The most common thought I had while playing an early taster of Battlefield 6's single player was "ow!" Having been given the chance to play several missions from the campaign early with the dev team, I can say that gunplay in that game is punchy and tactile, with recoil, muzzle flash, and sound design all working together to make every bullet feel terrifying.
Call it literal bang for your buck, and it certainly makes shooting feel fun, but I quickly learned that this was a rule that applied both ways. Sure, enemies collapse in a puddle of their own offal the moment they take a bloated military budget to the face, but it's not like the player characters are any more durable. Running out of cover without preparation would usually lead to an immediate lattice of enemy crossfire, with suitably mortal results.
None of this is criticism, though! I'm a veteran of FromSoftware, Cuphead, Celeste, and recently the infamously vicious Silksong, just to name a few. I like hard games, and Battlefield 6 certainly isn't comparable to any of those. Still, the fact that it came with a few teeth was a surprise, even if it wasn't an unwelcome one, and has made me realise that AAA gaming right now is undergoing a bit of a transition, at least when it comes to the prevailing wisdom regarding challenge. And if nothing else, it's a far cry from the generation of gunplay that's the supposed inspiration.
Join the army, they said!
Part of my surprise came from initial expectations. Interviewing a few members of Battlefield 6's design team, Battlefield 3 and 4 are the clear and obvious points of inspiration, but I can intuit a broader desire to look back to the more grounded FPS shooters of the late 2000s and early 2010s, before superpowers, jetpacks, and chainsaw glory kills became the norm.
And I have no problem with that, but to my mind, the AAA games of that era were also defined by being… well, pretty easy overall. Some exceptions, definitely, but few could argue that this wasn't a period of safety nets, quick-time-events, metronomic checkpoints, and a pivot towards cinematic experiences that often objected to letting the player fail at all, just because the script wouldn't allow for it. And yes, Dark Souls was also in this era, but part of that game's identity at the time was in just how much it played against the current prevailing wisdom.
And the military shooters of the time were generally in keeping with this trend. There were exceptions, sure, but Call of Duty was already turning towards power fantasy, with players on James Bond mountain chases and piloting near-indestructible vehicles that were more about the fun of being unstoppable. Again, nothing wrong with any of it – only pointing to a broad trend of the era.
But a trend that Battlefield 6 shuns. It's not completely merciless, but I wouldn't call its story campaign a power fantasy. I was only playing on normal difficulty, and found myself frequently in genuine mortal peril – pinned under fire, diving away from grenades, or back-pedalling from swarming goons before they could shred me from all sides.
It's a cover shooter first and foremost, and I quickly learned that the mere act of advancing is taking your life in your hands. But in squad we trust! My NPC comrades, though not necessarily burdened with brainpower, could be commanded to mark foes, throw smoke bombs, or even non-smoke bombs of varying payloads. In practical terms, it's several different ways to shriek for cover before you risk dashing into the open, trying to relocate to somewhere that isn't rapidly being reduced to rubble.
Soldiering on
This entry seems especially happy not to pull any punches.
The whole experience marks an interesting point in gaming, and what we expect from difficulty and challenge from mainstream titles.
In long-distant times-gone-by (I'm talking the pre-internet era of antiquity), games would be blisteringly hard as a default, a choice usually made to extend their playtime. Then, over the next few decades, things were tempered, the harshness dialled back so as to reach a more mainstream audience. Yes, we're talking about very broad trends here, but the average challenge level afforded by mainstream gaming was undeniably dialled down for accessibility's sake.
It's only in the last five or ten years that we've begun to see the pendulum swing back the other way, marked by the success of games like Elden Ring, Kingdom Come Deliverance 2, and, of course, Silksong, as general video game literacy is on the ascent and wider audiences grow more comfortable with a higher skill ceiling in their games.
That's why Battlefield 6 can afford to be harder than its forebears, and what distinguishes it from them. Admittedly, Battlefield as a series always had a slightly tougher barrier to entry when compared to its rival Call of Duty, but this entry seems especially happy not to pull any punches.
And sure, you can play it your way, but that doesn't mean that all methods are equally effective, or at least all equally easy. Running into the open with a shotgun, firing wildly… well, it works for Doom The Dark Ages, but you'd have to be the Slayer himself to survive these conflicts with Pax Armata. It's strategy, caution, and well-timed, calculated violence that'll be what secures victory here – and it's clear that the frontline has only gotten all the more demanding in the last fifteen years.
There's loads more upcoming PS5 games to keep an eye out for in 2025 an beyond for all fans of sharpshooter antics.
