Game

When you’re as much of a longtime fan of a series as I am of Battlefield, successive fumbles, broken promises and a gradual loss of identity can make you jaded. I’ve been playing Battlefield since the first time I randomly came across BF1942 at an internet cafe circa 2004.

I showed up for almost every single launch since. I vividly remember booking time off from work so I can be up to play Battlefield 3 as soon as servers went live, and arguing with friends over Mumble that the skyscraper Levolution event on Siege of Shanghai crashing servers about 60% of the time was really a minor issue that shouldn’t detract from how good Battlefield 4 was.

I’ve stuck with Battlefield through all of its many, many instances of questionable technical states, troubled launches and what felt like an insistence to needlessly reinvent the wheel with each new game. I’ve kept the faith for as long as I could, until Battlefield 2042 broke me.

To see this content please enable targeting cookies.

Manage cookie settings

Despite that, the idea of a new Battlefield game never stopped getting me excited, even when I could feel that passion diminishing with each new hype cycle. I lost faith that EA, DICE and co could deliver a complete, functional product on day one that honoured the past without shying away from innovation. After decades of waiting, Battlefield 6 is finally that game.

It’s hard to distil my thoughts on Battlefield 6 into one or two sentences. It’s especially challenging to explain to people, many of whom have already played the game in its various pre-launch forms, that it is as good as their first impressions suggested. So let’s get this out of the way early: BF6 is a relatively bug-free game that does away with so much of the unnecessary frustration that’s practically become synonymous with Battlefield launches. This is a polished, competent product that (mostly) delivers on its promises, even if I may not agree with everything it does.

I’ve been playing the launch build for about ten days, and I’ve only had a single crash. There’ve been smaller bugs like tank zoom optics misbehaving, missiles sometimes ignoring flares, and a funny one that would occasionally send me flying after stepping over too much rubble – but I’ve not had to force a respawn a single time to get the game to behave correctly, or quit a match to reset it.

Image credit: Battlefield Studios, EA.

The multiplayer action – the bulk of what you come to Battlefield for – is sharper and more satisfying than it’s ever been. It is simply a joy to move around this world, interact with its tools, shoot weapons, deploy gadgets, drive (or hop into) its many vehicles, and occasionally break walls.

The most impactful changes come to the structure and higher-level design of the experience, and they remain the most disappointing. The Support class now encompasses the Medic role as well as the Support role from past games. It’s the class you go to if you want to dispense ammo as well as medkits. Consolidating roles isn’t necessarily a bad idea, but the result is that you end up with four classes instead of five, which raises the value of some over others, and takes away an element of specialisation and variety that used to exist.

What really saddens me is the erosion of class cohesion through the Open Weapons system, which means that all classes have access to the full complement of weapons in the game. With the exception of BF2042, all previous games locked each class to certain weapon archetype(s). Players never agreed on which one did it best, so believe me when I say it wasn’t a golden solution.

But the point is that there used to be an element of friction that’s now gone. No developer could ever force players to stick to their class’ intended role in a class-based shooter, but Battlefield Studios just gave up trying altogether. The game attempts to get around that by offering Training Paths, which are sub-classes that exist within each of the four. Each path’s associated bonuses somewhat replicate roles from past BF games, but they’re quiet enough that you don’t have to seriously consider them.

Image credit: Battlefield Studios, EA.

The game’s biggest gambit is trying to incentivise players to stick to their class’ assigned weapon archetype. So called Signature Weapons (ARs for the Assault class etc.) gain certain benefits when used by the appropriate class. It’s a bandaid with a small shelf life.

I can confidently say that most players won’t care about those bonuses when it means having to give up the weapon they actually want you to use. Both Training Paths and Signature Weapons merely exist as a suggestion, sort of like recommending you use ice camo on snow maps.

Beyond the tactical shortcomings of this class system, there’s also the element of how it’s going to shape the future of the game. I anticipate BF6 to be very popular, which means it’s going to attract players from Call of Duty and beyond. For years, CoD players have highly-optimised their experience to crowd-source the best weapons and equipment for their builds, ensuring a flat meta where everyone is on the same page.

There’ve been attempts to do the same with BF in the past, but it never quite worked. Battlefield 6’s approach, however, all but welcomes that level of optimisation. I really hope four weeks from now everyone isn’t using the same weapon with every class because, well, why would you use anything else?

Image credit: Battlefield Studios, EA.

Battlefield campaigns have never been the highlight of the experience for me, but I always felt like the teams behind them never got to create something on their own terms – save for maybe Bad Company. I really hoped the same confidence that guided multiplayer would carry over to the single-player this time around, but that sadly isn’t the case.

The BF6 campaign is clearly unfinished. It’s very common to run into scripting events taking too long to trigger, and for audio tracks to overlap or mismatch animations. Encounter design seems to entirely revolve around spawning AI enemies around you until you hit a script trigger. It does, at least, try to be true to Battlefield by offering class gameplay. In almost every mission, each character is assigned a class, and you get to order your squadmates to perform actions you’ll be familiar with from multiplayer.

Teammates can revive, resupply you and put down suppressive fire. They can even blow up walls at the press of a button. The most powerful ability, however, is the Scout’s spot-everyone-in-the-level move. I suspect many of those trying to get through the campaign, just so that they’ve at least played it, will rely on that ability more than any other.

The biggest tell of how quickly the campaign came together is its narrative, which is clearly missing significant chunks. You thankfully never hear characters reference something you don’t/didn’t get to do, so it’s covering its tracks there. But I couldn’t help but be flabbergasted at how impotent of a villain it has, a character who shows up and disappears just as quickly. The game doesn’t give you much reason to empathise with their cause, or enough reason to hate them.

Pre-launch reports have revealed a troubled development for the campaign, and it really shows. It’s a good showcase of the game’s stunning visuals and exceptional sound design on a big TV; the sort of thing you call someone into the room to see, but it’s not something anyone will be thinking about by the end of this year, let alone the end of BF6’s live service.

Image credit: Battlefield Studios, EA.

It’s hard to say whether or not having the campaign in the package boosts or diminishes the overall value of Battlefield 6. There’s also Portal, the second iteration of the mode that lets players create their own experiences using game assets. We didn’t get a chance to play that during the review period, but much like it was in BF2042, I don’t imagine it’s going to be anything but a nice distraction you jump into when you’re looking for a bit of a break from All Out Warfare.

As it is right now, with the quality and quantity of content in the launch package of Battlefield 6, it is incredibly easy to recommend the game to anyone who enjoys multiplayer shooters. It’s an especially exciting proposition for those of us who just cannot keep up with Call of Duty’s rollerskates-based movement and its instantaneous time-to-kill. There’s finally a compelling middle ground between the indecipherability of tactical shooters and the yearly slop of CoD, and it’s one you won’t have to convince yourself to play simply because it’s there, you’ll do it with a big grin on your face because of how fun it is.

Reviewed on PC, code provided by publisher.

Source link