I made a mistake of assuming you sir are getting better at what you do! Past few weeks show it was a mistake indeed! The hypocrisy of this video is outstanding. Look at the title of this video and then look how you failed to address it in the video! This game is neither good nor bad! Its just "another' casual game! There are plenty way better casual games, you dont see them making toys and movies! Why? Because its absurd! Imagine if every more or less popular flash game would do what Angry Birds does! ABSURD! This game has a pseudo-story, no development, no characters of any interest, no plot and is good for about 30 minutes. Sure, its fun, but for a very short time! If you think that this game deserves to be where it is, you are out of your F-ing mind! There simply are games that deserve way more attention then they you, yet you arrogantly defend this one! And its not the game that needs praising, its PR and marketing teams!
Jimquisition: Angry Birds Is Not Sh*t
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
There are people that think Angry Birds is shit? What?
I actually enjoyed the game myself. Mind you I played the free version that was available on Google Chrome. So I can't say what the rest of the game is like. And yes, I have played games like it before, so it isn't all that original. That didn't stop me from enjoying it however.
I actually enjoyed the game myself. Mind you I played the free version that was available on Google Chrome. So I can't say what the rest of the game is like. And yes, I have played games like it before, so it isn't all that original. That didn't stop me from enjoying it however.
Ah finally, a video opinion I don't agree with at all, so I can continue loathing Jim like I used to. You make the assumption everyone hates on Angry Birds because the game is weak, not the goddam lunacy around it and Rovio. The fact of the matter is the idiot at Rovio thinks his company is worth more than the entirity of Pop-cap because of their one successful game. A game with a HIGHLY overstated success rate, as it's the most downloaded game of all time, but it's actual purchase rate has been proven time and time again to be exceptionally low. It's mostly demos and the lame Rio free version that is out there so much.
The game isn't bad, Rovio is made of AIDS and stupid, and the game IS grossly overhyped. It may not be bad, but I'm so fucking sick of hearing about it and the idiotic antics of Rovio.
The game isn't bad, Rovio is made of AIDS and stupid, and the game IS grossly overhyped. It may not be bad, but I'm so fucking sick of hearing about it and the idiotic antics of Rovio.
Jim's got a point. The only reason I don't have Angry Birds installed at the moment is because it utterly rapes my phone's battery whenever I play it (because I tend to play it for hours). I do think Jim is overstating things by describing Angry Birds' physics as "perfect". No, it's about as perfect as the physics in Red Faction Guerrilla, which is to say temperamental as fuck. Oh, and kudos to Jim for referring to The Mother of All Games. I can't believe I never made the connection in gameplay styles. I suppose that's because my memories of playing Scorched Earth don't involve a touch screen, but rather of making precise adjustments to angle and power with keystrokes.
Hmmm, I wonder if there's a new version of Scorched3D out....
Hmmm, I wonder if there's a new version of Scorched3D out....
(shrug) I wasn't even aware hating on the game was a thing... I mean it's not the kind of game I enjoy but it seems well-crafted enough.
I haven't played angry birds and never plan to unless someone decides to buy me a touch pad I guess. I respect a game being successful no matter what platform, genre or level of complexity regardless of whether I have any interest in it or not.
I don't understand why some people can't just accept that games are super diverse now and are only going to come in increasingly more varied forms as time goes on. Angry Birds existing and becoming popular isn't going to make the Mass Effects and Bioshocks of the industry stop being made yet this seems to be at the center of these irrational gamers hatred; fear. Fear of change, fear of sharing, fear of diversity. Fucking stupid the lot of em.
These are the same sorts of gamers who seem to also dislike games that are intentionally being stupid, such as say Bulletstorm or Shadows of the Damned. Both incredibly fun good games but oh god they don't take themselves seriously, they try to be funny, HOLY SHIT I CAN'T PLAY THAT SOMEONE MIGHT FIND OUT!
Bah rant rant. Fucking elitist morons.
I don't understand why some people can't just accept that games are super diverse now and are only going to come in increasingly more varied forms as time goes on. Angry Birds existing and becoming popular isn't going to make the Mass Effects and Bioshocks of the industry stop being made yet this seems to be at the center of these irrational gamers hatred; fear. Fear of change, fear of sharing, fear of diversity. Fucking stupid the lot of em.
These are the same sorts of gamers who seem to also dislike games that are intentionally being stupid, such as say Bulletstorm or Shadows of the Damned. Both incredibly fun good games but oh god they don't take themselves seriously, they try to be funny, HOLY SHIT I CAN'T PLAY THAT SOMEONE MIGHT FIND OUT!
