That's a crap load of money for such a simple game concept. Wish I had the idea...

So The Hunger Games concept invented by Suzanne Collins in 2008 is now the favorite game genre by a lot of people, enough to make billions of $ for the companies making those games. Can somebody please explain why this ridiculous "last man standing" genre is being liked by so many people? I just don't get it...

wavetrex:

So The Hunger Games concept invented by Suzanne Collins in 2008 is now the favorite game genre by a lot of people, enough to make billions of $ for the companies making those games. Can somebody please explain why this ridiculous "last man standing" genre is being liked by so many people? I just don't get it...

Best part is all those "royale" games are trash.

I must be getting old because I absolutely hate Battle Royale games!

Wow, such an outlash.... don't get me wrong, I'm all with you guys! But I'm sure people play it because it's quick and simple action, like a rat pushing the button to get an electroshock to the brain. 😀 Seriously, I guess you can play it one way or the other, mindlessly dropping and shooting everything on sight ("if it's red it's dead" tactics), or you can join up with friends to gang up and play it squad like. It's quite simple, but I can see the appeal to people that don't want to spend two or more hours to get into a game and immerse in it's world, here it's just quick shooting and killing or getting killed. No time to waste. All in all it's really not my game, but to each their own. Still wish I could milk that idea 😉

wavetrex:

So The Hunger Games concept invented by Suzanne Collins in 2008...

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0266308/ Suzanne Collins stole the 'concept' from the original...

Whiplashwang:

I must be getting old because I absolutely hate Battle Royale games!

Welcome to the club. 😳

Every half decade or so seems to have it's own crazy popular game mode. The early 90s had deathmatch. The late 90s had CTF. The early 2000s had onslaught or some sort of equivalent. The late 2000s was sort of mixed - I guess it'd be team teathmatch? The early 2010s was anything to do with fighting hoards or co-op. And now, we have battle royale.

wavetrex:

Can somebody please explain why this ridiculous "last man standing" genre is being liked by so many people? I just don't get it...

Despite having not played a single one of these battle royale games, I understand the appeal. It's a lot more thrilling than the average FPS - you have to invest a lot more time, effort, and strategy into winning a match, and the game only gets harder as it goes along. That makes the game more thrilling and rewarding. I find it enticing, but, I haven't found the right game that would convince me to try it: Fortnite is too competitive and involves too many skills I need to perfect (particularly when it comes to building stuff). It's not that I couldn't try honing those skills, I just don't have the time to devote to such a game. PUBG is poorly optimized, has bad servers, problems with hackers, and I don't like how whiny the devs are. DayZ (from what I heard) has lazy developers, glitch problems, and to my understanding requires you to devote a lot of time into a single game. H1Z1 I don't really know anything about other than being free-to-play, which is a model I'm skeptical of. And then there are just a bunch of crappy knockoffs that aren't well made. If there's anything else, I haven't heard about it.

Which is weird considering how bad they are as games. I like the concept, but developers got greedy fast. Fortnite is great, but the whole building stuff - not my cup of tea.

warlord:

It is so incredible. No scenario, no details, no backstory, no quests, nothing but killing each other. I never played these games. Pointless...

Amen--I was miffed when Quake 3 moved away from shooting monsters to shooting people, and wrote Carmack about it at the time--did no good at all, as you can see...;) Even mindlessly killing monsters instead of people was my least favorite "genre"...! Still is.

Whiplashwang:

I must be getting old because I absolutely hate Battle Royale games!

Ditto! Reflex games I've never enjoyed.

