Battlefield Years Features and What to Know

What's this? A new Battlefield game and it has a modern setting. Oh my god. Where's Nicki Minaj? No. Where's all the Beus and Buttthead skins? Are we at least able to play as Peter? I mean, come on. What is this? It doesn't look like a cartoon at all. A normal realistic modern military shooter. It's been so long since I've seen one of these. It's been 84 years. That's right, ladies and gentlemen. After four years of meandering mediocrity, Battlefield has finally returned. The prodigal son is back here to challenge Call of Duty, create some competition between the two, and

hopefully get Call of Duty to improve on its standard of quality, which as you know has been Some believe Battlefield 6 is a return to form. They say the franchise is finally back on the right track, and this game has the numbers to back that up. I don't think anybody expected the player counts to be this big. Over half a million concurrent players on Steam. Did you know that puts Battlefield 6, just the beta by the way, within the top 20 games in the highest concurrent player count rating on Steam? That's no easy feat. So clearly, whatever the player count is, whatever EA and DICE have done, they've successfully recovered a large number of fans that they lost with 2042. And I was one of them. Even all of the people

complaining, rightfully so on the Battlefield subreddit, I think even most of them are enjoying the game. It just seems like it could be so much more. We are this close on the verge of greatness. And after playing the beta, I have some issues myself, but I had fun. It's safe to say Battlefield 6's beta makes me confused. During the first beta period, the lowest the Steam player count got was like 140,000 people. And even during the start of the second beta, player counts were sitting at 370,000. Although the game is doing well by the numbers, Battlefield fans certainly have a lot of [__] to talk about the game, its map design, open or closed weapons, there's a lot of things to debate. And

that's why we're here today to find out why Battlefield 6 is a confusing success. What do they need to do between now and launch to ensure this game has a healthy, consistent player base? How do they please the Battlefield fans? Spoilers. Just add operations. Bring that [__] back. It was so good. Now, don't get me wrong. I think the game is absolutely fun. Oh my goodness. You flew. I'm here. But is it going to get repetitive and stale faster than it should? How long will this hype last? I have some issues with the game, mostly in regards to the map design. Here's the good news. Pretty

much every current problem I and most people have with Battlefield 6. All of it is totally fixable. This isn't like 2042 where the first time you play it, you're like, "Oh, so there's just no hit registration in this game. Holy [__] they have to delay this." And then it comes out and you're like, "Yep, knew it. Should have been delayed." Battlefield 6 is a competent game and coming off of 2042, that's what we needed most. In fact, six may have had the smoothest launch of any Battlefield title. But what are the biggest issues facing the game as we head towards launch? Are people going to get burned out too quickly? Will this hype transition into the full release? Or has EA once again got us by the balls? Well,

let's try to fly a helicopter inevitably crash it. How do I aim? and don't revive any of our teammates. Straight into this to appreciate what Battlefield 6 has going for it. Well, let's take a quick look at what we're coming off of. Where we came from. More flashes of light. More. There it goes. Oh my god. Look at that. No, it's Come on. Yes. What? I'm going to do it. What? Damn it. That is one big pile of [__] Yeah. Battlefield 2042 was an absolute shiit show. In fact, the beta was so bad, I didn't even bother playing the game when it actually released. There was no reason to. I said 2042's beta was the worst FPS multiplayer I've ever experienced. And to this day, I wholeheartedly agree with that statement. I'm losing my mind over here.

This is the worst multiplayer I have ever played firsterson shooter wise. Even Halo MCC, the most broken thing in the world. The problem with that game is it just didn't work. 2042 just didn't work. And the game underneath all of the glitches and bugs was awful. 2042 didn't even have a scoreboard, man. A first person shooter game with no scoreboard. Imagine you're playing basketball in high school and you're just like, "Hey, hey, rep, what's the score?" No, you don't need to know. We don't want to make anybody feel bad. DICE even went so far as to say the scoreboard was a legacy feature. And the reason I bring this up again is just to illustrate how far they have come since then. Look at this beautiful scoreboard.

