Fortnite-VS-PUBG

[olafthecat]

I cannot add a poll for some reason, but anyway...

Which do YOU think is better?

Here is some information from appropriate websites:
[warning: Text Heavy!]

GameRevolution:

Entering the arena:
The similarities between PUBG and Fortnite Battle Royale are immediately apparent. Much like PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds, in Fortnite Battle Royale players begin in a lobby populated by the players they'll be facing off against in the arena, with them able explore the environment for a minute without the threat of death.After this, they're placed in a "Battle Bus" that flies above the game's grassy map, selecting a point to jump out of the vehicle before skydiving down towards the ground. It's hardly a subtle imitation of Bluehole's ideas, but the entire process to landing is much nippier and it seems that you can cover a greater distance in Fortnite Battle Royale than you can in PUBG. Its map is smaller than PUBG's, with its buildings closely packed together, so even if you jump out of the Battle Bus and realize that you're surrounded by other players, you can still quite easily change direction and land near a different a building.

Looting:
After you land the differences between the two games become apparent. For one, looting in Fortnite Battle Royale is infinitely less intense than in PUBG, with weapons and items highlighted by bright, floating orbs rather than being haphazardly strewn across the ground. You can easily pick up an adept shotgun, auto-rifle and SMG moments after landing in Fortnite Battle Royale, as opposed to embarking upon the desperate hunt for anything other than a handgun in PUBG.

Rather than rely upon your own knowledge of which weapons work and which weapons are fundamentally useless, the weapons in Fortnite Battle Royale are each divided into different colors that indicate their power level, meaning you can easily see which guns you should pick up and which you should drop without having to spend an excessive amount of time in your inventory. This complements the game's more action-orientated approach to the Battle Royale genre, with players carrying up to five weapons at a time and being able to become a walking militia by the time the round is over.

Survival:
The end goal of both Fortnite Battle Royale and PUBG is to be the last man standing in a 100-man fight to the death. However, both games' approach to this core concept is very different, and despite Bluehole's valid concerns about Epic cloning many of their ideas, the survival aspect of both games will make them stand apart to their respective audiences.

In PUBG exploring a small building can be a nail-biting experience; if you run towards a selection of houses and see that their doors have been left open, you're going to have to keep your eyes peeled and your ears tuned in to sense any potential enemy movement, checking every corner and potential hiding place to ensure that another player won't get the jump on you. In Fortnite Battle Royale, the plentiful number of weapons ensures that while stealth is still a factor in the game, it's also completely possible to make it to the end of the round by running and gunning.

Though Fortnite Battle Royale is ultimately a survival game, stealth and sneakiness is downplayed in comparison with PUBG. For some this more arcade-y approach to the genre will be off-putting, but for others who appreciate the PUBG concept but dislike the high level of tension it invokes, this will be a welcome deviation from the Battle Royale formula.

Crafting:
While Fortnite Battle Royale may not require players to go all Sam Fisher, it does feature something that PUBG does not: crafting. Much like in the base Fortnite game, Fortnite Battle Royale places an emphasis upon base-building, allowing players to quickly obtain resources such as wood, steel and brick in order to add extra cover to existing buildings, or build forts of their own.

This mechanic becomes particularly useful when playing in squads, which allows players to take on the arena in teams of four. In squads, it isn't rare to see one player being assigned the role of fort builder, creating sturdy structures that will defend their teammates from enemy gunfire. It's a great mechanic, with it being incredibly simple to lay down a wall, flooring or a set of stairs, creating extra hurdles for other players if they wish to come and take you on.

However, while crafting is advantageous, it comes at a price. Knocking down existing structures and crafting new ones makes a lot of noise, meaning that nearby players will be alerted to your presence should you start trying to build yourself a nice fort. Each structure is also fully destructible, so if another player is armed with a grenade or rocket launcher and you're perched on a roof somewhere, you can effectively be shot down to the ground in a pile of debris.

It's an excellent risk vs reward mechanic that will cause you to be sniped out of your boots just as many times as it protects you. The base-building in Fortnite Battle Royale is so simple and intuitive that I can foresee many players being lured to the full game after trying it out in the mode, where you can build giant structures without the threat of another player waddling over and popping you with their shotgun.

