As someone whose entire friend group switched to playing Call of Duty after the first month of Battlefield 2042, I was skeptical about the Battlefield 6 betas. After about 30 hours combined in the closed and open betas, I do agree with the sentiment going around — "we are so back". I'm not alone in thinking this, either. After all, the open beta alone broke the record for 2042's all-time concurrent peak, and Battlefield 6 really does look like it could make the franchise the strongest game in the shooter space this year and the next.

Yet, in the middle of this triumph, there's a very vocal crowd of 'veterans' who can't stop reminding us about how things used to be. Many of their complaints are echoed by new and old players alike, but there are some that simply hold no merit at all.

The movement in Battlefield 6 is too Call of Duty-like

Battlefield 6 is certainly more COD-like than ever before, but movement is where the line should be drawn

One complaint that absolutely holds weight, and it isn't just the veterans saying it, is about the movement in the Battlefield 6 beta. Something I couldn't believe I was seeing was players sliding left and right with no speed decrease, practically gliding across the map in tight spaces and shotgunning everything that moved. That sort of thing might make more sense in something like Doom Eternal or even Shipment in Call of Duty, but Battlefield?

It simply isn't in the franchise's DNA, and it isn't a 'new thing we should be open to', either. Tactical positioning has always been central to Battlefield multiplayer lobbies, and you're always punished for going in guns blazing. Thankfully, the developers have already addressed it, and have nerfed the sliding mechanics. The momentum from a slide into a jump has been vastly decreased, and consecutive jumps are now going to be penalized, because this isn't the pogo-stick Olympics.

The time-to-kill (TTK) is too low

This is Battlefield. We're not wearing hockey pads

This one really doesn't hold water, as much as a lot of players would have you believe. Battlefield has never been about eating three clips of ammo before going down because you had the right amount of armor plates on. In BF6, if you're caught out of cover, you're punished immediately, and that's been the case for all titles in this franchise.

The complaints about the TTK mostly come from players used to armor plates, endless self-revives, and a full ten-second window to find safety — none of which you'll find in any Battlefield game worth its salt. This has always been the harsher multiplayer shooter experience, which rewards positioning and squad play over solo heroics. The beta's TTK fits perfectly into the franchise's DNA, and there's no reason for DICE to mess with it. Have there always been problems with the netcode and hit registration at launch? Yes, and that will get fixed in about a week or two. But considering just how extremely polished the beta is right now, there's every chance that netcode problems simply don't exist this time for Battlefield 6 come October 10.

The UI is a terrible mess

Expect this to be fixed because of its universal backlash

I'm always open to new games and new user experiences, but for this one, I'll have to side with the vets. The community, too, is almost entirely in agreement. The beta's UI was clunky, confusing, and far too messy for quick navigation. The settings menu was particularly frustrating, burying essential options like the compass under awkward HUD layers.

For a game this large in scale, the UI should help streamline the experience instead of muddling it up further. There's little doubt that it'll be overhauled before release, because DICE has received nearly universal backlash on this front. A clear, intuitive UI is absolutely non-negotiable for a game that already asks players to process a thousand things in the middle of combat.

Should classes be locked in Battlefield 6?

The current hybrid system is the healthiest compromise

This one splits the community, because Battlefield 6 allows people from any class to pick whatever weapons they choose. We've got Medics running around with defibrillators and M416 rifles, and as much as thousands of players think DICE should be locking down the weapons, I think the current approach is the best way forward. Instead, keeping gadgets locked to classes makes more sense. Why? Because if someone wants to be a medic but prefers an AR or a DMR, why should they be forced into one archetype?

With weapons being closed altogether, one class will definitely emerge as that with the strongest weapons, and as players will undoubtedly flock to it, the other classes will find very few takers, even when they're necessary. Plus, those who do prefer the rigid class-locked weapons still have closed weapon servers available. In the broader game, however, this hybrid system where weapons are open, but gadgets are locked is inarguably the healthiest compromise.

Visual filters 'ruined' the look

No they didn't. Let's move on, shall we?

This is one major complaint going around right now that simply doesn't hold up. Most people didn't even notice that DICE had put on visual filters in the game until someone pointed it out online, after which the outrage machine spun up. In practice, BF6 looks downright stunning in beta, with unmatched scale and sound design. Complaints about the filters genuinely feel more like nitpicking than any meaningful criticism.

Sure, the lighting and filters might end up being tweaked by the time the game is released, but anyone who played the beta already knows how good the game looks. Filters are the last thing anyone should be worried about, but in a way, it's almost a green flag, since it's clear that people are running out of things to complain about.

Comparisons to Battlefield 3 need to stop immediately

The 'good times' are never coming back

This might be the weakest complaint of them all. Battlefield 3 is over 14 years old now, and sure, it's a classic, but it belongs to a completely different era of game design. Expecting BF6 to replicate its feel or pacing is nothing but a pipe dream that will never come to fruition. Heck, a lot fairer comparisons would be to Battlefield V or 2042, but definitely not a game from 2011, even though the multiplayer definitely is doing everything it can to feel like BF3 and BF4.

Nostalgia will always make older games feel more "pure", but BF6 should be judged on its own merits and against modern standards. Veterans clinging to BF3 are looking backward instead of forward, and that is really not how a franchise ever grows.

No new Battlefield game is ever going to feel the same way the old ones did

For those calling themselves 'veterans' of the game, it's good to inform someone that you've been playing for a decade or more now, but it does little else to add merit to any opinions. The harsh truth is that no Battlefield game in the past, or any game for that matter, has ever been perfect. Hindsight is also rose-tinted, which means that we'll always think we were happier playing on our PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 consoles with these shooters.

Battlefield 6 is definitely looking to be one of the strongest games in the franchise, and a return to form. With that said, all cards will be revealed on October 10th, but until then, it'll be infinitely better to open ourselves to enjoyment rather than constantly finding reasons to compare and complain.