Bah rant rant. Fucking elitist morons.
omg, that bit about the shirt was classic!!
the problem with angry birds is this: the same problem almost anything on the net - that has haters - has:
think of a game that is better than Angry Birds. I imagine you thought of one? now. is it more popular than angry birds?
no?
rage.
that's how it always is. it is the perceived balance of how good/bad something is, balanced with the amount of negative/positive public publicity - and crucially - perception of the thing.
people don't think Apple are shit, they just don't think they are as good as the public seems to perceive them as being.
specifically, weighed against the goodness
erception of rivals, there is seen an unfairness.
this is what fuels most rage. I know it does mine (justified or not).
the problem with angry birds is this: the same problem almost anything on the net - that has haters - has:
think of a game that is better than Angry Birds. I imagine you thought of one? now. is it more popular than angry birds?
no?
rage.
that's how it always is. it is the perceived balance of how good/bad something is, balanced with the amount of negative/positive public publicity - and crucially - perception of the thing.
people don't think Apple are shit, they just don't think they are as good as the public seems to perceive them as being.
specifically, weighed against the goodness
erception of rivals, there is seen an unfairness. this is what fuels most rage. I know it does mine (justified or not).
Trust me, there is PLENTY of hate for this game out there. Interesting that there's none of it here, but bear in mind I work with various online gaming communities. This particular video was inspired by some news posts on Destructoid, where word of Angry Birds' success drew in plenty of despair and hatred.
Also, there's nothing wrong with you simply not enjoying the game for what it is. This is for the people that think the success of Angry Birds is an inherently terrible thing and that the game sucks without them even trying it (like certain people who hate Internet Web shows based on the title alone, hurr hurr).
So yeah. That is the thing with this ep.
Also, there's nothing wrong with you simply not enjoying the game for what it is. This is for the people that think the success of Angry Birds is an inherently terrible thing and that the game sucks without them even trying it (like certain people who hate Internet Web shows based on the title alone, hurr hurr).
So yeah. That is the thing with this ep.
I'm sorry but I gotta disagree here. I have no problem with angry birds existing, it's pretty and its a good time vampire but, I wouldn't recommend it because that's basically all it is.
The levels aren't really puzzles, there's no right way to do them, you just throw the birds and when the stars align the pigs might explode. I say this having 3 stared every level of the first version of the game without any difficulty so don't interpret this as "it's too hard, so I hate it", what I'm saying is it's more of a screen saver then an actual game.
The levels aren't really puzzles, there's no right way to do them, you just throw the birds and when the stars align the pigs might explode. I say this having 3 stared every level of the first version of the game without any difficulty so don't interpret this as "it's too hard, so I hate it", what I'm saying is it's more of a screen saver then an actual game.
My major complaint about angry birds is I could never understand how to get 3 stars on any given level. I'm a bit OCD about this and it always pained me to move on. That's why I prefer cut the rope, I always know how many stars I'm getting.
I have to say I disagree with Jim here, by saying in response that just because something is popular does not mean that it isn't shit. He seems to be argueing that the popularity of "Angry Birds" equates to it being a good game.
In reality what "Angry Birds" is, is a below average game (though admittedly not quite to the shit level) that appeals to the lowest human denominator by being bright, colorful, and something that anyone can get their mind around. Overall it's a very derivitive game, that seems to have succeeded largely because of timing and it's format, than anything paticularly impressive about the game itself.
The reason why there is so much outcry by the so called "hardcore" crowd, and really I sort of mean your middle of the road gamers rather than the actual hardcore crowd (which I could write a huge essay on myself), is that the success of "Angry Birds" both encourages the casual market and more importantly the developers to cater to the casual market. After all, why should a company spend millions upon millions of dollars developing a really good game for serious gamers, when they can poop out a relatively cheap app and sell it to the casuals and make as much if not more money.
The problem is that your "hardcore" gamers and the middle of the road guys aren't stupid. At the same time things like "Angry Birds" are out there dominating we're seeing tons of companies deciding "we must develop in an increasingly casual direction!" and talking about how apps are the future. Between this and browser based social gaming like "Farmville" we're seeing the degeneration of gaming as a whole, granted things like this do not happen overnight.
The arguement that noone has to worry, because there are plenty of games coming out for the hardcore and regular gaming demographics, doesn't really apply because there are only so many developers and if you pay attention most of them are talking about shifting gears. Arguements about what we see right now hold little weight when looking at a landscape that is changing and will probably be far differant 10 years down the road. The issue isn't just that "Angry Birds" is a colorful, derivitive, casual game, but the simple issue that games are on the way to all games being something similar to "Angry Birds".
To be honest allowing for the differance in graphical technology "Angry Birds" seems like the type of game that you would have seen for something like an NES or Atari 2600/5200. Gaming had been becoming more advanced, as gamers demanded more, but now with the influx of casuals that's changing and we're seeing game degenerate back into the intellectual ghetto.
Things like "Angry Birds" fly in the face of what gaming could be, gaming has the abillity to uplift the users. A game is something someone should have to aspire to, and work at, improving themselves as they play the game so to speak. When you start having the games stoop down to a lower level to make more money... well that hurts everyone.
