certain trends like removing choice4 and depth from an RPG and things of that nature but I don't quite understand it. Is there some inherent quality that consoles have that requires this sor tof "dumbing down"? Such as removing choices form the player by limiting dialogue options or possible world interactions? Or limiting character customization unnecessarily? I"m just not sure I understand what makes this associated with consoles or why it might be "necessary" for consoles. Is there some inherent connection or does the connection just happen to be there?

[Cliffracerz]

Console gamers are largely assumed to be more casual in their play styles than PC gamers. Thus they don't want to be bogged down with complicated game mechanics.

[tnu]

so people don't think ther eare hardcore console players? thjat seems odd. mind you I migrated to PC years ago but it still seems odd that now pretty much all AAA titles have to be "consolized" likethat.

[ZoumeyZ]

it's mainly because video games are more of a distraction than a hobby anymore, just like music or movies. you still get games which are fantastic in term of content and writing, but most of them are "dumb" games where the player doesn't need to make a lot of effort (thinking, making hard choices, requiring a lot of skill...). that's the same for almost every kind of art, as soon as there's a huge public you're bound to have the equivalant of nicki minaj , transformers and fifa, because it sells to the lowest common denominator.

Saying a game is "dumbed down" or "consolized" isn't a bad thing in itself , it works great with games like The Stick Of Truth (a really easy RPG, it could have been a phone game without problems) or Just Cause 2-3 (you get really OP real fast, but it's made for f*#@ing around). the problem comes when publisher like Bethesda or EA decide that to sell more, they also need to remove key elements that are deemed "too hard" for the "lowest common denominator". and so , you get things like Fallout 4 which is fantastically retarded in everyway possible and shouldn't even be considered an RPG anymore. you know you're doing something wrong when Black Ops has a branching storyline and Fallout 4 doesn't.

but that's not really a problem for Bethesda or EA or whoever might turn gold to s#*!, because it will sell. and it did, in the case of Fallout 4.

 

Personally i hate it because for me, oblivion was already way too dumbed down, and when i saw Fallout 3 and Skyrim i knew bethesda didn't care much, and i couldn't play more than 20 hours of Fallout 4 because it was more of an FPS than an RPG. but hey, you can't stop it.

[Lisnpuppy]

For example, some old RPGs like Neverwinter Nights has multiple races, classes, subclasses and points to spend on feats and skillsets, spells, talents. I mean a person can spend hours building a character just like in old pen and paper D&D. Lots of folks liked that. They enjoyed knowing what all this would do and how it would impact their game.

 

Now many folks just want (or are perceived to want) to pick a race or class and go play. There really isn't anything wrong with that. However because there is a perception that there are more gamers like this than like a player who enjoyed Neverwinter Nights, that these console games vs PC games (where many of these NWN type games still exist) are making more money for their publishers. So they keep getting made, keep getting more and more simplified. People don't care how a +2 strength will impact their slashing skill. They want to get "SLASH AND CLASH" which gives them an awesome new weapon skin and animation to their character.

 

Or whatever like that.

 

I'm not sure this is true. Because accurate PC data is not always available then I am unsure we get the entire story. My boys love their Xboxes, sometimes I love games I don't have to think about so much. That doesn't mean I want that all the time. And my boys love the RPGs that are more involved.

 

IF you make a GOOD game, with good basic mechanics and good stories with good characters that I can relate to or with then I will get your GOOD game. I think most people will also.

[Tidus44]

Dumbing down has very little to do with gamers ability or interests. Is there a portion of the gaming world that likes simplistic, no brainer type games? Of course there is, but what we see as "dumbing down" has little to do with gamers and their abilities or interests.

 

Take a look at the hardware specs for consoles, specifically GPU and CPU. They were low end, low power, not made for gaming (even though AMD customized them a bit for MicroSoft and Sony) and obsolete almost as soon as the consoles were introduced. Low end hardware doesn't allow high end software.

Why cheap hardware? Consoles depend on A) console sales and B) software sales to survive.

