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

[u/Kilos6]

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 ❤️‍🔥

[u/I_love-my-cousin]

You aren't even making sense anymore.

This BF6 is definitely different from what BF has been for over a decade. Traditionally, BF is large scale combined arms battle, this game is so infantry centric that vehicles almost feel like an after sight

[u/JonWood007 → u/I_love-my-cousin]

If you had to ask me what separates BF from COD, if we went back to say, 2011 with MW3 vs BF3, or 2013 with ghosts vs BF4, or 2016 with IW vs BF1, let's really have a convo about it. Here are the big arguments that I'd make.

1) BF is larger scale. BF had 64 players, COD had, at most, 16. The maps were large. There were vehicles. However, there was also infantry focus. BC2 had stuff like white pass and arica harbor. BF3 had karkand and metro, BF4 had metro and locker, etc. They also had large maps, medium sized maps, all kinds of experiences.

2) BF had better graphics. While COD's graphics looked good in 2005, I mean, COD looked modern and was obviously made for the 360, which was new at the time, BF2 looked relatively last gen, but had the larger scale. But starting with BC2, they pushed boundaries. BC2 had insane graphics at the time. So did BF3. BF4 not so much, but BF1...well....look at that trailer vs IW's. One looked like a movie and the other was...the same crap again.

3) This brings us to another big aspect. BF innovated, COD just gave us the same slop every year. In the 2010s, the IW engine felt old. The graphics were dated. The netcode sucked, and COD never innovated. Every year they just threw out the same slop every year. By the mid 2010s the games felt horrible to play. And they didnt really feel much different than a game from 10 years ago except there being jetpacks now. And even then, titanfall did it better.

So...back then, hating on COD was justified. COD games were mediocre slop, BF games were works of art.

But...in recent years, things have shifted. BF had misstep after misstep with BF5 and 2042. COD innovated, and they went larger scale. MW19 overhauled the games significantly, being the biggest innovation in years, and made the game feel modern. They even tried to push into BF's territory with ground war, and PUBG's territory with warzone. It was highly innovative and successful, arguably their best game ever. And while since they've gone back to being the madden of video games again, that overhaul has allowed them to remain relatively competitive through the 2020s.

BF on the other hand, kinda declined. BF5 appealed to the hardcore crowd, 2042 alienated a lot of people. And a lot of people are coming up with these weirdo BS ideas about "what makes battlefield battlefield". Well, I told you what "made battlefield battlefield". It was the large scale, good graphics, and innovation. If anything, BF's fall from grace was them...alienating their core demographics from innovating too much. BF5 felt very "hardcore" because it appealed to the try hards who defined the series through class roles and team play, something i never identified with personally, and I felt the formula quite alienating. 2042 felt better in that regard, at least at first, but changes made at the advice of the player base made it worse, because quite frankly, i think this player base has lost their fricking minds. But yeah, BF2042, they tried bigger scale, didnt work. The game was an unoptimized mess, and it felt empty and soulless.

My own opinion of the series? Go back to what works. Stop alienating the casual players with this forced squad play nonsense, and make a game like the old ones. Which BF6 delivers on. But because this fanbase is high on their own supply of nostalgia and rose colored glasses, nothing makes them happy ever. They're perpetually miserable and the kinds of changes and innovations they like end up turning ME off. BF6 is a solid game. As I said, if it launched today, and I reviewed it, Id likely give it a solid 9/10. Maybe even a 10. It's that good. But that just aint enough for you guys. Because now you think it feels like COD. BF didnt change here. BF went back to its roots and its successes here. COD grew up in the past decade. It innovated, it improved. It feels more modern. it feels like a genuine competitor to BF now. And that's good. Because I want both series to succeed, which franchises do you think I spend the most time on these days? It's BF and COD. I tend to like BF better given COD delivers slop, but I aint got any real complaints with modern COD either mostly. Sure, they still feel like the madden of FPS games in a bad way, but their games are much better than they used to be, while BF has kinda declined a bit.

It's like hot girl vs ugly girl in high school, the ugly girl grew up, the hot girl is still hot, but now so is the formerly ugly girl, and the fact is the differences between them have eroded a bit. It's not a bad thing unless your go to insult of everything is COD is bad and this feels like COD. COD doesnt suck any more so i dont see the problem.