Shooting:
This is where many PUBG players will quickly lose interest with Fortnite Battle Royale, but also where it could find itself its own gap in the market. Whereas PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds' weapons are each complicated things to master, requiring players to equip them with a wide array of various attachments in order to lessen their recoil, improve their handling and increase their accuracy, Fortnite Battle Royale's guns can be handled adequately by more-or-less anyone, regardless of their skill level.

Though some guns are better than others, and skilled players will still come out on top over newcomers, it's also more possible to dive in and play right away, bag yourself a few kills and leave satisfied. This reduced difficult curve also means that Fortnite Battle Royale is far less tense than its source of inspiration, with players not forced to line up the perfect shot to take out another player, and it also rarely devolving into you sitting in a building for 10 minutes, waiting for other players to come at you.

While this means that the action is a lot more fast and frenetic, it also eradicates the quieter, more heart-racing moments that define the PUBG experience. You won't worry about whether another player will enter the same building as you, because the guns are so easy to control that you'll probably be able to pop their head off anyway, and rounds are so fast-paced that the threat of death isn't as imminent as it is in PUBG. Whereas in Battlegrounds I'd hole myself up in a building in the center of the map and desperately hope that no one would stumble upon me, in Fortnite Battle Royale I'm skipping along merrily, firing auto-rifle rounds with wild abandon and still making the top 10. It's a lot of fun, but if you're into your weightier weapons with more realistic feedback, then Fortnite likely won't sit well with you.

Comparison:

Ultimately, the better Battle Royale game is going to be one that better suits your play style. The methodical nature of PUBG and its more suspenseful, quiet approach is a large contributor to its high level of success, but there's certainly room for Fortnite Battle Royale's more explosive action.

It's difficult to see Fortnite Battle Royale truly competing with PUBG in any meaningful capacity, but Epic Games' take on the Battle Royale genre should find itself a place in the market as the arcade equivalent to PlayerUnknown's breakout hit. Though PUBG is still the superior Battle Royale experience, Epic has provided just enough of its twist on the formula that it's a worthy new addition to the genre, no matter how much this will serve to infuriate Bluehole.

PCGamesn:

Fortnite vs. PUBG map:
Whilst the mechanics of both Fortnite and PUBG are similar, their maps are surprisingly different. This is most evident in their different sizes: the PUBG map is 8x8km, whereas the Fortnite Battle Royale map is much smaller.

Arguably, this means PUBG players have to rely more on luck to win, as if the safe zone’s location is not kind to them, they will need to find a vehicle to prevent a mad sprint to safety. The Fortnite Battle Royale map, on the other hand, does not feature vehicles; its smaller size make it much easier to traverse quickly and safely.

The structures of the islands are also different. For instance, Fortnite’s map is one big island with Loot Lake at its centre and a river running through it. Loot Lake is a body of water about the size of the game’s largest towns, so it is unlikely you will be doing much swimming.

PUBG map Erangel, on the other hand, has a couple of islands that are more likely to hold high-level loot. Sosnovka Island is the largest and is dominated by its military base. Parachuting here is a risky strategy: you might have a better chance of finding good gear, but if the circle shrinks towards a distant location then you will have lots of water and land to cross.

Overall, the Fortnite map is more concentrated and hilly, offering more high points and therefore opportunities for snipers. However, whilst more open space in Erangel might ostensibly make it harder for players to hide, you can go prone in PUBG.

When it comes to a Fortnite vs. PUBG map face-off, players looking for a tense, high-risk fix should go for PUBG. If you want a map that is easier to traverse - with endearingly-named townships such as Tomato Town and Pleasant Park - stick to Fortnite.

However, PUBG will soon have multiple maps, with a brand new desert map coming in December 2017, and an Adriatic map currently without a release date. We will have to see how that impacts the great Fortnite vs. PUBG rivalry.

Fortnite vs. PUBG player count:
When it comes to PC gaming, you should try to avoid following the crowd. Although, admittedly, it does help if the lobbies are populated when you are playing multiplayer games like Fortnite and PUBG.

As of December 2017, Epic Games’s battle royale effort edged past PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds, winning the fight when it comes to the Fortnite vs PUBG player count. At that point, Fortnite had 20 million players, with the PUBG player count hot on its heels.

That said, do not let player count affect your decision of which battle royale game to play. You will have a great experience with either and should have no trouble finding plenty of rivals to mercilessly murder.

