Battlefield 6 review: Getting back to the roots paid off

by

The love for the classic online shooter, *Battlefield*, never really fades. Whenever fans have to wait a long time for a new *Battlefield* game, or when the developers try out risky new features, other games try to step in and capture the same audience. But none have been able to truly compete – not *Call of Duty*, despite its attempts at larger maps and vehicles, nor free-to-play options like *World War 3*, or even the reboot of *Delta Force*. When the beta for the latest game, *Battlefield 6*, became available, excitement exploded, and many people immediately wanted to play and pre-order their copy.

The key to regaining fans wasn’t about adding a lot of new things or making big changes. Instead, the game succeeded by focusing on what made it great in the first place – specifically, capturing the feel of the popular *Battlefield 3* and *4* games. After spending the last week playing almost everything, it’s clear this focus on the core experience was generally effective. In fact, I haven’t had this much fun playing a Battlefield game since *Battlefield 1* in 2016.

Back to the roots

So, what does it mean to return to the core of classic *Battlefield* gameplay? It starts with distinct soldiers, each with unique abilities, instead of the lengthy, repetitive “specialists” we’ve seen before. You’ll choose from four classes: Assault, focused on capturing objectives and fast reflexes; Engineer, who can destroy and repair vehicles; Support, now acting as the medic; and Recon, the sniper skilled at spotting enemies. Each class also specializes in specific weapons, and some game modes will limit your weapon choices.

Goodbye to massive, sparsely populated maps! The new *Battlefield* game is returning to 64-player battles for its largest modes. This, along with better map layouts, promises intense, strategic gameplay. The developers have also refined the shooting and movement mechanics, and by setting the game in a modern setting, they’ve included a wide range of realistic vehicles, helicopters, planes, and weapons used by militaries worldwide. While some details might be altered, this adds a cool and authentic feel to the experience.

The traditional single-player story mode is back, offering a complete action-packed experience. We haven’t seen this in a Battlefield game since 2015’s *Battlefield Hardline*. However, *Battlefield 6* doesn’t quite deliver a standout single-player experience. This isn’t unexpected, as the series has always prioritized its multiplayer gameplay.

A tribute to Call of Duty? Really?

The single-player campaign in BF6 starts strong, appealing to longtime fans with familiar references, much like the beginning of Top Gun: Maverick. But this initial charm doesn’t last. The story quickly falls into predictable territory, becoming a cliché-filled and somewhat uninteresting experience reminiscent of a Michael Bay action film. The narrative centers around Pax Armata, a large private military force attacking countries globally. Despite a worldwide conflict spanning from Tajikistan to the USA, the story follows a small group of American Marines who somehow always know what’s happening. They pursue the main villain across continents, even though he only makes a couple of brief appearances.

Honestly, even if the story wasn’t amazing, I might have been able to get past it. But the biggest issue? The campaign feels like a straight-up copy of the recent *Call of Duty: Modern Warfare* games. It’s not just the typical run-and-gun, moving from one set piece to another with car chases and shooting. There *is* one mission with a bit more freedom where you can tackle shootouts in different orders, which was a nice change. But one mission, in particular, really stood out – creeping through rooms strategically with night vision goggles reminded me *so* much of the ‘Clean House’ mission from *Modern Warfare 2019*. And the characters? They’re surprisingly interesting. You’ve got a strong, mature woman calling the shots, a really honorable and brave bearded man, and… a guy who hides his face behind a mask almost the whole time! It all feels a little *too* familiar, you know?

The official trailer for the new *Battlefield* game playfully pokes fun at *Call of Duty*, but it suggests a disconnect between those making the game’s story and those promoting it. While *Battlefield*’s single-player campaigns have often been a warm-up for the multiplayer, it’s disappointing when a potentially good story isn’t fully developed. Previous *Battlefield* games, like *Bad Company 2* and *Battlefield 3* (especially the aircraft carrier level), showed the series could deliver compelling single-player experiences. The new game could have aimed for a more realistic and grounded portrayal of a soldier’s life within the larger war effort – there were even glimpses of this approach in the game’s development. For example, a mission involves using drones to deploy small explosives, a tactic common in modern warfare. Luckily, the single-player campaign is separate from the rest of the game, so players who aren’t interested in it can easily remove it to save storage space.

Like Beta, but with improvements here and there

The recent open beta allowed players to get a feel for Battlefield 6’s multiplayer, and the full game builds on that with several refinements. Player movement feels much smoother – the animations have been adjusted so characters have a realistic weight and momentum without feeling slow. They navigate obstacles fluidly and can quickly slide into cover. The way guns handle has also been tweaked; bullet spread is now more unpredictable, and attachments don’t offer quite as much control as they did in the beta, making short, controlled bursts of fire the most effective approach. Even smaller details have been addressed – the brightly glowing sniper scopes that drew criticism have been replaced with a subtle, prism-like reflection.

The game launches with nine maps, and two more are planned. However, it doesn’t feel like there are that many because the maps are spread across only five distinct locations. The maps set in New York, Gibraltar, and Tajikistan are quite similar, mainly differing in size. Egypt offers the most variety, with battles taking place both in the tight streets of Cairo and around a skyscraper construction site. As a nice addition, there’s also Operation Firestorm, a reimagined map from *Battlefield 3*. These environments support eight different game modes and online battles of all sizes. Even more variety is coming with the Battlefield Portal. Now, let’s talk about what I enjoyed and didn’t enjoy about the multiplayer experience.

Appetite for destruction is just the beginning

One of the most striking features is the incredibly realistic environmental destruction. It’s unlike anything seen in other games – it truly feels like structures are crumbling around you, not just breaking apart. Whether it’s a massive building collapsing in Cairo or a small house being hit by a tank in Tajikistan, the effect is impressive. The destruction isn’t just visual either; the camera shakes, dust obscures your vision, and new routes to higher floors are often created. The new tactical ladder gadget, available to the Assault class, is also a great addition, allowing players to quickly reach advantageous positions in unexpected places.

