Why Angry Birds is so successful and popular?(mauronewmedia.com)
mauronewmedia.com
Why Angry Birds is so successful and popular?
http://www.mauronewmedia.com/blog/2011/02/why-angry-birds-is-so-successful-a-cognitive-teardown-of-the-user-experience/
80 comments
A huge difference is the controls. In CTC you aim by timing the release during the swing of the trebuchet. This is tricky, especially since you can't see the target. In Angry Birds you aim by pointing in the direction you want to launch the bird.
A slight error in the timing of the trebuchet launch easily turns your shot into a complete miss.
Angry Birds does introduce timing later, with the various types of birds whose behavior changes with a tap while in flight, but that generally occurs when the bird is close to the target where a slight error usually doesn't completely waste the bird.
The net result is that in Angry Birds I feel like I'm spending most of my effort concentrating on how best to attack the puzzle of understanding the physics of the level so as to efficiently get through it. In CTC I'm concentrating on the reflex game of clicking at the right point in the trebuchet swing. The former is simply a much more engaging game.
PS: I disagree that CTC is not about killing the people. There are levels with people outside the castle. Take down the castle but leave some of those people alive, and the level is not over. Killing the people is the victory condition, so I'd say the game is about killing the people.
A slight error in the timing of the trebuchet launch easily turns your shot into a complete miss.
Angry Birds does introduce timing later, with the various types of birds whose behavior changes with a tap while in flight, but that generally occurs when the bird is close to the target where a slight error usually doesn't completely waste the bird.
The net result is that in Angry Birds I feel like I'm spending most of my effort concentrating on how best to attack the puzzle of understanding the physics of the level so as to efficiently get through it. In CTC I'm concentrating on the reflex game of clicking at the right point in the trebuchet swing. The former is simply a much more engaging game.
PS: I disagree that CTC is not about killing the people. There are levels with people outside the castle. Take down the castle but leave some of those people alive, and the level is not over. Killing the people is the victory condition, so I'd say the game is about killing the people.
> Killing the people is the victory condition
True, but do you really want to kill those people? They don't even behave like people -- more like "statues that bleed".
> A huge difference is the controls. In CTC you aim by timing the release during the swing of the trebuchet. This is tricky
I'm not so sure. I find operating the trebuchet more intuitive / simple than pulling the sling in the right direction with the right amount of force to send the birds in the air.
BTW, birds fly; they don't need a sling to be airborne... Those "angry birds" are in fact chickens.
Chickens vs. pigs: a simple farm image that speaks to everyone and draws on childhood memories?
True, but do you really want to kill those people? They don't even behave like people -- more like "statues that bleed".
> A huge difference is the controls. In CTC you aim by timing the release during the swing of the trebuchet. This is tricky
I'm not so sure. I find operating the trebuchet more intuitive / simple than pulling the sling in the right direction with the right amount of force to send the birds in the air.
BTW, birds fly; they don't need a sling to be airborne... Those "angry birds" are in fact chickens.
Chickens vs. pigs: a simple farm image that speaks to everyone and draws on childhood memories?
The physics puzzle is what attracts most people to the game. But I've noticed with my son the "story" elements, sounds, and characters are also a big draw. He actually wanted an angry birds stuffed animal for Xmas, after seeing the ads on the mobile game.
In addition, for my son I've found that the physics element in Angry Birds has helped build interest in other physics puzzles, including those that don't have as much flavor, such as Ragdoll Blaster.
In addition, for my son I've found that the physics element in Angry Birds has helped build interest in other physics puzzles, including those that don't have as much flavor, such as Ragdoll Blaster.
Angry Birds also kept its addictive simplicity as the levels increased, which I don't think the OP mentioned. Plants vs Zombies is another addicting game which shows you as a human desperately planting plant shooters in your backyard to defend against invading zombies. The main difference I can feel is that while both games get more difficult as the levels progress, Angry Birds doesn't make it more overwhelming (you still shoot 1 bird at a time at a more complex building with pigs), but PvZ gets super overwhelming with too many plant types to choose from, too many types of zombies, too many factors to manage to the point where my old iTouch lags because there's too many things going on at once. This loses the user in the mess.
Another difference that I haven't seen anyone talk about yet is the fact that while in both games, as you progress, you get different types of ammo, in CTC, you can switch between the different types of ammo at will, while in angry birds, you're stuck with the ammo types you're given, in the order they're given.