Fortnite vs. PUBG weapons and items:
In the big Fortnite vs. PUBG battle, weapons are an important factor: the two games are very different in this regard. Essentially, you are choosing between accessibility and complexity.

In PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds there is a massive variety of weapons and items - with cosmetic ones available in crates. There are - take a deep breath - 23 main weapons, 38 attachments, four pistols, four grenades, and four melee weapons. The best ones are tricky to nab, too: you have to risk running to a crate - dropped by a loud helicopter - or travel to dangerous areas like the Sosnovka Military Base.

PUBG weapons and items do exist on a rarity scale - common, uncommon, and rare - but they are not clearly delineated by colour as they are in Fortnite Battle Royale. However, items such as backpacks, helmets, and police vests can be found between levels one and three.

Really, PUBG is a military sim for serious shooter fans; the likes of Arma form its DNA, after all. If you are looking for a battle royale game with deep and complex weapons - ones that factor in bullet velocity, firing modes, and DPS - PUBG is for you.

Meanwhile, the Fortnite Battle Royale weapons are a very different, and much more accessible than PUBG’s. Firstly, you know straight away that your newly-looted weapon is good or not thanks to the colour-indicated rarity system: grey, green, blue, purple, and orange stand for common, uncommon, rare, epic, and legendary, respectively.

Also, there are far fewer weapons and items compared to PUBG. There are no more than four of each weapon type and you do not even need to worry about what mods to equip, or which ammo type is best. There is one ammo type for each weapon class, and then you just have to cross your fingers that your gun has a decent scope.

Another difference between Fortnite vs. PUBG is where you find weapons and items. Instead of risking everything for a PUBG crate, in Fortnite Battle Royale you find the best weapons in glowing chests. They appear in the same places, but not during every round - if you have a good memory, check places you have found them before. They emit a sort of twinkling sound. You will know it when you hear it.

Fortnite Battle Royale is much more accessible than PUBG, so if you are new to shooters then Epic’s battle royale game might be the one for you to try first. That is not to say it is easy, but it will certainly take less time to get to grips with.

Fortnite vs. PUBG graphics:
We think Fortnite is a much better-looking game than its battle royale rival. It scores better in performance, too, as you will likely find that running PUBG is a tougher ask than Fortnite Battle Royale. Of course, PUBG Corp is a much smaller team, and without the financial heft at Epic Games’s disposal.

PUBG clearly has the gritty, militaristic aesthetic down, but Fortnite goes for a much lighter, Pixar-esque cartoon style akin to Team Fortress 2 or Overwatch. That can have its disadvantages in gameplay terms, however. When you stand out so brightly against the rest of the world you are much easier to spot. On the other hand, in PUBG, it is easier to blend in to the greys, browns, and dark greens of Erangel.

Fortnite might look more appealing, but who wins out in the Fortnite vs. PUBG graphics stakes really depends on personal preference.

Fortnite vs. PUBG gameplay:
Ostensibly, Fortnite Battle Royale is a carbon copy of PUBG. Epic might have arguably copied PlayerUnknown’s homework, but at least they added construction to the formula.

When it comes to the Fortnite vs. PUBG gameplay battle, building is the most important divergence between the two. In the former, when it gets to the business end of a match, it is important you use the wood, stone, and metal you should have stockpiled to create your own structures and get a good vantage point over the competition. But building at any other time is fatal: player-made constructions are obvious, and you will be found.

In PUBG, you have no such luxury: you have to make do with the cover provided by the map. You can at least go prone in PUBG; a boon for the not-so-brave. Helped by the art style, PUBG’s gameplay is a more stressful, serious experience with matches that often last longer - provided you stay alive, that is. Great for the masochists amongst you.

Comparison:
When it comes to Fortnite vs. PUBG, you could be forgiven for thinking that they were the same game. You can tackle both solo, as a duo, or as a squad. Your goal is to be the last man standing, escaping from a deadly gas into an ever-shrinking safe space. You are dropped onto the map without any weapons or items, left to fend for yourself with whatever strategy works for you.

That said, there are a number of differences between Fortnite and PUBG that actually make them rather distinct experiences. Fortnite is light, cartoonish, and accessible, whereas PUBG is gritty, complex, and stressful.

