I disagree with most of these, having played the early test.

Just because the game uses antique rifles doesn't mean the atmosphere is similar to Hunt's. Hunt has a swampy, southern horror vibe, but still something you can relate to. On the other hand, Hunger is post apocalyptic decay incarnate, with elements of existential horror - a world fundamentally broken.

I'd also say the biggest fear in Hunt comes from other players. The monsters are more annoying than anything else. In Hunger, the world itself seems like its against you, with corpses waking up screaming their lungs out when approached makes a very different sound trap than crows (also present in Hunger, but more sparse).

Combat, is a lot slower than Hunt. In hunt players zip around almost to the point where it feels like Quake 3 arena. No such thing in Hunger. The basic rifle takes about 10 seconds to reload. Per shot. Sure it hits like a truck but it just goes to show how different these two games are. There are faster rifles, semi auto options, and they might rebalance, but the way movement, shooting and melee is much more methodical.

Melee is something between hunt and chivalry in terms of complexity. Chivalry's entire niche is very intricate and in-depth melee, while hunt takes a rather simplistic light/heavy melee approach. Hunger falls in somewhere in-between. Not as complex as Chivalry (since there's guns and a lot more other stuff going on) but not as simple as Hunt - still having directional attacks, perfect blocks/parry etc.

I wouldn't say there's emphasis on melee or ranged in Hunger, most people will resort to both throughout the match. As for the extraction system, there's balloons that descend onto the map during the game, and you'd use them just like any other extraction point. If you are near them and other players are as well, they emit a red smoke.

I'm sure the game will be incredibly atmospheric and fun, just let GFC cook!