What's your take on the PUBG phenomenon and the Battle Royale genre?

Yes, the film is an adaption, same source material, not copying. Author got paid. It's ok to attribute it to the film or book under source material. I took this into consideration when quoting the source material as that would be the most familiar to most people in popular culture.

Unlike simply copying stuff and passing it off as genius.

 

I honestly suspect at least some of the dismissive attitudes in this thread are from jealousy rather than deep analysis. As fellow game developers, we all owe it to ourselves to be respectful of games that make it big and try to figure out what the appeal is so we can deliver better games as well.

 

Alternative most of us simply aren't interested in the game's concept. After all I saw plenty of people acknowledging what they managed to achieve along with their statements that they didn't care for it.

 

True, but then you have some people saying it's "for people with the attention span of a gnat" and the like. There's a lot of outright dismissal in this thread.

 

Yeah, I don't have a problem with the game being just a "game mode" with the rest of the stuff people usually expect stripped away.

I'll pick on Battlefield again. That game is basically all about the Conquest game mode. It has a bunch of other stuff added on, but if you look at what players are actually playing, it's so skewed to one game mode that I have trouble getting a match of anything else.

With that in mind, and considering that (to begin with) the PUBG developers probably had but a fraction of Battlefield's budget, I see no issue whatsoever in putting 100% of their effort into just the one game mode. That's where the players were going to be anyway, and unless that works everything else is a distraction.

In the spirit of learning from other devs, to me the lesson (which we should all already know) is to focus on what's unique about your game, and not try to compete in the areas other people already have you beat in. Even if the developers tried, could we reasonably expect PUBG to have a campaign and a bunch of other game modes and still be as good as it is? Since people are already complaining that the quality is low, how would making it worse by spreading resources thinner make anything better?

And even assuming they could make a decent game with 4 other modes and a campaign and some other stuff, how would that impact a) the overall experience and b) the commercial success? I can't answer that for sure since I have no crystal ball, but "critical mass" of players is life-or-death to a multiplayer game. If their early players were split over 5 different modes and a campaign, would they have reached the critical mass required to get matches starting regularly? If not, that makes the experience pretty poor because you can't play the darn game, and between those factors you've torpedoed your chances of commercial success...

If the game is truly as poorly implemented as people say I agree that that side of things sucks. But on the focus and supposed lack of content, I don't care. It's the overall experience that counts, and if they found a way to give an experience that lots of people obviously like (enough to overcome its flaws, to boot) that doesn't require oodles of content then I say "well done".

 

PUBG is essentially taps the 'slot machine' gratification of gaming.
It is quick, short and sweet.
Quiet when it needs to be and suddenly explosive, there is a constant need for action.
It touches on a lot of different elements lightly and I think that is where it is gaining a lot of popularity.
Jump in and jump out, replay-ability, random loot and random game play with the constant feeling of needing to move or needing to loot or needing to kill that guy leaves little room to be bored. Keeps you on the edge of your seat almost.

 

Book?

Wutdat?

 

I wish more people would think like this. This forum has always had a hard time discussing popular games, trends etc.

 

What i could say to it is also that is seems like today players like to get unfair wins.. like what you notice in games like this is that they are very luck based.. very little is controled by player.. i find that frustrating but looks like that is what you have to do to sell your game todays.

 

Probably, but part of the frustration too is that people like such stupid stuff.

 

Define stupid. A game where a player doesn't have control over how well they shoot when they would in real life?

That's a joke of course, but I hope you realize how subjective your claim is.

 

Listen, everybody who likes game that I don't like is a moron, and everybody who likes games that I like is a genius. It's just that simple.

Joking aside, my point was that games that achieve mass appeal usually have to be pretty watered down. Like, let's say there is a tribe of monkeys. One monkey is unique and he likes to draw interesting designs in the dirt with a stick. But all the other monkeys like to fling poop and have no interest in monkey art. So if you want to sell these monkeys something they will all enjoy... well you get the point.

 

I definitely don't think PUBG is a purely luck based game. There is an element of luck, in terms of looting, but the best players win a lot more often than the less skilled players. PUBG is definitely a skill based game.

 

There is a constant balance in game design between skill and luck.

The more you drive the game towards skill, the more time players have to invest in the game before they can actually win something. Which typically means you will have less players willing to invest the time.

On the other hand, the more you drive a game towards luck, the less attractive your game will be for players that want to invest a lot of time in it. So you end up with more players that are less invested.

Each game has to pick where its going to sit between the two extremes. The good news is that for players, there exists a game type at pretty much every point of the spectrum, from pure luck, to perfect skill.

 

Hmm, I don't know about that.

Shooting well takes a fair amount of knowledge and practice. Plus, if you're doing shooting while doing other things, like running around, fitness is a major factor too. The knowledge is easy enough to pick up, but practice and fitness take time and effort. So a huge part of the "control" you have over how well you shoot is the effort you choose to put into getting good at it in the first place. Even then, good shots often take time, and in the middle of a gunfight you might often not have any of that.

For example, running makes both your heart rate and your breathing harder and faster. That impacts how still you can hold a firearm, and that directly impacts how well you can shoot. A casual observer might not be able to see the additional movement of the firearm, but it doesn't take much movement of the shooter to make a significant difference when you've amplified it over 20 or 100 or however many meters.

Practice and fitness reduce the effect, but they'll never completely get rid of it.

I would assume that it's similarly as luck-based as Battlefield?

We're mostly talking about the fact that you can be taken out by someone you were completely unaware of with no chance of defending yourself, right? I haven't played PUBG, but in Battlefield there are absolutely behaviours you can adopt to maximise your "luck" in that regard. Largely it's figuring out how to use the landscape as long-distance cover, and how to identify and prioritise risks. You can still get unlucky, but that's because you can't cover every possibility. If you look at players over multiple games rather than over the course of one spawn skill most certainly has more of an impact than luck.

Like I said, though, I haven't played PUBG, so maybe that's not at all what people are referring to here.

 

I'm not saying spread doesn't happen. I suppose it's a matter of degrees however.

The background of my statement is this thread (https://forum.unity.com/threads/sho...t-let-you-get-really-good-at-shooting.507606/).

I've never been in a firefight and had the "chance" to fire at someone coming at me. I have shot in a range (and on family property). I'd say things like stances, holding in my breath (not just holding breath, but breathing IN before doing so and "pushing down" on the stomach), and developing muscle memory for how far to bring down the weapon post-shot-fired-recoil allow a person much greater control over their shooting ability that pretty much any game I've played (haven't played Arma or any other hardcore sims).

My personal favorite "practice" was to have a target moved towards me at a random time, with my eyes unfocused and the weapon down. When I noticed it moving I'd bring it up and fire, often forcing myself to fire once a second.

Been playing Fallout 4, which has no bob or sway at all that I know of (outside of a scope), and in some ways it's easier, in others it's not so much. Seems easier from far away, and more difficult (in that I find it more difficult to respond accurately with the controls) close up.

Firing after running a bit seems like a good exercise.

 

If games made firing a weapon include 1/2 of the factors involved in combat shooting, players would shoot tens of thousands of rounds without ever getting a kill -- and if they did get a kill they probably woulnd't even know it.

So shooting in games shouldn't be focused on realism, but in maintaining the right balance between skill, luck, and satisfaction to hold player interest.

Me personally, I really enjoy games that go closer towards realism. I keep mentioning The Hunter Call of the Wild, but I've been enjoying that game a lot recently because the aiming is difficult enough that I adopt the same tactics I use in real life hunting -- that is, get closer! And the challenge of getting within 30 meters of the pretty clever animals in that game is way more fun that point-and-click.

 

In addition to the basic luck issues inherent to all games like this, there are some unique luck related things. For example, the plane path (for dropping out of), items at each loot spawn, location for each circle, and air drops are all completely random. Every time you play, the game is a bit different. You don't get to choose your weapon loadout at the start. You have to drop out of the plane unarmed and find weapons and other items in order to survive.