While this reduces complexity in Angry Birds, it also means you can't always choose the most devastating ammo, which adds a bit to the challenge.
While this reduces complexity in Angry Birds, it also means you can't always choose the most devastating ammo, which adds a bit to the challenge.
While your point is very good and valid, it was the article's goal to focus exclusively on the interface, that is why it doesn't mention the story.
[deleted]
Why do the houses containing pigs shake ever so slightly at the beginning of each game play sequence?
I assumed that it's because the initial positions of the objects in the game are slightly off the equilibrium state, so when the physics is switched on they slump a little bit.
I assumed that it's because the initial positions of the objects in the game are slightly off the equilibrium state, so when the physics is switched on they slump a little bit.
Probably true, but it would be trivial to run the physics loop a few times before rendering the first frame to remove the jitter. A neophyte developer would know how to do this and the folks at Rovio are pretty experienced. My vote is with conscious decision.
The idea must have been to avoid that extra second of wait. As long as I see the screen a second earlier I don't care if the pigs jittered a bit.
But they could probably run the physics loops for a few seconds and store the map layout after it has stabilized, not?
Not only that, but there is no reason that the physics loop would have to be run in real-time. They could just as easily run the physics loop for a few frames as fast as the hardware would let them with fixed deltas of average frame length (probably 1/30th of a sec). Chances are they could run half a second of simulation in just a few milliseconds without the need to render.
I gotta agree --- on one level (I forget which one) there is a golden egg wearing a hardhat... if you get the golden egg, that egg disappears. But when you restart the level and that egg is gone, the hardhat is still there, sitting in mid-air, as if the golden egg was there too. Then the physics turns on and the hat immediately falls to the ground. Pretty simple case of physics on, physics off.
I've even seen levels where every few times the level loads, if you wait 10-20 seconds, some part of the structure falls over on its own.
The physics feels so organic though that sometimes I shake my iphone in frustration as if that would help the structures fall faster in the game.
I'd wasted enough time on Angry Birds to feel qualified enough to write about it.
1. The splash screen shows a high degree of polish compared to all other games. Every time I start it, it stands out heads and shoulders above other apps.
2. The whimsical characters mean that there are no scruples with killing real pigs.
3. The ability to advance to the next level quickly, but at the same time, there is a higher three star achievement for finishing a level with some finesse.
4. There is an element of luck and timing involved, and this makes for addictive gameplay. It is also very difficult to get the angles exactly the same each time on a small device. Every time you play, you think "this is going to be the perfect game".
5. The matter of waiting for 2-3 seconds makes for exasperating play, which again is pretty addictive.
1. The splash screen shows a high degree of polish compared to all other games. Every time I start it, it stands out heads and shoulders above other apps.
2. The whimsical characters mean that there are no scruples with killing real pigs.
3. The ability to advance to the next level quickly, but at the same time, there is a higher three star achievement for finishing a level with some finesse.
4. There is an element of luck and timing involved, and this makes for addictive gameplay. It is also very difficult to get the angles exactly the same each time on a small device. Every time you play, you think "this is going to be the perfect game".
5. The matter of waiting for 2-3 seconds makes for exasperating play, which again is pretty addictive.
What do you mean by point 5?
It's like teasing. To draw a ridiculous analogy, its like foreplay to sex. It makes it better.
Less ridiculous is this comparison. It's like that slight twitch you get watching the "starting in 3..2..1" dialog before a round of Starcraft or Halo or something... but even more frequent. Anticipation is everything. You get addicted as much to the anticipation, as the moment itself.
Less ridiculous is this comparison. It's like that slight twitch you get watching the "starting in 3..2..1" dialog before a round of Starcraft or Halo or something... but even more frequent. Anticipation is everything. You get addicted as much to the anticipation, as the moment itself.
When I was in Japan, I saw this gambling machine where you toss a coin into a pile, and a little mechanical arm pushes the large pile of coins towards a big hole. Whatever goes into the hole is yours. (I think there is a similar one on iPad at the moment)
Once you have tossed your coin, the control is out of your hands. All you can do is sit there and watch the mechanical arm sweep. It is over in about 2-3 seconds. The tension climaxes when the arm gets to its full reach, and it is usually unresolved because the coins end up being herded together into an even bigger pile. (Incidentally, this reminds me of Screwball Comedies http://www.greencine.com/static/primers/screwball.jsp, where the male and female characters are kept apart right until the last minute).
