OK after hearing about this game for ages I finally tried it out
http://chrome.angrybirds.com/ My link (might only work on chrome)
Im left scratching my head , Is that it!, try to hit the targets , surely theres more? I fear not

the last massively hyped game I tried 'planets vs zombies' was just as boringly bad, maybe slightly better.
Is this some sort of joke Im not getting?

Makes me wonder how good (the also massively hyped) 'minecraft' really is, am I just getting to old to enjoy games or do others feel like this?

Im not knocking the guys that made these games but Im just shocked of what I saw, I was expecting something at least slightly different

Yeah, I agree. Angry Birds get tired quick. I download all the free ones for android, and could be bothered to play all the stages. After a while, it just got boring. i don't like too much micro manage games either, but i don't like one trick pony either.

You're not missing anything, they're conceptually very simple games.

As a result of being so simple however, they are very approachable and accessible even to people who are not traditionally gamers. Many of the greatest games out there follow a rule of "simple to play, difficult to master", and the same is true of Angry Birds -- the different types of birds can take a while to get the hang of, and are sometimes given to you when another would be more ideal for the level in question. A clear feedback and reward system is presented by the points scored, the star system, and bonus items in the levels, and beating some of the more complex levels can be visually rewarding as well, watching everything happen correctly. The star system and golden eggs (which unlock bonus levels and little bonuses such as sound-boards and the like) provide motivation to continue playing, and the high-score system which compares your scores to others can bring out the urge to compete.

Angry Birds also makes very good use of the touch-screens on iOS and Android devices where the game was originally released, and given the relative lack of processing power does not have to compete with traditionally "higher end" games.


I think these games:

1. Are not necessarily aimed at traditional gamers, and therefore might do things you have seen before or seem overly simple.
2. Are meant to be picked up, played briefly, put down, and returned to later.
3. Make good use of the systems they were designed for, but may not stack up against AAA titles for PC or console if directly compared.

Rather than comparing them to traditional big hit games, perhaps try comparing them to games such as Tetris, Windows Solitaire, Zuma and Bejewelled -- all very successful titles, and all smaller, simpler games.

Games also don't have to do anything new to be received well, they just need to be polished and to do what they attempt to do well.

These sort of games certainly aren't for everyone, but I for one enjoy an occasional level of Angry Birds when stuck on public transport or waiting in a queue for something, even though I would probably never consider sitting down for a prolonged play session like I might with a game like Halo or Gears of War.

"mass market", not "critical acclaim"

I understand what you mean. I'm very hit or miss on the casual games that reach this "storied" level of acclaim.

I loved (and still occasionally enjoy) Plants vs. Zombies. I find Minecraft horrid. And I place Bejeweled and Angry Birds between those two extremes and am pretty luke-warm about both.

As jbadams pointed out, I feel it's all about the target market. That's why a game becomes widely talked about and seemingly loved by everyone but then can be all but shunned by traditional gamers. And make no doubt, the opposite happens as well. Games that will be considered too slowly paced or lacking action by a casual player, will be beloved by traditional and "hardcore" gamers.

I'd say keep trying them and hopefully you'll find those diamonds in the rough that provide you with lots of enjoyment and maybe even inspiration.

I've been a big fan of casual games since I had kids. Angry birds is a great game. You can just pick it up and play, if something comes up, you can close it immediately and be done. For some reason games where I have to hurl objects at architectural objects makes me giggle.

Also, I can play it in front of my kids and they are entertained from all the goofy noises.

Completely plays like an indie flash game with a catapult and castle. Wonder which came first. The game link works fine in IE.

My 2-year-old freaking loves Angry Birds. I got bored after about 10 minutes.

But then, I am still playing incarnations of Bejeweled, which I like because of the sliding difficulty scale of the Action mode (I've probably bought 3 of these games, starting on my Palm V a decade ago). I also really like Desktop Tower Defense 1.5 (2.0 blew the formula). So I think these games have a place even for more serious gamers.

Is there more depth to Tetris than there is to Angry Birds? There's something to be said for simple, casual games. If you don't enjoy them then that's fine, but it's not like it's a brand new thing for you to be flabbergasted about.

True theres not much depth to tetris but Tetris was very original thus deserved the praise (not to mention the number of games it spawned),
I could see the attraction with tower defense (even if its also a simple game)
But angry birds, why so many version (I assume theyre just the same game with different levels), theres even talk of a movie.

Still if gives hope to all of us, the most basic unoriginal idea can succeed with the right marketting/polish. Ive got a new very simple game coming out soon, personally I think it sux :lol:but you never know