Slashdot Mirror
Angry Birds and Parabolic Instinct In Humans
Frankie70 writes "Matt Ridley writes about Angry Birds, an iPhone game (later ported to other platforms) which has sold more than 12 million copies. The spectacular trajectory of the game, from obscure Finnish iPhone app to global ubiquity — there are board games, maybe even movies in the works — is probably inexplicable. Ridley wonders if there is an evolutionary aspect to its allure. There is something much more satisfactory about an object tracing a parabolic ballistic trajectory through space towards its target than either following a straight line or propelling itself."
a rhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Wars
Anyone who played the ancient cannon game would resonate with this. Two cannon, placed on opposite sides of the screen, take turns firing shots where the angle and velocity is variable. Very satisfying for such a simple game.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
An "Angry Birds" movie? Look, I love the game, I really do. But a movie? Please no.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Can't anything just be fun anymore?
When I was a kid, I had a dog that could follow a parabolic trajectory. By throwing the ball at an angle to roll along the angled roof of our house, its trajectory would follow the arc and drop down at a point further down the yard.
The dog learned to anticipate where the ball would fall from the roof, even though she couldn't see the ball from her vantage point on the ground.
John
Yes. Loved it. My first experience with trying to manipulate code (after nibbles, of course). Good times.
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
..don't they fix the parabolic action (or lack thereof) of the "bomber" birds' payload egg? I had gotten so used to the extremely satisfying physics of the game that when that one came along and didn't describe a curved trajectory upon release, it totally threw me off and still does to today.
Blog,Twitter
Yes! And ironically, one of Microsoft's best games was open source.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Angry Birds is fun and cute, but hardly anything more. It isn't even original.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
When you drop things, they drop straight down. They should carry some forward momentum.
...but is it anything like that Cheerleader tossing game on the web?
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/games/play/80505395/
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
For me the game seems attractive due to a mix of simple, but challenging game play, simple but cute graphics and the whole audio choice which makes it feel like some sort of crazy mad house. Maybe people like crazy?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
I kind of wonder if this is our inner caveman speaking out. Rock throwing intrigues us and was once our main weapon against prey and predator. There's something inside that just drives a man to pick up an object and throw it. It's fun.
Tiger Blooded Bi-Winning Machine
The parabolic path of the birds, sure. Or maybe just breaking things. Glass, wood, rocks, pumpkins. Who doesn't like smashing a pumpkin? A simple puzzle game. That's the allure. Let's try not to over-analyze.
The snow in the Christmas version kinda didn't behave correctly. It made me angry.
With no reference to other artillery games in TFA, I'm wondering if the author has any clue that this gameplay mechanic is awesome, proven, and more than 30 years old. As it's relatively fresh, long live wikipedia btw :)
Angry Birds != Scorched Earth.
If you really really oversimplify those two then they have some similarities but the way you play them is very different. It's like saying Sonic the Hedgehog is unoriginal because Super Mario Bros. preceded it.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Is this another advert for that overhyped game?
Seriously this game is nothing new. Yes it is addictive but so are all the trajectory games made before it.
Also the music and sound effects is a bloody outrage, so extremely repetitive.
--
http://www.twilightcampaign.net/index.php?topic=19.0
Wasn't my first experience, but I wrote some AI for it when I was on holiday once, and the only computer around was an old 386 laptop. The opponents ranged from an artificial simulation of me which played pretty well, down to one of my brother - which I rather harshly set to throw the banana completely randomly, meaning he often destroyed himself! :)
which is totally what she said
clearly this "parabola" person has never seen a missile file in person.
This other popular iPhone game works this way, too. Instead of just gravity, a variable speed fan adds to the arc calculation.
http://www.kongregate.com/games/Moly/gorillas-bas
My first exposure to source code was BASIC on the Apple II in elementary school -- computer lab.
However, it wasn't until a year later when I got an IBM with MSDOS + QBasic, that I was able spend enough time with source code to discover how to program. The books were all gibberish to me, but learning via modifying GORILLAS.BAS was a satisfying / rewarding experience.
