BF6 Maps - Lets Talk!

[GazzaGarratt 11,276]

Okay, so I have to admit, MOST of the maps I really do like. I equally like that the capture points are slightly different with each game mode.

 

The only ones I've struggled with which seem to be consistent with others online are the 2 desert ones. I think its down to the sheer scale of how open it is, coupled with how bright you stand out when running from one control point to the other. You can see how vehicles can really help dictate how well you do on these maps.

 

On the 2 new maps incoming - I've only played Black desert one. The lighting on this with the sunsetting looks cool but has annoyed me in parts as I think you stand out in certain places to the enemy. Needs a few more plays to see how it really feels. The other one looks similar to what Battle Royale is based on and the buildings on that work really well for cover so that looks promising.

 

My best maps are hard to separate. Manhattan Bridge, with C on top of the building that can get continually destroyed is cool. I think that's up there with Siege of Cairo and Iberian Offensive. Cairo is really cool finding different ways to flank the opposition whilst tanks always converge through the map on to C.

 

Thoughts all?

[J4MES OX4D 10,420]

There's no real standout maps for me but the larger New York one is quite good. The rest are all pretty meh in Battlefield terms and even the two bigger ones are pretty small and rather bland. You compare these to the staggeringly detailed and carefully scaled and constructed ones from from older titles - even BFV, and they are very plain and compact in comparison. Sure, you can get into gunfights aplenty but that isn't what this series is all about and you can tell from interviews that the developers are petrified of modern gamers getting bored because they aren't in a firefight every 15 seconds. Flags also change hands so often that even conquest has become arcade domination. You look at the Sobek City map compared to the Gulf of Oman one and it's pretty embarrassing in comparison. 

 

No naval maps is absolutely criminal also. I don't think there is a truly terrible one aside from the new one oil released in season one, as they are all playable to what Battlefield has become in its design philosophy, but there's is zero that radically changes how matches play and in the roles you choose. The watered-down Operation Firestorm is another huge showcase of how inferior maps can be in the wrong design hands. 

[Luseth 2,170]

I think I am similar to James in that none really stand out apart from the god awful firestorm map, why they thought that was the one to bring back I have no idea and I think they really missed a trick in that they should have made the central tower fully destructable. I think I lean towards the siege of Cairo as my current favourite as the destruction is really good and there is plenty on that map.

 

On the point above I thought they had said they were already exploring naval maps or have them in mind for future release?

 

I will say if you compare them to maps in BF1 or V I think they still have a way to go with this game and you can certainly feel the COD elements that have been brought over with the current people in the design process, not necassarily to the benefit of the game either.

[J4MES OX4D 10,420]

26 minutes ago, Luseth said:

On the point above I thought they had said they were already exploring naval maps or have them in mind for future release?

Apparently they were quite taken aback when questioned about it so I'm guessing they just said that to keep people happy and probably don't have anything planned or developed currently. Naval maps should've been in there from the off but with there being no naval maps even in Battlefield 2042 then I can't see it happening anytime soon. Seems like these developers want things strictly Codified and boots on the ground outside of land and air vehicles. 

[GazzaGarratt 11,276]

The Codified part I think its more about the gunplay for me, but thats a benefit in my eyes as I've never felt BF shooting has been a smooth experience. Now it feels great.

 

I can't probably comment on the differences in older BF Maps to these maps - I just take it for what it is in this game. The destruction works well in quite a few of them. Siege of Cairo has certain parts that really can make you feel immersed in the battle for a control point.

 

If they want to change one thing, its the lighting on the desert maps - or add a few more buildings that help people on foot get from A to E abit easier without being sniped all the time. There definitely seems enough vehicles on each map to help the charge.

 

If I was being critical from a BF POV, I'd more angle my thoughts towards size. There probably isn't a truly epic/large map at launch. Its either that, or they've made sprinting far quicker with a knife. I'm happy as I don't feel like this game has running simulator in it, but I appreciate that can weirdly annoy others.

