Battlefield 6 Beta Players Decry “COD-Like” Empire State Map as Too Small

The Battlefield 6 Open Beta has shattered records, becoming Steam’s most-played Battlefield title and briefly overtaking Call of Duty’s peak concurrent players. Yet as the second weekend unfolds, a storm of criticism has erupted over the newly added Empire State map, with players calling it “horrible,” excessively compact, and a betrayal of the franchise’s large-scale combat DNA.

Why Is Battlefield 6’s Empire State Map Sparking Outrage?

Players argue the urban environment—designed for 64-player Conquest—feels cramped and chaotic, stripping away the tactical pacing that defines Battlefield. “It’s f**ing horrible,” raged one Redditor, while user JoeZocktGames lamented, “This isn’t a Battlefield map. The layout makes no sense, and it plays like garbage.” The sentiment echoes widely, with many comparing it to Call of Duty*’s fast-paced 6v6 arenas. One player noted, “It’s clearly designed for Domination or TDM. For 64 players? It’s a chaotic meat grinder.”

Popular streamer TheTacticalBrit amplified concerns, revealing he’d warned developers months ago: “Downtime in Battlefield is not a dirty word,” he tweeted. “Chasing constant engagement will hurt the franchise.” His critique highlights a core divide: Battlefield’s legacy of strategic maneuvering versus a shift toward instant action.

Will Larger Maps Salvage Battlefield 6’s Identity?

While developers confirmed sprawling maps like Firestorm, Mirak Valley, and Manhattan Bridge will debut at launch, their absence in the beta fuels skepticism. TheTacticalBrit acknowledged these upcoming locations but stressed, “It’s a shame none made the beta cut.” Players fear the beta’s focus on smaller arenas signals a permanent pivot toward “run-and-gun” gameplay, alienating veterans who cherish methodical, large-scale warfare. DICE’s silence on adjusting map sizes post-feedback adds to frustrations, though the studio historically refines maps post-launch (e.g., Battlefield V’s Panzerstorm expansion).

The Empire State map backlash underscores a pivotal moment for Battlefield 6: Will it honor its legacy of epic-scale warfare or chase trends at the cost of its soul? With the October 10 release looming, developers must reconcile these visions to win back disillusioned fans.

Must Know

Q: What’s the biggest complaint about Battlefield 6’s Empire State map?
A: Players condemn its small size and chaotic flow, arguing it feels tailored for 6v6 modes like Call of Duty’s Domination—not 64-player Conquest. Many cite poor layout and minimal tactical downtime as key flaws.

Q: How does Empire State compare to classic Battlefield maps?
A: Unlike fan favorites like Caspian Border (BF3) or El Alamein (BF1942), Empire State lacks flanking routes and environmental diversity. Its tight corridors force non-stop combat, abandoning Battlefield’s signature blend of strategy and scale.

Q: Are larger maps confirmed for Battlefield 6’s full game?
A: Yes. DICE confirmed massive locales like Firestorm (a desert battleground) and Manhattan Bridge will debut at launch, per early playtest leaks reported by IGN in July 2025.

Q: Could Empire State be reworked before launch?
A: Unlikely. Beta maps rarely see structural changes pre-launch, but DICE may tweak spawn points or objectives based on feedback, as seen in Battlefield 2042’s post-launch overhauls.

Q: When does Battlefield 6 release?
A: October 10, 2025, on PlayStation 5, Xbox Series X/S, and PC.

Q: Did the beta’s player count indicate success despite criticism?
A: Absolutely. It broke franchise records on Steam and briefly surpassed Call of Duty’s peak concurrent players, proving strong interest despite map complaints.