The second weekend of Battlefield 6's beta has only made things worse for fans demanding bigger maps. Empire State, the latest addition to the beta roster, stands as the smallest infantry-only battleground yet. Players aren't happy about it.
The cramped, vehicle-free map has intensified criticism that started during weekend one of the beta. Back then, the biggest complaint was simple. Players wanted truly large Battlefield maps. Empire State goes in the opposite direction. Instead, it doubles down on close-quarters combat that feels more Call of Duty than classic Battlefield.
DICE Promises Big Maps Exist
DICE lead producer David Sirland tried to calm the storm earlier this week with assurances that "large maps exist." His response came as player frustration hit a breaking point after the first beta weekend revealed a concerning pattern of small-scale combat.
"Speed is a factor of map size. We picked these maps to make sure we hit the full-octane version of Battlefield on the head. We wanted to show everyone we can handle that too. Large maps exist, and the tempo scales accordingly; you'll be able to see soon enough!"
Sirland also pushed back against criticism that beta maps weren't "how Battlefield should be," urging players to "go play some smaller/medium maps in BF3 and BF4 to get a good example of the intensity curve."
But his damage control efforts haven't stopped the community from creating memes. "Leaked" images of new Battlefield 6 maps that are actually just Call of Duty battlegrounds have been making the rounds, highlighting player concerns about the franchise's direction.
Mode Labels Don't Match Reality
The confusion goes beyond individual map sizes. Battlefield Studios labels its new Attack & Defend playlist as "large-scale battles" despite featuring Rush and Breakthrough modes with cramped 12v12 layouts. Rush's aggressively linear design feels anything but large-scale to longtime fans.
Launch Map Breakdown Reveals the Problem
Using vehicle availability as a scale indicator, Battlefield 6's nine launch maps break down like this:
| Map Category | Map Name | Vehicle Support | Scale |
|---|---|---|---|
| Infantry-Focused Small | Siege of Cairo | Tanks only | Small |
| Iberian Offensive | Tanks and jeeps | Small | |
| Empire State | No vehicles | Smallest | |
| Saints Quarter | No vehicles | Small | |
| Medium to Large | Liberation Peak | All vehicles | Medium |
| Operation Firestorm | All vehicles | Depends on BF3 version | |
| New Sobek City | All except jets | Large | |
| Mirak Valley | All vehicles | Largest at launch | |
| Manhattan Bridge | Helicopters only | Close-quarters |
The numbers paint a stark picture. Only three maps support the full Battlefield experience of transports, tanks, helicopters, and jets. That means just three battlegrounds are large enough for jets to make sense.
New Sobek City might feel big even without jets. However, the more time players spend in Cairo, Empire State, and Iberian Offensive during the beta, the clearer it becomes that many will filter these maps out of their rotation in the full game.
Expectations vs. Reality Collision Coming
Most players won't dig through official map descriptions before the October 10 launch. They'll boot up expecting Battlefield to be huge most of the time. That's not what they're getting.
Longtime fans want sprawling battlefields where vehicles matter and strategy extends beyond tight corridors. Based on the launch roster, that experience will be the exception, not the rule.
The beta has given limited exposure to the game's biggest maps, leaving many players unprepared for the reality of what Battlefield 6 actually offers. When the full game drops, the collision between expectations and reality could be ugly.
Why This Matters for Battlefield's Future
The map size debate goes deeper than player preferences. Battlefield's identity as a franchise is at stake.
The push toward smaller, faster combat seems designed to capture Call of Duty audiences. But that strategy risks alienating the core community that made Battlefield successful in the first place.
Technical considerations might explain some choices. Server capacity, performance optimization, and development timelines all play a role. But without explicit explanations from the development team, players are left wondering if Battlefield is changing by design or necessity.
The Verdict: Three Maps Can't Save a Franchise
Sirland's assurances about large maps existing ring hollow when only three out of nine launch battlegrounds deliver the traditional Battlefield experience. Whether Mirak Valley, Liberation Peak, and Operation Firestorm can satisfy players seeking classic large-scale warfare remains the biggest question facing the franchise.
The beta controversy serves as a warning about the risks of chasing new audiences while abandoning core identity. For Battlefield 6 to succeed, those three large maps better deliver something special. Right now, they're carrying the weight of the entire franchise on their shoulders.