 

In a video game you can often run at unrealistic speeds, rapidly sidestep or even jump without the effective forward direction of your gun changing significantly - the aiming cone opens up but the median point of aim doesn't change (precision vs. accuracy). The various physiological things that happen to a person which impact shooting ability are usually either entirely absent, or simplified into different aiming cones and "Press button to hold breath". So a lot of "control" isn't there because in the simplified model of video games it isn't needed.

Despite that, check out the animation of where guns point. Often it's nowhere near the cone of aim and snaps or rapidly moves back when you start shooting. To me that's a better representation of the kinds of things you would be controlling, if you had to.

 

This. A quick google search revealed that WW2 was about 20,000 rounds per kill, Vietnam was about 50,000 rounds per kill, and Iraq sits at around 250,000 rounds per kill. I don't know about you, but that sounds like a very boring game to me.

Game design is all about what feels the most fun and engaging for the players. Not about matching up to reality.

 

What about stats for incapacitation? In the context of video games that's what we're really talking about, though, once again, it's simplified.

 

Course those stats probably aren't the best at telling the full story. Consider how much combat takes place outside the effective range of most rifles. At that point firing on a target is less expected to kill them, and it's more about suppression.

 

I meant like if you totaly a jerk who dosnt even try ever. Games like pupg give you an apportunity to actualy win against someone because you can always have luck of getting your better gun before someone around you and then score easily and i think that this is main diference between pubg and other games and i must say this dumbification and changing towards people that dosnt even want to try is noticeable.

People today just throw money on a game and expect you to make it easiler for them to win and that is kind of depresing because producers like it and games are slovely turn into drug dealers.

 

Source?

I am certain that lots of rounds would have been fired. There is an inherent reluctance for normal people to take a life and accounts of Civil and Napoleonic era battlefields where muzzle loaded muskets were found with multiple unfired loads in the barrel. The machine guns alone would account for thousands of rounds.

However bullets take up space and weight soldiers down so unless they had a line of trucks behind them there is no way these figures are accurate.

Lets take it from the bottom up.

WWII Soldier - http://www.45thdivision.org/Pictures/General_Knowlege/combatload.htm

Working in 12 men squads

• 10 x M1 80 rounds + 48 rounds = 128 rounds. ( 9 lb / 4 kg )
• 1 x BAR 120 rounds (18 lb / 8kg)
• 1 x SMG 120 rounds (Usually the officer)

So about 1,520 rounds per squad.

• With 3 Squads per Platoon that's 4,560 rounds
• Four Platoons per Company or about 18,240 rounds (*1. your googled stats would require an entire company to kill an enemy combatant).
• Four Companies per Battalion or about 72,960 rounds. (*2 and about an entire company to kill one during Vietnam).
• Three Battalions per Regiment or about 218,880 rounds. (*3 and about an entire battalion to kill one enemy during the Iraq war).

Just rough numbers based off WWII basic kit load out.

Or you could look at individual battles for force strengths and casualties.

Probably more likely a major factor is the way these conflicts have changed and the asymmetric nature of the engagements combined with the environments (jungle terrain, urban, mountains) and confirmation of kills, enemy extraction of wounded dead are big factors.

Or what about none fatal casualties especially in later conflicts post Korea where MASH units, combat medical teams and helicopter evacuation were introduced (note they should also be used for enemy combatants under Geneva conventions).

Mind you has anyone tried an FPS where you don't pay for the game only the ammo?

 

Have you guys seen this clone? It even uses the same style on the logo

http://store.steampowered.com/app/748370/STAND_OUT__VR_Battle_Royale/

 

Do BR mechanics push for a more Hollywood Thriller experience?

The player is:

• Dropped into a strange version of reality.
• They have to survive and equip themselves for survival (kitting up montage).
• They are pushed into a big confrontation to survive, overcome and escape their predicament.

And players can choose their experience, e.g.

• Hot Landing Zone (town under flight path) - Instant Conflict lower chance of survival faster equipping.
• Cool Landing Zone (village as far off flight path as can be pushed) - Increased chance of survival slower equipping.
• Play Aggressive.
• Play Stealth.

