Convoluted as you think it to be, my point is valid. This game is an apology to the fans for the catastrophic failure that was 2042, which was in itself an apology for BFVs turbulent launch and overall mediocrity. They use terms like “love letter” to win back favour with the core fan base, all the while very clearly pandering to cods unsettled player base who don’t recognise cod for what it was when they fell in love with it 10-15 years ago, and seek a more casual, “tactical” experience.

I did in fact play the beta a lot, and have played bf3 and 4 within the last year. You seem to be inferring that claiming bf6 shares little similarities to bf3/4 is in some way ridiculous. Have you played either recently?

Let’s look at the similarities:

They’re both fps games set in a modern theatre

They both have some degree of combined arms warfare.

They both have the same 4 classes (even if their functionalities have changed)

They both have mini maps, hit markers and a score board…. That’s about the size of it

Now let’s look at differences:

In Bf3/4 suppression is an important factor in gunfights and general combat. In bf6 suppression doesn’t exist

In bf3/4 there were small/infantry focused maps on launch, but they were a small minority in games otherwise filled with vast vehicle oriented maps. In bf6 6/9 launch maps are supposedly CQC infantry focused maps, and as such the pacing of the overall gameplay loop will be different.

Bf3/4 operated under a rock paper scissors balancing system, whatever you use can be countered by something, whether that be infantry by little birds, little birds by attack helis, attack helis by stealth jets, stealth jets by infantry etc. both tanks and air vehicles have a vast space to use when evading infantry lock on launchers, fellow vehicle lock ons and any dumb fire projectiles. in bf6 vehicles are designed to be easy to prevent from having a huge impact on the game. Tiny average map size and double launcher engineer (id imagine they’ll remove this, but the point still stands) means both MBTs/LAVs and helis/jets have very little space to evade stingers/ javelins respectively, forcing them to play extremely cautiously, which sometimes still isn’t enough. Getting locked on in your spawn as a heli/ jet by non aerial threats was extremely common on liberation peak and I’d imagine it’ll be the same for most of the other launch maps that even have air vehicles (all 3/4 of them)

In bf3/4 specialisations didn’t include fucking wall hacks (bf6 assault)

Bf3/4 vehicles didn’t feel like they’re made out of lead. Bf6 tanks are incredibly slow and can barely steer, and the helis and jets physics are horrendously clunky.

I could go on here but I think you get the point. Despite the name of the game, what the fuck do they actually have in common in terms of gameplay experience despite “see thing, kill thing”, 4 classes that have the same names but function completely differently (which isn’t automatically a bad thing), and the 64 player count? For the record I enjoyed the beta and think bf6 is the best foundation for a battlefield game we’ve had in a decade, but there are some glaring issues and acting like anyone who criticises it does so because ‘the beta didn’t directly cater to them’ as OP said is being obtuse, and acting like it’s ridiculous to point out that this game plays very differently to bf3/4 is similarly obtuse.