True theres not much depth to tetris but Tetris was very original thus deserved the praise (not to mention the number of games it spawned),
I could see the attraction with tower defense (even if its also a simple game)
But angry birds, why so many version (I assume theyre just the same game with different levels), theres even talk of a movie.
Still if gives hope to all of us, the most basic unoriginal idea can succeed with the right marketting/polish. Ive got a new very simple game coming out soon, personally I think it sux :lol:but you never know
When you look hard at most successful games, most break down to very simple core game rules that have been around for hundreds or thousands of years.
Navigating mazes, tagging opponents, matching objects and completing sets, fitting objects together, disentangling cords or rings or blocks, reaching/maintaining equilibrium by adding objects, disturbing equilibrium by removing objects or knocking them down, getting an object into a goal, assorted mini-max problems, and so on. These are all part of ancient games.
Even when new game genres are released, they tend to still have simple and ancient game cores. The things that make them new and exciting are the rules and restrictions along with the presentation details.
Consider FPS games like Modern Warfare, how different is this from the ancient labyrinths and and turf mazes? It is not so different from children playing tag or capture the flag.
Consider Tetris, it is not so different from stacking puzzles like the fairly recent Towers of Hanoi or the much older Five Pillars, combined with classic puzzles made from blocks that evolved into modern jigsaw puzzles.
Angry Birds is not so different from carnival games of throwing a ball and knocking down all the objects with just a few throws.
Study game theory and you'll discover that even incredibly complex virtual worlds are reducible to just a few simple classic rule sets. It is generally the games that violate these classic rules that fail miserably.
