| S.T.A.G.E. said:
The Wii Mote made gaming easier for families who hate the complexities of gaming. It ushered in competition from Microsoft and Sony to see who could dumb down gaming the most. As usual if a proven novelty shows itself large sums of money and casuals with fleeting interest shall follow. Expect Nintendo to pander to the core this generation since the casuals are used up. Even though Nintendo takes gimmicks seriously, it like most gimmicks will be a temporary fix. Microsoft took the rest of Nintendos casual momentum with their gimmick in 2010 with the Kinect and Nintendo experienced their first loss in 2011. |
The losses in 2011 aren't due to Kinect, to be clear Nintendo's downward curve in 2011 is due to phasing out in lieue of 3DS and WiiU. I.e. it's Nintendo's doing.
Another point I need to make is that simpler is not necessarily worse. For a traditional gamer, certainly you want to keep a more high-fidelity gameplay experience, and wouldn't want new unproven techs to hinder your enjoyment. But to keep in mind traditional gamers are not the only market in existence, and emerging technologies that appeal to a less experienced market does not make said technology without value. As a matter of fact, maybe thanks to that casual market, one day, you'll be controlling characters on screen more organically (as archbrix said).
The definition of gimmick you provided is absolutely fine by me. If the Wiimote is a gimmick, then a gimmick is something I celebrate, so long as it brings value (which motion controls do, to many people, though I'll admit not including you). Problem is, the verbal connotation of gimmick usually implies worthless, so which one do you go by? There's one of the two possibilities you can be certain I starkly dissagree with.