So, finally, Fortnite vs. PUBG: which is better? Both attract the huge number of players they do for good reason: they are excellent games. However, we would recommend Fortnite Battle Royale if you are more of a casual player, and not only because you can download it for free. On the other hand, you should opt for PUBG if you are a seasoned shooter veteran looking for a more of a serious experience.

Whichever battle royale game you choose between Fortnite vs. PUBG, we wish you well in achieving a legendary chicken dinner, or victory royale.

Games Inbox:

Clone wars:
For the people that have been writing in about PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds looking really bad on Xbox One I would highly recommend Fornite instead. I’ve only played PUBG on PC but looking at the streams of the Xbox One version it looks worse than that ever did even when it first came out. Fortnite though is an actual finished game with pretty good graphics and it’s completely free. It’s got less loot boxes than Battlefront II too, and to be honest I can’t quite believe it’s as generous as it is. It seems to me that the whole Battle Royale formula is so simple that it’s very easy for other games to copy it, and I really doubt that PUBG is going to stay top of the game forever. Especially not on consoles. It can’t be long until Activision and EA jump on the band wagon with Call Of Duty and Battlefield/front. Ubisoft games already seem perfect for it too, and considering how quickly Fortnite added the option I don’t think it takes that much once you’ve got the map done. Not really dissing PUBG but I’d be disappointed if the idea didn’t evolve further.

Forbes:

Last night, Fortnite: Battle Royale announced the biggest shakeup to its core gameplay since the game first morphed from being a base-building survival simulator into being a massive, 100 player murder sandbox. From now until December 17, players will have a chance to play in a large-scale, 50 vs. 50 team mode, offering a totally different take on a similar mechanic. With teams, not every player you see will shoot you on sight, and that alone should completely shift the experience.

It sounds amazing, and a perfect way to spin the Battle Royale concept forward into something besides crouching in an abandoned shed with a shotgun, which is still mostly how I play these games. It sets the stage for some true large-scale conflicts and roiling masses of players start to collide with each other, and Fortnite's building mechanics, in particular, could produce some colossal and strange structures. It could also allow for games like these to become slightly more functional eSports: there's a little too much random action for large-scale Battle Royale to be all that competitive right now, but a coordinated team of 50 players could get up to all sorts of stunts. That coordination would be near-impossible, of course, but that's part of the fun.

Which is why I think this concept is too good to just be in Fortnite: Battle Royale. You may have heard of that other popular Battle Royale game, Player Unknown's Battlegrounds, and this mode would be a perfect fit there as well. It could represent a genuine shakeup to repetitive if white-knuckled, gameplay that PUBG enjoys now, and it's possible that the framework to implement it wouldn't even be all that hard. The game already supports teams, after all, and while I'm not looking at the code right now it's possible that it wouldn't be too hard to just make those teams really big. You wouldn't even have to be limited to 50 vs 50: 33 vs 33 vs 33 vs 1 could be a wild time as well.

PUBG and Fortnite Battle Royale have a contentious relationship, to say the least. PUBG by no means invented the Battle Royale game, but it certainly popularized it throughout 2017. And when Fortnite: Battle Royale first dropped, it was very hard to call it anything but a PUBG clone. The basic setup was identical, the moment to moment gameplay was more or less the same, and the newer title had only its building mechanics and cartoony aesthetics to remind us that this was a different game. PUBG developer Bluehole was not happy, and made vague comments relating to legal threats that never materialized. Combine that with the fact that PUBG runs off of Unreal Engine, which is owned by Epic Games, which also makes Fortnite, and you've got a big mess on your hands.

Of course, it's already a mess, which is why I think that PUBG should be totally unrestrained when it comes to cribbing this new mode off of its current chief competition. The Battle Royale genre right now is somewhat unique in that it's more reliant on concept than execution, which is both why PUBG has such a strong early mover advantage and why clones are popping up as quickly as they are. This is how things move forward in this world: everyone steals from everyone and sometimes you have an idea.

The legality of these questions has never seemed all that complicated: these are established game modes, and you can't patent the idea of two teams fighting in each other. The morality of the situation may be a little more interesting, but only marginally. At the end of the day, I feel like this comes down to one thing, and that's the fact that a gigantic 50 Vs 50 Battle Royale sounds like a fun time, and it's sure to do well no matter what Battle Royale game you plop it into.

