The first-person shooter genre has always gone through predictable cycles. WhenMedal of Honorfirst broke onto the gaming scene back in 1999, it established a status quo of World War 2 being the single conflict the genre embraced.Battlefield 1942andCall of Dutyfollowed in its footsteps for a long time, until a society that continued to stew in the aftermath of 9/11 and several wars in the Middle East wanted something modern…
Infinity Ward delivered on this vision with 2007’s Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, offering something fresh to an audience that was growing tired of countless games set in an older conflict that had been mined for all its worth. With our current climate defined by war, why not draw inspiration from it?
This changed the first-person shooter genre forever, introducing control systems and fresh approaches to multiplayer that remain the bedrock even today. Battlefield would embrace the modern setting with its third numbered entry, while Medal of Honor faded into obscurity after a failed duo of reboots.
Soon enough, the cycle repeated. Audiences grew bored with modern warfare and craved something unique, something older and refreshing that was willing to surprise us. Cue an enthusiastic return to older conflicts and technology that would peak with the WW1-setBattlefield 1. Now it seems we’ve come full circle once again, with a notable fatigue of live-service failures and an obnoxious barrage of online systems making us nostalgic for simpler times.
After its reveal earlier this week, it is clear that Battlefield 6 intends to be a return to form. A very deliberate attempt to replicate the quality and nostalgia ofBattlefield 3for a new era. It has all the ingredients to succeed, but only if it spits in the face of everything this genre is becoming.
Battlefield 6 Is Shaping Up To Be A True Successor To Battlefield 3
When it launched back in 2011, Battlefield 3 framed itself as a serious competitor to Call of Duty. It boasted a linear and cinematic solo campaign that took us around the globe as we tried to put a stop to terrorists that threatened our very way of life. It was filled with twists and turns alongside a constant cavalcade of explosions that kept us guessing until the end. It did not rival what Activision was offering at the time, but it got pretty close.
Its multiplayer was a different story, however, and showed an audience of millions that Call of Duty wasn’t the only way to play. Shooters could be so much larger in scale and focus on distinct classes with maps you could navigate on foot or in a variety of vehicles and aircraft.
It was unlike anything we had played before, building on the destructible nature and stellar teamplay of Bad Company to create something truly special. It had a long tail, maintaining an active audience of players well after the release of Battlefield 4 and Hardline. It was not until Battlefield 1, a full half decade later, that people truly moved on. And in the years since, the series has been dealing with failure after failure before being left in the dust. It needs to catch up, and the sixth numbered entry intends to do so by playing to its biggest strengths.
Battlefield 6 has been undergoing private playtests for months now, so it’s not hugely difficult to find rough impressions from people online if you go digging deep enough.
Rather than starting with a multiplayer reveal - the series’ bread-and-butter,Electronic Artshas opted for a campaign trailer that acts as a tone piece of sorts for the full experience. It’s set in the present time, with the President of the United States informing the public of a huge conflict that has begun to engulf the entire globe, although it seems we have begun to fight back.
There are lots of explosions in familiar locations alongside a deliberate focus on your squad working together to not only survive, but destroy as many buildings and vehicles as humanly possible. It’s silly, but also easy to take seriously in the over-the-top Battlefield kind of way. If anything, this first look bodes well for how the full game will actually play.
If Battlefield 6 Wants To Succeed, It Needs To Be Grounded
Jump into any forum thread or comment section about Battlefield 6, and you will find players talking about how the upcoming game needs to be “grounded”. This might sound like a silly term where you may survive a collapsing skyscraper or jump from jet to jet in pursuit of your enemies, but it’s a demand made in the context of the current shooter landscape. We exist within a world where Call of Duty doesn’t have its own identity anymore, instead choosing to chase the very same pop culture dragon as Fortnite with a constant deluge of licensed skins and crossover events in-lieu of building out its own mythology.
People are sick and tired of this, and the announcement ofBlack Ops 7only further told us that Activision is either running out of ideas, or simply doesn’t care about what we think as long as its gravy train keeps on running. Players desperately want Battlefield to succeed, not just so we have another blockbuster shooter to play, but so Call of Duty needs to compete again. We’re in dire need of a new status quo, a rival big enough to challenge the big dogs with significant mechanical innovation. 2042 failed to deliver, and now Battlefield 6 might be the last chance for EA and DICE to claw back ground for good.
Battlefield 6 needs to provide a passable campaign, excellent multiplayer, and not be broken on launch to maintain an audience and keep its momentum going for long enough to get Call of Duty and Fortnite fans to take notice. For them to realise that the shooter genre is capable of so much more, and Battlefield is happy to offer it even if it means briefly stringing us along with nuggets of nostalgia. If anything, I want some fresh blood in the mix to see this series evolve beyond its means and push the genre further than it’s ever gone before.
