surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
I have a hard time taking anyone who claims to be "hardcore" seriously to begin with, but when said "hardcores" hate on a game like this, whose trial and error gameplay is rooted in the old-school method of dying until you learn a level, it's just ridiculous.
Commandant oreo - how is it a bad thing that relatively independent developers can come out with small budget games that wind up enjoying the same popularity that big-budget wankfests tend to get? I'm not saying all big-budget games are bad - far from it - but the amount of money you dump into a project shouldn't have the same leverage as just having a good idea and implementing it well.
Shinta - I mostly agree with this. However jim hardly gave rovio 'a complete free pass', he did say that they had acted like dickbags. How that has any effect on the quality of the game they made, I don't know - and considering the entire topic is based around whether or not the game is shit, I don't see the reasoning behind bringing it up as a major point of contention.
Shinta - I mostly agree with this. However jim hardly gave rovio 'a complete free pass', he did say that they had acted like dickbags. How that has any effect on the quality of the game they made, I don't know - and considering the entire topic is based around whether or not the game is shit, I don't see the reasoning behind bringing it up as a major point of contention.
The problem with comparing angry birds to games like tetris, and pacman, is those games have a clearly defined skill set. Angry birds skill set is defined by trial and error until you finally get it right. Even if you knew the proper way to solve just about any puzzle in the game, it still might take you 5 or 6 tries to actually complete it. Any game that simply devolves to trial and error, and requires no skill at all shouldn't be compared with some of the pillars of gaming history. I have no problem with mobile gaming, I own an iphone with over 70 games currently installed. There are however, much better examples of casual games which actually have a well defined skill requirement. Tiny Wings, Fruit Ninja, super hook worlds, fuck even doodle jump offer more, and reward actual skill at the game in a much more satisfying way. Ask 10 angry birds players what it is they enjoy so much about the game, and I'll bet MAYBE 1 might actually say something related to gameplay.
I just finished Deus Ex HR, and I also just finished the new Angry Birds level update. I'll fight anyone who has a problem with this :)
My three year old kicks ass at Angry Birds. No point, but I wanted you all to know. And now you all know, you can't unknow it.
I went into a book store and was all like "wow what a cute bird doll thing" and they were like "It's angry birds bitch. Everybody heard about angry birds, what are you stupid or something?" and I played it off I was all like "nah I'm just tickling your balls there, of course I know what angry birds is." and then I went home and learned that angry birds is a sh*t game mostly because it's on the ipod and also because I already played that game for free on the internet under a different name back in middleschool.
The reason it's hated is because it is simply average, and has gotten far more popularity than it should have. I hate when people go and orgasm about how awesome the game is when a short search on the app store could turn up something far better.
You could even compare it to the mainstream market. I'm kind of new to battlefield, but I have noticed that the "AWESOME DESTRUCTION PHYSICS", are far inferior to a game that came out far before it, red faction guerilla. Is bad company 2 terrible? Not at all, but one of it's major selling points is far overrated.
The problem is that popular isn't always the best, and hearing people say things that you know are false is really fucking annoying.
You could even compare it to the mainstream market. I'm kind of new to battlefield, but I have noticed that the "AWESOME DESTRUCTION PHYSICS", are far inferior to a game that came out far before it, red faction guerilla. Is bad company 2 terrible? Not at all, but one of it's major selling points is far overrated.
The problem is that popular isn't always the best, and hearing people say things that you know are false is really fucking annoying.
The argument of Angry Birds, or ANY video games in that case, stealing from another game is extremely moronic. Look at it this way, pick up a book, now what do you say are the chances that book is 100% original?
Also I'd like to note Geometry Wars, people said, "Hey this game is a lot like Robotron." Yet it's creator hadn't even realized that fact during GW's creation.
One more example music. Any music, even classical. Yeah, Beethoven took ideas from other composers. Hell, some composers (Like Mozart's dad took the name of another musician [Haydn] to promote their works.) And one of the most common pieces of advice jazz musicians give to others when it comes to soloing is to steal. (Seriously, it's improvised music anyways.) You can't trademark melodies or chord changes, you can't own music. Likewise you can't own game design. (See: The tons of paintings of mountains.)
