mrimer
Level: Legendary Smitemaster

Rank Points: 5166
Registered: 02-04-2003
IP: Logged

Gimmicks.

Today, games with gimmicks get noticed.

Once, game mechanics were so fresh and new. Like in the brave, new literary genre of the 20th century, science fiction, it was once upon a time that any fledgling author could present something fresh in the realm of sci-fi without half-trying. It would be eaten up by sci-fi fans -- often without regard to whether the author himself was actually good or not -- because the ideas were original. The ideas themselves sparked excitement in the minds of the reader. Since then, I've heard it expressed that the "ore" of sci-fi ideas has been mined out. Today it is rare for an author to come up with a fresh, new sci-fi story. There is no more wild west of sci-fi.

The wild west of gaming has become a virtual ghost town as well. New game mechanics, play styles and peripherals have been largely mined out. This gives rise to a surprising phenomenon: new gimmicks is gaming's new holy grail. Including an attractive gimmick in your game can be enough to elevate it to the status of Game of the Year. Look what a gimmick in game mechanics did for Portal. Look what it does for Wii sales.

I appreciate gimmicks. They can bring new forms of fun to gaming. There's nothing inherently wrong or evil about coming up with the new Virtual Diet Cherry Holiday Zinger Cola. Yet, at the same time, I am incensed by a particular instance of what I see as a gimmick in sheep's clothing: the IGF 2008 giving the Grand Prize to Crayon Physics Deluxe. I congratulate the author for the surprise win (I understand he never expected to win and his acceptance speech was literally "f**k yeah", written in crayon). I personally am ambivalent that CPD won the IGF. Frustrated. Angry, even. Not necessarily because the game is of poor design in any way, but because of what its victory means for the future state of the indie industry itself as well as what we're already seeing in mainstream gaming in general.

CPD is a game with barebones assets. It has a single game screen, a single looping 2-minute piece of music, a single background image (well, there are actually more, but they all *look* the same). It plays like a crippled version of The Incredible Machine from 198x. Sure, it has a basic physics engine, but what game doesn't these days? And a handful of basic levels. That's it. So what is its redeeming quality? Why would judges select CPD as a beacon, this year's spokesman to the world for independent gaming over all the other 175 titles entered this year?

At this point, I can imagine what you're thinking: "So what? A game doesn't need to look good to be a good game. Isn't that the point of the IGF to get away from the mindless mainstream drivel that gets masked only by cream-filled cutscenes, and show off some real innovation in gaming? And isn't CPD different? Isn't it enough that I like it?"

Sure, it's enough. CPD is a game drawn entirely in crayon lines. The player can draw crayon lines on the screen, and the lines do stuff. Look at the pretty colors! But I wouldn't call this innovation in gaming or gameplay. It is a gimmick. And it isn't even a gimmick that hasn't been seen before. Still, it's a likeable gimmick. I am forced to conclude this is why CPD won.

To me, this highlights a bittersweet reality for today's game designers: The industry is starting to be driven by gimmicks. I'll put on the doomsayer's hat for a moment and postulate this means that as games based on gimmicks pick up more and more sales, these sales will drive developers to focus more and more on gimmicks. I am worried this means innovation in gameplay will unwittingly take a back seat in indie games (to say nothing of the AAA titles).

Maybe gimmicks is what players want these days. However, I prophesy that after a console generation of this, players will ask themselves: Is there nothing innovative in game design any more? Is there nothing worth designing in games today -- in the eyes of developers and publishers -- except gimmicks? Make no mistake...

The gimmick is a lie.

____________________________
Gandalf? Yes... That's what they used to call me.
Gandalf the Grey. That was my name.
I am Gandalf the White.
And I come back to you now at the turn of the tide.

---

[Last edited by mrimer at 04-08-2008 12:11 AM]

RoboBob3000
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1982
Registered: 10-23-2003
IP: Logged

I agree that a game of such little substance shouldn't have won any major IGF award, but I've got to ask, what do you think, Mike, is the difference between gimmicks and innovation?

