-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Eurogamer.net - Why I Hate Angry Birds
- Thread starter clav
- Start date
bishoptl said:
not at all, it's a boring and ugly canabalt, something you play on the wc and regret doing so while you're wiping. we had better, more engaging, funnier, more interesting games twenty years ago on machines that had a fraction of the power available today. without resorting to bullshit retro blues, too. we've reverted to a state where empty timewasters are considered as games with a narrative. I was fed up with this kind of games long before game & watch things were considered 'old stuff'. I don't even have to make you examples, just open up any MAME and browse games around the year 88. shit you play for a minute or an hour and is way more sophisticated and fun that 99% of the stuff sold on the app store.
plagiarize
Banned
i know. it's weird how much i've come to respect Pop Cap.reKon said:
MarshMellow96
Member
Clott said:
Yeah, that's the angle I would've taken.
Always-honest
Banned
never played it.
I thought it was a boring and innocuous game myself (based on the Lite version), but I don't really have any sort of hatred toward the game. I think people are just pissed about the stuff surrounding the game, not the game itself. I don't see how anyone could actively hate Angry Birds purely based on the game.
-Pyromaniac-
Member
To me Angry Birds is one of the best time wasters out there you know. When you just want to quickly play something, it's very addicting as well. But a meaningful gaming experience it is not, not even remotely. But I don't think it's trying to be one.
D
Deleted member 47027
Unconfirmed Member
It doesn't matter if a 'stupid' game is selling tens of millions of copies. It's the business of goddamn amusement. Amuse yourselves. Some games aren't amusing and take a different route, this one doesn't. Not a big deal.
hosannainexcelsis
Member
Angry Birds isn't a bad game (though there are far better "causal" games), but this statement is ridiculous. You cannot seriously be saying that Angry Birds is as deep of a game as, say, Super Mario World.Zenith said:
cornontheCoD
Neo Member
Wow, I didn't know about that Mighty Eagle powerup. Casual gaming is so casual that people will pay money to play less of a game? Good god.
Foxtastical
Member
Someone wants to be an elitist.
Name dropping AMC shows...what a joke.
Dude whines about Angry Birds but gives 999 a 7/10. Yeeeeeeeeeeeah, okay.
Also, dude wrote this:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2010-11-26-why-i-love-wheelman-review
Dude whines about Angry Birds but gives 999 a 7/10. Yeeeeeeeeeeeah, okay.
Also, dude wrote this:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2010-11-26-why-i-love-wheelman-review
N
NinjaFridge
Unconfirmed Member
Foxtastical said:
Not going to happen unless he has a GAF account.
Air Zombie Meat
Member
NinjaFridge said:
Actually he does
Seen him post on GAF before.I'm not a fan, but I don't hate it, though I don't like the rapid ego Rovio is developing for having only one (albeit major) success to its name. Do something else cool -- i.e. not another AB spinoff -- then you can start talking.
I'm more stunned by the fact that, for over a year, no one has been able to contest with the dominance that AB has over the app store. Seriously, it's basically had a stranglehold over the best-selling AND top-grossing spots for as long as I can recall.
I'm more stunned by the fact that, for over a year, no one has been able to contest with the dominance that AB has over the app store. Seriously, it's basically had a stranglehold over the best-selling AND top-grossing spots for as long as I can recall.
The Bookerman
Member
Isn't Pain on PSN basically the same thing as Angry birds?
cornontheCoD
Neo Member
Massa said:
That analogy doesn't work. Crush the Castle is free, there have been multiple level packs for it, and it is about the same quality as Angry Birds. Angry Birds costs money, and somehow it still has players.
Foxtastical
Member
And really, I'm so sick of hearing how now everything mainstream is dumb, silly, formulaic and trite. Like this didn't happen in the 60s and 70s? Christ.
Ickman3400
Banned
Foxtastical said:
It sometimes gets worse as time goes on though. Like I don't think many people here would seriously say Motley Crue is worse and has less talent than Justin Beiber or Miley Cyrus, as much as many people hate hairbands.
DiscoJer
Member
Foxtastical said:
No, it didn't, actually.
I don't think there has been a period in history that is so trite and lame as the 00s and 10s.
I mean, look around, people look like they did in the late 70s and early 80s, minus all the silly stuff. Everyone looks like the un-cool people from back then.
I mean, seriously, WTF? Where's all the wild and crazy stuff that usually shocks previous generations? It's not happening.
In the entertainment world, we've seen re-make after re-make after re-make (of movies and TV shows from the 70 and 80s).
People act so smug and superior today, but things like Elvis and the Beatles and the Sex Pistols and the Village People shocked the world. What does today offer? Lady Gaga. Who at best is a tame version of Elton John...
faceless007
Member
He's basically right about the unfair design. I played a few levels but when I realized the game gave absolutely no feedback or variables to help you adjust your shot I knew it was intentionally frustrating.
gray_fox224
Junior Member
.HomerSimpson-Man said:
