Apropos of nothing Flappy Bird floated across my mind today. It struck me odd how little people seem to refer to it now, given how popular it got. I was reading its Wikipedia page; the game was pulling in $50k USD a day and the dev pulled it because he thought it was too addictive. Or possibly because he didn’t feel like he could defend against the claims that he’d ripped off other games and got in over his head. It’s a fascinating story.
But the game itself I never got into. I tried it once on a friend’s phone and quickly had no more interest in playing it. I’m curious to know from people who played it a lot at the time, was it a good game? Does it hold up? Or was it a relatively generic knock-off that got famous because catapulting random ideas into the global consciousness is just a thing the internet does sometimes?
cecilkorik@piefed.ca 4 hours ago
It’s not a bad game in the same way pong is not a bad game and checkers is not a bad game. They are simple, shallow games. That’s fine. Most people prefer deeper and more complex games most of the time, but sometimes, some people might feel like playing a simple game like flappy bird. That’s fine. There is nothing specifically wrong with it. It is playable. It’s not broken. It’s a perfectly fine game.
queerlilhayseed@piefed.blahaj.zone 30 minutes ago
That makes sense. I think with more complicated games (or any art) there’s some leeway where you can appreciate some things about the game enough that you endure the parts that don’t tickle your fancy. With games that really focus down on a single element, whether you are interested in the game at all hinges entirely on whether your tastes align with that one thing.
One of the reasons I asked is that, since precision timing games are not my thing, I can’t really tell if Flappy Bird is an exceptional example of the genre, or if it’s more of a Tiger King situation where it’s not that good, but it’s a fun thing that became a fad. Seems like the crowd is leaning closer to the latter.