Jimquisition: Angry Birds Is Not Sh*t

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

The only problem Angry Birds has ever had is the levels now included in the updates are fucking ridicoulusly hard.

Angry birds is a great game, one my dad actually played through. He doesn't play games at all but for a brief period when I was a kid we would trade off the gameboy to each other until we beat the other's high score in Tetris. Passing his Droid between us playing Angry Birds was a little bit like that.

Anyway, you are definitely a weirdo Jim Sterling but you often speak the truth.

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!

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.

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.

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....

(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.

42:
The only problem Angry Birds has ever had is the levels now included in the updates are fucking ridicoulusly hard.

That's why they bought in the "Mighty Eagle"

Love Angry Birds. Always playing on the train :)

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.

...Yeah alright

I wouldnt call angry birds 'great', but its played for a reason.
And Rovijo needs the shut the fuck up.

doggie015:

42:
The only problem Angry Birds has ever had is the levels now included in the updates are fucking ridicoulusly hard.

That's why they bought in the "Mighty Eagle"

I don't care they brought in an eagle this shit will not beat me. and the eagle is admission of defeat.

...i love angry birds and im a core gamer? >.> i wasnt even aware people hated this game...

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:perception 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.

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.

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.

Jim! Hoi! Over here!

You do not need to defend things. You don't have to say "this game is good, stop hating on it just because it's popular". People are always going to dislike things. There is nothing you can do to stop this. So calm down.

(Also, please stop using the word "gamer". It's nauseating.)

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.

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.

Therumancer:
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.

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.

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.

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.

Who hates Angry birds? No seriously, who? I've never met anyone who took their dislike of the game any further than simply not downloading it.

I have nothing against Angry Birds. I think it's the perfect game for touch screens. but the statement "Call of Duty syndrome all over again".. I have a slight problem with this. I don't hate CoD cause it's popular, hell I'd still hate the exact same if it only sold 100,000 copies. I hate CoD cause of bad design, boring gameplay, awful singleplayer, the fact they announce a new CoD just mere months after the latest is released, the gameplay has been unchanged for 4 games, etc.

I could go on and list hundreds of reasons of why I Hate Call of Duty, and I promise, popularity will not be one of them.

Angry Birds isn't 'impressive.'

It's also a casual game so why should it be?

In other news, Tetris isn't 'impressive.'

It's also the greatest game of all time.

lemby117:
I notice that Jim has decided that if you dislike something popular that you are "an Idiot" I'm sure he thinks worse of us but i'm on orange health and I feel like staying on the escapist so I won't use the language he would use to describe us. problem is I don't like COD and I don't like angry birds and thats because I hate how they are treated as the pinacle of gaming when actualy there just hard to stop playing and that "one more level BS" does not equal quality

Yeah, it's a reverse of the Argument Ad Populum, it's more like Argument ad Non-Populum, or claims of such by others.

First of all I am an hardcore gamer and yes, Angry Birds is an awesome game imo. And yes I like the Angry Birds toys too. Crucify me.

OT the episode was really good. I know Angry Birds isn't anything special, but hell I still like it. I don't really get the hate for the game but I guess everyone has their own opinions....

ikoian:

Furrama:
I can't afford a smart phone so... yeah. Most people can't, and those of us who could get a console can't have both. I'm sure the game is wonderful, but is it worth all the extra money monthly?

Monthly? The games only $1
Also, the game is also free on the Google Chrome app store ^-^

OT: I don't get the hate ether. I played Crush the Castle before Angry Birds and I have to say; yes it borrows elements of Crush the Castle, but to say that they're close to the same game shows one has no knowlege in how Angry Birds plays out. The differences isn't even solely in visuals ether.
I mean in Crush The Castle, you get simply more powerful ammo when you progress the game, while Angry Birds (later in the game) gives you a set number of birds per level which all do different things and you have to use them in a set order, giving it a layer of puzzle on top of Crush The Castle's timing and positioning test.

I meant with the phone fees is it worth it. But nice to know it's free somewhere else.