I've seen lots of today's young programmers enlightened by open sourced games (like Doom, Quake, etc.), Perhaps Angry Birds source will be available in time as well.
Somebody has finally explained the runaway popularity of GORILLAS.BAS !!!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
The sound makes it a good game.
Also, the repetitiveness and then accomplishment of finishing a level.
It's similar to playing Ikaruga over and over again to get just a little bit further, but forgiving enough for the masses.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
we have been fascinated by parabolic trajectories. It has evolved somewhat into the interest of aerodynamics, hence the Frisbee. When do we get a dog catching a Frisbee game?
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Actually there are flash games out there that did what Angry Birds did before Angry Birds. Those games you mentioned... not so much.
Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
Golf isn't too far off from the same basic concept, either.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
01011001 01100101 01100001 00101100 00100000 01001001 00100000 01101011 01101110 01101111 01110111 00101110
The physics is fun but the birds have character because of the sounds and I like that most - they're not precisely cute either which is also nice because soppy cuteness can be revolting :-) Other games often lack this kind of appeal as it's harder to describe than fps and explosions. If I was going to rant it would be about how brain dead and boring multi-million dollar games seem to be *because* the money drives out the personality.
This is all just my personal opinion.
Don't forget the classic Worms! That was HOURS of fun!
I'm a wanker.... and loving it!
Yes, Worms! That's an incredible just-one-more-and-then-I-quite-seriouslah game!
Parabolic, wind resistance, thrust, what a physics project that was.
Btw my little brother replaced the voicesets- Imagine hearing Worf throwing intimidations in-game.
The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
I'll give you credit that the game is more similar to Angry Birds is than Scorched Earth is, but it is not 'almost identical'. You can't, for example, master Crush the Castle then suddenly be an expert at Angry Birds. It doesn't work the other way, either. The way the games are played is that different.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Seems obvious to me: hitting your target is more challenging, and thus it's more of an accomplishment, which is what games are all about. Imagine Scorched Earth where there were no obstacles and you could just shoot straight at the enemy.
We had a lot of fun changing the size of the explosion to envelope the whole screen. ^_^
This was done on various computers at school and people were unaware of the changes until they played.
I wonder if those computers are still being used today and if anyone has managed to revert the changes.
You can't take the sky from me.
It's just a game that was lucky enough to become "cool" with kids and the next big thing in school fashion. Youth club leader friend says every kid who is anyone has that game. This is of course also true to a fair extent with adults. I'm sure it's not the first time this kind of thing has happened to some random lucky subject, be it a game or a pop star (Bieber?)
Or to put it more cynically and slashdotty, it is massively overhyped and managed to go viral.
It's like saying Sonic the Hedgehog is unoriginal because Super Mario Bros. preceded it.
Actually it kinda is. Very little in that game that hadn't been done before.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
You could use the same argument to say that men and women are virtually identical.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
What's with all the talk about this Angry Birds game everywhere?
It is the result of the way the AppStore and basically the whole Internet works. Some stuff gets to the top and then, by being on the top it enters a feedback loop: more people see it, thus more people buy and thus more people report about it, which in turn means more people will see it and buy it. This feedback loop then turns a decent game into such a blockbuster success. All those random flash games out there never entered into such a feedback loop and thus never got that popular.
This is one of those depressing things with modern technology. You have access to basically everything, which should mean more variety, but due to the self enforcing feedback everybody gets exposed to basically the same stuff and the result is less variety.
The coolest version of this game was "Football" played on a cafeteria tabletop with a folded up sheet of paper. You would score by flicking the paper with your middle finger through a set of "uprights" consisting of your opponent holding up two "L's" with his thumbs and index fingers.
Had it all. Parabolic, wind resistance, thrust, what a physics game that was.
You are welcome on my lawn.
...the sales numbers for flash-in-the-pan games. Not saying this is one, but we've seen it with just about every game on Facebook. Mobile games may not be much different.
Is this why few things in video games have ever been more satisfying than using the grenade launcher in GoldenEye?
Even better than that we have a multidimensional integrator that can take into account the effects of drag on a trajectory. Its hard to imaging a sport involving throwing or hitting flying objects that would be possible without this instinct. Our ancestors probably would have died out before they reached the savannas without it.
