say, a first person shooter where you run around and shoot things. and that''s it. shoot things and watch them blow up. no vehicles, no rail-type levels, no puzzles or switches, no collecting powerups. or, perhaps, a flight sim, where all you do is fly. you start the game up, and fly. that''s it. ok so these examples are a bit exaggerated, but you get the idea: strip a game down to the bare essentials, no bull, no clutter. sure, graphics, sound, and all that stuff still applies, you know... cutting edge and all that. there''s this game out that advertises the slogan "you dream it and then it becomes real" or whatever, and it''s like it was made by a bunch of schizophrenics. racing, swimming, shooting, platform jumping, piloting vehicles, boss battles, all that stuff. kinda makes the game a bit boring, as in there are a few parts that you like a lot, but those moments are very brief. and then you have to wade through the rest of the crap to get to another similar but also short section of the same thing. agree? *just a discussion.

To a point, I heartily agree. By appealing to a niche rather than the lowest common denominator the gameplay within that niche is likely to be much better.

But you won''t ever see this among commercial games. They are out to make money and niche games simply don''t sell as well. The only commercial game that is not built to be as broadly appealing as possible that I have seen are Flight Simulators... Personally, I find them boring(combat flight simulators are another matter). But those are still popular.

However, in the freeware game department niche software abounds. Lots of times it is made by programmers whose only goal is to fill a niche. Roguelike games(ascii dungeoncrawls) and MUDS come to mind.

But yeah, I am all in favor of niche games. But choose your niche well. And your effort kind of falls flat if a game with broader appeal still fills your niche better. You may make a FPS without puzzles, but people will still play doom III if it''s FPS aspects are better.

right. the freeware stuff is almost always very specialised in the sense that a small group set out to achieve one goal, maybe take aspects of a similar game but trim and refine them, streamlining the entire project, making it more focused on a certain style or pace.

I see a bit of this in Splinter Cell and Metal Gear Solid Sons of Liberty and Solid. They''re both sneaking/infiltrating/espionage/sabotage whatever games. but they focus on different things. SC is more about stealth and using lights and shadows and background noise to your advantage, really suspenseful because you feel the pressure of staying out of sight to prevent arousing suspicion. while MGS is more about creating multiple (as in maybe 3 or 4) ways of going through a room. Players try to stay out of sight merely to avoid going through the clearing thing. rooms reset after you exit, so it''s much more like an arcade, you can always start over. there''s tons of secrets and unlockable things (different bandanas, stealth, wigs, pullups to improve grip). The focus in MGS is more about keeping the player moving. ammo and powerups are strewn about to keep the player from staying in one area for too long. MGS'' "safe zone" system often consists of staying out of a guard''s cone of vision or knocking them out with a tranquiliser dart and stuffing them in a locker, while in SC it''s more about creating an environment in which you have the advantage. like jumping up above the level of a hanging light so that when someone is below you and looks up all they see is the light, blah blah.

ok i went off on a tangent there but you see my point.

quote: Original post by Gaping Head Wound
say, a first person shooter where you run around and shoot things. and that''s it. shoot things and watch them blow up. no vehicles, no rail-type levels, no puzzles or switches, no collecting powerups.

ahhh, sounds just like Serious Sam 1 and 2 :D

Well, besides the collecting powerups thing.

One of my favorite shooters ever :D

quote: Original post by Gwahir
The only commercial game that is not built to be as broadly appealing as possible that I have seen are Flight Simulators... Personally, I find them boring(combat flight simulators are another matter). But those are still popular.

And Train Sims, but also, Wargames also get published commercially sometimes, admittedly only the fully-3D like ones really do nowadays, but they're still disliked by a lot of gamers finding them too complex.

But then, Wargames regularly claim on page 1 of their manuals that they're "tactical war simulators" and "not a video game". So they're really trying to fill the wargamers' hearts with good stuff. But then they're simulators. So perhaps simulators overall don't have as broad an appeal as other games?

[edited by - garconbifteck on December 10, 2002 5:17:25 PM]