Waarom we Angry Birds zo leuk vinden
Evolutionair bepaald, zegt The Wall Street Journal
In eerste instantie is Angry Birds natuurlijk een grappig spelletje dat je voor weinig geld (of zelfs gratis) op je smartphone (iPhone of Android) kunt spelen. Maar schrijver en dierkundige Matt Ridley van The Wall Street Journal ziet er een diepere betekenis in: wij mensen willen graag dingen met een boogje gooien. Dieren doen dat niet.
There is something much more satisfactory about an object tracing a parabolic ballistic trajectory through space towards its target than either following a straight line or propelling itself.
En dat vinden we prettig:
Predicting parabolas is something humans just seem to find intriguing. How else do you explain golf? Or the awe in which we hold good quarterbacks in football and good spin bowlers in cricket? Our bodies are uniquely good at throwing things at targets. The trajectory must be prefigured in the brain before the projectile leaves the fingers. Our shoulders rotate, our scapulas slide, our pelvises pivot, our arms flex and our fingers extend.
Dieren doen dat niet, of kunnen het niet:
A chameleon darts out its tongue in a straight line. A dog likes catching a ball but could not begin to throw it. No animal has a throwing limb like us. A chimpanzee chucks rocks and branches when angry but usually underarm and with the random aim of a human toddler. The closest any bird—angry or not—comes to throwing is the Egyptian vulture trying to break ostrich eggs by strewing rocks in their general direction. The parabolic ballista is ours alone.
En dus concludeert Ridley dat het spelen van Angry Birds overeenkomsten heeft met onze vroegste overlevingsdrang:
Until 10,000 years ago, most or even all human beings relied on this talent for gathering at least some of their food—by killing it at a distance.
Evolutionair bepaald of gewoon good clean fun; Angry Birds blijft goed verkopen.
