A) Help correct the inertia of history… write n! (or, if you prefer prefix notation, Fact(n) or such things) whenever natural, instead of Gamma(n+1). Gamma(n+1) is a stupid conflicting convention which we have no need to keep burdening ourselves with.
B) People are often introduced to the generalized (i.e., non-integer) factorial in terms of an integral which happens to compute it, but I don’t believe this is a very good way of motivating it as the natural extension of the factorial function.
Instead, I would motivate it this way: note that, even knowing nothing about what the factorial function is, we have that x! = x!/(n+x)! * (n+x)!/n! * n!, for every n.
With the defining properties that 0! = 1 and y! = (y - 1)! * y, we automatically know that n! = 1 * 2 * … * n and that (n + x)!/x! = (1 + x) * (2 + x) * … * (n + x), whenever n is a natural number. So our equation becomes x! = [1/(1 + x) * 2/(2 + x) * … * n/(n + x)] * (n + x)!/n!, for every natural number n. The only part we don’t know how to calculate right off-the-bat for non-integer x is that last (n+x)!/n!.
But: for the standard integer factorial, we know that (n + x)!/n! is approximately equal to n^x, whenever n is much larger than x. (We can make this precise in terms of limits (the ratio between these goes to 1 as n goes to infinity), and can even derive it solely from the “log-convexity” of the factorial function). If we choose to preserve this property even for the generalized factorial, we’re done:
We will have that x! must equal 1/(1 + x) * 2/(2 + x) * … * n/(n + x) * n^x in the limit as n goes to infinity; this defines the factorial even for non-integer x. Furthermore, our argument shows that this is the unique function with the desired properties (that 0! = 1, that n! = n * (n - 1)!, and that (n + x)!/n! ~ n^x for large n (which can be derived from log-convexity on positive inputs)). Thus, any function with the same properties is equal to this one.
In particular, the usual integral definition everyone sees can be shown to also have the same properties, and therefore is automatically equal to this one, but I think it’s much more intuitive and instructive to see where this one comes from. (Plus, the uniqueness element of the argument provides a nice proof that (1/2)! = 1/2 * sqrt(pi) as well, but I’ll save that for later…)