Why hasn't there been a Battle Royale style videogame?

@kermoosh said:

kinda yeah but i'm thinking of it in a sense where everyone is trying to kill you and you're trying to kill them so there's not much character development (which the walking dead contains a lot of) and more just people dying. In battle royale and hunger games, the main party hides in a tree or something for hours and the only talk is what their next plan will be. I just think that there would be a lack of story or character development in a 'free for all' type of game

I disagree. Look at what BoG suggested:

@BoG said:

To say it's impossible to adapt this into a game is, once again, bull. A talented and creative developer could absolutely pull it off. 20 enemies does not mean 20 encounters. Each encounter doesn't have to end up with a kill. You could have tough battles that end in a draw, you could have chases, etc. Maybe you have a love interest (like in the BR film), but she's taken captive by another player who thinks he can get two kills by holding her hostage. You can rescue her and escape without killing him. There are tons of ways to add value to a game like this.

Plus, the anime Future Diary that makes use of this concept is chock-full of character development, with alliances that are constantly formed and broken as well as people having their own distinct motivations.

If you're going to distill it like that, talk in The Walking Dead is mostly about how the group will survive and the game consists way more of fleeing and hiding than it does battling with zombies. And yet, like I mentioned, it's one of this year's greatest received games.

Come on! Read what I said. I don't know if a game like this could be totally open world, though it would need to feel like one. The original Mercenaries comes to mind. You could wander freely, but your main targets weren't just out in the open. If you made a BR game like this, of course it would suck. You would need to design some trigger for the encounters.

Furthermore, I'll stress that an encounter doesn't have to end with a kill. Not all encounters and gaming sequences need to involve a battle! Other things could be added, too. Maybe a few ferocious animals are around, or there are clever traps.

Finally, I don't want it to be an adventure game. It just doesn't seem... right...

@FluxWaveZ said:

@kermoosh said:

kinda yeah but i'm thinking of it in a sense where everyone is trying to kill you and you're trying to kill them so there's not much character development (which the walking dead contains a lot of) and more just people dying. In battle royale and hunger games, the main party hides in a tree or something for hours and the only talk is what their next plan will be. I just think that there would be a lack of story or character development in a 'free for all' type of game

I disagree. Look at what BoG suggested:

@BoG said:

To say it's impossible to adapt this into a game is, once again, bull. A talented and creative developer could absolutely pull it off. 20 enemies does not mean 20 encounters. Each encounter doesn't have to end up with a kill. You could have tough battles that end in a draw, you could have chases, etc. Maybe you have a love interest (like in the BR film), but she's taken captive by another player who thinks he can get two kills by holding her hostage. You can rescue her and escape without killing him. There are tons of ways to add value to a game like this.

Plus, the anime Future Diary that makes use of this concept is chock-full of character development, with alliances that are constantly formed and broken as well as people having their own distinct motivations.

If you're going to distill it like that, talk in The Walking Dead is mostly about how the group will survive and the game consists way more of fleeing and hiding than it does battling with zombies. And yet, like I mentioned, it's one of this year's greatest received games.

well i have to admit that you have me beat there. It wouldn't be easy to make a game as Bog described but if done well it could work.

I just think there are a lot of things to take into account: gameplay, story, characters, open world, different levels of randomness, ect.

this game could be awesome but it just seems like it would be hard to do without scripted events guiding the character throughout the game, as the level of randomness that we would want seems out of reach, or at least never done before

@Jeff said:

@Redsox44: Totally. That's a great idea. I had hoped that Far Cry 2 would sort of end up like that, with the way it plugged different characters into slots when certain characters died and all that.

Whoa, cool that this thread was brought back, almost forgot about it. Nice that people seem to be more into the idea now, I don't even care if it exactly like my idea for it was I still think it could be a really interesting premise for a game. Even like an adventure game like The Walking Dead like some people said would be awesome.

@kermoosh said:

the other problem is that it would just consists of killing people. most of the tension in the movies is hiding in a tree or something trying to survive which would be boring in a video game

I don't know, I was playing some STALKER recently and when I was hiding in the trees in the dark from a bunch of enemies that were overwhelming me it was pretty damn thrilling to me.