As a competitive player, fortnite is pretty fun. PUBG doesn't interest me though.

schmidtbag:

Every half decade or so seems to have it's own crazy popular game mode. The early 90s had deathmatch. The late 90s had CTF. The early 2000s had onslaught or some sort of equivalent. The late 2000s was sort of mixed - I guess it'd be team teathmatch? The early 2010s was anything to do with fighting hoards or co-op. And now, we have battle royale. Despite having not played a single one of these battle royale games, I understand the appeal. It's a lot more thrilling than the average FPS - you have to invest a lot more time, effort, and strategy into winning a match, and the game only gets harder as it goes along. That makes the game more thrilling and rewarding. I find it enticing, but, I haven't found the right game that would convince me to try it: Fortnite is too competitive and involves too many skills I need to perfect (particularly when it comes to building stuff). It's not that I couldn't try honing those skills, I just don't have the time to devote to such a game. PUBG is poorly optimized, has bad servers, problems with hackers, and I don't like how whiny the devs are. DayZ (from what I heard) has lazy developers, glitch problems, and to my understanding requires you to devote a lot of time into a single game. H1Z1 I don't really know anything about other than being free-to-play, which is a model I'm skeptical of. And then there are just a bunch of crappy knockoffs that aren't well made. If there's anything else, I haven't heard about it.

You forgot about the MOBA years.

Agent-A01:

As a competitive player, fortnite is pretty fun. PUBG doesn't interest me though.

I don't care much for Fortnite mostly because I feel burned by Epic during the Alpha years of the game.. but yeah - as a competitive player these types of games definitely tickle my fancy. I learned early on though that there aren't many hardcore comp gamers here on Guru3D. Most people here favor narrative driven games - probably because of the correlation of better graphics and those titles. For me I've logged probably tens of thousands of hours in DOTA/League/Overwatch/CS 1.6/Source/Go/SC2/Siege and the only reason I play any of them is the competitive scene. I usually end up turning down the graphics despite almost always having the latest hardware just to gain a competitive advantage. Different strokes for different folks I guess.

Denial:

You forgot about the MOBA years.

There are FPS MOBAs? I was only referring to FPS "sub-genres".

Whiplashwang:

I must be getting old because I absolutely hate Battle Royale games!

+1 Me too, worst genre there is.

fOrTy_7:

I don't get the popularity of those battle royale games. I mean the 'last man standing' mode in FPS games exists since 1999 if not earlier, and now almost 20 years later it gets soooooooo popular. And all they added is a tiny twist that maps / playable area shrinks every few minutes. 😀

I meanwhile don't get the hate. You'd have a valid point, if it were as simple as you think. A traditional LMS usually involves a dozen or so players in a much smaller map and involves a lot less strategy. Battle royale involves 100 players, a large map, and you have to be more careful about resources. Like I said before, I haven't played any BR games, but I think it's pretty easy to understand why people like them. As for those saying they don't like this game because of the lack of story or motivation: how is this any different than any other skirmish game, such as sports games, racing games, simulators, puzzle games, etc.?

Denial:

I don't care much for Fortnite mostly because I feel burned by Epic during the Alpha years of the game.. but yeah - as a competitive player these types of games definitely tickle my fancy. I learned early on though that there aren't many hardcore comp gamers here on Guru3D. Most people here favor narrative driven games - probably because of the correlation of better graphics and those titles. For me I've logged probably tens of thousands of hours in DOTA/League/Overwatch/CS 1.6/Source/Go/SC2/Siege and the only reason I play any of them is the competitive scene. I usually end up turning down the graphics despite almost always having the latest hardware just to gain a competitive advantage. Different strokes for different folks I guess.

I mean I personally like a wide range of games, anywhere from RPGs to games like Detroit become human. As for fortnite, it's a great game for people who enjoy the comp scene; as a grand master in OW, Fortnite was pretty easy to get into.

I love competitive play, it's what really got me into PC gaming in the first place. I don't mind Fortnite and I can play with my son. Most of the top games my boys play are multiplayer and I actively encourage this. However, kids don't lose gracefully, still working on that...

Am I missing something... Is not Fortnite FTP? Why pay money for something that is free? This has to be why the pay to win/loot boxes are a popular business model.

Clouseau:

Am I missing something... Is not Fortnite FTP? Why pay money for something that is free? This has to be why the pay to win/loot boxes are a popular business model.

Something to do with player skins or something I have no idea..... I guess this is why EA are pushing DICE to have skins that you pay money for in the next battlefield.