I'll also say that I have no real problem with the gaming industry making money, this is a case where one has to look at it going from making money and turning a decent profit, with a slow growth, to a giant cash grab with little or no regard for the people who made the industry what it is, or the repercussions in the future. The gaming industry needs to slow down, be happy with their billion dollar industry and expand slowly. This kind of casual cash grab is counter productive to what the industry can be.
What's funny is that I remember the old "Sega" commercials showing inbred retards of the most unlikely sort playing inferior consoles. Things like some fat dork smacking himself in the head with petrified roadkill so he could play his Gameboy "in color", and of course a family making the cast of mutants from "The Hills Have Eyes" seem refined on a couch drooling and having a great time. Once that was a joke in some "edgy" marketing, now that seems to an increasingly literal image of the target audience for the gaming industry.
This is what I think at any rate, and thanks to anyone who read this far.
In reality what "Angry Birds" is, is a below average game (though admittedly not quite to the shit level) that appeals to the lowest human denominator by being bright, colorful, and something that anyone can get their mind around. Overall it's a very derivitive game, that seems to have succeeded largely because of timing and it's format, than anything paticularly impressive about the game itself.
The reason why there is so much outcry by the so called "hardcore" crowd, and really I sort of mean your middle of the road gamers rather than the actual hardcore crowd (which I could write a huge essay on myself), is that the success of "Angry Birds" both encourages the casual market and more importantly the developers to cater to the casual market. After all, why should a company spend millions upon millions of dollars developing a really good game for serious gamers, when they can poop out a relatively cheap app and sell it to the casuals and make as much if not more money.
The problem is that your "hardcore" gamers and the middle of the road guys aren't stupid. At the same time things like "Angry Birds" are out there dominating we're seeing tons of companies deciding "we must develop in an increasingly casual direction!" and talking about how apps are the future. Between this and browser based social gaming like "Farmville" we're seeing the degeneration of gaming as a whole, granted things like this do not happen overnight.
The arguement that noone has to worry, because there are plenty of games coming out for the hardcore and regular gaming demographics, doesn't really apply because there are only so many developers and if you pay attention most of them are talking about shifting gears. Arguements about what we see right now hold little weight when looking at a landscape that is changing and will probably be far differant 10 years down the road. The issue isn't just that "Angry Birds" is a colorful, derivitive, casual game, but the simple issue that games are on the way to all games being something similar to "Angry Birds".
To be honest allowing for the differance in graphical technology "Angry Birds" seems like the type of game that you would have seen for something like an NES or Atari 2600/5200. Gaming had been becoming more advanced, as gamers demanded more, but now with the influx of casuals that's changing and we're seeing game degenerate back into the intellectual ghetto.
Things like "Angry Birds" fly in the face of what gaming could be, gaming has the abillity to uplift the users. A game is something someone should have to aspire to, and work at, improving themselves as they play the game so to speak. When you start having the games stoop down to a lower level to make more money... well that hurts everyone.
I'll also say that I have no real problem with the gaming industry making money, this is a case where one has to look at it going from making money and turning a decent profit, with a slow growth, to a giant cash grab with little or no regard for the people who made the industry what it is, or the repercussions in the future. The gaming industry needs to slow down, be happy with their billion dollar industry and expand slowly. This kind of casual cash grab is counter productive to what the industry can be.
What's funny is that I remember the old "Sega" commercials showing inbred retards of the most unlikely sort playing inferior consoles. Things like some fat dork smacking himself in the head with petrified roadkill so he could play his Gameboy "in color", and of course a family making the cast of mutants from "The Hills Have Eyes" seem refined on a couch drooling and having a great time. Once that was a joke in some "edgy" marketing, now that seems to an increasingly literal image of the target audience for the gaming industry.
This is what I think at any rate, and thanks to anyone who read this far.
I tried Angry Birds. I gave it a serious chance. It did not engage me or cause me to have any fun at all. I really don't get why it's popular at all, but at this point that's not out of the ordinary for me as I often don't get why things are popular as they are.
It might not be shit, but it certainly isn't the greatest. Or possibly even great. Just accessible, easy, and right place right time.
It might not be shit, but it certainly isn't the greatest. Or possibly even great. Just accessible, easy, and right place right time.
This is the point at which I would have stopped you because you're a bit mistaken. The idea is that a game's popularity is not directly proportional to its quality in either direction. His opinion about its quality is just that--an opinion. I can't vouch for the game without having played it, but I wouldn't hesitate to give it a fair chance if I had the opportunity.Therumancer said:
This is where things start to fall apart. I hear this argument all the time. Somehow casual and social games are a major threat to the 'hardcore' industry because of how much less effort is required to produce them than big budget mainstream titles. First of all I can't see any evidence that there has been any impact to begin with and thus far nobody has been willing to show me an example. Sure it makes sense to take the most profitable route, but casual games aren't what the hardcore industry has its eyes on. They're much more interested in Call of Duty's market.
The basic idea I'm getting at is that stagnant shooters are much more of a threat than causal games (true casual games, not the 'easy' games that inspires so much whining). I don't have the energy to keep this up, but it's a discussion I'd very much like to see.