Review Date: 2026-01-27
Release Date: 2025-10-10
Developer, Publisher: Battlefield Studios, Electronic Arts
Verdict: Needs Improvement
Disclaimer: This review was written on 2026-01-27 and reviews the state of the game at that point in time. Any additional patches, updates, and DLC delivered since that time are not included in the scope of this review.
Battlefield 6 is a hard review to write, and is the story of two games. On the one hand, its release seemingly marked a shift back to the realism of the older titles in the genre, but on the other hand, the game is plagued by a number of modern triple "A" developer mechanics and gameplay decisions that keep it from being great.
As a Battlefield veteran, while I have been disappointed with years of recent releases, this one has managed to at least capture some of my attention, but I fear that it lacks the staying power of its early predecessors, given these issues.
If Battlefield Studios/Electronic Arts doesn't do something soon, I believe the game will fall off into obscurity.
My first Battlefield game was Battlefield: Bad Company on the Xbox 360. While I had certainly played plenty of local/co-op shooters before (e.g. Conflict: Desert Storm and Star Wars: Battlefront), Battlefield: Bad Company was probably the first online multiplayer shooter I played heavily.
There was something special about that game that kept me addicted (and not in a bad way). It scratched both the competitive itch, the creative itch (from the strategy building and different playstyles available), and was plenty enough "cool war" vibes for its time, when I was teenager. A lot of my time in those years were spent playing Battlefield: Bad Company, Battlefield: Bad Company 2, Battlefield: Heroes, Battlefield: Play4Free, Battlefield 3, and Battlefield 4. I did have some playtime with Battlefield 2 and Battlefield 1942, but my time with those games were dwarfed by the others in this list.
After BF4, I did play the beta for Battlefield: Hardline, and a free weekend for Battlefield One or V, but I think here inlies where the series started having problems.
This is where Battlefield started experimenting more, despite it seeming like nobody was really asking for it.
Sure, the concept of cops vs. robbers is cool. Sure, exploring more historical wars can be cool. However, this was the start of an entire decade of Battlefield games that weren't "true" Battlefield games, in my opinion.
Furthermore, not only did these releases no longer feel like the traditional "Battlefield" format, but each new release continued to burn through community goodwill, with controversy after controversy as they continued to tear the series away from what it used to be.
This continued all the way through Battlefield 2042, which was initially such a colossal failure, that I believed that the series actually was likely going to be discontinued
However, during this time, you still saw populations of Battlefield fans populating the older titles, like BF4, even as the newer titles struggled.
It seems that the massive failure of Battlefield 2042 (ands its recent predecessors) finally caused EA to rethink how they approached the series, which led to the development of Battlefield 6.
As mentioned in the beginning of the review, it does seem like Battlefield Studios and Electronic Arts made some attempt to return to the standard forumla.
BF6 marked the return to modern-era combat themes and somewhat more traditional gameplay, which saw the sale of millions of copies, massive hype, and high player counts.
However, the cracks in the veneer began to show rather quickly, within the games' first few months.
One of the primary complaints from BF 2042 was that EA seemed to be attempting to cash-in on the hero-shooter craze, turning their players from nameless soldiers into cringey fake characters with pointless backgrounds.
The purpose of this, of course, seemed to be that by creating specific characters, they could then attempt to capitalize on character-specific skins and gear (like other popular hero shooters). However, the playerbase was certainly against this shoehorned moneygrab and its effect on gameplay and the experience.
While, in a story-mode campaign settings, this type of character certainly works great (see the Bad Company cast), in a multiplayer mode, it doesn't make much sense for the same clearly identifiable man to be running around the map a warzone, making it look like a battle of identical twins, especially when character skins started looking silly and unrealistic.
This isn't to say there isn't a time or place for these types of skins, or that multiple of the same character model can't be done right (see the previous BF titles...), but the way 2042 executed it just does not fit well into the Battlefield aesthetic.
As a result, Battlefield Studios/EA opted for realism in the uniforms for BF6... to the point that I believe I saw them clowning on CoD for their skins on social media. However they already appear to be walking this back.
For starters, they did bring back "heroes". Each character does have a name and backstory, and face coverings for many of the characters are unfortunately few and far in-between. Furthermore, with the slow trickle of new skins and "characters", many of the releases have been for maskless characters, rather than "generic" soldiers.
