Posted June 05, 2013
With niche games, its not that developers WANT the smaller audience, its more that they are free to zero in on the genre and take the liberty to do some things that the full market may not appreciate.
For example, take Thief. Thief is a niche game. Its all about stealth, exploration, ambiance, etc. Someone trying to make a mainstream game will make concessions to broaden the audience. Which is what happened with Thief 3. While I still liked Thief 3, it was no longer a niche game. Loading zones ripped the ambiance right out of the game (thank you Xbox! :( ). Rope arrows were removed. Lots of unnecessary things were added, but not well done like ragdoll physics, fast paced dagger fights were clumsy (but highly touted in gameplay videos).
When its a niche game, the devs have the ability to say, "no, if we can't get ragdoll right, it doesn't belong. We want to focus on features and elements that emphasize stealth!" When its a mainstream game, they tend to conclude that the bullet point on the box is more important than whether it actually works in the game. In Thief 3, the physics were so bad, it would have been much better had they been left completely out.
So, when I say "niche", I don't mean intentionally market to the smaller audience... I mean, make the better game. Give the game identity. The more A's you add, the less identity the games seem to have. Care about a good lockpicking mechanic... don't toss it aside because you also have to add loot glint. The niche developer (IMHO) makes the best game he possibly can that fits within his vision. He does NOT add things to enhance the box description unless they are part of his vision. This, by default, tends to produce better games, that are not watered down. This is where games like Diablo, Deus Ex, Morrowind, etc. come from.
I'm sure I'm semantically butchering my ideas, hopefully they make sense to the conversation.