next »

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

i never heard that use of gimmick before; to me gimmick is a small invention, as opposed to a large one. gimmick is a term from engineering, not from marketing. for instance, a cup holder in a car was a gimmick.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gimmick

although your marketing definition might be definition 2. (where there is a negative implication that there's some trick to it), the primary one is the one i meant.

[Dustin Smith]

gimmick is the cute green guy you see to the left of this post.

[Ntero]

Bullet time in Max Payne is a gimmick. It's an optional fancy feature that is heavily disjointed from the core gameplay. It was useful in marketing the product though.

Is that good? No.

In VVVVVV, gravity flipping mechanic is a quirky feature but not a gimmick simply because it's central to the game.

Quirky features are not gimmicks.

That just strikes me as gimmicks being defined as bad features.  If it works it's a quirky feature, otherwise it's a gimmick.  And in that case of course gimmicks arn't good, it'd be like saying bad games are bad.  I personally place your gimmicks and your quirky features under the same title of Gimmick.  Some are fantastic and complement the gameplay immensly, others are pretty lame and don't really add anything or break existing mechanics.  But that depends on the gimmick itself and implementation.

[mirosurabu]

to me gimmick is a small invention, as opposed to a large one. gimmick is a term from engineering, not from marketing. for instance, a cup holder in a car was a gimmick.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gimmick

That link doesn't really support your definition, as it goes on and says "to attract attention or increase appeal". Further, almost every other web definition supports my definition. I mean, if all you want to say is "small invention" then say "small invention".

Gimmick is widely used to refer to sort of features that are only designed to attract customers. At some point in life, you probably bought a product because it had one or two cool things but only to completely forget them later and focus on the main functionality. Things like glow shoes (Nike Air Force Light UPs), cup holder in a car you talk about, WiiMote, the ability to take pictures in 3-D with Nintendo 3DS, etc.

I know this is all just semantics,  but..

[Ntero]

Being designed to attract customers does not necessarily mean shallow or poorly created.

For example, The first Quake deviated from Doom in that it had a much cleaner and functional look up and down, as well as using polygonal models instead of sprites.  It was a gimmick.  It made itself visually distinctive from it's predecessors and created a hook that made you want to get it.  Otherwise it was very much inspired by the Doom series.

This gimmick however also inspired most future FPSs to begin using fully 3D maps and polygonal models.  It was effective in that it added new dimension to the game (not to argue about which was better designed or more fun), and made it standout from it's competitors.

And I find it interesting you mention the WiiMote as a gimmick, but argue that VVVVVV 's gravity flipping is not because it's central to the core gameplay.  Most WiiMote games, especially at release used the WiiMote in ways that were very central to the gameplay.

Also, all features are designed to attract customers.  Making a good game is designed to attract customers.  So is adding polish, mimiccing previously successful games, and thinking up innovative functionality.  It still feels like you are defining gimmick as unsuccessful or bad feature.

[mirosurabu]

The definition Paul cited doesn't explicitly agree with my definition.

A gimmick can be described as a type of selling point, but not every selling point is a gimmick. Gimmick is distinctive in that it's designed for the sole reason of marketing the product. As such it hypes people but as soon as they buy the product the feature becomes unimpotant.

Polygons in Quake are not a gimmick - they are central to the core experience of the game. Wiimote's motion controls, on the other hand, are only well used in a couple of Wii games. I like Wii Sports, Wii Play and rail shooters. But almost every other Wii game has some sort of forced support of WiiMote that instead of making it seem like a likable feature, it makes it look ugly (take DKCR for example). I bought Wii because of its motion controls, I ended up liking it because of exclusive games and hating it because of forced motion controls.

[s0]

Being designed to attract customers does not necessarily mean shallow or poorly created.

No, but a feature that's designed to attract customers while simultaneously being shallow, poorly created and not particularly benefitting the game as a whole is a gimmick. Most of the time a "gimmick" is an "innovative" feature that's just there for the novelty value or mainly exists to show off new technology or whatever.

For instance, I'd call at least some of the physics puzzles in Half-Life 2 gimmicky because they were obviously based around the novelty appeal of the physics engine at the time.

[moi]

Icyclam just found a justification for its entire existence by the virtue of his complete opposite coming trolling on his website.
these two would be the same guy that I wouldn't be surprised.

[Zaphos]

I find it kind of weird that rohrer thinks the whole artgame thing is pretty much over now.

Also, in the second email rohrer says (I'm paraphrasing): "you remind me of the unabomber and the columbine shooters, who I also admire".  Uh, ok ...

Amused that the whole premise of the thread is icy worrying that romero is somehow brainwashed just because he talks like artgame people while he is being interviewed by artgame people (ok, that's just normal) and because he is "intimidated by the pseudo-intellectual airs of [rohrer et al]," ... um, intimidation by pseudo-intellectual airs is pretty much all icy ever does

[Ntero]

In that case we just don't agree on what constitutes a gimmick.  But if you define gimmicks as specifically being shallow and not beneficial to gameplay, then they are shallow and not beneficial to gameplay.  Although personally I think core elements (like VVVVVV flipping/Portals in Portal/ Quake polys) can be gimmicks as they are the primary innovative selling points, in which cases those can be either good or bad depending on what specifically it is/how it's implemented.

Although to be honest most definitions are against me other than http://www.thefreedictionary.com/gimmick  Second entry definition 1: something designed to attract extra attention, interest, or publicity

[Ntero]

More on the original topic I kind of read Rohrer's quote from the OP as talking about art games being less and less of a niche and more just games (that happen to contain artistic sentiment).  That sounds more productive to me, and less divisive then things like the whole NotGames forum and other games trying to distance themselves from being games.  I would rather play and am more often seeing games with artistic merit rather than 'artgames'.

