Discussion: Do you need a "gimmick" to make a successful indie game? - Games

Fez, Superhot, Braid, Darkest Dungeon, Minecraft. They all had gimmicks. However consider stardew valley, super meat boy, limbo, castle crashers, axiom verge, they did not. Is it necessary?

[QUOTE=Firetornado;51984736]Fez, Superhot, Braid, Darkest Dungeon, Minecraft. They all had gimmicks. However consider stardew valley, super meat boy, limbo, castle crashers, they did not.[/QUOTE] you just answered your own question

You need an original, and creative idea to make a successful Indie game. People aren't going to pick a shitty minecraft clone when they can just play the real one.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51984744]you just answered your own question[/QUOTE] Still worth a discussion, was there another reason those game succeeded? [editline]19th March 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=B!N4RY;51984745]You need an original, and creative idea to make a successful Indie game. People aren't going to pick a shitty minecraft clone when they can just play the real one.[/QUOTE] But there really are no original ideas are there?

How do you define a gimmick? I'd argue it's when it's a mechanic or part of the game that is advertised significantly, but the result doesn't go to its fullest potential or it's poorly thought and underutilized. A lot of the games you mentioned as having "gimmicks", when I think I know what you're pointing at, are significant parts of the game where it's based around, and are arguably done well. Fez may get some shit for being boring in general or criticized due to the creator, but the mechanic it had was used throughout the game, and it was a core mechanic. Somewhat off-topic, but it's like how some people complained about the Switch's portability being a "gimmick". Is it really when the entire console is built around that mechanic? I'd argue that it's HD Rumble functionality could possibly be a gimmick, if a lot of games don't use it (same reason as to why I think the Wii U gamepad was a gimmick, because it was mostly useless and not pushed to its fullest potential).

It honestly boils down what we do count as gimmick(y) I think, also I think it is somewhat good idea to have a "gimmick" because when you got that down now all you have left is to build around that idea/gimmick.

[QUOTE=Omilinon;51984781]How do you define a gimmick? I'd argue it's when it's a mechanic or part of the game that is advertised significantly, but the result doesn't go to its fullest potential or it's poorly thought and underutilized. A lot of the games you mentioned as having "gimmicks", when I think I know what you're pointing at, are significant parts of the game where it's based around, and are arguably done well. Fez may get some shit for being boring in general or criticized due to the creator, but the mechanic it had was used throughout the game, and it was a core mechanic. Somewhat off-topic, but it's like how some people complained about the Switch's portability being a "gimmick". Is it really when the entire console is built around that mechanic? I'd argue that it's HD Rumble functionality could possibly be a gimmick, if a lot of games don't use it (same reason as to why I think the Wii U gamepad was a gimmick, because it was mostly useless and not pushed to its fullest potential).[/QUOTE] Thats a good point. I guess I just mean a really new creative core mechanic that hasn't been done before. Like can I just make a good game that is still successful but doesn't have some wacky new mechanic? [editline]19th March 2017[/editline] Also why does everyone hate phil fish? I dont know him that well apart from that 2010 documentary.

yes because fun is a gimmick [IMG]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-spU9yAj3nYA/T0ZEvhF6oLI/AAAAAAAAAe4/YgIhwOnHupk/s1600/fun+is+just+a+buzzword.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Firetornado;51984799]Thats a good point. I guess I just mean a really new creative core mechanic that hasn't been done before. Like can I just make a good game that is still successful but doesn't have some wacky new mechanic? [editline]19th March 2017[/editline] Also why does everyone hate phil fish? I dont know him that well apart from that 2010 documentary.[/QUOTE] Absolutely self-absorbed, odious, insulting personality towards all sorts of people for imagined slights, an ego the size of a blimp, [url=http://4playernetwork.com/static/media/uploads/Developers/Polytron/sh1CZqk.png]this little rant (mostly the top bit)[/url], declaring modern Japanese video games 'just suck', and a habit of insufflating every bit of drama that comes around him and the reaction to his being garbage as if it were somehow positive coverage. He's a has-been by now, who claimed he was 'getting out of games' entirely during one of his rants and went on to work on at least one other game (Superhypercube). EDIT: Also at the nexus of a lot of Zoe Quinn controversy, among other things, partly due to yelling about it a whole lot on twitter (please do not focus on this part I do not want to start a gamergate argument)

Indie games don't necessarily have to run solely on gimmicks to be successful. An interesting idea and setting that builds up from an already known type of gameplay style is really all that's needed. Gimmicks can be neat, but they're definitely not why I buy indie games. If it looks fun, I buy it. Simple as that.

