In Defense of Battlefield 6’s Campaign (and Where It Still Stumbles)

by

Despite the huge success of *Battlefield 6* – with millions of copies sold and many players online – one thing has been noticeably weak. If you’ve been enjoying the multiplayer experience and haven’t noticed, that’s understandable! The game’s campaign, the first since *Battlefield 5* in 2018, hasn’t been well-received by many players.

It’s a bit of a paradox. *Battlefield 2042* was heavily criticized for removing the story mode altogether while still being a full-priced game. Now, *Battlefield 6*, the largest installment in the series, is getting negative feedback for having a campaign that just isn’t very engaging. You could say the series is in a no-win situation, but the core issue remains: the campaign needs to be enjoyable, regardless of whether Electronic Arts includes one or not. And is it? Well, opinions are mixed.

Compared to other great first-person shooter campaigns in recent years, Battlefield 6 is disappointing. It relies heavily on tired tropes – like simple turret sections and endlessly repeating cover-and-shoot gameplay against unchallenging enemies. It’s surprisingly unoriginal, especially considering features that usually define Battlefield, such as flying planes and destructible environments, are either missing or barely implemented in the campaign. This is particularly strange given how well these features work in multiplayer, and suggests something went wrong during development – we’ll explain shortly.

While not groundbreaking, the campaign in *Battlefield 6* is perfectly playable. It’s a good way to learn the weapons and different character classes, especially if you’re new to the *Battlefield* series. The large-scale battles are visually impressive and give you a taste of what to expect in multiplayer. The shooting feels good, and some missions are genuinely enjoyable – the sniping mission, with its expansive environments, is a significant improvement over similar missions in *Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3*. The characters aren’t particularly memorable, but they serve their purpose, likely due to limitations in the story’s creative freedom.

Opinions on the recent single-player campaigns in the Battlefield series vary. Bad Company is often seen as the best, not because of its story, but because people really connected with its characters. The sequel managed to keep fans engaged thanks to that same cast, even though it was more serious in tone. Battlefield 4, while considered more polished by some, is criticized for having a bland story and characters that weren’t very memorable. Many find Battlefield 4 forgettable, even if it wasn’t a terrible campaign.

Most fans agree that the single-player campaigns aren’t the main draw of *Battlefield* games. If you’re looking for a fun campaign experience, there are better options available, even outside of big-budget titles – seriously, check out *Severed Steel*. While *Battlefield 6*’s campaign isn’t terrible, it feels like a missed opportunity for Electronic Arts. They had the chance to create something truly special with their biggest *Battlefield* game yet, but fell short in this one area. It would have been fantastic to deliver an amazing campaign, especially considering that the *Battlefield* series isn’t typically known for its single-player content. They could have had a *Titanfall 2level moment, particularly since it had been so long since a new *Battlefield* game was released.

Unfortunately, the project didn’t go as smoothly as hoped. A July report from Ars Technica pointed to problems, particularly when Ridgeline Games was leading the development. According to sources, the studio didn’t have enough internal oversight or progress updates, and they expanded the team while also taking resources – essentially, work time – from other teams’ budgets.

Ridgeline Studio was shut down in February 2024 after failing to meet its goals, and it seems the reason was a fundamental problem with the game itself. After two years of work and a reported $400 million investment, the development team had nothing solid to build upon. This is a disappointing outcome for both those working on the next *Battlefield* game and its potential players.

The teams at Criterion, DICE, and Motive were responsible for developing the game’s campaign, and it seems they had to begin the project entirely from the ground up. By July, while the multiplayer portion was reaching a playable stage, the campaign was falling behind schedule. Given the existing pressure, it’s not surprising to hear there were disagreements and friction between the different Battlefield Studios.

It’s surprising *Battlefield 6* even included a single-player campaign. If developing that campaign had hurt the multiplayer experience, especially after the game launched, the result would have been a game that wasn’t great at anything. While players might have overlooked a lackluster campaign, another disappointing multiplayer experience would have been unacceptable. Electronic Arts understands that the long-term success of *Battlefield* relies on its multiplayer mode and ongoing live service, so that was the priority, regardless of how good the campaign turned out.

I understand the difficulties the development team faced, and I can also see why players are disappointed with the campaign, especially considering the game still costs $70. By now, it’s pretty clear what *Battlefield 6* does well and why it’s worth playing. It’s frustrating to see people focus solely on the weak single-player, or dismiss the campaign’s flaws simply because previous *Battlefield* games have had similar issues. Both extremes miss the point.

The bigger question now is, what’s next for the game? In the near future, the ongoing conflict between NATO and Pax Armata will likely just add more maps and situations for players to experience. As long as they keep releasing new content, this storyline probably won’t really progress or come to a clear conclusion. Battlefield Studios might introduce a third side just for fun, but that’s probably the extent of it.

If you’re hoping for a story-driven campaign in the next *Battlefield* game to compete with other shooters, it’s clear that’s not the main focus. While the rivalry between *Battlefield* and other games is enjoyable, DICE seems determined to stick to what makes *Battlefield* unique. I’d personally enjoy a strong single-player experience with the series’ familiar classes, destructible environments, and vehicle combat, but I – and likely many other players – would happily trade that for continued support and updates to the multiplayer mode.

Things could certainly evolve, but right now, *Battlefield* has returned and, thankfully, it’s genuinely enjoyable – delivering on all the key elements that make it great.

Please be aware that the opinions shared in this article are solely those of the author and don’t reflect the official stance of GamingBolt.

Read More

2025-10-14 20:12