Gimmicks are hurting games

[sergeantz]

I've noticed a running theme on the message boards. The theme is that games as a whole aren't as good as they used to be. A lot of people claim that the focus on graphics is hurting the games. Others say it's the game length.

I think that it's the introduction of gimmicks that are hurting games. Looking at some of the newer games, it's easy to see what the gimmicks are. Gears of War had the cover system. Crackdown had the superpowers. FEAR had slomo, and Timeshift expanded on it with the timesuit powers. These are pretty good games, and they executed their gimmicks well.

Then there are games like Heavenly Sword. "Look at this! We've got awesome cutscenes! We got the Gollum guy to do it! It cost a buttload of money but it's worth it! Gameplay? What? Oh.....yeah, it's already shipping."

Then there's Conan, "Blood!!! Boobs!! Blood again!"

Producers are really focusing on their gimmicks; some of them do it well, but others miss the point. The point being that there is a WHOLE REST OF THE GAME that needs to be worked on. I think that this kind of narrow focus is really being embraced by the industry, to its detriment. Any thoughts?

 

[Girlysprite]

I think its something of all times. I also think that 'games arent as good as they used to be' isn't true.

 

[Keljeck]

Super Mario Land used the new buttons and greater graphical capabilities. Duck Hunt used the gun. NiGHTS Into Dreams... used the analog stick. Mario 64 used analog and a controlable camera. Legend of Zelda was the first to allow saves and the first game of its kind. Sonic used "blast processing" and focused on speed. Ristar focused on the grabbing. GTA focused on the free roaming of the city. Super Mario 3 had the suits. Super Mario Galaxy has the planets...

All games have gimmicks, and games have ALWAYS focused on gimmicks either to their benefit or detriment.

 

[xbeaker]

The whole games are getting worse argument is just people growing up and not getting as excited about games as they did when they were little. Keljeck is right, games have always had gimmicks. Celebrity tie ins, graphics, the amount of space the program takes up on the cartage / disk.. they are all as old as gaming itself.

 

[MrKeroChan]

The whole games are getting worse argument is just people growing up and not getting as excited about games as they did when they were little. Keljeck is right, games have always had gimmicks. Celebrity tie ins, graphics, the amount of space the program takes up on the cartage / disk.. they are all as old as gaming itself.

Indeed... we are getting older. I'm sure that there are great games out there, but my time is valued diffently than it used to be. I'm going to play with my son and spend time with my wife before I flop down for a good ol'fashioned 17 hour gamefest. Games aren't getting worse, there have always been good and bad games; and it will continue to be so. But the conbination of "gaming is now a multi-BILLION dollar worldwide business rather than a niche thing smart/nerdy/slighty anti-social people that didn't play football in high school" & the beginnings a very real generational gap between what older vs. younger gamers; makes some of us long for a simpler time when we were just trying to get the UHF prongs screwed into the TV.

 

[Hengst2404]

One need only look to the Wii and Sony's Sixaxis for the tale of the tape in game gimmicks. Nintendo has found a way, of sorts, to make a motion based controller fun, even if thus far they are the only experts at implementing the controls in games. Sony's Sixaxis, to me, is a total joke. With the exception of Lair and a few elements of Heavenly Sword, the Sixaxis has just been a "me too" control scheme that really doesn't add to its games.

Take R&C Future, they even released that some folks just don't want the Sixaxis and made it so you could turn off the controls for the relevant portions of the game. I played about 80% of the game before opting to turn them off, as they didn't really immerse me in the game and they started to get annoying after a while.

As to gimmicks are "hurting" games, well just look at the ever increasing amount of revenue that games are making. Clearly, lack of innovation and the proliferation of gimmicks aren't hurting the industry at all. You can make the purist arguments about the harm gimmicks cause games, but that is more of a personal arguments.

I would actually say that there are not enough "gimmicks" out there in games today. How many games, console shooters, utilize the same control scheme used by Halo? Nearly all of them use this scheme, across multiple platforms in fact. Gimmicks at least venture to "try" and offer something new or at the very least a new take on something already out there.

 

[xbeaker]

You?re dead on about the six-axis. Even in lair and Heavenly sword there is no need for it. The Wii it is a gimmick, but it is pretty good gimck and a great way to bring down the intimidation factor for new gamers.. ?See ma, it only has like 2 buttons!?

