Opposing Sides
As I understand it, in BF6 the opposing sides are the U.S. and some abstract private military company. In my opinion, that’s a dull and implausible storyline straight out of the last century, with cartoonish and unrealistic villains like Doctor Evil, the Umbrella Corporation, and so on. Or just a copy-paste from COD: MW2.
Why not use NATO and its satellites on one side, and BRICS+ on the other? I think that would be a much sharper and more provocative geopolitical narrative, which also has far greater potential for future game passes and global location coverage.
Such a conflict allows the use of real alliances, technologies, and doctrines—not fictional factions with no history or motivation. The so-called West and East aren’t just a bunch of flags, but entire ideological and economic blocs, each with its own interests, allies, and internal contradictions. This opens the door to a more mature and layered narrative, where there are no clear heroes or villains.
Moreover, this kind of setting enables asymmetric gameplay: different styles of warfare, unique weapons, cyber operations, proxy conflicts, information warfare. All of this makes the game not only more realistic but also deeper in atmosphere.
If the developers want to reignite interest in the series, they should move away from formulaic plots and embrace what truly resonates with the world today. Then Battlefield could once again become not just a shooter, but a true military epic of the 21st century.
