Nathan Blades looks at the polarising RPG for PS3 & 360.
Jason Rose brings us a buyers' guide to smartphones available this Christmas.
Nathan Blades covers some console and industry-defining titles for the Sony PlayStation
Nathan Blades burns rubber in Mario kart 7.
It's not original Everyone often seems to praise the ease of use and originality of the concept of Angry Birds. And herein lies its problem – Angry Birds is not a new game. It's a game where, using projectiles launched from a catapult, you take down poorly-made buildings existing in a rudimentary physics engine. You've been able to play games like this on Newgrounds and ArmorGames for years. For an example of this, consider the 2009 hit Crush The Castle. In all respects, this is the same game, just released eight months earlier. You shoot projectiles, some of which are heavier than others, some explode, some shatter into smaller pieces. The “castles” contain people, which must be eliminated to pass the level. Even if you consider imitation the sincerest form of flattery, and are fine with duplication, fact is there's very little that's been added to Angry Birds since it's December 2009 release. There are new levels all the time, as Rovio release Seasons, Rio, Magic etc, but there's no new game, no new ideas. Angry Birds is a Flash game dressed up as a saleable product.
It's not very good Now this point will, I know, be highly contentious. After all, I'm a game reviewer and reviews are ultimately my opinion (even if this is more polemic than review). But really, what is so damn GOOD about Angry Birds? Frequently touted is its “addictive” nature. But addictions are not good things. You pull back the bird in the slingshot, you fire it at the pigs' castle. You fail. You try again, and again. Eventually, through skill or dumb luck, you succeed. And that moment of success gives you enough energy to play through the frustration of the next few misses. And so the cycle continues. Actually step back, really step back, and consider what you're doing. This isn't interaction. It's dull. It's a virtual Skinner Box.
It's shovelware that got lucky Let us consider, for a moment, the portfolio of developers Rovio. At the top there, their most recent game, is Angry Birds. Developed for a budget, purportedly, of €100,000. No games have been developed since they happened to hit upon success of Angry Birds, and look what came before. Gem Drop? Marine Sniper? Shopping Madness? X-Factor 2008?! Rovio are a company out to make a quick buck from quick games which are easy to code. Even PopCap, arguably the bastion of “casual gaming” can produce games with more depth than Angry Birds. Games like it (and any of the other dross on that list) are holding gaming back from becoming a respected medium. When you have games like LA Noire, Portal 2, or Half-Life, Rovio's offerings just don't stand up. And for them to then stand up and say that console games are doomed, that people selling “$45 bits of plastic” have something wrong, is a monumental piece of hubris.
I'm not saying “stop playing Angry Birds”, what I'm saying is “Shut up about how "awesome" Angry Birds is”. Oh, someone covered the theme song, someone made a(nother) giant playable version of a level, someone made a cake. It's a flash game. When was the last time you saw someone making giant homages to Farmville?
You must log in to submit a comment.
