Dumbing down for consoles...

I dont particularly care. Its fun to watch some PC gamers cry over it, because thereis a group ofPC gamers that act the same way towards consoles that Lemmings, Cows and graphics whores/tech junkies act towards the Wii. Personally I just find it pathetic.

I like things that arent mainstream, namely music, and I still have to deal with it. I also dont like WW 2 shooters, which are as a casual as you can get, but I still have to deal with seeing the damned things on the shelves every day. But thats capitalism for you. If you dont like it, thats too bad.

I don't blame the consoles, "dumbing down for consoles" makes it sound like the consoles are at fault. There isn't much stopping a developer from making a complex game other than themselves.

Don't hate on the systems, hate on the developers, they're the ones pissing on your favorite franchises.

-RPGamer-

Exactly. It just feels like consoles are getting the blame for this. Like I said, blame capitalism.

EDIT: Ooops double post. Sorry.

Those were not real numbers just examples right? And I really dont care about anywhere else in the world other than where I live. So it could sell 10000000000000000 over seas and I could really care less. Matter of fact, it could sell that much here in the states tomorrow and I could care less.

Funny how hermits will try and convince console gamers that PC is the end to all gaming and yet developers release games like Crysis that 99% of the world cant run on its highest settings....Making everyone run out and spend their money just to be able to come to system wars to brag how they can play a game that has 3% better graphics than most console games..lol

Whatever helps kids sleep at night I guess.....Anyways , global warming, close all borders down

NO MORE IMMEGRANTS" and quit making mixed babies.....and Crysis stinks.

FunkyHeadHunter

typical console gamers double standards

first cry crysis sold poorly then when prooved wrong say i don't care for sales

then, cry pcs can't max crysis and ignore the fact consoles run many games at low settings

and yeah, how the post can be complete with a line like 'crysis stinks' and calling people kids

I don't blame the consoles, "dumbing down for consoles" makes it sound like the consoles are at fault. There isn't much stopping a developer from making a complex game other than themselves.

Don't hate on the systems, hate on the developers, they're the ones pissing on your favorite franchises.

-RPGamer-

the irony...

cut the fat, get to the ultimate point; here is the reason 9.5 is a terrible score for this game:

"Crysis' plot pivots on the point of an alien invasion foreshadowed in the game's first two quarters. The third quarter takes us inside their lair (apologies to Mr. X). Although linear and unlike the mangroves and broad amphitheaters before it, the level's a perfect counterpoint: The vessel is ice-cold and gravity-free. It's deliberately disorienting -- I'll leave it at that -- and over when it ought to be, when we want a world we understand. And then, supercooled air shock freezes everything in the vicinity.

What was to be proof positive that Crytek's range encompasses more than Far Cry's merc in the wilderness becomes history repeating itself. Dumb monster apes and indoor drudgery dragged down the finale of the developer's last FPS. In Crysis, it's dull aliens and a direct reversal of design logic. The wintry jungle is just a white hallway that we escort another nanosuited soldier through. Now and then, flying things land to attack with tentacles -- no huts to hide in (would aliens strip shingles from the roof to shoot inside?), no shattering cover, and no three-way mix-ups with wandering Koreans. The order to protect our partner, I suspect, is a tension-inducing device there to distract us from the unfinished framework of a big plan that fizzled but couldn't be cut.

Afterward, we sit in a truck turret. Although they're there, we're unable to take another vehicle (doors don't open) or to switch seats. Before this, we've both fired while driving and flipped back and forth between driving and firing. What this means -- and what makes this stretch seem as though a different studio developed it -- is that Crysis teaches us to fish and then drops us in bone-dry desert.

And on it goes. Stints in motorized air-defense systems...that don't move. Low altitude flight in a leaden VTOL, where defeating drones dissolves invisible barriers no one intends to notice, allowing us to fly forward, fight off another three drones, dissolve another invisible barrier, fly forward....

Fast forward through scraps of miserable story and melodramatic dialogue, along with a "boss battle" inherited from the coin-op ****of '88 (see: Contra), and the ordeal is done -- beautiful throughout, mostly amazing, but vegetative by the end." -1up.

none of this is even addressed by Ocampo, unsurprisingly. now i'm done with this.

Big_T-Mac

This is the best observation I've ever read of Crysis. To be frank with everyone here, I stopped playing Crysis half way through the alien level where you are in zero g.

Lets face it, it sucked worse than the Trigen.

I went into the game console to peak at the subsequent levels, and although I didn't play through them, they looked equally sucky.

Be that as it may, the part of the game were you are fighting N.Koreans in the jungle is so damn good, I played that part about 5 times and then have actually taken the time to learn Sandbox2.Also I'vedownload some user made SP jungle maps, some of which are terrible and others that are quite good.

In any event, Crysis just based on 2/3rds of the game that takes place in the jungle deserves a 9.5.

