I don’t hate Battle Royale games, I hate the fact they’re not as good as the could be.
#####
Twitch:
Discord:
05.12.2021
500 Comments
These games are not dead because they are TEAM BASED. And normies always think they rock and the rest of the team suck. This is why starcraft is not more popular. You have to deal with your own skill.
The hero argument feels a bit much? Your hero choice isn't randomized, you still pick something. It's completely within the agency of the player, and it becomes a strategic choice at times. This is most prominent in games like DotA, where a large amount of choice adds to ways someone can express their skills in way a more puristic game could never. Heck, it's even try in 1v1 games like Street Fighter.
Agreed, out of the like 10 games of battle royale yo play you only enjoy one if your fortunate. If your blessed and with rng jesus and your computer been baupatised and blessed upon and you have the great skill miracaly youll enjoy legitamitly 4 of those 10 as long as your not annoyed by them in any way, witch is a miracle tbh even in normal pvp, especially Destiny 2.
Why, just why you have the mean and you know what quality, you know what to do, why do you not give it and in adittion take long to introfuce it to your game bad and bearly decent with lits of controversities after its been ask billion of times by your players, why devs do this.
Its just so common why do people do something bad, knowing thst the should do it good, their is no excuse or sence to do somthing bad, and less keep it, neither there is logic to fix something that is not broken.
I just ask one thing and ine thing inly when i buy a game, play it, etc.
Devs just considerate, just that be s considerate person/developer that all thats the 1 step of sucess.
Just consider the player base, the legitimate player base.
The only part I disagree with in this video is your opinion on the airdropping system. It's a continual tactical decision, not one you make once then wait to complete. If you see 5 other groups aiming for the same spot you intended to, you have the potential to move to another spot, or work with your group for whos going to do what. Maybe 1 player sprints for loot while the other couple spend time messing with those groups trying to buy time for the looter to get a good weapon to use against them.
Replacing the airdropping system with a "click and be teleported" would remove a tactical decision timeframe and thus make the game worse imo
1 life games aren't necessarily bad. I mean look at Counter-Strike. Until it became F2P garbage it was like the FPS all other FPS's compared themselves to. And I think the newer Resurgence mode in Warzone is a lot better than the bog-standard BR all together. You still have a limit to your respawning, but instead of being knocked out once and that's it, as long as at least one of your teammates are alive you can come back as many times as you want.
I like the idea of everyone using different characters with different abilities. I think there is a entertaining skill growth with picking and refining your ability with one character. To memorize how to do with one character or another that may counter your ability, stripping its advantages, and how to deal with the same character. I don’t mind the random weapons. The enemy doesn’t know their locations either, so, as you said, it is a rush to scramble around. Yes, you may get a weapon worse than an enemy, but that doesn’t mean you and your team can’t win. I can also enjoy the uphill climb of fighting someone with an assault rifle with a small pistol; I enjoy it even more if I win. And if I lose, well it was an uphill battle, its not my fault. When nothings happening, I get exited thinking about where the enemy could be or come from, but just hopping and wall jumping around is fun on its own. I don’t know about other games, but I absolutely love Apex Legends
"It's not about the winner" <= here's where you're wrong, Josh. Sure, for players like you and me, it is about enjoying those loops and staying in the game, "in the zone" as long as possible. But joke is – you, me, and others like us are NOT who these games are tailored to please. We are not whales, we won't be spending real money for those golden uzi skins. Who will? Mostly younger players, who use games as means to rise their self-esteem. And for them – it IS about the winner, it IS about being the one on top. Younger competitive gamers don't care about the loop, tactics, strategies, all this stuff, their only concern is "I need to be on top". If they could win by using hacked clients – they'd do that (hence the existence of hacked clients and anti-hacks in games in a first place), if they could win by playing dirty – they'd do that, if they could win by buying bigger guns for rl-money – they'd do that (even if it actualy just a skin that doesn't increase stuff in game but they believe it does, yup, placebo effect at it's finest) For those who plays to win, your proposed changes sound like a death sentence. They don't want fair gameplay, they want more opportunities to dominate other players. From their perspective the ideal enhancement of the game sounds something like this – "Give ME the best gun and armor, give other players nothing and forbid them from leaving the game until I kill them". This is a kind of players these games survive on and are tailored to please.