These "heroes" are class-specific, except for those in the newest releases, which are class agnostic, but at least are faction-locked, so that you don't have a situation wherein a character model could be on both teams.
As for the camo-variants of character skins and weapon/vehicle skins, everything just feels a little off. There are a few interesting patterns here and there, but a lot of the camos and character models just look like they were vomitted out.
It is rare that I see a uniform in this game that I think looks cool, rather it just seems like color options for color options sake, with no visual/aesthetic appeal.
Unfortunately, classes and class readability both suffer as a result of both these cosmetic choices and gameplay decisions.
Cosmetically, in BF6, classes are identified by the gadget on their back. If you see a man running around in a ghillie suit, you can no longer assume that they are a recon player. While there are some general cosmetic trends within the "heroes" for each class, the recent releases of class-agnostic "hero" skins (i.e. character models that can be chosen for any class) has further muddied the waters and damaged class readability.
This is worsened by the fact that, mechanically, Battlefield Studios/EA has chosen to make weapons class agnostic as well. While in classic Battlefield titles, weapon types would be locked to a respective class (e.g. sniper rifle for recon, LMG for support, etc.), in BF6, every class can use every weapon.
There is a partial attempt at balancing this via two methods: class-locked gadgets (making a return from previous titles) and class-specific weapon perks. For example, only the support class can use the defibs, and only the support class will receive a negation of the LMG speed penalties. In theory, this does a little bit, but in practice everyone still runs around with SMGs and assault rifles.
As a result, classes are looser than ever, and readability and squad/team composition is at a low point.
As mentioned, I regularly see large swaths of the lobby running around with SMGs and assault rifles, which generally appear to have the shortest TTK (from my non-mathematic observations). There isn't much a variety, and it does seem like metas have already been chosen (whereas in previous titles, it felt like you'd still see more of a variety in play).
Part of this may be due to the fact that there just doesn't seem to be that much weapon variety in general, and unlocks are per-weapon, so people may be less inclined to switch and test out other guns/metas.
Another quick note, but it doesn't seem like they paid for real gun name licensing for a good chunk of the weapons this time around, which while there are certainly legal/monetary reasons to choose to not buy licensing, leaves the game feeling a bit less grounded with fake names all over.
On the topic of classes, one thing that has struck me as odd (and kind of cringe) is that they added what is essentially ultimates to each class. Earn enough experience with your class during the course of the match, and you will progress through "perk" tiers that give you special bonuses, and the last tier lets you activate an ultimate ability. For example, upon progressing to one of the lower tiers of experience for recon in a match, the player will unlock the passive perk of their headshots rendering enemies un-reviveable, and their ultiamte ability deploys a UAV to scan the area.
While per-match progression isn't necessarily unheard of (look at the classic version of Star Wars: Battlefront II), it does feel oddly shoehorned in, and out of place. My assumption is that it was a way to further "balance" classes, but in practice, it would seem to actually encourage players to not swap to a proper team composition, as I do not believe that per-match progression transfers between classes when swapping (e.g. a sniper that has already unlocked multiple passive perk tiers in the match may be less inclined to swap to a class where they have not unlocked any passive perks yet that match.)
All that said, most of the perks and ultimates are not that overpowered, but some of them do have a fairly substantial impact on the match (especially recon's).
One area that I will give Battlefield Studios/EA at least some credit is the class-specific gadgets.
This is pretty much the only remaining defining factor between classes, and does at least still have some minor degree of impact on squad and team composition and strategy, and there are some pretty interesting choices that play pretty well into the class roles.
For example, support getting a deployable shield actually plays pretty well into the role of supporting your team (e.g. placing down cover to revive, heal, and protect teammates), and assault getting a deployable ladder plays pretty well into the role of entry fragging and increasing pressure by opening up new opportunities to push the enemy.
Of course, you need to unlock many of the gadgets per class, which often requires beating specific challenges/goals... and I really wish this wasn't in the game.
The challenges are honestly moreso a distraction from the actual game, than an extension of it. For example, you will see people running around only using the inced launcher to complete a challenge, or only trying for knife kills to complete a challenge, to unlock a gadget, skin, or another challenge.
