Are "gimmicks" such horrible things?

[Toriver]

Really, the question says it all.

I tend to see that just about everything done to improve technology that isn't on the revolutionary level of the unveiling of the PC itself is being written off as a "gimmick" that isn't worth anyone's time. I've seen the word used for motion controls, 3D, various gameplay innovations in games themselves, and even for such ideas as HD and DLC. When the word is used, 90 percent of the time it's meant as a pejorative term. My question is, are these things really bad? Innovations don't have to be perfect or implemented well in absolutely everything to be improvements. For the most pioneering innovations, you really can't expect software/entertainment producers to know exactly how best to work with the innovation right off the bat. It's still a relatively new technology or concept, and it may take some time to get used to. New things will have those kinds of implementations before they produce that magnum opus that proves their worth. Now, it's just fine to not like these things, but I don't see much sense in dismissing technology or innovations with a lot of potential as fads while we're still testing how we can best harness that potential.

What do you all think on the subject?

 

[Soviet Steve]

I think that a unique feature that adds nothing but a blurb to the marketing is a gimmick and that gimmicks in this sense harms everyone but the marketing department.

 

[crudus]

A gimmick is just making things shiny because people like shiny things rather than actually making a better product. Motion controls are just misused at the moment, they aren't a gimmick. 3D is a gimmick. HD is a niche market. DLC is getting to the point where it is just used for evil. I can see where DLC would be good, but it isn't going to happen.

Gimmicks are a bad thing because markets get fixated on them until the money dries up. The gimmicks themselves don't even improve on themselves most of the time. The rest of us are just waiting around for actual innovation rather than a continuation of a gimmick.

 

[chstens]

Depends on what you mean by gimmick. If you mean retarded motion controls, then yes, it's bad. If you mean the gravity gun from Half-Life 2, then no, gimmicks are not necesarily a bad thing. Another example of gimmicks done well is Portal, they've taken one mechanic and turned it into a puzzle platformer.

 

[Kyrian007]

Innovation is good, you have a point there. Innovation that someone doesn't like can be labeled a gimmick, but that does not make it bad. Its how it's used that's bad, or good. Many people hate motion controls, but it's the terrible use of them that really bugs most folks. They can be used to make even a "hardcore" game more immersive, but very rarely are used well. So people just write it off as bad. But 3D isn't an innovation, it is simply a gimmick used to inflate prices of movies to reap bigger profits. Stereoscopic 3D was invented in the 19th century. Recent film 3d adaptations go back to the 50's. Hardly innovative when current 3d technology is just the same thing with better resolution (and muted colors and no focus depth.)

 

[LordRoyal]

I think that a unique feature that adds nothing but a blurb to the marketing is a gimmick and that gimmicks in this sense harms everyone but the marketing department.

Quoted for emphasis.

Gimmicks are just there to be flashy but lack any sort of substance, yes they are a bad thing because the work that goes into a gimmick could have gone into something more meaningful.

 

[Toriver]

Innovation is good, you have a point there. Innovation that someone doesn't like can be labeled a gimmick, but that does not make it bad. Its how it's used that's bad, or good. Many people hate motion controls, but it's the terrible use of them that really bugs most folks. They can be used to make even a "hardcore" game more immersive, but very rarely are used well. So people just write it off as bad.

And that's basically the point I was trying to make, written better. Thanks!

But 3D isn't an innovation, it is simply a gimmick used to inflate prices of movies to reap bigger profits. Stereoscopic 3D was invented in the 19th century. Recent film 3d adaptations go back to the 50's. Hardly innovative when current 3d technology is just the same thing with better resolution (and muted colors and no focus depth.)

But again, is a bad movie in 3D the fault of 3D itself, or the fault of the studio for either implementing it poorly or not considering how the movie would also look in 2D? If there are technical problems with 3D that run across most or all 3D films, sure, it would make sense to say 3D is at fault for that. But if a studio decides to put in a certain shot to wow the crowd seeing the 3D film without taking into account that it would look like crap in 2D, or if they put 3D on a movie that doesn't really have any business being in 3D, I'd say that that's a fault of the producer, not the gimmick.

 

[Hoplon]

But 3D isn't an innovation, it is simply a gimmick used to inflate prices of movies to reap bigger profits. Stereoscopic 3D was invented in the 19th century. Recent film 3d adaptations go back to the 50's. Hardly innovative when current 3d technology is just the same thing with better resolution (and muted colors and no focus depth.)

But again, is a bad movie in 3D the fault of 3D itself, or the fault of the studio for either implementing it poorly or not considering how the movie would also look in 2D? If there are technical problems with 3D that run across most or all 3D films, sure, it would make sense to say 3D is at fault for that. But if a studio decides to put in a certain shot to wow the crowd seeing the 3D film without taking into account that it would look like crap in 2D, or if they put 3D on a movie that doesn't really have any business being in 3D, I'd say that that's a fault of the producer, not the gimmick.

Yes, because it's not an actual volumetric display it's a badly done special effect, it can't be anything other than that because visual trick that only works on a percentage of people.

These things are called gimmicks because they are the idea of a really good tech but not actually that tech at all but a cheap (results wise, not always price wise) shitty pretending to be that thing, for instance colourisation vs. colour film.

 

[Thaluikhain]

"Gimmick" isn't usually used to mean something useful.

If you come up with something new and it actually improves things, it's an innovation, an enhancement, something along those lines.

If you come up with something that doesn't really improve things, it's a gimmick.

I'd personally add that you tend to have to make a fuss about something for it to be called a gimmick. If you add something that may or may not do anything useful, but acknowledge the fact that it might not, fair enough.