I dont like Angry Birds, because i played it and found it boring. Thats it. Now Jim complaining about people not liking Angry Birds is dumb because he is saying everyones opinions that the game sucks is wrong. As a reviewer wouldnt he be beyond this kind of crap? Does that mean we can say what he says is wrong because he doesnt "get it"? Not a good vid Jim, comment on something with substance, not whether people hate a crappy game about flinging bird at buildings. Which no one cares about. At all.

AJey:
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!

PR and Marketing teams deserve the praise, yup this is basically my point summed up in the last page. The game is short and sweet, quite suitable for an iphone however that's all it is. The criticism that comes with a popular yet over-rated game should only be defended by it's "fanboys" and fat men with suits who run a show on the escapist.

JustaGigolo:
Angry Birds is the same flash game I've played a million times on Addictinggames during class.

It might not be shit, but it's nothing original or deserving of praise.

If anything, it's just proof that you can take an unoriginal idea, and make a shit ton of cash with it.

I find it strange that you talked about AddictingGames and making a ton of money for no good reason in the same sentence post... (EDIT: Fix'd)

OT: I'd agree. It's not the greatest game in the world but from what I've seen it's pretty damn good and people are constantly hating on any casual game that gets good. Don't hate Angry Birds or PopCap, hate Zynga.

Like the majority of your videos: the point is so simple, so straightforward and so absent of any depth or substance that it can be summed up in the title. Not gonna watch it, you don't deserve me to increase your view count, especially after already two cheap fake videos.

Angry Birds is not a bad game. Its a good game for what it is and has been extremely successful.

Here's the thing: Lets take the old Tom and Jerry cartoons.

Are they good? Absolutely! Some of the best slapstick comedy!

Were they successful? Pretty damn sure they were.

Would I, or a serious film buff, compare them to Citizen Kane, one of the finest films of all time? Or Beauty and the Beast, the first animated feature to be nominated for Best Picture?

Of course not! Its an entirely different type of picture. Its slapstick comedy with minimal story and virtually no dialog, not to mention a completely different running time. It does a disservice to both to compare the two, when all they have in common is their mediums.

This is why Angry Birds irks gamers. Those outside the hardcore gaming world don't see the distinction between Angry Birds and Bioshock. They're both games, and they see the "Casual" moniker as meaning "The hardcore gamers are too snooty to like this game".

Sure, for some people, that's the case. But its just an entirely different sort of game and really shouldn't be held alongside games with deeper and more complex gameplay and story.

I have no issue with angry birds.

I have an issue with Rovio.

The continually stick their heads out and say "Blah blah iphone games rule, blah blah consoles are doomed because they aren't innovating"

"Innovation in gaming has clearly moved into mobile and social, Vesterbacka said, largely because those companies are more "nimble" - it's easy to develop and release new content quickly."

from http://venturebeat.com/2011/03/13/angry-birds-console-gaming/ which is a bit of an older article.

Except. Rovio You aren't innovating you have made 1 game that went gangbusters, probably because it was the only title you release in the iphone market which embraced it, something which isn't innovative because it's built on a pre-existing game. But you did market and make the game appealing to everyone for which you should be applauded.

But then in your so called innovative space you release 4 different versions of angry birds(technically more seeing as the season's ones used to be seperate entities) not counting the lite version's.

Until you start proving that you are more than a 1 hit wonder and actually show you can innovate in your sector stop acting like your the big guns

I'd like to see some sources for what's said in these videos. The comments generally agree: who ever made some of the claims that Jim says have been made? I would love to read these claims in the context Jim is arguing.

Next week's video: someone hates breathing air and Jim will argue against this so that he is, once again, right! Damn those anti-air breathers! I'm so glad I'm more logical and smrt than them! Watching the video will give me a sense of pride to know someone agrees with my pro-air beliefs!

I like how everyone who doesn't like the show continue watching it, so they can continue hating it. quite annoying really. and Rovio really do need to take their heads out of the ground if they think console gaming is over, THERE IS NOTHING INNOVATIVE ABOUT GESTURES ON A TOUCH SCREEN.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here