@kermoosh: Of course it would be a rather complicated process and a lot of things would be taken into account, which is what I think is the norm for the development of any "quality" video game. This would apply even more so to a game using this concept as it's never been done before.

Personally, like I mentioned before, I wouldn't care if it had a ton of scripted elements or if it was an adventure game. I'd just like to see it done, for once.

@FluxWaveZ said:

@kermoosh said:

the other problem is that it would just consists of killing people. most of the tension in the movies is hiding in a tree or something trying to survive which would be boring in a video game

You pretty much just described The Walking Dead there, which is the VGAs game of the year and currently the highest rated 2012 game on Metacritic.

Not to mention stealth games, where all of the tension comes from trying to avoid detection by hiding (usually in the shadows, like Splinter Cell, or in plain sight, like Hitman).

Isn't this premise pretty much what DayZ is?

@Subject2Change said:

Isn't this premise pretty much what DayZ is?

Hehe kinda which is cool, but I don't think that's good enough, and I would rather not have zombies. Plus it didn't exist when I made this thread.

@Subject2Change said:

Isn't this premise pretty much what DayZ is?

I watched the Giant Bomb video, and isn't DayZ's basic premise about survival and cooperating with others, with a small or inexistent emphasis on hunting down other players (though you can)? It's not quite the same... it'd be like saying Demon's Souls or Dark Souls fits this concept because players can hunt down others.

There are many battle royale styled videogames. They just happen to be Japanese only, be visual novels, and have rape/unnecessary sex scenes in them.

@FluxWaveZ said:

@Subject2Change said:

Isn't this premise pretty much what DayZ is?

I watched the Giant Bomb video, and isn't DayZ's basic premise about survival and cooperating with others, with a small or inexistent emphasis on hunting down other players (though you can)? It's not quite the same... it'd be like saying Demon's Souls or Dark Souls fits this concept because players can hunt down others.

Well, since Battle Royale had survivalist elements, and was set on an abandoned island, DayZ does kind of fit. Especially because it already has a type of help/betray system with the other players. If you removed the zombies, made the setting a little smaller, maybe throw in a crafting system (also maybe drastically overhaul the combat system) you're already like halfway there.

A Dead Island melee combat focused game with survival elements and a multiplayer only style game would be a great idea. Someone get on it!

I second Dangan Ronpa as one of the best examples of this kind of plotline. I hope someday it gets ported to the U.S., everything I've heard about it makes it seem right up my alley.

Man. Now I'm rewatching Battle Royale 2, which is both stupid and underrated.

The greatest part of the movies is imagining yourself in the situation, thinking how hard it would be to survive, and how hard it would be to KILL PEOPLE YOU LOVE. How the character development would work? Players would want to get right into the action, how would you get around that? For it to work, it would need some great characters. It should be like playing The Walking Dead and in the final episode you have to kill Clementine, or die.(BTW, i haven't played The Walking Dead. Don't spoil it for me, people.)

I'm curious to see how Atlus would adapt such a game.

@Bocam said:

There are many battle royale styled videogames. They just happen to be Japanese only, be visual novels, and have rape/unnecessary sex scenes in them.

Knew it. If I want to experience something like this, having it be an adult visual novel isn't my kinda thing. I wouldn't be opposed to this concept being done as a visual novel (released in NA), but only if it was maybe more "thoughtful" in its execution (and didn't have naked cartoon pussy).

I can't help but think of Zero Escape when I think of a Battle Royale style game. Maybe #3 will pit players more directly against each other or something.

@MarkWahlberg said:

Well, since Battle Royale had survivalist elements, and was set on an abandoned island, DayZ does kind of fit. Especially because it already has a type of help/betray system with the other players. If you removed the zombies, made the setting a little smaller, maybe throw in a crafting system (also maybe drastically overhaul the combat system) you're already like halfway there.

