Is it fair to dislike Fortnite for riding PUBG's coattails?

@notnert427: @zevvion: PUBG starting as an ARMA mod doesn't mean PUBG copied or cloned ARMA. By that logic DayZ is an ARMA ripoff, that's silly when they are all completely different concepts and types of games. The ARMA mod just used ARMA assests since they were modders/indie devs at the time. Using ARMA assets has nothing to do with the creation of the battle royale mode itself. From what I've seen of Minecraft's BR mode it's not like PUBG, so you still haven't name all the games PUBG has cloned and ripped off.

Zevvion, you call others fanboys or question their motatives while trying to seem impartial because you haven't played either game, but you obviously have your own bias. No one neutral or who wasn't a fan would spend so much time defending a game lol.

@zevvion: The conversation is about the BR mode, ARMA didn't have a BR mode until the PUBG creator created one.

I can understand people getting angry about a big publisher for borrowing ideas from indie developers on their early access game.

But then again it has been a long time since we saw a commercially successful game from EPIC which makes me happy for them.

@zevvion: More like Fortnite blatantly copied another game. I've never heard anyone say that modding was bad or unethical unless it was some sneaky/lazy paid mod. ARMA itself has nothing to do with the BR mode, they most likely chose that game because it was accessible and mod friendly, they gave it battle royale. As far as the gameplay goes, ARMA and PUBG don't have the same shooting, driving, inventory, etc. I've played ARMA and its way more meticulous and realistic because it's a military sim. PUBG is more realistic than COD, but it's not near ARMA. I know you said you like to watch games, but if you actually played these you'd know their gameplay differences.

@zevvion said:

There is a difference between iterating on an idea and copying it. If you look at the DayZ mod and compare it to PUBG now you can see the 4+ years.

Interestingly, in this video from 4 years ago I randomly searched, you will see the server admin in text chat is actually none other than PlayerUnknown aka Brendan Greene. I don't think PUBG is the most original thing ever, but copy is not the word to use.

Fortnite for comparison came out late July and proceeded to patch a battle royale mode into the game in September. Couple that with Epic licensing the Unreal engine to PUBG and It is perfectly valid to look at Fortnite with a stink face.

With that said, I don't fault people for playing/enjoying Fortnite. Just not particularly enamored with how Epic went about it with Fortnite.

@zevvion: PUBG copied shooting mechanics? That's how it's a clone and ripoff of other games? lol, you're just grasping at straws. To compare the entire shooter genre to a particular new game mode is idiotic. I don't know which game is more popular. I haven't seen any news stories on it and I think Twitch is lame, so I haven't been on there to see Fortnite with more viewers as you say, if that's true. Just about everything I've seen you say in here has been wrong and you obviously don't know when to stop so I'll end it here. I didn't know someone could be a fanboy for a game that they've supposedly never played, so you did teach me something there lol.

I wouldn't call Fortnite an asset dump or whatever, but it does feel thrown together in certain regards. I think the shooting is a common compliant because its shooting was made for PvE, the gunplay doesn't feel right for PvP... it feels like Sunset Overdrive, not a competitive or highly skilled shooter. This is subjective, but I think the gunplay and slow movement (running across taking forever and being boring) is because the battle royale mode was something they added on later... they didn't build the game with BR in mind. Epic already said that they're going to update the shooting, so they must think it's an issue too. Maybe they already added vehicles (I haven't played it in forever) but they should add vehicles too because walking across the map feels like a chore.

PUBG is hardly an original game. There were a million junky versions of that concept ons team and it was the first one to finally barely be decent enough to get really popular. Fortnite is naturally enhancing the formula.

Seems appropriate for this thread:

@deathstriker: I signed up solely to express how much I agree with you. Soo... There. I agree with you a lot :)

They're two games that have a similar objective based game mode but completely different mechanics.

The fact that anyone gives a shit enough to be mad is funny to me more than anything else. People will enjoy what they enjoy, and I don't think one game existing is detrimental to the other in any way.