I hope someone makes a good VietNam game out of that engine. That would kick ass....

interesting question.

I support dumbing down high-quality PC games to consoles b/c I don't want to upkeep an expensive gaming PC.

The problem is a lot of people just don't seem to know or care. This is really an issue all of us here should be concerned about, since developers are increasingly putting less into their work.

It's not an issue of console vs. PC, since a lot of features we're talking about have absolutely no problems running on consoles, and that games like Oblivion and its fast travel system, or Bioshock and its no death penalty are done the way they are not because of hardware.

Yet I still see people posting things like "lol, omg elitist Hermits" and "consoles > PCs". It's just sad we can't all realize the problems here. We're increasingly being fed sub-standard experiences to appeal to that lowest common denominator gamer, and people are still treating it as system vs. system, when the issue is integrity vs. commercialization.

Danm_999

Unless they too want to put the blame on consoles for SimCity Societies.FrozenLiquid

Anyways, It is the developers belief that a game *needs* to be shallow in order for the game to appeal to console gamer that should be blamed IMO.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]

The problem is a lot of people just don't seem to know or care. This is really an issue all of us here should be concerned about, since developers are increasingly putting less into their work.

It's not an issue of console vs. PC, since a lot of features we're talking about have absolutely no problems running on consoles, and that games like Oblivion and its fast travel system, or Bioshock and its no death penalty are done the way they are not because of hardware.

Yet I still see people posting things like "lol, omg elitist Hermits" and "consoles > PCs". It's just sad we can't all realize the problems here. We're increasingly being fed sub-standard experiences to appeal to that lowest common denominator gamer, and people are still treating it as system vs. system, when the issue is integrity vs. commercialization.

froidnite

Yeah I know what you mean. Like Bungie with Halo 3 storyline. There were no surprises or major plot twists. Its like as if Bungie didn't care about the story and just wanted to wrap things up in the simplest way possible.

You know why consoles are more popular to the casual audience for gaming?

Plug and play.

You buy the console, you buy the game, and you don't have to fool with it anymore.

360 and PS3 owners look down on the Wii the same way PC gamers look down on the PS3 and 360.

It's funny though, that the simplest system, the Wii, with one SKU, no upgrades, no hard-drive, and a very simple and intuitive interface with simple and intuitive, yet fun games, is VASTLY winning the current system war for the genral consumer.

Difficulty aside, the fun you get from the games, and the reward, believe it or not, is the same.

People don't like to have to research and build a gaming computer. That is not something everyone can do. They don't like "compatibility" issues, patching, instability, bugs, and system requirements for games on the PC. They don't like buying a game only to find out they can't run it. The don't like deciding wheather to upgrade or buy another system or installing games or the heafty price tag that a CPU costs, when there is a potential that it will not run the game you want even if you have bought the right stuff.

They don't like issues with CPU software like Windows and don't understand drivers or what DirectX 10 is, and frankly, they don't care.

They don't like setting in an uncomfortable computer chair with a complex control scheme and user interface, like a keyboard and mouse. They don't like having to set 1-3 feet away from the screen to game.

There are too many variables involved in PC gaming for the casual audience ever to pick the PC as a true competitor for the consoles. For most people it is not even an alternative.

Sure, there are tons of fun PC games out there. However, there are tons of fun games for all the systems. Why would a casual person go through all that extra trouble, time, and money, to hopefully, eventually play games, when they could have that much, or even more fun, from a plug and play gaming system that takes them 30 seconds to hook up?

Thus, the downfall of PC gaming and development, imo.

At least us PC owners still have Blizzard.

Zenfoldor

Such little faith, my brother.

Just because consoles have become almost moron-friendly in their approach to set-ups does not mean that PC gaming will eventually fall.

There will ALWAYS be a market for PC gaming and the efforts that are involved in getting them running properly. Why will it downfall? Because there are easier alternatives? Not everyone wants the watered-down easy mode experience. Some people find the struggles in getting PC hardware running ultimately satisfying. People are becoming more tech savy, future generations may not be so pathetically lazy when it comes to computer hardware as many are in this current era.

The way I see it, consoles are a necesary part of development for the gaming world. They act as the bait, they draw casuals into our environment were they may eventually become 'hardcore', and hence move onto the more complex and difficult realms of PC gaming. I believe this strongly; for you see, it is what happened to myself and many of my close friends.

And yes, at least we will always have Blizzard.

[QUOTE="-RPGamer-"]

I don't blame the consoles, "dumbing down for consoles" makes it sound like the consoles are at fault. There isn't much stopping a developer from making a complex game other than themselves.

Don't hate on the systems, hate on the developers, they're the ones pissing on your favorite franchises.