It has kills, deaths, assists. Oh my god, I can tell how many points I've scored. The wonders of modern technology. Am I right, folks? Classes are back instead of those dumbass operators. And if you're a huge fan of operators and you're kind of bummed out by this news, well, don't be sad. This is just how it works out sometimes. I love just playing as a regular soldier, not some kind of like video game character that feels like an influencer. You know what I mean? Why are you trying to be cool in a war zone? While it's easy to look back on the masterpiece that was Battlefield 1 and say, "Well, 6 has a lot to improve on." I think in terms of like tiers, 2042 being the worst, Battlefield 1 being the best, 6 made a significant leap towards

being as good as Battlefield 1. And that's important. The game is fun, and if it's not fun, why bother? If I could play it right now, I would. In fact, Battlefield 6's design director, Shaw Shank Uchio, said the game has to be grounded. He doubled down on EA's commitment to grounded realism and even pointed to Call of Duty's infamous Nicki Minaj skin as something Battlefield 6 doesn't need. It has to be grounded. That is what BF3 and BF4 was. It was all soldiers on the ground. It's going to be like this. I don't think it needs Nicki Minaj. Let's keep it real. Keep it grounded. And if you listen closely, you can hear the screams and the suffering of every Nicki Minaj fan. as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror

and was suddenly silenced. I think at this point we have seen so much of the Fortnitification of firsterson shooters that just the idea of playing a modern military type game that takes itself somewhat seriously is refreshing. I think that's why I had so much fun with Ready or Not. It was a game that was unapologetically like almost too realistic, you know, and we need that for like the FPS massive multiplayer type setting. Now, what has DICE done right with Battlefield 6? A lot of things. One of the most important improvements was when you shoot your gun, the bullets hit the thing you're aiming at.

What? Impossible. Your mind's blown right now. I cannot tell you how awful it felt in 2042 when there was just like no hit registration. I think the overall feel of the game, its pace is solid. It's fast and fluid, yet still feels like Battlefield to an extent. One of my favorite new mechanics is the drag and revive. Something so simple, but adds so much. Okay. Yeah, they're down that. Oh, dude. And you can drag me away. Oh, okay. All right. There's a scoreboard. There's cool new mechanics. Rather than having to stop and revive a teammate in a particularly exposed position, there are

so many moments where you can take your teammate, pull him back behind a doorway or into a corridor behind cover and save his ass. It's so much fun. Oh my god. My hero. On your feet, Roger. My hero. It creates these cinematic moments where you're really working together with your teammates and your buddies and No Man left behind. You know, that type of vibe. It allows you to do a bit of roleplay. You know, you're under heavy fire. You're trying to save your buddy. It ends up being the wrong decision. And then you of course die, too. I'm going to get you. Oh no. That was so dumb. But you tried and it was funny. Another huge improvement is

just the visual feedback you get from scoring kills, landing shots, getting points, reviving teammates, resupplying, taking an objective, etc. That was sorely lacking in 2042. You had nothing on screen to pop up and say, "Good job. You accomplished something." I think it could still be a bit better, but it feels good to contribute to the team effort, to the goal of achieving victory. Whether it's repairing a tank or taking a point or scoring a multi-kill or reviving a bunch of teammates, the core gameplay loop is satisfying, and that's what makes it so addicting. Now, all you really need for Battlefield 6 is just the content to keep the experience fresh. Now, I'll be honest. I don't consider myself to be

the biggest Battlefield fan, but I absolutely [__] loved one. I put hundreds of hours into it across PC and Xbox. So, a lot of my comparisons come from my experience with that game, how amazing, epic, and awesome it was. There really was and still is nothing quite like Battlefield 1 and the scale of operations, the behemoths, the vehicles, the World War I setting. Nothing quite hits like it. And I wish they would at least try to do that again. Most of the weapons feel great. Many have noticeable recoil, so you know, not every gun is just a laser beam. I like that. As far as my experience with the beta, technically, like I had very few issues.

Got kicked out of a game once, but that's about it. Thank you. Reload the gun. Uh I think I just got kicked. The game was ended and all players were disconnected. What? It put me back in What the [__] So, that's a really good sign, at least as far as how the game will launch. Will it be playable? Cuz we always have to think about that in the era of modern gaming. I was a bit spooked though when I ran into the flashing epilepsy lights again, though. Whoa. What are these flashing lights? Whoa. Oh my god. I'm getting [__] I'm So, Battlefield 6 brings back classes. That's right. You now have actual strategic decisions to make before you enter the game. What type of gadgets are

you going to bring in? What sort of role do you want to fulfill on your team? What role will you play in this army on this battlefield? Hell yeah. This game makes me feel like I'm playing in a battlefield. Oh, that's why they call it that. Oh, it makes sense now. Now, you would think classes are pretty simple, straightforward ideas. It's just a concept that's proven to work across numerous Battlefield games. They [__] it up last time. Now, it's time to fix and course correct. And what? Open weapons. What is that? So, every class can use like every gun now. Why?