Support SETI@home
Taking apart Gorrilas, Nibbles, and some GWbasic programs are what really fast-forwarded my understanding of programming. The fact that they were just sitting there in C:\DOS - for FREE! - was like finding treasure!
I'm going to show my wife this tonight and let her marvel at the wonders that came with DOS 6 :)
Bigger explosions, wider buildings, bigger sons, floating gorillas, smarter computer... Man I spent hours on that in Elementary.
-Matt
--- Need web hosting?
For me, the enjoyment of Angry Birds has nothing to do with parabolic instinct. It has everything to do with causing destruction with different methods and giggling over the silly graphics and sounds. The game is entertaining. This feels like an attempt at a scientific explanation for popularity. Why can't a game just be fun?
I'm not sure what the GP said (apart from the bit you quoted), nor do I know if anyone else said something more insightful than you did. But your post is +4, and I almost moderated it up to +5.
Then I decided to break the feedback loop and not mod you up. Viva variety! You're welcome.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
> It is the result of the way the AppStore and basically the whole
> Internet works. Some stuff gets to the top and then, by being
> on the top it enters a feedback loop: more people see it, thus
> more people buy and thus more people report about it, which
> in turn means more people will see it and buy it.
Replace "the AppStore and basically the whole Internet" with "pretty much everything everywhere"--movies, TV shows, cars, songs, restaurants, nightclubs... does anything NOT work like this?
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
This is one of those depressing things with modern technology. You have access to basically everything, which should mean more variety, but due to the self enforcing feedback everybody gets exposed to basically the same stuff and the result is less variety.
Only if you're a sheep. Besides one man's lack of variety feed back loop is another man's sense of community. Technology gives you capabilities you'd otherwise not have. Choice is good.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Very interesting article, very well written. My daughter loves Angry Birds, it is one of the few games I have actually played on her iPod Touch which doesn't make me grimace. This article does a very good job of explaining why such a simple game is so intriguing. They are milking it a bit now with the addition of the Eagle as an in-game paid-upgrade, but the original game was simply very well put together. This article explains how it came to be such a big seller, and regardless of whether the "humans are the only creatures which use parabolic curves" argument holds any weight, it certainly made for interesting reading. DD.
This article does a very good job of explaining why such a simple game is so intriguing.
I thinks it's more like it appeals to dim-witted people. Seriously. It's only the people who are a little bit slow that seem to like this retard game. Most of the more intelligent friends I have go for games that take a little bit of brain power. I can't understand for the life of me why it's a #1 app in the Apple store. On the iPhone or the iPod, you can't even see the whole field of play on the screen and you spend the whole time panning back-n-forth!
You could use the same argument to say that men and women are virtually identical.
Not "virtually identical", we were talking about "unoriginal", which is true of the design of women, because God basically used the same blueprint and only made enough changes for Eve to serve as a companion creature to Adam.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
Angry Birds is fun and cute, but hardly anything more. It isn't even original.
Yeah, because firing projectiles to kill an enemy on contact is totally the same as firing projectiles to knock down a complex structure that would be a puzzle in itself even if the ballistic aspect were taken out of the game.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
Ok, the parabolic instinct explains Angry Birds, but now explain to me the Pet Rock, the Chia Pet, or anything sold by Ron Popeil. Sometimes people just fall for something inexplicably stupid and pointless. I'd write more about it, but I have to get back to World of Warcraft.
Not "virtually identical", we were talking about "unoriginal"...
That's not exactly a big distinction. Any inspired piece of work would not be considered 'original' then.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
It is quite correct that physics-based games that involve targeting of parabolic trajectories are very old, dating back almost to the earliest days of computer gaming. Yet over all this time, such games have been at best mildly popular. So how is it that Angry Birds is a mega-hit when nearly everybody has played a game that is sort of like it?
I attribute its success to these factors:
1. Excellent puzzle design and progression. Key to a puzzle game is that the player must always feel challenged, but never frustrated enough to give up. In Angry Birds, it is possible to pass a level without a perfect score, reducing frustration, while still returning it to try to improve performance, maintaining replay value.
