[icycalm]

I mean the process by which computer games with involved/unconventional/complex controls/systems/etc. are streamlined, simplified and/or dumbed down to appeal to the perceived cruder tastes of the console crowd. This goes for series that went console-exclusive, as well as for series that remain on PC, but which are now being produced with the eventual (or even, nowadays, increasingly concurrent) console ports in mind.

I am writing an article on this topic and would like to ask people for specific examples of the above phenomenon. I have a few myself, but I would like more. Please be as specific as you can, and thanks in advance for your help.

[Wiper]

I'm not fond of the PC crowd's willingness to decry games as having been 'consolified', nor am I certain things are always so simple (in all cases it's difficult to be certain that many of the changes would have been made even without a move to console) so I'm not entirely sure why I'm doing this, but a few well known examples:

Thief: Deadly Shadows. It added a third-person view, simplified the levels and shrunk them. The latter issue is the most clearly console-related, not so sure about the other two.

Deus Ex: Invisible War. Unified ammo system, simplified inventory, ability to repeatedly change biomods, simpler, smaller levels. Again, aside from the level size, I'd be surprised if the changes were due purely to the joint production of a console version.

Elder Scroll IV: Oblivion. Enemies that levelled with you, so no longer the risk of running into a dungeon and being massacred. Don't know whether this was to make it 'console-friendly', or simply Bethesda trying to make the game friendlier regardless.

Fallout 3 - moved from character-led to exploration-led, relying on prettiness and visceral combat instead of tight scripting. Fairly sure this is more to do with Bethesda's skillset than it being a console version.
However, on a related note: Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel. This really was an example of a game being properly dumbed down for console audiences, and it really was atrocious. Silly old Interplay.

KOTOR - not a series being moved, but a developer moving one of its PC genres onto the console. Higher production values, but less sprawling than Bioware's previous RPG's, and heralded a new approach to RPG's in general by them (see also Jade Empire and Mass Effect), though Dragon Age is apparently a return to BG style shenanigans. Again, not sure whether this was entirely because of it coming out on console.

[icycalm]

Wiper, on Feb 15 2009, 03:04 AM, said:

I'm not fond of the PC crowd's willingness to decry games as having been 'consolified', nor am I certain things are always so simple (in all cases it's difficult to be certain that many of the changes would have been made even without a move to console) so I'm not entirely sure why I'm doing this, but a few well known examples:

Yeah, I am not implying that the changes are ALWAYS for the worst, or that they can be ascertained with any degree of confidence. All I am saying is that complexity is sometimes lost in the transition -- though for those who are not fond of complexity in the first place, this would of course not be a bad thing. Either way, what I want is to examine this process (which, after all, I think it would be very hard for anyone to deny that it's actually happening).

One game I would like to add to the list is Civilization Revolution. I have not played it, and I probably never will, but everything I've seen of it screams of dumbing down. One could make the case that dumbed-down versions of complex games can be a good way to draw in timid, inexperienced gamers, who will then seek out the more complex versions and support them -- but, man, I don't know about this. I was like 11 when I played the original Civ, and did not require a dumbed-down version as a preparation to appreciating the real thing -- so I don't see why 25-somethings would require it. Still, I can see the logic in the argument.

[Napole0n]

Moving the Rainbow Six games from planning tactical games to FPS games with flashbangs and, in later games, a cover option. Now I actually like those console games better, but the older games really were way more tactical by forcing you to study maps and think up plans.

[deerokus]

That's the whole point of Civ rev though, it's a quick-play 'lite' version which is more akin to Civ 1 and 2 in depth. It isn't available on PC, and Civ 4 couldn't possibly work on consoles. It did, however, make me buy Civ 4 in frustration at the relative shallowness of Rev.

Rev. is good though!

[Liquid Myth]

Was Bioshock a simplified update of System Shock 2? I can't say having never played it, but it was the impression I got from various posts about the game.

[Vimster]

Liquid Myth, on Feb 14 2009, 05:21 PM, said:

Was Bioshock a simplified update of System Shock 2? I can't say having never played it, but it was the impression I got from various posts about the game.

