My biggest toxic trait is that I still love a good big-budget military shooter despite being immune to army propaganda and having no interest in shooting real guns. Sadly, I'm not immune to Battlefield Studios – pretty much half of EA – cooking with fire and making Battlefield 6 a proper return to form even if the maps we've played so far aren't exactly what we expected.
I'm also fully aware of how bad things are right now all over the world, which makes my enjoyment of such video games... awkward to say the least. I wish armed conflicts taking entire countries apart were relegated to our past and distant fiction, yet here we are.
This time around, EA and Battlefield Studios are trying to shun the inherent politics of modern warfare turned into mass-consumed entertainment by coming up with a PMC villain group they're oddly describing as "cool" and "badass".
Up close and personal
In any case, the actual game the developers have created after the misfire of Battlefield 2042 – a game that's fine nowadays, mind you – is coming together nicely and takes me back to when Infinity Ward came out swinging in 2019 with a fantastic Modern Warfare reboot.
Battlefield 6 looks gorgeous without sacrificing that sweet and magical Frostbite performance, gets what made Battlefield an iconic FPS series originally, and controls so well that I can feel all the internal and external testing it's gone through from the get-go.
However, most Battlefield games live or die by their maps, so what do we think about them after a couple of hectic beta weekends? So far, they're a mixed bag in my humble opinion, but there are reasons to be hopeful about the rest and city streets have never felt this dangerous.
After spending one match in each of the beta's locations, including the second weekend-exclusive Empire State map, it was easy to notice the lack of "only in Battlefield" all-out scope we know and love.
Of course, even the classic Battlefield entries mixed things up with close-quarter maps and a handful of more restrained scenarios that felt halfway between Battlefield 3's Operation Métro and Caspian Border, to name two iconic locales. The balance here felt off though.
Siege of Cairo, Iberian Offensive, Empire State, and even the more open Liberation Peak aren't big enough. They're all good showcases of what Battlefield can deliver versus the other big military FPS series, but they feel like maps cherry-picked to avoid scaring the 'Twitch shooter' crowd away.
The average time between spawning (even if you do so at a control point or base) and getting to a hot point of action is ridiculously low, and you can count the amount of vehicles active at any point with one hand.
Thankfully, the abundant moment-to-moment action in tight alleyways, crowded patios, and crossing devastated streets has a nice flow and rhythm. None of the four maps feel one-sided either, and the usual lane-based design that Call of Duty maps are known for hasn't infected this map pool even when the size is concerningly small for 64-player battles.
Even at its most cramped, Battlefield always differentiates itself by offering multiple venues to attack/defend and little corners where players can regain their breath. That is, if an entire house doesn't fall on their heads.
Tear it all down
I have to assume this beta was targeted at the 'on the fence' crowd
A huge part of why these urban maps work well, all things considered, is Battlefield 6's return to proper destructible environments.
Sure, not every building can go down, but when the nearest wall can potentially explode at any moment and most roofs are ready to collapse, these kill zones begin to feel more dynamic than a simple assortment of streets and rigid box-like rooms and courtyards. Once devs don't base the entire map design around MOBA-like lanes and a handful of small interiors, and instead allow the player to 'cut through' a battlefield in a number of ways, most locales can be exciting.
Ironically, Liberation Peak, the beta's most expansive map (jets and helicopters have a chance to shine there), finds itself in an odd no man's land position of being neither big nor chaotic enough. Its elongated shape, even in Conquest, makes it less layered and far more predictable than other mountain maps like BF1's Monte Grappa, a great example of turning difficult terrain into a proper Battlefield experience.
At the same time, most members of both teams will be hiding behind rock formations because the village-like area isn't interesting or dense enough, leading to a marked lack of hot zones and real chokepoints that really hurts the flow. Considering the peripheral space, adjustments to size and asset density could be made ahead of launch, but I ain't holding my breath.
As stated before, I have to assume this beta was targeted at the 'on the fence' crowd that hasn't paid attention to Battlefield in years.
Looking at the social media buzz around BF6 at the moment, EA clearly succeeded there. Considering the nine maps set to arrive at launch, it appears only one more of them (Saints Quarter) will be infantry-oriented, while Operation Firestorm (the first of many returning classics being promised), New Sobek City, Manhattan Bridge, and Mirak Valley are way larger than anything we've seen in the beta. It looks like a solid enough start, but I won't relax until I check them out myself.
Battlefield 6 is just one of many upcoming Xbox Series X games set to arrive in 2025, and it's also coming to PS5 and PC
You must confirm your public display name before commenting
Please logout and then login again, you will then be prompted to enter your display name.