Battlefield 6 does this weird thing where it allows a recon or sniping class to equip an assault rifle. An engineering anti-vehicle class can bring in a sniper. I don't know why this is a thing or what benefit it brings to the game other than remove the uniqueness of playing each class. Right? Again, you look at Battlefield 1. Medics had rifles. Assaults had SMGs, shotguns, supports had light machine guns, recon had snipers and carbines. I mean, it was pretty straightforward. And there was a bit of overlap between some of the classes, but for the most part, you picked a class, you picked a weapon, and it made sense because each class has tradeoffs, you know, or at least they're

supposed to. Also, one thing Battlefield 1 did really well was give all four classes some kind of anti-vehicle weapon or tool. And right now, supports don't have any. I've thrown frag grenades at tanks, and I don't think it damages them at all. Even if it was like a mine, an attachable bomb or like armor penetrating bullets for the recon class. I mean, they gave you something. And what I don't like feeling in Battlefield is the idea that, oh, there's a tank, there's a vehicle, I can't do anything about it if I want to play this class. Now, speaking of gadgets and tools, I think the ones we had in the beta were pretty fun. How they all work together and how OP they might be is another

story. It's almost like every class is overpowered in its own way. And I do think that's kind of cool. Want to play Assault? Here's a free shotgun for you. Everyone that plays assault gets a shotgun. You favor the engineer. Oh. Take six RPGs. [__] it. Ah, you're more of a support main here. Take this defib and go and revive your entire 31 player team in about 5 seconds. You want to play recon? Well, if you can see the enemy, so can all of your teammates. While there's obvious balancing issues that might need to be addressed behind auto spotting and every assault class having a free shotgun, at the very least, it feels like every class is

consistently overpowered. And so long as we're bringing back regular classes, might I offer the suggestion of elite classes? I remember picking up a sentry kit or a flametrooper in Battlefield 1 and it always felt really cool to find a power up on the map. You know, I wonder if any first-person shooters have ever thought of that. Let's put a power up on the map. Something that makes your guy stronger, makes you feel cool. I know it's a beta and there's probably going to be more weapons, attachments, and all of that at launch. I hope. But weapon customization was decent. It was fun enough grinding attachments. I just hope there's a lot more to it. And I think the point SLattachment system was unique

rather than just like a pick 10 or, you know, here's five attachments. It adds certain value to the different parts of your gun. And I like that you have to make decisions about cost versus effect. The thing that sucks about Battlefield 6 is that you can't really tell what class someone is at a distance. Unless it's recon and like sometimes they have ghillie suits, it's really hard to spot, pun intended. Once again, going back to Battlefield 1, if I just throw up images of each of the different classes, I think you can tell what they do. Also, they had way more factions in Battlefield 1 and therefore way more different costumes. There was visual variety, like themes, to each operations

or conquest map. I think it's important in a Battlefield game to be able to simply glance at an enemy and know what type of tools they have at their disposal. You know, medics had the crutches on the back that stuck out. Supports were more armored. They always were carrying a two-handed gun. Snipers had a cape. I think improving visual clarity in this game is very important. And maybe redesigning some of the classes, their outfits to fill specific roles and also look like they fill specific roles. It certainly doesn't help that all these different classes can use a variety of different weapons.

It just begs the question, why have two separate playlists for it? Closed weapons should be the base game mode. You should have to play around that. And if the game can't accommodate that, then maybe DICE needs to make better weapons, extra ammunition types. Now, here's another thing Battlefield 6 is sorely lacking. Personality with the factions, the announcer. It's just if you've played any other modern shooter, it will sound and feel exactly the same. It's all just so generic. And I get that it's a modern setting and you're kind of limited in what you can do, but come on.

Like, haven't you seen those videos of the guys recording lines for Battlefield 1 and they're they just scream their lungs out into the mic? machine. Like the voice acting for each of the factions was a different language and they all felt so intense. You didn't even need to speak that language to understand what they were saying, if that makes sense. Apart from like bullets and explosions, in Battlefield 6, you never really feel like you're hearing the sounds of people fighting a war, screaming, yelling, or whatever. Overall, the core gameplay is fun. It's missing a lot of things that I would consider important, things that would

help it stand out. But to all these Sonic fans out there, meow, I think it's time to get your shoes on because we're going to talk about speed. No, not that guy. Because boy, is this game fast as [__] Holy mother of God. When is a game too fast? When is it too slow? Call of Duty Ghosts is when it's too slow. Battlefield 6 too fast. I've been here. Okay. It's weird. Sometimes I get the impression that DICE is specifically appealing to the like ADHD riddled Tik Tok brain rot Twitch shooter audience because there is hardly ever any downtime in the beta. And that's if you're just playing Battlefield 6 normally. It feels like it's impossible to go more than 10 seconds without seeing someone, shooting someone, or

