The drama for Battlefield 6 continues as the disgruntled part of the playerbase has found its new ammunition for complaints now that Battlefield: REDSEC is here. Apart from the scathing ‘Mostly Negative’ reviews on the REDSEC Steam page, some players have noticed a feature that caused them to be bitter: fully destructible skyscrapers and environments are present in the free Battle Royale version and mostly absent in the paid Battlefield 6 multiplayer.
While DICE and EA have made announcements via interviews that the main Battlefield 6 multiplayer won’t have the same level of environmental destruction as past franchise titles like Bad Company 2, it appears many players are still left disappointed that that feature was given to the free Battle Royale version. Accusations against DICE from certain Redditors were thus thrown out in the open:
In the video, you can see a demonstration of just how spectacular the environmental destruction is in REDSEC, where players can level a whole skyscraper. For many, it’s undeniably more cinematic compared to the usual cover-to-cover firing, which was probably why many disappointed Battlefield 6 players equated it to more budget and care being allotted to REDSEC, with “Guess we know where all the real resources went,” being echoed in the comments.
However, some Bad Company 2 veterans chimed in and cited their experience along with DICE’s data; fully destructible environments and buildings can apparently ruin multiplayer balance and make maps favorable to snipers and tanks (just like in real war, which isn’t fun). The cover that buildings provide offers a fairer chance for other infantry classes and playstyles, generally leading to more fun for everyone, though at the cost of less spectacle.
To destroy or not to destroy?
Regardless of what’s actually more optimal for gameplay, it appears players are split regarding the issue of environmental destructibility, as represented by the top comment, “I’m still not convinced entire buildings being able to be destroyed would’ve made multiplayer better. I think different maps altogether would be better.” More options for the paying Battlefield 6 population likely could’ve been a viable solution here.
For Battle Royale, destructible environments would aid the gameplay in dynamic ways, especially in urging players to move, which could’ve been a deciding factor for its inclusion in the mode. Some commenters, however, have explained that the traditional Battlefield 6 multiplayer doesn’t have to match the same level of environmental destructibility as REDSEC‘s Battle Royale, and suggested that it could only apply to some buildings and covers for the best of both worlds.
“This doesn’t need to be an all or nothing thing. There should be some buildings which are fully destructible without it being possible to literally level the map. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that out,” says one Battlefield 6 player, a sentiment which, again, boils down to giving more options to players to customize their game parameters instead of locking everything behind free and paid versions.