____________________________
http://beepsandbloops.wordpress.com/

---

[Last edited by RoboBob3000 at 04-08-2008 03:24 AM : Contracting a contraction]

stigant
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1182
Registered: 08-19-2004
IP: Logged

Would you consider a game like Tower Defense to be gimicky? It seems like a whole new type of game play to me. It doesn't particularly appeal to me, but it seems novel enough to not be a gimmick. But perhaps you see it as being derivative of RPGs and shoot-em-ups? Or something along those lines.

The Wii seems more than just a gimmick (I think you were taking a dig at the Wii and DS with your "generation of consoles" comment). I think its physical style and inclusive gameplay are as much about developing a whole new philosophy of video games as it is about a new way to interact with computers.

Also, you suggest in your analogy with Sci Fi that any hack with a new idea could get a book published to rave reviews. Since the novel ideas have started to dry up, this hasn't necessarily meant the death of the genre, so much as the authors have to actually be good at their craft to stand out. ie there's a net increase in quality of writing and story telling rather than a focus on gimmicks. Do you think that this analogy will extend to video games? Wouldn't that be hopeful, in a sense?

I once heard a comparison of Mozart and Beethoven. Both, of course are regarded as geniuses in their own rights. However, Mozart was seen largely as an inovator. He created a whole new style of music which took the world by storm. Beethoven, on the other hand, perfected that style of music, ascending new heights of innovation within the confines of the style developed 20 years earlier.

____________________________
Progress Quest Progress

---

[Last edited by stigant at 04-07-2008 07:47 PM]

Banjooie
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1645
Registered: 12-12-2004
IP: Logged

So what is it exactly that you want to see drive the contemporary gaming industry?

mrimer
Level: Legendary Smitemaster

Rank Points: 5166
Registered: 02-04-2003
IP: Logged

RoboBob3000 wrote:
I agree that a game of such little substance should have won any major IGF award,

I assume you mean "shouldn't"

but I've got to ask, what do you think, Mike, is the difference between gimmicks and innovation?

I'd say a gimmick is a feature added to a product to make it stand out. I say "product", not creation. For instance, when they start marketing a new flavor of Doritos merely called "X-13D" and tell you that you should try them, that's a gimmick. What other reason to people have to buy it than "to try something new"? When they start marketing lemon cheesecake Kit Kat bars, I'd call it a gimmick. I've had the pleasure of trying them. Gimmicks aren't necessarily bad -- go out and experience a gimmick if you want something that's different from the same old thing. Go out and market a gimmick if you want to sell to people who are tired of the same old thing. Go out and make "Crayon Physics" if you think a game simply called "Physics" won't get noticed.

Innovation has a purpose of not merely altering the experience, but providing The New Way to do things. Were the people creating the World Wide Web after a gimmick or a new way to do things? Is the iPod a gimmick, or does it demonstrate the new way that mobile user interfaces should be designed? I don't think games of the future should be drawn in crayon lines -- understanding the use of style in games is important, but judging CPD as the Standard that indie games should live up to in 2008 is highly misleading.

I think the reason why the use of gimmicks in game design is becoming so wide-spread (or alarming, I might say) is because there is less innovation each year. People thirst for creativity in both forms: innovative and gimmicky. But when the innovations are absent, then the gimmicks fill the void to gather all the more fanfare.

Just before writing this response, I tried googling "game gimmick vs innovation". Here are some insightful articles that came up:

Occam's Razor and UI Innovation

GDC: Analyzing Innovation in Indie Games

System Wars - Creative vs. Innovative

Gotta have a gimmick

stigant wrote: Would you consider a game like Tower Defense to be gimicky?

Do you mean Desktop Tower Defense? The game itself is gimmicky, but this young genre as a whole is not.

Also, you suggest in your analogy with Sci Fi that any hack with a new idea could get a book published to rave reviews. Since the novel ideas have started to dry up, this hasn't necessarily meant the death of the genre, so much as the authors have to actually be good at their craft to stand out. ie there's a net increase in quality of writing and story telling rather than a focus on gimmicks. Do you think that this analogy will extend to video games? Wouldn't that be hopeful, in a sense?