 

Government reports. It's been estimated there were only between 30,000 and 50,000 kills in Iraq, yet by the end of 2005 the army was purchasing two billion rounds per year.

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2003

World War II took six years. The Iraq War took just under nine years. The Vietnam war took twenty years. Between that and the insane funding the military would have had access to there's no reason why they couldn't have gotten the armaments to the troops.

That said it's still just an estimate (rounded down) based on the bullets ordered and kills achieved.

 

I have to disagree. The appeal of PUBG is not linked to it being easy to win. In fact, it is a statistically hard game to win for most people. The best players win several times per day, while a lot of people never win or very seldom win. By "win", I mean win a match and get the chicken dinner message, not just winning an early gun fight before somebody has a weapon. People are not buying PUBG for an easy experience. People are buying PUBG for the absolutely brutally difficult experience with the hope of winning eventually with enough practice.

 

Actually I just bought it on the holidays after watching it bit on twitch..

I tend to look at the games people on steam friends are playing alot or if they mention it to me to get aswel. I would have bought it early in the year if I had actually looked into it some more as its my kinda game, but if friends play a game and then I never see them play it again a week later then I usually write the game off unless it was one I had already had an interest in..I think pubg just slipped past my radar as people play it in 30min bits and rage quit.. and not hours at time

Looked fun and well polished, vehicles, large world, good animations and detailed realistic guns.. yeh unfortunately my first early experiences of playing the game were rubber banding every 5seconds.. until half the people on the map were dead then the rubber banding issues went away. If you can have people like your game with those kind of issues to deal with then you have hit for sure. That issue is mainly fixed now... And as for winning it is ones of those games you want a solid 60fps at minimum if you want any high % chance of making it towards end game alot, the winning part is a bit of everything skill (experience with weapon recoil, aim player distance to counter player movement and bullet speed etc), and luck with the position and circle more than anything and also maybe your opponents were playing on a potato.

Anyone see https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...n-on-cheats-in-world-s-top-selling-video-game

I'm glad a game like this has come around to really provoke some larger industry action on hackers and cheat sellers. I can think of a dozen Unity made games that pretty much got wasted after those losers who need to hack and develop cheats pretty much laid waste to a games online community and future updates, you could blame those skill less loser who succumb to looking for cheats to abuse in games when played against people who are playing fairly.. but attacking the root problem is better.. I dunno wtf Valve does for the industry anymore, make useless api's that leak players ip's I guess.

It would be great if the technical anti-cheat authoritative server design stuff was made easier for games makers to implement, but ultimately a whack a mole problem and frankly glad to see China dealing with the large number of cheat developers in there country better than nothing.

 

And both of those are poor metrics for calculating shots fired "in anger." Between only using kills (and I think that's just the hostile figures), only using Iraq, and grouping all ammo consumption in one pool, there ends up being many a hole in using that figure to mean anything. It's probably not even one round in a hundred that's used on campaign. I wouldn't even be positive that figure doesn't include NATO consumption or anyone else who uses our ammo.

 

This is one of the main reasons I don't even bother with competitive MP games anymore. Well, mostly because I don't have the time, but being a competitive person, it's just more frustration than fun to deal with lag issues and cheater issues when you get to a competitive level.

That's why now I usually look for pick-up and play single player games that are still challenging.

 

Google. The numbers are typically determined by dividing the total bullets produced/ordered by the number of casualties. Its not an exact science by any means, but the numbers are accurate to within an order of magnitude.

That's pretty much how a supply chain works. Noone carries enough bullets on them to last for the duration of the war. Ultimately there is no valid reason to kit out a soldier with more then enough ammo for a couple of days.

 

That was my point soldiers can't carry that much ammo, and if you look at individual battles their duration and the casualty reports you get a totally different picture.

Also how much ammo would be used for constant training of troops, allied forces, zeroing weapons. It's a classic top down misinterpretation or simplification of view of one of the most complex and hazardous occupations of humanity, war.

Mind you if you consider the rpm and magazine capacity of modern weapons you might see a trend line.

