The last Battlefield campaign was seven years ago. Ten years have passed since the last one, which was situated in the present day and was the fascinating but ultimately problematic Hardline. During that period, Titanfall 2 advanced level design in creative ways, Doom and its successors advanced the speed of a single-player first-person shooter, and even Call of Duty repeatedly redesigned itself with differing degrees of success. However, Battlefield 6 is firmly focused on what made the franchise so popular two console generations ago, with little interest in innovation. Its limited selection of standard missions offers little new, other than occasionally being an amazing technical demonstration.
There are a few moments of remarkable magnitude and considerable variation, but everything passes by so fast that you hardly have time to appreciate them. When paired with Battlefield 6’s more expansive multiplayer suite, the campaign appears to be the game’s sidearm, even though it never quite feels like a complete afterthought. Battlefield 6 moves quickly through its nine missions, but I had the uneasy feeling that I had already completed them all, although with far less detail.
It’s ostentatious, but it lacks truly engaging level design, and the fantastic gunplay isn’t matched by the goals you’re supposed to accomplish. Battlefield Studios’ strategy of treating the campaign as a training ground for its signature large-scale online fighting makes sense on the one hand; the sheer volume and magnitude of foes that saturate the screen during its missions are undoubtedly in keeping with this. On the other hand, it destroys any opportunity of developing an exciting narrative that might be able to emerge from the shadow of those multiplayer modes.
However, that does not imply that there aren’t moments of inspiration. One scene that was set on a dilapidated bridge in New York was especially noteworthy. Even if it doesn’t offer much variation in terms of gameplay, it is at least visually appealing. Even while there are attempts to mimic Modern Warfare’s Clean House, which falls short of capturing the required intensity, or its own take on a Normandy landing as you charge a Gibraltar beach, there isn’t a single mission that stands out as an all-timer here. Strangely, the map and objective design of the campaign are extremely similar to those of Call of Duty, and it fails to capture much of the iconic Battlefield large-scale action that first drew me to the franchise.
Not seeing risks taken creatively irritates me, especially when there is such a large budget to support such aspirations.
The series’ multiplayer roots are echoed in a subsequent chapter situated in a vast open space amidst Tajikistan’s mountains, where you are encouraged to approach the task at hand in your own way. Theoretically, this might be thrilling, with a huge arsenal of weapons and devices to equip yourself with, as well as a variety of ground and aerial vehicles at your fingertips. In reality, the variety of tools available to you is frustratingly constrained, and it appears more like a thin veneer of options than radically varied approaches to achieving goals.
You get to play with a drone and drive an ATV or an armored truck, but that’s about it. When it comes to first-person shooter campaigns, I simply don’t like this wider map approach. I would much rather have an authored hand-to-level design than be given a box of crayons to play with. At least these sections seem more philosophically like Battlefield arenas, even though they occasionally resemble the “open combat missions” in Modern Warfare 3—a memory I never wanted to revisit so soon after.
I felt like a passenger even though I wanted to be the star of the show.
The campaign’s smaller scope staging isn’t much more fascinating, but fortunately, these don’t comprise the majority of it. You’ll frequently be hiding behind massive tanks or in congested city streets, waiting for the ideal moment to break free. Here, a methodical, cover-based strategy is favored rather than a run-and-gun mindset. The gunplay is at least quick, and when you do decide to open fire, it has a satisfying weight. Even if the opposing AI shows little intelligence to blow out, sniper rifles are satisfyingly deadly, while assault rifles and LMGs are effective weapons when confronted with a fresh wave of adversaries.
It becomes particularly thrilling when the building you’ve been taking refuge in is destroyed by the amazing destruction technology, forcing you to rush to another haven. However, these cramped moments of genuine danger are all too uncommon because, for the most part, the game consists of repetitive goals that were becoming stale in first-person shooter campaigns ten years ago. It’s acceptable to have a task sequence that requires you to destroy anti-aircraft weapons or SAM installations, but doing it more than three times is incredibly tedious and stops any momentum you may have built up.