I quite agree. I think today's gaming industry is seeing this maturation in progress. It is by excellent game design, regardless of the gimmick, that games are well rated. In other words, "Come for the gimmick, stay for the good stuff." People probably would have enjoyed Portal's story with or without the portal mechanics themselves. It's the expertise in storytelling: characters, environment, and ambience, that make this game a gem.

Banjooie wrote: So what is it exactly that you want to see drive the contemporary gaming industry?

A very important question. For me personally, fun is always what it should be about. I'd hope to see the gaming industry driven by an evolution in those design concepts of what makes gaming fun. This is not an easy or simple task. If fun comes from gimmicks, that's fine. But that should not be the only source of fun. Imagine if, without game innovation, we were still only playing creative "Pong" clones. Game makers decide to be creative, so they make colored paddles and balls. And then you have multiple balls juggling onscreen. And then you pick up power-ups. We still see the creative evolution of this style of play in today's legions of Breakout clones. Now, imagine Pong/breakout games drawn in crayon lines are popular this month. It's a cool creation, and yet it's just a flavor-of-the-month.

Still, having all these ball-bouncing games is fun. But imagine there were no further design innovation, broadening game play to any other style past the ball-bouncing games. That would be a dry, dry world for gaming. Innovation is the life blood of the industry, and I would hope game designers continue to innovate to make a richer gaming universe. When you're constructing a universe of possibilities, there's room enough for all the gimmicks in the world.

____________________________
Gandalf? Yes... That's what they used to call me.
Gandalf the Grey. That was my name.
I am Gandalf the White.
And I come back to you now at the turn of the tide.

---

[Last edited by mrimer at 04-08-2008 04:30 PM]

NiroZ
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1302
Registered: 02-12-2006
IP: Logged

So what exactly are we defining as a gimmick here? A feature that sounds cool in a marketing pitch but in reality is actually not that fancy?

I don't consider portal to be gimmicky simply because the entire game is reliant upon the gameplay potential of portals, whereas with the Wii there is only one game I know of that actually puts the wiimote to good use, most just use it as a normal remote plus a light gun.

---

[Last edited by NiroZ at 04-08-2008 11:13 AM]

Banjooie
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1645
Registered: 12-12-2004
IP: Logged

I believe the problem therein is that it is significantly harder to be innovative than it is to be gimmicky.

Consider, briefly, your pong analogy. When it came to pong, there were a wide variety of untapped game ideas.

Nowadays, uh, we have genres with subgenres with /their own subgenres/. It is staggeringly difficult to come up with an entirely new genre of game, and when you do, you're faced with that problem wherein nobody actually wants to play it.

Portal would not have been nearly as successful, even though the idea of 'This is an FPS in which you do not shoot things' WAS PRETTY NEW it pretty much made it because it was prime internet meme material.

NiroZ
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1302
Registered: 02-12-2006
IP: Logged

Banjooie wrote:
'This is an FPS in which you do not shoot things'

MeckMeck GRE
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 594
Registered: 01-03-2005
IP: Logged

NiroZ wrote:

Banjooie wrote:
'This is an FPS in which you do not shoot things'

In FPS, you shoot things.
In Valve's Portal, things shoot you.

---

[Last edited by MeckMeck GRE at 04-08-2008 11:48 AM]

stigant
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1182
Registered: 08-19-2004
IP: Logged

It sounds to me that ultimately, its more a matter of degree than a qualitative difference. An innovation is just a really cool gimmick carried off very well. In some senes, THE INNOVATION was Pong. Everything since is just variations on the theme. The pessimist says "We'll never see another innovation." The optimist says that "Even small gimmicks can, little by little, add up to revolution after revolution." Its a bit like biological evolution: Every once in a while there's big step forward: Single-celled to Multi-cellular, ocean-based to land-based, reptile to mammal, monkey to human. The rest is just small mutations that eventually add up to the big change. But I think the gimmicks are in some sense necessary to the larger innovations. What would worry me is if there were no gimmicks at all.

