Battlefields identify is in Conquest, Breakthrough and Rush.

Some of the modes are fun, like gauntlet and operations, but most of them dont belong in a Battlefield game.

Battle Royale does not need to be in a game franchise, where large scale battles are what really bring Battlefield to greatness.

BF6 is actively taking resources away from making new better maps and wasting them on modes, that NO ONE is asking for.

We dont need new modes, we dont need battle royale, we dont need all this stuff when 80% of yalls fans just want maps, weapons and vehicles. Thats the core of what makes a great Battlefield game.

For vehicles, take example from BF1, the vehicles, we had horses, tanks, airplanes, A DAMN ZEPPELIN.

For weapons, take example from BF5, all the classes and weapons felt balanced and nothing was too OP. Some weapons performed better than others, but nothing was useless, every weapon felt unique and fun to use. Apart from the obvious joke weapons such as Liberator. I would say BF4 here for weapons, but I feel like BF4 had too many weapons that did not give some others a chance to shine.

Which leads me to maps, take example from BF4. I know people like BF3's maps, but 4 is where they really started nailing Battlefield maps. Every single map, had some kind of place, or thing that made it memorable for everyone, on a personal level. Locker and its great C chokepoint, Golmud and its awesome vehicle warfare, Rogue Transmission and its great sniping towers, Shangai... Need I say more.

What I mean is that they have so much to take example from, and they dont. If it aint broke, dont fix it. What worked with BF1 and BF4, WILL work with BF6.

Take this new map as an example, its what we want, maps that dont necessarily have to be giant, but spacious and the ability to give us chances to breathe. And layers, maps need layers. Eastwood is one long slab of concrete with some hills here and there, other than that, its just one long plain sheet.