Alright, that's convinced me to at least get more informed about DayZ. I guess making zombies the main point of danger instead of other players in that game is what clashes against my ideals for what a Battle Royale-like game could be, but I'm interested to hear that it moves in that direction.

@MikeGosot said:

The greatest part of the movies is imagining yourself in the situation, thinking how hard it would be to survive, and how hard it would be to KILL PEOPLE YOU LOVE. How the character development would work? Players would want to get right into the action, how would you get around that? For it to work, it would need some great characters. It should be like playing The Walking Dead and in the final episode you have to kill Clementine, or die.(BTW, i haven't played The Walking Dead. Don't spoil it for me, people.)

Well, people have suggested a The Walking Dead style of adventure game being applied to this concept, which I'm not opposed to. Then, all it would need is great writers who would develop great characters, emotional scenes and intense scenarios, which is something that wouldn't be "simple", but would be far from an impossible feat when dealing with a game in which the main theme is "kill or be killed." Example: The player is forced to kill the character they partnered up with in the beginning of the game once they realize they've betrayed them; the character the player partnered up with in the beginning of the game takes a mortal blow for you; the character the player partnered up with in the beginning of the game is killed brutally in front of the player's eyes when an enemy group ambushes them, and the player loses an eye or something as a result of this confrontation. It's simple to throw these out there, but it's the execution that matters.

And I disagree about the appeal of Battle Royale being (solely) about thinking how hard it would be to kill people one loves or is familiar with. Not only were many of the BR characters never friends before all hell broke loose (though they were all classmates), but practically all contestants in The Hunger Games are strangers to each other and the same goes for Future Diary. There are so many things about this idea that appeal to me, like the fact that a small number of distinct characters with their own skills and weaknesses are all competing against each other, with their own motivations, pasts and such. Lots of people always want to get right into the action, but something like TWD and how it was well received convinces me that there are people who are also into narrative experiences that are not always "on." Character development goes hand in hand with great writers and is something that would be an important focus when the whole game would focus on these individual characters wanting (or not wanting) to kill each other for their own reasons.

I've long wanted something in the vain of Battle Royale. It's one of those things I routinely search for every so often.

Always wind up disappointed, but I've hope it'll happen one day.

@FluxWaveZ: I've never actually played it, but one of the cool things about it was hearing stories from those who had. I think RPS had a series of articles about their experiences in it, which are... yes, here it is. I've heard bad things about where that game is now though, lots of hackers and everyone playing it like a boring standard deathmatch, so it might not be the best example anymore.

Yes please, I always wanted to be Mitsuko Souma

@FluxWaveZ said:

@Subject2Change said:

Isn't this premise pretty much what DayZ is?

I watched the Giant Bomb video, and isn't DayZ's basic premise about survival and cooperating with others, with a small or inexistent emphasis on hunting down other players (though you can)? It's not quite the same... it'd be like saying Demon's Souls or Dark Souls fits this concept because players can hunt down others.

Yes but Day Z you have plenty of people that go Rogue and will hunt down your party for everything you have. It's not exactly the same thing, but like Hunger Games you "monsters" (zombies) roaming the area. It's like the best of both, and you are doing this just to survive NOT for political reasons or for a show.

Also the Movie and Book for Battle Royale is a bit different, Movie was a little bit more over the top and made into something more action heavy big thing was adding those 2 kids in who just wanted to just be there.

@notdavid said:

Man. Now I'm rewatching Battle Royale 2, which is both stupid and underrated.

Haven't seen it in a good like 8 years. I might have to watch it now that I own the Battle Royale Blu Ray set. All I remember it being was really BAD.

It would be mgs3 but the no guards and other snakes.

@Subject2Change said:

@notdavid said:

Man. Now I'm rewatching Battle Royale 2, which is both stupid and underrated.

Haven't seen it in a good like 8 years. I might have to watch it now that I own the Battle Royale Blu Ray set. All I remember it being was really BAD.

Don't get me wrong. It's terrible. They took the subtle explorations of morality and turned it into a Michael Bay action movie. But if you're able to divorce yourself from the philosophy behind the novel and first movie, and just want to see a dumb sci fi flick with child murder, it's pretty great.

