Although it's an old question, but perhaps this insight would be beneficial to those stumbling on this question.
Gauss wasn't the first to derive this formula per se.
Algebraically, you'd see "how" to derive the formula by working through Gauss' derivation. Purely by observation you'd see that you can pair up the extreme values to get the same sum and just count/multiply them out and divide the result by two.
However, this formula was well known in ancient Greece too. Pythagoreans had a habit of "visualizing" numbers by arranging discs/stones in particular patterns.
A triangular number was that which could be arranged in a triangle:
* * *
* * * *
* * *
1 3 6
A square number was that which could be arranged in a square (hence our usage of $x$ squared):
* * * * * *
* * * * *
* * *
1 4 9
Now, if you see carefully, $6 = 1 + 2 + 3$ . By extension $10 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4$ and so on.
However, you can easily see the relation between a triangular number and a corresponding square number, by doubling the triangle
* + + + +
* * + + + => 2 x T(10) = S(4) + 4 = 4 x 5
* * * + +
* * * * +
Doubling gives you a rectangle - you can get back the triangle simply by observing that
$2 \cdot T(n) = n(n+1) => T(n) = \frac{n(n+1)}{2}$
Triangular number just happen to arrange themselves in a simple pattern of an arithmetic progression of consecutive numbers.
What Gauss did was think of this algebraically. We credit Gauss with this story, but there isn't a reason to. I'd say we look at the story from the POV of a "smart kid" who may or may not have known about the Greek history of numbers but was able to "sit back and think" vs. attacking the problem in a brute force fashion.
(Side note: The formula for sum of squares took some work and isn't really immediately apparent. I believe Archimedes derived it successfully.)