[phil bottle 10,215]

I really need to jump on this properly at some point. Too much Tarkov and now Arc Raiders will likely take my time. But yeah maps will make or break a game as far as I'm concerned and I've seen nothing so far that competes with those of the earlier games. BF3 and BF4 are still the peak maps wise. Base jumping into a map like in BF3 needs a come back 🤪

[J4MES OX4D 10,420]

15 hours ago, GazzaGarratt said:

The Codified part I think its more about the gunplay for me

I think it also is reflected in the general pacing and the amount of engagements players find themselves in. Stims, knee sliding and very generous mechanics make it blur more and more into COD. There are also little consequences for loss of territory and objectives, and even the squad system lacks identity. Plus the challenges and progression system is a carbon-copy and is nowhere near as rewarding or interesting. The interface and how the BR is framed is a ridiculous clone of MW2 back in 2022. 

[Luseth 2,170]

18 hours ago, GazzaGarratt said:

The Codified part I think its more about the gunplay for me, but thats a benefit in my eyes as I've never felt BF shooting has been a smooth experience. Now it feels great.

 

I think this show's your limited experience of COD, I can't believe it but I am agreeing with James twice in one day, it is the pacing. The game wants you in constant fire fights and does not appreciate there is gameplay in a slower gameplay style, looking for ways to flank the enemy or sneak around to objectives on the other side of the map adding a tactical element into the game. There have been a few times we have gone to take the base closest enemy HQ but to get there you have to essentially run through the main pathways of the map.

 

On other battlefield games you saw it more in that you would get certain vehicles associated with a point, so say the team that captured point C would get an extra chopper or plane or tank for example. This game is much more COD than I think you realise, in fact I would say this is COD ground war moreso than old battlefield.

 

Yes the gameplay is COD esque but that's not necassarily terrible, however most guns are like lasers, the guns don't feel weighty and there is no skill required i.e. trying to allow for recoil or bullet drop. The range finder as we were discussing last night is mad the way it basically makes it a piece of piss to hit a target with.

 

I am enjoying it to some extent but whether it will have the longevity in it I am not sure, it will really depend on the maps.

[GazzaGarratt 11,276]

1 hour ago, Luseth said:

I think this show's your limited experience of COD

 

You mean Battlefield, right? I've played far more CoD than BF. Like years.

 

4 hours ago, J4MES OX4D said:

Stims, knee sliding and very generous mechanics make it blur more and more into COD.

 

Is that a bad thing in Battlefield? I get that you want games to stick to some sort of 'DNA' here, but I don't think this really hurts the game.

 

1 hour ago, Luseth said:

On other battlefield games you saw it more in that you would get certain vehicles associated with a point, so say the team that captured point C would get an extra chopper or plane or tank for example. This game is much more COD than I think you realise, in fact I would say this is COD ground war moreso than old battlefield.

 

That's a fair point, as I wouldn't know this given my experiences lie more with CoD than BF. It doesn't 'feel' like CoD to me though. Its not about twitch movements, KD, and CoD really doesn't have any squad co-ordination whatsoever. The way they've put the control points out there, it definitely has pulled me in. We had a game last night where they were taking us out with lone snipers on the mountain, so it was a nice tactic to try and get C and D, whilst we had 1-2 of us on cover fire to try and get rid of those annoying snipers.

 

1 hour ago, Luseth said:

I am enjoying it to some extent but whether it will have the longevity in it I am not sure, it will really depend on the maps.

 

I agree with this 100%. That being said, maps and gunplay dictate all FPS games we've ever played. We usually drop them when the maps kill people's love for the game or the gunplay is too all over the shop for us.

[J4MES OX4D 10,420]

2 hours ago, GazzaGarratt said:

Is that a bad thing in Battlefield? I get that you want games to stick to some sort of 'DNA' here, but I don't think this really hurts the game.

I think it is because when you fuse all these Codified ingredients together, you essentially get a completely different game. There is very little difference between this and what we played 3 years ago in Call of Duty and it's clear this game was developed off the back of that and by ex-COD devs. 

 

Battlefield maintaining its identity with all the originality it created was far more important but they've clearly wanted to entice COD players to the series when COD was at its most vulnerable, but this has come at the cost of BF's core design and without doing anything new or innovative. This game is miles off MW2019 and doesn't have much room to manoeuvre in terms of innovation. It just feels like they are recycling so much that we've seen the past 6 years. 

 

I don't mind Battlefield moving away from its identity and evolving but there is nothing here that we haven't seen in many other live service games in the past several years and all the padded-monetisation is really piss poor too. These changes could hurt the game because if they lose 50% of players back to COD then all these changes were in vain and then the developers will have to cling on to the alienated Battlefield community to rework things - something they did for 4 years straight after they screwed up royally with 2042.