If they were implemented better, it could be fun, but as it stands, they feel extremely tedious (and also hurt team focus/strategy, when people are off doing some chore instead of playing the game). Case and point, many of the challenges have had their requirements reduced since the release of the game.
The other way to (separately) unlock (exclusive) skins is with money... and while many of them do suck, I am glad to report that the game is still enjoyable and most of the purchaseable things are gegnerally not gameplay impacting.
Don't get me wrong, there are ludicrous prices for characters/skins ($20 for cosmetic pack?!?!), and of course there's the FOMO inducing battlepass and limited time skin store that every live service game seems to need to shove down players throats these days, but at the very least (for now) it is primarily skins.
I have felt pretty satisifed not spending any additional money on the game (though it probably helps that most of the skins look like vomit), and I am appreciative that the game is not (yet) P2W.
And hey, I haven't seen any lootcrates yet, so at least they aren't (yet) getting people addicted to gambling.
However, they are attempting to provide a different kind of dopamine rush to players, and that is very apparent in the maps and some other gameplay decisions.
One of my biggest complaints with BF6 is the map size. Unlike previous titles (see Harvest Day, Oasis, End of the Line, etc.), the maps in BF6 are very tiny and especially narrow. The gameplay is designed around funneling players through narrow corridors/roads, and limiting flanking ability.
This is especially important to note, given that BF6 has seemingly heavily increased on-foot movement speed. Players can now, seemingly, traverse the map quicker than ever, leading to a more infantry focused fight, and quicker engagement times.
My assumption is that this was done to blast even more quick-dopamine release action into our world of shortened attention spans. Unfortunately, as a result it takes away from some of the strategizing, creatitivity, and charm of the game.
Matches quickly turn into mindless rushing, with few vehicles to support pushes (though they are regularly experimenting with vehicle spawn balancing).
Unfortunately, this lack of vehicles is really apparent, and is one of the main factors that makes BF6 feel less like a classic Battlefield game.
Coming from BFBC1, where the primary multiplayer mode was Rush (Conquest was released later as DLC!), I like my battlefield games to have a good distance between spawn and objective, with vehicles used to transport and apply pressure. Going forward, Rush was my primary gamemode in Battlefield, followed by a healthy chunk of Conquest.
Much to my despair, they completely ruined Rush in BF6. You're lucky to see even one vehicle spawn, and the objectives are extremely close to the spawns.
While this breaks my heart, Breakthrough scratches a sort of similar itch as classic Rush, but it still often suffers from the same close spawn, narrow-action corridor, and few vehicle problem that plagues most of BF6.
I do hope that BF6 sees the return of more classic maps, but I do fear that even classic maps will suffer greatly under the new gameplay mechanics and rules of this game.
The whole destruction part of the gameplay is also a portion of this... there isn't much rhyme or reason to it. Buildings fall apart without much notice and fall apart extremely quickly (if they can even be damaged), which while cool, still lacks the charm of BFBC1 and BFBC2 environment destruction, and map changing events of later titles.
The story mode of this game has failed to draw me in. I completed about half of the campaign missions, and just have not had the motivation (with my already limited time) to subject myself to the rest of it.
Battlefield already had a cool way to do "army vs mercenary group", which was featured heavily in BFBC1 (i.e. the Legionnaire mercenaries in the middle of the US war with the Russians), but unlike the old DICE days, Battlefield Studios seems no longer capable of writing a script that isn't generic action slop.
Oh yeah, and they shoved a F2P battle royale mode into the game, because of course they did.
Overall, writing this review makes me a little sad for what we've lost from classic BF titles, and knowing that those days are over. That said, Battlefield 6 is a decent enough game in of itself, even if it only has the tiniest bit of that Battlefield soul left in its bones.
For a generic, mindless, fun, sit-down and click heads for a bit shooter, with a bit more meat than some other games on the market, it certainly is serviceable. I wouldn't have already put 121 hours into the game, at time of writing, if it didn't have at least some fun on offer.
That said, with a sharp decline in players, I don't know if the game will honestly survive much longer, unless it really turns things around with Season 2 and beyond. (It does have crossplay going for it, to prolong its death, at least...)
© 2026 MidwestDad96. All rights reserved.