In my Battlefield 6 campaign review, I explained how the single-player component of the first-person shooter misses the mark in almost every respect, from the seemingly random locations as you gallivant across the world to forcing you down narrow, linear paths when the series has always been about war on an epic scale. Well, it’s safe to say multiplayer is by far the more worthwhile piece of Battlefield 6, to the extent that it appears to be the start of a series comeback.
Longtime Battlefield players will remember the heyday of the series, where games like Bad Company 2 and Battlefield 3 reigned. Maps were huge, every match felt like a proper battle with enormous team sizes, all manner of land, sea, and air vehicles, and combat was — mostly — across open environments. Subsequent games, following on from around the Battlefield 4 era, have struggled to replicate this feeling. Battlefield 1 gave it a good go but ultimately fell slightly short, while 5 and 2042 were low points for the series, the latter especially.
Battlefield 6 has jumped behind the wheel of a tank and U-turned that thing around so hard. There’s nuance here for sure, but if you’re on the right map and mode, there are moments that will transport you back 15 years and evoke some serious nostalgia. Even more so when you squad up with your pals and you’re all operating as a unit, either on foot as you capture objectives or manning various seats in a vehicle.
Those moments aren’t constant though, as Battlefield 6 isn’t geared solely towards bringing back those feelings. Players had concerns during the beta period in August that combat would be too aggressive and try to go toe-to-toe with Call of Duty: Black Ops 7, due to the smaller maps included in the two weekends. While the inclusion of maps such as Operation Firestorm and New Sobek City have quashed those qualms, with only nine maps in the game in total, a not-insignificant portion of Battlefield 6 leans towards more of an arena shooter-style.
A number of the maps — Saints Quarter, Manhattan Bridge, and Empire State, for example — are suited to close-quarters combat. Sniping and slower, more tactical play is nigh-on impossible. But with only nine maps available in total, there is a lack of variety. Those smaller maps and playlists are fun, but they don’t play to the strengths of Battlefield on the whole, and it can’t compete with Call of Duty in that regard.
Battlefield 6 excels when you’re engaged in all-out warfare. Whether you opt for a sniper rifle, LMG, carbine, or assault rifle, adopting a playstyle that suits longer-range combat and playing slower than you would in one of the CQB playlists is simply more representative of what the series stands for. Gunplay is, as expected, excellent, as is the audio design. It’s far more of a Michael Bay-esque FPS game — epic moments, massive explosions, and far more cinematic — than something like Call of Duty will ever be, so playing on those much smaller maps doesn’t play to the game’s strengths.
The huge benefit here is that you can pick and choose exactly what maps and modes you play. So in my case, I can omit those smaller maps from my filters and only partake in the huge skirmishes, reminiscent of true Battlefield. But with only a few maps suited to that size of gameplay, it leaves me resenting Battlefield Studios’ decision to include maps and modes to compete with Call of Duty, rather than focusing exclusively on the huge-scale battles that built the series’s reputation.
All of this is to say, Battlefield 6 is Battlefield back to its best… but only sometimes. While it isn’t quite to as severe a degree, the multiplayer struggles with its identity, much like the campaign. Here’s hoping the Battlefield 6 roadmap introduces a few more maps suitable for the huge team sizes.