There was a view that Bioshock could have had the depth and adventure focus SS2 had ended up with but the FPS part being at the forefront. Whether this was dumbing down for a console audience is hard to say. I personally believe they should have made it an original game and not try to link it with System Shock 2, an amazing game and one that would be near impossible to better (well, combat was crap, they could better that, but then you could say Bioshock had better combat, is that how SS2 would have been?)

[Rudi von Starnberg]

'Dumbing down for console' is one of those phrases that is usually good grounds for ignoring anything the speaker is saying, because they're just a rabid unreasonable fanboy. The most recent instance of it that I've seen is on the Relicnews forums, where angry Dawn of War players claimed Dawn of War 2 had been 'dumbed down for the console crowd' because the base building was removed, despite it not having a console version, and all the much more complex tactical stuff that had been added. Idiots.

[matt0]

deerokus, on Feb 14 2009, 06:16 PM, said:

That's the whole point of Civ rev though, it's a quick-play 'lite' version which is more akin to Civ 1 and 2 in depth. It isn't available on PC, and Civ 4 couldn't possibly work on consoles. It did, however, make me buy Civ 4 in frustration at the relative shallowness of Rev.

Rev. is good though!

Why not though? It would be a bit clunky without a mouse but no worse than Civ Rev - just more menus to navigate through. There were a handful of hardcore PC strategy games on PS1 (Civ 2, Sim City 2000, X-com) and apart from running like treacle they all worked fine.

My ideal Civ game would be pitched halfway between Civ 4 and Civ Rev. They gimped diplomacy in Civ Rev and took out all the custom game options but there's a lot of uneccessary detail in Civ 4 (like the ridiculous number of military units and over expanded tech tree).

Some kind of Civ4Rev mod would be pure awesome.

[matt0]

icycalm, on Feb 14 2009, 06:13 PM, said:

One game I would like to add to the list is Civilization Revolution. I have not played it, and I probably never will, but everything I've seen of it screams of dumbing down. One could make the case that dumbed-down versions of complex games can be a good way to draw in timid, inexperienced gamers, who will then seek out the more complex versions and support them -- but, man, I don't know about this. I was like 11 when I played the original Civ, and did not require a dumbed-down version as a preparation to appreciating the real thing -- so I don't see why 25-somethings would require it. Still, I can see the logic in the argument.

Download the demo and have a bash at it, even if you hate it and never play the full game it's very interesting for a long time Civ fan.

[icycalm]

matt0, on Feb 15 2009, 03:34 AM, said:

Why not though? It would be a bit clunky without a mouse but no worse than Civ Rev - just more menus to navigate through. There were a handful of hardcore PC strategy games on PS1 (Civ 2, Sim City 2000, X-com) and apart from running like treacle they all worked fine.

You answered your own question. "It would be a bit clunky" you said, and "running like treacle", and especially in the endgame, where each turns takes ages to get through, with dozens of menus to navigate, the game would be nearly unplayable, I would think.

matt0, on Feb 15 2009, 03:34 AM, said:

They gimped diplomacy in Civ Rev and took out all the custom game options but there's a lot of uneccessary detail in Civ 4 (like the ridiculous number of military units and over expanded tech tree).

See, this is where you can see the difference in tastes between people. What you call "ridiculous number" I call "awesome variety". And it is this expanded variety which makes me give Sid Meier or whoever my money with each new iteration. If they scale back the variety, after all, I might as well keep playing the older versions that are sitting on my shelf. I understand that these older versions are NOT sitting on EVERYONE's shelves -- and that is what much of this situation boils down to.

matt0, on Feb 15 2009, 03:39 AM, said:

Download the demo and have a bash at it, even if you hate it and never play the full game it's very interesting for a long time Civ fan.

Hadn't realized there was one. Will do, once I get the chance.

[matt0]

icycalm, on Feb 14 2009, 06:44 PM, said:

You answered your own question. "It would be a bit clunky" you said, and "running like treacle", and especially in the endgame, where each turns takes ages to get through, with dozens of menus to navigate, the game would be nearly unplayable, I would think.