Sure? Personally I think it's fuckin hilarious, and through exactly the same impression you have. Fortnite seemed kinda, well dead on arrival is maybe a bit harsh, but it didn't seem like it was exactly setting the world ablaze. Then they slapped "Battlegrounds" onto it and made it free-to-play and watched the numbers go on up. I think it's maybe the free-to-play part that puts it over the edge for me, where it's like good goddamn, they fuckin went there and just opened the floodgates.

It's just so brazen. I love it. Not because it's good, mind, but just because of the audacity of it all. The sheer fuck-offness at play.

But ya, obviously PUBG is doing the whole Battle Royale thing that's been around a long time, and I guess it's got a pedigree with ArmA, or that ArmA zombie thing? So obviously, you know, building off of other shit, some more blatently than others. But come ot think of it, I can't recall of any other game that actually went ahead a full on did the Battle Royale thing, so fuck it, good on PUBG for making it a reality. Unless there's some obscure mod I never heard about the predates it and does shit exactly the same.

Noooo interest in these games though. The experience seems just close enough to how I felt back in the day playing CS, so I'm good. And by close enough I mean the part where you find guns and it's incredibly tense solo or also fun when coordinating with a team. I played a lot of CS. So much so that I'm not really needing any game in my life that'll give me that kinda feeling just yet, even if the novelty of surviving over 99 other players is pretty neat when you think about it. But it's not that neat. Not for me anyways.

Wasn't there a battle royal game on steam before pubg i remember Vinny having to bash two rocks to each other, and made a stone knife out off it. I think it was called "the culling".

And Bluehole have done updates to their own shooting model too.

You're right about it being subjective whether if feels good or not. I've played other games designed with PVE in mind that are just as fun with PVP modes. I don't think it's meant to feel like a highly skilled shooter, nor did it ever claim to be.

If you dislike PUBG for copying mods, Battle Royale, and its art assets, I feel you'd be entirely justified in disliking Fortnite, sure.

From what I've played of PUBG (barely functional shitshow) and seen of Fortnite (seems novel and cool) I'd be a lot more likely to support Fortnite over PUBG.

Wasn't Fortnite in development first?

@goboard:

Did you not even read my comment? Yes, I knew that. I pointed it out... My feelings are the same. Blizzard used existing assets, but put in the work to make overwatch its own thing (also, it didn't actually start as an mmo. Overwatch was going to be a class based fps mode/activity within the larger mmo world. So it really is what it was intended to be from the start). And, like I said, I know epic is putting in the work to bring it to where it needs to be (the shooting, for instance, is going to get overhauled). It still started in haphazard fashion, and continues to feel that way to some degree. Also, popularity is not a metric of quality. Not in my book, at least.

Side note: I haven't even played PUBG, so don't think I'm being a fanboy about one vs the other.

I think it's fair to criticize Epic for taking THIRTEEN years to make Fortnite, but only a weekend to morph it into a Battlegrounds clone.

I think my takeaway from all of this is that neither game really pulls off the Battle Royale idea in a way I'm satisfied with.

I mostly don't care for the shooting in PUBG (nor its being in a perpetual state of disrepair), and I also really don't care for the shooting or the building or the aesthetic of Fortnite. The core premise of the genre is irresistible but until a game really, really gets it right, there's a certain distance I'm remaining outside of the bubble--or circle, if you will.

Part of me wonders if we're approaching peak Battle Royale. As soon as the mode starts showing up everywhere, thrust into other games, I imagine the fervor will start to fade.

@rongalaxy: Sorry, I missed that part in your previous comment. However You are still missing my overarching point, which is what led me to think you lacked that context. The path and time-scale to release don't determine the quality of a game the way you have suggested and you don't have to enjoy playing a game to recognize that it's not lacking in quality. I don't enjoy playing sports games, but I can understand and see how they have quality to their creation and I enjoyed parts of my time playing PUBG but also recognize where it's lacking. So far you have yet to elaborate on what you mean by haphazard or where it's lacking in quality and started off by calling Fortnite:BR an asset rip akin to the kind of stuff that comes out of the unity asset store, a description that is wholly unjustified because your misusing the term asset rip.

