Battlefield 6 Review – Battlefield Is (Mostly) Back

Battlefield 6 has a lot on its shoulders. EA put the effort of four studios together under the Battlefield Studios banner (Motive, Criterion, Ripple Effect, and DICE) to try and get a win for the series after the overall loss that was Battlefield 2042. As of last week, it has to try to get people to forget that, in a year's time, EA will likely be a very different company under its new ownership, despite what chief executive officer Andrew Wilson might claim. It also has to try to compete with an annual franchise that makes up for nearly half the best-selling games on what is arguably the biggest console platform.

Battlefield 6 has to be good enough to account for all of that and hit the insane expectations that EA has for the game. So is it good enough to do all of that? Well, not really. If you were already rethinking your purchasing habits towards EA games based on who its new owners will be next year, if/when its privatization deal goes through, Battlefield 6 probably isn't going to stop you, nor is it a hill to die on. Can it compete head-to-head with Call of Duty on the sales charts? Again, probably not, though at the time of this writing, it seems to have more public favour than Call of Duty, so we'll see where we stand by the end of the year.

But can it make up for Battlefield 2042, and be definitive proof that this long-running series is back in fighting shape? Absolutely. Battlefield 6 is undoubtedly one of the best Battlefield games ever. What we all played and felt in the beta this summer was real; this is a return to form for the series, with large, well-designed maps and destruction mechanics that drive the idea of being in the middle of a major battle home.

A wide array of weapons that sound great and feel punchy to use, stunning visuals on every front, and as a small cherry on top, an actual campaign mode. It's unfortunate that the campaign isn't actually very memorable or overall that good, but it's better than nothing, and even a bit better than that.

Let me start there. The campaign takes place over the course of nine missions, and over the course of the six or so hours it took to play them, there are some truly stunning moments of spectacle. Battlefield is already capable of creating cinematic moments in its multiplayer, so it wasn't surprising to see it accomplish the same in an environment where it could carefully plan out and direct those moments for players.

Which is what makes it even more mind-boggling that those moments aren't everywhere in this campaign. I wouldn't say any of the missions are necessarily bad or that they're not fun to play through. They all reach a pretty fair quality bar, and they are all fun. Only a few of them, however, actually step up to the kind of quality that I'd expect from a campaign in a triple-A first-person shooter. I'm not saying it needed to have Baldur's Gate 3-level writing and characters, or that there should be environmental storytelling that rivals Elden Ring. I think we all know the score with shooter campaigns.

The most memorable ones play out like a really well-put-together action movie, with characters that are engaging enough so you care about them when they're in jeopardy, a score that properly backs up high-stakes moments, and spectacular, stunning, jaw-dropping action. And of course, the gameplay has to be solid throughout.

Battlefield 6 sees you step into the boots of different members of the Dagger 1-3 squad, beginning with a cutscene where the Dagger squad has infiltrated the house of someone who you learn is their CIA handler, Melissa Mills. The year is 2028, and in Battlefield 6's fictional version of Earth, a private military coalition formed by multiple countries called Pax Armata has essentially waged war on the rest of the world and specifically anyone still part of NATO, caused enough political rifts to have even more countries on its side looking for protection, and is armed to the teeth with a seemingly endless supply of new weapons and recruits. They're generally faceless, save for an antagonist called Kincaid, not representative of any particular country, and the sort of 'enemy faction' that can be vague enough to try and remove any of the political realities of making a military shooter centred around American soldiers as the 'heroes.'

2 of 9

There are five members in Dagger 1-3, with the initial four each representing one of the classes you play as in multiplayer. Haz Carter is the squad leader and Assault character, Dylan Murphy is the squad's Engineer, Simone 'Gecko' Espina is the Recon member, and Cliff Lopez is the Support member of the squad. Hemlock is the fifth member of the squad, described as a CIA operative who we don't know much about. Almost like his poisonous name is meant to represent something deeper.

As Murphy interrogates Mills about the truth and the true objectives behind each of their missions, starting in 2027, you play through each of them, cutting back to the house for another cutscene to set up the next mission in between most of them. I don't want to spoil what happens, but I will say that it's terribly underwhelming the whole way through when it comes to the story. It falls particularly at the end, since it clearly sets up some sort of continuation that I have no doubt will be sold in a future DLC package or poorly continued through an element of Battlefield's live service trappings. That might sound cynical, but I don't have any reason not to be when it comes to EA repackaging elements of games that used to just be in the game you bought and reselling them to you in a drip feed and charging $25-a-pop for each.

Gameplay-wise, thankfully, it's a much better experience throughout. The first mission, 'Always Faithful', is a bombastic opening that starts things on the right foot. 'Night Raid' does a good job at filling the spot of obligatory night-vision-focused mission, and 'Moving Mountains' has a fun and intense chase sequence where you get the President out of a burning New York. The final two missions, 'Operation Ember Strike' and 'Always Forward', are perhaps the two most spectacle-filled missions across the whole campaign, and unsurprisingly, the best missions in the campaign.

What I did appreciate was how elements of the multiplayer made their way into the campaign. Since each level is mostly set within a map you'll play again and again in multiplayer matches, it was nice to see those maps still open to you in a way that lets you choose your own approach in each firefight. It wasn't so linear that you were completely on a track the whole time; you had the space to try a different route or strategy, including destroying the entire building that a Pax soldier was taking cover in. You could also be revived (though this option is removed on the hardest difficulty) and revive your squadmates, and they would respond to different call-outs you make, adding a small flavouring of tactical shooter gameplay to the campaign.

