You may have heard of a little game called PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds. It’s coming to the PlayStation 4 eventually, but is in Early Access at the moment, and Sony doesn’t really support that. Nevertheless, it’s already amassed over six million sales on the PC – and is currently the most played non-Valve title on Steam. In other words, it’s a pretty bloody big deal.
The battle royale genre is nothing new, of course. Brendan Greene – the real-world name of Internet alias PlayerUnknown – kickstarted the format with an ARMA 2 mod, and later worked as a consultant on H1Z1: King of the Kill. While there are nuances between the different games, the overall premise is that you’re dropped into a shrinking multiplayer map, where you must scavenge for resources in order to become the last player standing. It’s basically The Hunger Games.
And it seems ready made for The Last of Us’ universe, don’t you think? We’ve been talking about this at Push Square Towers for weeks, and we think Sony’s leaving money on the table if it doesn’t actively investigate the possibility of creating something like this. Think about it: the series already has all of the elements needed for a kick-ass battle royale mode.
You’d play as an unnamed survivor stranded in any one of the game’s urban locations. You’d be able to gang up with other survivors if you so decide or go it solo, looting buildings for materials that can be used to craft combat equipment or medical supplies. Clickers could be used as a means to eventually funnel all players into the same location – as well as deadly fungal gases and the like. Are you catching our drift here?
Console hardware would probably limit the scale of the game – it’d likely have a much smaller player count than PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds’ 100-person battles – but we reckon that The Last of Us has all of the ingredients to make the formula work on the PS4, and all with a brand that people recognise and love.
Because let’s not forget, the multiplayer in the original The Last of Us was anything but throwaway. In fact so good were the tense firefights of the SOCOM-esque Factions mode that we want that to return in The Last of Us: Part II, and we’d recommend that if Sony were to ever make a battle royale type spin-off, it’d work best as a standalone game. The platform holder’s been very experimental with pricing this generation, so we reckon a $29.99 multiplayer-only title could work.
But does Naughty Dog have enough resources to do it, or would it need to be farmed out to an external studio? And could a series that’s perhaps best known for its single player story really work as a standalone competitive multiplayer game? These are all questions that we hope Sony’s asking, because there’s clear mileage in this concept. All that's left to ask is: would you play it?
Do you agree that The Last of Us universe is perfect for the burgeoning battle royale genre? Would you play a game like this, and do you think it could work as a standalone product? Stab us in the back in the comments section below.
Should The Last of Us cash in on the battle royale craze? (56 votes)
- Yes, it's a perfect fit for the franchise
- It makes sense, but I'm not a fan of copy cats
- Hmm, I'd need to see it in action
- No, The Last of Us is a single player series
Please login to vote in this poll.
Comments 15
I kind of hope not. After seeing what GTA: Online has done to the prospects of any single-player GTA story, I'd hate for Naughty Dog to go down that route.
I'm sure they could make it fun and it'd be a success but I just feel I'm always gonna be a primarily single-player gamer.
@roe What if it was guaranteed to be a spin-off that didn't affect Naughty Dog's single player work at all? (Could even be made by a different developer, with support from Naughty Dog, for example.)
@get2sammyb of course that'd be fine, and I'd likely even pick it up myself. It's a fine idea for a game, I just hope it doesn't effect any single-player. I haven't played any PUBG but it sounds like it's really promising
I'm option #2. It sounds like a good fit, but if this is just another gaming fad, I'd rather Last of Us stand on it's own. Granted, this is just multiplayer, but it should be above the developers to capitalize on a trend.
It sounds weird, since zombies are a thing in the game, but that's more a backdrop than anything. I'm really impressed with how much this game sticks out among the crazy amount of zombie games. In fact, it feels almost wrong to call it that.
Personally, I haven't been a big fan of Naughty Dogs Multi-player. I lost interest very quickly in all the Uncharted ones (when they added that) and did give each a try but never grabbed my attention as much as other MP games. The Uncharted ones had a few 'interesting' takes on some modes with the added bonus of 'treasure' to grab. I do prefer 3rd Person Horde style modes though to actual competitive MP. Gears of War is a classic example too as I tended to gravitate more to the Horde modes over the MP.
I certainly wouldn't be buying a Naughty Dog game for its MP. I couldn't care less in truth if they never added another MP to their games. That being said, I would still give it a go IF I can be bothered after beating the campaign but I would be more inclined to try it if they had a 'horde' mode rather than a 'Battle Royale'. As an Xbox owner, I could have earlier access to the game when it gets a release on that platform later on this year. However, I can't see myself purchasing it...
I know it's a small and essentially irrelevant thing, but I can't help being wound up by the mention of Battle Royale in the sub-header only for the concept then to be compared to Hunger Games, a BR rip-off. /grumblebyguywhocarestoomuchaboutthewrongthings
Better to make there own state of decay instead. Better fit I think
For me, it doesn't fit with the theme of the game. I loved TLOU, but never got into the multi-player... it felt like a different game/world.
The game is about stealth and conserving ammo and resources, avoiding conflict where possible. To then be fighting running battles didn't feel right. A 'battle royale' would seem even more out of place.
If not at launch it would make a great expansion
@PaperyWhiteBoy Just wanted to make the concept clear to everyone.
@Paranoimia I strongly disagree. The multiplayer in The Last of Us had the same resources limitations, and the same would be true of a battle royale type game.
@get2sammyb Yeah, it had the same limitations, but the whole vibe of the game felt different. You go from sneaking around to... well... not. I found it a bit jarring, and to be honest, I never touched it after initially trying it out.
But to be fair, that's what pretty much all online competitive games degenerate into, which is why I rarely bother with any of them, and prefer co-op modes.
Nope, I'd still try it though
the last of us' multiplayer was pretty good, but it really only clicked with me on PS4. not sure i'd pick it over a more traditional multiplayer like battlefield or killzone, but i'd give it a go if it came packaged with the campaign. probably wouldn't buy it as a standalone game. uncharted's multiplayer was decent (especially since they're in 3rd person), but the co-op modes in 3 and 4 worked better than the competitive ones imo.
@Eternallover21 I couldn't care less if its not the same as Uncharted's. The video's I watched didn't exactly look much different in essence and actually appealed less because of some of the interesting ways they incorporated aspects of the Single Player into the Uncharted MP. I never felt compelled to even load up the MP on either the PS3 or PS4 versions of TLoU.
As stated, I also don't particularly enjoy 3rd Person MP's - at least none of the ones I have. I think First Person works much better for MP.
It’s basically The Hunger Games
And here was me thinking that it was basically Battle Royale 😂
Tap here to load 15 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...