I used Titan and Overwatch as an example to draw attention to the rocky road that development can have and that when a studio chooses to use work from a failed or unsuccessful project in the creation of a new game, that it can be a good thing. Both Overwatch and Fortnite:BR are positive examples of this. Paragon wasn't doing as well as Epic had hoped and Fortnite:BR's success meant that when they shut down Paragon the people who worked on it were moved over to Fortnite and Fortnite:BR instead of being laid off. You don't have to like the game to see the positive outcome. While Fortnite isn't the first game to be released by Epic using UE4, it was in production for so long because it was the first game they began working on when UE4 was first being built so it likely suffered the growing pains of an engine in-development among other difficulties of production that lingered post release of UE4. Destiny's launch happened due to similar circumstances and it rebounded. Now that Epic has a game that is successful they can use that to the benefit of both games and maybe Fortnite will follow a similar trajectory and find it's place.

I dunno, is it fair to resent WoW for copying Everquest? "Borrowing" ideas has been going on since the dawn of the game industry. Its how the game industry evolves and iterates on ideas so quickly. Somehow, people still seem to be blindsided every time it happens. Remember when dark souls fans were angry about Salt and Sanctuary?

I think the only thing different about the current situation is how fast the "copycat" game released after the original. That only happened because battle royale is, at its core, a game mode, as opposed to a full game concept. Its relatively easy to implement battle royale in an existing fps, vs building a mmo or a Souls game.

As a lukewarm fan of both Pubg and Fortnite, I say Bluehole only has themselves to blame for leaving the door open for Epic to eat their lunch.

I'm just happy that Epic continues to exist. Even though what they've done is a bit skeezy, I'd rather that they were successful, than have Fortnite disappear into the abyss.

This is just how it goes, the same thing happened with Arena Shooters and Moba's and zombie games.

Epic only took the playing field which and gave their own spin to it, it's no different than Mario kart and Blur or FIFA and Red Card Soccer. Bluehole didn't invent it, they just changed the mechanics and rules of an already existing concept like everyone does.

I get why someone might want to throw shade at a product that eclipses (in terms of numbers) the thing they love and gave them their "first time." Me? I can't begrudge the PUBG faithful, but I'm unable to get into the unoptimized, cheat-infested, militaristic, "l33tc0r3" style of the game. Something about the whole enterprise.. rankles me. I realize the jankiness is part of the reason many people, including most of Giant Bomb, love the game so much, but I'm one of those freaks that likes my games optimized and butter smooth and arcadey, so FBR is right up my alley. Colorful, silly, unrealistic, smooth as fuck, always iterated. Oh, and free. The games are different enough that they really do feel mutually exclusive, apart from the central conceit.

To draw a Valve analogy, PUBG is Counterstrike, FBR is Portal. I'm glad they both exist!

i dunno, am I the only one who sees that Fortnite succeeding leads to better engine optimization and networking of unreal engine games that will end up trickling down to other games that use the engine, PUBG included.

The "first shooter ever" comment was hyperbole aimed at pointing out how much of a stretch your claim of PUBG's supposed copying was. The difference in the copying is that what PUBG supposedly took is highly questionable/vague from assorted, relatively unknown games, and what Fortnite took is obvious/specific from one immensely popular game. If you want to talk about the forgettable part of Fortnite that isn't a Battle Royale game, by all means. It only makes my point that Fortnite wasn't much until they changed it to be a Battle Royale game that was, at minimum, heavily inspired by PUBG.

I'm well-aware of PUBG's ARMA roots. Except ARMA has been openly supportive of the modding community for years, and for all intents and purposes has served as a sort of partner for DayZ and the like due to mutual beneficence. Moreover, what it sounds like you're claiming is "copied" here is the PUBG creator's prior work. He can't copy himself. The guy has been iterating on this concept since he made DayZ: Battle Royale in 2013. Again, which Battle Royale modes "already out" then are you claiming Greene copied? I suspect I'll get more crickets there. Also of note, PUBG has understandably taken serious exception with Fortnite using PUBG's name to sell their product. So, just to recap, PUBG has supposedly copied, uh, non-specified stuff from, uh, nameless theoretical people who aren't complaining, and Fortnite has admittedly copied PUBG directly, going so far as to use PUBG's name to sell Fortnite BR, despite protest from PUBG. And you think this is the same thing?

