The hot autumn of video games passes through the traditional challenge between the two giants of first-person shooters
With Electronic Arts one step away from selling the PIF fund to the Arabs and Trump’s son-in-law, here comes the eternal challenge between Battlefield, a first-person shooter with mixed fortunes, and Call of Duty, the jewel in the crown of the Microsoft-Activision Blizzard catalog as well as one of the best-selling video games of all time. On the one hand, Call of Duty now has its own very solid identity, refined over time and recognizable in each iteration; on the other hand, Battlefield continues to carry the curse of having to “be different” in order not to enter into a direct (and unequal) confrontation with its historic rival. An identity challenge rather than a technical one, that of DICE: finding its own niche, its own space, in a market that seems already assigned. But by trying so hard you risk getting lost, or taking a road so difficult that you can no longer get out. Battlefield 6 is proof of how the series tries once again to adjust its aim, between returns to its origins, new compromises and the inevitable desire for greatness.
already heard story
—
In essence, Battlefield 6 demonstrates why the campaign wasn’t there in Battlefield 2042: it really has nothing to say from a gaming point of view. The mode serves to give a context to the multiplayer, to narratively frame factions and characters, but it doesn’t even attempt to offer new ideas. It’s a story mode that could have been a simple introductory movie: its value is more aesthetic (nothing impressive, to be honest) and atmospheric than pure entertainment. Technically crude but boldly written – bringing up NATO in such a delicate geopolitical moment is not for everyone – the story constructs a political fantasy scenario set in a 2028 that is closer than ever. Compared to Call of Duty, Battlefield suffers from years of evolutionary delay on the single-player front: COD has now consolidated a language made up of multiple approaches to objectives and semi-open world, without giving up charismatic characters and cinematic rhythm. BF6, on the other hand, remains anchored to a scholastic formula: pre-rendered video, script, thousand-against-one shootouts, controlled stealth sections and little space for freedom of action. This rigidity betrays the sense of “difference” that the franchise manages to express in multiplayer: the Battlefield which finds its own logic online, struggles to exist here.
direct clash
—
The reduction in ambition compared to 2042 has probably been good for the game, although on a large scale it is still often chaotic and scattered. In the medium-scale modes, however, Battlefield 6 gives its best: good readability of the action, engaging atmosphere, balanced time to kill: it is perhaps a less epic but more playable Battlefield, a compromise that works. The feedback from the weapons is a bit light: it is difficult to perceive the impact of the shots, and in some cases even to keep the weapon still. We wouldn’t be particularly worried about it: the same flaw had been detected and corrected close to the launch of the predecessor. The vehicles continue to more or less amiably break the balance of the gameplay, especially the tanks, and remain one of the main reasons why those who want to play “seriously” should avoid the broader modes. It’s the legacy that Battlefield doesn’t want to give up, but the allure of chaos always has a price. And, speaking of legacy, the classes make their return, giving clear direction on how to play and what role to play in the game. Even if the idea of associating each one with a specific privilege on a section of weapons is excellent, in practice the system remains rather light: everyone can still do a bit of everything, as in the case of revive accessible not only to doctors. The signature modes Rush, Breakthrough (medium scale) and Conquest and Escalation (large scale) all revolve around team objectives and differ only in nuances, such as whether or not there are limited lives between attack and defense. After an initial disorientation, there isn’t one that really doesn’t work, but it’s clear which ones work best. It is in the medium scale that Battlefield 6 shakes off that somewhat casual battle royale feeling that we didn’t love in 2042: real war scenes, with teams that spontaneously coordinate before crossing an avenue, covering each other and moving as a single entity. It is here that DICE’s title shows its real firepower against Call of Duty: not so much in designing huge maps (not surprisingly, urban ones like Cairo are the best), but in conceiving the clash as a collective experience, where the figure of the hero who wins alone does not exist. Battlefield 6 has not yet fully internalized this lesson, but compared to the chapter from four years ago it seems to have understood at least part of its value.
battlefield 6, the verdict
—
The Internet teaches us that it is superfluous to make clear judgments on a living subject like online video games: the imponderable virality, the response of the historical community, the patches are now determining factors for the success of a title and are often outside the control of a developer. Today’s Battlefield 6 remains a little limping compared to the extremisms that condemned 2042, but it mitigates enough to offer a more credible and sustainable basis over time. Works? For now, the positive numbers of the beta, pre-orders and sales forecasts (over 5 million copies at launch) bode well for the future of the game and consequently of a series which, despite everything, continues to cling to its diversity.
© ALL RIGHTS RESERVED