being shot at. Even when you're playing as a sniper and you're trying to play like a hunter and get a good sighteline like on Liberation Peak, if you pop your head out as a sniper, you are going to be getting shot at almost immediately. Sometimes the spawning area is literally like a 3second walk away from where the active battle is taking place. It feels like they made a bunch of regularsized Battlefield maps and then just smooshed them like a can. They just condensed all of this [__] and that's why it feels so chaotic and crazy. Now, I like faster paced combat in my first person shooters. And there's one map in Battlefield 1 that did it really well.

Point to Hawk. It was mostly corridors and it had this smaller outside exterior area that ran across the interior of the map. And it was a small map. It feels like all of the maps in Battlefield 6 are even smaller than that one. and thus the game feels way faster, more chaotic, and less strategic. As a result, even the animations are super quick. ADS time feels almost instantaneous. Looking at attachments, there's no reason to improve ADS speed. It's almost instant for every gun anyway, even LMGs. There is just no real weight to your character. And I like weight because I'm an LMG Chad. Now, because you don't really have the space or time to be strategic or make strategic decisions, you're always just kind of thinking on

your feet and in the moment. Because most times you're spawning in on teammates or a beacon, you are spawning into open gunfire. Oh, shotgun duel. What the [__] This guy just jumped. What? This is certainly not helped by how Battlefield 6's maps basically funnel you into one of three lanes or they funnel you into a bunch of corridors. There really is no truly open wide space. I don't know. Everything is just so dang fast from reloading, sprinting, climbing a ladder. I'm glad there's no tack sprint that would ruin this game. But at times when I use an LMG, it feels like I'm just using an

assault rifle that has a 60 round mag because it doesn't feel like a light machine gun, if that makes sense. While everything feels snappy and responsive, in that sense, it often feels less tactical, less like a Battlefield game, and more like Call of Duty. And I'll be honest, I don't really care about Black Ops 7. I feel I have played enough Call of Duty for a lifetime. We need more Battlefield. We need a better Battlefield game. Please save us. Now, let's talk about the most controversial part of Battlefield 6. No, not the cheating scandal, though I will have a video on my second channel, ActMan TV, about that if you want to check it out.

Links in the description and pin comment. No, the worst part of Battlefield 6 are the maps. At least the ones we got to play. This is going to make or break the game for me and probably many others because I'm fairly confident the map selection at launch is not going to be good enough. I would be surprised if people thought, "Oh yeah, nine maps. Four of them are super tiny. That's a Battlefield game." DICE and the Battlefield Company are going to have to hit the ground running when they release this game when it comes to the live service and updating it. And they're going to need to add a map like in the first month at least. because there's so much wrong with what they offered in the beta. Not wrong in the sense that it

plays like [__] and it isn't fun, but that it doesn't play like Battlefield. And let me just say, Battlefield 6 is fun in spite of its map design, limited as it is. You still have moments where you can destroy someone's camping spot. You can crush buildings and revolutionize the map design. That element thankfully is still there. But credit where credit is due, most games that have bad or mediocre maps are also not fun to play. But Battlefield 6 is. And one thing that really stands out is just how sy they all feel. Not just in terms of look and design, but how they play. Empire State doesn't really play any different than Cairo. Despite the fact that they're two radically different parts of the world, they both

just feel like a clustered downtown cityscape with no wide openen terrain. It feels like corridor combat, a video game, not like you're on a battlefield. I mean, we've had great desert maps in the past. The Sinai Desert, Suez Canal, Foul Fortress. These maps are [__] legendary. I can just show you images from any of Battlefield 1's maps. I think take the worst map in Battlefield 1. It's better than anything we played in 6. You had Monte Graa, which fulfilled this fantasy of like storming a mountain or fighting on a cliffside. A big problem with Battlefield 6's maps is that they're all small, tiny cityscape

corridor shooters. It's also that they don't really have any personality, kind of like the rest of the game. I think levolution works pretty well in this, but from clips I've seen of Battlefield 4, there were entire massive buildings you could destroy, and there's nothing quite on that scale. But once again, remember 2042 [__] up a lot of things, and Levolution was also part of that. So, this is an improvement from the previous game. Yeah, so many of these maps just look gray, washed out, lacking color, visually too similar to each other. And then if you look at any of Battlefield 1's maps, like they all fulfilled a different kind of fantasy, whether it was fighting across like a

snowy no man's land or running through trenches. There were maps based on these cluster of islands and you would have boats and battleships and these giant blimps and airplanes and all this [__] was going on. It was so cool. There were so many different aspects of Battlefield 1's maps outside of their design. I mean, there's really not much on the maps in Battlefield 6. There's like a repair station and sometimes there's these weird anti-tank turrets that for some reason are never pointed in the direction where tanks are coming from. So, it's like they go unused. In most maps, there's maybe like a few tanks and a few vehicles. There is more vehicle combat and conquest, but for stuff like

