I know, I know! I can hear you all saying, “Nuno, why are you writing about Battlefield 6 in a website called Strategy and Wargaming?”. Well, my answer to that is “because I want to, and I have always covered first-person shooters here. Given that most of those are somehow historical titles or simulations, and Battlefield 6 is neither. Still, I was excited to check out the Open Beta this weekend, and since everyone is already talking about it, I might as well throw my two cents in there as someone who grew to enjoy and favor tactical shooters like Hell Let Loose, Arma and Squad in favor of the more arcade titles like Call of Duty and Battlefield.
Now, this isn’t to say that I don’t like CoD or Battlefield, for years I have enjoyed both franchises, and I have played hundreds of hours on both of those digital battlefields, and I have literally played every Battlefield since 1942. The Battlefield game I have played the most is either 1942 or Battlefield 1, because I have a penchant for historical titles, favouring them over modern-day settings. That’s for no gameplay reason in particular, but I just prefer the simpler battlefields of yesteryears in online competitive shooters.
I wouldn’t be wrong in saying that after the disastrous launch of Battlefield 2042, which was a bug-ridden mess that barely worked when it came out, a lot of people were skeptical about Battlefield 6, and with good enough reasons. Even Battlefield V has been quite a controversial title in its own right, alienating a significant portion of the series’ fanbase.
Color me surprised when- after the reveal event of Battlefield 6- everyone and their mother started saying that the series was back and that it was finally- this time for real- going to kill Call of Duty, which has since become its own version of Fortnite, with wacky skins for kids with ADHD. I was immediately drawn into the narrative that maybe, just maybe, Battlefield 6 could be the game that would spark my interest in the series. Even with all the endorsements from the Battlefield community, one question remained: “Would I want to play Battlefield 6? Or have I grown out of it into more realistic and slow-paced shooters?”. I think I know the answer to that question, but it’s a bit more complicated than that.
First things first, Battlefield 6 is really attempting to bring the series back to its Battlefield 3 and Battlefield 4 days, and that is exactly what the community wanted. A more grounded experience, set in the modern day, with current-day weaponry and vehicles. The game also abandoned its hero-lite approach of Battlefield 2042, and is going back to the iconic 4 classes of BF3 and BF4.
Graphically, the game is a stunner, and the team is once again flexing the capabilities of the Frostbite engine with this one. Models and textures for soldiers, vehicles, and buildings are very detailed, the lighting is fantastic, and the particle effects are some of the best in any video game, period. My aging 2080ti is struggling to run the game at a decent graphical fidelity and frame rate, but if you don’t mind playing it in medium, it gets the job done, so if you’re someone with a more advanced machine, the game will most likely run incredibly well on your machine.
On the technical aspect, I was surprised by the lack of bugs in it, especially when compared to the Battlefield 2042 open beta, where the game was completely broken. In fact, the only problem I found was that, sometimes, the physics act up and the unit’s models jitter around for a bit, but other than that, nothing of note. I saw some people online commenting about cheaters being rampant already, but I have seen none in all of my matches, at least ones that were blatantly cheating. On that same note, to avoid further cheating, Battlefield 6 forces players to have secure boot enabled on their BIOS, and if you’re using Windows 10, there’s a high possibility you have this turned off, and if done incorrectly, you might lock yourself out of accessing your PC.
Battlefield 6 might take several aspects of several games in the franchise, and despite the fact that several nods to Battlefield 3 and 4, I can’t shake the feeling that the most relevant aspect, which is gunplay, isn’t very similar to what I remember those games being like. Guns don’t feel very snappy or powerful; in fact, they feel very floaty, and you can switch and flick them around with very little impact on recoil, and the hit registration doesn’t feel very snappy either.
Note: Nuno from the future here, I just went back into the game to make sure I wasn’t going crazy with the gunplay of the game, and I am not. All of what I said above still remains true.