____________________________
Progress Quest Progress

Snacko
Level: Smiter
Rank Points: 448
Registered: 06-08-2006
IP: Logged

I believe a gimmick becomes innovation when it stops being a simple idea that may or may not add anything and becomes something that is central to the gameplay.

For example, a gimmick would be the ball bouncing in Glover. There's really nothing wrong with it and the physics are impressive, but it doesn't add anything but clunkiness to an otherwise fine, if bland, platformer.

Innovation would be something like Psi-Ops' psychic powers. Without them, the game would be a normal, boring, by-the-numbers shooter with completely normal, boring, by-the-numbers design filled with normal, by-the-numbers crates, some of which explode as expected.

With your powers however, each lava pit or other environmental hazard becomes a new and fun way to kill with TK. A fortified enemy position that would normally take a grenade can be taken care of by entering the mind of a guard and getting the jump on the unsuspecting guards, etc. etc. It takes a cool idea and builds the game AROUND it rather than just adding what "seems like a neat idea" to a game that can't stand on its' own.

____________________________
Director of the Department of Orderly Disruptions

---

[Last edited by Snacko at 04-09-2008 12:14 AM]

Jatopian
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1842
Registered: 07-31-2005
IP: Logged

I think I agree with Snacko.
I note that by Snacko's definition, Portal's portals are not gimmicks but innovations. And frankly that seems reasonable to me. The portals are essential to the gameplay, and that is some really good gameplay.

____________________________
DROD has some really great music.
Make your pressure plates 3.0 style!
DROD architecture idea generator

Banjooie
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1645
Registered: 12-12-2004
IP: Logged

Does anyone know any good soap brands?

I want to agree with SNacko and that makes me feel dirty.

Beef Row
Level: Smiter
Rank Points: 471
Registered: 12-28-2005
IP: Logged

Banjooie wrote:
Does anyone know any good soap brands?

I want to agree with SNacko and that makes me feel dirty.

Are you looking for gimmicky soap or innovative soap?

Actually, it doesn't really matter because the soap is a lye.

____________________________
"Now I will repeatedly apply the happy-face rule"

mrimer
Level: Legendary Smitemaster

Rank Points: 5166
Registered: 02-04-2003
IP: Logged

Phoenix Wright: Objection!

Snacko wrote:
I believe a gimmick becomes innovation when it stops being a simple idea that may or may not add anything and becomes something that is central to the gameplay.

I would agree that a game making its distinctiveness central to its gameplay and not merely a fringe display of token difference does allow more of the depth of that distinctiveness to shine through. It appears you just have a different definition of "innovation" than I cited, but I don't think it's valid. I would not say that innovation means "central to the gameplay", while a gimmick is a "simple idea that may or may not add anything". I would not label something innovative when it stopped being a simple idea, and I would politely disagree that gimmickiness has anything to do with how close a feature is to the core of a particular game's gameplay, or how much or little it adds to a particular creation. These aspects are orthogonal and irrelevant to gimmick vs. innovation.

On the contrary, innovations are often simple ideas. They are features generalizable across any number of games without making all of these games automatically clones of the first. For instance: (rasterized) 3-D environments. This is an innovation bred in games like Wolfenstein 3D. When a game is 3D, no one assumes that being 3D is the core aspect of the game play. In addition, no one sees other 3D games as being Wolf 3D clones. The 3D element has little to nothing to do with the core aspect of almost any game on the market today, but it definitely is a Way to do things.

On the other hand, the connotation of a gimmick is that the feature in question is the distinguishing idiosyncracy of the product. "Diet Cola", for example. The "diet" is the core idea here, not the "cola". The gimmick can be the core idea. Gimmicks are often marketed as The Core Idea of a product. I can't support the argument that gimmicks are only fringe ideas having little to do with the core aspect of the product.

