Last week: Fired up Halo: Combat Evolved on the Steam Deck and decided it's the last game that needs another remake.
One day is not enough time to confidently declare Fields the worst map in Battlefield 6, but that . I'm enjoying its glorious exploding oil derricks and the way its rolling hills and minimal building cover emphasizes vehicle play, but its major flaw is abundantly clear, because it's the same flaw that's been grinding everybody's gears since Battlefield 6's beta: several of the maps that Battlefield 6 considers "large" are actually pretty small.
We're beyond coincidence. There's a serious disconnect between what DICE and the rest of Battlefield Studios believe Battlefield maps should look like and what a lot of players obviously want, and I think I've identified an important reason why.
Here are the layouts of Blackwell Fields and New Sobek City, two "large" Conquest maps that [[link]] feel cramped.
And here's Mirak Valley and Operation Firestorm, Battlefield 6's two largest maps that are also widely considered its best.
The four maps have similarities. All flags are connected by contiguous roads, and the flags themselves are close to the equator, not scattered in the outskirts. The main difference, and the reason why Mirak and Firestorm feel so open, are the pockets of "empty" space to the north and south (marked by pink).
Nothing exciting exists in those pink spaces. It's all dirt, hill, or tree cover, but they're super important for a Battlefield map because empty space represents options. On Mirak, Firestorm, and countless Battlefield classics that many hope will be remade someday, outskirts are where flanks are formulated. They're where hot zones are bypassed, creative angles are found, and where overwhelmed vehicles can take a breather.
Keep up to date with the most important stories and the best deals, as picked by the PC Gamer team.
These areas aren't valuable territory, but their existence is a constant threat to otherwise fortified positions. Sobek and Blackwell are what happens when those flanks aren't an option, and why they've been dubbed by Reddit user Lemouni. Want to bypass Sobek's chaotic B site by taking to the southern hills? Avoid a pair of tanks covering every major road? Snipe from a considerable distance? Sorry, its svelte borders say "stay in this narrow lane."
Blackwell is less severe: the modest outskirts it does have are too close to the center of the map, but its unique problem is a combination of a narrow east/west footprint and wide open sightlines. It's just way too common to spawn and already be looking at (or getting shot by) an enemy. It's bad enough that this before they could even take off from the airstrip.
It's remarkable that this keeps happening with maps that are supposed to represent "all-out warfare." And the weird part is that more space clearly exists in the maps I'm calling foul on. DICE could expand the borders on its constricting maps without breaking anything.
Why is Battlefield 6 terrified of space? Is this because everyone said Battlefield 2042 maps were too big? Well, they kinda were, but even after DICE shrunk them down they were still bigger than what we're dealing with now. It's as if there's a madman on map team telling every sizable battleground to suck in its gut so it'll fit into skinny jeans.
My best guess is that tighter maps are easier to adapt into Battlefield 6's new variety of modes—not just variants of Conquest, but also Breakthrough (which favors a narrow map), 8v8 Team Deathmatch, Rush, King of the Hill, and Domination (which all favor a nice clean square). DICE is trying to have its Battlefield cake and eat Call of Duty too, and it ain't working.
If it's not obvious, BF Studios, a lot of people want the exact opposite approach to maps. They want freeform, natural spaces. They want spawns so far away from each other that you're in a different [[link]] zip code. It's no coincidence that when Battlefield fans take to Reddit to beg for maps they used to love, they're usually talking about —maps with loads of empty space that serves a purpose.