 

[babinro]

Gimmicks can ultimately lead to some good...it's all about experimentation and seeing what catches on even though there was really no demand for it.

For example I would consider the rumble feature on controllers to be a successful gimmick.

 

[Phishfood]

I think that a unique feature that adds nothing but a blurb to the marketing is a gimmick and that gimmicks in this sense harms everyone but the marketing department.

Pretty much this. Innovation is good. Try a new idea BUT your idea must add something. I'm going to name 2 innovations, one I think of as a gimmick and one was a great idea that is now overused and thus has become a gimmick. The two are 3d and bullet time. When it was new, bullet time was awesome. It added a new facet to the Matrix and Max Payne, made them both stand out. Ok, now everyone and their dog uses it it has become annoying but that is a different matter.

3D on the other hand, adds no appreciable value to the experience. I went to see Green Hornet in "3d"* and it was awful. Appart from the credits and a gratuitous "look, we have 3d!" moment the effect was barely noticeable and when it was noticeable all it did was distract.

Short version: Gimmicks are innovation done wrong.

* 3d in quotes since it wasn't filmed in 3d, just edited in the post.

 

[Kyrian007]

Innovation is good, you have a point there. Innovation that someone doesn't like can be labeled a gimmick, but that does not make it bad. Its how it's used that's bad, or good. Many people hate motion controls, but it's the terrible use of them that really bugs most folks. They can be used to make even a "hardcore" game more immersive, but very rarely are used well. So people just write it off as bad.

And that's basically the point I was trying to make, written better. Thanks!

But 3D isn't an innovation, it is simply a gimmick used to inflate prices of movies to reap bigger profits. Stereoscopic 3D was invented in the 19th century. Recent film 3d adaptations go back to the 50's. Hardly innovative when current 3d technology is just the same thing with better resolution (and muted colors and no focus depth.)

But again, is a bad movie in 3D the fault of 3D itself, or the fault of the studio for either implementing it poorly or not considering how the movie would also look in 2D? If there are technical problems with 3D that run across most or all 3D films, sure, it would make sense to say 3D is at fault for that. But if a studio decides to put in a certain shot to wow the crowd seeing the 3D film without taking into account that it would look like crap in 2D, or if they put 3D on a movie that doesn't really have any business being in 3D, I'd say that that's a fault of the producer, not the gimmick.

You're right, a bad movie is a bad movie, regardless of 3d or not. But my opinion is, 3d makes a good movie bad, and a bad movie completely unwatchable (not to mention more expensive.) Current stereoscopic 3d technology is bad because it is incapable of enhancing a movie/tv/videogame experience in any way. All it does is drop the focus depth down to about 6 inches and have polarized lenses mute the colors. For the benefit of seeing blurry, insubstantial, optical effects provide a very poor illusion of depth. I need no vision correction and see objects in real life in very clear detail. In a 3d film I see objects that are supposed to "pop" like I'm seeing them thru someone's prescription glasses. I'd much rather not have to wear glasses and see images in crystal clear digital 2d full color spectrum. Corrected to have a basically infinite focus depth.

 

[Smooth Operator]

The gimmicks alone aren't the issue, it's the accountant approach to using them "we spent money on gimmicks so fuck quality", and the biggest issue are the ignorant monkey masses that eat it all up.

Or in short gimmicks bad.

 

[Craorach]

The problem with gimmicks is that they end up being the whole point of production. Take Wii games for example..how many terrible shovelware titles were made with their primary goal being to exploit the control method?

3D is the same.. movies are constantly produced in bad 3D and we're charged extra to watch them.

Worse, gimmicks usually work actively against the enjoyment of those who do nto want to use them. I cannot see 3d, and can't watch some movies in my local theater without it.

 

[RatRace123]

They are if they're the only thing an otherwise bland, forgettable or even terrible product has going for it. They also set a precedent among other developers.
"Oh, our product sucks but so long as we add this flashy new thing into it it'll still be successful. Ha ha we're so smart, brain storming session over, pass the cocaine bucket!".

 

[Dr_Pie]

Am I the only person here who likes the Wii and it's motion controls? Sure, I still prefer traditional pads over it, and keyboard and mouse over that, but I still like motion controls, when it's implemented well. No More Heroes (&2), Red Steel (&2), Metroid, Skyward Sword and many others do a really good job of utilising motion controls. Would they be better with a traditional pad, I don't know (I've not played NmH: HP yet)

As for 3D, I like that as well, but again only when implemented well. Avatar looked great in 3D (even if the film did suck), How to Train your Dragon, Coraline, Polar Express, My Bloody Valentine, Up and Space Station 3D are some examples of really good 3D.

So in conclusion, it's up to the individual to decide how 'gimmicky' a gimmick is.

 

[Scrustle]

I think of gimmick as a feature which is included to try and set something apart from the crowd. A lot of the time it's ill conceived and for little other purpose than to simply mark the thing apart, not to actually make any progress in terms of the medium as a whole. But that's not always true. If enough thought went in to the idea and it's implementation then it can be great. It can be the essence of innovation. I think perhaps that's why people tend to use gimmick as a derogatory term. If something is ill conceived people call it a gimmick, but if it's actually good then it's called innovation. I say both are examples of a gimmick but just treated in a different way. For example you could say the slo-mo "speedbreaker" thing they used to have in NFS games was an ill conceived gimmick, while the ethereal leaping from car to car mechanic in Driver San Fancisco is an example of a gimmick that pulled off well and really made a difference.