Other gimmicky ideas:

Super Mario Galaxy's spherical worlds. Excellent core gameplay idea. Makes it very different from other 3D platformers. But how generalizable is it to other games? Are Spherical World games going to pop up all over the place because this is a newly-uncovered fundamental aspect of how platformers should be designed? I doubt it. Rather, the fact that the spherical worlds are both different and have limited application strengthens, not weakens, the argument for gimmickiness. This is not to cheapen the beauty of the creative element of this game design in the least. That's just what a gimmick is.

Another case: Prince of Persia:SOT's time rewinding -- a cool feature and a dominant aspect of the core game play, but it isn't readily transferrable to other games without them acquiring the PoP flavor. For a proof by contradiction, consider that DROD also has limited undo, but it doesn't feel like PoP. Why not? Because undoing moves is the actual innovation. That is, "move undo" is the general mechanic that can be placed in practially any game without those games feeling at all alike. It was a simple and powerful innovation. Instead, it is PoP's particular implementation of time rewinding that is the gimmick. Calling it "gimmick" doesn't cheapen the fun or creative element of this franchise. It's just that this isn't a feature around which all future action-puzzle platformers should be designed.

Let's examine one more clear-cut (pathological) case: Nintendo's Robby the Robot. A hardware peripheral central to the play of a certain game. It was the core game play element, but not sanely usable in any other game. Gimmick, not innovation.

stigant wrote: It sounds to me that ultimately, its more a matter of degree than a qualitative difference. An innovation is just a really cool gimmick carried off very well.

This in itself sounds like a contradiction. Level of quality in a particular implementation of an idea has nothing to do with the level of innovation contained in the intrinsic idea itself. (Did "Wolf 3D" exhibit a 3D environment of high quality? Or of higher quality even than the 2D games of the era?) I would agree, though, that an innovation is widely applicable, while a gimmick has limited applicability.

____________________________
Gandalf? Yes... That's what they used to call me.
Gandalf the Grey. That was my name.
I am Gandalf the White.
And I come back to you now at the turn of the tide.

---

[Last edited by mrimer at 04-09-2008 02:03 AM]

gamer_extreme_101
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1939
Registered: 03-07-2004
IP: Logged

Question, bearing in mind that it's been in the top 10 sellers on Steam since release:

Audiosurf: Gimmick or Innovation?

(And FYI - this isn't just intended for Mike)

____________________________
--That guy with a million different aliases since he doesn't like this name anymore.

NiroZ
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1302
Registered: 02-12-2006
IP: Logged

I'm not sure I understand. Is 3D in DROD3D a gimmick?

Mattcrampy
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 2388
Registered: 05-29-2003
IP: Logged

Portal's innovation was entirely to do with the way it advanced its universe, not its orange and blue portals.

Another case: Prince of Persia:SOT's time rewinding -- a cool feature and a dominant aspect of the core game play, but it isn't readily transferrable to other games without them acquiring the PoP flavor. For a proof by contradiction, consider that DROD also has limited undo, but it doesn't feel like PoP. Why not? Because undoing moves is the actual innovation. That is, "move undo" is the general mechanic that can be placed in practially any game without those games feeling at all alike. It was a simple and powerful innovation. Instead, it is PoP's particular implementation of time rewinding that is the gimmick. Calling it "gimmick" doesn't cheapen the fun or creative element of this franchise. It's just that this isn't a feature around which all future action-puzzle platformers should be designed.

Mike:

Another case: Crayon Physics's natural physics -- a cool feature and a dominant aspect of the core game play, but it isn't readily transferrable to other games without them acquiring the Crayon Physics flavor. For a proof by contradiction, consider that LittleBigPlanet also has pieces you can put into a level that then act like they designed from the beginning, but it doesn't feel like Crayon Physics. Why not? Because user-created objects is the actual innovation. That is, "user-created objects" is the general mechanic that can be placed in practially any game without those games feeling at all alike. It was a simple and powerful innovation. Instead, it is Crayon Physics's particular implementation of time rewinding that is the gimmick. Calling it "gimmick" doesn't cheapen the fun or creative element of this game. It's just that this isn't a feature around which all future physics-based games should be designed.