[daniel34]

The legality of these questions has never seemed all that complicated: these are established game modes, and you can't patent the idea of two teams fighting in each other. The morality of the situation may be a little more interesting, but only marginally. At the end of the day, I feel like this comes down to one thing, and that's the fact that a gigantic 50 Vs 50 Battle Royale sounds like a fun time, and it's sure to do well no matter what Battle Royale game you plop it into.

Apparently the devs of Fortnite and PUBG have an understanding about legality and won't prosecute each other, however that doesn't prevent the PUBG developers from sueing other 3rd-party developers as Leonard French (actual copyright attorney) mentions in this video:

Copyright Battlegrounds: PUBG Hits Mobile Clone with Copyright Lawsuit [youtube.com]

The lawsuit goes against a mobile app developer that published a game very similar to PUBG on mobile before PUBG released their own mobile version, and in the 155 page complaint they compare screenshots of various features of both games. In my opinion they go overboard with it, they even state that the weapons design was copied from PUBG although PUBG already copies the real-world design of these weapons, among other assets.

[Aeternus]

The only thing PUBG has going for it is that it got pushed by a hypetrain. Visually, it's not great. The community isn't all that great. There are problems with cheating still. and that devteam breaking promises to their playerbase (most notably the "no microtransactions before the full release" one) all make the game unappealing to me.
Fortnite is too cartoony, and the construction element combined with a realtime shooter make it frustrating to get good in. Since you can't really relax and strategise when you can get your head or posterior blown off at any moment.

But the idea of battle royale (in essence just a multiplayer shooter with respawns disabled and a bigger initial mapsize) is not new. A quick google shows ideas like that floating around from at least 2015 (deathmatch with respawn disabled mod). So if PUBG keeps that up, they might be digging their own grave if an old modmaker comes around claiming their work is a ripoff from older ideas. Deathmatch without respawn isn't an "original" idea.

[VADemon]

@topicstarter: I'd have loved to read that text if it was yours, no interested in reading repeatable magazine copy-pasta...

Fortnite probably has a far better execution than PUBG will ever achieve with their amateurish devs. Back at gamescom in August, I could feel that Fortnite has got to become the next big thing: It would appeal to the broad under-age audience who are looking for new games post-Minecraft and the simple graphics and F2P meant there were no barriers like in PUBG. It has overtaken PUBG on Twitch 4:1 in viewer numbers. As of writing, Fortnite: 218k, PUBG: 34k. (note: an official russian agency went batshit crazy in an attempt to censor the Telegram messenger and blocked 18kk IPs from both Amazon AWS and Google where these game servers and Twitch are hosted at; so the number's a a bit down. and it's early morning in Europe).

Personally, I don't like Fortnite - because I fell in love with Arma2 during the faboulous DayZ mod days. I won't ever familiarise with Fortnite's dynamics. But my point of view doesn't say anything about the target audience (read above).

However, @Aeternus: The saviour of the genre will not arrive. There won't be a successful game on the ashes, that current early-access titles leave behind. These low-effort and buggy games simultaneously underdeliver and bore players with low-quality gameplay from a promising genre. I'll explain why I'm so overly pessimistic:

1) Arma 2 - I don't know how many army simulators there were and are out there, but this cannot be the best one. Buggy and broken down to its core. What we saw was a reincarnation in form of Arma 3 that didn't improve upon anything that made it successful in first place. Same shitty engine, low FPS (same barrier as in PUBG), medium price without any content AND overpriced DLCs. You know, I still believe they chose a vegetation-less map over Chernarus v2 because they didn't want to rewrite their collision detection that made e.g. trees impenetratable. Instead of working together with modders (who are responsible for 99.9% of BI's success) thay shat on them and even separated DayZ Mod making it the orphane from Day 1.
People would love to play DayZ/Epoch mods in an Arma 4 iteration with all fixes and improvements, but I doubt it'll ever happen. Mil-sims like Squad may have a loyal playerbase but it doesn't make them as popular as Arma 2 once was.
2) Dayz: The historic example of mis-management, hype and, basically, stolen money. They've been working on it for over 5 years and still haven't reached the gameplay maturity of Arma2/Dayzmod. Players who were interested in the genre either kept playing Arma2 or spent time in some other low-effort early-access (sounds familar?) games. Now that they've had enough of this genre, you can call the market "saturated" and even if there was someone with a truly nice game I doubt it would have the same appeal. There's a nice video that I completely agree with by Ruskie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DI6wibmZr6s
3) Arma 3 Battleroyale -> The War Z -> H1Z1 -> PUBG -> Fortnite. This would never have happened if Bohemia Interactive had kept close ties to the modding community and communicated with them. None of these are truly great games. They're fun, but will get boring quite fast. I believe, the battle-royale gameplay feels more repetetive than that of e.g. CSGO. The player rentention numbers will soon drop even further, but the inflow of newcomers will keep them alive.
What can game designers do to overcome the boring core game-loop? PUBG's new smaller map may feel nice at the moment, but imagine they'd keep doing it... It would end in a deathmatch game. What then would be the point of the "hard earned chicken"?

