For all the success that Battlefield 6 has had – this many millions estimated to have been sold, that many concurrent players on Steam – there’s one aspect that’s stuck out like a sore thumb. If you and many others have outright ignored, lost in the bliss that is multiplayer (even with its idiosyncrasies and flaws), then it’s probably for the best. The campaign, the series’s first since Battlefield 5 in 2018, according to some, isn’t very good.
It’s ironic, in a way. Battlefield 2042 received extensive criticism for dropping any semblance of a story mode and still charging $70 for it. Along comes Battlefield 6, the biggest title in the franchise yet, and it’s receiving flak for what’s essentially a dull campaign. Boiling down the argument into “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” is easy enough, but the point still stands: Whether Electronic Arts includes it or not, the campaign should be fun. So is it? As the saying goes, your mileage will vary.
When matched against other memorable first-person shooter campaigns over the past few years, Battlefield 6 definitely falls short. Think of every clichéd objective in the space, from turret sequences that are akin to a rail shooter (except somehow even more straightforward) to the usual popping out of cover and killing the same mindless enemies over and over. It’s staggering how unoriginal everything is, and yet, things that would help Battlefield stand apart  – like flying planes or environmental destruction – are either absent or near about. Considering how well these were executed in multiplayer, it’s all the more baffling to see their usage in the campaign. Something serious must have happened behind the scenes for things to turn out this way (which we’ll get to shortly).
However, from a core gameplay perspective, Battlefield 6’s campaign is competent. It offers a solid introduction to the different weapons and Classes – if this is your first time with a proper Battlefield title, then it does a decent job of demonstrating what each Class excels in. The sheer scale and spectacle of the conflicts are impressive enough, highlighting what could be expected in multiplayer. And if it wasn’t obvious enough, the gunplay is fun, and some missions can be fun – the sniping mission in particular, with its large landscape, is a far better take on Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3’s doomed “Open Combat” missions. Dagger One Three isn’t a particularly memorable cast, but they’re not completely throwaway either – simply a consequence of little creative leeway.
Of course, depending on who you ask, there are differing opinions on the previous modern Battlefield campaigns. Bad Company appears to be the high point, not because its story was particularly great, but due to its characters. Even with the sequel’s more serious tone, that same cast helped carry fans through. Compare this to Battlefield 4, which some consider a more well put together campaign, but others fault for its lack of memorable characters or a generic story. For some, Battlefield 4 is pretty forgettable, even if it isn’t outright bad.
If there’s any consensus among fans, it’s that Battlefield’s campaigns aren’t the reason they play. When it comes to Battlefield 6, there are better campaigns to recommend, both in the triple-A and indie space (play Severed Steel, for crying out loud), if you’re looking for dumb fun. It’s not a complete wash, but rather, a missed opportunity by Electronic Arts. The chance to really fire on all fronts with its biggest Battlefield ever, only to fall short on one key area. Wouldn’t it have been great to deliver a stellar campaign, especially in a franchise that no one really expected as much from? Another Titanfall 2 moment, ripe for the taking, especially since it had been so long for Battlefield.
Sadly, despite its best intentions, things didn’t go exactly as planned. A report by Ars Technica back in July highlighted the campaign’s troubles, especially when Ridgeline Games was in charge. The studio allegedly lacked internal reviews or offered check-ins on its progress while increasing the team’s size and, as one source put it, “reallocating funds, essentially staff months, out of our budget.”
When Ridgeline reportedly missed development milestones, leadership came down hard on the studio, and it was subsequently closed down in February 2024. However, it was apparently discovered that there was nothing the current development team could really build on. Two years of development and funds (with the game’s overall budget allegedly crossing $400 million) and nothing to show for it is not what you want from the next Battlefield, whether you’re a developer or player.
Criterion, DICE, and Motive were thus in charge of creating the campaign and had to reportedly start from scratch. By this past July, as multiplayer reportedly reached alpha status, the campaign was noted to have been significantly behind. With pressure already so high, it’s perhaps unsurprising to hear reports of tension between the collective Battlefield Studios.
It’s probably a miracle that Battlefield 6 had a campaign at all. What would have happened if its development had impacted multiplayer, even post-launch plans? You’d then have a product that excelled in neither. Fans could likely forgive a boring single-player experience, but another failure in the multiplayer sphere? No chance. Electronic Arts also knows what brings in the big bucks, and that’s the live service tail. Whether the campaign turned out brilliant or not, it’s ultimately multiplayer that matters most.
At the end of the day, I can sympathise with the development team and the trouble they had to deal with. In the same sense, I can’t really blame anyone who doesn’t like the campaign and wants everyone to know just how underwhelming it is, since they’re still spending $70 on the total package. Of course, by now, it should be plenty obvious what the best aspects of Battlefield 6 are and why you should play it. Completely ignoring multiplayer and bemoaning the lackluster single-player is just as annoying as handwaving the campaign’s quality because that’s just how Battlefield has always been.
The real question is: Where does the franchise go from here? In the short term, the current NATO vs. Pax Armata conflict will doubtless serve to expand on the different maps and scenarios offered to players. It’s unlikely this story will advance or have a definitive end as long as there’s new content. Battlefield Studios could throw in a third faction for a bit of tomfoolery, but that’s about it.
For those expecting Battlefield to square up against other shooters in the campaign space, it’s clear that this isn’t a priority. The conflict between the two shooters is fun and all, but if Battlefield 6 is any indication, DICE is set on how it wants to handle the franchise, and that’s by focusing on everything special about it. And while I wouldn’t mind a memorable campaign or solo experience with the same Class-based mechanics, dynamic destruction and various vehicular scenarios thrown in, I – and I suspect hundreds of thousands, if not millions – are more than happy to forego all that if multiplayer continues to receive support.
Could that change down the line? Sure, but in the here and now, Battlefield is back and, most importantly, it’s fun in all the ways that matter most.
Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, GamingBolt as an organization.
