Battlefield 6’s Success Proves It Needs to Drop One Feature in the Future

by

Whenever both a Battlefield and a Call of Duty game are released in the same year, people naturally start comparing them. It’s not just because they’re both military-themed shooters with online play; each game seems to try and improve upon what the other offers. Some believe Battlefield pays closer attention to what Call of Duty is doing than vice versa, but it’s clear both franchises are aware of their competition.

Looking ahead to 2025, the competition seems to be changing. Battlefield 6 is creating a lot of excitement and doing well thanks to its impressive multiplayer features. Many believe this could be the year Battlefield finally outperforms Call of Duty.

Putting the usual Battlefield versus Call of Duty debate aside, both series seem to be at a turning point. Whether it’s because players are getting tired of the games or the developers have become too comfortable, Call of Duty doesn’t seem to have the same strong appeal it once did, particularly among dedicated multiplayer fans. While Black Ops 7 will likely still be a big hit and could even be the year’s best-selling game, Battlefield 6 has generated more excitement than recent Call of Duty titles.

As a longtime fan, I’ve been really impressed with how well Battlefield 6 did with its multiplayer – it proves the series has a strong future. It feels like Battlefield Studios has finally figured out a winning formula, especially compared to some past games that didn’t quite hit the mark. And honestly, I think that success should give them the courage to ditch the one part of Battlefield that consistently feels a little…off. They should focus on what they know works.

While the single-player campaign in Battlefield 6 is enjoyable, the game truly excels in its multiplayer mode. Many positive reviews praise the game overall, even if they find the campaign unremarkable. Unlike other games where a weak campaign would lower the score, Battlefield 6 maintains high ratings from both critics and players. Some reviewers might have even given it an even higher score if the campaign hadn’t been included.

Battlefield 6 offers an astounding multiplayer experience, but its campaign is rather forgettable.

Does Battlefield really need a single-player campaign? Compared to Call of Duty, it might seem like the answer is yes – Electronic Arts probably feels pressured to include one. However, I believe a campaign isn’t essential. Adding a campaign to a multiplayer shooter feels like something developers do because Call of Duty does, rather than a crucial part of a great game.

I really enjoy playing the single-player campaigns in shooter games, but I understand they aren’t the biggest attraction for most players. I love the exciting action you get in a good Call of Duty campaign, and while Battlefield 6 has some interesting story moments, they don’t quite compare to the unpredictable fun of its multiplayer. Call of Duty campaigns offer unique visuals and experiences, but Battlefield seems to build its campaigns using elements already found in its multiplayer mode.

While it often feels like every Battlefield game has to include a single-player campaign, previous installments have proven that isn’t always necessary. I don’t believe fans would be disappointed if a Battlefield game skipped it, just as they wouldn’t with Call of Duty. Both games are primarily known for their multiplayer, but they’re different enough that it would be great to see them become even more distinct. Battlefield doesn’t need to try to do everything; it could really shine by focusing on making its multiplayer experience larger and more varied, using the resources previously spent on campaigns. Hopefully, the success of Battlefield 6 will give the developers the confidence to innovate and follow their own vision, rather than simply copying what Call of Duty is doing.

Read More

2025-10-23 13:06