FrozenLiquid

Nobody is putting blame on consoles so much as saying that consoles are a cause. Publishers (not developers) are the ultimate reason, since they finance and distribute the actual games, but consoles are the biggest cause of that reason. I think that's pretty much clear.

Console owners always like to go on about how PC gaming is a small, unpopular, niche market, and yet always bristle at the idea that various PC game series that are made to be more accessible and appeal to a wider console audience are dumbed down. You can't have your cake and eat it too, fellas. It's hypocritical, and above all, makes no sense.

Not only is there direct evidence of such happenings, but something can't by definition be made more accessible unless it's simplified, i.e. "dumbed down" (condescending wording? Perhaps, but that doesn't mean it isn't true).

Ultimately, unless you're trying to argue that various classic PC series haven't been dumbed down (or would you prefer "consolized"?) for a console audience, which is basically like arguing against reality (Fallout, Deus Ex, UT, Elder Scrolls, SS3/Bioshock, Thief, Ghost Recon, Rainbow Six, Battlefield, Far Cry, etc), then there's probably no reason to take any of this personally.

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"]Sometimes, even the latest updates don't work. Talk to all the people having trouble with Steam games on 8-series GeForce cards (and I'm one of them). Look, PC may be easier, but it's not casual easy (Which can only be turnkey easy--turn the key and start it. Otherwise it's too complicated. Remember, we're talking people who leave 12:00 blinking on their clocks half the time).Vandalvideo

[QUOTE="Zenfoldor"]

You know why consoles are more popular to the casual audience for gaming?

Plug and play.

You buy the console, you buy the game, and you don't have to fool with it anymore.

360 and PS3 owners look down on the Wii the same way PC gamers look down on the PS3 and 360.

It's funny though, that the simplest system, the Wii, with one SKU, no upgrades, no hard-drive, and a very simple and intuitive interface with simple and intuitive, yet fun games, is VASTLY winning the current system war for the genral consumer.

Difficulty aside, the fun you get from the games, and the reward, believe it or not, is the same.

People don't like to have to research and build a gaming computer. That is not something everyone can do. They don't like "compatibility" issues, patching, instability, bugs, and system requirements for games on the PC. They don't like buying a game only to find out they can't run it. The don't like deciding wheather to upgrade or buy another system or installing games or the heafty price tag that a CPU costs, when there is a potential that it will not run the game you want even if you have bought the right stuff.

They don't like issues with CPU software like Windows and don't understand drivers or what DirectX 10 is, and frankly, they don't care.

They don't like setting in an uncomfortable computer chair with a complex control scheme and user interface, like a keyboard and mouse. They don't like having to set 1-3 feet away from the screen to game.

There are too many variables involved in PC gaming for the casual audience ever to pick the PC as a true competitor for the consoles. For most people it is not even an alternative.

Sure, there are tons of fun PC games out there. However, there are tons of fun games for all the systems. Why would a casual person go through all that extra trouble, time, and money, to hopefully, eventually play games, when they could have that much, or even more fun, from a plug and play gaming system that takes them 30 seconds to hook up?

Thus, the downfall of PC gaming and development, imo.

At least us PC owners still have Blizzard.

RKfromDownunder

Such little faith, my brother.

Just because consoles have become almost moron-friendly in their approach to set-ups does not mean that PC gaming will eventually fall.

There will ALWAYS be a market for PC gaming and the efforts that are involved in getting them running properly. Why will it downfall? Because there are easier alternatives? Not everyone wants the watered-down easy mode experience. Some people find the struggles in getting PC hardware running ultimately satisfying. People are becoming more tech savy, future generations may not be so pathetically lazy when it comes to computer hardware as many are in this current era.

The way I see it, consoles are a necesary part of development for the gaming world. They act as the bait, they draw casuals into our environment were they may eventually become 'hardcore', and hence move onto the more complex and difficult realms of PC gaming. I believe this strongly; for you see, it is what happened to myself and many of my close friends.

And yes, at least we will always have Blizzard.

I don't think they are dumbed down because of consoles, but because more casual gamers are using PC's. You only have to listen to some hermits on here to realise this.

All games are developed on a PC, be it for the 360 or PS3. When they split to concentrate on streamlining it for a certain system, it wouldn't be too difficult to up the gameplay speed (UT3) or change the interface or whatever.