[s0]

Amused that the whole premise of the thread is icy worrying that romero is somehow brainwashed just because he talks like artgame people while he is being interviewed by artgame people (ok, that's just normal) and because he is "intimidated by the pseudo-intellectual airs of [rohrer et al]," ... um, intimidation by pseudo-intellectual airs is pretty much all icy ever does

To be honest, I had fun reading his posts. They're so over the top and full of futile rage and unwarranted self-importance, parts of them are absolutely hilarious. Whether that's intentional or not is up for debate.

[LemonScented]

I read the thread linked in the first post.

Then I read this thread.

Then I realised I still don't have the faintest idea what could have caused Icyclam to hate artgames with such vitriol. So, in an attempt to get a better handle on how somebody could be so consumed with rage at the very existence of a thing, I tried reading the polemic he linked to: http://insomnia.ac/commentary/on_the_genealogy_of_art_games/

I like to think that I've got a reasonably substantial attention span, but my time is worth more than it would take to read that. He's not a guy who is amenable to making it pleasant or worthwhile for people trying to understand his point of view, is he?

Has anyone else read it? Any chance of someone summarising it, in English, stripped of his pseudo-intellectual quote-mangling and homophobia?

[mirosurabu]

He clearly spent a lot of time listing those games and linking them to his reviews. I mean, a list of exactly 60 games. Maybe he copy-pasted it from somewhere else, but even if he did - is that good rhetoric?

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

i've read it; i can't really summarize it though. but an interesting part about it was that he hates all shovelware and low budget games as a rule, and feels that only the highest of the highest budget games can be art: the more money spent on a game, the more artful.

also i think it's unfair to accuse him of mangling quotes or of homophobia. he's explained somewhere that he uses fagot with one g to distinguish it from the similar homophobic phrase. he also usually quotes people correct and interprets them correctly.

[deathtotheweird]

art fag

[salade]

Icycalm reminds me of Bill O'Reilly, just replace "artfag" with "pinhead".

Anyway, in regards to the whole "what is a gimmick" discussion, what about the feature-rule idea proposed in Chris Craford's The Art of Computer Game Design? To paraphrase, he defines features as rules that can be completely excised from games without having much effect over the game's quality. He continues to make the point that features should be avoided - they take up memory, are a waste of development effort, and often the game is better without them. Granted, Chris Crawford wrote that back when game assets were measured in kilabytes - you could probably get away with having a game wrought with features. However, I personally believe that all great games require a strong foundation of rules. Or one rule. Or the absence of rules as a rule (Calvinball). All we have to do is ask "what does this game element contribute to the over all experience?" and if the answer is "nothing" or worse, we have a useless feature/gimmick on our hands.

The problem is that it all becomes subjective, which is what all criticism ultimately is anyway.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

i can't think of many gimmicks that can be removed without adversely affecting the game. for instance, if you removed the 'rewinding time' gimmick in braid, the whole game is gone. if you removed the portals in portal, the whole game is gone. pretty much 99% of games with gimmicks focus their whole gameplay around that new innovation.

[jwk5]

Boredom makes people debate some strange things (myself included)... anyways:

In marketing language, a gimmick is a unique or quirky special feature that makes something "stand out" from its contemporaries. However, the special feature is typically thought to be of little relevance or use. Thus, a gimmick is a special feature for the sake of having a special feature. It began, however, as a slang term for something that a con artist or magician had his assistant manipulate to make appearances different from reality. Such things as the manipulating of a gaming wheel led to the idea of a "gimmick" being used.

In marketing, product gimmicks are sometimes considered mere novelties, and not really that relevant to the product's functioning, sometimes even earning negative connotations. However, some seemingly trivial gimmicks of the past have evolved into useful, permanent features. According to the OED, the word is first attested in 1926, defined in the Wise-Crack Dictionary by Main and Grant as "a device used for making a fair game crooked".

Finding a successful gimmick for an otherwise mundane product is often an important part of the marketing process. For example, toothbrushes are often given various gimmicks, such as bright colors, easy-grip handles, or color-changing bristles so they appear more exciting to consumers. This is often done when trying to appeal to children or excitable adults, who often get more excited about the gimmick than the product. Electronic toys and hand-held devices are often appealing because of a gimmick that they offer.

Paul, the portals in Portal and the time manipulation in Braid are not gimmicks, the rules of their game play revolve around them (i.e. to solve their puzzles you must utilize this feature). You can't enter an archery tournament without a bow and arrows so a bow and arrows couldn't be a "gimmick", for example. However, if for an extra $10 to the entry fee you could get a gold ribbon tied around your bow that supposedly gives you good luck an ups your odds then that would be a gimmick.

People confuse gimmicks in games because (A) obviously people are content to debate the meaning of gimmick (obviously myself included, this very moment lol) and (B) because people are quick to label features they don't like in a game as being a gimmick. There is a big difference between a bad feature and a gimmick (which is primarily a marketing term). Gimmicks are squarely aimed at making the product appear to have a higher value, they are window dressing and sometimes flat out con jobs. A bad feature (depending on your perspective) is typically a game play feature that just doesn't work as intended or works as intended but is designed bad.

By far the two most used gimmicks in video games is excessive gore and over-sexualized female characters, a tactic which has proven to be very successful over the years. 90% of the games I own are of the boobs-n-bullets variety. Boobs-n-Bullets... now there's a game idea...

[starsrift]

This is dumb. Who is "icycalm" and why should I care?