WW2 M1 40-50 rpm 8 round clip
Vietnam M16 700-950 rpm 20 round magazine
Iraq M16A1/2 700-950 rpm 30 round magazine

So from the individual soldiers perspective modern weapons allow more bullets to be fired faster than before at the enemy.

 

This game is a gamble.. who find better gear before other .. and bad hitregistration makes aiming also useles.

And i am not talking about win i talk about it beig as unfair as it can be and people seems to like it lately.

 

This is all hopeless speculation.

The numbers are useful only as much as my first hand anecdotal experience.

A year in Afghanistan, I fired maybe a few hundred bullets (at the enemy). All I ever fired at was a general direction where somebody was 700 meters or more away. Everyone I know was about the same experience, except one platoon who got in a 100 meter range firefight that lasted about an hour. Some people claimed that they shot people in the face, etc., but these were known bullsh1tters. Everybody else said they didn't see nothing.

Another deployment, some of my friends shot up some guys in a car from a good distance away. Not sure how far, maybe 100m or thereabouts. I wasn't there, but from the description of the event it sounded like all six of them (scout team) fired like mad onto this vehicle, including the 240 machine gun. So that was probably 500 rounds right there to kill two guys. In video games, most of the time you know when you hit somebody immediately, and also it is always easy to see your sights and see the target too. In real life, most of the time you can't see S***, you have no confidence that you are hitting your mark, and you have no positive feedback. So you shoot a ton, also because you are scared and don't want the bad guy to shoot back at you.


Afghanistan is Afghanistan and isn't a model for any other war. Obviously there was much more shooting and dying in Vietnam and other places. That whole "most normal people have trouble shooting other people" isn't something I buy into. I read the book and whenever you read a scholarly book things always seem to make sense, but I am certain that I am not a sociopath, nor are any of my friends, and none of us have problems pulling triggers on people. Heck, I love animals a lot more than people and its still nothing to me to shoot a moose looking me in the eye at 20 meters. I think its just the nature of a firearm. Pulling a trigger is nothing. Probably no way I could ever stab somebody. Makes me hurt just thinking about it.

Anyway, this is majorly off topic I think.

 

It feels like that the first couple times you play, but the game is actually not that way. Experienced players can parachute to good locations away from other players and find decent equipment. The parachuting and looting take practice, and skilled experienced players have an advantage. It is definitely a skill game.

 

I've read some of the discussion about number of bullets and I've seen pretty respectable sources quote crazy numbers like 50,000 rounds per casualty.

I don't buy the "people intentionally aim to miss" thing.

I think it's more of a "people are way more worried about being alive than aiming" thing.

I've never been near a combat zone but I've seen a good amount of video footage, and nobody is ever seriously aiming at anything. It's all pop up for a second and borderline blind fire or just trying to look good, although they might be playing up for the camera. Still, I'd be surprised if any of those guys actually saw what they were shooting at.

 

Modern infantry training has improved since the original findings around WW1/WW2 with training focused on hitting targets that look like people and focus on muscle memory training under higher stress conditions.

Ask the average civilian to shoot someone or even an animal and they probably would not.

Although for this discussion should we be considering the PUBG kills per shot stats and not some abstract bullets issued per conflict discussion.

After all clicking a mouse at a bunch of pixels to win a game is totally different from the real world physical act of shooting someone and taking a life.

 

The more I think about it -- yeah, I definitely wouldn't place much stock in any statistics coming from a warzone. One thing I do know for certain is that people are generally confused as hell. Like, I didn't think people could be so confused, but as soon as a mortar lands nearby, people literally forget their freaking names and become like dumb animals.

Not everybody, but most people.

And then after the fact everbody likes to discuss their version of events, and this of course involves the shooting of faces and seeing a piece of shrapnel pass in front of somebodies eyeball and somebody looked an enemy straight in the eye and shot him through the heart and the loud bang wasn't an RPG it was a indirect round and somebody else says it was an IED even though they were in the middle of nowhere, and then next time the bad guys better be ready because there is going to be some serious payback, but then when next time comes so-and - so and can't go because they sprained their ankle but boy they really wish they could go.

Can you feel the bitterness?