Angry Birds did nothing wrong. If you don't like it, that alright. But if you don't like it and thus think it shouldn't deserve to exist, you're a moron. Sure the success of the game may concern some but why the hell does all of the blame go towards just one game? Surely, even if Angry Birds was 99% of the iOS game sales market then the games industry would only have Angry Birds to compete with and (even then) people never only play one game.
I'm sure some idiot will find something I said to argue over in order to decredit everything I just said. Let's see who that idiot is.
Also I'd like to note Geometry Wars, people said, "Hey this game is a lot like Robotron." Yet it's creator hadn't even realized that fact during GW's creation.
One more example music. Any music, even classical. Yeah, Beethoven took ideas from other composers. Hell, some composers (Like Mozart's dad took the name of another musician [Haydn] to promote their works.) And one of the most common pieces of advice jazz musicians give to others when it comes to soloing is to steal. (Seriously, it's improvised music anyways.) You can't trademark melodies or chord changes, you can't own music. Likewise you can't own game design. (See: The tons of paintings of mountains.)
Angry Birds did nothing wrong. If you don't like it, that alright. But if you don't like it and thus think it shouldn't deserve to exist, you're a moron. Sure the success of the game may concern some but why the hell does all of the blame go towards just one game? Surely, even if Angry Birds was 99% of the iOS game sales market then the games industry would only have Angry Birds to compete with and (even then) people never only play one game.
I'm sure some idiot will find something I said to argue over in order to decredit everything I just said. Let's see who that idiot is.
Ok, crush the castle fucking sucks. Seriously. Angry birds is just the sane type game but does it better. It's like saying NBA 2K11 is a ripoff of Double Dribble.
When people say they hate something it means they don't like it. Making these idiotic videos about proving them wrong because instead of phrasing it like an opinion, rather they state as fact. It's all about looking below the surface and knowing what this video is trying to do is make it a fact that Angry Birds is a good game, but that can never be fact. It's personal preference and the point is that the haters don't like it and the people who like it are going to continue liking it. Why force other people to see one side, or the other.
On that note I have never noticed an Angry birds hater in my life.
On that note I have never noticed an Angry birds hater in my life.
I liked crush the castle and I thought i was goig to like angry birds because of it, i didn't. I think there is more variety in CTC. Especially CTC2.
I didnt understand the appeal because of that. To me it is just another farmville game where it just ends up being addictive and that is all.
I didnt understand the appeal because of that. To me it is just another farmville game where it just ends up being addictive and that is all.
There's more to it than that. It's Rovio's attitude that has garnered them their negativity, they made one successful game, and they act like they know everything. There's also that whole portables are dying nonsense, where people are devaluing portable gaming devices saying they will disappear because of smart phones. It's not really about the game it's about the content that surrounds it. As for hating it, hating something takes energy, and for the most part it's best to avoid it. If I'm going to hate something it's going to have to do with some sort of injustice, hating a videogame is just silly.
"...nor is pac man or tetris, and i place angry birds right up there with those titles."
how can you accuse anyone of being histrionic when you come out with twaddle like that? the former games were original, revolutionary, seminal titles. angry birds was a mediocre game that got lucky, and history will remember it as just that, if at all, whereas the likes of tetris and pac man will live on FOREVER.
seriously jim, what were you thinking?
how can you accuse anyone of being histrionic when you come out with twaddle like that? the former games were original, revolutionary, seminal titles. angry birds was a mediocre game that got lucky, and history will remember it as just that, if at all, whereas the likes of tetris and pac man will live on FOREVER.
seriously jim, what were you thinking?
Jesus Jim, I like you and all, but this game is shit. It took a good game, made it shitty, and popularized it. The things that upset me about this game are that fuckwits think that Angry Birds is the fist game of it's kind and people think it's so innovative without even knowing what crash the castle is. It's the same thing that pisses people off about minecraft because people who praise it don't know what infiniminer is. Also the game isn't nearly as fun as crash the castle and the "puzzles" seem like they're meant for a lobotomized 80 year old, not a competent human being. But I guess that's why it's popular (therefore I hate it according to you).