2. Excellent user interface. Touch control makes a big difference for games of this sort is a big asset to games of this sort. The use of a slingshot, as opposed to a cannon or catapult also makes the game more intuitive, as most everybody understands the dynamics, and the rubber band provides a visual cue to the trajectory. A dotted line shows you last trajectory for comparison. (For comparison, I took a look at Scorched Earth, a game identified by others--correctly--as similar, and after 5 minutes I still hadn't figured out how to control my trebuchet.
3. Engaging graphics. Puzzle games go well with bright, cartoony characters. The simple, cute characters and backgrounds amuse the player without distracting too much from the puzzles.
So basically, what we have is a triumph of execution--a classic concept finally done well.
I'll give you credit that the game is more similar to Angry Birds is than Scorched Earth is, but it is not 'almost identical'. You can't, for example, master Crush the Castle then suddenly be an expert at Angry Birds. It doesn't work the other way, either. The way the games are played is that different.
They are as identical as two independently developed games based on the same concept can be. Angry Birds has the same goal and progression style as Crush the Castle. Just because the projectiles have different special features or the launching mechanics are slightly different doesn't mean they are not virtually identical. Angry birds is just simplified for a mobile interface and with a cute storyline added.
The point of the game isn't the goal, it's the gameplay. In the example you gave, Crush the Castle and Angry Birds are not identical. In fact, the difference isn't even subtle. What's similar, to you, is the presentation of the game. If you were watching those games on Youtube, it'd be very easy to say that they're virtually identical. However, when you have the controls in your hot little hands, they are not. What you learn playing Angry Birds does not apply to Crush the Castle.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Not "virtually identical", we were talking about "unoriginal"...
That's not exactly a big distinction. Any inspired piece of work would not be considered 'original' then.
???????????
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
What I mean by that is that the term 'unoriginal' in this context is vague. You have to ignore the fact that the gameplay is distinct in order to call the unoriginal. You could call Super Mario 64 unoriginal using the same rationale.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
What I mean by that is that the term 'unoriginal' in this context is vague. You have to ignore the fact that the gameplay is distinct in order to call the unoriginal. You could call Super Mario 64 unoriginal using the same rationale.
I guess I don't find the gameplay of Sonic to be that distinct. I do find the gameplay of Super Mario 64 distinct. Sonic is just far more similar to SMB in how it plays than any of the other pairs of things you've mentioned are similar to each other. Including Angry Birds. OP's comparisons to Scorched Earth and Tank Wars had me wondering if OP has ever actually played Angry Birds. Shooting objects on parabolic trajectories where one only needs to hit the enemy is very different from shooting objects on parabolic trajectories to impact a structure and cause its collapse; analyzing the structure that needs collapsing is basically a puzzle game unto itself. So I was in total agreement with your main point, I just didn't think Sonic vs. SMB was the best illustration of that point.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
Yeah, I think we more or less agree. I do see a distinction between Sonic and SMB, but the main reason for that is with Sonic you just keep going and going and going. With SMB, you go, stop, go, stop etc. That make sense?
Have a good evening.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
more than the internet, its the way power law phenomena occur. Big cities get bigger faster. Frequent words are disproportionately more frequent than you'd expect. So, the question is, what is the generalization to what you called the "feedback loop" for cities, word usage, etc.?
They lied to you in high school physics. The sad thing is that they usually have the correct answer on the test: an ellipse. Things flying when we ignore air resitance, tides and such are in orbit for a very short time.
While parabolas might be interesting to humans, they are a rather recent discovery. And although humans have long been able to play catch, the nature of the actual curve and its extrapolation to other things was unknown until recently.
It was Galileo who first had the insight that a ballistic object might follow something like a parabola. But it wasn't until Newton and Bernoulli that the idea really took hold.
Keep in mind that military applications were the highest common applications of mathematics at the time. Military ballistic diagrams from times prior to that show projectiles following angular paths, such as forward and up in a straight line to the middle, suddenly turning X degrees, and heading forward and down in a straight line. Or else weirdly curved paths, like going at an upward angle in a nearly straight line or shallow curve, then turning and falling straight down.
