In my Battlefield 6 campaign review I argued the single-player falls short in nearly every way — from a scattershot sequence of locations to constrictive, corridor-like missions that contradict the franchise’s tradition of sweeping, open warfare. By contrast, the multiplayer component is where Battlefield 6 truly shines: it’s the more compelling half of the game and feels like the first step toward restoring the series’ former glory.
Longtime fans will recognize echoes of the series’ peak — games such as Bad Company 2 and Battlefield 3 delivered enormous maps, sprawling encounters, large teams, and a satisfying mix of land, sea, and air combat. That feeling of total war has been elusive since the Battlefield 4 era. Battlefield 1 came close, but later entries like Battlefield 5 and 2042 missed the mark, with 2042 representing a particularly low point for many players.
Battlefield 6 feels like a deliberate course correction: when the map and mode line up, the game can conjure the same rush you felt a decade and a half ago. There are genuinely nostalgic moments — especially when you squad up and operate as a coordinated unit, whether you’re seizing objectives on foot or manning the multiple stations of a vehicle.
That doesn’t mean every match recaptures that grandeur. During the August beta, many feared the game would lean too aggressive and chase Call of Duty–style, close-quarters combat. Maps like Operation Firestorm and New Sobek City have assuaged some of those concerns, but with only nine maps at launch, a meaningful portion of Battlefield 6 still tips toward tighter, arena-like engagements.
Certain maps — Saints Quarter, Manhattan Bridge, and Empire State, to name a few — are tailored for tight, close-quarters fights. On those layouts, sniping and methodical, long-range tactics barely register. The problem is breadth: with only nine maps total, the roster lacks variety. The smaller arenas are enjoyable, but they don’t showcase what Battlefield does best and aren’t designed to compete with Call of Duty’s faster tempo.
Where Battlefield 6 really flourishes is in large-scale warfare. Whether your loadout favors a sniper rifle, an LMG, a carbine, or an assault rifle, slower-paced play and engagement at range feel more authentic to the series’ DNA. The gunplay is satisfying and the audio design nails the cinematic, blockbuster chaos — think massive explosions and sweeping, filmic moments that Call of Duty rarely aims for. Those strengths are muted on the compact maps.
The saving grace is that you can filter playlists and opt out of the smaller maps. I routinely exclude those arenas and stick to the mode variants that recreate the grand fights of Battlefield’s heyday. Still, it’s disappointing the developers chose to split focus: including content intended to chase Call of Duty’s style rather than committing fully to gigantic, objective-driven battles feels like a missed opportunity.
In short: Battlefield 6 is a strong return in multiplayer — but it’s an inconsistent one. At its best, the game reminds you why the franchise mattered; at its weakest, it’s uncertain about the identity it wants to occupy. Hopefully the post-launch roadmap adds more large-scale maps and modes so the multiplayer can lean into the epic combat that originally defined Battlefield.
Source: Polygon
