EDIT: sighs OK, Fine. It is another “hey, look at me! I’m better than Battlefield!” milsim. There’s like a dozen of them and they all drain all your time and soul eventually. Their average lifespans is counted in decades but their peak players are always in the few hundreds except for a random period of a few months when the entire scene obsess with one single game. Then they die again.
Gotta admit, “not a battle royale and not a extraction shooter” are actual sale points though.
That’s dumb. It shares a lot of traits with Battlefield. It’s large scale, arcadey vehicles (I assume), arcadey run-and-gun gameplay it seems, and many other things, like the style (not realism, but like an enhanced over-the-top realism).
Sure, it isn’t a clone of Battlefield, I agree, but it’s fairly similar to Battlefield. It’s clearly targeting the same players. The biggest difference, in my opinion, is that it isn’t EA. I don’t know much about this studio, but they can’t be as bad as EA.
Look at any clip of someone flying a helicopter in Wardogs and you’ll see a something that’s quite far from arcade. Same goes for the basic shooting. It also features 3 teams in a king-of-the-hill mode, which is very much not a Battlefield mode. It does not feature auto-regenerating health and so on.
If you watch gameplay you’ll see way more comparisons to ARMA Reforger than Battlefield, and many are downright warning that Battlefield players would probably not enjoy this, as the pace is much, much slower (it takes roughly 3 minutes driving from spawn until you reach the action). Then there is the very fundamental economy system, which once again has no equivalent in Battlefield but is instead much closer to Gray Zone Warfare, or the building system that also has no parallel in Battlefield.
Battlefield is all about kills (and the tickets that drain when you kill an enemy) whereas a player with 0 kills and 25 deaths can absolutely be the MVP in Wardogs because they transported other players or resources, built FOBs or did many other things that actually doesn’t involve shooting. In Battlefield this type of player would just be someone you’d hope was on the other team.
So no, it’s not dumb to make distinctions between Wardogs and Battlefield, because diving deeper than a cursory glance you’ll see they are completely different games for different audiences with little overlap.
Just because there are differences doesn’t mean there aren’t similarities. Another comment said it’s closer to Squad, which sounded like a contradiction but proves the point. Squad evolved off of Battlefield. It has many similarities, even though it is a very different game, and most Battlefield players would hate it.
I would say it’s closer to Squad with a managed economy system on top of it. BF has no economy management. Or FoB building, or logistics trucks running resources to build FoBs.
Sure, it’s got that aspect, though if you consider it close to Squad, a relatively slow-paced mil-sim, which prioritizes teamwork and not individual play, and not Battlefield, then you’re crazy. Squad has Battlefield DNA in it, so if it’s like Squad then it’s also like Battlefield. It’s far closer to BF though, from what I’ve seen, in my opinion, and I’m an avid Squad player.
That’s marketing making you see that, but yeah Squad did spawn of BF, but it’s not as fast paced as battlefield. I watched an hour stream yesterday, it’s got the really slow bits of Squad in its DNA.
I got an invite for the closed beta that starts today. I’ll report back on which it’s closer to.
Another Battlefield clone.
EDIT: sighs OK, Fine. It is another “hey, look at me! I’m better than Battlefield!” milsim. There’s like a dozen of them and they all drain all your time and soul eventually. Their average lifespans is counted in decades but their peak players are always in the few hundreds except for a random period of a few months when the entire scene obsess with one single game. Then they die again.
Gotta admit, “not a battle royale and not a extraction shooter” are actual sale points though.
Apart from “guns go pew pew” it’s literally nothing like Battlefield.
That’s dumb. It shares a lot of traits with Battlefield. It’s large scale, arcadey vehicles (I assume), arcadey run-and-gun gameplay it seems, and many other things, like the style (not realism, but like an enhanced over-the-top realism).
Sure, it isn’t a clone of Battlefield, I agree, but it’s fairly similar to Battlefield. It’s clearly targeting the same players. The biggest difference, in my opinion, is that it isn’t EA. I don’t know much about this studio, but they can’t be as bad as EA.
Look at any clip of someone flying a helicopter in Wardogs and you’ll see a something that’s quite far from arcade. Same goes for the basic shooting. It also features 3 teams in a king-of-the-hill mode, which is very much not a Battlefield mode. It does not feature auto-regenerating health and so on. If you watch gameplay you’ll see way more comparisons to ARMA Reforger than Battlefield, and many are downright warning that Battlefield players would probably not enjoy this, as the pace is much, much slower (it takes roughly 3 minutes driving from spawn until you reach the action). Then there is the very fundamental economy system, which once again has no equivalent in Battlefield but is instead much closer to Gray Zone Warfare, or the building system that also has no parallel in Battlefield.
Battlefield is all about kills (and the tickets that drain when you kill an enemy) whereas a player with 0 kills and 25 deaths can absolutely be the MVP in Wardogs because they transported other players or resources, built FOBs or did many other things that actually doesn’t involve shooting. In Battlefield this type of player would just be someone you’d hope was on the other team.
So no, it’s not dumb to make distinctions between Wardogs and Battlefield, because diving deeper than a cursory glance you’ll see they are completely different games for different audiences with little overlap.
Just because there are differences doesn’t mean there aren’t similarities. Another comment said it’s closer to Squad, which sounded like a contradiction but proves the point. Squad evolved off of Battlefield. It has many similarities, even though it is a very different game, and most Battlefield players would hate it.
Sounds a bit like planetside
It has a fair few similarities with Planetside, yeah.
I would say it’s closer to Squad with a managed economy system on top of it. BF has no economy management. Or FoB building, or logistics trucks running resources to build FoBs.
Sure, it’s got that aspect, though if you consider it close to Squad, a relatively slow-paced mil-sim, which prioritizes teamwork and not individual play, and not Battlefield, then you’re crazy. Squad has Battlefield DNA in it, so if it’s like Squad then it’s also like Battlefield. It’s far closer to BF though, from what I’ve seen, in my opinion, and I’m an avid Squad player.
That’s marketing making you see that, but yeah Squad did spawn of BF, but it’s not as fast paced as battlefield. I watched an hour stream yesterday, it’s got the really slow bits of Squad in its DNA.
I got an invite for the closed beta that starts today. I’ll report back on which it’s closer to.