It is the same with Angry Birds. When you launch a projectile, most of the parameters have been set. You may have some control later, but it could not "fix" a bad move. So you now have 2-3 seconds where you are totally helpless, and once it a while, all the stars line up and you get rewarded. Like a monkey throwing a stick at a stationary object. This is insanely addictive. It is a hail-mary gamble that works out often enough to make you keep trying. To earn three stars, one needs at least two "perfect" throws. This is extremely difficult and chancy.
The levels have been designed to progressively require smaller tolerance against errors. The Rovio people probably could programmatically control the angle and velocity to see the effects, and from that tweak the pieces to make the gameplay easier or harder.
Once you have tossed your coin, the control is out of your hands. All you can do is sit there and watch the mechanical arm sweep. It is over in about 2-3 seconds. The tension climaxes when the arm gets to its full reach, and it is usually unresolved because the coins end up being herded together into an even bigger pile. (Incidentally, this reminds me of Screwball Comedies http://www.greencine.com/static/primers/screwball.jsp, where the male and female characters are kept apart right until the last minute).
It is the same with Angry Birds. When you launch a projectile, most of the parameters have been set. You may have some control later, but it could not "fix" a bad move. So you now have 2-3 seconds where you are totally helpless, and once it a while, all the stars line up and you get rewarded. Like a monkey throwing a stick at a stationary object. This is insanely addictive. It is a hail-mary gamble that works out often enough to make you keep trying. To earn three stars, one needs at least two "perfect" throws. This is extremely difficult and chancy.
The levels have been designed to progressively require smaller tolerance against errors. The Rovio people probably could programmatically control the angle and velocity to see the effects, and from that tweak the pieces to make the gameplay easier or harder.
I agree
"This question pops up when products become massively successful based on their user experience design – think iPhone, iPad, Google Instant Search, Nintendo Wii, Microsoft Kinect."
Google Instant Search?
While I'm working on an app with vague similarities to Google instant and I like the idea of it being a wild success, I can't see evidence that it's anything like a "run-away success" given that it was simply a make-over of an already successful interface. Google had most of the market before and after so what could you say about this. I don't remember it getting good review either.
Google Instant Search?
While I'm working on an app with vague similarities to Google instant and I like the idea of it being a wild success, I can't see evidence that it's anything like a "run-away success" given that it was simply a make-over of an already successful interface. Google had most of the market before and after so what could you say about this. I don't remember it getting good review either.
I realized it while playing the game, and to a greater extent after reading the article, but it's a very meticulous game. The amount of detail and thought into all the aspects of the game are top notch. I really respected the architecture of some of the more complicated levels in regards to all the little angles, small blocks scattered, combination of material types, etc. In my opinion it's what the game is centered around. The fluff - sounds, visual cues, appealing characters, would not stand on it's own merit without the excruciating detail put into the level design. If it takes half an hour to an hour to complete a level, it must be exponentially more to design the level.
Angry birds reminds me a lot of the gameplay and level design of Lode Runner for the Apple IIe. Simple concept, artistic levels that were pictures or boats or houses, and totally addictive gameplay.
Now all we need is a level editor for angry birds...
Now all we need is a level editor for angry birds...
My current aspirations of real full time game development can be traced back to designing Lode Runner levels on my first computer, a Mac 512k. I used to design levels in MacPaint and pretend to play them, because I didn't know any better.
We're getting OT, but I love Lode Runner. The wonky AI really gave it personality.
A very interesting analysis, that still seems to be a bit off the mark. I felt like it was pointing at one media and saying "See! This works in all cases!"
It feels a little like when, working in a large supermarket, they force-shoved the "FISH!" video down our throats, even though the business model didn't have any flexibility in it. We couldn't apply the principles but they management team hoped that simply being exposed to it would work.
Most of the experience I've had with enterprise product design has demonstrated that "Being engaging" is very VERY low on the product design list, because corporate companies don't care how engaged their staff are.
Developers, however, are loud and wonderfully obnoxious (No, really, I love it) about their tools, so I see a lot more room for engaging behavior, BUT I imagine a developer will also be a lot more annoyed at any perceived duplication of effort (No matter how clever you 'wipe' their short term memory).