Since the best military minds of the time could do no better than that, I don't think there is much evidence for an "instinct" for parabolas.
Angry Birds, an iPhone game (later ported to other platforms)...
Hm, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Angry Birds was a game first for Nokia MeeGo/Symbian. After its success there it was ported to the iPhone and other platforms.
"Sum Ergo Cogito"
Try long range target shooting IRL, perfect example of trajectories in practice.
Guitar Hero wasn't that impressive to anyone that remembered Simon - AB isn't that impressive to anyone that played Tanks (or later, Worms...it's not exactly a new concept.
None of which will stop the mac crowd writing articles such as this (TL:DR; games are fun!) - but then I supposed they were starved of games for so long, it'll be a while before they run out of oldies.
I miss VGA Bomb.
It is true it is probably the first game or even movie in decades that has used natural PHYSICS while showing you the end result.
You know what would be interesting, an airplane flight simulator. Theres a new and creative idea!
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
The game wouldn't matter if it was just another bomb-tosser, of which there are numerous extant variations, none of which became imminently "huge".
The real thing people like is:
1. Sympathising with the underdog (the birds)
The birds are being held back by the green pigs. What's not to like. The birds are cute, they probably don't deserve the ill treatment, and we'd all probably do the same thing in similar circumstances. Similar things have happened before, people used to catapult human beings over walls in order to destroy towns (but that's also not anything that became a huge modern deal).
2. Smashing up cute little things, especially birds
I've seen this personally. On the sidewalk, near the capitol building of my state, smashed-up little birds on the sidewalk. Where you never see anybody but businesspeople walking around carrying briefcases. Some business person saw little baby ducklings and smashed them with his briefcase. Also, since they're birds, they're edible, so we want to smash them anyways, to eat them. And, since they're cute, they are instant targets for aggression in the modern age. This may not be our historical tradition, but it's the way people behave in modern times. If something is cute, or proper, or useful, there's an immediate aggressive and competitive instinct to destroy it.
3. Channeling their anger and aggression through proxy
The bids are really angry, and grumble really angry things when you propel them into the air. If you let the birds just set there, they would grumble and growl for the infinite rest of time or until the device stopped working. They are constructs of pure hatred and malice. Modern people relate directly to that and feel like each individual bird is their hero, and a small part of their own self projected into the imaginary world with the green pigs and houses made of ice. They can vent their aggression by playing the game.
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
For all of you mentioning games before Angry Birds...yeah, we get it. You knew the band before they were famous.
The point of the game isn't the goal, it's the gameplay. In the example you gave, Crush the Castle and Angry Birds are not identical. In fact, the difference isn't even subtle. What's similar, to you, is the presentation of the game. If you were watching those games on Youtube, it'd be very easy to say that they're virtually identical. However, when you have the controls in your hot little hands, they are not. What you learn playing Angry Birds does not apply to Crush the Castle.
I don't know what you're arguing for. Of course the controls are different, simpler even, and that along with amusing graphics has made it the mobile super app that it is.
None of that detracts from the core game concept that makes it fun. The argument from almost everyone else is that Rovio didn't invent a new way to have fun. They just refined it a little for mobile touch environments.
I know your aspergers makes it hard, but please try to grasp the intent of the words you read rather than just the superficial dictionary meanings. Human interaction will become easier for you once that happens.
And before that, we probably threw rocks. Play in most species rehearses the behaviors that are critical for survival. As a species, human beings have three uncommon capabilities which were likely important in our survival as a species: We can throw objects with great accuracy, we can run for extended periods of time, and we have sophisticated communication that enables us to coordinate complex activities within a group. I think that it is not a coincidence that most of our games involve running, throwing/shooting, or teamwork, and often all of them at once.
But Armored Games' Crush the Castle did exactly that (knock down a complex structure, while also killing the occupants, albeit with a trebuchet, rather than a slingshot.)
The Angy Birds game is merely a refined clone of that game.
Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
That game sounds really cool. I'ma have to go check it out. Trebuchets >= Birds, no matter how angry.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009