>>19029569
Battlefield hasn't been good since Bad Company 2.
BF3 was a nice hurrah for people who wanted the larger play areas and fighter jets that the franchise was known for.
BF4 was the same old shit but more buggy and broken.
Then came the WW1 game which wasn't really WW1, or particularly good.
Then BF5 became a laughable disaster, a mockery of WW2 for mostly visual political reasons.
Dice tried to reinvigorate the franchise with some nostalgia, Battlefield 2042, a prequel to the much liked sci-fi 2142, but they took the "the world has frozen" gimmick and turned it into "man-made climate change has ruined the world".
On top of that the political imagery was too distracting and the game itself was shit, from uninspired slop characters and unimaginative weapons to broken netcode, faulty servers, bad social features, crashing, and so on.
2042 was received so badly that EA decided to simply take time and keep quiet to develop BF6.
Is BF6 any good?
I don't know. I haven't heard about it or seen any of it outside of a single announcement and a description of a trailer, and don't particularly care.
Reading that it's functionally about American civil war and more contemporary politics is a fucking turnoff for me. I hate the world enough without hurting anyone for real as it is, let's not try to fuel that fucking fire with more shit coding and bad corporate practices.
