10 Things Battlefield 6 Needs to Succeed 

10+Things+Battlefield+6+Needs+to+Succeed%C2%A0

By Spencer Thompson, Assistant Reporter

10 Things Battlefield 6 Needs to Succeed 

 

 Sometime soon, possibly even by the time this comes out, Battlefield 6 will likely get some sort of teaser or reveal trailer. The FPS (First person shooter) market has been pretty dry for a while, and the thought of a new Battlefield game has brought up online hype considerably. Leaks and rumors have filled Youtube feeds and reddit threads for months now. However, there is a certain level of reservation the community has for any new Battlefield. Battlefield 5 was a disaster – a poor marketing campaign, preceded as lackluster launch, which itself preceded an even worse live service. Despite solid gunplay and movement, the game was lacking in content, game-breaking bugs were constantly added with every update, and developer communication was rare. It never felt grand or massive as a Battlefield game should. It certainly didn’t feel like World War 2, and overall the game was lacking in direction. These issues alienated the player base and the once proud franchise that was Battlefield was left behind as newer titles like Warzone and Apex Legends filled the void.

 

 

Battlefield needs a home run to remain relevant, and currently multiple studios are working on Battlefield. Battlefront II was canceled in order to focus on it, and according to EA, progress is going well, so it appears that things are looking up. However, even with all these studios, success is not guaranteed. Here are 10 things Battlefield 6 absolutely needs to rise from the dead. 

 

 

1.) Larger Player Counts 

 

 

This is the most obvious improvement that needs to be made. The Battlefield brand has been defined by large scale battles. If the hyper-close quarters, 6v6 competitor Call of Duty can reach 150-200 players a server, then Battlefield certainly can. Think how exciting storming a beach would be with 64 other players instead of just the regular 32. For years the Battlefield franchise has been limited by old hardware and having to improvise to create increasing scale (Levolution, Behemoths). But with the new consoles, they have the opportunity for real groundbreaking advancement.  

 

 

2.) Modern Setting 

 

 

 

Possibly the most requested aspect of Battlefield 6, everyone wants a modern-day setting. I adored the World War 1 setting of the Battlefield 1, and was excited, at first, for World War 2 in Battlefield 5. However, not only do people want a change of pace, but at the same time people want the modern day because of the gameplay it can provide. In a modern setting, there is more customization, helicopters make a return, there are more fancy gadgets for people to play with and overall, it allows for a lot more possibility in what Battlefield can do.   

 

 

3.) Gunsmith 

 

 

While some people may find this to be more personal preference than necessity, I think it is integral to bringing back Battlefield. Gunsmith is the next evolution in weapon progression and customization. One of the most universally praised aspects of Call of Duty’s Modern Warfare 2019 was its gunsmithing system. What was once an assault rifle could now become a LMG or carbine. It allowed for unprecedented personalization, and one could spend hours perfecting their loadout. Battlefield is the perfect game for this feature, it would be a travesty not to include it.  

 

 

4.) Focus on combined arms 

 

 

A common complaint of Battlefield 5 was that it did not feel like Battlefield. When people say this they mean that they did not feel a part of a massive warzone, but instead a small skirmish. I think the reason for this was 5’s lack of focus on combined arms, by which I mean armored vehicles, aircraft, combat ships and infantry working in tandem. Few of 5’s maps truly took advantage of this combined arms style gameplay. Examples from previous titles would be Golmud Railway from Battlefield 4 and Sinai Desert from Battlefield 1. Battlefield 6 needs to realize that Battlefield works best when it allows for the interesting dynamics between vehicles and infantry to take place. This is not to say that limited vehicles or infantry maps don’t have their place, they simply shouldn’t be the go-to. 

  

 

5.) Smoother vehicles 

 

 

How many times have you been in a tank in Battlefield 5, see someone running up to you with dynamite, try to turn your main gun but move too slowly and end up simulating a fireball. Now, yes, it is a tank, it should be bulky and cumbersome, but not to the expense of gameplay. The same goes for planes, slow cumbersome planes lead to slow and cumbersome dogfights as well as collisions. By slowing vehicles down, you reward boring gameplay. Since tanks in Battlefield 5 had difficulty dealing with infantry up close, they essentially became fortified snipers. Planes lacking in mobility gave up on dogfighting and would just dive bomb lightly armored infantry with no-one to stop them. To have a more enjoyable vehicle experience, vehicles need to be snappier, more responsive and more versatile, while keeping their identities intact. 