It feels a little like when, working in a large supermarket, they force-shoved the "FISH!" video down our throats, even though the business model didn't have any flexibility in it. We couldn't apply the principles but they management team hoped that simply being exposed to it would work.
Most of the experience I've had with enterprise product design has demonstrated that "Being engaging" is very VERY low on the product design list, because corporate companies don't care how engaged their staff are.
Developers, however, are loud and wonderfully obnoxious (No, really, I love it) about their tools, so I see a lot more room for engaging behavior, BUT I imagine a developer will also be a lot more annoyed at any perceived duplication of effort (No matter how clever you 'wipe' their short term memory).
This is best description of Angry Birds I've read:
The game involves employing a sling shot to propel small cannonball-shaped birds with really bad attitudes at rather fragile glass and timber houses populated by basically catatonic green pigs.
The game involves employing a sling shot to propel small cannonball-shaped birds with really bad attitudes at rather fragile glass and timber houses populated by basically catatonic green pigs.
Angry Birds taught me that the deep gameplay I value does not always make a good casual game. As a current casual and social game developer, I'm always fascinated by casual interest in games, and reading stuff like this really helps me understand why people are drawn to these types of games. It's something I need to be be better at in order to make better games.
What I don't understand is how Angry Birds became so popular, but other similar (almost exactly the same) games failed (eg: Crush the Castle). Those games also tackles most of the issues that's talked about in the post.
There's a snowball effect that's been demonstrated in lab tests for popularity of items within a social group - something that gets a little moment early on will be come massively popular because the popularity itself breeds more popularity. It's also been demonstrated that if you take the same group of options to multiple similar pools of people, which ones become most popular will largely be driven by the somewhat random actions of the first few people to interact with them. Quality helps of course but a lot it is just being in the right place at the right time.
Crush the castle doesn't look fun to play, graphics are very boring. It's way more fun to drop birds at pigs, than rocks at small statues.
I personally found Crush the Castle a lot more fun than Angry birds; you don't get stuck in a linear progression, and it feels a lot more "tactile" to me as bits slam into other bits and people scream and die.
as bits slam into other bits and people scream and die.
hmmm, perhaps this appeal isn't as strongly felt by the general public as cute birds slamming into pigs?
hmmm, perhaps this appeal isn't as strongly felt by the general public as cute birds slamming into pigs?
I think the market has once again made it clear that my opinions differ from most people. I can rant about how terrible modern popular books, TV shows and movies are for a while if you'd like. :-)
what books, movies do you currently find interesting? If you don't mind me asking.thanks
Agreed to that and tomkarlo's comment. But I wonder why no one's taking credit for the original idea. With so much publicity for Angry Birds that seems really weird.
Almost all of the news posts about Angry Birds praise the team and seems to ignore the fact that it was not an original idea at all.
seems to ignore the fact that it was not an original idea at all
Is this contrary to expectations? This is what we mean when we say, over and over again, that "ideas" don't matter a hill of beans. To misquote the best line of the movie: if they had had the idea for Angry Birds then they would have developed Angry Birds.
Is this contrary to expectations? This is what we mean when we say, over and over again, that "ideas" don't matter a hill of beans. To misquote the best line of the movie: if they had had the idea for Angry Birds then they would have developed Angry Birds.
Agree that having an idea is worth nothing if its not implemented well. But I still find it strange that it never came up in any discussion about Angry Birds. And nobody protested, especially during this season of patent trolls.
Crush the Castle was a hugely successful flash game. Just because that success didn't carry over to the iPhone doesn't mean its merits are nullified. It may just mean people said "meh, I already played that on the computer. Now there was one with birds that someone told me about..."
Anyway, Crush the Castle is itself a clone of Castle Clout, but had _far_ greater success than its predecessor, even though they were visually similar (nearly identical, actually).
Anyway, Crush the Castle is itself a clone of Castle Clout, but had _far_ greater success than its predecessor, even though they were visually similar (nearly identical, actually).
Crush the Castle didn't fail - I'm pretty sure more people have played it than Angry Birds, although obviously most people didn't pay to play CTC / CTC level pack / CTC2. I know for a fact that CTC2 is immensely popular - it's one of the most popular games using Playtomic.