I'm totally burnt out on BRs and agree with your negatives. The one positive I wish you mentioned was how the game mode creates tension between two strategies: 1) hiding to avoid conflict, while lowering your likelihood of finding good weapons/gear, and 2) engaging in more conflicts with more chances to get killed, but also more chances to find good weapons/gear that can keep you alive later. I think that when you're engaging in strategy #2, a lack of encounters can seem like annoying breaks from the gameplay loop. But I'm typically a hider, and when I do that it builds a lot of tension in anticipation for the inevitable encounter. Plus, the downtime isn't as bad when playing with friends on voice chat.
blood hunt has done the best battle royal at the moment you start with a weapon a pistol, there is chests that have very rare or legendry weapons in them they are fix locations, if you are downed there is a timer on you so if they don't kill you fully (there is a downed stat where people have to kill you like in squad in most games but its in solo) in 15 seconds you get back up so in large gun fights where there is like 5 players fighting you can be in the fight a be down multiple times and get back up to re-join the fight, most of the game is skill based mostly on movement positioning and aim @Josh Strife Hayes I think you would enjoy this battle royal
I don't PvP much, but this is exactly the reason I prefer Tower Defense games and not Battle Royales: more game time. Yeah, I know it's not the same, but still.
I dont really get the complaint about the characters being diffrent, if you have played a fighting game after street fighter 2, they all have a large pool of characters, but the player who wins the most still gets called the "best" with no issue.
The Meta is a thing, you can use the commonly believed to be best character or stick to one you think has some potential not yet uncovered. Humans have the ability to see the future to an extent with enough information. That will balance every pvp game, and is called the meta.
I can understand where you're coming from, and for a lot of the genre your solutions work – you can see the evidence of that in Hunt: Showdown.
However, out of all of these games the one I struggle to see a method of improvement for is Tarkov. Because of its insistence upon a more realistic model, from the ballistics to sounds, the concept of adding lives or a score system doesn't fit. The game is far from fine where it is, hell it's still in Beta, iirc (still better than 7 days to die), but I'm interested to hear what would improve your enjoyment of EFT, if it's even one you think could be made to better suit your interests while still retaining the essence of tarkov.
Luck-based, long downtime, short fun times is exactly why no battle royale games held my interest longer than a weekend despite playing it with friends. That dopamine rush of being the 1% just doesn't do it for me.
I've gotten into Totally accurate battlegrounds, and it's certainly better than other battle royales. You have extra chances in solo, most guns are usable. Some combinations are better, but highly situational. Not to mention the silly physics, gags, and more. It's not very popular, but it's certainly fun.
first video i really disagree with the argument you make are senseless, it seems you don't like the genre and just want to change it. As you said they are popular so clearly they are doing something right, just you don't like it. As a Tarkov player many of the points you make don't affect it but stalking around the map popping scavs and pmc is skilful and fun
"I don't like every mechanic that makes BR mode special so let's cut them and turn it into a free-for-all deathmatch". This whole video is a bruh moment.
