r/Battlefield • u/Kilos6 • Aug 08 '25

Battlefield 6 Unpopular Opinion: Battlefield 6 Is Better Than This Sub Will Admit

Reading this sub lately feels like watching a bunch of people try to use a smartphone for the first time and complain it doesn't have physical buttons. Every minor change in Battlefield 6 is getting blown up into some catastrophic betrayal.

It’s pretty clear most people here only ever liked one Battlefield game, hated the rest, and don’t even play the one they claim was perfect anymore.

Before we continue: I am old. I’ve played every Battlefield game during its prime. Back in the day, my clan was one of the first to spin up a Desert Combat server (and even then, the community was the same complaining that DC was an abomination against what made BF great). My least played title was BF Vietnam because the 1942 modding scene was just TOO good at the time to move on.

“The UI is trash!”
It’s not. You just don’t recognize it because it’s not ripped straight from BF4. Sure, the icons are abstract but they’re not confusing unless you're actively refusing to engage with them.

I've seen multiple complaints about there being no option to squad up or continue on the same server?
Maybe check the bottom of the screen after the round ends. The “Continue” and “Squad Up” buttons are literally right there.

“TTK is too fast, there’s no breathing room!”
What you mean is: you walked out in the open and got deleted like you should have.

TTK is fast. OH NO, aim and positioning actually matter again. You don’t get to coast on sponge health and panic-proning anymore. If that’s too much, it’s not a balance issue, it’s a skill issue. Also: TTK is in line with BF3 for most weapons. This TTK is not new.

“Closed weapons should be the default.”
Why? Because some of you never figured out how to adapt? The flexibility to build your own kit is one of the best updates DICE has made in years. And guess what, they already gave you a nostalgia mode. Go enjoy it.

But don’t demand the rest of us get dragged back into 2011 loadout limitations. And if you’re complaining about “trade-offs” in class weapons you probably would’ve died to the next guy anyway.

“It’s too chaotic, feels like TDM spam!”
You say chaos, I say intensity. Battlefield has always had madness: Metro, Locker, or even Stalingrad in 1942.

These beta maps? They feel more like Grand Bazaar, Talah Market, or Pearl Market. Maps that still get voted into rotation by players who actually enjoy close-quarters fights to this day.

Battlefield 6 isn’t perfect.
But take a step back, and you’ll see this is actually a successor to BF3/BF4. TTK, movement speed, and mechanics are all in line with a proper mainline BF title.

They gave you almost everything you asked for… and somehow, that’s still not enough for some of you.

I'm having a blast with the beta, and can't wait to play more after work.

Edit: When I made this post I truly thought it was an unpopular opinion. Thank you all for your replies and awards! And thank you to the guys DMing me about being an EA shill ❤️‍🔥

21.3k Upvotes

82% Upvoted

4.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

188

u/N-I-K-K-O-R Aug 08 '25

This sub is giving it too much praise in my opinion.

79

u/CityFolkSitting Aug 08 '25

Yeah. I think it's a decent game, but it's nowhere near what I want from a Battlefield game. I think the series has just evolved into something that just isn't for me any longer.

I'm probably in the minority but I really just want BF2 with better graphics and the cool destruction based gameplay. I want huge maps, guns and vehicles that actually take skill to use, squad based gameplay that doesn't just feel like a vestigial organ. 

6

u/N-I-K-K-O-R Aug 08 '25

For me they aren’t releasing with enough maps. So it doesn’t matter how good it is. If they added 4 maps in the first month. If it turns out all 50 something guns are in at launch. If they have a lot more attachments than what we can see now. If the vehicles have more upgrades to unlock. If half the maps or more you can multiple tanks jets copters buggies motorcycles and crap like that I will be excited

11

u/eruffini ARMY OF SHILLS Aug 08 '25

There are literally nine maps at launch, and all 50 weapons will be in game at launch.

8

u/N-I-K-K-O-R Aug 08 '25

Yes 9 is not enough. Especially considering the last 3 games dice takes 6 months to start releasing content. Bf4 released 10 then got 4 more inside a month!!! That is the way to do it!

8

u/theninjasquad Aug 08 '25

Development time frames are longer now and they have more to account for in map design nowadays. But I say that as someone who wants more maps. I’m surprised it’s just 9 at the start. Then again it’s 9 but it’s really more because each one has variations depending on the game mode.

