Isn’t there also a limited set of genres of games anyway?
Why would you rebrand Starcraft if the players only want a reskinned version of Starcraft 1? There’s probably not much new you can invent by trying a totally new RTS anyway.
We don’t reinvent football for example. Reinventing it would get rid of the whole industry around the watching of football.
I think that is where creativity and imagination come in. I'll give an example I encountered recently. Northgard by Shivo Games. It is absolutely brilliant, thematically and mechanism wise, a re-take on the traditional RTS.
You could call that a full genre, but it’s nowhere near the creation of RTS or FPS genres themselves.
“Battle royale” is simply a recent development because up until recently we barely had any 3D shooters which had maps huge enough to allow for this style of play.
What really gave birth to BR games was the invention of the "eye of the storm" mechanic. From a technical perspective BR could have been implemented as a mod for Operation Flashpoint as early as 2001 (not coincidentally the genre has its roots in OFP's spiritual successor, ARMA). What was missing was a way to keep the pace of game from fizzling out as the player count dwindled. The blue circle in PUBG was a brilliantly simple and effective solution. It's one of those things that looks blindly obvious in hindsight and makes you wonder how it took so long for someone to think of it.
> It's one of those things that looks blindly obvious in hindsight and makes you wonder how it took so long for someone to think of it.
Particularly since the movie Battle Royale had a mechanic that filled the same role (sectors of the island were declared off limits to force students to encounter each other.) Not quite the same implementation, but I think basically the same idea.
You're probably right that Hunger Games was the immediate inspiration for PUBG. I understand Hunger Games to basically be an American adaptation of Battle Royale though (and also derivative of The Running Man.) Battle Royale already had "cult classic" status in America by that time. The naming of the genre seems to support the notion that the public was generally aware of Battle Royale. Before Battle Royale the term was in use, but generally referred to free-for-all boxing matches. The modern use of the term to describe Hunger Games or PUBG seems to closely resemble the premise of the Japanese movie/book.
It's one of those things that looks blindly obvious in hindsight and makes you wonder how it took so long for someone to think of it.
Multiplayer Bomberman had this back in the 90's! I loved that game in high school.
But yeah, combining it with putting 50 people in a FPS deathmatch came much later. In video games a whole lot of innovation is combining a few ideas that already existed somewhere else. Well, not just in video games, really....
> “Battle royale” is simply a recent development because up until recently we barely had any 3D shooters which had maps huge enough to allow for this style of play.
It's often surprising how long it can take for things to become mainstream. The first Battle Royale mod dates from 2013. And Planetside supported hundreds of players in a single match back in 2003.
UT2k4's Onslauth and every Delta Force games disagree. Especially the ARMAs, which this "new genre" had been there for about a decade (even more with Last man standing mod/es).
Why would you rebrand Starcraft if the players only want a reskinned version of Starcraft 1? There’s probably not much new you can invent by trying a totally new RTS anyway.
We don’t reinvent football for example. Reinventing it would get rid of the whole industry around the watching of football.