Yeah its great but its not battle royale after most of sugested changes. And i hate battle royale, playing it cuz "friends".Some people dont care about fair conditions if that game Mode is so popular looks like 😑
This helped me put into words what I don't like about World of Tanks/Warships,. you have to spend a lot of time getting into position at the start and if you die you can't just join another battle with the same ship, you have to either wait until the battle ends and your ship is "released" or play a ship you find less enjoyable and probably wont help you progress to your endgame ship
3. I find issue w the fact you say that entering the arena from the sky is pointless, "a glorified loadscreen." While in the drop ship you can wait and witness where on the map people are dropping. This gives you the tactical choice of whether you want instant engagement, land just outside a heavily populated spot in an effort to "3rd party" or clean up the leftover teams, or land where nobody else is landing. Also, depending on the flight path of the drop ship, certain areas of the arena will be too far to reach, effectively shrinking the starting zone choices. You also have a slight mini game aspect of how you sky dive. By alternating between a dive (to increase velocity) and glide (to increase distance traveled) as well as choosing what trajectory to approach a zone & what time you leave the drop ship, you can gain or lose landing placement advantage within any zone on the map. How you start, and the landing decisions you make, can predetermine the likely hood of you & your team living past the 1st minute. So, no, good sir. It is not the same as simply picking a spot prematch.
All I'm hearing is that you're shit at battle royale games.
Pretty much all the things you complained about are what people love about BR. Clearly these kinds of games are just too difficult for you to play and wrap your head around.
I agree with most of the points Josh is making, but he's ignoring one thing in his analysis. While a single game can be very random, the experience you gain benefits you in the next games. In BR games more proficient players will make better choices during all the game loops (choosing hero, choosing where to start, where and how much to scavenge, how to move and take out enemies), and therefore win more often. In a BR game with 20 players, if you win more than 5% of your games you're ahead of the pack. His main point still stands though: reduce the preparation time and focus on the core gameplay loop.
The battle royale mode is basically the classic "Last Man Standing" expanded to bigger player counts and taken the name from a 2000 japanese movie based on a 1999 novel. The first game with this kind of play was the 1983 Bomberman. It even had a shrinking play area. There was a mod for Quake 3 and a game mode in UT2004.
The long prep time/short gameplay loop is the nature of free for all game modes, especially in PvP. There will always be a 3rd that can mess with your duel. The thing about the airdrop is, that the player can change their target during the flight. Better stick close to the other team and snuff them out immediately before thy can position themselves, or land further apart and strategizing the advance, leaving the opponent the same situation. The multiple lives sound interesting, with something like a second and third redrop. The scoring for time/kills makes it just a classic free for all deathmatch, and that already exists since basically the inception of the first person shooter. So the solution to "fix" Last Man Standing/Battle Royale is to change the gamemode into another one? Makes me think Josh would enjoy Planetside 2, which is pretty close to what he proposes. Hundreds of players on a map, respawns, tons of cosmetics that don't affect the gameplay, and even moments to "win" a game by being victorious in periodic events that get started through player action.
Feel wrong that tarkov is in a list of BR when its a survival / arena Most BR will let you win if you are the last on the map, not tarkov, everyone die and the game is fine with it
I wanna point out some of the things where I disagree with you. I have been playing Fortnite for almost 3 years. So, I am going to point out the problems you have discussed on the video which they have solved. Firstly, your 2nd point about choosing a hero is not true for Fortnite. So, in this aspect, Fortnite is fair to everyone. Secondly, your 3rd point about Landing animation and taking time to land has some necessities which are true for not just Fortnite, but also Apex legends and PUBG. When you land, you are shown how many players are landing with you. So, you have an idea of what to expect when you land. You can take some last-second decisions about where to land in those games. Fortnite in particular has the floor loot system where you can see what you are going to find in the floor loot while landing, also you can see where are the chests. This is important, as it gives you the choice of where to land and if you wanna land at all in a location. In my opinion, the landing system is not a useless system, as it gives players choices and sometimes an opportunity to get ahead of others when being clever about it. Your point about players dying to stealthy players is true for APEX and PUBG, and to some extent for Fortnite. But, that's where the building aspect of Fortnite comes in. You can just build as soon as someone shoots at you. So you can have some breathing time, or have some healing time. Also, there are mobility items in your inventory to get to a safer location if the time comes. These things are there in the game from the beginning. So, Fortnite has thought of those unfair things from the beginning. I am not saying that players don't die unfairly in Fortnite. But, they have tried to mitigate this problem. These are the things where I disagree. On all the other points, I agree with you. I know, all of your points are about Battleroyals in general. But as you have mentioned Fortnite several times when you have given examples of BR games, I have given my opinions here.
