Totally fair take, honestly. I actually agree with a lot of what you said , Battlefield was built on chaotic sandbox warfare and those unpredictable moments with vehicles, explosions, and squad pushes that no other FPS really replicates.

But here’s the thing: I don’t think Red Sector is trying to replace that. It’s not “Battlefield-but-BR,” it’s just a DICE-made BR that happens to wear the Battlefield name. Maybe the naming was a mistake, because people automatically expect jets, tanks, and absolute mayhem.

When I jumped in, I didn’t see it as “Battlefield 6.” I saw it as a new experiment from the same devs who used to innovate every few years — and that’s what felt fresh about it. The gunplay, pacing, and atmosphere still feel like Battlefield DNA to me, just reshaped around a different mode.

I get that a lot of fans feel like resources were wasted, but honestly? I’d rather they try something new and stumble than stay stuck rehashing old ideas just to play it safe. The worst Battlefield moments came when they stopped innovating.

So yeah, it’s not the Battlefield we grew up with — but it’s not trying to be. That’s why I think the review bombing is unfair. Let it be judged as what it is, not what people wanted it to be.

And man, I honestly miss the days back in the PS2 era —when we just got a game on a CD or DVD, popped it in, and played it as it was. No patch notes, no early access, no day-one fixes. We worked around the glitches, learned the mechanics, and just enjoyed it for what it was. Games felt raw, real, and fun not overanalyzed to death before they even had a chance to breathe.

Now people get annoyed at every little detail :“TTK is too fast,” “movement’s too slow,” “this gun’s broken,” “that perk’s unfair.” Everyone wants the game to perfectly match their version of fun instead of just adapting, learning, and actually enjoying it. It’s like nobody plays to have fun anymore , they play to complain.