As for the Halo control scheme. First off Bungie was not the first to use that. It is pretty much the logical set up. And I am actually a little annoyed when other companies don?t use it. I like a standardized set up so I don?t pistol whip a friend when I meant to reload or throw a grenade when I meant to zoom in. There is a difference between innovation (a good idea for control set ups, or being able to dynamically use cover) and a gimmick (Scan your face into the game! Features the martial arts styling?s of your favorite NBA stars!)

some of us long for a simpler time when we were just trying to get the UHF prongs screwed into the TV.

They were VHF prongs. The game switch had to be set to channel 3 or 4 remember.

 

[Hengst2404]

Who was the first to use the Halo setup? By which I don't just mean dual analogs for the looking and moving. I cannot recall if Red Faction was actually the same as halo. The Halo scheme I think of is right trigger to shoot, left trigger for grenades and the weapon switching buttons as well. Perhaps Halo was just the first to take off with the scheme then. I agree that the control scheme is logical, in fact, I generally assume that all console shooters use it and can usually pick up any shooter and start playing as a result.

 

[xbeaker]

I honestly couldn't say who the true first was. But I know I have been using the same basic set-up even in PS2 games. 2 sticks, R2 fires, L2 alternate fire / grenade X is jump O is interact/reload (or is it square.. whatever the left most button is)

But as I said, it is the most logical set up for the modern controller. Each game is going to have a very slight variation based on it?s particular mechanics. Some games there is no jumping for example. And my friends and I do refer to is as ?Halo controls? because that is just the most well known. But then we also still call the Warthog a Puma.

 

[MrKeroChan]

some of us long for a simpler time when we were just trying to get the UHF prongs screwed into the TV.

They were VHF prongs. The game switch had to be set to channel 3 or 4 remember. [/quote]

Memories going i guess...but at the age of 6, they were just the screws in the back of the TV. But that begs the question... did you choose channel 3 or 4? I'm a channel 3 guy...i think most were... but did anyone choose 4?

As for the Wiimote... its a gimmick only so far as it's diiferent. The Wiimote does force you think about interacting in the game in a diffenent way. Now its implementation thus far has been less than inspiring. The Six-Axis make you turn and twist the controller in the same way we all laughed at when our clueless cousin/friend/( or wife) did when playing a racing game or something similar years ago.

 

[xbeaker]

I was Channel 4. Channel 3 is ABC, or NBC (I forget which it was back then) but it would interfere with the signal a bit. Channel 4 was clear and the game showed more clear.

And I couldn't agree more about the six-axis. Same function, yet 1 is an innovation, and the other is a gimmick.

 

[Katana314]

I really have to agree. The best games often don't really even HAVE gimmicks. Sometimes all it should take to make a game great is great level design, great pacing, great plot, and great gameplay. The thing is, when we see something like this, we think "What makes this different from every other (genre) out there?"
Things like Starcraft and Halo didn't really do much new and still managed to be really good. We should look more into what caused that...

 

[Keljeck]

Things like Starcraft and Halo didn't really do much new and still managed to be really good. We should look more into what caused that...

Gimmick: a trick or device intended to gain attention, publicity, or business.

Starcraft's gimmick was its incredibly balanced gameplay and online dimension. Halo's gimmick was the easy to learn console FPS controls and the graphics. Halo 2's gimmick was online. Halo 3's gimmick was that it was Halo.

Every game has a gimmick, its salespoint.

 

[Katana314]

I think of gimmicks more like: "Dual-wield!" "Use 15 different unique abilities!" etc. Things that would be put on the back of a box.

Incredibly balanced gameplay doesn't count as a gimmick.

 

[Kronopticon]

the gimmicks in games do make the game, but what is annoying is when they run the same gimmick for way too many sequels and if they cant decide upon 1 gimmick

 

[Keljeck]

I think of gimmicks more like: "Dual-wield!" "Use 15 different unique abilities!" etc. Things that would be put on the back of a box.

Incredibly balanced gameplay doesn't count as a gimmick.

Then Starcraft's gimmick was that it was online. I'm sure there were other new features they touted. Fact remains, all games have gimmicks. What matters is how they are utilized.

If we got rid of gimmicks THAT would hurt games.

 

[xbeaker]

Starcraft's gimick (if you want to call it that) was 3 races. They were the first to do 3 seperate and distinct types of armies. But I really think that is more of innovation and quality game. A real gimick is something that catches your eye for it's 'cool' factor, but ultimately doesn't add anything substanital to the game. Another example is Eye of Judgement. The hologram (whatever you want to call it) is a gimmick on top of what is essentially a run of the mill CCG.