Another issue I have with the game is the time to kill. It’s just way too much right now. Pair that up with the quick movement of characters, and discourages long-range engagements aside from sniper and DMR duels. Due to this, players end up concentrating on some locations and fighting it out very similarly to something you would see in Call of Duty, which is okay if you like that. It’s just not what I wanted out of this game. Having to constantly run flanks like a crack addict isn’t my definition of a proper Battlefield experience. Overall, I leave this Open Beta with the feeling that Battlefield is, once again, trying to get as close to Call of Duty as possible while under the guise of the Battlefield formula, and it just doesn’t work all that great.
One thing that can make or break a Battlefield game is the map selection, with iconic maps like Wake Island, Metro, Caspian Border, and Strike at Karkand being absolute fan favorites. I suspect the Battlefield 6 Open Beta Weekend is suffering from the same problem Battlefield 1 did, which is that the maps picked to showcase the game were not the best, and they ended up doing it a disservice. The maps here are way too small for a Battlefield game, with well-defined “play locations” where the action is supposed to happen. I don’t think any of the maps on display are any good, and you’ll either be sniping across no man’s land against other snipers or you’ll be fighting in close-quarters combat. There’s a distinct lack of any mid-range combat in the game, and that goes back to what I said above about the time to kill. It’s just too easy to make a mistake, get shot at, and dive into cover.
Another annoying thing about the maps compressing all of the action into some specific locations is the fact that you’ll end up with a gameplay loop that basically goes something like this: Spawns – Use all of your gadgets as soon as you spawn – run around like a madman trying to get two or three kills – Die – Repeat. It’s really just a first-person-shooter treadmill that becomes exhausting and boring after your 10th match. I get it that Battlefield is chasing the Call of Duty billion-dollar thrill, but what they don’t seem to get is that Call of Duty is built for that, and Battlefield was not.
I had some fun driving around in vehicles, but the game does nothing special with them, and they’ve been basically the same since forever. If you manage to snag a tank or an IFV, you’re guaranteed to kill a dozen guys before the infantry inevitably swarms you, and with the amount of effects on screen, spotting them is a pain. Again, bland and uninspired.
Overall, I think Battlefield, as a series, is struggling to find a place in the modern-day FPS scene. It wants to be Call of Duty, but the game wasn’t built with the same gameplay loop in mind. It wants to be seen as an authentic military shooter, but those times are long gone, and better games like Hell Let Loose, Squad, and ArmA 3 have taken that mantle and run with it. It wants to be a grand-scale FPS about combined operations, but all it does is cram vehicles into small maps just because that’s what is expected. It really wants to pay homage to games like Battlefield 3 and 4, but only does so at a surface level.
It’s sad, all things considered, how Battlefield built its identity as the game that struck a perfect middle ground between arcade shooters and realistic mil-sims, and is now being a victim of exactly what made it so famous. I feel that 10 or 15 years ago, when FPS games were still emerging, a lot of people were still figuring out what they enjoyed, and that’s where the Battlefield series was the most successful. Now, it’s my opinion that the FPS players have already decided what type of games they like, and this middleman between arcade and realism is no longer needed. This isn’t to say the game is going to be a commercial failure; I’m sure it’s going to be quite the opposite, but I also think that Battlefield 6 just doesn’t have the necessary staying power to be relevant for the next couple of years.
Battlefield 6 lacks identity and purpose. It tries to be everything and ends up achieving nothing. It’s a shame, really, because I was super excited to dive into it, and want it to be successful, but maybe, like a lot of you out here, I have outgrown the necessity for this middleman, and I am a happier player enjoying my realistic mil-sims. I’m going back to Hell Let Loose.
Support Strategy and Wargaming
I do what I do in Strategy and Wargaming because I love to do this, and I’m never going to stop. If you would like to support me with that, you can buy me a coffee for a dollar if you’re feeling generous. If you can’t, no worries, Strategy and Wargaming will always be free, and I’d love to have you around!
Leave a Reply to KcCancel reply