"dumbed down for the console gamer"

[GiantRedButton]

this is a phrase i see alot on the escapist but what exactly does it mean, i think as a console gamer its a misrepresentation, the majority of console gamers are mature but there is a loud majority that gives us a bad name.

i can understand that keyboard and mouse is more accurate and your average PC can process alot more than a console which is fair enough but when you say "dumbed down for console audience" its implying that they will simplify the gameplay to suit us and suggests that we are not as mature

so i want to know why this phrase is used, i can accept if it relates to the control scheme or the processing power but its misrepresenting to say that its because we are dumb

Examples: Oblivion only uses 1-8 as hotkeys because hotkeys on console are on the dpad, and that only has 8 directions. So the ui was designed for that. Same with borderlands that only allowed for 4 weapons unlike hl2 etc which all had a shitload^^

A good example for dumbed down console uis being a hassle for pc gamers is this one:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/104458-Selling-Items-Impossible-in-Final-Fantasy-XIV-Compared-to-WoW

 

[Woodsey]

It's mostly used in the sense that it's simplified for what the consoles and gamepads can actually cope with, as opposed to referring to the intelligence levels of console gamers (although I'm sure some people use it in that way).

Consoles are not as powerful and gamepads limit speed of movement, ease of simple menu-access, etc. Those things lead to simplification, and it can make people irritated when they've paid for a superior platform.

 

[Serenegoose]

Well, usually the controls are a pretty big distinction. As you've noticed, keyboard and mouse is generally a lot more precise and has a lot more buttons than a controller, which means games invariably end up 'streamlined' (euphemism for 'stuff taken out', it's not always bad, but the term has been coloured by it being used to describe the exorcism of generally a lot of good features.)

This means what you get on a PC game is usually a port of the more profitable console version, this often means a: the graphics are worse and b: the controls are WAY worse, because they're optimised for an analogue stick and other controller features which can take an unnecessarily long time to navigate with a mouse.

See, another reason for this is that the rise of consoles has kinda directly correlated with the fall of really hardcore PC titles. For example, take the RPG. The main example - the 'bioware RPG' as a kind of subgenre.

The bioware RPG used to be praised for its attention to detail, long and engaging stories, and complex gameplay - epitomised by the game 'Baldur's Gate' When consoles became more prominent, Bioware moved to a more KOTOR style - a lot of graphical flourish and voice acting, but still pretty solid gameplay mechanics, a complex plot, etc. Everyone (obv not EVERYONE but still) regarded this as a great step forward. Then along comes Mass Effect. Mass Effect is the dividing line. Obviously designed for both consoles and PC, Mass Effect rips out the complex combat mechanics of preceding bioware games and replaces them with point and click shooter mechanics and a very very simple conversation wheel with obvious, literally highlighted 'best options' in the form of renegade and paragon options.

The sound of a thousand hardcore RPG fans screaming out and being suddenly silenced can be heard about this point.

Before the persuade mechanic was a matter of luck and skill - a gamble that could pay off, or backfire, and this made it interesting. Paragon and Renegade are however 'win conversation free' buttons. It's a great game, but it's also a watermark title. EVERYONE (and again, not really everyone obv) jumps on the 'simplification' train to Mass Effectsville, and why? Because it worked for the console gamers. They lapped it up. Whereas the dry style of a Baldur's Gate or a Planescape torment is not something you'd ever see on a console, Mass Effect manifestly is. This means anybody who wants to make money had better cut out the idea of an old school RPG or be prepared to fling Bioware levels of money at it to 'triple A' it in other areas. See Dragon Age - Whilst a very engaging RPG with a huge plot, solid dialogue and expansive conversation arcs, interesting characters (matter of taste I guess, but this is personal opinion) and all sorts of other tropes the hardcore RPG fans identify as their own, one of the biggest problems people had with dragon age is that it takes a 'consoleish' approach to spells. A fireball is a fireball is a fireball. How much damage does it do? Not telling. This hex, what does it do? Well it decreases resistance. By how much? Not telling. Well that's gone down like a lead Hindenburg with the hardcore RPG crowd who once more see a truly promising RPG watered down to the simple standards the console crowd demand. Whether or not that's anything to do with the game being out on console has become irrelevant - the very act of 'not telling' is seen to be associated with the 'streamlined' nature of consoles, and so the blame lies at their feet.

