this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2026
41 points (91.8% liked)
PC Gaming
15631 readers
425 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.