"Dumbing down for consoles."

[WursWaldo]

Thanks for proving my point with a chart I didn't have to link to.

 

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. The only people I see griping are Bethesda fans. 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 uses software that's over 10 years old and they cut RPG elements left and right with every release, yet their fans continue to purchase the games a then (B)itch about what they get. So who's to blame; the shyster game corporation or dumb end users? No way to dumb down something that was dumbed down 12 years ago and no one should be acting surprised or be complaining. They bought a Bethesda game and should have known from the onset what it was not going to be. If they didn't, that's on them.

 

I paid my $60 US for FO4 and I was burned. Paying for a craptastic Bethesda game gives me every right to complain about it if I don't like it. But what's the point? The money is spent and I'll be shouted down by Millennials anyway. I believed the FO4 hype. 100% my fault.

 

Bethesda's GameByro license will expire this year. That is the ONLY reason they've been flogging a technological dead horse since Morrowind (too cheap to buy a license for a modern engine and upgrade their games to a modern standard). Soon they won't have an excuse to not update their engine to something made in this decade and fan boys won't have an excuse or dysfunctional fan-Nazi justification for a sh*t game either. NOT calling you a fan boy, btw. Maybe the next time Todd Howard chortles 'Next Generation' it won't be a lie.

Edited December 14, 2015 by WursWaldo

[JimboUK]

They'd get far fewer complaints if they didn't advertise their games as RPGs, they should be honest with the customer and themselves and call them what they are, action adventure games.

[HeyYou]

They'd get far fewer complaints if they didn't advertise their games as RPGs, they should be honest with the customer and themselves and call them what they are, action adventure games.

Exactly.

 

Now, all that said, Beth DOES make fun games to play. Consider: Sales numbers continue to go up with each new game... Is that because they are "Good RPGs"? Or, is it because they have 'simplified' the games to appeal to a wider audience? My guess is, the latter. Not to mention their advertising has gotten better......

[JimboUK]

 

They'd get far fewer complaints if they didn't advertise their games as RPGs, they should be honest with the customer and themselves and call them what they are, action adventure games.

Exactly.

 

Now, all that said, Beth DOES make fun games to play. Consider: Sales numbers continue to go up with each new game... Is that because they are "Good RPGs"? Or, is it because they have 'simplified' the games to appeal to a wider audience? My guess is, the latter. Not to mention their advertising has gotten better......

 

 

Very much so, compare Bethesda's games to most of the garbage that gets put on the shelves by other developers.

[tnu]

I just want them to at least go back to Skyrim or Fallout 3 standards of roleplaying

[WursWaldo]

Beth DOES make fun games to play. Consider: Sales numbers continue to go up with each new game... Is that because they are "Good RPGs"? Or, is it because they have 'simplified' the games to appeal to a wider audience? My guess is, the latter. Not to mention their advertising has gotten better......

Normally I would agree with Bethesda makes fun games to play. After FO4 I have my doubts. I didn't enjoy it and I had to force myself to finish it. It go to the point where I was ignoring the side quests, the MinuteMen and the settlement system and just barreling through the main quest. Once I was done and experienced the very bad ending I uninstalled the game. I play games on both PC and console so for me to uninstall a shooter game means its pretty bad.

 

Im back to Witcher3 since the Heart of Stone dlc has been released plus I still have quest arcs and 52 square miles of world space to explore in the vanilla game. It is holding my interest like Skyrim first did. FO4 can't compare. I can say one more thing about ProjektRed; they are not dumbing down a flagship franchise for the sake of consoles and a larger market. They are focused on making interesting games, not more marketing to one time players like most consolers are.

[JimboUK]

I got about 40 hours out of FO4 so I can't complain too much, that's more than I get out of a lot of games, although I did have to force myself to finish it. That compares favourably to not being able to stomach FO3 in vanilla form at all, I got as far as the pub in Megaton, hit Alt-F4 and didn't return for well over a year. Like FO3 and Skyrim I'll probably return when I can mod the living hell out of it.

[dpgillam]

Until the millennium, "dumbing down" referred to hardware. Sadly, it was primarily Bethesda fans that turned it into an insult against other people.

 

It goes back to the evolution of the machines during the decades. The home gaming machines simply had to push a pretty picture. The computer was a tool, and games were added to make it more welcome in the home, an added feature; no one ever expected it to be a primary use.

 

Computers didnt start focusing on games, sound and video cards until around the time most on these forums were born. Programmers could do whatever they wanted. Disks were cheap; you wanted to throw in another 4 hours of game, the only thing stopping you would be paying the coder. It was normal to have games that ran 5-15 disks long, and you just shuffled between disks as your choices and the plot took you.

 

Platforms .... didnt have the space to save and switch disks so well. You gotta realize, platform gaming started in the late 50s. The original Atari 2600, all 4bits of it was something like the 8th generation. And there would still be 5-6 significant generational jumps in technology before we got the Nintendo 8bit, the first platform that lactually let you save a game between playings. They didnt have the hard drive, nor much RAM, but they did have a decent processor. So the programmers had to keep a narrow scope, because of the limited memory issues. Add into that the limited user-interface (controller vs a full keyboard) and you had a very simple game, not because of the target audience, but simply because the hardware couldnt handle it.

 

At first, computer games lost out to platforms. They werent carry-convenient (multiple disks), user-friendly (you had to know your keyboard at a time when few did), and quite honestly, the computer geeks were focusing on other areas (make it faster, better, more stable, and programs easier so we can make more money) It just wasnt something you let your kid play with. Once the box became a useful tool instead of an upper level exec's status symbol, then they started making games. And when they saw the money, they got serious.Thats when PC became as good, and then better than consoles.

 

Before that, PC could brag of endless choice and freedom, but console won graphics. After that, PC wins, hands down.

[WursWaldo]

Computers didnt start focusing on games, sound and video cards until around the time most on these forums were born. Programmers could do whatever they wanted. Disks were cheap; you wanted to throw in another 4 hours of game, the only thing stopping you would be paying the coder. It was normal to have games that ran 5-15 disks long, and you just shuffled between disks as your choices and the plot took you.

I remember that! :laugh: Play a game and at the end of disk 1 a dos message would pop up and say 'Insert disk 2' or whatever disk held the part of the game you were to play next.

[sunshinenbrick]

I love my retro games! It can be like watching a movie or hearing a song from your childhood that can transport you, and I find it amazing to discover things I hadn't realised before in games giving a new perspective.

 

Monkey Island 1 & 2 will live on in immortal memory for me. It had everything, story, humour, characters, graphics, sound and replay value. I get misty eyed at the good old days of LucasArts games... The whole thing was about so much more than pushing sales (sure people gotta eat and some people made a loada money), but it really meant something to the creators too. To the point where they would turn away from projects and say enough, I'm moving on.

 

The problem I find with many big budget 'RPG' games these days is a drive towards linearity. You must follow this path, you must have this experience... Being a happy console gamer as well as a PC one, I have stood in utter disbelief at how Final Fantasy has been butchered over the decades. From a complete sense of exploration of world and character it has slowly degraded into some bizzare combination of Soul Blade and Crash Bandicoot but not as inspiring or fun. You just wonder sometimes...

 

Perhaps a more inviting behind the scenes look at how current games are made would be a breathe of fresh air. I think gamers are yearning to feel more involved and not just sold title after title for achievement after achievement.

 

I wouldn't say it has anything to do with consoles per se, but rather a result of sensationalist mass consumption culture across the board... its the same effect as with the pushing X Factor music derivatives and the endless remakes of movie sequels. Granted, a odd few might shine through but the vast majority is uninspired to say the least.