____________________________
What do you call an elephant at the North Pole?

Banjooie
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1645
Registered: 12-12-2004
IP: Logged

So because I like rephrasing things rather than coming up with my own ideas--

Innovations are things that can be transferred to other games, whereas gimmicks are not?

mrimer
Level: Legendary Smitemaster

Rank Points: 5166
Registered: 02-04-2003
IP: Logged

Mattcrampy wrote:

Another case: Crayon Physics's natural physics -- a cool feature and a dominant aspect of the core game play, but it isn't readily transferrable to other games without them acquiring the Crayon Physics flavor. For a proof by contradiction, consider that LittleBigPlanet also has pieces you can put into a level that then act like they designed from the beginning, but it doesn't feel like Crayon Physics. Why not? Because user-created objects is the actual innovation. That is, "user-created objects" is the general mechanic that can be placed in practially any game without those games feeling at all alike. It was a simple and powerful innovation. Instead, it is Crayon Physics's particular implementation of time rewinding that is the gimmick. Calling it "gimmick" doesn't cheapen the fun or creative element of this game. It's just that this isn't a feature around which all future physics-based games should be designed.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. You're leaving me to interpret this comparison of yours to my original statement without any explicit commentary from yourself, so maybe I'm misunderstanding the point of your post. But as it stands, my interpretation is that what you're saying is all backwards.

Why do you say natural physics is not transferrable to other games without feeling like CPD? That doesn't make any sense at all -- including natural physics systems into games is an innovation that has gained widespread use at some level or another into just about every game out there today. In many respects, it's the Way to do things. And games with physics engines generally don't feel similar to one another at all, even though many might happen to share the same physics engine. In short, "natural physics" is the innovation, not the gimmick.

On the other hand, "user-created objects" is the gimmick of CPD. This is *not* generally transferrable to any other type of game with a physics engine in general. I claim that other games that would put user-drawn interacting pieces into their game play *would* feel like CPD. It is not a feature around which other games with physics engines should be designed. I could be wrong, but I think you got these two backwards.

____________________________
Gandalf? Yes... That's what they used to call me.
Gandalf the Grey. That was my name.
I am Gandalf the White.
And I come back to you now at the turn of the tide.

---

[Last edited by mrimer at 04-09-2008 07:01 AM]

Beef Row
Level: Smiter
Rank Points: 471
Registered: 12-28-2005
IP: Logged

mrimer wrote:
On the other hand, "user-created objects" is the gimmick of CPD. This is *not* generally transferrable to any other type of game with a physics engine in general. I claim that other games that would put user-drawn interacting pieces into their game play *would* feel like CPD. It is not a feature around which other games with physics engines should be designed.

But how do you distinguish this as a gimmick, as opposed to an innovation? It will not of course be used for EVERY game, few innovations are. User created objects are part of Spore, Line Rider, Phun, Crayon Physics, Little Big Planet, and Second Life, each in a diffrent sense just to name a few examples. By your definition, the ability for the user to generate their own objects and change their experience (and possibly the experience of others) somehow in that way seems like something which could reduce the staticness of gameworlds and foster creativity.

Giving players a game editor was clearly an innovation by your definition. It's not quite a popular one. Based on this definition, I would say user object creation is a related innovation which extends this to being part of gameplay and allows ingame world shaping to some controlled extent.

The fact that NOT ALL GAMES should use it means it relates to some genre or subset of games, not that its not innovative. IE: a comboing system is mostly useful in fighting, action and beat em up games and usually doesn't belong in adventure, puzzle, FPS or racing games. But clearly it was an innovation, and it has many places where it has been used well.

