Battlefield needs to reinvent its image , and that could be as simple as looking to the past to inspire the future. The Bad Company games in particular would be a good start, as these games never truly took themselves seriously. Even though Bad Company 2 eschewed a lot of the silliness from the first game, multiplayer in Battlefield: Bad Company 2 was the right balance of simulation vs. fun factor. Battlefield could definitely use a dose of that nowadays, especially after Battlefield

That’s where Twitter user and frequent source of gaming leaks Tom Henderson comes in. This morning, Henderson offered tidbits of what DICE has in store for Battlefield 6 and the scale of its gameplay. Starting off, he claimed that while the core multiplayer is being designed around the classic 32-vs-32 player setup, the game will be able to support a lot more than that, with maps that "have been designed with 128+ players in mi

One area in particular that Battlefield definitely doesn’t need to focus on is the single player content. In fact, the franchise would frankly do better without it entirely. Arguably, the last good Battlefield single player story was Battlefield 1 , and even then, the campaign took a back seat to multiplayer just like every other modern Battlefield game that preceded it. Classic Battlefield titles are fondly remembered for their multiplayer experiences, and even though games in the past have had endearing characters like in Bad Company , they just haven't been exceptional. Multiplayer should be Battlefield 's primary directive, improving trademark modes like Conquest whilst implementing something new as w

For players still playing Battlefield 5 , the game recently saw the addition of new skins as October ended. While the wait for more Battlefield 6 details may seem never-ending, dressing up in Battlefield 5 ’s Halloween skins should make it a tiny bit more bearable – even if only for a little wh

Henderson wouldn’t say if this means DICE will be bringing 64-vs-64 modes to Battlefield 6 as well, but did suggest that EA and DICE are considering putting that increased player count to use in some sort of battle royale, citing "increased interest" from the two due to the success of Call of Duty: Warzo

For right now, Call of Duty has had much more momentum moving into the next year than it's ever had before. Largely in thanks to Warzone 's surprising success , as well as Modern Warfare 's praise upon release and continued success, the franchise finds itself in somewhat of a peak. But, like every year, Call of Duty will be prepping for a 2020 annual release. Rumors have been flying for 2020's Call of Duty game from a variety of leaks detailing what to expect, with little corroboration and the lack of an official announcement from Activision. That being said, 2020's Call of Duty will still need to follow up and top Modern Warfare in some

That last part might not appeal much to battlefield 2042 multiplayer guidefans, not after Battlefield 5failed to introduce battle royale to the series with its Firestorm mode. Numerous issues, including a slow pace and a bad loot system, resulted in Firestorm being largely dismissed as one of the worst battle royale games out there. Of course, with battle royale being much more prominent now than when BF5 first dropped, there’s always hope that DICE has taken Firestorm’s failure to heart and is focusing more on improving Battlefield ’s battle royale experie

EA Play's last few moments, at least before the announcement of Skate 's return, did show off some prototype gameplay of what appeared to be a Battlefield game. It's unclear if it was specifically Battlefield 6 , as it showed what looked like World War II soldiers running across an untextured plane. This was likely a re-use of assets in a new/repurposed development environment, so it's not indicative of a World War II setting or the final product by any means. That being said, Battlefield 6 will certainly need to live up to the expectations Miele is setting for fans. It's been too long since a proper Battlefield game has had its time in the spotlight, but what she's inferring may be enough to reinvent the franchise after Battlefield 5 's poor rele

Nowadays similar functionality is available in newer Battlefield games, but it feels more like an add-on than a prominent gameplay mechanic. Sure, you can still make holes in walls with your favorite explosive ordinance, but it's generally in service to just converting a wall into a doorway. There's no more purposeful destruction like in previous Battlefield titles . A prime example would be Bad Company 2 's Arica Harbor map, which has a city section densely populated with buildings. On the second attack wave of Rush, the attacking team largely has no proper sightlines without damaging or taking down most of the buildings. The game literally encourages the attacking team to utilize destruction to open up the map more and force an advantage over the defending t