While I agree with mush of this, and not especially a fan of BR games, I think the major disagreement here is that I'd argue that the "core gameplay loop" of a BR game is the "explore-and-find-items" aspect, and the "hunt and kill" loop is subordinate to that.
I've always disliked battle royales for this exact reason, the 10 second 'rush' from becoming the last one standing isn't worth hours of failure and disappointment. I used to accept the existence of battle royales because… well…. if I don't like it, don't play it right? Well that changed after games started to bastardize and cannibalize themselves in favor of creating this mode. I began to hate BR in its entirety.
Those pictures you pulled for Fortnite? Those were from it's original release of its PvE (Now obscurely known as Save The World) that spent years in development and testing. The battle royale mode took 3 months to slap together with the games' original coding to help 'promote' its PvE section. Then it blew up…. then pve halted its' development and eventually even just hidden away. You can't buy the PvE version by itself anymore, it's included as some 'bonus' to skin/currency packs as "Access to the Campaign" and it toggled off by default on the Epic Store. Save The World has a long list of issues that now have no hope of being fixed, and BR continues to add onto it.
Planetside 2 has attempted this stunt and failed its own BR project. Apex Legends was from concept ideas of Titanfall 3. H1Z1 went to become H1Z1: King Of The Kill and Just Survive. Failing both versions.
Battle Royale Games Are Terrible & The Fact That All These Little Dummies Think These Are Great Games Shows You How Much Major Developers Care About The Gaming Community When A Horrendous Game Like Fortnight Makes 9 Billion Dollars In Micro Transactions 😤
Most of this video just comes down to you not liking the game mode. You don't try to build upon what the game mode offers you just sorta want to turn it into another game mode entirely. Which is weird. Some of the criticisms fail to land (pun intended) because you seem to be caught up on the game mode itself. Saying that dropping in is a meaningless part of the gameplay and would be better off just teleporting in is just inaccurate. There's a lot of decision making based on where you drop how fast you drop your decision to alter course based on whose around you. There's a lot of skill and decisions to be made there and you just dismiss that.
A couple of ways to fix Battle Royale games, like Apex Legends and PUBG, would be to:
* Add more game modes such as: 50 vs 50, Juggernaught, Only shotguns, No snipers, etc. (PUBG had a wizard battle mode a few years ago, one April fool's day, that was so fun, i'd play it constantly if I could). This change alone would be enough.
* Have more than 1 map at a time. Something like a large, open, hilly map (a map for sniping) and a small, building dense map (a vertical map for close quarters). Think of how cool a map like Boarding action from Halo 1 could be if the ships had fully explorable interiors with 100 people.
I think the Battle Royale genre is still in it's infancy and hasn't become stale enough, yet, that they try to be creative and unique with the premise. Everyone is still trying to emulate PUBG's take on the Battle Royale. I do agree that the main problem with Battle Royale games, as they are now, is that the combat is very brief compared to getting in a game / gearing up.
![Call of Duty: Mobile (2022) – Battle Royale Gameplay (UHD) [4K60FPS]](https://battle-crest.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/hy350nwyeskmaxresdefault-1024x576.jpg)
These games are not dead because they are TEAM BASED. And normies always think they rock and the rest of the team suck. This is why starcraft is not more popular. You have to deal with your own skill.
The hero argument feels a bit much? Your hero choice isn't randomized, you still pick something. It's completely within the agency of the player, and it becomes a strategic choice at times. This is most prominent in games like DotA, where a large amount of choice adds to ways someone can express their skills in way a more puristic game could never. Heck, it's even try in 1v1 games like Street Fighter.