Anyway, this rage reached apoplectic levels when DA2 was announced with the following news: More streamlining. Instead of those brilliant origins, they're gone, leaving you with Boring Mchuman-Chinpants III (or his invariably better voice-acted female counterpart who bioware won't acknowledge) So features = removed. What of the combat? Ah, well they seen how well ME2 done, and so now they'll be changing the combat to be more 'action oriented'. Features = removed. Instead of a branching, complex conversation tree, we're being given the fully misleading and voice acted wheel, where you have to hope for the best that what you click is actually what you end up saying. Feaures = removed. By this point, 'dumbed down for the consoles' has become the scapegoat of choice. every time a developer has noticed console games seem quite profitable, a complex game vanishes to be replaced with a point and click blast/gorefest.

And there you have it. A short story, incoherently told, through the medium of a single developers game creation process, of why we call console games dumbed down.

 

[Hashime]

this is a phrase i see alot on the escapist but what exactly does it mean, i think as a console gamer its a misrepresentation, the majority of console gamers are mature but there is a loud majority that gives us a bad name.

i can understand that keyboard and mouse is more accurate and your average PC can process alot more than a console which is fair enough but when you say "dumbed down for console audience" its implying that they will simplify the gameplay to suit us and suggests that we are not as mature

so i want to know why this phrase is used, i can accept if it relates to the control scheme or the processing power but its misrepresenting to say that its because we are dumb

Examples: Oblivion only uses 1-8 as hotkeys because hotkeys on console are on the dpad, and that only has 8 directions. So the ui was designed for that. Same with borderlands that only allowed for 4 weapons unlike hl2 etc which all had a shitload^^

The worst I've seen is ME2's "consoleified" UI and control scheme.

 

[shootthebandit]

this is a phrase i see alot on the escapist but what exactly does it mean, i think as a console gamer its a misrepresentation, the majority of console gamers are mature but there is a loud majority that gives us a bad name.

i can understand that keyboard and mouse is more accurate and your average PC can process alot more than a console which is fair enough but when you say "dumbed down for console audience" its implying that they will simplify the gameplay to suit us and suggests that we are not as mature

so i want to know why this phrase is used, i can accept if it relates to the control scheme or the processing power but its misrepresenting to say that its because we are dumb

Examples: Oblivion only uses 1-8 as hotkeys because hotkeys on console are on the dpad, and that only has 8 directions. So the ui was designed for that. Same with borderlands that only allowed for 4 weapons unlike hl2 etc which all had a shitload^^

i suppose but its not difficult to press left and right on a Dpad to switch weapons you could have unlimited weapon and just keep tapping L and R whereas PC will run out of buttons

i really dont want to start this arguement because its based on preference

 

[The Lunatic]

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.

 

[GiantRedButton]

this is a phrase i see alot on the escapist but what exactly does it mean, i think as a console gamer its a misrepresentation, the majority of console gamers are mature but there is a loud majority that gives us a bad name.

i can understand that keyboard and mouse is more accurate and your average PC can process alot more than a console which is fair enough but when you say "dumbed down for console audience" its implying that they will simplify the gameplay to suit us and suggests that we are not as mature

so i want to know why this phrase is used, i can accept if it relates to the control scheme or the processing power but its misrepresenting to say that its because we are dumb

Examples: Oblivion only uses 1-8 as hotkeys because hotkeys on console are on the dpad, and that only has 8 directions. So the ui was designed for that. Same with borderlands that only allowed for 4 weapons unlike hl2 etc which all had a shitload^^

i suppose but its not difficult to press left and right on a Dpad to switch weapons you could have unlimited weapon and just keep tapping L and R whereas PC will run out of buttons

i really dont want to start this arguement because its based on preference

You can press the number keys multiple times too. (try hl2 for example)
But you can only select multiple weapons directly on the pc, which is why weapon arsenals got dumbed down.

