Looks like I don't need to chip in with "3" examples. Everyone else beat me to it. But make no mistake, the list is far longer than that. Another big (recent) one that people have ignored would be CoD 2/4. They're undeniably a far cry from the original thanks to the switch from PC exclusive to console "codevelopment".
No nobody came up with three games(from different developers) that already are released and 'dumbed down for consoles' as you say yet.
And how the hell is CoD2/4 consolified? Sorry but that's bollocks.
Call of Duty 2/4 are both under the top10 most played PC MP games. How was Call of Duty 1 ANY more complex? And FYI I played CoD1, UO(+German Front Mod), Call of Duty 2 & Call of Duty 4 as well as Call of Duty 4 on PS3.
Don't even think about bringing up stuff like the grenade-indicator. That has nothing to do with consoles, it's just a new trend, such as (semi-realistic)games having Iron-sights became a trend.
Pretty much anything that's crossplatform suffers from it though. I don't know why you're arguing this Dragon. It's a simple fact that games like the original Deus Ex, System Shock 2 and even CoD 1 just can't work on consoles. You physically have to simplify everything just to make them playable. Now that's great as far as the console players are concerned because they get to play great games, albeit simplified in order to be playable, but they play them nonetheless.
Deus Ex, again I never said anything about it because I never played it, you shouldn't talk about things/games you never played/experienced either.
System Shock 2. Well I never played it. But personally I thought it was very deep and so did all reviews and 90% of the players think/say. Maybe the System Shock 2 fans were disappointed for whatever reason. But hey that's life you just have to adapt or either stop playing games or go on playing 10 year old games. That's just ignorance and some day you will also recognize this. As for CoD1 look at my statement above.
Now do you have a next-gen console? I suppose not. I have, well my brother has a PS3. We actually played and finished games. Uncharted for example. How is this game not deep and intense? Your argument that things get simplified does have some truth but it's also wrong. If they had to simplify so much then why is Armed Assault 2 announced for next-gen consoles as well. Why do they port Crysis to the consoles. Well for sales but they don't have to simplify the controls at all/much. Crysis for example. It has only been developed for PC. Now tell me what's so complex about it. The Nano suit would not be any problem, controls are simple. The only games that really have difficult controls are simulations and they will always stay on the PC. What you understand as realistic is called a simulation.
But lets now take that game and put it BACK on the PC alongside the original, unedited version. When you compare the original PC title with the console port, it's painfully obvious just how much has to be removed for the console version to be playable. It's undeniably inferior to it's PC exclusive counterpart. You need to give examples to prove your fact.
Now bearing this in mind, what happens when you start developing games deliberately for the console from the very beginning? You don't build a game, then simplify three versions of it later. It's time consuming and expensive and anything that's cut is wasted effort that most players would never experience. Instead, you make it simple from the beginning so that it works straight away without needing to change anything afterwards. Personally I wish they WOULD build a PC game first and then simplify the console versions later, but from a cost-time perspective, it's obvious why they don't. ALWAYS GIVE EXAMPLES
So what we get are console titles effectively ported to the PC. The only reason it counts as "co-developed" rather than "ported" is because they do it during development rather than afterwards. It's semantics, nothing more. It doesn't matter how good that title is, it will almost always still be wasting potential due to hardware limitations for the lowest common denominator during its development.
Hardware limitations LOL. Uncharted looks better than Crysis at times and only uses 720p & max. 40% of the PS3s power. You seem like you really have absolutely no idea about consoles.
Will it be like this forever? I hope not. With the rise of streaming technology and the slow introduction of keyboards/mice to console, perhaps in the not-too distant future the physical limitations will cease to be and the quality and depth of games will increase again. Of course, there's always going to be the standard "dumbing down" for your average casual user but hopefully those games will become less prevalent as people become more experienced gamers and start to want more for their money. Blablabla. Depth of games. How does adding 39852352controls and making it extra hard for the few people that have no life make a game any deeper.
On topic, OFP2 will likely suffer this consolification. There's only so much complexity you can have with an imprecise ~10 button controller on a system that has no scalability. That doesn't mean it will be crap, but it does mean that it will almost certainly not be as deep or as... "good" as it could otherwise be. You're talking about things you can't even know seriously it pisses me off. Everything in the world could be better, just take what you can get and don't be so ignorant things are not going to change just because a few people whine about how everything was better years ago. OFP2 is certainly not going to be consolified. Or you could at least wait until the first gameplay trailer arrives but no it's also being developed for consoles so IT'S ALL THE EVIL IN THE WORLD WE MUST CRUSH(=bash it, because we fail at life) IT. What angers me the most is when people talk about completely new games getting consolified. I can understand Sic-Disaster when hes talking(and he's always talking with respect what i really appreciate) about how sad it makes him to see where the R6 Series is going. He's obviously played the R6 games for a very long time and while I don't think it makes much sense to cry after something even after a few years, he does have the right to say whatever he thinks. Far Cry 2(basically a completely new game) seems to be more realistic than Far Cry (1). Yet a few people complain about it getting simplified because of console, seriously what the F***.
And Fedorov, you're quite right. In all those dev diaries for various games they love to go on about how they're going for a "super realistic" approach and then go on to detail how they're doing the graphics to achieve that. Which is how we get CoD 4. Which has exceptional models and textures, but sounds that were apparently recorded in the toy section at WalMart. We won't even mention gameplay.
Graphics are a main selling point. If the new RO or whatever it'll be would have some new features maps and weapons but other than that the same dated graphics I would not waste a second on buying it. Let me give you an example: If you're in a disco, club or whatever(though looking at how some people here keep insisting to write a roman about how they hate all new games really makes me wonder if they actually ever went out at night) and you see two girls. One is really hot, the other one is rather chubby and doesn't really look good either. Don't tell me you'd rather go talk with girl#2 because you want to find out about her character.
![[-project.rattus-]](/data/avatars/s/0/161.jpg?1568638684){kind=avatar}
