Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by bit-tech, 9 May 2018.
It's for normies.
Smart moves by epic - jumped on the latest bandwagon at lightning speed, produced a polished game so fast it took down the defacto early leader before it got it's act together.
PUBG shot itself in the foot by costing too much money and then being famous for it's hackers. It should be doing better as a most people prefer the less cartoony style but it's living on borrowed time. It style/cost/etc put it in direct competition with the next BF and COD which are bound to have very polished battle royal modes.
'Streamable is a verb now. '
is it? I may be on morphine right now, and it's 20 years since i did my english language gcse so i'd like to think a writer would be the authority on this, but i remain unconvinced.
With my limited exposure i'd say Epic have done a really good job with it, but ultimately i feel battle-royale should end up as a game mode other things incorporate and shouldn't be enough to warrant a game by itself, but until 'everything' incorporates it a la deathmatch, team deathmatch, CTF, conquest and other common online game modes (i remember when deathmatch was all you'd get), it's good to have more choice. If it follows the old pattern of 'game-mode added by mod', then 'game-mode that games are built around', then 'ubiquitous game mode' should be next up.
My involvement with fortnite is limited to some clown trying to login to my epic account with some stolen, borrowed or guessed login and getting it locked out, which has happened to several other people i know over a period of months; epic don't give a ****, so i'll reciprocate.
English has never really had any limits against the acceptance of new words unlike for example French where the language is policed pretty closely (especially when it comes to keeping words originating from English out).
At least Fortnite has a somewhat unique style unlike PUBG which just went for dime and a dozen generic realism style which makes it indistinguishable from the mass of Battle Royale games / modes.
PUBG simply has no visual identity which makes it very easy to jump ship to lets say for example the inevitable Battlefield Battle Royale.
i think you missed my point; i have no issue with acceptance of new words, language has to evolve alongside culture/society, but i can't see how you'd use streamable as a verb. Stream is just fine as a verb, but when did anyone say 'I'm going to streamable some fortnite' or 'i'm streamabling right now'. Streamable is definitely a viable adjective (likely meaning 'suitable for streaming' in whatever context you'd like to use it) but I'm really not convinced you can say it's a verb. There's no example of it as a verb that i can see in the article, it's used as an adjective. I suspect it's an honest mistake, but I'm not a fan of making assumptions so i enquired, casually, as an opening to a comment on my thoughts that battle-royale should and likely will be a common game mode in the long run, rather than a genre in it's own right.
PUBG takes a lot of its cues from the Arma mod and is aiming for a degree of 'realism', as much as you can in a contrived context like a video game, without going into simulation territory (which I feel is where Arma got in the way of what the mod wanted to be). I still see it as a continuation of that effort. Fortnite on the other hand added the freely available BR mode to an existing game and that's probably helped increase sales of the game, so apart from the similarity of the game modes I don't think they have a lot in common. They come from different backgrounds and aren't necessarily in direct competition with each other, so comparisons between the two are only so useful. I feel demonstrating that lends weight to the idea that BR should ultimately end up as a common game-mode implemented in many differing games.
What does dime and a dozen mean?
on second thoughts, i will support 'streamabling' as a word, but not in this context. i want it to refer to faux-gangster 'bling' worn by streamers. That's a noun though, still not a verb.
Yep, I missed it.
'streamabling' in the context of faux-gangster "bling" on streams? Would fit in perfectly with certain Fortnite streamers who keep bragging about having found a "rare" weapon.
I'm fine with PUBG taking a more realism inspired direction, the problem for PUBG is that doing so puts them more into competition with all the modern military shooters (CoD, Battlefield etc) which will all no doubt add a BR mode sooner or later and that will be a huge problem for the long term future of PUBG.
Fortnite on the other hand with a relatively unique style and the added bonus of the very fun building mechanic will stand on its own for longer.
Dime and a dozen = Very common.
No, it doesn't mean that. That's "a dime a dozen," as in "you can buy a dozen of these for a dime." "Dime and a dozen" doesn't mean anything.
I'm with @adrock on this, incidentally: "streamable" is clearly an adjective, not a verb. In fact, that's precisely what the suffix "-able" does: forms an adjective from an origin stem (in this case, "stream").
"a dime a dozen" is what you mean... ie lots of the thing in question
Apologies, I screwed that up.
Have to admit, it was a new one on me: far more common are "full proof," "mute point," "another think coming," and "walla" - the latter almost exclusively from USians, interestingly.
I've always been unclear what constituted the "battle royale" genre beyond 'non-team deathmatch with one spawn'. If you take a "battle royale" game and turn respawning back on, does it cease to be a "battle royale" and just become a regular FPS again?
As the name implies, it's based on the 1999 novel and 2000 film Battle Royale in which a group of schoolkids are made to fight to the death. It is literally "free-for-all deathmatch with one spawn," the key being the "one spawn" part: a bunch of people enter, but only one leaves. Turn respawning on, and the winner is no longer the last one standing - the key feature of a battle royale - but rather the player with the most points, making it a standard deathmatch again.
Key features: no fixed teams, multiple combatants, relatively large playing area which is typically an island, one life. Additional common, but not mandatory, features: the need to scavenge weapons from the environment, shrinking or otherwise increasingly restrictive play area to prevent camping, time limits for the same reason.
The choice of name is rather confusing though since the movie they stole the name from is essentially the antithesis of what people want in multiplayer gaming, what with the complete absence of fairness in the movie (Organisers aren't even bothered if all the kids make it to the island or not and so on).
They didn't steal the name from the book (which came out a year before the film, and was written three years prior to that): the first recorded use of the term "battle royal(e)" to mean a fight between more than two combatants in which the last fighter standing is the winner dates to 1671. Hell, the WWE has been hosting Royal Rumble battle royale matches every year since 1988. They stole the core concept from the book, but it's not a term Takami invented.
As for fairness, that's what happens when you're making a game. Actually participating in a real life battle royale, in which your life is at considerable risk and the odds stacked against you? Not fun. Playing a game version where there's no risk of you actually dying? More fun. Playing a game version that's balanced so that it's actually fair and you have a chance of winning? Fun. Takami wasn't making a game, so there was no need for his battle royale to be fair; these games have to be fair or nobody'll play 'em.
Also, doesn't PUBG start with the players jumping out of a plane? Feels like the organisers aren't too bothered about survival rate there, either!
Correct, but since it is so different why choose a name that is associated with the movie?
(and lets face it, the only context the majority of people young enough to develop or play games have for the term Battle Royale is the first movie, not the sequels, not the book, not any prior use).
It's massively like the movie. Bunch of combatants? Check. Fighting to the death? Check. Winner is last one standing? Check. Various weapons? Check. No way out (no spoilers, please, despite the age of the book/film)? Check. Forced to fight by the threat of insta-death? Check. Otherwise abandoned arena? Check.
It's not Battle Royale: The Film The Game, and doesn't claim to be, but it's certainly the most fun you can have making a game inspired by Battle Royale - short of a survival horror type of thing, which could work pretty well.
As for Da Yoof, frankly a twenty-year-old Japanese film is pushing it; they're far more likely to know the concept of a battle royale from The Hunger Games, which is possibly why Minecraft Hunger Games was chosen as the name of one of the first battle royale games (well, game mods) when it came out in 2012 - long before Fortnite or PUBG.
I could be wrong of course, but I always had the impression that that movie was one of those lasting icons of the so called pop culture Da Yoof is allegedly into.
Nah, Battle Royale hasn't been relevant with Da Yoof for a decade or so. It's all Hunger Gameses and Disney Star Warses these days.
Separate names with a comma.