Support NeoGAF

[Men_in_Boxes]

The Battle Royale genre gets a bad rap around these parts because it's popular, but I just played a couple of hours of Overwatch last night and my God did it make me appreciate the genre so much more.

I probably played two hours of Overwatch. In those two hours it felt like 3 or 4 matches ended or sucked because 1/10 players left the match. Another 3 or 4 matches sucked because one team steamrolled the other team. Then there's a few matches where someone on your team is vacuuming or screaming obsenities at teammates for not playing properly. And in the few "quality" matches I played, there was no feeling of excitement because you're supposed to win around half your matches.

I've mainlined Fortnite and PUBG since late 2017 and the genre has completely solved the above problems. Having a small number of teammates (singles, duos, or squads) keeps communications pleasant and ending your match the moment you die (unless teammates get your reboot) is flat out brilliant design.

The Battle Royale genre deserves way more respect than it gets in these parts. It absolutely must be the template for multiplayer moving forward.

 

[OrtizTwelve]

If done correctly, it's an OK mode. But now that every company is abusing it, it's old and generally just an excuse to sell tons of additional paid content bullshit. It's become gross and is killing the quality of online games.

 

[Birdo]

Who's paying you?

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

If done correctly, it's an OK mode. But now that every company is abusing it, it's old and generally just an excuse to sell tons of additional paid content bullshit. It's become gross and is killing the quality of online games.

That stuff is all tertiary.

The bones of the genre, it's core is so sound.

 

[Nymphae]

I don't get why it's more appealing to people than traditional modes, as soon as I heard I could die early and have to wait like 20 min for the match to end I was like fuck that noise, I like to play games not wait for them.

 

[oagboghi2]

That stuff is all tertiary.

The bones of the genre, it's core is so sound.

Is it?

I don't find battle royale to be that much more pleasant than a regular multiplayer game. To be honest, maybe it's because I play on Playstation but I've rarely ran into the cliche terrible call of duty lobby. Most of them are silent, and the few loud people I come across, I mute, so the pleasantness of battle royale doesn't feel that special to me

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

I don't get why it's more appealing to people than traditional modes, as soon as I heard I could die early and have to wait like 20 min for the match to end I was like fuck that noise, I like to play games not wait for them.

I've never had this issue. I mostly play pub duos with strangers, or duos / squads with friends.

Every time I die I go to the lobby and start a new match, or my friends go aggro and either die or reboot me. The lack of waiting on a good match is the genres strength.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Is it?

I don't find battle royale to be that much more pleasant than a regular multiplayer game. To be honest, maybe it's because I play on Playstation but I've rarely ran into the cliche terrible call of duty lobby. Most of them are silent, and the few loud people I come across, I mute, so the pleasantness of battle royale doesn't feel that special to me

I guess I find Call of Duty multiplayer so unappealing that I'm unfamiliar with the experience. Overwatch and Rainbow Six Siege are rife with the issues found in the OP though.

 

[Nymphae]

I've never had this issue. I mostly play pub duos with strangers, or duos / squads with friends.

Every time I die I go to the lobby and start a new match, or my friends go aggro and either die or reboot me. The lack of waiting on a good match is the genres strength.

I guess I just don't "get" what the appeal is, give me the elevator pitch for this mode vs. the tried and true classics. I've not played any of the BRs yet. Because it sounded like larger scale + perma deaths, I like moderate size maps and fast respawns.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Your sales pitches for GAAS always seem like something copypasted from Facebook.

 

[-Arcadia-]

More generally, Battle Royale would be better termed as open world multiplayer.

Much like single player games have been radically transformed by a (well-designed) completely open world full of possibilities, systems, and choices, the same applies to multiplayer games.

I think when you put it like that to people, it's appeal makes more sense.

 

[Marcus Aurelius]

I really like the arcade feeling of PUBG mobile.

 

[Come On Tars]

Idk if it's new. But battle royal has given me all the joy of a normal team dm but the emotional ups and downs dialed up to their extremes. The tension of being top 5 in a grassy field in pubg is a feeling no other game has given me. Your hand is shaking. Trying different strats like hiding in a Small home feel like real survival. Each match feels like a long form story that's much more memorable than winning any other type of mode. I still remember a bunch of the wins I got and how they played out. Normal tdm feels mindless and empty of emotion comparatively. Killing someone in BR is insanely satisfying and addicting. It's hard to go back for me.

 

[YukiOnna]

They can be quite addicting, especially when they go out of the box. I think Apex Legends has done the formula best with its balance of abilities, map design, and gunplay. When it clicks, it's the best kind of MP component for me. The amount of unique situations, maneuverability, and firefights that come out of it make sure it never gets old.

I don't know about it being the "template for multiplayer" though, it's better where it exists as an option alongside traditional MP modes or its separate game.

 

[Catphish]

I played Warzone for the first time last week. It was also my first BR experience. It was fun, but it was so goddamned intense and sweaty, I don't know if I want to go back to it. Maybe I'm just a simple lad, but I think TDM is still the way to go. Having to re-queue after death is a pain in the ass.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

I guess I just don't "get" what the appeal is, give me the elevator pitch for this mode vs. the tried and true classics. I've not played any of the BRs yet. Because it sounded like larger scale + perma deaths, I like moderate size maps and fast respawns.

Engagement variety + stakes.

It's those two things.

CoD is just incessant mid to close range fights that rely on quick reflexes every 11 seconds. Every combat scenario feels too similar. Battle Royale gives players more tactical and strategic options that make each fight feel different from the last.

Also, the stakes makes each choice and each fight feel more impactful. When you're in the final 4, it's significantly tenser because you're that much closer to winning. Additionally, fights where you know are going to provide a lot more loot (supply drops, numerous enemy deaths) are intrinsically more rewarding than just another CoD fight.

 

[Valonquar]

The most fun I've ever had in FPS games was LAN Parties with 4 or 5 friends playing Half-Life 2 Deathmatch on custom maps, or with Rocket Crowbar Mod, Unreal Tournament 2K, and Team Fortress 1. I've never enjoyed the total chaos of huge maps with 32+ people on them. Fortnight is just a walking sim where someone you never even saw shoots you after 15 minutes of wandering around collecting weapons.