The PS3 and 360 have more than enough horsepower to run Civ 4 and when I say "a bit clunky" I meant it was only a very minor issue.

icycalm, on Feb 14 2009, 06:44 PM, said:

See, this is where you can see the difference in tastes between people. What you call "ridiculous number" I call "awesome variety". And it is this expanded variety which makes me give Sid Meier or whoever my money with each new iteration. If they scale back the variety, after all, I might as well keep playing the older versions that are sitting on my shelf. I understand that these older versions are NOT sitting on EVERYONE's shelves -- and that is what much of this situation boils down to.

Agree with you 100% on that, scaling back the number of units would just be my preferred way of playing it.

[snowbind]

As much as I love the game. Left 4 Dead is a prime example of this. Although as it is the same for PC it could be argued it was a game dumbed down across the board. The main reason I cite L4D is the weapon cache and the auto aim on the Xbox. Reading the after thoughts on it on 1up, the creators said they kept the weapons cache low so that players would immediately know they type of gun and its limit from sight.

This however is a kick in the balls for people who have played and loved all Valves games. This is the first with a limited cache and it could be argued it was one of CS main draws. Granted the game itself was great, but the weapons and their feel contribute a lot to this. It is a double kick in the balls as L4D is the amalgimation of many Counter Strike zombie mods.

One of the arguments for the simplistic weapons, other then player recognition, is that they are weapons the player would expect to find scattered around. Giving it a realistic feel. But for me this is a bullshit argument. I mean come on Zombines, Tanks. Give me guns and give me lots of them.

So yeah although I love it, L4D definately panders towards the less hardcore players at the sake of those who made the company what they are today. Valve without a doubt is my favorite Dev, but I feel like they really dropped the ball on this one.

[icycalm]

matt0, on Feb 15 2009, 03:55 AM, said:

The PS3 and 360 have more than enough horsepower to run Civ 4 and when I say "a bit clunky" I meant it was only a very minor issue.

I was not implying it would have been an issue of horsepower. I meant control method and I thought you meant the same. That's what I mean by "clunky".

What I would like to know is what percentage of people who bought the console versions of previous Civ games over the years actually put enough time in them to get to the endgame. Or, to put it another way, I wish there was some way to "prove" that the people who played the computer versions put a lot more time in them than those who played the console versions. I still fail to see how anyone could tolerate mucking about with a controller in something like a Civ game for more than ten minutes -- to my eyes, all these SNES/PS/Saturn or whatever ports over the years seem like cruel jokes. But again, of course, I have never tried them.

[daveodeth]

snowbind, on Feb 14 2009, 06:04 PM, said:

As much as I love the game. Left 4 Dead is a prime example of this. Although as it is the same for PC it could be argued it was a game dumbed down across the board. The main reason I cite L4D is the weapon cache and the auto aim on the Xbox. Reading the after thoughts on it on 1up, the creators said they kept the weapons cache low so that players would immediately know they type of gun and its limit from sight.

This however is a kick in the balls for people who have played and loved all Valves games. This is the first with a limited cache and it could be argued it was one of CS main draws. Granted the game itself was great, but the weapons and their feel contribute a lot to this. It is a double kick in the balls as L4D is the amalgimation of many Counter Strike zombie mods.

One of the arguments for the simplistic weapons, other then player recognition, is that they are weapons the player would expect to find scattered around. Giving it a realistic feel. But for me this is a bullshit argument. I mean come on Zombines, Tanks. Give me guns and give me lots of them.

So yeah although I love it, L4D definately panders towards the less hardcore players at the sake of those who made the company what they are today. Valve without a doubt is my favorite Dev, but I feel like they really dropped the ball on this one.

But CS is not valve, sure they picked up the game when it got successful but it's not part of their design. That's why you'll find tons of guns in CS because it's a mod. After Valve bought Turtle Rock and started to tinker with L4D then you need to look back at the Half Life games.

