What a popularly hated game Angry Birds has become. These Bird-haters are characterised by avian apologists as too-cool-for-casual hipsters. Blind naysayers who just don't appreciate Rovio's vision. Rovio got there first, and it delivered an exquisite balance of rapid-replay compulsion, with perfection hunting providing the longer, hardcore game.
Addictive? Let's see. At the time of playing, there are 40,194 people on the leaderboard for Level 1-1. This level takes around ten seconds to complete. And yet, for Level 1-2, there are only 38,812 entries. That's 1,382 people (3.4 per cent) who spent £30 on a game, loaded it up with glee, then hoofed in their high-definition screens after approximately ten seconds.
But it's addictive, right? Well, for Level 1-21, there were just 16,745 leaderboard entries. That's 58 per cent of players who had dropped away. And at the first progress point marked by an Achievement, Level 3-21, just 5,311 players remain. That's 86.8 per cent of people who don't agree with the apologists' idea that this is the quintessentially "addictive" game. Perhaps this failure on the big screen is why Rovio didn't pursue the generous model of cheap purchase and regular updates that made it a millionaire on iOS. I can't repeat it enough - 30 entire, British quid?
And that's the most poisonous thing about this: money. It's not the inadequacy of the thumbstick, the feeling that you're hitting the exact same wrong spot despite adjusting your position. Nor the cloyingly sticky physics, or the opaque, quasi-random nature of the scoring, that makes each level feel soul-destroyingly replayable. Angry Birds Trilogy just feels like simple cash-raking from a franchise that's displayed little-to-no creativity since the first bird was fired.
9 comments so far...
CunningSmile on 8 Nov '12 said:
Jeez Log what did you do to Jonty to get lumbered reviewing that?
FishyGinger on 8 Nov '12 said:
Something involving a giant purple dildo would be my bet.
Captain_Chao5 on 8 Nov '12 said:
I must admit to being stunned by the price tag on this FREE Android game. My missus has played for hours on our Motorola Xoom, and probably would have considered this if it was an 800MSP arcade game but £25... you're 'avin a larf!
kronk10 on 8 Nov '12 said:
Not a big surprise
msbhvn on 8 Nov '12 said:
This game is aimed at people with three brain cells or less. Activision are charging £25 because they think they can get away with it, and the sad thing is, they probably will. The clueless parents/grandparents will just buy it because of the name, just like the many awful licenced games that come out every year.
The only thing about this review that is surprising is that it's been posted now, when the game was released in September.
reeceiscrisp on 8 Nov '12 said:
those three brain cells are within my friend after seeing he him play this, then to play it the next day on his phone. i face palmed hard.
Decent_Jam on 9 Nov '12 said:
I prefer Space, and no way is it a console game.
KernowDevil23 on 9 Nov '12 said:
Just like EVERY COD game then?....... (changed the price to reflect COD prices....)
Windowlicker79 on 10 Nov '12 said:
Wow. They didn't even bother making a new game? Seriously?? I might have paid 200ms points if it was an entirely new game that had be redesigned to work as a console game, but £30 for 3 FREE Android games? That can just f**k right off. This has actually made me angry!