It’s no secret, the creator of “Flappy Bird,” Dong Nguyen, removed his ever so popular title Feb. 9. For the uninitiated, “Flappy Bird” is a simple “Wario Ware” style mini-game where the purpose is to navigate through various pipes. With such a simple concept, it may be hard to see how one could become so easily addicted, yet it seemed that no one could get enough of this little flapping devil.

This is the reason Nguyen decided to take down “Flappy Bird,” as it was meant as a form of therapy rather than a drug. He should be commended, as taking down one’s own creation is hard enough, especially when it’s netting you about $50,000 a day. Yet I have to disagree with him on why he took it down in the first place.

I’m not going to lie. I’m not much of a “Flappy Bird” player and only found out about it a few weeks ago. But I won’t knock credit where credit is due. The lack of an inventory and other skills aside from jumping allow for a game in which the fault is in the player. If you didn’t make it high enough to pass through the pipe, it is your fault, not the fault of the game maker. And when you become good enough to make it 50 pipes in, you have gained the skill to pass, you improved, you did it.

This sort of independence and reliance on the players skills is all but lost in modern games; rather than getting better at defeating a monster, you just keep beating the same low level one to get a weapon good enough to beat the higher leveled ones. Rather than involving the player, this sort of artificial layer of improvement is created, and it leads to boredom fast. This could be why “Flappy Bird” became so addictive. Players enjoyed improving and wanted to continue to improve and see the fruits of their labor.

Beyond just the betterment of one’s skills, “Flappy Bird” is a social game. When you’re struggling to get further or you just want to show off your skill, you will bring it to a friend and the two of you will converse and compete in a battle of raw skill. This is akin to games like basketball or swimming, sports that promote the engagement of social interaction.

It may seem as if I’m praising this game too highly, and I just might be, but in an age of gaming where developers hold players hands and artificially create challenges based on items and levels rather than skill, “Flappy Bird” is a breath of fresh air. And, though I doubt it, I certainly hope Mr. Nguyen reconsiders taking down his game, or at least has some other intuitive games on the way.