Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Flappy Bird is proof that no one knows what the audience wants

polygon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–149 of 149 posts

Re: Flappy Bird is proof that no one knows what the audience wants

#141

Post by jessriedel »

napoleoncomplex wrote: post #24
kcorbitt wrote: post #2

I haven't played Flappy Bird, but it seems really similar to a helicopter game that was inordinately popular in my middle school 10-12 years ago. It looks like it's still up. http://www.addictinggames.com/action-games/helicoptergame.js...

I might be wrong on this one, but as far as I remember, the originator of this type of game is "The Infamous Worm Game": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OjeFYNq05k Sadly, the original site that hosted it just has a "Java Applet" placeholder there now: http://www.liquidcode.org/worm.html It had a very good balance between difficulty and frustration. Or in other words, I wasted a lot of time on it.

SFCave is availabt on Andoid, and it's very satisfying.

Re: Flappy Bird is proof that no one knows what the audience wants

#142

Post by prof_hobart »

checker wrote: post #138
prof_hobart wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what you mean by nobody talking about doing a game like Flappy Bird. Of course, no one was talking about a game exactly like it - every game is different. But there's loads of games quite a lot like it already - it's basically a very simple version of something like Jetpack Joyride with a subtly different input mechanism (repeated tap instead of holding down to fly). That's a game so common that there's…

A few points to compare the two: - Jetpack Joyride is way easier. I think something "unique" about Flappy Bird is how difficult it is. - It's extremely easy to start a new round in Flappy Bird (and it happens quite often). Die on the first pipe? Tap again to jump right back in. You don't even need to hit a button, it's pretty much tap anywhere on the screen. - Sharing high scores with friends is way easier. "I got a…

The two games clearly have some differences, but I'm not sure that I'd class any of those as being particularly unique.

Somehow, something about this game has grabbed people's interest, but it's not some brilliant gameplay innovation that the rest of the gaming world had overlooked.

Re: Flappy Bird is proof that no one knows what the audience wants

#143

Post by Someone »

drak0n1c wrote: post #87
kosei wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has interstitial ads and banner ads that refresh during the middle of gameplay. For most game developers this is an absolute non-starter and considered a terrible game experience. I absolutely would not call that a "refreshing" take on freemium game design. Not to mention that it probably has horrific monetization and despite its high download titles it likely has poor revenues. Fine for a small development team,…

He claims that the ads are making him $50,000 a day, which adds up to a few million dollars before the game dies. Totally fine for a solo dev in Vietnam. Sure the ads could be optimized, but given the game's simple pick-up-and-drop viral format, ads are definitely superior to making this kind of app paid or IAP instead. http://www.polygon.com/2014/2/6/5385880/flappy-bird-collects...

"which adds up to a few million dollars before the game dies. Totally fine for a solo dev in Vietnam."

Totally fine? I would rate it quite a bit higher, especially in Vietnam, with a GDP per capita of $1755 per year (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD)

Re: Flappy Bird is proof that no one knows what the audience wants

#144

Post by bsder »

habosa wrote: post #110

I love Flappy Bird. I play a ton of games on my phone but FB is now my go-to casual game. My high score is 104 if that's any indicator of how much I like it. Before Flappy Bird I was pretty into Clash of Clans and another similar build-and-wait-and-repeat game. I realized that there is no true progress in those games, and all you have to do to "win" is play more than the other guy. Flappy Bird is exactly the opposite…

The success of Flappy Bird is probably two factors:

1) Social Competition

I deleted Flappy Bird almost immediately after downloading it with the thought: "Seen it. Seen it done better." So, there is some level of social interaction that keeps people engaged with it if there are other people around also playing Flappy Bird.

2) Microtransaction fatigue

The success of Flappy Bird may actually be more of a reaction against all the microtransaction garbage than anything else. Flappy Bird REALLY stuck out for not having microtransactions. I was absolutely gobsmacked when I opened it, could play it, and didn't get hounded. That's pretty powerful.

Re: Flappy Bird is proof that no one knows what the audience wants

#145

Post by baby »

If I remember correctly, almost 10 years ago (or less?) Helicopter.swf, which was exactly (or even better imo) what Flappy Bird is now, was crazy popular.

