Random Question: Difference Between Feature and Gimmick?

[Dae314]

​When people debate a new game, the phrase "that's just a gimmick" tends to pop up. Gimmick has an obvious negative connotation that the so called "feature" isn't as great as the devs are making it out to be, but what really separates a gimmicky feature from an actual feature?

I'm going to take a feature from FPS games: ADS (aim down sights). I think that most people will say that ADS is a feature. But you could argue that most old FPS games as well as modern games like CS show that nobody really needs ADS on anything except maybe a high magnification scope. So is it a gimmick since it's not really necessary, or is there something about ADS that makes it feature worthy? If so, what is it?

More generally, what should be the default assumption about new features? Should they be treated as gimmicks till they can be proven features, or should they be treated as features until they can be proven gimmicks? Going both ways then, what aspects of a gimmick make it a feature or what aspects of a feature make it a gimmick?

Another question along these lines is whether a gimmick really deserves its connotation. Some people talk about gimmicks like they should be cut from games, but don't all features go through a gimmicky stage before maturing into features? Sure moving around in a 3D overworld was a total gimmick when it first came out, but years down the road there's no doubting that having a 3D world is a feature. Imagine if all gimmick killers had their way in everything, wouldn't we be stuck with 2D black and white games since that's "all you need to play"? Sure that's a little radical, but it's meant to drive my point that the line between gimmick and feature is blurry and gimmicks might not deserve all the heat they get.

Anyway... what do you think?

[lolrawr]

The difference between a feature and a gimmick is that a gimmick is a feature, just one that society deems doesn't work, or works badly, or doesn't provide any significant amount of value.

It depends on the situation if we should label something a feature or gimmick first. Sometimes it's very obvious if something will or will not work. The touch pad on the back of the Vita was labeled a gimmick because we knew from the videos that there wouldn't be much use for it, and we were right(at least so far). The Wii motion controls were a feature since it sounded cool at first, but was then labeled a gimmick once we found out it wasn't 1:1.

Now there's always a chance for redemption. Nintendo did so by releasing Wii Motion + that significantly enhanced the motion controls for the Wii Mote.

Yes we should continue to use the term gimmick. It's a good way to call a company out when they try to make a quick profit by releasing something that's not good, but a gimmick.

[lemmingllama]

The way I see it, gimmicks are really bad features. For example, lets say that a company includes a button in all their games that makes the game 8-bit. It has no real value and will do nothing to improve the game, therefore it is a gimmick. Likewise, something that improves the graphics of the game to stark realism, but takes so much CPU and GPU that the game crashes is also a gimmick. Just something dumb and useless.

 

Now ADS is not a gimmick, since it adds the entertainment value of seeing your dead enemies explode in a shower of blood, and it improves your performance (especially with snipers and the like). So it improves the game and entertains me, thereby making it a feature.

 

A better example for something that could be either a feature or gimmick is a jukebox where you can listen to all the game's music. Useless and adds no entertainment value, but also something that a lot of people want and will use (at least if the music is decent)

[Xanders]

To me Gimmicks are features companies input into their products just to make a quick buck and has no value and impact at all whatsoever improvement to gameplay. Features are improvements that actually does improve gameplay and value to the game/console.

 

For my default assumption, well i don't really have one. I always assumed gimmicks and features based on type of game/console and ask myself 'Is that even Useful'. I don't have a default assumption because some gimmicks may become features after sometime while some features become gimmicks overtime going through a maturing stage. But I will make a assumption based on what I think and use it as a hypothesis, next only time can prove its a gimmick or feature.

Another way is all based on the person itself using the feature. Whether he/she finds it entertaining or not and they're all completely different like the ADS feature. I'd once argued with my relative on a game with 2 completely identical characters but has 1 small difference we fight it out in game and got a tie 1:1 over 4-6 hours

[anubissev]

not really sure how to answer