If a fun, new, original way to play a game is a gimmick, then yes, it needs it.

idk about "gimmick" but in 2017 they definitely have to be unique in some way (or eye catching) to succeed in the saturated indie market. People make "minecraft but with guns" or "mario but with jokes" and then expect it to take off and wow, surprise, it doesn't. A clever gameplay hook or technical feature is one very effective way of selling people on a game but games like Transistor, Axiom Verge, and Night in the Woods spread because of their strong creative vision and polish, and because they fill niches that were empty.

Call it a gimmick if you want, but you do need [I]something[/I] to make your game stand out. Stardew Valley stood out because it was a farming harvest moon type game, but on the PC, which is apparently relatively untapped as an idea. Super Meat Boy stood out because of it's style and sense of humor, as well as having debuted on Newgrounds for free as a flash game. The art quality was [I]really[/I] nice. Also the meat boys all at once replay mechanic was satisfying and cool. Castle Crashers again, stood out because of it's unique art style and Newgrounds history. A lot of NG people would have already been behind it anyway. You also have to consider the surroundings of each game. Like, was the indie market [I]as[/I] oversaturated in 2010 when Meat Boy came out as it is now? Either way, to make a successful indie game now you need more than just to be competent. A good platformer can just be thrown in to the pile of 8 million other good platformers. You either need to have a unique gameplay mechanic, or, a really unique story and style that grips people, you need to make sure people actually know about your game, and getting youtubers to play your game doesn't hurt either.

[QUOTE=DiscoInferno;51984819]yes because fun is a gimmick [IMG]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-spU9yAj3nYA/T0ZEvhF6oLI/AAAAAAAAAe4/YgIhwOnHupk/s1600/fun+is+just+a+buzzword.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] re-reading this i understand what he's trying to say, he just worded it really poorly. I think what he means is that since fun is subjective, you shouldn't use it when critiquing games because you cannot give "fun" a concrete definition for games. You can however say a game has good graphics, well composed music or has in depth game mechanics. But using fun as a reason why a game is good doesn't actually mean anything because it's a given a game is fun if you enjoyed it...

[QUOTE=ashxu;51984979]re-reading this i understand what he's trying to say, he just worded it really poorly. I think what he means is that since fun is subjective, you shouldn't use it when critiquing games because you cannot give "fun" a concrete definition for games. You can however say a game has good graphics, well composed music or has in depth game mechanics. But using fun as a reason why a game is good doesn't actually mean anything because it's a given a game is fun if you enjoyed it...[/QUOTE] Yeah, the guy from reddit is right, but he is unlucky to come across those users who can't think of what he said for two seconds. "Fun" is not a very descriptive word, it means nothing without further explanation. What did the user above him find "fun" about Quake and Duke Nukem ? We can't tell, so he might as well not have posted at all.

[QUOTE=ashxu;51984979]re-reading this i understand what he's trying to say, he just worded it really poorly. I think what he means is that since fun is subjective, you shouldn't use it when critiquing games because you cannot give "fun" a concrete definition for games. You can however say a game has good graphics, well composed music or has in depth game mechanics. But using fun as a reason why a game is good doesn't actually mean anything because it's a given a game is fun if you enjoyed it...[/QUOTE] Yeah, I've seen a lot of people declare that certain gameplay elements of design choices "aren't fun", like "Horror games aren't fun, they're scary", when fun depends entirely on the person experiencing it. For example, Mass Effect Andromeda has a scanning mechanic where you can see the make-up of many objects in the world. Many players felt bogged down by the need to scan everything even though you only have to scan a few things which are fairly clearly marked, on the other hand I spent all my time scanning everything I could because I had to know what everything was made of and had great fun doing it. One person's fun is another person's anti-fun.

[QUOTE=B!N4RY;51984745]You need an original, and creative idea to make a successful Indie game. People aren't going to pick a shitty minecraft clone when they can just play the real one.[/QUOTE] Minecraft in the beginning was a "shitty" Infiniminer clone yet people still flocked to it

[QUOTE=Talishmar;51985600]Minecraft in the beginning was a "shitty" Infiniminer clone yet people still flocked to it[/QUOTE] Like JBMod and Garry's Mod, the injustice continues and history repeats itself

Dictionary.com defines gimmick as 'an ingenious or novel device, scheme, or stratagem, especially one designed to attract attention or increase appeal'. With that in mind, I wouldn't really describe as having a gimmick so much as a few of them just had a well defined key mechanic. Hell, in Darkest Dungeon's case I'm not even sure what that gimmick would be.