Unfortunately, that element isn't executed very well and is easily ignored. There were also more than a few bugs I encountered while playing. Some were small and more comical, like watching a floating pair of goggles be handed to me, and others were genuine interruptions, like how every time you made it to a point in the level where you watched a short in-game cutscene, it awkwardly set you in position, cutting whatever momentum you began to feel.

There was also plenty of visual pop-in, and when I consider the bugs, with the lacking story, and the fact that some levels didn't have the kind of action-spectacle I'd expect, and how very silly it felt every time a member of the squad would yell out, "Engineer down!" or a different bark that represented a Pax soldeir by his assumed class, it all left me feeling like Battlefield 6's campaign lacks a few layers of polish.

2 of 9

But even that still makes it a 'not bad' compared to other games at this scale doing a campaign, because most other shooters trying to be as big as Battlefield 6 don't even bother with a campaign nowadays. They go all-in on multiplayer.

Which is also true here, in many ways. In fact, when you finish the campaign, EA adds the "Uninstall campaign" button to the home screen to ensure you have enough space for the multiplayer and the constant updates it is sure to receive. So with that in mind, let's move on to the multiplayer, which is really what we're all here for.

A couple of bits of housekeeping to get out of the way first. Due to the fact that (despite some copies getting into the wild), there just simply weren't as many people playing in multiplayer matches over the course of the review period as there will be when the game is out and available to everyone, every match I played was filled with bots, one way or another.

I also didn't get to spend any time with Portal, though that's because it wasn't made available during the review period "due to some unexpected infrastructure and global logistics issues." EA clarified that the mode will be available at launch despite the issues preventing it from being available for reviews.

So the multiplayer experience I had for this review is not the one that you will have when you load up your first match on launch. But I can still talk about how the weapons feel, the maps, and the breadth of what's available to you in Battlefield 6's multiplayer.

Starting with the last point on that list: it's a lot. That's not to say it doesn't need more content, just that it has a good foundation at launch. There are seven game modes (not counting variations like CQB, Closed Weapons, or separating Squad and regular Team Deathmatch) for regular multiplayer play, each of them satisfying a different element of Battlefield gameplay. Conquest, Breakthrough, and Rush still deliver on the kind of spectacle I expect from a Battlefield game, and I'm very glad to see how well destruction has been implemented to add what was a missing piece from Battlefield 2042's gameplay.

Adding in the many variations on each mode, and the launch of Portal, and you'll always have an option for the kind of gameplay experience you want to have. It's also a strong suite of maps, though I already have favourites among the nine available at launch. Liberation Peak, Mirak Valley, and New Sobek City stand out as my top three maps for larger-scale battles, while Saints Quarter absolutely takes the cake for the close-quarters-focused maps. If anything, I would like to see smaller maps of the same calibre added to the roster sooner rather than later, since whenever I'm playing any other map, I just find myself wishing it were Saints Quarter instead.

That said, I don't want to see the large-scale maps get any bigger. I'd appreciate more verticality, but the size of these maps all feels just right for large-scale battles without feeling like you have to run for miles to get back into the action.

As I mentioned earlier regarding the weapons, they feel and sound great to use (the same goes for the vehicles), and I'm already enjoying working my way through to unlock each one, but I'm not entirely sold on how you unlock the full arsenal. It's not just about reaching an overall level or mastery; you have to complete specific challenges, which, on the one hand, is beneficial because you can focus on just completing that challenge instead of grinding to level 25 or whatever to unlock it. But I don't love how that switches your focus in a match from playing with your squad and completing the objective to completing your own personal goal, which might not be what your team needs in that moment.

I've no problem grinding for levels, I know that's the deal here, and I'm ready for that. It's a way to shake things up and opens an avenue through which you can dictate how you unlock and experience the weapons available. I'm just not sure I gel with it.

On the performance and technical side of things, besides the bugs I mentioned in the campaign, and some connection issues that were more likely due to something on my end or the fact that EA and Battlefield Studios were doing maintenance at times when the multiplayer servers were live for us to use, it was a smooth experience on my PlayStation 5 console.

Of course, the reality when reviewing any multiplayer-focused game is that it will change. In six months' time, with new maps, weapons, vehicles, and game modes, Battlefield 6 could look entirely different. The first new map, game mode, vehicle, and weapons arrive before the end of the month on October 28.

And I'm really looking forward to it. The single-player experience might be lacking in polish, but the multiplayer experience couldn't be any shinier for launch. It's true; Battlefield is back, and I hope this is only the beginning, with the quality bar trending upwards from here.

PS5 version tested. Review code provided by the publisher.

You can find additional information about our standard review process and ethics policy here.

8.5

WCCFTECH RATING

Battlefield 6

Battlefield 6 is an incredibly strong return to form for the series, with a multiplayer experience that is finely tuned with huge potential for what it could build into, destruction mechanics that bring a level of immersion back to the series that it was missing, and a more than solid visual and sound design package tying up how endlessly fun it is to play. The single-player campaign fails to impress, but the multiplayer experience more than makes up for it.

Pros

• Punchy weapons that sound and feel great to use
• Good suite of launch maps
• Destruction mechanics that add a layer to the gameplay Battlefield was missing
• A good amount of variety between game modes

Cons

• An overall mediocre single-player campaign

Buy for $69.00 from Amazon The links above are affiliate links. As an Amazon Associate, Wccftech.com may earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow Wccftech on Google to get more of our news coverage in your feeds.