 

A thief thinks everybody steals. In this case, a nice guy thinks everybody is nice.

Civilians kill people all the time. I wouldn't expect somebody to kill somebody or an animal for no reason other than being told to do so. Soldiers don't do that either. This is why war's have to be idealized and sold to the people -- especially young dumb people who still think adults know best.

Has nothing to do with empathetic barriers, and more to do with motivation. I had to give my dog a shot a few months back. Never had to do that myself before, and let me tell you, it was one of the great difficulties of my life. I never want to do it again. Partly because I hate needles, but also because I don't want to hurt my good friend, even if its necessary.

But shoot a moose/bear that I don't know? Just to eat him? Sure. That's nothing. Some jackass driver is driving like a jackass and endagering other people for no reason? You could bet that if I thought I could get away with it, I'd dust them like this was the wild west. No excuse for being so dangerous and selfish.

 

Not sure how this applies to PUBG?

That's the thing in PUBG it's a bit like GTA where vehicles are weapons.

PS There are no animals in PUBG, although there are in similar media e.g. Hunger Games (1st book/movie) has killer bees, wild dogs and game animals.

 

Way back up the thread someone complained about the shot spread and realism in PUBG, claiming that in real life soldier can shoot what they are aiming at. The rest of the responses are all about that post. It seems whichever way you approach it, soldiers in an actual combat situation don't even remotely resemble soldiers in FPS games.

 

Yeah it got derailed.

Lots of video games are about guns and shooting, but I expect few game devs have any experience beyond hobby level shooting ranges. So sometimes I chime in on this subject when it arises, although I shouldn't derail a thread.

 

I don't think most even have that. That said, my experience is biased since I come from a country where that stuff is all tightly regulated and it's a very small minority who choose target shooting as a hobby. It could be different elsewhere.

 

It's easy to blame "luck" for something if you don't fully understand the context. The problem with blaming luck is that when you decide something is beyond your control you stop trying to do anything about it.

I haven't played PUBG, but if I thought that I was constantly at a disadvantage because other people have better weapons than me then I'd be thinking about ways to maximise my chances of getting those better weapons. Where do they drop? What makes it risky/safe to get them? What are the pros and cons of each in different situations (because a "better weapon" in one situation might be a liability in another)?

You call it "dumbification". Maybe that's the case, I don't know. But another possibility is that there is complexity and subtlety there and you just haven't recognised it yet.

 

How much does the map effect play in BR style games?

Note the second map in PUBG and map update to fortnite https://www.gamespot.com/articles/fortnite-battle-royale-update-revamps-its-map-toda/1100-6456166/

 

In PUBG really an assault rifle is king with only maybe a shotgun at very close range taking advantage.

I've been in close skirmishes (<20m range) with SMG vs ARs and lost hands down.

Personal experience a full mag of smg sprayed at two players at close range only got them to notice me.

But I'm not very good (no solo chicken dinners so far).

 

Some say luck, others say magic...

Good point. I haven't played PUBG either, but typically I like my PVP competitive games to start players on a level playing field. I always hated the older arena shooters where one dick would constantly seek out the rocket launcher. I understand that learning the maps is a skill in a sense, but it always just annoyed me. I liked Unreal Tournament most with instagib turned on for that reason, and in the original halo I liked pistols only. All that other stuff usually spoiled the fun for me.

I think as developers expand a franchise, they tend to refine core features less and add instead add on more features. Like, in the later Halo's, you got all these different power ups, etc. I guess there isn't much streamlining you could do with the original Halo though.

I like the general idea behind PUBG, even if is not novel whatsoever. But I guess this is the first game to pull it off decently? I have watched some gameplay videos and it does look like it can be tense and exciting some times, but it doesn't look like a game that would hold my interest for more than a week.

 

I've never used an SMG, but from this description I can't imagine that working out well in anywhere outside of a movie.

 

If you know they're going for the Rocket Launcher you can always head for the Big Keg o' Health or the armor. And spawns are strictly timed, so you can get some strategy going about what resources you're going for and how to control them.

I do also enjoy Instagib, but that's far more about twitch and far less about map control or any form of strategy.