For all the talk of taking Battlefield back to its roots, Battlefield 6’s multiplayer is actually pretty bold. Typically the formula has been instantly recognisable to FPS fans: bombastic action, giant team sizes, and a polyamorous partnership between boots-on-the-ground, vehicular, and aerial warfare. But while the moment-to-moment is as fun as it ever was – with the potential perhaps to reach new heights for the series – some of the new ideas from Battlefield Studios (the amalgam of several EA developers in DICE, Ripple Effect, Criterion and Motive that now all work on this series) leave me unconvinced.
During a fairly meaty preview event I was able to play across a variety of maps and game modes, all of which were, as you’d expect, a circus of exploding buildings and teammates’ machine-gun fire. The ruined streets of Cairo, for instance, are packed with small buildings and alleyways, home to ambushes aplenty. Empire State offered something totally different; a multi-storied firefight within a building mid-construction, the kind with squads shooting down from scaffolding as a lone player rushes up from behind, shotgun in hand.
Series staples like Conquest return, while genre-classics like Team Deathmatch and Dominion take you into these new warzones, either by slicing out a smaller section of the map where appropriate or throwing you in unburdened. All packed, as usual, with a type of wall-to-wall action that you can’t really find in other shooters – at least without venturing beyond the mainstream into something a little more hardcore. Action that often blasts through said walls.
These smaller versions of the map aren’t haphazardly portioned. Instead, smaller game modes shone a pleasing spotlight on the more intimate infantry bashes, leaving larger map types to serve up the vast, violent vehicular banquets. Both experiences bring their own appeal. Rushing house-by-house towards a capture point is atmospherically tense, as the quick time-to-kill makes infantry combat fast and flashy. Larger maps are home to ‘Battlefield moments’: a tank blows up ahead of you, for instance, as you dash between rocks and small shacks to avoid a deluge of rocket fire. Regardless of what map or game mode I played, all were wonderful playgrounds to blow stuff up in.
Speaking of, yes destruction physics are back in force in Battlefield 6, but in a more focused form. It seems as though Levolution – still not a word! – as in the singular large destruction events that would totally alter the layout of a map mid-match, are gone. In its place is “tactical destruction”, allowing you to, say, blow the floor out from under a squad of players for surprise assaults. Debris still flies around and rubble rains around you – it’s still a frantic, audio-visual mess of action – but relative to games gone by Battlefield Studios has opted for the scalpel over the sledgehammer.
While this does take some of the more grandiose ‘wow factor’ away from the matches I played, in its place the game gains an air of stability, of the kind that would otherwise go out the window when a tidal wave wipes out your hard-fought defensive position. One could argue in Battlefield 4 that a gaggle of snipers atop the skyscraper in Siege of Shanghai was annoying, and toppling said skyscraper was a cathartic answer to lofty marksman. Battlefield 6 appears to believe otherwise.
This approach that leaves snipers perched in high places ironically results in a more grounded Battlefield game, one less interested in grand destructive gestures and more keen on good ol’ fashioned military sim shooting and strategy. A boon, perhaps, for those more interested in Battlefield’s gunplay than other bells and whistles.
You’ll notice I said snipers, rather than Recon players. That’s because Battlefield 6 has – despite the developer previously acknowledging the mistakes of Battlefield 2042‘s total rip-out – still thrown a grenade at the traditional class system. The four typical Battlefield classes do return, and still exist as Assault, Engineer, Support, and Recon. They all still have the gadgets you’d expect – a respawn beacon on Recon, an RPG on Engineer – but crucially class locks on certain weapon types have been removed. A sniper doesn’t have to be a Recon anymore. Any class can sit at the back of the map and do nothing, missing shots and smiling ear to ear.
Now, this has proven controversial among Battlefield fans. So controversial that Battlefield Studios announced they’d be adding old school locked weapon playlists when the game eventually comes out, but it is clear that the intention is this freeform approach to class armaments. In the mind of the Battlefield team, the gadgets are at the heart of class identity. Perhaps they’re right. Nonetheless, I can’t help but feel this’ll have a major impact on the traditional Battlefield loop. Let’s go back to that sniper example from earlier.
If you couldn’t bring the whole building down, Battlefield players have long been able to fly a helicopter or jet towards a nest of Recon players. This was almost always a rough situation for those on the roof, armed with anti-infantry weapons and nothing that could consistently take down these vehicles. They’d all be gunned down, the respawn beacon would be destroyed, and the pilot would have done their job successfully. Thumbs up all around.
Recons can’t deal with vehicles. This is one class dynamic that makes up a rock-paper-scissors-style web of strategies and counter strategies. In terms of core gameplay it’s what separates Battlefield from its biggest rival: Call of Duty. But let’s say you let an Engineer use a sniper rifle. Sure, they may not benefit from the passive bonuses to sniper rifles a Recon might – thanks to a new system that offers small benefits to those who stay true to the old ways – but those bonuses aren’t a big enough deal to make Recon overwhelmingly the best class to use a sniper on. If it were, then the open weapon system would be self defeating.
Instead, what this means is some 38-year-old called SKYxDUI will be flying towards what they think is a buffet of free kills on snipers, something they have been trained to think for years, a reality that is entombed into the walls of Battlefield, only to discover one of the snipers has a surface-to-air missile launcher. Suddenly, rock no longer smashes the scissors. The rules have been redefined in a way I’m not sure is ultimately good for the game.
Likewise, how will objective-capture game modes be impacted by Recon players being able to rush in with an assault rifle before placing down a respawn beacon? Something that was previously tricky, due to the inherent disadvantage of bringing a sniper and pistol to bear against those with mid- or close-range weapons. How will tanks and other ground vehicles fare in a game where more players than usual can have a rocket in their back pocket? You can hopefully see how this ripples out.
All that said, I also get the counter argument. I love LMGs! I do not love spending half the match reviving people or restocking their ammo. Being able to slap an LMG on another class offers me more freedom, and fewer barriers to playing Battlefield the way I want to. I’m just worried the cost of this freedom is too high. I would not be surprised if, months after launch, the majority of ‘hardcore’ Battlefield players start queuing into weapon locked servers by default.
I’m left with two opposing feelings. On one hand, in pure, sensory terms, this is as good as Battlefield has ever felt. The game is smooth, and exciting, and explosive, and darn good fun. The shift to more localised, strategic destruction means that if you want to hop on and simply throw some C4 around (tactically!) then it’s a beautiful thing.
On the other hand, changes made to one of the core tenets of Battlefield – the class system that seems to always be in the crosshairs of Battlefield’s developers – do seem to sacrifice a piece of the game’s identity for the sake of a more open Battlefield. Ultimately, it’s a change that risks making the game more homogenised with other giants in the genre.
It leaves me in a state of cautious optimism. I think the building blocks for a truly fantastic Battlefield game are here with Battlefield 6 – perhaps even an all-time great – but I need to see a little more, need to play a little more. I need to see where the dice fall, whether the gamble of bold gameplay changes land well – where the hivemind of Battlefield’s playerbase find new strategies beyond the this-beats-that approach of old, say – or whether they simply muddy an otherwise potentially brilliant experience.
This preview is based on a trip to Los Angeles. EA provided flights and accommodation.