Les Oiseaux en Colère

Furious Fowl

I am about to talk about Angry Birds.

As a member of teh l33t hardcorz, I should detest this "casual" game, and the cultural dilution it supposedly represents. But after playing it almost every day for the last month or so, I have to admit, this is brilliant game design wrapped in a fantastic business plan.

I'll just go ahead and assume anyone reading this has already sunk a few hours into Angry Birds. In essence, it's a puzzle game, which probably has a lot to do with why I like it. In many ways it echoes the genius of early Nintendo games-- a simple but very functional physics engine; an easy-to-grasp game mechanic with endless iterations; attractive, cartoony graphics that give instantly recognizable visual cues. Now combine that with a business plan that takes full advantage of the viral power of social networks and mobile Internet.

"Okay AAA developers. You might want to be watching the mobile gaming platform and developers like Rovio Mobile because when they can make a little physics-based puzzle game and keep me interested longer than your $60 console title that took three years and millions of dollars to make, they might be on to something."
– Game Chronicles review

To me, what really sets Angry Birds apart is its ridiculous value. I bought the game for $2 on a whim, and I've probably spent as much time playing it as I did Splinter Cell. Rovio has released updates that almost quintupled the games length..... for FREE. The latest update lets you spend $1 for an extra bird-- The Mighty Eagle, Penny Arcade described as "an avian death squad that is fired from an orbital platform." The typical "hardcore" response to a DLC add-on such as this would be to cry foul (or fowl, in this case) at being charged for something that should have been included from the beginning. But since we're talking about one freaking dollar for something that adds considerable value to an already awesome deal, such a complaint seems crude, almost ungrateful.

I've been thinking about the division between "hardcore" and "casual" gamers, and I'm coming to the conclusion that the distinction is entirely artificial. Whenever games are hauled into the public spotlight and blamed for the latest round of school violence, we're always quick to point out that video games are just an entertainment medium, like books or movies, and implore people in the "mainstream" to treat them as such. With the proliferation of mobile games and Wii tournaments in retirement homes, that's rapidly becoming a reality. We used to draw a line between "gamer" and "non-gamer," but these days EVERYONE plays games. People who don't identify as a foodie still enjoy food (presumably); people who don't identify as film buffs still enjoy movies; and now, people who don't identify as gamers still play and enjoy video games. Those of us "hardcore" who remember when gaming was on the fringes of popular culture tend to see this kind of mainstreaming as the defilement of our once-hallowed pastime, like when punk became popular and everyone started liking Lord of the Rings. But this was inevitable, and frankly, as long as I'm still getting great games to play, I don't particularly care how "mainstream" they've become.