Agreed, out of the like 10 games of battle royale yo play you only enjoy one if your fortunate. If your blessed and with rng jesus and your computer been baupatised and blessed upon and you have the great skill miracaly youll enjoy legitamitly 4 of those 10 as long as your not annoyed by them in any way, witch is a miracle tbh even in normal pvp, especially Destiny 2.
Why, just why you have the mean and you know what quality, you know what to do, why do you not give it and in adittion take long to introfuce it to your game bad and bearly decent with lits of controversities after its been ask billion of times by your players, why devs do this.
Its just so common why do people do something bad, knowing thst the should do it good, their is no excuse or sence to do somthing bad, and less keep it, neither there is logic to fix something that is not broken.
I just ask one thing and ine thing inly when i buy a game, play it, etc.
Devs just considerate, just that be s considerate person/developer that all thats the 1 step of sucess.
Just consider the player base, the legitimate player base.
Thats what mojang did when they did minecraft.
All true, but eft? This game has nothing to do with battle royale genre
The only part I disagree with in this video is your opinion on the airdropping system. It's a continual tactical decision, not one you make once then wait to complete. If you see 5 other groups aiming for the same spot you intended to, you have the potential to move to another spot, or work with your group for whos going to do what. Maybe 1 player sprints for loot while the other couple spend time messing with those groups trying to buy time for the looter to get a good weapon to use against them.
Replacing the airdropping system with a "click and be teleported" would remove a tactical decision timeframe and thus make the game worse imo
Escape From Tarkov is not a BR, its a survival shooter with MMO rpg elements
1 life games aren't necessarily bad. I mean look at Counter-Strike. Until it became F2P garbage it was like the FPS all other FPS's compared themselves to. And I think the newer Resurgence mode in Warzone is a lot better than the bog-standard BR all together. You still have a limit to your respawning, but instead of being knocked out once and that's it, as long as at least one of your teammates are alive you can come back as many times as you want.
I like the idea of everyone using different characters with different abilities. I think there is a entertaining skill growth with picking and refining your ability with one character. To memorize how to do with one character or another that may counter your ability, stripping its advantages, and how to deal with the same character. I don’t mind the random weapons. The enemy doesn’t know their locations either, so, as you said, it is a rush to scramble around. Yes, you may get a weapon worse than an enemy, but that doesn’t mean you and your team can’t win. I can also enjoy the uphill climb of fighting someone with an assault rifle with a small pistol; I enjoy it even more if I win. And if I lose, well it was an uphill battle, its not my fault. When nothings happening, I get exited thinking about where the enemy could be or come from, but just hopping and wall jumping around is fun on its own. I don’t know about other games, but I absolutely love Apex Legends
BR's have never sat well with me and I could never really explain why.
"It's not about the winner" <= here's where you're wrong, Josh. Sure, for players like you and me, it is about enjoying those loops and staying in the game, "in the zone" as long as possible. But joke is – you, me, and others like us are NOT who these games are tailored to please. We are not whales, we won't be spending real money for those golden uzi skins. Who will? Mostly younger players, who use games as means to rise their self-esteem. And for them – it IS about the winner, it IS about being the one on top. Younger competitive gamers don't care about the loop, tactics, strategies, all this stuff, their only concern is "I need to be on top". If they could win by using hacked clients – they'd do that (hence the existence of hacked clients and anti-hacks in games in a first place), if they could win by playing dirty – they'd do that, if they could win by buying bigger guns for rl-money – they'd do that (even if it actualy just a skin that doesn't increase stuff in game but they believe it does, yup, placebo effect at it's finest)
For those who plays to win, your proposed changes sound like a death sentence. They don't want fair gameplay, they want more opportunities to dominate other players. From their perspective the ideal enhancement of the game sounds something like this – "Give ME the best gun and armor, give other players nothing and forbid them from leaving the game until I kill them". This is a kind of players these games survive on and are tailored to please.
