> Look it from a developer's side. If say Candy Crush were static levels without any > randomness, then we would get things like Angry Birds Nest channel who earns money > from play guides taking your earnings away. That's why Angry Birds 2 levels are now > random structures, no one can make a "Level X walkthrough" video with Ad Sense. You > need to master your shots and tactics yet depend on randomness and keep playing to > level your birds to success at the game. And you get the option to be awarded by > watching advertisement voluntarily in order to gain some bonus. With puzzle games it > wouldn't be any different. > > The gaming now is compete with other people while all having the same opportunities > and advance as fast as possible, just like any non one player game.
Which is why Angry Birds is a well designed game that a lot of people loved, and while there was always an element of chance, it was pretty much the modern day equivalent of the old-school strategic puzzle games with a modern twist (physics) It required some trial and error to learn things, but you could 'master' it.
While Angry Birds 2 is an absolute piece of shit with no real design to it, isn't really based on skill at all (you're frequently presented with impossible puzzles) and I haven't heard a single person say one good thing about...
Shocking to see how far the series fell really, maybe they've improved / fixed it / realised the error of their ways since, but every single person I knew who played the hell out of the original is still playing the hell out of the original instead, or has given up on it and even lost interest in the other related products.
|