Battlefield 6 review: Old-school Battlefield action

Set only a few years in the future, in a world where NATO is crumbling at the hands of private military contractor Pax Armata, the game focuses on the elite marine unit Dagger 1-3, a veritable cog in an all-out global conflict.

The campaign's gameplay is about what you would expect. A series of linear missions where you shoot the baddies.

At times, it throws in some rather boring stealth sections, but makes up for it with some absolutely fantastic vehicle sections – put me in a tank over crawling through a sewer any day.

As for the story itself, the concept for the campaign is excellent – or rather, it could have been.

An enfeebled NATO struggling to hold itself together against the overwhelming power of an enormous private military contractor practically begs for critique, whether that is of the impotence of organisations like NATO in the face of real threats, or of the inseparable ties between capitalism and the military-industrial complex that make Lockheed Martin, Palantir, and the potential Pax Armata so inconspicuously powerful.

But aside from a few grandiose moments, Battlefield 6's campaign routinely veers away from these more interesting concepts, instead choosing to focus on the melodrama of the crew of Dagger 13.

In the end, it's a perfectly serviceable story, and one that I enjoyed by all accounts, but I do feel as if a far better tale was lost in the pursuit of something more generally digestible.

Story is all well and good, but for many, Battlefield is about one thing only: the multiplayer.

I spent god knows how many hours in the open beta a couple of months ago, and after topping up in the last week or so, these developers have really nailed the classic Battlefield experience.

There are no flashy skins to overpower the atmosphere, and the gameplay feels a bit slower and more calculated than some of its peers in the shooter sphere.

The various classes and their unique gadgets add a nice bit of personality to the way you approach the game, although being able to choose your entire load out does detract from that.

Also, if my entire team could choose something other than Recon in Tajikistan, that would be wonderful.

The gunplay is great, and after practising with some of the zanier recoil patterns, almost every gun feels like it has its place; I felt much more as if personal preference played into my weapon choices than what was powerful.

I have also been very pleasantly surprised by how smooth the performance is.

In a year in which several games have pushed my GPU to its limit in pursuit of about 23 frames per second, Battlefield 6 immediately launched on the highest settings to a pretty stable 60fps, although I did choose to turn them down as I tend to value performance over quality.

Again, like in the campaign, Battlefield really is at its best when you've got a tank in play. Beyond simply how fun it is to demolish the map in a tank, having one in play adds a dimension to the game that you simply do not get in any other shooter, especially on certain maps like Cairo that feel purposely designed for them.

Unfortunately, map design is one of the areas where BF6 falls a tad short. Many of the maps feel far too small for the scale of match that BF aims for, with certain maps effectively funnelling your squad into choke points, transforming into a fish in a barrel simulator.

This is especially apparent in the Rush game mode, a 12 vs 12 mode, limited to small chunks of maps and no vehicles.

I am not complaining about more game modes existing, but Rush is certainly the least enjoyable in a game that is at its best when you're in a large scale infantry battle, and I hope that the developers understand that when new maps and modes arrive in the future.

Another aspect I am not convinced by is destruction. Bringing back destruction in a big way has been one of the flagship features of the game, but in my opinion, BF6 does not go far enough.

We are still nowhere near the spectacular Levolution of the Battlefield 4 days, and at times it can feel like much of the destruction happens for the sake of it, rather than as the result of organic player interactions.

Ironically, the closest thing we have to that BF4 heyday is The Finals, a game made by a team of former Battlefield developers and that has destruction mechanics completely unrivalled in the current gaming market.

The same doubt rears its ugly head regarding monetisation. Like its peers, BF6 will feature a Battle Pass system, adding in what the developers claim will be non-obtrusive cosmetics.

I understand that Battle Passes are now the be-all and end-all of the shooter genre, but I cannot help but dislike them on principle, especially in a game that already has a £60/$70 cost of entry.

But these issues are, by and large, things that can be fixed over time by the developers.

My greatest issue with my time reviewing Battlefield 6 has been that, after having so much fun with friends during the beta, I have had to enjoy the last few weeks without them – you can't get much higher praise for an online multiplayer title.

I'm not sure that Battlefield 6 lives up to the lofty heights of BF3 and 4, but whether that is nostalgia talking, who knows?

What I do know is that Battlefield 6 is certainly an excellent entry in the series, righting the wrongs of 2042 and setting the series back on the right path.

Maybe one day we'll get our Levolution back, but for now, I think fans of the series should look forward to this one very much.

Battlefield 6 releases on 10th October 2025 for PC, PS5 and Xbox Series X/S. We reviewed on PC.

Check out more of our Gaming coverage or visit our TV Guide and Streaming Guide to find out what's on. For more TV recommendations and reviews, listen to The Radio Times Podcast.