If you couldn't think of a real topic for this week you shouldn't have made a video at all.
If you couldn't think of a real topic for this week you shouldn't have made a video at all.
I have the game on my iPod, and honestly I really don't like it. It's just not fun.
I liked the Rio version though since the graphics were a lot more sparkly. But I still think it's completely overrated, I never said I hated it, and probably others out there never said they hate it either. We are just sick of people talking about it as if its the second coming of Jesus Christ. The game is average at best.
I liked the Rio version though since the graphics were a lot more sparkly. But I still think it's completely overrated, I never said I hated it, and probably others out there never said they hate it either. We are just sick of people talking about it as if its the second coming of Jesus Christ. The game is average at best.
@lAboMbA: "If this game came out 5 years ago for a console or gameboy/ds, it would have gotten run the fuck out of the building."
If it came out 5 years ago on ether a console or handheld the cheapest it would cost would be $30 to $40 dollars while on ISO it's a buck. I don't see your point. I guess xbla and psn were around 5 years ago (I think) but it wouldn't been sold for a dollar that's for sure.
An OK puzzle game at 30 bucks is a great puzzle game at 1 dollar. Price matters.
If it came out 5 years ago on ether a console or handheld the cheapest it would cost would be $30 to $40 dollars while on ISO it's a buck. I don't see your point. I guess xbla and psn were around 5 years ago (I think) but it wouldn't been sold for a dollar that's for sure.
An OK puzzle game at 30 bucks is a great puzzle game at 1 dollar. Price matters.
@ Onered
You shouldn't generalize so quickly.
I'm not a hardcore gamer, but I love good, challenging video games. I don't like Halo, and refuse to play any Call of Duty title. I'm definitely no mook, either.
Angry Birds, as well as Crush the Castle, becomes boring to me after some time, regardless of whether or not Birds is a blatant ripoff of Crush, which I believe it is. But perhaps the people who worked on Crush the Castle should have taken more strides to protect their IP. They could have become stinkin' rich long before Rovio did.
I wouldn't have a problem with Angry Birds if not for the arrogance of the development studio thinking that their oft re-released title is the next best thing. It sickens me. It's totally out of control. I hear about Angry Birds more than any other game now, and it honestly boggles my mind.
Remember the press conference where the creator of the physics engine used in the game asked the Rovio head if they would give credit to him? And then he revealed that he actually was the creator after Ol' Petey said "no"? True, the man said he never asked to be given royalties should someone use his creation, but the fact remains that, if you have any integrity, you should thank someone who helped you make millions of dollars off of a clone of another popular game.
But that is only how I see things. I can't stand media hype, advertisements, commercialism, etc......to me, it's in one ear and out my asshole. So when I see an Angry Birds t-shirt and a stuffed animal in the hands of a child, I just have to wonder "Why?" Do children have smartphones now? What the fuck is the point of it all?
I always respected the creator of Calvin and Hobbes, Bill Waterson, for his commitment to never whoring out his product. I was always upset about it as a child because I wanted a Hobbes doll, but when you look at strips like Garfield and how Jim Davis jumped on the merch bandwagon, you may find much more respect for Waterson.
All the unnecessary crap and boasting just cheapens the overall experience for me, until I want nothing to do with the damn thing, especially since I don't want to support people's egotism.
That said, I find it very humorous that people get so defensive over such a simple game. Enjoy it if you want to, but don't expect others not to voice their opinions about it if they don't agree with the hyperbolic praise.
Also, I LOVE THAT DANE COOK SMACK. He's the Angry Birds of stand-up comedy. I mean that in a bad way. Just my opinion. Don't get angry.
You shouldn't generalize so quickly.
I'm not a hardcore gamer, but I love good, challenging video games. I don't like Halo, and refuse to play any Call of Duty title. I'm definitely no mook, either.
Angry Birds, as well as Crush the Castle, becomes boring to me after some time, regardless of whether or not Birds is a blatant ripoff of Crush, which I believe it is. But perhaps the people who worked on Crush the Castle should have taken more strides to protect their IP. They could have become stinkin' rich long before Rovio did.