Except we didn't have all the media around internet, we didn't have all those famous websites that talked about buzz, hype, memes...

Re: Flappy Bird is proof that no one knows what the audience wants

#146

Post by kazagistar »

jaredklewis wrote: post #104
fiesycal wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like you're saying if indie, AAA knew the lottery numbers for next week they would have bought a ticket. Which of course they would have. But I don't see this game as something that is repeatable. It seems literally like winning the lottery, whether or not you can get a simple game in the app store to be such a success. So I don't see the value in saying that nobody knew. In the same way saying someone didn't…

I didn't call the other game developers incompetent and I don't think the Flapper developer is a genius. I'm just saying that art is pretty mysterious and despite the fact that people have been making video games for quite a while now, no one knows the formula for the next big hit and somehow the next hit always finds new and old ways to surprise us. But just my $0.02 ^_^

We know a lot of very effective formulas. Thats not to say all profit comes from games that follow formulas, but the formulas certainly make it more likely.

Re: Flappy Bird is proof that no one knows what the audience wants

#147

Post by habosa »

bsder wrote: post #144
habosa wrote: post #110

I love Flappy Bird. I play a ton of games on my phone but FB is now my go-to casual game. My high score is 104 if that's any indicator of how much I like it. Before Flappy Bird I was pretty into Clash of Clans and another similar build-and-wait-and-repeat game. I realized that there is no true progress in those games, and all you have to do to "win" is play more than the other guy. Flappy Bird is exactly the opposite…

The success of Flappy Bird is probably two factors: 1) Social Competition I deleted Flappy Bird almost immediately after downloading it with the thought: "Seen it. Seen it done better." So, there is some level of social interaction that keeps people engaged with it if there are other people around also playing Flappy Bird. 2) Microtransaction fatigue The success of Flappy Bird may actually be more of a reaction again…

#2 is partially what I was getting at. It's a rebellion against all of the dishonest games out there.

Re: Flappy Bird is proof that no one knows what the audience wants

#148

Post by shurcooL »

germano wrote: post #64
shurcooL wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, the game mechanic is deceptively different. It looks and feels like those previous helicopter games where you hold to accelerate up. But it's very different, in that, you top to give the bird a sudden impulse. This is much harder to control with precision. That's where it's addictive nature comes from... It's deceptive as in "oh I know how to play this kind of game, I can do this!" but in reality it's way m…

Jetpack Joyride has the exact same control idea when you're controlling the "Profit Bird" vehicle. So it must be a bird thing.

Hey, I just looked at it, and Jetpack Joyride does not have the same control scheme. It is the "hold button to accelerate up at constant acceleration" controls like other previous games, not the Flappy Bird's "tap to give a sudden impulse" scheme.

Edit: Actually, it's a combination of many schemes. There's a gravity suit that inverts gravity. There's jumping from the ground, which is impulse-based. But the generic jetpack flying is acceleration-while-holding-based. Bottom line, I would not say it's "exactly the same idea" as flappy bird at all.

Re: Flappy Bird is proof that no one knows what the audience wants

#149

Post by brownbat »

velik_m wrote: post #133
brownbat wrote: post #75

I feel like we're reliving the late 80s and early 90s in gaming. I keep seeing new game ideas and getting a lot of nostalgia, like, "yeah, that's something that might have even been in an arcade, or on a PC back when SVGA was a thing." I love that "the people" can immediately jump back through several generations of graphics or locked in gameplay tropes and still have fun. Jonnathanson's right, there's not a single a…

Who really killed adventure games: http://www.oldmanmurray.com/features/77.html

That dude is a bit of an ass, but I'll make two concessions...

Bad adventure games are really bad, true. Pixel hunting and verb guessing and odd sequences...

So really I mourn the death of good writing in games, especially comedy. Adventure games aren't the only source of good writing though, nor were all adventure games well written.

But there is still a dichotomy, because you cant have an adventure game without at least trying to write a story, but an FPS can just be quake.

Post reply on HN