Having a good physics engine is an innovation too of course, though a less new, more established one. But the fact that you can't just say 'oh, thats in the object creator genre' hints that games using the user generated objects innovation are still relatively rare and new, and genres have not gelled around this mechanism yet. So its not old hat, its not just a gimmick. No whether this game was actually good enough to deserve an award, I haven't played it and have no idea. But at least its not just a shoot-em up with shinier ships, or a platformer with more trampolines.

EDIT: Crayon art however clearly IS just a gimmick.

____________________________
"Now I will repeatedly apply the happy-face rule"

---

[Last edited by Beef Row at 04-09-2008 07:19 AM]

Mattcrampy
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 2388
Registered: 05-29-2003
IP: Logged

mrimer wrote:

On the other hand, "user-created objects" is the gimmick of CPD. This is *not* generally transferrable to any other type of game with a physics engine in general.

Again, I put forward LittleBigPlanet, which is very similar in that players are tasked with traversing 2D environments that they themselves helped put together. Spore perhaps also qualifies, as a game that takes the creature the user has created and then figures out how it would work in the world. It's absolutely portable, as it relies on the mechanics of the game to give it context.

By your definition, "user-created objects", for want of a more descriptive term is an innovation - not one that Crayon Physics Deluxe invented, for sure, but I'd wager it won the IGF because it's a game that's right up next to current design "innovations", while being made by an indy developer.

____________________________
What do you call an elephant at the North Pole?

stigant
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1182
Registered: 08-19-2004
IP: Logged

I think part of the problem here is predicting how new, lets say, "ideas" will be incorporated into future games. You sited the spherical worlds in Mario Galaxies as a gimmick because its not something appropriate for other games. I haven't played it, but I've played other platformer games that took place on a sphere (notably there was a min-game in one of the Sonic titles that took place on a sphere).

I can imagine this idea being used to provide successful twists on other existing genres:

Imagine a golf game (or other sports games) played on (smallish) spheres. The shape of the playing field would open up novel tactics and strategies that a flat playing field could never have. Sports games in general are in a bit of a rut of ultra-realism. But if you've played a game like Wii sports you can can see the potential of making things a bit more cartoony.

Tower defense on a sphere would be interesting (in fact, one of the Jay Is Games design contests featured a tower defense type game with gravity around a circular planet. It was 2D instead of 3D, but I think the ideas could certainly be extended).

Or puzzle games on spheres...

And the idea of playing with the topology of the playing field isn't limited to spheres: tori, or projective planes, or hyperbolic planes are all possible. In fact, gravitational games which often suffer from the problem of a projectile being launched off to infinity could benefit greatly from a "pseudo hyperbolic" plane in which forces and acceleration are computed using euclidean distance, but velocity and position are computed using non-euclidean methods.

And, as Beef Row pointed out, perhaps you're not seeing appropriate applications for the user-created object gimmick/innovation. DROD for example has a number of interesting puzzles which require Beethro to use trap doors to shape traps for snakes or other baddies. It could also incorporate trap-door/platform hybrids that require the player to shape an appropriate solution to the room. etc etc.

EDIT:

All of this is to say that yes, gimmicks get noticed. Why? Because today's gimmick can be tomorrows innovation. Small mutations add up to large-scale evolution.

____________________________
Progress Quest Progress

---

[Last edited by stigant at 04-09-2008 03:07 PM]

BeefontheBone
Level: Master Delver

Rank Points: 184
Registered: 05-11-2006
IP: Logged

I'd say Portal certainly qualifies as innovation - I loved that game because it combined some excellent storytelling and humour (sorely lacking in mainstream titles these days - Sam & Max, I'm looking at you!) with a new gameplay experience - it forced me to develop entirely new skills and to think about my environment in a new way (unless you count the fact that I'd played Narbacular Drop), making the whole thing feel incredibly fresh to a relatively hardened FPS player. By contrast, the other Orange Box titles are refinements of existing genres, albeit highly polished and wonderful ones in their own right. TF2 took the core aspects of the TF experience, ditched the bits that turned out to have been getting in the way of fun (grenades, mainly) and amplified the fun quotient by essentially stylistic means. And it's great. Episode 2 was a huge leap from Ep1 principally in terms of the storytelling, although the larger environments and genuinely challenging setpiece(s) really helped too.