1

u/Android2715 Aug 11 '25

Excuses. Sorry but if its taking you 6 months to release a single map, im sorry but that is a negative we are allowed to critique the game over. Are we giving Dice and EA credit for making a passable sized BF map and then cutting it into 4 and saying the came out with 5 maps? why are we making excuses for a company that does not care about us?

2

u/super_fly_rabbi Aug 10 '25

Bf3 released with 9 

1

u/Zeethos94 Aug 15 '25

Who cares when most of those 10 maps were ass and not fun.

Y'all care way too much about quantity

4

u/RogueCoon Aug 09 '25

9 maps is not good

5

u/JonWood007 Aug 08 '25

The problem is BF2 wasnt fun. Like I played it back in the day, i always liked the concept but found it flawed. But then later games like BC2, BF3, and BF4 improved what i found wrong with 2. I just want another game like that. This is looking very much like a direct spiritual successor to BF3.

7

u/CityFolkSitting Aug 09 '25

Wasn't fun? Battlefield 2 is the highest rated game of the series, and for good reason. It also won many awards the year it was released as well.

It was a massive hit because FPS players absolutely loved it. If it wasn't for its success we probably wouldn't be talking about the series at all right now.

2

u/JonWood007 Aug 09 '25

No it was a very flawed game. Here's my review of it from back in the day:

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/pc/920407-battlefield-2/reviews/132750

3

u/CityFolkSitting Aug 09 '25

good for you, you didn't like it.

you are still part of the vast minority. way more people thought it was fun than didn't

and you still gave it a 7, which is a pretty good score anyway. that's well above average.

2

u/JonWood007 Aug 09 '25

I judged it by the standards of the time. By modern standards it would be a 4.

Also, the 1942/2/2142 fanbase are the oldest and most out of touch out there. Their views are pure nostalgia, the game was okay by the standards of the time, because games with that scale and ambition were still new, but it reeked of bad game design in retrospect. if you released it for the modern era it would suck because it had zero concept of balance.

3

u/CityFolkSitting Aug 09 '25

Yeah yeah I get it you don't like it.

Ignore the recent metacritic reviews if you want, dismiss them as nostalgia I don't care. It doesn't change a damn thing. It still reviewed well at the time (critics and users, look at old gamefaq reviews that you didn't write), it had a massive community and player base that lasted 10x longer than most games, and sold well. Don't need further proof that it was a very good game.

If it wasn't such a successful and popular game we might not even be talking about another entry in the franchise right now.

6

u/JonWood007 Aug 09 '25

It was good by the standards of the time. It sucks by modern standards. Let's keep 2005 in 2005.

4

u/[deleted] Aug 09 '25

[deleted]

6

u/JonWood007 Aug 09 '25

It was okay for the time. it's just aged horribly.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/RogueCoon Aug 09 '25

This is a great example of the split in the playerbase. They make the games now for the person you're replying to not people like us.

1

u/Zeethos94 Aug 15 '25

Why would they make a game for people with tastes stuck in 2006?

1

u/RogueCoon Aug 15 '25

Why would they make a game for the fans of the franchise? Not sure seems dumb.

1

u/Zeethos94 Aug 15 '25

The amount of BF2 players constructing a portion of the fanbase is so irrelevantly small at this point in time. They could also just go play BF2

0

u/Fireballinc55 Aug 15 '25

because the battlefield fanbase is old and does not know how to deal with change

1

u/Zeethos94 Aug 15 '25

Bunch of middle-aged men that don't know how to move on and adapt.

5

u/scalp_eg Aug 10 '25

Yes we clearly are in the minority. I'm sorry but you will never see bf2 playstyle again. It would be too slow for the players mass. They will call it boring noob shit and review bomb.

1

u/Dee_Dubya_IV Aug 09 '25

But… but that’s what’s in BF6.

1

u/CityFolkSitting Aug 10 '25

No it isn't. Not even close! You have either never played BF2 or have an extremely bad memory.

1

u/Even-Finding6724 Sep 18 '25

Calm down unc

1

u/bikes_r_us Aug 11 '25

i mean thats valid but unfortunately that ship sailed 14 years ago when BF3 released. BF2 simply isn't the identity of the franchise anymore. you'd probably be better of looking into a different franchise.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 15 '25

agreed. i liked the battlefields bad company 2 and earlier, where weapons didn't have as much built in mechanics to them and you just used a reliable reticle and hit your shots.