 

 

6.) Better live service  

 

 

It is an understatement to say the Battlefield 5 probably could have handled its live service better. Content was limited, poorly implemented, and came with game-breaking bugs. Communication was practically nonexistent, creating feelings of resentment at being ignored. As the gaming industry becomes more and more focused on live service, Battlefield must adapt to compete. I admit this might be hard for Battlefield, at least in terms of maps. If they increase the player count, they will also have to increase the size of the maps, which already take months to create. It may prove difficult to keep up a strong stream of content with the standard Battlefield has, who knows maybe they will surprise me. At the very least, communication and quality control can be improved, weekly dev-blogs and a player test server are all valid ways to handle those problems and have been shown to work in other games.  

 

 

7.) Listen to the community 

 

 

I remember when Battlefield was at one of its lowest points about a year and a half ago. The community was crying out for maps, improvements, and patches. In response Battlefield announced a new 5v5 competitive game mode. Not only did no one ask for this or cared at all, this meant already stretched resources were spent on something other than what the people actually wanted. Eventually, the mode was scrapped for lack of interest, but it left a sour taste in the community’s mouth. The even bigger insult to the community was when they lengthened the TTK, which everyone disapproved of. And to make matters worse, they did not only do this once, but twice! The first time they added it, they removed it because of negative feedback it got. The TTK and gunplay was one of the few things that Battlefield 5 had gotten right and now it was gone (along with any semblance of weapon balance). They had tried to add it, in order to appeal to more casual players, but just ended up alienating the player base. A year after the first time they removed it, things finally were looking up, a new expansion set in the Pacific was well received, a first for 5. People thought the game was making a comeback, and then only a few weeks after it launched, they added back the TTK changes, which once again were not well received and were removed shortly after. This gutted any momentum the game had, and confirmed Battlefield 5 as a failure, all of which could have been avoided had they listened to the community. 

 

 

8.) Bring back operations  

 

 

Battlefield 6 needs a game mode that embodies pure chaos, and that game mode is operations. Yes, operations were technically in Battlefield 5, but a far cry from the former glory they possessed in previous games. When operations were first introduced in Battlefield 1, it stormed to the forefront of the game. It was 32v32 like a Conquest match, but far more intense, as each team was funneled into each other at key chokepoints. An attacking team would storm a sector of the enemies’ defenses and try to capture the objectives within. If they succeeded, they would move on to the next sector. If they took too many losses, they would regroup and come back stronger with more reinforcements. Battlefield 6 needs to recapture the frenetic energy and chaos they harnessed in Battlefield 1 and inject it into Battlefield 6.  

 

 

9.) Dynamic destruction 

 

 

Synonymous with the Battlefield name is destruction. People conjure images of skyscrapers crashing to the ground and concrete flying through the air. In Battlefield 4, they had these epic moments of intense destruction, but they were scripted and acted almost like a cutscene. With the new technology available in new consoles, they should go wild with their newfound power and really test their boundaries. It would bring new life to the game and would really give it that wow factor. 

 

 

10.) Playground style gameplay 

 

 

Minecraft, Halo and Terraria are not only some of the most popular games in recent memory, but some with the best staying power. The reason for this is that they are sandbox games, meaning they give you tools and objectives, but it is up to you to figure out how to use those tools to complete those missions. This player creativity is important to prevent burnout, and it simply makes games more fun. Think about it. People like being creative. You may ask yourself what these building games have in common with Battlefield? In response to that question, I tell you that the Battlefield series is renowned for its sandbox style gameplay. It simply hands you a tank, jet, drone or horse as if they were toys in a playbox, and says, “Have at it.” This kind of sandbox style creativity was stifled in Battlefield 5, and led to a decreasing playerbase. Players were funneled into tight objectives with little room for experimentation. It is common sense that people enjoy things more when they can express themselves and problem solve. Battlefield needs to go back to the time when you could look at a jet ski, a shoulder mounted anti-tank device, and a fire-extinguisher, and with a sheer aversion to the limits of the physics engine, say, “Why not?”