Breakthrough or Rush, just like one tank on the whole map for 42 players, it doesn't feel like a battlefield. This series is about all out warfare, not just infantry focused combat. I'll be honest, I am pretty worried about how this game is going to be received at launch because we played four of the nine available maps. And one of those we haven't played is a remake. So essentially, we've already seen over half of the maps in Battlefield 6. And if they're getting this kind of reaction from fans, well, the other five have got to be [__] tits. Let me just say that. You know what I think it is? Why the maps are so tiny? I think DICE saw the reception to 2042. Like those

massive, wide open, way bigger than they ever should have been maps with 128 players. They saw how [__] boring that game was, how much people disliked how giant the maps were, and they overcompensated for it. They went the complete opposite direction. Okay, you don't like the big stuff, we're going to make everything tiny. Now, I think the reason folk are upset is because they expect a Battlefield game to provide on its tagline phrase that describes the series better than anything else. All out warfare. You want to feel like you have all the tools of warfare at your disposal. All the jets, helicopters, RPGs, tanks, jeeps, monguses, artillery, cannons, everything. It's not just that

the maps are so tiny, it's that there isn't enough to use or interact with or find on them. Battlefield 6 offers massive FPS combat, but it's lacking in the allout warfare department. I get that with World War I and World War II, there's so much more you can do with that setting because it's so established. It was so massive, but I've seen some pretty epic gameplay from Battlefield 4 and Bad Company 2. Clearly, it's possible. In fact, some of my buddies say Battlefield 4 is better than one. So, I've seen what this series can do in a modern military setting.

Now, don't get it twisted, folks. I still think this game is fun. It has a solid foundation, but it is in desperate need of more content. For me, this is all constructive criticism because I like what they put together. I just think the bones of this game are loaded with calcium, and now let's put some meat on those bones. Build up the muscles a bit. I want to see DICE do such a good job with this game, they force Call of Duty to do better. I want to watch both of these series be competitive again. And the way to do that is not by taking this established Battlefield formula and identity and reducing it into something that resembles Call of Duty more. The way to capitalize on Battlefield is to just have it embrace its identity. Crazy as

that sounds. Give us these big ass battles, these wide open landscapes, tall buildings, height advantage, make things wide open. Give us tons of vehicles and things to grab or interact with or do on each map. That has always been Battlefield's biggest strength is that it accommodates all kinds of FPS combat. It can fulfill everyone's desires and all their power fantasies. It's just a matter of if the developers can pull it off. And last but not least, let's quickly mention the UI. Now, I simply don't like games where half of the matchmaking options are like hidden offcreen or they have these gigantic

boxes that look like dog [__] It's so inconvenient. I just want the information on screen. I want it to be practical. And although it's not terrible, it certainly looks like Hulu. Matter of fact, it actually looks like War Zone or Call of Duty's menu. It looks exactly the same. Just look at this UI mockup that someone posted on Reddit in like 2 days. Look at how much better this is. Everything's so clear. The font size increases based on the thing you select. It's just it looks good. The thing with Battlefield 6 is whatever our complaints and criticisms are now, at least there is hope. Hope where there wasn't any with 2042. In the

end, I think I'm rooting for DICE. I'm rooting for this game to succeed, to save us from the eternal torment of mediocre firstperson shooters. Just make a competent modern military shooter that's somewhat realistic and takes itself even slightly seriously. That's all I ask. Make it fun. That being said, the numbers don't lie and they look very promising. But what do you think? Is Battlefield 6 going to launch in a great state? Do you think they have it all together? Are they able to make the game that we want? Let me know your thoughts and opinions in the comments down below.

Like the video if you enjoyed it and subscribe to the ActMan for more awesome content. A big shout out to all of my patrons. If you'd like to support the channel, you can do so in the description down below. All right, everyone. That's all I got for today. This is the ActMan signing out. Peace.