Critics Highlight Battlefield 6 Campaign as Weakest Game Part

Battlefield 6 has officially landed, and while its large-scale multiplayer has drawn attention for the expected chaos and spectacle, its single-player campaign is receiving a notably colder reception. Critics have described the story-driven mode as underwhelming, with IGN’s Simon Cardy labeling it a “safe, dull reimagining of what Battlefield once was, rather than a bold reinvention of what it could be.”

In his review for IGN, Simon Cardy assessed the nine-mission campaign as technically impressive but conceptually stagnant, suggesting that Battlefield Studios and Electronic Arts opted for nostalgia over innovation. The campaign, which lasts about five hours, showcases visual fidelity and destruction effects on par with the series’ high standards but fails to deliver fresh ideas or engaging storytelling. According to Cardy:

“its small set of routine missions has little new to offer,” a statement that sets the tone for much of his review.

Battlefield 6 marks the series’ return to single-player storytelling after a seven-year break, and the first modern-day campaign in over a decade since Battlefield Hardline. Despite this long wait, critics argue that the campaign does not justify the anticipation. The missions rush through familiar military shooter beats, with Cardy noting that while there is some variety, “it’s all over so quickly you barely have time to savor them.” He characterizes the campaign as more of a secondary feature than a core experience, saying it feels like “the sidearm of Battlefield 6’s arsenal when placed alongside its more grand multiplayer suite.”

The campaign features a globe-trotting structure, sending players through various theaters of conflict, including city streets, mountain passes, and coastal assaults. However, Cardy points out that while the presentation and pacing are cinematic, the actual gameplay design lacks depth. He describes many of the missions as repetitive, often relying on objectives such as destroying anti-aircraft guns or defending fixed positions. These tasks, he writes, were

“getting old in FPS campaigns a decade ago.”

One of the few sequences that stands out, according to Cardy, takes place on a collapsing New York bridge. He notes that it’s “visually interesting” but offers no real innovation in terms of gameplay. The campaign also includes large open-area missions in Tajikistan designed to mimic Battlefield’s multiplayer maps, giving players access to vehicles and gadgets. However, Cardy argues that the freedom these sections promise is superficial. “In practice, it presents as more of a thin veneer of choice rather than drastically different ways to tackle objectives,” he explains.

The review also criticizes the lack of meaningful player agency. Despite the game’s focus on spectacle, Cardy remarks that much of the campaign feels automated, with key moments taken out of the player’s control and presented through cutscenes.

“I wanted to be the star of the show,” he writes, “but I just ended up feeling like a passenger.”

Cardy also comments on the combat style and tone. The missions encourage a cover-based approach over the fast-paced chaos that Battlefield’s gunplay is known for. The shooting mechanics are described as sharp and satisfying, with weapons like assault rifles and LMGs delivering solid feedback, yet the enemy AI offers little challenge. Cardy notes that destruction technology remains impressive, but these moments of dynamic chaos are rare. When buildings crumble and players are forced to move under pressure, the tension is palpable — but such moments are few and far between.

The story follows an elite Marine Raider squad known as Dagger 1-3 as they face a rogue private military group called Pax Armata. According to Cardy, the narrative setup lacks emotional impact and features forgettable characters with minimal development. The team is described as “a dull bunch,” and the dialogue rarely rises above standard military clichés.

“Nuance is hardly the name of the game when it comes to Battlefield 6’s campaign.”

He observes, pointing out that the tone is surprisingly apolitical for a story about NATO’s collapse and private warfare.

Even the introduction of tactical squad abilities — where companions can tag enemies or provide cover fire — fails to add meaningful depth. The system, inspired by multiplayer class roles, feels underused and inconsistent. Cardy notes that while these abilities can make certain encounters easier, they do not change the overall experience or pacing.

On a technical level, Battlefield 6’s campaign has been praised for its presentation. Cardy acknowledges that the Frostbite engine still delivers exceptional visuals and sound design, citing “spectacular explosions peppering skylines” and “gunfire whizzing and cutting through smoke and debris.” However, he encountered several technical issues, including visual glitches, texture pop-ins, and occasional hit detection problems.

Overall, the review concludes that Battlefield 6’s campaign is visually stunning but narratively empty, offering a short-lived and uninspired experience.

“At nine missions and just five hours, Battlefield 6’s campaign’s flame doesn’t burn for long, and it doesn’t burn particularly bright in that time, either,” Cardy writes.

The verdict reflects a consistent theme across his analysis: the campaign delivers surface-level spectacle but lacks the innovation or emotion that once defined the series.

As of now, Battlefield 6’s multiplayer remains the centerpiece of the game, while its campaign is being recognized as the weakest component. With critics emphasizing its reliance on outdated design and limited storytelling ambition, the single-player mode stands as a technically polished but creatively safe return — a reminder of how far the shooter genre has evolved since Battlefield last tried to tell a story on its own.