heres what prompted this… older nephew and I share a Xbox one and he downloaded the fortnite 50vs 50 game and after watching danTDM on you tube my little nephew and I decided to try it
theres several interesting concepts like the minecraft like building options the “storm” that pushes everyone closer and closer…
My main gripe is its a "one death and done " game
Normally that dosent bother me but only weapon you start out with is a pickaxe which you use to get materials which wasn’t supposed ot be a weapon but ya have to use it as one … you spend 20 minutes looking for the buildings with the guns in it and hope theres no one camping there or theres something left that’s usable before you get a gun emptied in you and your done
my question whats the general preference these days ? I wouldn’t mind the one and done if they started you out with a gun or two … whats yours ?
FPS is a wide genre. What works in DOOM isn’t going to work in Killing Floor 2 which isn’t going to work in Call of Duty which isn’t going to work in a battle royale style game like Playerunknown’s Battlegrounds (or Fortnite). The entire point of a battle royale game is to rush to find weapons and then be the last person standing, which doesn’t work if people start with guns or get to respawn.
I prefer the old deathmatch style, the new range of battle royale games don’t interest me at all. Plenty of room for all though, and they are clearly popular
I’ve always been a fan of being able to try risky things in games that wouldn’t in real life. And, to facilitate that, I think having as many lives as possible is better, and why I prefer single games with no actual lives system. In multiplayer, thus, I prefer having many lives.
It also means no getting kicked out early and having to wait to get back in. You want to play for X minutes, you play for X minutes. After you die, it’s more fun to be able to get back in immediately, not have to go try somewhere else. And it means that, even after I die, there’s still a chance I come out on top, which makes it more fun.
And I can learn the game, not constantly winding up dead before I have a chance.
You can get into another match and be playing in about two minutes. The fact that you may have survived for 20 minutes creates an enormous amount of pressure to be careful and not die.
It really depends on the “feel” of the game. In games that strive to be realistic, I’d like more games to be like CounterStrike, where you get decent enough gear (moar if you keep winning, but I’d be ok with what the Call of Battlefields do and have you pick your kit/class) and get one life per round. That makes tactics, teamwork, cohesion and so on worthwhile and objectives feel meaningfull. Unlike in Call of Battlefields where it’s all headless chickens running everywhere all the time because nothing ultimately matters.
In games like Doom and so on, free for all deathmatches focusing on pure action, then pistol, guns strewn about the map and instant respawns was perfect 20 years ago, and it’s still perfect.
As for Plunkbag, I haven’t played it but it sounds at the same time interesting and dreadful, in that it heavily incentivizes camping and defeating people in “unfair” (or rather unfun) ways, sniping at pixels or waiting behind a couch with a shotgun trained at the only entrypoint… Then the map shrinks and the people already camping the smaller zone have a huge edge over everybody rushing towards the new, safe area ; all by RNG/game fiat. Really not my bag. I’ll be hitting rodents of unusual size over the head with a giant mallet in Vermintide 2 instead :).
Surprisingly, this does not work as well as you think. Most successful players don’t camp but are constantly moving.
For whatever reason, PUBG is the hottest thing going at the moment. It is immensely popular. If you want to play the same game without having to pay, try Fortnite.