Just to note before I begin, I very much enjoy debates like these, as long as they remain civil, which it is. But I am aware that you may not like this style of chat, if you don't want to continue then no worries and no hard feelings on my part. Now on to my break down of your counter arguement!
dsheinem wrote:But some games do look and control much better on PC, others on consoles, etc.
Again, didn't agrue to the contrary. Of course this is true due to lazy ports, limitations on a system graphicly, etc. But saying that any copy of Portal 2 is not as good as it could have been is a lot different from saying that Portal 2 on the Xbox 360 is the worst compared to the others.
By DESIGN a keyboard and mouse offer the possibility for more complexity than a simpler controller does.
Of course, no arguements here. But this was never brought into question so I don't see its imediate relevance. If I am missing something please enlighten me. Unless you are saying complexity equates to a product (in this case a controler or game) being better then another.
More is not always better.
I do think that recent games with PC market roots have been simplified in terms of graphics and gameplay in their sequels because of console sales being the new target market...
...Historically PC games have had much more sophisticated graphics than most console games. Neither of these things are as true anymore, and I blame the shift in the industry towards console ports as the reason.
I agree that the market has shifted more towards console sales and that PC games have not been pushed as much because of it. However, a shift in the target market does not equate to "dumbing" a product down. They are too very very different things we are talking about. Sure there may be some overlap, but that is all circumstantial based on the product in question and how the company handles the shift.
If that statement is somehow "elitist" I don't know why or how.
No, that was not elitist. You were stating the facts there, historically speaking. What is elitist is assuming that those facts lead to the "dumbing down" of games and that there can be no possible benefit from such a shift. But mostly what came off as elitist originally was how you
worded your thoughts. The tone of your writing was not good. (This post was much better). Not to lay it all on you though, Noide was guilty of the same.
If I equated "simpler" with "dumber" I was referring to a control scheme, not the people who use them.
Then do not equate the two words. I mean, they share similarities, but that does not make them the same thing. Sure, dumbing something down may in the process simplify it, but simplifying something does not dumb it down. Dumbing something down is making it easier for someone of a lesser intelligence to understand, and in this case do. Simplifying something is making the process more streamlined, but not nessecarily easier to do or understand.
In laymens terms (hey, this is a discussion about portal, gotta have some references!), simplifing, or simpler, is like removing the excess fat. On the other hand, dumber, or dumbed down, is like only using the easiest protions.
Also -notice how in that quote you found he cites people "struggle with the controller for twenty minutes" and not a mouse or keyboard. I would guess that they were able to monitor how people with different input/control schemes played the game, and found that most people struggled more with the controller than with the keyboard and mouse.
I knew you would try that on me. But the definition of a controller is, "A person or thing that directs or regulates something". Tell me, does a mouse and keyboard not regulate and direct gameplay in a game? If it does not then what the hell is it doing? Im pretty sure a mouse and keyboard is a controller as well.
And is there any proof that they were able to monitor input methods? Otherwise that is just wild conjecture that gets both of us nowhere fast. But for the sake of argument and since wild conjecture can be fun, lets say that is true, they could monitor inputs. "Most" people, as you say, could simply mean that 51% of all players who had trouble were playing without a mouse and keyboard. In that case it is hardly the fault of the tradtional controllers but rather a fault of poor game design. But alas, its all conjecture.
