![you will surely get the karkand you will surely get the karkand](https://i.imgur.com/VGVni.png)
There's enough variety, plenty of routes, the capture points provide plenty of cover to actually hold a point in contest.Ī lot of people just want to play point and click games. What a map! I'm never upset when that one comes up in BF1. They're both outdone by Fort de Vaux though. Op Locker isn't as bad as Metro is, and Metro isn't bad in modes like Rush where the linear design contributes something and you can visit cool other areas of the map. Makes sense to me though the maps/zones/locations what have you in ETF are much smaller and the primary focus is, as you said, completely different. Maybe I'm totally off-base because I'm missing some crucial facts or something but that has always made the most sense to me. Like if BRs are a codified, proper version of the end-state of DayZ (hunting other players once you are geared because there isn't anything else to do), then games like Tarkov, Hunt, and The Division 1's Survival Mode are the mirror of that, taking the original concept of an open world that you scavenge gear in and is populated by enemy NPCs and players that may or may not be hostile and adding objectives other than directly shooting other players. I'd call it BR-adjacent but not actually a BR itself and that games like Tarkov/Hunt are more offshoots or continuations of the orginal DayZ concept. Hazard Zone sounds like an obvious grab at the Apex/Warzone/PUBG playerbase but I guess we'll find out on the 22nd. It's a evolution of the formula but it's much more akin to PUBG than it is a looter shooter or a standard BF or COD MP. Solo or Small squad, open world pvp survival, High stakes, loot based. Tarkov is absolutely in the same vein of games as your standard battle royale titles.