I personally found Fortnite to be a huge slog to play - with tons of downtime compared even to games like CS: GO, let alone old-school arena shooters like Q3. The only thing that kept me coming back is the season pass reward tracks and daily missions.
I think that applies to the entire battle royale genre. Unless you're good, it's 20+ minutes of downtime (between waiting for the map to set, load, and for you to complete your jump and start finding opponents) for at minimum a few seconds of gameplay with an opponent.
It really pains me how so few people play arena shooters any more. They are brilliant, and you can get into (and stay in!) the thick of the action for the entire time you are logged on, save for the match ending and a new map loading.
Sometimes we drop hot and fight as soon as possible. This is vastly less successful but makes for shorter, faster, more intense games.
It helps that matchmaking and loading is generally quick so there isn't much "fluff" downtime.
It starts you off the bus with a random but complete load out in a small circle with up to 60 (instead of 100) players.
Titanfall 2 is a somewhat recent example of a way to balance around this, with the more fun to use guns (Kraber, Cold War, Mozambique) but less effective than a hitscan bullet hose like the CAR. This video is a good example of what I mean, giving good players something to do other than racking up kills with meta weapons. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5szruNvGT5c
Double Action: Boogaloo, an action movie themed source mod, takes this a step further with score being earned based largely on the weapon being used, which makes running around punching people more effective than say sitting in a corner with a powerful weapon.
I remember there was an interesting twist on this when, IIRC, Fortnite changed its matching algorithm to more likely place better players together with each other.
A bunch of those players were frustrate-to-outraged over the change. The reason that at least some gave? They were losing too much, and sometimes they don't want all the high adrenaline & stress of competitive matches and just want to relax and have it easy. (Yes, I know there have been more issues and complaints about the details of SBMM in Fortnite, this is just one of them)
It struck me as a uniquely selfish view, as though the entire ecosystem should be structured to their own enjoyment rather than that of typical players. Like if Gary Kasporov wanted to play in the local High School chess leagues and threw a fit when he was told he couldn't.
There's a whole problem around "people want to beat other actual humans", but in 1:1 competitive games, the average winrate is tautologically always 50%. In Battle Royale, the average winrate is more like 5% - But it's unevenly distributed, so some players are getting 20-30% winrates while others are getting 1%. The game is fun enough to play that people are willing to take 1% winrates, but at some level you want to win - That's where the real fun is. If you never win, the game is not fun. If you win occasionally, against skilled opponents, it feels like a great victory. If you win often, it's relaxing.
(There exist some exceptions to "average winrate" - Asymetric games can have a per-player average winrate above 1, though can just as easily drop below - Dead By Daylight, for example, lists 1.5B "escapes" to 1.8B "sacrifices"[1] - Did the survivor "win" when they escaped? or did the killer "win" when they killed a player? It might make more sense to view it as a set of 1:1s, since each survivor might escape individually, at which case we're back to square 1)
Ultimately, games live or die on being fun.
[1]https://techraptor.net/gaming/news/dead-by-daylight-5th-anni...
Gamers often abuse the matchmaking systems to get this result themselves. They make "smurf" accounts in the competitive games they like, underrated for their skill level either from being new accounts or by intentional losing, because it let's them bully less skilled players and avoid being bullied themselves.
Overall I think the best solution is probably the old fashioned dedicated server, where people can find a group with a roughly similar playstyle and skill level, but still enough variety to not be overly same-ey per game. I have fond memories of going up against and cursing better server regulars, and then having it flipped around when on their team.
I definitely believe that there's a high dropout rate for areas shooters. My experience was dying a lot until I got better - kind of like Dark Souls for multiplayer. But I'm still surprised that they're not popular anymore given how well single player Dark Souls sells.
But that does mirror my experience with newer games... the matchmaker usually isn't very good and I'm always put into games with players greatly better than me until I git gud.
Keeping track of MMR/ELO and trying to match players against others of similar skill is online matchmaking 100 (not even 101). What reason could a game possibly have to not implement it, except for possibly "lack of resources" (e.g. someone's indie project)?
Overwatch for example doesn't seem to try and fill in say 6 players of a range of 2500-2600 ELO, but will pull something like 2 higher ELO player and 4 low ELO players, partially due to there only being so many higher than average players to matchmake.[3] "Good" players get "bad" players to bring down their winrate and "bad" players get "good" players to bring theirs up. This miss-match might contribute to why some people become so toxic, especially when having fun relies on your teammates so heavily and everyone wants to be the DPS.
Also personally I enjoy playing against better players (within reason) in order to improve my own gameplay via imitation.
[1]https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/forums/84ad72a8b518479785...
[2]https://www.reddit.com/r/blackopscoldwar/comments/ifwuy4/sbm...
[3]https://win.gg/news/jeff-kaplan-on-overwatch-players-matchma...
Engaging with others early is recommended for top-tier Fortnite players for building your combat skills.
> recommended [...] for building your combat skills.
Or log onto a 32-man running CTF-Face][
To me, they are completely different games. I love the slowness in BR and tension that builds up between the action.
Another point is that Creative mode in Fortnite is thought to soon allow full Unreal Engine Blueprints and open modding.
The "mode selection" screen recently was turned into Netflix or Hulu like "tiles" with the majority of the tiles being Creative maps made by the community.
Fortnite is making a pretty strong "metaverse" play with Creative and the recently released by Epic Games "Imposters" mode shows that you will soon be able to play nearly any game "in Fortnite".
When I think of the slogan "Fortnite is for kids" it rings true precisely for this reason. In my "old age" I simply can't keep up with the input rate/reaction time of high-level players.
The reductive ‘Fortnite is for kids’ dismissal reminds me of the angry reaction by a particular cohort to the first cel-shaded Zelda game on the Gamecube. They dreamed of ‘realistic’ graphics targeted toward serious gamers and even claimed they were betrayed by WIP footage that teased their dream.
Fortnite is a game with an incredibly high skill ceiling around its building mechanic. I watched Jonathan ‘Fatal1ty’ Wendell (who is currently a 40-year-old and one of the earliest professional gamers) struggle in deep concentration on trying to incrementally improve his building speed and technique. I know many adults who play and enjoy the game, and they seem to enjoy the branded tie-ins. They are mature enough for their ego to be unaffected by the game’s cartoon art style, chosen instead of a gritty Call of Duty realism. It has solid mechanics and the content has been highly polished, even when not tied in to branded content.
Even so, I’m still not clear how that connects to Ready Player One being a dull and cynical exploitation of nostalgia shoutouts/callbacks.