 

[Baby Tea]

It's used because people are ridiculous. I did a blog post on this recently, and the entire notion is beyond silly. 'Dumbed down for consoles' is just the insecure PC elitist's excuse to push blame from poor development (Because they love the developer) to other, 'inferior' platforms. It's a joke.

Bullshit.

Look at Supreme Commander 2 and Oblivion. Then look at Supreme Commander and Morrowind.

Denying that multiplatform development hurts PC gaming is just foolish.

Bullshit yourself! (look, I can use italics and bold too!)
First of all, with Morrowind and Oblivion: how the heck is Oblivion dumbed down for consoles?
You surely can't be talking about gameplay, because all of that is developer choice, not console limitations.
So you must be talking about graphical or procedural differences! 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.

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.

 

[DustyDrB]

I'm not going to be insulted because someone judges me based on what device I play my games on. That would just be silly.

 

[Raikov]

Yes it's dumbed down for the console gamers. It must be, since you can't seem to learn how to use a basic server browser.

The only other explanation for using only peer-to-peer (which is a crappy way of creating online games in the first place) is that an awful lot of the devs can't be arsed to just copy-paste the server browser function to the consoles, and instead goes through a lot of work to make it console-worthy.

And that is not very likely is it?

Edit: Also, Dragon Age 2. They dumbed down a dumbed down console game.

 

[shootthebandit]

this is a phrase i see alot on the escapist but what exactly does it mean, i think as a console gamer its a misrepresentation, the majority of console gamers are mature but there is a loud majority that gives us a bad name.

i can understand that keyboard and mouse is more accurate and your average PC can process alot more than a console which is fair enough but when you say "dumbed down for console audience" its implying that they will simplify the gameplay to suit us and suggests that we are not as mature

so i want to know why this phrase is used, i can accept if it relates to the control scheme or the processing power but its misrepresenting to say that its because we are dumb

Examples: Oblivion only uses 1-8 as hotkeys because hotkeys on console are on the dpad, and that only has 8 directions. So the ui was designed for that. Same with borderlands that only allowed for 4 weapons unlike hl2 etc which all had a shitload^^

i suppose but its not difficult to press left and right on a Dpad to switch weapons you could have unlimited weapon and just keep tapping L and R whereas PC will run out of buttons

i really dont want to start this arguement because its based on preference

You can press the number keys multiple times too. (try hl2 for example)
But you can only select multiple weapons directly on the pc, which is why weapon arsenals got dumbed down.

lol i was waiting for you to make that comment, have you seen the weapon wheel on Resistance: fall of man

seriously this is the developers fault, if there is a will theres a way. if the developer wasnt lazy they would find a way to add a simple command on a controller

 

[C95J]

yeah, I hear this a lot as well.

I hate it when PC gamers judge us because of the minority of little kids, and when they act like they are better than console gamers just doesn't make sense. Sure, the PC is better for some things, consoles are better for other things. I have nothing against PC gamers, but am a console gamer my self.

 

[NickCooley]

I'd say people care more about these pathetic little arguments than actually enjoying their games. Maybe your e-peen gets bigger if you ***** and moan about how the "other side" is to blame for their imaginary ails.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

It's used because people are ridiculous. I did a blog post on this recently, and the entire notion is beyond silly. 'Dumbed down for consoles' is just the insecure PC elitist's excuse to push blame from poor development (Because they love the developer) to other, 'inferior' platforms. It's a joke.

It seems that over the past 10 years 'dumbing down' has taken to mean what used to be refered to as 'consolitis' - games designed to focus on all the consoles' strengths while neglecting to make use of any of the PCs strengths... (and also used to refer to the number of PC developers and franchises that woke up in the back of microsoft's van).