. Planting C4 can only be enjoyable so many times, and too frequently, you have to remain motionless in the middle of the activity and hit a single button to move on. I was repeatedly requested to sit in the back of a speeding automobile and manage a mounted turret that only vaguely makes you feel like you’re in charge of the devastation on screen, or to see some explosions that I didn’t even get to set off. Much of the campaign feels like the most straight-faced Disney ride ever created because it frequently goes off course, stealing its most thrilling moments and showcasing them in cutscenes.
An early objective that leads you through a network of abandoned World War II tunnels that has been transformed into a museum about the decades-old conflict is a regrettable representation of the campaign as a whole; it is a vestige of first-person shooter design in a different form. Twenty years ago, it was hardly interesting to be pushed along hallways to the next static shooting range to shoot fish in a barrel. Mostly excluding environmental destruction as part of your arsenal and never allowing you to operate an aerial vehicle, it tries to add as little of that Battlefield magic as possible, except for a series of tank fights that are as dry as the desert roads they are set on.
An early objective that leads you through a network of abandoned World War II tunnels that has been transformed into a museum about the decades-old conflict is a regrettable representation of the campaign as a whole; it is a vestige of first-person shooter design in a different form. Twenty years ago, it was hardly interesting to be pushed along hallways to the next static shooting range to shoot fish in a barrel. Mostly excluding environmental destruction as part of your arsenal and never allowing you to operate an aerial vehicle, it tries to add as little of that Battlefield magic as possible, except a series of tank fights that are as dry as the desert roads they are set on.
They are all part of the knowledgeable Marine Raider squad known as Dagger 1-3, which is an oddly sardonic moniker for such a drab group. Generally speaking, they are a somewhat generic military outfit that enjoys nothing more than putting their boots on the ground and exclaiming “hooah.” There are very few noteworthy character moments. Even when one of their own is in the line of fire, it’s difficult to discern any emotion because the performances and the human shells they inhabit are completely forgettable and hardly seem fully developed.
However, Battlefield 6’s narrative is far from subtle, and the game’s plot—which revolves around eliminating a renegade private military force known as Pax Armata, which is hilariously Latin for Armed Peace—turns out to be anything but peaceful.
There isn’t much opportunity for interpretation because it’s a really simple matter. It seems like it has nothing really important to say because it is strangely apolitical in its presentation for a military shooter depicting NATO’s disintegration.
Because it’s safe, it’s generally boring. At least Call of Duty has made an effort to address issues like terrorism and chemical warfare, even though these have ultimately been flawed attempts that seem to run counter to the game’s overall theme. I can understand why Battlefield Studios could have concluded that attempting to fire and catch a bullet filled with hot-button concerns was not worth the risk when it could have just decided not to pull the trigger at all. It’s difficult to express such significant subjects tastefully. It simply indicates that it has nothing to say either personally or globally, and as a result, everything seems a little meaningless. It’s a far way from the series’ heyday of Bad Company, when it did present some interesting stories through the perspective of entertaining characters.
Along the way, I also encountered a few irksome minor bugs, like my character moving uncontrollably across the screen, hazy textures appearing, and sporadic bullets that were pointed directly at enemy heads but had no effect. Overall, though, there’s no doubting that it sounds and looks incredibly amazing, with bullets zipping and slicing through smoke and debris as chaos breaks out all around you on a daily basis and stunning explosions peppering skylines. All I want is for there to be a bit more substance concealed beneath it all.
Verdict
The campaign’s flame doesn’t burn for very long in Battlefield 6—just five hours and nine missions—and it doesn’t burn very brightly during that time either. It’s a visual marvel at times and a musical delight at others, but it falls completely short in terms of mission design and a compelling storyline. It’s a safe reinterpretation of what Battlefield used to be, but it’s not a daring reinvention of what it could—and perhaps ought to—be right now. It’s a great afternoon.