[QUOTE=Mellowbloom;51985810]Dictionary.com defines gimmick as 'an ingenious or novel device, scheme, or stratagem, especially one designed to attract attention or increase appeal'. With that in mind, I wouldn't really describe as having a gimmick so much as a few of them just had a well defined key mechanic. Hell, in Darkest Dungeon's case I'm not even sure what that gimmick would be.[/QUOTE] I think the most defining gameplay mechanic of Darkest Dungeon is the permanent consequences that can be inflicted upon your party members, and the player's task to balance these consequences and risks with the rewards. Nothing that strictly hasn't been done before. Maybe you could call that a gimmick, but really, speaking of games in terms of their gimmicks is awfully limiting. A gimmick I think is considered to be a unique or original mechanic or aspect that the game is based around on, but in reality an interesting game's original aspects and gameplay defining aspects don't have to be one and the same.

If by 'gimmick' you mean 'originality', then I'd say, yeah. It's hard to take an old concept and execute it better than everybody else without a huge budget.

[QUOTE=DiscoInferno;51984819]yes because fun is a gimmick [IMG]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-spU9yAj3nYA/T0ZEvhF6oLI/AAAAAAAAAe4/YgIhwOnHupk/s1600/fun+is+just+a+buzzword.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] Where is the sequel "scary games don't have to be scary"?

All a game needs at its core to make it meaningful and "fun" are gameplay mechanics that allow the player to feel involved and to give their actions an impact on the world. Pure gameplay like Super Meat Boy or Enter the Gungeon where your movements are very fluid and precision based then suddenly you've been playing for four hours straight beating level after level because you just can't put it down. Games that invite you to come back and improve your skill over time. On the other hand we have more story driven games with meaningful choices involving plot and character development such as Night in the Woods or The Walking Dead. Well written games that leave a more emotional impact on the player after they've finished their journey. Games that invite you to come back for more and see what you've missed and what impact your choices really had on everything had you chosen differently. There's plenty in between as well, the list goes on. There's a common theme though and this goes for every game I've ever enjoyed playing. The player has to have the illusion that they're in control. That whatever the game has going for it I'm the one trying to call the shots and the developers were aware and built the game around the audiences involvement. Whether it's story driven choices or allowing me to solve puzzles, fight my way through the environment or inherit a rundown farm. Or hit colored notes on a fretboard to good music. It's about making that personal connection between the game and the people trying to enjoy it that gives it a deeper more personal experience. That's something a lot of developers aren't able to get right in my opinion, AAA or indie. Then there's people who make shitty clones with no substance that are nothing but bare bone copies of whatever game or genre they're trying to milk. They don't even try because to them it's not about the medium or the consumer, it's about the money and not the passion.

No Man's Sky had a gimmick - and it was successful in sales, but not a successful game.

Doom 2016 didn't have anything that was really all that unique or 'gimmicky' about it all it was, was fun, and that's all it had to be. Just a solid FPS and it worked great. if you make a solid game, everything will be fine.

Making an indie game is a contest to get noticed. Doom 2016 and most AAA games don't need one because their advertising budgets mean they'll get noticed no matter what. Indie games don't need one, but they usually have one because it really helps show the game off. No gimmick doesn't mean a bad game, just it might not get noticed, which kills indie games.

[QUOTE=J!NX;51995004]Doom 2016 didn't have anything that was really all that unique or 'gimmicky' about it all it was, was fun, and that's all it had to be. Just a solid FPS and it worked great. if you make a solid game, everything will be fine.[/QUOTE] Doom's not exactly an indie game. It's also based on its already-existing IP which give it recognition off the bat.

[QUOTE=J!NX;51995004]Doom 2016 didn't have anything that was really all that unique or 'gimmicky' about it all it was, was fun, and that's all it had to be. Just a solid FPS and it worked great. if you make a solid game, everything will be fine.[/QUOTE] DOOM was published by the fourth biggest publisher in the industry right now [editline]27th March 2017[/editline] But solid design and implementation is all you need to make a game good.