Honestly, I had the most fun in the medium-sized game modes like Rush, Breakthrough, and Domination. Those maps really funneled everyone into close-quarters fights, leading to these crazy, intense moments where you were constantly getting kills. And the way the game *feels* when you get a kill – the visuals and sound – just makes it so much better. On the bigger maps, things slow down a bit, and you have more time to move around and find a good spot, but vehicles really take over. Playing as a driver or gunner in a tank, APC, or chopper feels like a completely different game *within* the game, and it’s super rewarding. That’s when you really get that “all-out warfare” experience the developers were talking about – infantry, tanks, helicopters, planes all fighting at once. It reminds me a lot of the feeling from older games like *Battlefield 3* and *4*.

I particularly enjoyed the Siege of Cairo map – it reminded me of Strike at Karkand and featured impressive environmental destruction, although the streets felt more confined. The maps set in Tajikistan also looked fantastic, with the expansive Mirak Valley offering a moody atmosphere and trench warfare that brought to mind Battlefield 1. Operation Firestorm was exceptional and really made me hope for remakes of classic maps like Metro or Caspian Border.

I didn’t really enjoy playing on the New York map. There wasn’t much environmental damage, which made it difficult to see enemies because of all the colors and clutter on the streets. The Brooklyn area, with the Manhattan Bridge in the background, has been used in several games before, and honestly, it even looked better in the original *The Division*. The Gibraltar maps just feel like more of the same narrow streets we’ve seen in games like *Call of Duty*. I also felt the developers overused the construction site theme – the unfinished skyscraper showed up too often on different maps, and it quickly became repetitive and boring.

PROS:

  1. Return to modern times and a realistic, credible setting with authentic weapons and vehicles;
  2. spectacular environmental destruction that also affects the tactics of moving around the map;
  3. return of soldier classes instead of specialists;
  4. tactical ladder turned out to be a surprisingly useful new gadget;
  5. all classic modes to choose from, from total war to TDM;
  6. great optimization with very good graphics and even better sound design;
  7. you can totally feel the vibe from the Battlefield 3 and 4 days.

CONS:

  1. Mediocre single-player campaign with a clichéd storyline, heavily copying Call of Duty;
  2. earning XP in battles with bots is a farm for fast leveling;
  3. the interface requires a few improvements;
  4. on the smallest maps, it’s very easy to become a spawn camper.

It is not a perfect game…

Okay, so about the smaller modes like Team and Free-For-All Deathmatch… I’m kinda on the fence about them. The biggest problem I’ve noticed is the spawn points – they’re just too predictable. Plus, the maps being square means everyone ends up clashing right in the center. It’s honestly way too easy to run around and get people coming out of their spawn, which is a bit frustrating. I’m hoping it feels different when I’m playing with real people instead of mostly bots, because that might be why it’s so noticeable right now.

Another point of contention is the ability to earn experience points even in matches with very few real players – sometimes only 3 or 4 out of 64. This essentially allows for quick and easy experience farming, letting players level up their characters much faster. I think it would be a good idea to require a certain number of human players on a server before experience points can be earned.

I didn’t like the on-screen interface during the beta test, and I like it even less now. While it takes too many clicks to change weapons, the biggest issue is the intrusive pop-ups. These large notifications constantly remind you about time limits or tell you about dropped weapons, and they often cover up critical parts of the screen – even when you’re trying to spot enemies.

The game doesn’t clearly explain how players improve and unlock new abilities. You level up as a player, which unlocks gadgets, and you can also level up each weapon to get better accessories and upgrades. On top of that, each character class has its own separate training paths with unique bonuses. However, simply playing a class isn’t enough to progress; you need to actively work towards specific challenges to unlock these bonuses. These challenges can be quite specific – like getting a certain number of kills with a particular weapon – and might be frustrating for some players.

The game sometimes has minor technical problems, like briefly falling through the ground, the camera getting stuck, or the game unexpectedly closing. These issues don’t happen very often, and the developers are likely to fix them in future updates.

… but still the best Battlefield over the last decade

While not flawless, the latest *Battlefield* is a fantastic return to form for the series. It’s truly exhilarating to play! The massive battles, featuring infantry, tanks, aircraft, and more, are unlike anything else. Expect plenty of moments that will make you laugh, gasp, and excitedly communicate with your team. There’s a strong incentive to keep playing and unlock customizations for your favorite weapons, like the M4A1. Plus, the game runs surprisingly well and looks amazing, even on older hardware. The sound design is particularly impressive, enhancing the experience even further with a good headset or speakers.

The most brilliant decision the developers made, even before the game was created, was setting it in the present day. This means no strange, futuristic gadgets, invented weapons, or AI-powered vehicles like you see in *Call of Duty*. You also won’t find awkward combinations of old and new weaponry that just don’t feel right. *BF6* uses equipment that any shooter or military enthusiast will immediately recognize – the gear they’re familiar with and likely already prefer. This realistic approach adds a level of believability to the fast-paced gameplay, and avoids unnecessary debates about unrealistic elements. It’s amazing it took ten years to make such a simple, effective choice!

I’m hoping the game launches without a hitch and the developers can manage any server queues quickly. Hopefully, their systems won’t cause any technical problems. We can expect some queues, but I’m also optimistic about the game’s future and hope the developers focus on gameplay rather than unnecessary cosmetic items or paid extras. Right now, things look promising. While the story mode might not be memorable, the multiplayer should be a lot of fun for a long time.

Read More

2025-10-09 19:36