I ment example senteces where this phrase is used.

I'll say. I bought this game 3 times: For my XBOX 360, my Nintendo DS and my IPOD Touch. That last I did not like (it's probably fine on a bigger device like an IPAD) but the other 2 are great. It's my second favorite portable game behind the Advance War series.

It's truly one of the rare time that "dumbing down" a game did not dilute its fun factor.

I've seen this phrase used quite a lot with the Thief reboot and Syndicate.

It means arrogating mathematical language to feel emotionally superior than others, therefore I could say it's actually a sign that the speaker perceives himself as insecure.

That or aping on others that do it. It's very easy to repeat pseudo-abusive behavior without realizing the intent behind what you are copying - going only on what the result is.

It means "Nintendo".

PS: I like easy and simple games as much as complex RPGs, but the latter doesn't sell as good out of obvious reasons.
It's the same with every form of art.

I don't think any of the replies really have it. There are shades of grey in how the phrase is used, but:

Lowest Common Denominator does not merely mean mass market or casual. It implies a lack of ethics, a lack of artistic merit, appealing to baser instincts, it's condescending or patronising, there may some strong contempt for the target customer, undoubtedly an expectation of low intelligence and lack of education amongst the buyers or audience.

A product for the lowest common denominator is usually expected to be low quality, made on the cheap with the highest mark up possible and sold to morons, the gullible, and people who just don't know any better.

In TV land the endless make over shows, reality TV (like Jersey Shore) daytime talk shows (Springer, Kyle) would easily be described as appealing lowest common denominator. However, a show like American Idol might be described as both high quality mass market and lowest common denominator. Here the show straddles the grey area: it largely avoids being patronizing, it's respectful as the critiques don't insult the viewers intelligence. Yet in the early rounds of auditions there are clearly freak show elements that only exist to exploit and humiliate the participant.

Nintendo I think is an excellent example of how to misuse the phrase. Love or hate them, Nintendo games are consistently very high quality, broad appeal for sure, but always intelligent, well designed and never exploitative.

If you want to find examples of games that are for the lowest common denominator you need to consider games that are typically cheaply made and contain low quality gameplay, sold primarily based on graphical gimmicks, sexual exploitation or cashing in on the popularity of something else.

In this case it comes from computer architecture and not maths, its initial meaning was that when you had a cross-platform release you made a version of software that worked on the weakest platform and then port it across to the superior ones.

PC gamers who have ever played a shoddy console port will recognise that strategy, or games slimmed down to handle the limited number of options on a controller.

It's since been absorbed by marketing airheads to refer to the least capable or interested user your software might have.

Examples being shooters that move really slowly because they have to compensate for poor reaction times, or really obvious telegraphing of what a player should be doing in a given level or situation.

Come on, Nintendo makes games for everyone, you can punch in any Mario Kart or Zelda game and you'll have a hard time finding anybody who would never play it, even people who never play any video games.
That's not a bad thing and I'm glad that they have their focus on this, because that's what consoles are for.

You bring too much judging into this definition.

Most people who play COD and similar games online = lowest common denominator.

Very simple, the lowest common denominator is the dumbest common customer imaginable. He has to understand and be able to enjoy the game.