P.S. Kronopticon, your avatar is giving me a headache

 

[NickCaligo42]

Gimmick or core mechanic?

There's a principle in game design called the "Core Mechanic" of the game. It's essentially the heart and soul of the game's gameplay. If you've ever played Magic: The Gathering, the collectible trading card game, this concept is easy to understand; you have to decide what your deck does and then build it around that concept and try and create synergy between its various elements. Video games are no different. All the well-executed "gimmicks" that you listed are in fact core mechanics with a decent amount of synergy behind them, although I'd debate Gears of War's quality as anything, let alone a game.

I'd call the "OMGLOOKBOOBS!" thing more a matter of a lack of taste; something that tends to go hand-in-hand with low intellect, which results in relatively poor design skills. What hurts these games is their designers' intense ignorance of game design principles such as core mechanics. They leap right into designing the game without a clear idea in mind of what the game IS but a decent idea of the story or the genre of game they're making. Heavenly Sword is a prime example. At its heart it's a pretentious God of War ripoff that, being that the designers never really THOUGHT about the mechanics involved, never fully capitalized on any of it.

What I'd say is really hurting the industry right now, apart from the fact that most designers are ignorant puss-heads who couldn't design their way out of a paper bag, is a severe lack of diversity and imagination. It's striking to me that the industry favors artists with broad portfolios who can fulfill whatever concept art needs they might run accross but all they REALLY want is the same hard-edged, dirty-looking crap, mutilated corpses, and grotesque aliens and demons that've been recycled since Doom and Resident Evil. Looking ahead it seems we have a cavalcade of horror games ahead of us; it seems as though designers want to make their games art, but the only way they know HOW to elicit an emotional reaction is to frighten and shock being that theres a lot of back experience to draw off of and it's very easy to get that one being that you can put the player into the character's shoes. Still, you have to admit that they do that almost too much as it is; even Bioshock, one of the most delightfully original games of the year, depends on the occasional cheap scare and malformed corpse. That's just ONE example. There's many, many others. I needn't remind anyone of the dozens of terrible JRPGs that get released for every half-decent Final Fantasy.

 

[ccesarano]

Then there's Conan, "Blood!!! Boobs!! Blood again!"

Yeah, sounds like Conan as written by Robert E. Howard to me. So what's your problem with it again?

As I think someone mentioned above, there's a difference between gimmick and mechanic. The cover system of Gears of War was a mechanic of gameplay. It's the central engine that drives the rest of the game, really. A gimmick is basically like a random attachement that is used to sell the game, and then ends up being all there is to it. While the cover system was a "gimmick of advertisement", it ended up feeling completely natural when playing the game. To such a point that, while playing Call of Duty 4 or other tactical shooters, I often feel like pressing A to cover behind a pillar or some other object simply because, well, it was a mechanic that worked well.

I'd say going from body to body in Jericho is more of a gimmick than a mechanic.

 

[Arbre]

I've noticed a running theme on the message boards. The theme is that games as a whole aren't as good as they used to be. A lot of people claim that the focus on graphics is hurting the games. Others say it's the game length.

I think that it's the introduction of gimmicks that are hurting games. Looking at some of the newer games, it's easy to see what the gimmicks are. Gears of War had the cover system. Crackdown had the superpowers. FEAR had slomo, and Timeshift expanded on it with the timesuit powers. These are pretty good games, and they executed their gimmicks well.

Then there are games like Heavenly Sword. "Look at this! We've got awesome cutscenes! We got the Gollum guy to do it! It cost a buttload of money but it's worth it! Gameplay? What? Oh.....yeah, it's already shipping."

Then there's Conan, "Blood!!! Boobs!! Blood again!"

Producers are really focusing on their gimmicks; some of them do it well, but others miss the point. The point being that there is a WHOLE REST OF THE GAME that needs to be worked on. I think that this kind of narrow focus is really being embraced by the industry, to its detriment. Any thoughts?

When your game is good, but not that good enough, putting the emphasis on the gimmick is a marketing tool that helps.
If the gimmick is good, it can actually start a trend.
Sometimes, it has nothing to do with marketing, and is a sheer evolution.

Look which game started to use the very cinematic off-axis third camera perspective intensively.
Globally, I'd say the Spinter Cells and Shadow of Colossus, but I could be missing another one.
Gimmick? Maybe. But it's class.