I'm totally burnt out on BRs and agree with your negatives. The one positive I wish you mentioned was how the game mode creates tension between two strategies: 1) hiding to avoid conflict, while lowering your likelihood of finding good weapons/gear, and 2) engaging in more conflicts with more chances to get killed, but also more chances to find good weapons/gear that can keep you alive later. I think that when you're engaging in strategy #2, a lack of encounters can seem like annoying breaks from the gameplay loop. But I'm typically a hider, and when I do that it builds a lot of tension in anticipation for the inevitable encounter. Plus, the downtime isn't as bad when playing with friends on voice chat.
looking at the like to dislike ratio, over 90% of people agree
blood hunt has done the best battle royal at the moment you start with a weapon a pistol, there is chests that have very rare or legendry weapons in them they are fix locations, if you are downed there is a timer on you so if they don't kill you fully (there is a downed stat where people have to kill you like in squad in most games but its in solo) in 15 seconds you get back up so in large gun fights where there is like 5 players fighting you can be in the fight a be down multiple times and get back up to re-join the fight, most of the game is skill based mostly on movement positioning and aim @Josh Strife Hayes I think you would enjoy this battle royal
Atlest 60% "players" Are bots Bc dopamin doses to play another game
I don't PvP much, but this is exactly the reason I prefer Tower Defense games and not Battle Royales: more game time. Yeah, I know it's not the same, but still.
I dont really get the complaint about the characters being diffrent, if you have played a fighting game after street fighter 2, they all have a large pool of characters, but the player who wins the most still gets called the "best" with no issue.
The Meta is a thing, you can use the commonly believed to be best character or stick to one you think has some potential not yet uncovered. Humans have the ability to see the future to an extent with enough information. That will balance every pvp game, and is called the meta.
I killed a guy named Ninja with a pickaxe and got banned. I don't understand the rules of this game.
I can understand where you're coming from, and for a lot of the genre your solutions work – you can see the evidence of that in Hunt: Showdown.
However, out of all of these games the one I struggle to see a method of improvement for is Tarkov. Because of its insistence upon a more realistic model, from the ballistics to sounds, the concept of adding lives or a score system doesn't fit. The game is far from fine where it is, hell it's still in Beta, iirc (still better than 7 days to die), but I'm interested to hear what would improve your enjoyment of EFT, if it's even one you think could be made to better suit your interests while still retaining the essence of tarkov.
Luck-based, long downtime, short fun times is exactly why no battle royale games held my interest longer than a weekend despite playing it with friends. That dopamine rush of being the 1% just doesn't do it for me.
I've gotten into Totally accurate battlegrounds, and it's certainly better than other battle royales. You have extra chances in solo, most guns are usable. Some combinations are better, but highly situational. Not to mention the silly physics, gags, and more. It's not very popular, but it's certainly fun.
first video i really disagree with the argument you make are senseless, it seems you don't like the genre and just want to change it. As you said they are popular so clearly they are doing something right, just you don't like it. As a Tarkov player many of the points you make don't affect it but stalking around the map popping scavs and pmc is skilful and fun
This video aged well XD.
Welcome to warzone gamers.
I agree, although you just described halo 3
"I don't like every mechanic that makes BR mode special so let's cut them and turn it into a free-for-all deathmatch". This whole video is a bruh moment.
battle royale games are lazy poorly designed garbage.
Lazy.
Easy to copy.
Easy to invest in.
Yeah its great but its not battle royale after most of sugested changes. And i hate battle royale, playing it cuz "friends".Some people dont care about fair conditions if that game Mode is so popular looks like 😑
Is there a melee battle royal? Like maybe a medieval one with the only long range weapon being like a bow or crossbow. Would be hella fun
This helped me put into words what I don't like about World of Tanks/Warships,. you have to spend a lot of time getting into position at the start and if you die you can't just join another battle with the same ship, you have to either wait until the battle ends and your ship is "released" or play a ship you find less enjoyable and probably wont help you progress to your endgame ship
The major reason people who enjoy BRs comes down to that random, almost gambling-esque moment of getting that OP gun. it's essentially a skinner box.
