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 ca...
Forum Discussion
Really well said. I completely agree that the current setup — U.S. vs a generic PMC — feels uninspired and kind of hollow. It’s not that the idea can’t work, but without meaningful backstory or clear ideological contrast, it just doesn’t carry the weight that a modern Battlefield experience could (and should) have.
Using real-world blocs like NATO vs BRICS+ or a similar geopolitical divide would not only feel more grounded and relevant, but it also opens up the gameplay and narrative in interesting ways. Asymmetric warfare, different doctrines, proxy scenarios — it’s all incredibly timely and would set Battlefield apart from other shooters that just slap two generic factions together and call it a day.
I get that using real-world alliances can be risky from a legal and political standpoint, but even something lightly fictionalised based on those structures (like how Arma does it) could still create the depth and immersion you’re talking about.
Battlefield has always done best when it leans into realism with a sandbox twist — not when it tries to be a movie script or a COD copy. A grounded global conflict, with shades of grey and real strategic contrast, could really set BF6 apart and give the series the identity boost it needs.
Thanks for bringing this up — more players need to push for this kind of ambition from the devs.
PvtJohnTowle