I wouldn't have a problem with Angry Birds if not for the arrogance of the development studio thinking that their oft re-released title is the next best thing. It sickens me. It's totally out of control. I hear about Angry Birds more than any other game now, and it honestly boggles my mind.
Remember the press conference where the creator of the physics engine used in the game asked the Rovio head if they would give credit to him? And then he revealed that he actually was the creator after Ol' Petey said "no"? True, the man said he never asked to be given royalties should someone use his creation, but the fact remains that, if you have any integrity, you should thank someone who helped you make millions of dollars off of a clone of another popular game.
But that is only how I see things. I can't stand media hype, advertisements, commercialism, etc......to me, it's in one ear and out my asshole. So when I see an Angry Birds t-shirt and a stuffed animal in the hands of a child, I just have to wonder "Why?" Do children have smartphones now? What the fuck is the point of it all?
I always respected the creator of Calvin and Hobbes, Bill Waterson, for his commitment to never whoring out his product. I was always upset about it as a child because I wanted a Hobbes doll, but when you look at strips like Garfield and how Jim Davis jumped on the merch bandwagon, you may find much more respect for Waterson.
All the unnecessary crap and boasting just cheapens the overall experience for me, until I want nothing to do with the damn thing, especially since I don't want to support people's egotism.
That said, I find it very humorous that people get so defensive over such a simple game. Enjoy it if you want to, but don't expect others not to voice their opinions about it if they don't agree with the hyperbolic praise.
Also, I LOVE THAT DANE COOK SMACK. He's the Angry Birds of stand-up comedy. I mean that in a bad way. Just my opinion. Don't get angry.
I never did get why Angry Birds get so much negative criticism within the "hardcore" community. It gets boring quick, but it's still a good time killer. I think they just hate it because it got really popular, those fucking hipsters.
I get pissed at Angry Birds because people are so busy wanking that off that they ignore other great iOS games; games like Dead Space Mobile which I've hardly seen anyone play despite being a fucking great game. That and I don't like physics-based games after 50 million hours spent on an archery game.
However, no iOS or social device is complete without the physics-based feathery brained assholes, so good on Rovio for making physics fun.
However, no iOS or social device is complete without the physics-based feathery brained assholes, so good on Rovio for making physics fun.
"Mobile gaming is definitely a huge part of our culture, and one that Destructoid has made great pains to include in our coverage. I do wish some of these mobile devs wouldn't sound so superior about it, though. Talk of mobile gaming from these people always has to be in the context of how flailing and pointless "traditional" gaming has become, with seems a overly combative. I just don't know why everything has to be successful at the expense of everything else."
http://www.destructoid.com/mobile-dev-angry-birds-is-the-new-super-mario-bros--196773.phtml
Your words, Jim. Not mine. It seems a little bit contradictory in light of what was said in this video...
http://www.destructoid.com/mobile-dev-angry-birds-is-the-new-super-mario-bros--196773.phtml
Your words, Jim. Not mine. It seems a little bit contradictory in light of what was said in this video...
The simple fact of the matter is, good game or bad game, Angry Birds represents a wave of overly simple gaming that those who are not enthusiastic about gaming in general hold up to be the pinnacle of their gaming experiences. The way that it has penetrated popular culture as opposed to more deep, rich, and hardcore-beloved titles (such as the Shin Megami Tensei series or the Dragon Quest series) is, in a way, deeply humiliating to hardcore/connoisseur gamers.
Here we have been since the days of the NES (which was the first console to offer truly deep games [because it was the first with such a capacity to do so, both technologically and financially]) telling those around us how wonderful it can be to immerse yourself in an adventure represented by both the screen and one's imagination, and how great it can be to challenge our obstacles with the knowledge we have gained...only to be degraded by a wave of simple games that even the mentally handicapped could pick up.
It's much like the relationship between any other connoisseur crowd and the general public. When a food connoisseur tells everyone how amazing the taste of a truly fine steak is, yet still everyone goes out and orders McDonalds, it's humiliating. When a wine connoisseur speaks to the crowd about the satisfaction in sipping a fine Merlot, but they can only speak of how much boxed wine they had, it's embarrassing. Not only that, but it IS true that the general public is missing out on the enjoyment that they could have by listening to the connoisseurs' recommendation.