[matt0]

snowbind, on Feb 14 2009, 07:04 PM, said:

One of the arguments for the simplistic weapons, other then player recognition, is that they are weapons the player would expect to find scattered around. Giving it a realistic feel. But for me this is a bullshit argument. I mean come on Zombines, Tanks. Give me guns and give me lots of them.

So yeah although I love it, L4D definately panders towards the less hardcore players at the sake of those who made the company what they are today. Valve without a doubt is my favorite Dev, but I feel like they really dropped the ball on this one.

I feel like the console gamer / streamlined as opposed to dumbed down apologist in this thread but... I like simplified weapon sets too. I don't read Guns and Ammo and Soldier of Fortune or anything, to me a shotgun is a shotgun, a machine gun is a machine gun, I don't want 3 of each different type of weapon in a fast paced / arcadey FPS game.

I wouldn't consider that less "hardcore", any less than Street Fighter is less hardcore than Virtua Fighter because it's got smaller move set or Virtua Fighter is less hardcore than Street Fighter because it's got 3 buttons instead of 6.

[Wiper]

matt0, on Feb 14 2009, 06:11 PM, said:

I like simplified weapon sets too. I don't read Guns and Ammo and Soldier of Fortune or anything, to me a shotgun is a shotgun, a machine gun is a machine gun, I don't want 3 of each different type of weapon in a fast paced / arcadey FPS game.

o/\o

snowbind (and, to a lesser extent, the OP) seem to be the two people most keen on reinforcing my perception that most people who cry out against the simplification/lowest common denominator policies of the consoles are actually working from somewhat misguided perspectives - either because of lack of experience of the games (icycalm) or a willingness to leap upon any difference from their own ideals as being an example of 'dumbing down' for consoles (snowbind. I mean, do you seriously believe the lack of weapon variety is down to it having a console version, and is a serious problem? Really?).

[Rudi von Starnberg]

I like games with lots of weapons and so on, but not just for the sake of it. L4D narrows it down to archetypes and is all the better for it - the game's pace ist such that it would just become stilted if you had to worry whether the G3 or the G36C would be a more appropriate choice for killing those zombies.

[icycalm]

Well, for what it's worth, if the Xboxification process had anything to do with the original Halo's only allowing you two weapons at a time, then that is ONE clear case where, as far as I am concerned, the game was improved from the "dumbing down". Or, to put it another way, the game was not dumbed down at all but "complexified" -- if that is a word -- since you now had to think a bit more about which weapons to pick up/throw down at what points.

Still, as far as I can see, this is just an exception.

[matt0]

icycalm, on Feb 14 2009, 07:07 PM, said:

I was not implying it would have been an issue of horsepower. I meant control method and I thought you meant the same. That's what I mean by "clunky".

What I would like to know is what percentage of people who bought the console versions of previous Civ games over the years actually put enough time in them to get to the endgame. Or, to put it another way, I wish there was some way to "prove" that the people who played the computer versions put a lot more time in them than those who played the console versions. I still fail to see how anyone could tolerate mucking about with a controller in something like a Civ game for more than ten minutes -- to my eyes, all these SNES/PS/Saturn or whatever ports over the years seem like cruel jokes. But again, of course, I have never tried them.

For clunky I just meant playing with the pad, the "like treacle" comment was because either the PS1 was either underpowered when it came to the number crunching or the ports were comedy bad - it was probably a bit of both.

I've played Civ Rev to the end game a bunch of times on DS and 360 - never had Civ 2 on PS1 but a mate of mine had that and Sim City 2000 and played them obsessively. Civ 2 practically ground to a halt in the end game but it didn't put him off. Someone on my Live friends list caned Civ Rev for a couple of months when it first came out. That's only three people but I doubt anyone buys games like that unless they know what they're getting themselves into.

I think the disadvantages of using a pad are always massively overstated. Especially with a turn based game like Civ (in all it's iterations) where all you need is good menu structure. Moving units around or selecting tiles on a grid isn't a problem (see games like Shining Force, Fire Emblem etc.).