 

[gl1koz3]

You just can't design something that's supposed to be used with, say, 10 buttons and, say, 100, simultaneously. Nothing to be eased out. Too big contrast. And you're reading between lines. "Dumb" not as in "you're dumb", but "dumb" as in "dumb (gameplay) system to account for these limitations".

Everyone who takes the statement that seriously to... seriously... to the point of writing blogs and more weirdness about it... you just demonstrated what you try to disprove, yet nobody implied.

 

[Outright Villainy]

Well, usually the controls are a pretty big distinction. As you've noticed, keyboard and mouse is generally a lot more precise and has a lot more buttons than a controller, which means games invariably end up 'streamlined' (euphemism for 'stuff taken out', it's not always bad, but the term has been coloured by it being used to describe the exorcism of generally a lot of good features.)

This means what you get on a PC game is usually a port of the more profitable console version, this often means a: the graphics are worse and b: the controls are WAY worse, because they're optimised for an analogue stick and other controller features which can take an unnecessarily long time to navigate with a mouse.

See, another reason for this is that the rise of consoles has kinda directly correlated with the fall of really hardcore PC titles. For example, take the RPG. The main example - the 'bioware RPG' as a kind of subgenre.

The bioware RPG used to be praised for its attention to detail, long and engaging stories, and complex gameplay - epitomised by the game 'Baldur's Gate' When consoles became more prominent, Bioware moved to a more KOTOR style - a lot of graphical flourish and voice acting, but still pretty solid gameplay mechanics, a complex plot, etc. Everyone (obv not EVERYONE but still) regarded this as a great step forward. Then along comes Mass Effect. Mass Effect is the dividing line. Obviously designed for both consoles and PC, Mass Effect rips out the complex combat mechanics of preceding bioware games and replaces them with point and click shooter mechanics and a very very simple conversation wheel with obvious, literally highlighted 'best options' in the form of renegade and paragon options.

The sound of a thousand hardcore RPG fans screaming out and being suddenly silenced can be heard about this point.

Before the persuade mechanic was a matter of luck and skill - a gamble that could pay off, or backfire, and this made it interesting. Paragon and Renegade are however 'win conversation free' buttons. It's a great game, but it's also a watermark title. EVERYONE (and again, not really everyone obv) jumps on the 'simplification' train to Mass Effectsville, and why? Because it worked for the console gamers. They lapped it up. Whereas the dry style of a Baldur's Gate or a Planescape torment is not something you'd ever see on a console, Mass Effect manifestly is. This means anybody who wants to make money had better cut out the idea of an old school RPG or be prepared to fling Bioware levels of money at it to 'triple A' it in other areas. See Dragon Age - Whilst a very engaging RPG with a huge plot, solid dialogue and expansive conversation arcs, interesting characters (matter of taste I guess, but this is personal opinion) and all sorts of other tropes the hardcore RPG fans identify as their own, one of the biggest problems people had with dragon age is that it takes a 'consoleish' approach to spells. A fireball is a fireball is a fireball. How much damage does it do? Not telling. This hex, what does it do? Well it decreases resistance. By how much? Not telling. Well that's gone down like a lead Hindenburg with the hardcore RPG crowd who once more see a truly promising RPG watered down to the simple standards the console crowd demand. Whether or not that's anything to do with the game being out on console has become irrelevant - the very act of 'not telling' is seen to be associated with the 'streamlined' nature of consoles, and so the blame lies at their feet.

Anyway, this rage reached apoplectic levels when DA2 was announced with the following news: More streamlining. Instead of those brilliant origins, they're gone, leaving you with Boring Mchuman-Chinpants III (or his invariably better voice-acted female counterpart who bioware won't acknowledge) So features = removed. What of the combat? Ah, well they seen how well ME2 done, and so now they'll be changing the combat to be more 'action oriented'. Features = removed. Instead of a branching, complex conversation tree, we're being given the fully misleading and voice acted wheel, where you have to hope for the best that what you click is actually what you end up saying. Feaures = removed. By this point, 'dumbed down for the consoles' has become the scapegoat of choice. every time a developer has noticed console games seem quite profitable, a complex game vanishes to be replaced with a point and click blast/gorefest.