@Subject2Change said:

Yes but Day Z you have plenty of people that go Rogue and will hunt down your party for everything you have. It's not exactly the same thing, but like Hunger Games you "monsters" (zombies) roaming the area. It's like the best of both, and you are doing this just to survive NOT for political reasons or for a show.

Also the Movie and Book for Battle Royale is a bit different, Movie was a little bit more over the top and made into something more action heavy big thing was adding those 2 kids in who just wanted to just be there.

Unless the actual point is to hunt down other players with an actual end goal in mind, organized as this kind of "game", it's not what I'm looking for. Betraying others in Zero Escape: Virtue's Last Reward for the purpose of one's survival, a game that takes place in an enclosed environment, is similarly not the same thing.

And I read the Battle Royale novel a couple of years after watching the film. I don't recall it being less action heavy than the movie.

That does sound like a great setting for a game. I think you can forget single player though, that doesn't sound very fun, just make it multiplayer only.

There's BattleRoyale-only servers in H1Z1, and boy let me tell you, it's great! Right now it's 20$ or so to get into early access. But just for the BR servers I would pay twice as much! The game in itself is awesome too. A survival zombie apocalypse, much like DayZ. Less buggy even for alpha :p

Made this account just to tell you guys, hope you like it. I'm addicted to this game. Hope to see you in-game!

@redsox44: How would you handle death in the game? Because if you just respawn back at a spawn point a few moments later then what is the point to the game. On the other hand, make death permanent and many gamers will just be put off by it. Maybe a punishment system like the one in the Souls games could work.

Also, I recommend you read The Running Man. The original story still remains my favorite survival story. The movie version of it was only good as far as make me aware that it was based on a book.

Um... I'm shocked this hasn't been mentioned. There is a Battle Royale Mod for arma 3, and its super popular. Most arma 3 twitch streamers play it.

How did you even find this thread, it's over two years old.

Because this sounds so much like an ad, I'd like to chime in and not recommend paying actual money for H1Z1, it's just DayZ with poorly implemented crafting and microtransactions.

Also, it's interesting how this just became basic premise of what seems like every wilderness survival game these days, e.g. Rust.

Sounds like a game like this could be very fun to play but the sheer logistics would be really difficult to pull of.

First of all, as many people mentioned, singleplayer goes out of the gate as we're simply not there yet with AI to have a challenging game with only 20 opponents who have no significant handicap.

Second of all, the matches would have to be played over the course of several hours. And having 20 people playing a single multiplayer session for several hours is pretty much impossible. We've had GB tournaments here before and these things take days if not weeks of planning, and even then some people just fail to show up or have to finish early, etc. And tournaments are a series of 15 minute matches, not a one long session.

Third of all, the nature of the game would dictate no respawns. Which would really suck if you had to wait like 2 hours to play the next game. Plus it would just be totally not worth the effort to play hard for an hour only to be killed of, get 10th place and wait another hour for a chance of a rematch.

One idea I have is this could be executed similarly to Civ V multiplayer matches, where the players first play simultaneously and prepare traps, weapons and equipment and then once they meet the game switches to real time competitiveness. Then again, Civ is played with ~6 players, not 20.

So yeah, a game like this just won't get made.

H1Z1 is a knockoff of two Arma mods. BY is a mode that would be insanely fun in a better game.

@ohnooh: Is it two years old?? Thought it was a couple of months old (: I found it When googling to see how many BR like games there are (: Of course H1Z1 is lacking in a lot of areas, it's early alpha, with only a month of life. Again, I would have bought it just for the BR mode.

If you want a Battle Royale style game I think

A standard action game could not get made like this. But I think a story based game (which is what I want from a BR related game) which plays like an action game or just an adventure game where the level has you jump between main characters from the book would be cool. It couldn't be a proper open world game because the mechanics probably wouldn't work out, but if they straight up took the story from the movie, book, or manga, and made it a story-based game it would probably be extremely popular. Again, I am saying this in the sense that this is a Battle Royale video game, not a video game based on the idea, but a game which is directly about BR.