Of course, Rovio has made a profit of 42 million dollars with those angry birds of them, so Vesterbacka's claim is not at all unfounded. What baffles me, though, is that he's kind of right.
I admit I'm kind of a gamer. Not really, since I only have a DS and an old laptop. (The DS affectionately called Nintendo's little pet cow) But I do know that even games I'm able to play far outclass the crap mobile phones throw at us. I'd take an awesome story over mindless bird-slinging every day. Other people, however, seem to think otherwise. While I'm playing Final Fantasy, my brother (and dad, too!) are shifting jewels around for hours on their facebook accounts. Of course, Bejeweled is funny. But who in their right mind can play something like that for hours every day? I'd die of repetiveness-induced boredom.
Another example: Just a week ago I was replaying Phoenix Wright just for the awesomeness that it is. For those who don't know it: Phoenix is an attorney who has to defend clients, win cases, etc, and it's amazing. The story is well thought out, the characters are interesting and all deeper than Bella Swan (Even the minor side characters!) and more cool stuff. When I showed it to my brother, his reaction was something like
"Do you ever have to do something? There's only text and occasionally you have to show people evidence to get them to say more things."
When I told him that was the entire point of the game he dismissed it as boring and went upstairs to play FIFA 20XX, a game with a story mode that's even more shallow than Twilight.
To summarize: Some games are works of art. Some aren't. Games designed for mobile phones are by definition not. Whoever prefers those over real games is an idiot in my eyes. Sorry, Dan.
But seriously: Which castle do you prefer?