 

The B) above is important. Do you make a sophisticated, complex game that has longevity and replayability or do you churn out as many games as possible (a la Call of Duty) in order to make money selling cheap, easily produced games? Obviously, the publishers are going for the money.

 

How sophisticated and complex a game can you have on a console? That game controller is pretty limited in the number of controls. My gaming mouse has almost as many controls as a console game controller, plus I also have a whole keyboard to set controls with. Makes my PC flight simulator much more complex and sophisticated because I have way more opportunity for controls.

 

As for the porting of games, the developers are going for the money, not the game. They need to sell to consoles and games to survive, so they build the game for the console where the money is and the game is based upon the console limitations rather than gamers limitations.

 

And if you want to blame gamers, blame all of them - PC and console - for letting the developers go for the money and not for the game because gamers are so eager to get the "new thing" they will buy anything. Gamers want good games with good stories and characters and interesting things to do, we just are not getting them because the developers don't care about gamers, they care about the money because if they don't make money, then they won't be there to make games.

[WursWaldo]

I've seen this phrase used over the years to describe certain trends like removing choice4 and depth from an RPG and things of that nature but I don't quite understand it. Is there some inherent quality that consoles have that requires this sor tof "dumbing down"? Such as removing choices form the player by limiting dialogue options or possible world interactions? Or limiting character customization unnecessarily? I"m just not sure I understand what makes this associated with consoles or why it might be "necessary" for consoles. Is there some inherent connection or does the connection just happen to be there?

As a gamer the 'meant for console games' have always been 'dumbed down' with limited RPG elements. To the best of my knowledge the only fan base that complains are those that follow Bethesda's 'open world' releases. Gamers don't bemoan COD, ME, Batman, or even The Witcher (Witcher is a true RPG imo). The only people I see griping are Bethesda fans and even then they don't know what they're complaining about or why. Someone is complaining so they do the same. There hasn't been a Bethesda RPG with choice equals real consequence since 2002 and Morrowind so the Bethesda fan base complaints are unfounded to begin with.

 

Bethesda fans: zoologists observing that zebras don't have spots and being upset about it.

[JimboUK]

Modern games are very expensive to produce so they need to make sure they appeal to the widest possible audience and that includes halfwits.

 

 

I've seen this phrase used over the years to describe certain trends like removing choice4 and depth from an RPG and things of that nature but I don't quite understand it. Is there some inherent quality that consoles have that requires this sor tof "dumbing down"? Such as removing choices form the player by limiting dialogue options or possible world interactions? Or limiting character customization unnecessarily? I"m just not sure I understand what makes this associated with consoles or why it might be "necessary" for consoles. Is there some inherent connection or does the connection just happen to be there?

As a gamer the 'meant for console games' have always been 'dumbed down' with limited RPG elements. To the best of my knowledge the only fan base that complains are those that follow Bethesda's 'open world' releases. Gamers don't bemoan COD, ME, Batman, or even The Witcher (Witcher is a true RPG imo). The only people I see griping are Bethesda fans and even then they don't know what they're complaining about or why. Someone is complaining so they do the same. There hasn't been a Bethesda RPG with choice equals real consequence since 2002 and Morrowind so the Bethesda fan base complaints are unfounded to begin with.

 

Bethesda fans: zoologists observing that zebras don't have spots and being upset about it.

 

 

That's odd because I know exactly what people are complaining about when it comes to Bethesda, the very dumbing down that is being discussed in this thread, they've been at the forefront of it.

[HeyYou]

That's quite true, I have seen the degression of Beth games, skills being first reduced, and then, eliminated altogether, attributes reduced to three, etc. It's depressing. I loved a good, involved, detailed RPG, what beth makes now, are Action/Adventure games, with some RPG elements.

[JimboUK]

That's quite true, I have seen the degression of Beth games, skills being first reduced, and then, eliminated altogether, attributes reduced to three, etc. It's depressing. I loved a good, involved, detailed RPG, what beth makes now, are Action/Adventure games, with some RPG elements.

 

http://puu.sh/lViTG/2a5f79fa93.png

 

This chart would look even worse if it included Daggerfall.