3. I find issue w the fact you say that entering the arena from the sky is pointless, "a glorified loadscreen." While in the drop ship you can wait and witness where on the map people are dropping. This gives you the tactical choice of whether you want instant engagement, land just outside a heavily populated spot in an effort to "3rd party" or clean up the leftover teams, or land where nobody else is landing. Also, depending on the flight path of the drop ship, certain areas of the arena will be too far to reach, effectively shrinking the starting zone choices. You also have a slight mini game aspect of how you sky dive. By alternating between a dive (to increase velocity) and glide (to increase distance traveled) as well as choosing what trajectory to approach a zone & what time you leave the drop ship, you can gain or lose landing placement advantage within any zone on the map. How you start, and the landing decisions you make, can predetermine the likely hood of you & your team living past the 1st minute. So, no, good sir. It is not the same as simply picking a spot prematch.
All I'm hearing is that you're shit at battle royale games.
Pretty much all the things you complained about are what people love about BR. Clearly these kinds of games are just too difficult for you to play and wrap your head around.
Git gud or just stop playing.
I agree with most of the points Josh is making, but he's ignoring one thing in his analysis. While a single game can be very random, the experience you gain benefits you in the next games. In BR games more proficient players will make better choices during all the game loops (choosing hero, choosing where to start, where and how much to scavenge, how to move and take out enemies), and therefore win more often. In a BR game with 20 players, if you win more than 5% of your games you're ahead of the pack. His main point still stands though: reduce the preparation time and focus on the core gameplay loop.
The battle royale mode is basically the classic "Last Man Standing" expanded to bigger player counts and taken the name from a 2000 japanese movie based on a 1999 novel.
The first game with this kind of play was the 1983 Bomberman. It even had a shrinking play area. There was a mod for Quake 3 and a game mode in UT2004.
The long prep time/short gameplay loop is the nature of free for all game modes, especially in PvP. There will always be a 3rd that can mess with your duel.
The thing about the airdrop is, that the player can change their target during the flight. Better stick close to the other team and snuff them out immediately before thy can position themselves, or land further apart and strategizing the advance, leaving the opponent the same situation.
The multiple lives sound interesting, with something like a second and third redrop.
The scoring for time/kills makes it just a classic free for all deathmatch, and that already exists since basically the inception of the first person shooter.
So the solution to "fix" Last Man Standing/Battle Royale is to change the gamemode into another one?
Makes me think Josh would enjoy Planetside 2, which is pretty close to what he proposes. Hundreds of players on a map, respawns, tons of cosmetics that don't affect the gameplay, and even moments to "win" a game by being victorious in periodic events that get started through player action.
Soooo you basically want Destiny 2 Crucible Rumble/Teams?
Feel wrong that tarkov is in a list of BR when its a survival / arena Most BR will let you win if you are the last on the map, not tarkov, everyone die and the game is fine with it
I wanna point out some of the things where I disagree with you. I have been playing Fortnite for almost 3 years. So, I am going to point out the problems you have discussed on the video which they have solved.
Firstly, your 2nd point about choosing a hero is not true for Fortnite. So, in this aspect, Fortnite is fair to everyone.
Secondly, your 3rd point about Landing animation and taking time to land has some necessities which are true for not just Fortnite, but also Apex legends and PUBG. When you land, you are shown how many players are landing with you. So, you have an idea of what to expect when you land. You can take some last-second decisions about where to land in those games. Fortnite in particular has the floor loot system where you can see what you are going to find in the floor loot while landing, also you can see where are the chests. This is important, as it gives you the choice of where to land and if you wanna land at all in a location. In my opinion, the landing system is not a useless system, as it gives players choices and sometimes an opportunity to get ahead of others when being clever about it.
