In post 99, Radical Rat wrote:So what makes this game different from the billion other hunger games survival-murder games?
I've seen its explosion in popularity, but as someone who never really could get into the subgenre, what makes this one special?
1. The popularity feeds itself. And not in a bad way. If you want a game with 100 people in each and you don't want the people to be the same, you need a large player-base.
2. It has a hundred people and a map that feels (and is) very large to accomodate them. It leads to varying situations. Games can be similar to each other, but it's fairly rare that they play out exactly the same. On a related note, particularly in duo and squad games situations occur that I find hilarious with regularity.
3. The circle mechanic: essentially as the game goes on, a circle slowly closes on the players, forcing them into a smaller and smaller area. This means that the action can vary between fast and slow but always involves an element of suspense
4. The games are short: 35 minutes for a full game, and that's only experienced by a few people.
5. Winning is HARD. In a solo game you have a 1% chance of winning if everyone won by being random. So it feels GOOD to finish highly. The only "chicken dinner" (i.e. winning game: "winner, winner chicken dinner") I've had felt amazing. Relatedly, while dying in the top 10 can be frustrating, overall I never feel as frustrated (even when hiplop kills me) as I ever do in other games simply because my expectation of winning is so low.
6. You can use so many different playstyles to be effective at the game.
It's a game with PLENTY of flaws, some that are about being in early access and some built in. But overall the experience is one that is fun, addicting, and challenging.
.
Shat myself when I died as well.