Sure, you can point out that Fortnite is successful now. That isn't in question. PUBG has been out for a year on PC, so interest there has obviously waned over time. On console, Fortnite made obviously calculated choices to 1) beat PUBG to console launch, and 2) undercut them on price by going F2P. To their credit, those strategies have proven ridiculously successful. Except that in no way excuses them for blatantly copying PUBG because their game was tanking. They have taken a piece of PUBG's pie, which is something you seem to view as a positive. I do not. To make this analogy both figurative and literal, Fortnite made a shitty pie of their own that no one really wanted to eat, so they stole the recipe from a popular bakery and started making "pies just like popular bakery" and worse yet, advertising it as such. This is not something to be applauded in my book, even if it did work.

I honestly don't give a shit about PUBG itself, so spare me the fanboy bullshit. I have an Xbox One X and don't even own the game, for what it's worth. My issue with this whole thing stems from the shitty business practice of Fortnite in brazenly ripping off another product because theirs sucked. It's that simple. Personally, I typically do side with landscape-altering products in an effort to generally support steps forward. If you find that idea "pretentious", that's your prerogative, I suppose. I called Fortnite the "bargain-bin" product because it literally is. It is free* compared to $30, and undercutting PUBG in price was clearly intentional. They had zero interest in trying to price it alongside (or even near) PUBG and counting on Fortnite's merit to win people over. Gee, I wonder why?

The problem here is that Fortnite pulled some shady shit and is selling "their" product based almost entirely on the strength of someone else's product, against that person's wishes. That's fucked up. I would have zero problem with Fortnite if a) Fortnite was successful in its own right prior to becoming bargain-bin PUBG, b) Fortnite BR wasn't undercutting PUBG on price, and c) Fortnite BR wasn't plastering PUBG's name on "their" game to try and drive Fortnite BR sales. The reality is, Fortnite is a leech. Fortnite is only successful because they copied PUBG and shoved a cheaper version of PUBG out to market before the PUBG console launch. That they also shamelessly have the audacity to use PUBG's name to sell "their" version of it is deplorable, IMO. Celebrate their success from pulling these stunts if you like, I guess. Just don't expect me to.

I'm no great fan of Fortnite, PUBG is much more up my alley, but I'm honestly rooting for Fortnite. PUBG corp dragged their heels with improving their game, ignored severe issues that had reasonable solutions and said some really stupid stuff in response to legitimate concerns. They burned a lot of their good will and hurt their reputation. When PUBG got as popular as it did, they should have realized there would be competitors, but they didn't, and Epic released a much more polished game that was, most importantly, much better managed.

Ultimately, I don't think either game is all that good. But the difference between them in polish, updates and community management is like night and day.

I'm just waiting for a battle royale game actually built from the ground up with that genre in mind. Fortnite was intended for something else and PUBG still feels too rooted in the Arma series where Brendan Greene cut his teeth. Hunt: Showdown, if I could play it, looks like it has potential to be that game for me.

After thinking more about it

I think the only real reason Fortnite bothers me at all, is that essentially Epic had a business relationship with Bluehole/PUBG prior to releasing the game due to Bluehole using Unreal and the using the PUBg brand to market Fortnite at launch. I don't like that kind of dirty dealing.

but TBf that's also on Bluehole for deciding to use an engine made by a competitor. That's the risk you run when relying on and giving money to your competition

Other than that, bring it on. Imitation to some degree is flattery, Competition is good. Fortnite BR certainly is more than different enough from PUBG.

PUBG Corp needs a kick in the pants anyway. As fun as PUBG is and as often as they patch it, it still has huge performance problems (such as that Tick rate especially early game, good god). People won't tolerate this forever, eventually Activision/EA/UBi/2k will probably come along and release some BR game that takes the US market from them altogether. And for pete's sake I really wish they'd stop patching the game in US primetime for 3 hours every week.

All right, folks. I'll admit I enjoyed my time with PUBG... on Android. SURPRISINGLY playable. Smoother than XBox One S, apart from the touch controls, which were still better than they had any right to be. Didn't see much cheating, either.

Probably the most fun I've ever had with the game, though that might be because I made it to the top 3. Nowhere to go but down.