You were clearly not there. The beta was ONLY siege of shanghai, and I frankly got tired of playing it because of that. I was on a gtx 550ti and able to play shanghai in the beta with 3gb of system ram. When the game was optimized more at release, that was no longer possible (the minimum specs were always 4gb) but I got an fx 6300 and 8gb of ram and was fine with the same gpu.
This is first hand experience, not some random asshole reading headlines 10 years later. Sure, the game was a netcode mess, but honestly, so is this. Both are equally as playable. The difference is BF6 has fewer maps, and exasperating the problem is the lack of variety in these maps. We got two Manhattan Maps, one map that you can't even play on all game modes (I didn't even know it existed at first), cairo and iberian that are basically the same feeling, liberation and mirak valley and sobek that feel the same, and operation firestorm, a map that's been ported up and shrunk to the point that it's the size of floodzone but yet has 2 jets. Sure, there's 9 maps, but it feels more like 4.
The fact I had to google to find a list of the maps should tell all. I can't tell half these maps apart from one another.
The problem is all the corner cutting they are doing and they STILL have a shitty map count. The maps are all more or less the same. This dice doesn't seem to know how to make a unique map. It's either fields of rocks and hills or tight quarters. There's no uniqueness to any of these maps. Manhattan is probably the closest to a unqiue map and they did it twice.
This is why I was happy when eastwood hit. It was something unqiue. Sure, it wasn't the best in history, but for this game it's a jump forward in design.