Fortnite > PUBG, because PUBG are sinking in their own swamp. The game has so many problems that money indeed can't solve them all. And you can see how much money they need to keep up the AWS servers up, because they're releasing crates at an increasing pace, to milk the dying cow.

I just hope for Epic Games to come out on top and have success after Fortnite - I respect them for their past.

If I had to make a prediction, I'd say that the next big hit is going to be a more-or-less calm huge-world sandbox arena MMORPG with a PvP on the side. Think of Minecraft casualty, creative freedom and EVE Online's dimensions.

PS: Uh-oh, I also forgot to mention as #4: BI ran away with your Dayz:SA money and started YET ANOTHER ***tty early-access title named "Ylands". It looked promising "on paper" to me, until I played it for 90min on Steam. They literally copy-pasted the ugly character status system from Dayz:SA, e.g. to notify player of the character's hunger there's a plain message "I'm hungry" somewhere on the monitor. That's what I call innovation. Player numbers: around 300 playing at the time before SteamSpy shutdown

[Aeternus]

If I had to make a prediction, I'd say that the next big hit is going to be a more-or-less calm huge-world sandbox arena MMORPG with a PvP on the side. Think of Minecraft casualty, creative freedom and EVE Online's dimensions.

Quite possibly. Microtransaction riddled PVPfests have become so saturated that they've become bleh. It'll be a good thing for factorio if build-and-craft sandboxes become popular. It's one of the few gems in that genre, now that Microsoft has sunk Minecraft...

As for a saviour of the genre? BR is a fad, nothing more. It'll be popular for a few weeks, then fall into obscurity, just like those jumpscare fests like 5 nights at freddys. It'll still be played, but not by the big mainstream.

[featherwinglove]

Heavy is the head that wears the crown of success...

I remember some time ago, yes I'm that old, that Apple sued Microsoft for copying their "look and feel" in Windows 95. Microsoft's defense was, in so many more words, "We both copied it from PARC and you bluddy well know it." Most of the stock UE4 assets in PUBG are recognizable, and those are available to other developers, which means that even if Bluehole found something protectable under copyright, it's probably protected under Epic's copyright already! That Bluehole didn't realize this before they went public with their stupidity involving Fortnight: Battle Royale is a demonstration of the level of stupidity there. I wouldn't be too surprised if the stupidity they're demonstrating with non-Epic competitors reached the point of a class action defense that bankrupted the PUBG developers when all the defendants are awarded court costs for this nonsense.

That will shut the servers down, and that possibility all by itself is enough that no one here should be considering a purchase of PUBG. If you have it already, leave Factorio alone and go get thoroughly bored of PUBG because, by about this time next year, you probably won't be able to play it ever again.

[MeduSalem]

To be honest I haven't played any of them and probably never will for one major reason:

Both communities believe their game to be the best one, desperately trying to convince everyone around them, which makes me wonder who it really is they are trying to convince... other people or themselves.

And since I have seen discussions about it almost everywhere on every platform by now I can only say... both games suffer from a toxic community full of trolls or people taking everything way too serious... just as has been the case with League of Legends vs DotA2 vs HOTS... or Battlefield vs Call of Duty before that or Quake vs Unreal Tournament before that or other such major comparisons of popular competing giants in a particular genre in the history of video games... and eventually it just puts off people from even wanting to play those games because of how it makes people behave like a bunch of primitive football hooligans.


Apart from that I can't stand battle royale games for the same reason I can't stand MOBA games... Neverending balancing and cheating issues to which the usual community response is "git gud", "l2p", etc.