The reason I think that AB is more popular is it fits a more general audience, the graphics/story/etc are all neutralized so they're covering every demographic while CTC is more male-oriented.
The reason I think that AB is more popular is it fits a more general audience, the graphics/story/etc are all neutralized so they're covering every demographic while CTC is more male-oriented.
I own Angry Birds, but I've never even heard of Crush the Castle.
That's because Crush the Castle's origins are in Flash casual gaming which is an audience of 100s of millions of people that predates / exists somewhere parallel to iOS casual gaming.
Although Angry Birds has undoubtedly made more cold hard cash the CTC franchise (3 titles) would have plays in the 100s of millions by now.
Although Angry Birds has undoubtedly made more cold hard cash the CTC franchise (3 titles) would have plays in the 100s of millions by now.
There's no denying that Angry Birds is a cultural phenomenon (I've lost track of Angry Birds references on Conan, for example,) while Crush the Castle is... not.
That transcends considerations like "times played" or even "money made".
That transcends considerations like "times played" or even "money made".
I agree completely, I only disagree that the CTC franchise failed!
Plays in the 100s of millions sure.
Unique users in the 100s of millions? I'm doubtful.
Unique users in the 100s of millions? I'm doubtful.
It's easy to underestimate the size of the Flash gaming market, I'm tracking > 120m uniques a month and that's just the tip of the iceberg.
When a Flash game is very popular 1000s of other websites copy the swf file and host it themselves exposing their own audience to that game - and CTC is 3 very popular titles.
When a Flash game is very popular 1000s of other websites copy the swf file and host it themselves exposing their own audience to that game - and CTC is 3 very popular titles.
What I find interesting are how other, very polished and fun games, are almost never mentioned when people ask for lists of great Android games. Rocket Bunnies comes to mind.
The snowball effect!
Luck
Interface - Using your finger to use the slingshot is very intuitive and fun. This game was made for the iPhone. It wouldn't have been as successful if people had to use a mouse.
Character - You're not shooting rocks and bombs, they're birds! They are colorful and they squawk! And you're not shooting targets, you're shooting pigs! Pigs who smugly smile when you don't hit them.And there's fun music.
Puzzles - Some of the levels are difficult but overall the puzzles can be solved quickly. And there are plenty of them. A series of fun, quick puzzles: the perfect game for 5 minute breaks.
It's interactive and just fun to play. Move your finger, release, shoot the bird, it makes a sound, maybe touch again and the bird does an ability, then shit falls down. And it's you who's doing it. Who doesn't like to knock down dominos?
You're constantly touching the phone and the phone is reacting to you. There's sensory feedback and an addicting rhythm.
Character - You're not shooting rocks and bombs, they're birds! They are colorful and they squawk! And you're not shooting targets, you're shooting pigs! Pigs who smugly smile when you don't hit them.And there's fun music.
Puzzles - Some of the levels are difficult but overall the puzzles can be solved quickly. And there are plenty of them. A series of fun, quick puzzles: the perfect game for 5 minute breaks.
It's interactive and just fun to play. Move your finger, release, shoot the bird, it makes a sound, maybe touch again and the bird does an ability, then shit falls down. And it's you who's doing it. Who doesn't like to knock down dominos?
You're constantly touching the phone and the phone is reacting to you. There's sensory feedback and an addicting rhythm.
I don't think it's the cute visuals. I have struggled with compulsive gambling for over 15 years. I normally hate casual games, but immediately had the same addiction to Angry Birds that I do to gambling (which is good because it costs less :) ). The same thing occurred with Tiny Wings. In fact, I've been able to predict both the rise and fall of several game titles just based on my initial reaction to the game. I guess I am hyper-sensitive to any addicting elements that exist.
Anyway, if you want to design an addictive game, look at the characteristics of casino games and design games around those. Maybe all game companies should take copies of their games to Gambler's Anonymous meetings for vetting :).
Anyway, if you want to design an addictive game, look at the characteristics of casino games and design games around those. Maybe all game companies should take copies of their games to Gambler's Anonymous meetings for vetting :).
I hazard that its not so much the game itself but the climate within which it was launched and advertised. Saying that, i imagine there were probably enough similar if not identical games that would have failed miserably, in which case Angry Birds set it self apart with simple gameplay, story line and characters.
I do find it depressing that this is the only thing people can bloody go on about though.