Cost to become a hermit doesn't really enter into it, a hobby is a hobby afterall. I like gaming on my PC, but I find the diversity of games on a console more appealing, so that's what I mainly concentrate on.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="HuusAsking"]Sometimes, even the latest updates don't work. Talk to all the people having trouble with Steam games on 8-series GeForce cards (and I'm one of them). Look, PC may be easier, but it's not casual easy (Which can only be turnkey easy--turn the key and start it. Otherwise it's too complicated. Remember, we're talking people who leave 12:00 blinking on their clocks half the time).HuusAsking

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="HuusAsking"]Sometimes, even the latest updates don't work. Talk to all the people having trouble with Steam games on 8-series GeForce cards (and I'm one of them). Look, PC may be easier, but it's not casual easy (Which can only be turnkey easy--turn the key and start it. Otherwise it's too complicated. Remember, we're talking people who leave 12:00 blinking on their clocks half the time).Vandalvideo

what the hell does dumbing down for consoles mean. are they just talking about graphics? if they're not then i haven't witnessed any "dumbing down"Arjdagr8

Nah it's more than graphics and yes you will see dumbing down in that department when you can see what a pc can do but it's also length of the game, it's gameplay, how linear it is, how difficult it is and certain options available in it.

See Farcry for pc and farcry for the xbox.

Not only is there direct evidence of such happenings, but something can't by definition be made more accessible unless it's simplified, i.e. "dumbed down" (condescending wording? Perhaps, but that doesn't mean it isn't true).

Zeliard9

[QUOTE="Zeliard9"]

Not only is there direct evidence of such happenings, but something can't by definition be made more accessible unless it's simplified, i.e. "dumbed down" (condescending wording? Perhaps, but that doesn't mean it isn't true).

lowe0

[QUOTE="Zeliard9"]

Not only is there direct evidence of such happenings, but something can't by definition be made more accessible unless it's simplified, i.e. "dumbed down" (condescending wording? Perhaps, but that doesn't mean it isn't true).

lowe0

Well if the Need for Speed: Shift demo is an indication, I'm going to have to go for the PS3 version. I tried both that and the PC versions. And I can definitely say I'm having major problems with the PC verison, mainly:

1. The PC version runs really sluggish and choppy, even at the lowest resolution (640x480) and detail settings (Bilinear Filtering,No AA, all other settings at "Low"). Oh and my PC by the way has a 2.40GHz Intel Core 2 Quad processor w/ 2GB of DDR2 PC4300 RAM (2x 1GB, Dual Channel mode) and a GeForce 8600GTS PCI-Egraphics card.
2. The PC version SPONTANEOUSLY EXITS TO WINDOWS within 5 seconds after the race starts. EVERY TIME.

Here's my experience with the PS3 version:
1. Runs very smoothly (though it appears to be at 30FPS, but it's steady and no hiccups). Upon checking the resolution from mymonitor, it's 720p (equivalent to 1280x720 in a PC environment). And note that being the console version, ALL DETAIL LEVELS ARE ALWAYS MAXIMUM.
2. No problems so far, from downloading to installation to running a full race.

I wonder what's dumbed down now.

Bioshock is a good game in its own rights. And hey, if you want to look at a classic tale of 'dumbing down' for consoles I'm very suprised the TC didn't mention...

Decent game in its own rights. But Deus Ex 1 crushes it in virtually every aspect.

Well if the Need for Speed: Shift demo is an indication, I'm going to have to go for the PS3 version. I tried both that and the PC versions. And I can definitely say I'm having major problems with the PC verison, mainly:

1. The PC version runs really sluggish and choppy, even at the lowest resolution (640x480) and detail settings (Bilinear Filtering,No AA, all other settings at "Low"). Oh and my PC by the way has a 2.40GHz Intel Core 2 Quad processor w/ 2GB of DDR2 PC4300 RAM (2x 1GB, Dual Channel mode) and a GeForce 8600GTS PCI-Egraphics card.
2. The PC version SPONTANEOUSLY EXITS TO WINDOWS within 5 seconds after the race starts. EVERY TIME.

Here's my experience with the PS3 version:
1. Runs very smoothly (though it appears to be at 30FPS, but it's steady and no hiccups). Upon checking the resolution from mymonitor, it's 720p (equivalent to 1280x720 in a PC environment). And note that being the console version, ALL DETAIL LEVELS ARE ALWAYS MAXIMUM.
2. No problems so far, from downloading to installation to running a full race.

I wonder what's dumbed down now.

Sailor_Enlil

1) Why necro this thread?

2) You're having compatibility issues. How does that make the PC 'dumbed down'? Sure, it makes it difficult to use, but not 'dumbed down'. Go have a whinge somewhere else.

Give me a break with this dumbing down for consoles ****. :roll:

nVidiaGaMer

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="nVidiaGaMer"]

Give me a break with this dumbing down for consoles ****. :roll:

nVidiaGaMer

Hm no dedicated servers on PC. :lol:

Nice....nearly a 2 year old thread.

[QUOTE="nVidiaGaMer"]

[QUOTE="Danm_999"] An unfortunate time to make that argument, given the recent MW2 revelations.Danm_999

Hm no dedicated servers on PC. :lol:

600P vs. 720P isn't a huge difference and not noticable unless your sitting really close ... plus I'll just have it upscaled even at 1080P it will be hard to tell the difference unless I sit

I don't think there's anyneed to bump an year old thread.