And there you have it. A short story, incoherently told, through the medium of a single developers game creation process, of why we call console games dumbed down.

Whilst that's a well thought out post, I feel like you're missing the point somewhat. Most of what you said there were changed not because of limitations due to consoles, but because it's more popular in general, or easier for the developers. Sure, RTS games would have to make some sacrifices for a console port, but your general RPG could make the leap unchanged, number crunching and all.

I think it's less a case of dumbing down for console gamers, and more dumbing down for everyone.

It's because games are becoming more prohibitively expensive nowadays, so fewer niche hardcore titles are made because of the risk. It needs a guaranteed sell. Pc gamers are guilty of this trend, particularly when you see the ironic comments of bitching about console ports meaning graphics not being as shiny on the pc.

Shiny graphics are what got us in this mess!

 

[tzimize]

this is a phrase i see alot on the escapist but what exactly does it mean, i think as a console gamer its a misrepresentation, the majority of console gamers are mature but there is a loud majority that gives us a bad name.

i can understand that keyboard and mouse is more accurate and your average PC can process alot more than a console which is fair enough but when you say "dumbed down for console audience" its implying that they will simplify the gameplay to suit us and suggests that we are not as mature

so i want to know why this phrase is used, i can accept if it relates to the control scheme or the processing power but its misrepresenting to say that its because we are dumb

It has nothing (well not everything anyway.......) to do about stupidity and mostly to do with tech. Console peeps play with controllers. Controllers are better than mouse and keyboard for SOME stuff, but extremely much worse at other stuff. Games that have been "dumbed down" for console audience are usually games that are either slower, with less focus on accuracy or simply literally dumbed down by removing/simplifying gameplay because of lack of buttons/control options/possibilities on consoles.

It is an abomination and I hate it. I wish developers could realize that some games simply belong on consoles and some on PC. I will never play an RTS or a FPS on consoles, I have tried, time and again but it never works. And I will never play a 3rd person game on PC. The thing is, you can use an xbox controller on pc by default. And some nifty dude from China I think has made a driver for the PS3 controller. This means PCs can do everything a console can and better, it just lacks the exclusive games that is on consoles. While a console being able to use keyboard and mouse will usually never take advantage of it because the control set will be made for people with controllers, because thats what most are using.

I dont judge players by their choice of platform. I have owned an xbox360 (RRoD) and own a PS3, have owned consoles since SEGA 8-bit and PCs since 486. I have no problem with either consoles, PCs or their users. What I DO have problems with is all the compromise being made in games to be certain that its "playable" on all platforms instead of AWESOME on only one or two.

 

[shootthebandit]

Shiny graphics are what got us in this mess!

i agree, graphical fidelity is not the be all and end all

its good now that graphics are reaching thier peak (look at games like GT5), hopefully now they can focus on gameplay

 

[Vuljatar]

Bullshit yourself! (look, I can use italics and bold too!)
First of all, with Morrowind and Oblivion: how the heck is Oblivion dumbed down for consoles?
You surely can't be talking about gameplay, because all of that is developer choice, not console limitations.
So you must be talking about graphical or procedural differences! 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.

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.

I'm sure as hell not talking about graphics. Oblivion was a beautiful game, but it had no depth. Compared to Morrowind, it's dumbed down in the extreme. Of course that was Bethesda's decision, and of course they made that decision because >50% of their target market was console-based.

Same with SupCom2. Like Oblivion, it's predecessor was ported to consoles and was successful, so they decided to develop the next game with console technology and the console audience in mind. What resulted was a castrated version of the predecessor's gameplay, with faster resource gain, cheaper, weaker units, and a completely shit interface.

Why shouldn't I blame the platform when it's the primary reason why the developers make the decisions that they do?

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

I think it's less a case of dumbing down for console gamers, and more dumbing down for everyone.

Yes, grognardism lives on all consoles.