PC Gaming

Nothing, it is another copy pasted shooter with kernel anticheat that blocks Linux, hype game until it eventually dies.

From what I have heard/seen, there's one major difference: the battlefield runs on an economy of sorts. Bullets, respawns, vehicles all have a cost, while actions will pay you. Killing someone gets you money, but driving a squad near a poi will also net you money. Transporting supplies, reviving someone, clearing out mines... basically everything gives you money, so there's a huge incentive to do other things outside of just shooting and killing (the usual best way to farm score points in other games like this).

Been playing it and some quick thoughts are: 1st mainstream game to be built off KOTH Arma mod. Uses economy for punishment and reward. Devs are praising their own mutli level of telemetry for cheating. Take that for what it is. Best helicopter controls. Better than Arma imo. I feel it does a better job of building teamwork. As in the logistics can be rewarded for not even firing a round. Tipping culture.

It's not super special in terms of gameplay as far as I can tell, apart from making it play more slowly and with purpose by making it punishing to respawn. But the developers have gotten a lot of praise for their transparent approach to the development process.
Video here: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ugkuP4a3xk4

Overall game is more like ARMA KOTH if you have played one before

My friend is really into and he described it as they took the best parts of all those games and made a really fun mix of them.

If you actually take a look at it you'll notice it's got very little in common with CoD and Tarkov, but has a lot in common with Battlefield, which is itself very special because all currently available (as in not only available to play but also has a playable player count) Battlefield games are either from a decade ago (like Battlefield 1, which came out in 2016), or are absolutely garbage (like Battlefield 6, Battlefield 2042).

There is finally real competition in exactly the kind of specific feature sets that always set Battlefield games apart from the other multiplayer PvP FPS games, such as large and somewhat class based team vs team gameplay, mixed infantry & vehicular combat, and all the things these feature sets have to offer.

It looks like just another CoD, Tarkov, Battlefield, whatever.

You just named three different shooters with 3 different styles of play (Battlefield depends on the entry). Throw ARMA on that list and prove you're really blinkered by the "modern war" visuals.

To answer the question, Wardogs is more freeform than any of the games you mentioned, sitting between Battlefield and ARMA in terms of "realism," and requiring players on all teams to set up their own logistics to support the players blasting away at enemies.

While overarching goal is vaguely "King Of The Hill", you need support players to engage as engineers to build fortifications, artillery, and utility buildings. And those engineers need supplies from each teams' main base, which requires players to purchase and deliver.

I think the core draw is an economy system where you lose everything on your body when you die, but playing support properly is rather lucrative and in-game currency persists between games.

https://www.pcgamer.com/games/fps/believe-the-hype-for-wardogs-possibly-the-next-great-multiplayer-fps/ article says its inspired by ARMA with gunplay of Battlefield. And that money is important in the game, because everything talks to your money. I did not play the game (its unplayable on Linux), so just looking at posts what it is about.