>battle royale is the most popular genre in the world
>they're all just glorified deathmatch and not a single one actually replicates the feeling of the original Battle Royale
Is it even possible to make a game like BR? Something with more of an emphasis on alliances and close-quarters engagements instead of sniping everyone you see.
Battle royale is the most popular genre in the world
Jose Cook
Josiah Morris
No.
A virtual game will never carry the same weight of mortality as a "real batte royale" which is what would drive most alliances.
The idea that you can survive and work as a team.
In a virtual game there is no realistic escape from the consequences of the game, nor is their any consequence for betrayal.
Noah Hernandez
>Is it even possible to make a game like BR?
No. The actual mastery of the original BR was the fact that the children were surrounded by classmates they had known for years at that point, and being told to murder one another. There was an extremely sharp severance of trust the instant they all learned that not only are they all fully capable of murder, but also equally vulnerable to being murdered. Making friends worked because in their youthful naivete, they were planning on finding a way out together, rather than fighting one another, and in the more fatalistic cases, you had people who were willing to at least guarantee that they would fight by each others' sides until they had to fight one another at the very end. Alliances were tested, and that element of trust was broken time and time again, which is why Shuya was such an amicable hero.
A "real" Battle Royale game attempting to capture the soul of the original already loses by forcing you to play with anonymous losers you don't give a fuck about and would betray in a heartbeat. On top of that, there is zero reason for you to actually maintain an allegiance and not just pretend you're friends and kill everybody around you. Then there is also the fact that knowing how the game works, even if you did get people who were purely friends online, there is virtually zero incentive to test their trust between friends without making some mechanical consequence for being a traitor. You're also losing out on the potency of Kiriyama-style characters who are wildcards who are horrifying in context because you have zero reason to like, trust, or presume anything good from, and then go ballistic the second they get the chance. If every single person on a server is Kiriyama, it's just a blood game, and nobody will give a fuck about anything but winning so they get their big #1 trophy and a lootbox as they Orange Justice on their opponents.
Colton Hughes
>more of an emphasis on alliances and close-quarters engagements instead of sniping everyone you see.
why would I make an alliance in a videogame where only one person/group gets to win, its just guaranteeing betrayal and butthurt
why would I play a BR game with a limited roster of weapons because its designed around close quarters instead of playing one that can balance close, middle and long range engagements in one game
Austin Torres
It only works if you die for real
Daniel Price
The Darwin Project had the right idea. Smaller number of players, actual survival elements, range weapons take some effort to be good.
Parker Ross
kys idiot
Daniel King
Blame Hunger Games for the modern BR iteration
Ayden Torres
Except the modern BR games are nothing like Hunger Games. I would kill for an actual proper Hunger Games game.
Angel Rogers
Except the manga predates the movie and is totally fucking nuts.