Recently, I was trying to explain to my mom what Angry Birds is, and in explaining it, a few inconsistencies emerged in its logic. So here’s how I tried to explain it:
Angry Birds is a simple little video game that’s very popular on smartphones like the iPhone. So the point of the game is that these birds are mad at pigs who are hiding in these buildings made out of like children’s blocks or something, and, um, I guess they’re mad at them for eating their eggs or whatever. But then why are the pigs hiding in buildings rather than being caught red-handed in a nest or something? And wouldn't foxes or snakes work better for egg-eating predators? And why buildings of children's blocks? The pigs must be as small as the birds! Actually, they do look the same size, but... Oh, never mind. Anyway, so the birds launch themselves at these buildings with a big catapult/slingshot thingy, trying to collapse the building onto the pigs, and they, um; wait a minute: If they’re birds, can’t they just fly into the buildings? Uh… Hmmm; um, well, maybe the birds’ wings are clipped, and the pigs did it to them in their sleep or something, and then they went to hide in the crudely built block buildings after they set up a big slingshot to be sporting and all. But that doesn’t really make any sense, does it? Oh, well. Anyway, I think people like it because it’s really simple, and you can just play short little games to kill even the smallest amount of spare time, like waiting for the elevator, or whatever.
Did you catch these anomalies in the whole bird/pig idiom thing? But I suppose if I’m actually deconstructing something like Angry Birds, I’m probably over-thinking it.
