Make the game less COD

You’re adorable, but nobody’s fooled here. BF6 ballistics are neutered to the point where they may as well be hitscan, gutting one of the series defining traits. 

That's moving the goalposts. You said that bullet physics are gone, they aren't. If you had said, bullet drop is not noticeable enough, I'd perhaps have agreed with you.

Same with movement: you can nitpick tac sprint or slide momentum all you want, but in practice the pacing feels like MW19 because the mechanics feed the same twitchy gfuel reaction loop.

Except it's not nitpicking. Purely from a movement perspective, Battlefield 2042 has faster pacing than Battlefield 6. Battlefield 2042 for example does have tac sprint and allows you to maintain momentum when hopping. That's a movement technique you can pretty much use constantly in that game. But I guess it's more about what you "feel", rather than staying factual.

And let’s not delude ourselves about the beta maps, they weren’t “stress tests,” they were corridor heavy funnels designed to pander to the CoD audience. That’s a design philosophy….. not a fluke.  

That's just your opinion.  Battlefield has pretty much had corridor nightmare maps for quite a few iterations now. Battlefield 4's Operation Locker,  Battlefield 1's Fort de Vaux, Battlefield 3's Operation Metro that made a comeback in Battlefield 5 as Operation Underground. Battlefield 3 even had the Closer Quarters DLC. If Battlefield is pandering to the COD crowd, this game isn't exactly the first at doing it.

When players say BF6 feels like Call of Duty, it isn’t some mystery. It’s obvious to anyone with an IQ above room temperature, and the only people denying it are either blind or playing unpaid corporate interns. Defending this slop isn’t critical thinking, it’s borderline bootlicking.

When you do a surface level analysis, there certainly are similarities between games like COD and Battlefield, but so are there similarities between Valorant and Counterstrike. That doesn't mean there aren't significant differences though. It's been popular to hate on COD for the last few decades, so people have this kneejerk reaction at Battlefield even existing within the same genre as COD. Even to the point where they'd hate on the similarities, rather than recognizing the differences.

I'm not going to insult you. I'll let the facts speak for themselves.

The mental gymnastics on display is insane. Stop clutching at straws. Calling it “moving the goalposts” is semantics. Nobody claimed the game literally deleted bullet physics, champ, the point is that the ballistics depth is gutted to the point where drop is negligible in practice, erasing one of Battlefield’s defining traits. Likewise, debating tac sprint or hop momentum is missing the forest for the trees. 

You can rattle off technicalities, but the macro experience speaks louder than any semantic dodge, champ. And sure, Battlefield has had corridor maps before, the only difference is they were isolated novelties, not the beta’s main showcase. Operation Locker didn’t define BF4. Stack that with gutted ballistics, CoD’s mirrored pacing, and the pattern isn’t “coincidence,” it’s a calculated shift in direction. That you can’t admit it says more about you than the game.

I also love how people in your position always manage to gloss over the inconvenient little detail that BF6 will, in fact, have a battle royale mode. But sure, keep telling yourself it’s nothing like CoD. 🤷‍♂️

The mental gymnastics on display is insane.

If you can't back up your arguments, you resort to insults, got it. 

Calling it “moving the goalposts” is semantics.

Is it that hard to admit your were wrong? You're still trying to find ways to pretend like you didn't say what you actually said. 

Likewise, debating tac sprint or hop momentum is missing the forest for the trees. 

A debate usually requires the other person to come up with arguments as well. All I've read so far is you complaining about how it feels. When I give concrete examples of differences in the movement system, you downplay them as unimportant without any examples to refute what I've said. 

the macro experience

You do understand that sounds terribly vague. 

the only difference is they were isolated novelties, not the beta’s main showcase.

The Battlefield 3 Open Beta included Operation Metro. Is that an isolated novelty too? Grand Bazaar was a fan favorite too, despite being very similar to maps like Siege of Cairo, where large portions of the map were infantry only and only the outskirts were for vehicles. Pearl Market in Battlefield 4 was quite similar in that regard as well. People played Noshahr Canals on TDM way more than they did in Conquest. Argonne Forest in Battlefield 1 clearly was an infantry map as well. 

Operation Locker didn’t define BF4

Nor do the maps in the beta represent Battlefield 6, given that pretty much all of the known maps that weren't in the beta are larger than the maps in the beta.

I'm getting a bit tired of giving multiple concrete examples, while you choose to downplay every single one of them, without you providing any evidence to suggest the contrary. So, this will be my last response to you. 

They can play games like Squad on PC, but not on console, which is a huge part of the market. It was never realistic (no game ever could be), but you didn't have unlimited sprint (you had to decide when to use it) and definitely no jump slide. The COD influence is what brought scope glint and focused weapons on close range. One of the things I hated about 2042 was the fact you had huge maps but were penalised for using weapons at long range.

You mention BF1, BFV and 2042, but the games before that didn't have those mechanics and are seen by most of the BF community as the better games (BF4 didn't really have extreme movement either). BF1 started to slide to COD and BFV and 2042 continued it. People have been asking for the game to go back to what it used to be (when it was most popular) but they haven't gone that far. Played 2042 again and the movement did not feel that much different from the beta.

And look what a great job they have done by making the least popular games in the series. Maybe the secret sauce works for the average COD player looking for something different, but it has lost a hell of a lot of the old BF player base.

If rewriting reality to suit your emotions is your thing, you might feel right at home at InfoWars/Fox News. Unfortunately for you, feelings still aren’t facts. Stop trying to manufacture consent around false narratives. 

Absolute muppets on here trying to gaslight us. 

Generally milsim games like Squad and ARMA have complex control systems that don't lend themselves well to console releases. The argument that people can't play those games on console is a valid one though. I don't know what I'd do as a console player either.

It's Battlefield 3 that introduced scope glint and I agree that it's probably inspired by Call of Duty: World at War. The point here isn't that Battlefield doesn't ever copy anything from COD, it's that Battlefield 6 isn't really a departure from previous Battlefield titles.

Battlefield 2042 had large maps because it needed to facilitate 128 players. It's a feature that was purely meant to increase sales, while the rest of the game didn't take it into account properly. That's  why DICE had to redo pretty much all of the maps and had to introduce more cover. Snipers, scope glint or not were extremely strong at launch. However, Battlefield 2042 doesn't penalize weapons at long range. Most of the BF2042 have very low recoil and spread and can literally gun down people at ranges well above 100 meters.

Battlefield 4 had the most advanced movement out of all the Battlefield games, but the movement was mostly the result of exploits or advanced movement, which only few people had properly mastered. It wasn't really accessible to the more casual players. Yes, you have Battlefield 5 which introduced more complex animations, but those mechanics weren't necessarily more skill-based.

If we look at sales, Battlefield 2 had 2.25 million sales, Battlefield Bad Company 2 had 6.54 million sales and Battlefield 3 had 17 million sales, which was a major outlier at the time. Battlefield 4 had 14.81 million sales. Battlefield 1 had 25 million sales. There are certainly ups and downs, but on average Battlefield has become more popular over time.