There has been lots of talk about gimmicks lately, revolving around the 3DS, and before that Kinect. What is a gimmick? Why do some people who loved the Wii think that 3DS or Kinect are a gimmick? Something that is a gimmick or something that becomes accepted and becomes a new standard are both innovations; they both come from companies wanting to try something new and shake up the established order.

It's a question of the ORIGIN of the innovation. Is it software driven? Or is it hardware driven? Do the games dictate the innovative hardware? Or does innovative hardware dictate the games? If the games drive the creation of new hardware or peripherals, that could become a new gaming experience and a big hit. If the hardware is invented first, and then games are designed to work with the new hardware, the best it can do is marginally improve the experience.

So if the innovative hardware was designed to match the game, then it stands to reason that there are games we can name that will never be able to "go back" and do without the innovation. For example:

D-pad with 2D plaformers

Analog stick with 3D platformers

DS stylus with Nintendogs and Brain Age

Wii remote with local multiplayer sports and party games

Balance board with fitness games

Or, we could ask questions about what would make a game better, and have the answer be what the innovation does.

Donkey Kong arcade was controlled with a joystick. What would make Donkey Kong better? Limiting the inputs to left, right, up and down, correlating to the horizontal beams and vertical ladders.

What would make a pet sim a lot of fun? Being able to actually touch and physically interact with the pets.

What would make a fitness game worthwhile? Being able to input your weight, position and balance.

Controllers that weren't designed for games in the first place rarely have any hold on games or genres. Keyboard and mouse hasn't even held any sway over FPS games. It has held sway over strategy games or sims where playing consists of clicking, dragging and navigating menus, which is what they are designed for. The iPhone touch screen can't really be associated with any particular game or type of game. It wasn't designed for games.

The question for 3DS or Kinect or anything else is not "what games will be designed for it?" but rather "what games was it designed for?"

Kinect has Kinect Adventures as the pack-in software. Are the games in KA things that Kinect was designed for? Or are they just a group of things that work with Kinect? Breakout certainly isn't made better by being in 3D and being body-controlled. The balance board was designed for things like the rapids and roller coaster games. Kinect Adventures sales are falling towards Wii Fit Plus sales in recent weeks. Even things like physically jumping or kicking that you can't do in other games: was Kinect designed for them, or do they simply work for Kinect?

Nintendo have called out 3D Mario and flying games as things where the gameplay will be improved by 3D. We'll know this is a significant improvement if there is no 3D Mario game for Wii's successor, which Nintendo have indicated won't be 3D. Is hitting a block hard without 3D visuals? Not in a side-scroller. Even for 3D Mario, Nintendo addressed this problem in the past by making objects cast shadows directly down. Is flying through rings hard? Nintendo addressed this problem in the past by having you fly between tall objects and fly close to the ground, so that distance and location is easier to judge. So was 3DS designed for 3D Mario and flying games, or do those games simply work on 3DS?

So Kinect certainly has promise. The problem is that the games it seems designed for, like hacky sack or hopscotch, aren't improved by being virtual. If you have enough space for Kinect, you have enough space for actual hacky sack or hopscotch. And 3DS is "safe." There is a 100% certainty of marginal improvement in 3D Mario and flying games. But I believe we'll see 3D Mario and flying games for Wii's successor, proving that even from Nintendo's view they are ONLY marginal improvements, and not really things that 3DS was designed specifically for.

I've always thought of 'rumble' as a gimmick even when it didn't waste battery power. I only ever switch it on to pleasantly remind me how much money Sony lost when they stole it.

Edit:  When you add a bunch of crap to something that isn't useful just to up the price or make it look better.  That's my idea of a gimmick.  Wii, Kinect, Move, and 3DS all have a function and can serve a purpose in a variety of ways so to me they are not gimmicks.  The above picture is a gimmick in its rawest form.  Over-sized, unnecessary, overpriced, and just plain dumb.

I'll second this. Gimmickry is when you add stuff strictly for the sake of adding stuff

What is a gimminck? (breaks glass) A miserable little pile of secrets!

Digging deeper. Very interesting. Lets get the definitions out of the way:

1. an ingenious or novel mechanical device

2. an important feature that is not immediately apparent

3. an ingenious and usually new scheme or angle

4. a trick or device used to attract business or attention <a marketing gimmick>

Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gimmick

As for whether a "gimmick" is software or hardware is easily answered. It can be both. Super Mario 64 was just as much a gimmick as the Nintendo Wii is. Both are "an ingenious and usually new scheme or angle" on how the play of a video game is done.

Of course, this is not the real question. From:

It's a question of the ORIGIN of the innovation. Is it software driven? Or is it hardware driven? Do the games dictate the innovative hardware? Or does innovative hardware dictate the games?

This is the heart of the matter. Does the hardware sell the software? Does the software sell the hardware?

You will not find the answer looking only at today or the PS2 generation. You need to look further back at the Sega Dreamcast, Sega CD, Jaguar, and Neo Geo.

All of the aforementioned were gimmicky hardware who were the most powerful of their time. Yet, they were outlasted by the technologically inferior SNES and Sega Genesis.

Looking at the history, the games and where the developers see the games going drives the innovation. Thus forth, the software drives the innovation. Hardware is simply a means to the end of running the software for the mass market consumer to play the game.

No one buys hardware for hardware's sake. Hardware is bought solely to run software. Hardware is a means, never an end.

If you think hardware is an end in of itself, then you are surely still playing the Sega Dreamcast because it was years ahead of it's time...Wait, what new games are coming out for the Dreamcast?

An innovation that you despise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmwind

Not to mention there is at least ONE new game for the Dreamcast every year lol

OT: The problem has never been about the actual term gimmick rather than the negative context people obviously put it in, they use it for term number four in that websters definition.  Typcial statements being "motion controls are a gimmick to trick stupid casuals into buying Wii" but it's funny when these same individuals go "true motion gaming is here!" when another company talks about motion controls.

It's rather silly this is even an issue, someone shitting on a system calling it a "gimmick" in the negative context is obviously trying to belittle the system without much substance to back it up cause you'll never see them explain themselves, ala classic trolling, now if more people used it in the term that the gimmick is new, fresh, pulls people in, etc there really wouldn't be an issue, technically if someone could prove that a big feature is a gimmick in the sense it's just for marketing, that would be fine too, but things such as those don't really happen with hardware rather software, like movie games, it's obvious it's not trying to sell you on being a good game but rather its a marketing gimmick to get fans of the movie to buy the game.

Motion control used to make you feel more "in the game" or for fitness and sports games ISN'T a gimmick.

3D used to give sense of depth and more immersion in the game and any other possible benefit to gameplay ISN'T a gimmick.

Force Feedback ISN'T a gimmick.

Rumble IS almost always a gimmick (the exception is when a rumble would actually be a proper feedback, for example driving on the gravel).

3D graphics popping out IS a gimmick.

... So 3D can be either good or gimmicky (and a game could even use it in both ways), it all depends on how it's used.

everything which doesnt work to the best of its capabilities.

like innacurate motion controls.