Why Angry Birds is so successful and popular?

What about the <i>story</i>?<p>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: <a href="http://armorgames.com/play/3614/crush-the-castle" rel="nofollow">http://armorgames.com/play/3614/crush-the-castle</a>).<p>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:<p>1. simple yet engaging interaction concept<p>2. cleverly managed response time<p>3. short-term memory management<p>4. mystery<p>5. how things sound<p>6. how things look<p>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).<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.

<i>Why do the houses containing pigs shake ever so slightly at the beginning of each game play sequence?</i><p>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'd wasted enough time on Angry Birds to feel qualified enough to write about it.<p>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.<p>2. The whimsical characters mean that there are no scruples with killing real pigs.<p>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.<p>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".<p>5. The matter of waiting for 2-3 seconds makes for exasperating play, which again is pretty addictive.

"This question pops up when products become massively successful based on their user experience design – think iPhone, iPad, <i>Google Instant Search</i>, Nintendo Wii, Microsoft Kinect."<p>Google Instant Search?<p>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.

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!"<p>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.<p>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.<p>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:<p><i>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.</i>

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.

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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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?<p>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.<p>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.<p>I do find it depressing that this is the only thing people can bloody go on about though.

1. Polish.<p>2. Funny storyline/characters.<p>3. Simple. Can get in and out. Can play for 1 minute or 30 minutes.<p>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.<p>Points 1 and 2 are what I would call The Draw. They bring you in.<p>Points 3 and 4 and what I would call The Keeper. They bring you back.<p>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 &#38; 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.<p>It's easy to start and easy to stop, and you don't feel that you loose something if you <i>have</i> to stop at this particular moment, and this is really import for the casual game on the phone.<p>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.<p>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.

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 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorillas_(video_game)" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorillas_(video_game)</a> and Worms <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worms_(series)" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worms_(series)</a> . 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 <i>simpler</i> 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.<p>At any rate, that game's success has been monumental and I am in awe of the creators.

Angry Birds is a poster child for the way "modern indies" design there games:<p><pre><code> * evergreen mechanic * cute visuals * generated content</code></pre>

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:<p><a href="http://blog.munchonme.com/?p=59" rel="nofollow">http://blog.munchonme.com/?p=59</a>