I do find it depressing that this is the only thing people can bloody go on about though.
1. Polish.
2. Funny storyline/characters.
3. Simple. Can get in and out. Can play for 1 minute or 30 minutes.
4. You can play the same level over and over and it's different every time due to the mechanics of destroying things that have their own physical properties. It's hard enough to get you to try again but not so difficult that you're driven away.
Points 1 and 2 are what I would call The Draw. They bring you in.
Points 3 and 4 and what I would call The Keeper. They bring you back.
This is why I think it's a good game. There are lots of good games that aren't popular. The reason why it's popular probably has more to do with word-of-mouth advertising and then media coverage. There are probably a high number of addicts (myself included) that go on to evangelize the game to other device owners.
2. Funny storyline/characters.
3. Simple. Can get in and out. Can play for 1 minute or 30 minutes.
4. You can play the same level over and over and it's different every time due to the mechanics of destroying things that have their own physical properties. It's hard enough to get you to try again but not so difficult that you're driven away.
Points 1 and 2 are what I would call The Draw. They bring you in.
Points 3 and 4 and what I would call The Keeper. They bring you back.
This is why I think it's a good game. There are lots of good games that aren't popular. The reason why it's popular probably has more to do with word-of-mouth advertising and then media coverage. There are probably a high number of addicts (myself included) that go on to evangelize the game to other device owners.
I think they did a great marketing job. They released in December (good timing for Christmas) at the cheapest price point. Probably great timing to help it into the top 10 initially. Then they made sure they looked after their users by consistently giving new levels for free for the first 6-12 months. Heck they are still giving free updates now! People love that, in turn the more users took the time to give it good reviews which then helped sell to more people & keep it in the top ten.
I think that AB success comes not only from the perfect execution, but also from being able to occupy previously under-served niche: casual iPhone game that can be played in small increments. One game round (successful or not) takes around 30 seconds, after this you have a choice to continue or to stop. If something more important comes up, you stop, if you are still waiting in line, you continue. Then you are drinking coffee and eating croissant, played few round, back to sipping coffee, played few round more.
It's easy to start and easy to stop, and you don't feel that you loose something if you have to stop at this particular moment, and this is really import for the casual game on the phone.
Look at the Cut the Rope. It copies AB concepts verbatim - short engaging levels, three starts, cute character (and candy! :) It became quite a successful game. I don't think Tiny Wings will hold position 1 in the charts long - it's cute, but game progress becomes very difficult quickly and "start-stop model" is not as good. The main reason it is (most likely) not going to stick to position 1 is that there is no way to add incremental value by adding new levels and thus rekindling interest and pumping the rating (another ingenious thing Rovio invented or borrowed and perfectly executed).
It's easy to start and easy to stop, and you don't feel that you loose something if you have to stop at this particular moment, and this is really import for the casual game on the phone.
Look at the Cut the Rope. It copies AB concepts verbatim - short engaging levels, three starts, cute character (and candy! :) It became quite a successful game. I don't think Tiny Wings will hold position 1 in the charts long - it's cute, but game progress becomes very difficult quickly and "start-stop model" is not as good. The main reason it is (most likely) not going to stick to position 1 is that there is no way to add incremental value by adding new levels and thus rekindling interest and pumping the rating (another ingenious thing Rovio invented or borrowed and perfectly executed).
I think there is something else going on as well. The characters in the game cheer, snicker and scream, but are otherwise incapable of volontary movement. As players we have to carry out all their actions for them. This deeply rekindles with how we play/played with toys as kids, but we dont have to act out all aspects of the game like the physics and voices of the characters.
It is much more the perfect play, rather than the perfect game.
It is much more the perfect play, rather than the perfect game.
I love projects that add a vim-like interface to browsers and other GUI applications. But adding an Angry Birds-like interface to enterprise applications would boost productivity even more. It's strange how rarely gaming metaphors influence business software, and I've often wondered why CMS software doesn't adopt the same type of interfaces you find in RPGs, making them more intuitive and engaging.
Quite a few companies are working on this around the world. A concrete example coming to mind is Entellium, that makes a CRM which is largely driven by game mechanics.
Problem is, good game mechanics are very hard to do. But even worse, using such mechanics makes it very easy to accidentally promote wrong behaviour.
For example, score 2 points for sending an email to a prospect, score 5 for calling. 3 emails will give you more points, but any salesman will tell you one call is worth more than 3 emails. So if the "game balance" in your biz app is off, you might thus end up with negative productivity for your users :-)
It's all very interesting though.
Problem is, good game mechanics are very hard to do. But even worse, using such mechanics makes it very easy to accidentally promote wrong behaviour.
For example, score 2 points for sending an email to a prospect, score 5 for calling. 3 emails will give you more points, but any salesman will tell you one call is worth more than 3 emails. So if the "game balance" in your biz app is off, you might thus end up with negative productivity for your users :-)
It's all very interesting though.
I must point out that these types of non-predictive analysis can be misleading. One can always point out different merits of a very successful product, but we cannot prove or disprove that these merits has actually led to the success. It could be any point that is missing from the list, and no one can prove or disprove that without extensive comparison analysis. So, please do take caution.
For me, it resembles Microsoft's Basic Gorillas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorillas_(video_game) and Worms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worms_(series) .
Both used the same simple and addictive formula.
I don't understand how this is a cognitive breakdown of Angry Birds. Trying to relate short-term memory to the success of the game really misses the point. There is so much more that went on the contribute to the success of the game. I guess the question I would want to have answered is how can I attribute qualities that make a game fun and playable to my own games. If there was a direct and single answer to this question I believe no game company would fear losing money on any of their triple A titles.
I'm glad I read this because these concepts can also be applied for gamification to boost user engagement. I was already planning on using some game mechanics, but the ones mentioned in the article are subtly executed which should provide for a more seamless integration.
An even simpler game that's doing very well in the app store is Little Wings. All you do is touch the screen to fold the little bird's wings, so he falls faster. Just goes to show casual games don't need much complexity to be fun.
Angry Birds kind of reminds me of that old Artillery game on early Macs, which was really engaging with 2-people--if only Angry Birds had such.
At any rate, that game's success has been monumental and I am in awe of the creators.
At any rate, that game's success has been monumental and I am in awe of the creators.
It seems to me that Angry Birds is essentially a modernized re-imagining of the classic DOS game, Scorched Earth. Perhaps that's what you're remembering? I don't recall if there was a Mac release of Scorched Earth though.
Angry Birds is a poster child for the way "modern indies" design there games:
* evergreen mechanic
* cute visuals
* generated contentNot sure what you mean by generated content here.
In Angry Birds, all the levels are designed. Not generated algorithmically (as opposed to a game like Canabalt, where the entire level is generated on the fly).
In Angry Birds, all the levels are designed. Not generated algorithmically (as opposed to a game like Canabalt, where the entire level is generated on the fly).
And there I was thinking that AB's success and CTC's failure was that the former doesn't finish after a mere handful of levels...
The catapult touchscreen physics is enormously satisfying, as is the scale change when you pan between catapult and target.
I think the sounds are cool. I mean yeah, the gameplay, but the sounds are fun.
no doubt angry birds is well developed game for touch devices....but does it really have any competition?
Here's an interesting take on Angry Birds:
http://blog.munchonme.com/?p=59
http://blog.munchonme.com/?p=59
As already stated in the comments, Angry Birds is almost identical to "Crush the Castle", another game, of which Flash versions were quite successful but mobile versions weren't. (It involves destroying castles with a trebuchet -- play it here: http://armorgames.com/play/3614/crush-the-castle).
It would have made for a more interesting article to compare Angry Birds and Crush the Castle (CTC) to identify differences between the two; as it is the article lists six attributes of success for Angry Birds:
1. simple yet engaging interaction concept
2. cleverly managed response time
3. short-term memory management
4. mystery
5. how things sound
6. how things look
Every one of those qualities is present in CTC, sometimes differently (different sound, different look) but most of the time EXACTLY in the same way (the first three items).
The main originality of Angry Birds is that projectiles are not inanimate objects but living (thinking) creatures, and the pigs (the victims) are stupid/despicable.
In CTC the projectiles are bullets and the victims are soldiers: the goal is to crush the castle but not really to kill the soldiers; the player doesn't care about them (and she certainly doesn't care about the projectiles). It's mostly an engineering project.
In Angry Birds the goal is more to kill the pigs than to crush their houses, and the player identifies with the birds. I would argue this (the story) is a key element to user engagement.