Maybe it isn't perfectly logical, but it is very human to feel dejected when people don't listen to you and miss out for it. With Angry Birds and the ensuing hatred of it, I think the hardcore crowd is feeling that way.
Here we have been since the days of the NES (which was the first console to offer truly deep games [because it was the first with such a capacity to do so, both technologically and financially]) telling those around us how wonderful it can be to immerse yourself in an adventure represented by both the screen and one's imagination, and how great it can be to challenge our obstacles with the knowledge we have gained...only to be degraded by a wave of simple games that even the mentally handicapped could pick up.
It's much like the relationship between any other connoisseur crowd and the general public. When a food connoisseur tells everyone how amazing the taste of a truly fine steak is, yet still everyone goes out and orders McDonalds, it's humiliating. When a wine connoisseur speaks to the crowd about the satisfaction in sipping a fine Merlot, but they can only speak of how much boxed wine they had, it's embarrassing. Not only that, but it IS true that the general public is missing out on the enjoyment that they could have by listening to the connoisseurs' recommendation.
Maybe it isn't perfectly logical, but it is very human to feel dejected when people don't listen to you and miss out for it. With Angry Birds and the ensuing hatred of it, I think the hardcore crowd is feeling that way.
Glad you tackled this issue. There's really nothing wrong with AB at all. It's a pretty decent game that became outstandingly popular. I'm guessing these haters would hated Mario back in the 80s because it was quirky, stupidly popular and not as deep as D&D.
You've got it wrong- I don't hate Angry Birds because its popular. I have it on my phone and play it often when I'm waiting for my food to arrive.
I hate what it's doing to the industry. You said it's not a threat to me- well I'm a developer which means its a very big threat to me. The fact that such a simple game can be so popular and be sold for a dollar has completely changed the dynamic of how the games industry works. I've worked with numerous publishers and developers (and friends) who've lost their jobs or whose company has been shut down- it happens all the time.
Everything is changing and its altering the public's perceptions of what value games have and the way game studios work and quite frankly- its moving in a direction I don't like. Everyone is focusing on the small sells- the one dollar games, the little apps that can be profitable. I devoted my life to working in the game industry because I value what it can be achieved from an artistic and narrative perspective. Angry Birds is not art- its a toy (a very fun toy) that is altering the entire medium I love.
I hate what it's doing to the industry. You said it's not a threat to me- well I'm a developer which means its a very big threat to me. The fact that such a simple game can be so popular and be sold for a dollar has completely changed the dynamic of how the games industry works. I've worked with numerous publishers and developers (and friends) who've lost their jobs or whose company has been shut down- it happens all the time.
Everything is changing and its altering the public's perceptions of what value games have and the way game studios work and quite frankly- its moving in a direction I don't like. Everyone is focusing on the small sells- the one dollar games, the little apps that can be profitable. I devoted my life to working in the game industry because I value what it can be achieved from an artistic and narrative perspective. Angry Birds is not art- its a toy (a very fun toy) that is altering the entire medium I love.
Jim has been fluffing iphone gaming for awhile now. I really feel that anyone who considers iphone gaming legitimate gaming should have their head examined. It's shit. All of it is shit. And Angry Birds is the greasiest shit on the pile of shit.
@ cody curry
yeah, and your argument was just fantastic *rolls eyes*
a decent, cheap game might represent good value, but that doesn't make it great. that would be insulting to people that actually make great games. your point is almost valid when you look at AB as the homogeneous commodity good that it basically is, but in that respect comparing it to a real game is apples and oranges isn't it.
yeah, and your argument was just fantastic *rolls eyes*
a decent, cheap game might represent good value, but that doesn't make it great. that would be insulting to people that actually make great games. your point is almost valid when you look at AB as the homogeneous commodity good that it basically is, but in that respect comparing it to a real game is apples and oranges isn't it.
I dislike AB cause it's so blase and yet manages to be one of the most popular games in the world at the same time. The industry and humanity as a whole can do a whole lot better.
follow
