MIT's entrepreneurship review referred to Angry Birds as: " the largest mobile app success the world has seen so far."
The description of "Angry Birds" doesn't sound nearly capable of that: "In the game, players use a slingshot to launch birds at pigs stationed on or within various structures, with the intent of destroying all the pigs on the playfield."
I downloaded Angry Birds without knowing anything about it except the hype. The premise is kinda ridiculous: the idea literally is to use a slingshot to launch little bird-shaped graphics at glass houses full of pigs. After hitting the pigs, the birds bounce, go cross-eyed and then disappear in a puff of feathers. It's a little bit alarming.
I didn't find "Angry Birds" all that addictive when I played it this morning, but now I've been thinking about it all day. I'm kind of excited to get home and play Angry Birds again.
This is all a bit surprising because I don't ever get addicted to video games even though I love video games. This got me thinking about what makes games addictive.
At a friend's house recently, I spent a good couple of hours glued to the video game "God of War." Eventually, though, I gave it up for the same reason that I give up on all video games: the fifth time I found myself repeating a challenge, I got bored. Why did I like it in the first place? It featured gorgeous graphics and a beautifully developed alternative world.
Anyone who has ever played any video game knows that they feature levels and challenges. Unfortunately, if you fail a challenge, most games load you from the point of competing the most recent previous challenge. Which means you end up repeating a lot of stuff you've already done. The more complicated and multi-faceted each challenge is, the greater likelihood that you'll spend a lot of time repeating it before you figure it out. "God of War" has these elaborate twenty-part challenges that take hours to complete and require all kinds of trial-and-error.
I don't know who actually enjoys this system, because it makes me feel stupid. I feel stupid every time I have to repeat a challenge (it's a video game, after all) and then even more stupid when I get bored and give up (I'm smart: shouldn't I relish a challenge? Am I really just a slacker?)
This shouldn't really surprise me. Research and experience suggests that people get addicted to games that make them feel good about themselves. This isn't all that surprising in the general context of addiction. In general, addicts are people who overdose on pleasure. And creating pleasure is a key part of successful video game design. Pleasure comes from many sources, but most designers agree that a really great game has to make the player feel really good about himself. He has to feel strong, smart, capable and admired.
But I hesitate to dismiss gamers as suckers who live for CGI flattery. The thing is, most video games make you work hard for your ego boost. There are all kinds of levels, secrets and puzzles that require solving. There are no instruction manuals. It takes mental effort and a lot of energy to master even one level of a complicated video game. Because of this, designers include all kinds of mental hooks meant to snare the viewer: the chance to explore new worlds, build online relationships, beat high scorers, etc.
"Angry Birds," has almost none of these features. At the end of the day the game isn't even all that difficult. Which might be why people spend more than 200 million minutes a day playing it, according to some estimates. So what makes Angry Birds more addictive than God of War?
It's partly ease of use: video games feature a steep learning curve. They feature an internally consistent set of rules and strategies. God of War is a bit like the NY Times Sunday crossword: if you're new to the genre, you should probably start with something a little simpler.
But I don't know if I'd ever get into a game like God of War (I mean, I never have.) I love word games, number games and brain teasers. I once helped a friend study for the LSAT, now I do LSAT logic questions for fun. I really like Sudoku. For a while, I wasted hours on Lumosity doing brain teasers. Lumosity claims that their series of "scientific" games can "improve memory and attention", but I really think the site succeeds because the games are simple enough that they reinforce how smart you already are. You're tearing through these games so fast, you must be gifted.
Sudoku, meanwhile, offers the same sedate but undeniable pleasure of LSAT logic puzzles: that of putting something in its rightful place. These types of games are about speed, not accuracy. After all, it's impossible to finish a game of Sudoku and get the solution wrong, unless you've broken one of the rules. So the genius is in finishing them quickly (and sometimes, finishing them at all.) These are the kinds of games that I like.
The description of "Angry Birds" doesn't sound nearly capable of that: "In the game, players use a slingshot to launch birds at pigs stationed on or within various structures, with the intent of destroying all the pigs on the playfield."
I downloaded Angry Birds without knowing anything about it except the hype. The premise is kinda ridiculous: the idea literally is to use a slingshot to launch little bird-shaped graphics at glass houses full of pigs. After hitting the pigs, the birds bounce, go cross-eyed and then disappear in a puff of feathers. It's a little bit alarming.
I didn't find "Angry Birds" all that addictive when I played it this morning, but now I've been thinking about it all day. I'm kind of excited to get home and play Angry Birds again.
This is all a bit surprising because I don't ever get addicted to video games even though I love video games. This got me thinking about what makes games addictive.
At a friend's house recently, I spent a good couple of hours glued to the video game "God of War." Eventually, though, I gave it up for the same reason that I give up on all video games: the fifth time I found myself repeating a challenge, I got bored. Why did I like it in the first place? It featured gorgeous graphics and a beautifully developed alternative world.
Anyone who has ever played any video game knows that they feature levels and challenges. Unfortunately, if you fail a challenge, most games load you from the point of competing the most recent previous challenge. Which means you end up repeating a lot of stuff you've already done. The more complicated and multi-faceted each challenge is, the greater likelihood that you'll spend a lot of time repeating it before you figure it out. "God of War" has these elaborate twenty-part challenges that take hours to complete and require all kinds of trial-and-error.
I don't know who actually enjoys this system, because it makes me feel stupid. I feel stupid every time I have to repeat a challenge (it's a video game, after all) and then even more stupid when I get bored and give up (I'm smart: shouldn't I relish a challenge? Am I really just a slacker?)
This shouldn't really surprise me. Research and experience suggests that people get addicted to games that make them feel good about themselves. This isn't all that surprising in the general context of addiction. In general, addicts are people who overdose on pleasure. And creating pleasure is a key part of successful video game design. Pleasure comes from many sources, but most designers agree that a really great game has to make the player feel really good about himself. He has to feel strong, smart, capable and admired.
But I hesitate to dismiss gamers as suckers who live for CGI flattery. The thing is, most video games make you work hard for your ego boost. There are all kinds of levels, secrets and puzzles that require solving. There are no instruction manuals. It takes mental effort and a lot of energy to master even one level of a complicated video game. Because of this, designers include all kinds of mental hooks meant to snare the viewer: the chance to explore new worlds, build online relationships, beat high scorers, etc.
"Angry Birds," has almost none of these features. At the end of the day the game isn't even all that difficult. Which might be why people spend more than 200 million minutes a day playing it, according to some estimates. So what makes Angry Birds more addictive than God of War?
It's partly ease of use: video games feature a steep learning curve. They feature an internally consistent set of rules and strategies. God of War is a bit like the NY Times Sunday crossword: if you're new to the genre, you should probably start with something a little simpler.
But I don't know if I'd ever get into a game like God of War (I mean, I never have.) I love word games, number games and brain teasers. I once helped a friend study for the LSAT, now I do LSAT logic questions for fun. I really like Sudoku. For a while, I wasted hours on Lumosity doing brain teasers. Lumosity claims that their series of "scientific" games can "improve memory and attention", but I really think the site succeeds because the games are simple enough that they reinforce how smart you already are. You're tearing through these games so fast, you must be gifted.
Sudoku, meanwhile, offers the same sedate but undeniable pleasure of LSAT logic puzzles: that of putting something in its rightful place. These types of games are about speed, not accuracy. After all, it's impossible to finish a game of Sudoku and get the solution wrong, unless you've broken one of the rules. So the genius is in finishing them quickly (and sometimes, finishing them at all.) These are the kinds of games that I like.
No comments:
Post a Comment