Your point about players dying to stealthy players is true for APEX and PUBG, and to some extent for Fortnite. But, that's where the building aspect of Fortnite comes in. You can just build as soon as someone shoots at you. So you can have some breathing time, or have some healing time. Also, there are mobility items in your inventory to get to a safer location if the time comes. These things are there in the game from the beginning. So, Fortnite has thought of those unfair things from the beginning. I am not saying that players don't die unfairly in Fortnite. But, they have tried to mitigate this problem.
These are the things where I disagree. On all the other points, I agree with you.
I know, all of your points are about Battleroyals in general. But as you have mentioned Fortnite several times when you have given examples of BR games, I have given my opinions here.
While I agree with mush of this, and not especially a fan of BR games, I think the major disagreement here is that I'd argue that the "core gameplay loop" of a BR game is the "explore-and-find-items" aspect, and the "hunt and kill" loop is subordinate to that.
Pitch these ideas you have as a game. Please. This would be so fun.
I've always disliked battle royales for this exact reason, the 10 second 'rush' from becoming the last one standing isn't worth hours of failure and disappointment. I used to accept the existence of battle royales because… well…. if I don't like it, don't play it right? Well that changed after games started to bastardize and cannibalize themselves in favor of creating this mode. I began to hate BR in its entirety.
Those pictures you pulled for Fortnite? Those were from it's original release of its PvE (Now obscurely known as Save The World) that spent years in development and testing. The battle royale mode took 3 months to slap together with the games' original coding to help 'promote' its PvE section. Then it blew up…. then pve halted its' development and eventually even just hidden away. You can't buy the PvE version by itself anymore, it's included as some 'bonus' to skin/currency packs as "Access to the Campaign" and it toggled off by default on the Epic Store. Save The World has a long list of issues that now have no hope of being fixed, and BR continues to add onto it.
Planetside 2 has attempted this stunt and failed its own BR project.
Apex Legends was from concept ideas of Titanfall 3.
H1Z1 went to become H1Z1: King Of The Kill and Just Survive. Failing both versions.
i thought there would be a lot more dislikes
How you gonna leave out halo
So surprising to see Command & Conquer: Sole Survivor referenced.
Fast food games for edgy teens.
halfway into the video and dude its utter bullshit lol usually this channel is based
Battle Royale Games Are Terrible & The Fact That All These Little Dummies Think These Are Great Games Shows You How Much Major Developers Care About The Gaming Community When A Horrendous Game Like Fortnight Makes 9 Billion Dollars In Micro Transactions 😤
Most of this video just comes down to you not liking the game mode. You don't try to build upon what the game mode offers you just sorta want to turn it into another game mode entirely. Which is weird. Some of the criticisms fail to land (pun intended) because you seem to be caught up on the game mode itself. Saying that dropping in is a meaningless part of the gameplay and would be better off just teleporting in is just inaccurate. There's a lot of decision making based on where you drop how fast you drop your decision to alter course based on whose around you. There's a lot of skill and decisions to be made there and you just dismiss that.
The only battle royale I enjoy is Eternal return.
The only BR i ever enjoyed was Blackout. It was great. You could pop a sensor dart on a vehicle & be aggressive af. Loved it.
A couple of ways to fix Battle Royale games, like Apex Legends and PUBG, would be to:
* Add more game modes such as: 50 vs 50, Juggernaught, Only shotguns, No snipers, etc. (PUBG had a wizard battle mode a few years ago, one April fool's day, that was so fun, i'd play it constantly if I could). This change alone would be enough.
* Have more than 1 map at a time. Something like a large, open, hilly map (a map for sniping) and a small, building dense map (a vertical map for close quarters). Think of how cool a map like Boarding action from Halo 1 could be if the ships had fully explorable interiors with 100 people.
I think the Battle Royale genre is still in it's infancy and hasn't become stale enough, yet, that they try to be creative and unique with the premise. Everyone is still trying to emulate PUBG's take on the Battle Royale. I do agree that the main problem with Battle Royale games, as they are now, is that the combat is very brief compared to getting in a game / gearing up.