giving

Almost a week removed from the Battlefield 6 beta, I wouldn’t blame you for being tired of hearing about weapons being open or closed.

On its face, the debate appears moot as Battlefield Studios keeps saying it will support both rulesets in BF6 regardless of their popularity. New players coming over from Call of Duty think divorcing class choice from weapon choice feels normal and natural, many longtime fans feel strongly about keeping weapons locked to classes, and some have even been converted to open weapons after trying it these past two weekends. No matter your preference, Battlefield 6 will accommodate you, and everyone will be happy.

I don’t want to leave it at that. Options are nice, but let’s be honest: we’re talking about two polar opposite design philosophies vying for influence over Battlefield 6’s current and future direction. BF Studios cannot realistically expect to support both as if they’re equally important. In fact, the studios are already subtly picking sides: The beta demonstrated that open weapons is the default Battlefield 6 experience, and closed weapons is just a secondary option pushed to the back.

Related articles

That would be a huge mistake. I’m not here to argue that Battlefield 6 is unfun with open weapons, but I do submit that it doesn’t really feel like Battlefield.

Class-locked weapons are half of what gave classes an identity in the earlier games—they don’t just inform what you’re good at, but what you’re bad at. Tailoring the entirety of a kit to its role provides a fundamentally interesting set of constraints, and to throw that away is to give up on what makes Battlefield special.

(Image credit: EA)

It didn’t work in BF2042 either

We saw this happen in Battlefield 2042. At launch, DICE went thermonuclear on the class system, blowing up the concept of classes and divvying up their duties among “specialists” with unique gadgets and overlapping equipment. Their gadgets suggested a specialty, like Falck’s medic pistol, but DICE wanted to get away from the pesky shackles of defined kit. Any specialist could use any gun or secondary gadget.

It was a madhouse: Assaults could heal their team while shooting rockets, engineers could resupply their own Stinger missiles, recons had every tactical advantage with none of the risk, and nobody had to rely on each other for anything. The butchered roles were so unpopular that DICE eventually recanted on its “play your way” vision and reintroduced class-specific gadgets.

Keep up to date with the most important stories and the best deals, as picked by the PC Gamer team.

It was better, but the problem was only half solved: weapons remained open to all classes, and that created the half-hearted class system that persisted into Battlefield 6.

(Image credit: EA)

The assault rifle “problem”

During a Q&A with press at a Battlefield 6 reveal event in July, DICE’s Johan Andersson and David Sirland suggested that open weapons solves an “assault rifle problem” that existed in past Battlefields. Their metrics showed that people tend to pick classes based on weapons, so the class with the most versatile and easy-to-use weapons (Assaults with assault rifles) became the most popular.

Classes are not meant to be equally popular in Battlefield.

The perceived imbalance created the impression that teams “never have enough medics” because everybody wants ARs and grenade launchers, not the LMGs and med bags of the Bad Company games. In an attempt to lean into the assault rifle’s popularity, Battlefield 3 and 4 gave medics exclusive access to assault rifles, ensuring that the most popular class would also serve an important support role.

It worked, but not without consequence: merging two important roles left a utility vacuum for the dedicated Support class (with its LMG and ammo box) that made it weak and unused. The problem with the “assault rifle problem” is that it was never truly a problem. The assault rifle is the most popular type of gun because the Assault class is supposed to be the most popular class.

Balanced imbalance

Classes are not meant to be equally popular in Battlefield. Assaults were originally conceived as the frontline of the team—your basic rifleman grunt—with other classes serving specialized roles with situational kits. Weapon assignments have changed hands a lot over the years, but balancing classes through gun choice has been a constant. In Bad Company 2, for instance, the engineer’s power to fight tanks was checked by their limited range with SMGs.

Battlefield 6 is hurtling toward the most boring version of itself.

Anecdotally, this balanced imbalance worked wonders in the Battlefield 6 beta’s closed weapons playlist. Across 25 hours of matches, I noticed a plurality of Assaults (though the class was also popular for shotgun reasons), a decent number of medics and engineers, and even fewer snipers.

(Image credit: EA)

A comfortable spread of roles has positive knock-on effects: fewer scope glints on hills to worry about, fewer RPG barrages the moment you enter a tank, and an increased importance that teams protect their medics and stick together. It feels like Battlefield as it was meant to be.

Open weapons, for all its freedom of choice, turns your perfectly tuned gun into the star of the show, leaving classes themselves as an afterthought. The game theory behind a complete kit gets outshouted by the reliable hum of the M433 Assault Rifle with Compensated Muzzle Brake, 16.5″ Barrel, Ribbed Vertical Foregrip, Full Metal Jacket Ammunition, 30-round Fast Mag, and OSA-7 1.00x Dot Sight.

No matter what gadgets are in your pocket, nothing informs your playstyle more than the gun in your hands, and if 18 years of Call of Duty create-a-class are any indication, then Battlefield 6 is hurtling toward the most boring version of itself.

Source link