
Why Angry Birds is so successful and popular? - tuhin
http://www.mauronewmedia.com/blog/2011/02/why-angry-birds-is-so-successful-a-cognitive-teardown-of-the-user-experience/
======
bambax
What about the _story_?

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: <http://armorgames.com/play/3614/crush-the-castle>).

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:

1\. simple yet engaging interaction concept

2\. cleverly managed response time

3\. short-term memory management

4\. mystery

5\. how things sound

6\. how things look

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).

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.

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.

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.

~~~
tzs
A huge difference is the controls. In CTC you aim by timing the release during
the swing of the trebuchet. This is tricky, especially since you can't see the
target. In Angry Birds you aim by pointing in the direction you want to launch
the bird.

A slight error in the timing of the trebuchet launch easily turns your shot
into a complete miss.

Angry Birds does introduce timing later, with the various types of birds whose
behavior changes with a tap while in flight, but that generally occurs when
the bird is close to the target where a slight error usually doesn't
completely waste the bird.

The net result is that in Angry Birds I feel like I'm spending most of my
effort concentrating on how best to attack the puzzle of understanding the
physics of the level so as to efficiently get through it. In CTC I'm
concentrating on the reflex game of clicking at the right point in the
trebuchet swing. The former is simply a much more engaging game.

PS: I disagree that CTC is not about killing the people. There are levels with
people outside the castle. Take down the castle but leave some of those people
alive, and the level is not over. Killing the people is the victory condition,
so I'd say the game is about killing the people.

~~~
bambax
> _Killing the people is the victory condition_

True, but do you really _want_ to kill those people? They don't even behave
like people -- more like "statues that bleed".

> _A huge difference is the controls. In CTC you aim by timing the release
> during the swing of the trebuchet. This is tricky_

I'm not so sure. I find operating the trebuchet more intuitive / simple than
pulling the sling in the right direction with the right amount of force to
send the birds in the air.

BTW, birds fly; they don't need a sling to be airborne... Those "angry birds"
are in fact chickens.

Chickens vs. pigs: a simple farm image that speaks to everyone and draws on
childhood memories?

------
pfedor
_Why do the houses containing pigs shake ever so slightly at the beginning of
each game play sequence?_

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.

~~~
nodata
It's to show you that the house is an object which can be moved/destroyed.

~~~
awj
You're both right.

------
teyc
I'd wasted enough time on Angry Birds to feel qualified enough to write about
it.

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.

2\. The whimsical characters mean that there are no scruples with killing real
pigs.

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.

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".

5\. The matter of waiting for 2-3 seconds makes for exasperating play, which
again is pretty addictive.

~~~
jules
What do you mean by point 5?

~~~
icegreentea
It's like teasing. To draw a ridiculous analogy, its like foreplay to sex. It
makes it better.

Less ridiculous is this comparison. It's like that slight twitch you get
watching the "starting in 3..2..1" dialog before a round of Starcraft or Halo
or something... but even more frequent. Anticipation is everything. You get
addicted as much to the anticipation, as the moment itself.

------
joe_the_user
"This question pops up when products become massively successful based on
their user experience design – think iPhone, iPad, _Google Instant Search_ ,
Nintendo Wii, Microsoft Kinect."

Google Instant Search?

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.

------
trout
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.

~~~
wiredfool
Angry birds reminds me a lot of the gameplay and level design of Lode Runner
for the Apple IIe. Simple concept, artistic levels that were pictures or boats
or houses, and totally addictive gameplay.

Now all we need is a level editor for angry birds...

~~~
alanfalcon
My current aspirations of real full time game development can be traced back
to designing Lode Runner levels on my first computer, a Mac 512k. I used to
design levels in MacPaint and pretend to play them, because I didn't know any
better.

------
Dylanlacey
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!"

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.

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.

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).

------
dasil003
This is best description of Angry Birds I've read:

 _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._

------
yesimahuman
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.

------
train_robber
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.

~~~
rbreve
Crush the castle doesn't look fun to play, graphics are very boring. It's way
more fun to drop birds at pigs, than rocks at small statues.

~~~
DrStalker
I personally found Crush the Castle a lot more fun than Angry birds; you don't
get stuck in a linear progression, and it feels a lot more "tactile" to me as
bits slam into other bits and people scream and die.

~~~
pgbovine
_as bits slam into other bits and people scream and die._

hmmm, perhaps this appeal isn't as strongly felt by the general public as cute
birds slamming into pigs?

~~~
DrStalker
I think the market has once again made it clear that my opinions differ from
most people. I can rant about how terrible modern popular books, TV shows and
movies are for a while if you'd like. :-)

~~~
wallflower
what books, movies do you currently find interesting? If you don't mind me
asking.thanks

------
karolisd
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.

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.

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.

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?

You're constantly touching the phone and the phone is reacting to you. There's
sensory feedback and an addicting rhythm.

------
homelesshacker
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.

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 :).

------
FBG
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.

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

------
freshfunk
1\. Polish.

2\. Funny storyline/characters.

3\. Simple. Can get in and out. Can play for 1 minute or 30 minutes.

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.

Points 1 and 2 are what I would call The Draw. They bring you in.

Points 3 and 4 and what I would call The Keeper. They bring you back.

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.

------
kule
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 & keep it in the top ten.

------
vl
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.

It's easy to start and easy to stop, and you don't feel that you loose
something if you _have_ to stop at this particular moment, and this is really
import for the casual game on the phone.

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).

------
martinkallstrom
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.

It is much more the perfect play, rather than the perfect game.

------
qjz
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.

~~~
MortenK
Quite a few companies are working on this around the world. A concrete example
coming to mind is Entellium, that makes a CRM which is largely driven by game
mechanics.

Problem is, good game mechanics are very hard to do. But even worse, using
such mechanics makes it very easy to accidentally promote wrong behaviour.

For example, score 2 points for sending an email to a prospect, score 5 for
calling. 3 emails will give you more points, but any salesman will tell you
one call is worth more than 3 emails. So if the "game balance" in your biz app
is off, you might thus end up with negative productivity for your users :-)

It's all very interesting though.

------
asknemo
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.

------
anodari
For me, it resembles Microsoft's Basic Gorillas
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorillas_(video_game)> and Worms
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worms_(series)> . Both used the same simple and
addictive formula.

------
DamagedProperty
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.

------
flipside
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.

------
ekanes
An even _simpler_ 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.

------
AndreSegers
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.

At any rate, that game's success has been monumental and I am in awe of the
creators.

~~~
blahblahblah
It seems to me that Angry Birds is essentially a modernized re-imagining of
the classic DOS game, Scorched Earth. Perhaps that's what you're remembering?
I don't recall if there was a Mac release of Scorched Earth though.

------
monos
Angry Birds is a poster child for the way "modern indies" design there games:

    
    
      * evergreen mechanic
      * cute visuals
      * generated content

~~~
statictype
Not sure what you mean by generated content here.

In Angry Birds, all the levels are _designed_. Not generated algorithmically
(as opposed to a game like Canabalt, where the entire level is generated on
the fly).

------
vacri
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...

------
bzotto
The catapult touchscreen physics is enormously satisfying, as is the scale
change when you pan between catapult and target.

------
mike463
I think the sounds are cool. I mean yeah, the gameplay, but the sounds are
fun.

------
mpg33
no doubt angry birds is well developed game for touch devices....but does it
really have any competition?

------
jwang815
Here's an interesting take on Angry Birds:

<http://blog.munchonme.com/?p=59>

