I spent around 15 hours with the WARDOGS playtest, and the biggest surprise was just how polished it already felt.
For a playtest, I expected the usual problems. Server instability, lag, desync, performance issues and the occasional game breaking bug are usually part of the experience with an unfinished multiplayer game. Instead, across my 15 hours, I had no notable server problems, no noticeable lag or desync, and nothing that seriously affected my experience.
That immediately gave WARDOGS a strong foundation, but what kept me playing was the way it handles large scale combat.
Somewhere Between Battlefield and Arma
The easiest way I can describe WARDOGS is as a middle ground between Battlefield 6 and Arma 3.
As someone who has spent a lot of time with Arma 3, WARDOGS felt almost like taking that style of tactical combat and rebuilding it on a newer, smoother engine.
The gunplay feels solid and deliberate without becoming frustratingly clunky. Weapons have enough weight to make firefights feel serious, but the controls remain responsive enough that you never feel like you’re fighting against the game itself.
It isn’t an arcade shooter.
Players coming directly from Call of Duty may find it considerably slower and more methodical, but Battlefield and Arma players should feel much more at home.
Movement also strikes a good balance. Armour affects how quickly you can move, giving heavier equipment an actual tradeoff rather than simply making it an obvious upgrade. During my time playing, that balance felt fair.
The Battlefield Rarely Feels Empty
One concern with any huge multiplayer map is that large player counts don’t necessarily guarantee constant action.
That wasn’t really a problem here.
Even when I ended up in a quieter section of the map, it usually only took a minute or two to make my way back towards a major firefight.
The game makes it easy to understand where the major battles are happening. You can head towards the hot zone and immediately find action, or focus your attention on fighting for control of the towers.
It means there is very little time spent wandering around wondering where everyone has gone.
The playtest only featured two maps, so there wasn’t enough content available to properly judge the long term variety. However, different times of day changed the lighting considerably and helped give the same locations a different atmosphere between matches.
Communication Actually Matters
Some of my best experiences came from playing as part of a coordinated squad.
I primarily played with friends over Discord, which obviously made teamwork easier, but I was surprised by how willing random players were to communicate as well.
Whenever other players joined our in game squad, they generally used their microphones and worked with us. Across the wider battlefield, plenty of players were communicating too.
That makes a major difference in a game like WARDOGS.
Knowing where enemies are positioned, organising pushes, calling for revives or coordinating movements makes firefights considerably more enjoyable, and the game seems designed to reward players who actually work together.
The Economy Encourages Team Play
The in match cash system also worked better than I initially expected.
Money was relatively easy to earn without feeling meaningless.
Simply staying around an objective could often generate enough money to cover the cost of gearing yourself up again after dying. Playing carefully and staying alive could easily result in earning somewhere around $30,000 to $50,000 during a life.
More importantly, you don’t only earn money by getting kills.
Driving teammates towards combat zones, healing players, reviving teammates and contributing to objectives all provide ways to earn cash.
That gives support players a reason to actually support the team rather than treating every match like a giant deathmatch.
The economy felt fair throughout my time playing and never made me feel as though I had to constantly grind just to afford equipment.
Progression Doesn’t Feel Like a Chore
The overall progression system was similarly well balanced.
Unlocking new equipment gave me something to work towards, but I never felt like I was stuck grinding for hours just to reach the next meaningful unlock.
There was a steady sense of progression throughout the playtest, and working towards the next piece of equipment remained enjoyable rather than becoming tedious.
That will obviously become easier to judge once the game has considerably more content, but the foundations already feel good.
Vehicles Do Their Job
I didn’t spend enough time using vehicles to judge them in huge detail.
Most of my vehicle use involved grabbing transport from spawn and using it to reach the centre of the map quickly.
For that purpose, they worked well.
I also never got around to properly flying the helicopters, so that’s something I’d want to spend more time with before giving a proper opinion on vehicle combat.
Destruction Isn’t the Main Attraction
One area where WARDOGS didn’t stand out as much was environmental destruction.
I didn’t really notice building destruction having a major impact on the battles I played.
Compared with Battlefield 6, where destruction can become a major part of how fights develop, it feels much less important here.
That isn’t necessarily a major negative because WARDOGS is clearly focusing on other areas, but players going in expecting Battlefield levels of environmental destruction should probably temper those expectations.
Incredible Sound Design
One of the strongest parts of the entire playtest was the presentation.
Visually, the game looks excellent, but the sound design is what really stood out.
Entering a heavily contested area genuinely sounds like entering a battlefield. Gunfire is loud, nearby fights feel intense and busy sections of the map can become incredibly atmospheric.
Footsteps are also loud enough to matter.
When you’re pushing an occupied position, moving slowly can make a genuine difference because enemies can hear you approaching if you’re careless.
That turns audio into part of the actual gameplay rather than simply something happening in the background.
Technically Impressive for a Playtest
Performance was another major positive.
Across roughly 15 hours, I didn’t experience any noticeable frame drops, major stuttering, serious server issues or anything else worth highlighting.
For an unfinished multiplayer build, that’s impressive.
Obviously individual experiences will differ depending on hardware and servers, but from my own time playing, the technical side of WARDOGS was remarkably solid.
Verdict
WARDOGS already feels like it has found an interesting position in the FPS market.
It takes some of the accessibility and large scale action associated with Battlefield while incorporating the slower, more deliberate feel that makes games like Arma appealing.
It isn’t particularly arcade focused, so players looking for something closer to Call of Duty may struggle with the pacing.
For Battlefield players who want something more tactical, however, or Arma players looking for something smoother and less cumbersome, WARDOGS could be exactly the middle ground they’ve been waiting for.
The playtest itself was limited by its relatively small amount of available content, particularly with only two maps to experience. That is ultimately the main reason I wouldn’t score the build higher.
Based purely on the playtest I played, WARDOGS earns a solid 7/10.
The important thing is that most of the problems holding that score back are related to the limited scope of the playtest rather than the core gameplay.
If the wider release can build on what was already here with more maps, weapons, vehicles and progression, WARDOGS has a very strong foundation to work with.
Score: 7/10