Is Hunger Games a blatant Rip-off of Battle Royale?

I must admit I haven't yet red Hunger Games, but the reason has a lot to do with the description of the plot. I read Battle Royale and loved it and Hunger Games seems like a blatant rip-off. Am I wrong? Is Hunger Games different enough and good enough to warrant my time?

Edit: People seem to be pretty split, so I am going to read the books and update this. Edit2: By read the books, I mean the Hunger Games. I have read Battle Royale.

Edit3: I have now read the Hunger Games. After reading them, I think its possible she came to the overall premise on her own. Also, I found the books enjoyable, but not great. My issues with the books are as follows:

Katniss - She is unlikable and very shallow for being the focal point of the entire series. She reminds me far too much of Bela Swan. The love triangle between her Peeta and Gale didn't help either. You might say "but she was capable of taking care of herself, unlike Bela" and I would completely disagree. She survived the same way Bela survived because she had a bunch of men pining over her saving her life.

The Hunger Games - How exactly does making people give up their children to a death fight once a year quell rebellion? Its as if Suzanne Collins couldn't find a way to make teenagers have to be in single survivor death match so she decided to go with a completely nonsensical reason. I mean, if there is one thing that would breed anger and make people want to revolt it would be the Hunger Games.

Twilight - Honestly, I couldn't help but get rid of the constant twilight taste as I read the books. Teenage girl is a loner, doesn't realize she's beautiful and all the guys love her. She loves both, but, must choose one and both guys reach a tacit agreement with each other so they can protect her. She can do no wrong, they love her completely.

The forced loss of life - The campaign to take down the Capitol was horribly run. Why would they ever have to send so many people in when they had complete air superiority after they took District 2? Makes no sense. Hey, we could just bomb the hell out of them or maybe land a special team on the presidents mansion or sneak one of our many spies into the presidents mansion, but instead, we'll send in our most important propaganda people to die senselessly. Makes no sense.

That leads me to the main issue with the book, which is, everything in it just seemed so contrived. There was no substance or depth to the story. It seemed like Suzanne Collins had an idea to pit teenagers against each other on reality TV, but didn't know how to do that in a way that made a lot of sense. Her idea of the Hunger Games didn't emerge from a deeper idea, it was the idea and she tried to fit a story around it.

There was just too little substance to really feel connected to the whole thing. Why did the US start fighting itself? What the hell is the Capitol? A giant city? Are there more cities, towns, etc? Why are they still mining coal when they seem to have far better power sources and technological advances for it to be useful. It was all so thin.

So the story was entertaining and I can see that it might make for an entertaining movie (at least the first book), but it wasn't a great story and it wouldn't be anywhere near as popular if it didn't hit the Twilight demographic. It really just seemed like a Michael Bay film, all visuals and grandiosity at the expense of the plot.