To steal shamelessly from the Reduced Shakespeare Company, a few recent titles on the more casual end of the spectrum have created very enjoyable games by combining two or more previous titles - Audiosurf is DDR crossed with Tetris (with visuals from Torus Trooper) and is a ton of fun - though I can't see it extending to many other applications, not that it ought to be expected to. Puzzle Quest is Bejewelled times Generic RPG Quest 7 with a hint of M:TG or another CCG, or even the skill customisation aspect of, say, Guild Wars, and it does it very well.

Also, Beef Row, you're a genius

____________________________
Braindead's Mordor Site - Dungeon crawling having nothing whatsoever to do with LotR. Plus a freeware remake in-progress, featuring descriptive text written by yours truly!

Beef Row wrote: Actually, it doesn't really matter because the soap is a lye.

lakibuk
Level: Delver

Rank Points: 93
Registered: 03-26-2006
IP: Logged

Strange,never thought of Crayon Physics being gimmicky. To me it's a fresh and unique concept. Which other games do you know,where the player can bring objects to life on the screen by drawing them?

____________________________
Karl
Blueskied Games (main site) - Gratis Spiele (german site)

mrimer
Level: Legendary Smitemaster

Rank Points: 5166
Registered: 02-04-2003
IP: Logged

lakibuk wrote:
Strange,never thought of Crayon Physics being gimmicky. To me it's a fresh and unique concept. Which other games do you know,where the player can bring objects to life on the screen by drawing them?

Gimmick has nothing to do with the level of creativity. Gimmicks can be creative. It has nothing to do with fresh or unique. Gimmicks can be fresh and unique. It's main attribute is being different -- idiosyncratic, even. And, it seems to me, level of general applicability.

____________________________
Gandalf? Yes... That's what they used to call me.
Gandalf the Grey. That was my name.
I am Gandalf the White.
And I come back to you now at the turn of the tide.

coppro
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1309
Registered: 11-24-2005
IP: Logged

In my opinion, I would define a gimmick as "some element of the product that serves as an attraction for consumers but otherwise provides no value to the product". So I would define crayon art as a gimmick, but not, say, Galaxy's planets. Likewise, I would define celebrity players in a sports game as a gimmick, but not a good storyline.

Sergenth
Level: Master Delver
Rank Points: 296
Registered: 05-04-2005
IP: Logged

My contention with this discussion is that "gimmick" is used as a general perjorative, without really defining what is gimmicky in a positive way and what is bad about gimmicks.

The various online dictionaries say that gimmick can be:

- something deceptive, like a hidden trick in a crooked carnival or gambling game

- something clever (supposedly because a deception is a result of being clever)




But the way people use it nowadays, I would hope that it is at least being used as "cheap feature", as in, it's a cheap addition to a product in order to make it seem more valuable, complicated or worthwhile than it really is. This partially satisfies the "deceptive" part of the definition.

If the word "gimmick" is just being used to represent "some nameable feature I do not like", then... well, that's something I will just ignore.

Crayon Physics does not contain any gimmicks going by the dictionary definitions. I don't believe that the game was designed to seem more than it is or that the IGF voters have seen some false promise in the game.

Instead, I believe it won IGF because A) there are a lot of indie devs and industry folk who really appreciate the success of the casual games market (want a piece of it) and B) it is the MOST ACCESSIBLE physics simulation made in game form. It is the first commercial casual physics game.

Consider the Crayon-like nature of the game as a component of the user interface. You can bring your pre-existing intuition about crayons, drawing and shapes right onto the screen. The level of abstraction is very low and this makes the game perfectly accessible to casual gamers.

Now, the real question here... is the game worthy of requiring a CaSh MoNeEZ transaction? I mean, if it had stayed within the realm of free flash games, we wouldn't be taking time to think about this.

---

[Last edited by Sergenth at 04-10-2008 04:22 AM]