Views: 17
The highly anticipated launch of Battlefield 6 has already delivered plenty of large-scale chaos for fans to dive into — from cinematic destruction to meticulously crafted environments that embody DICE’s signature style. Yet, beneath the surface of explosions and squad-based strategy lies one of the game’s more surprising talking points: its customization system, or rather, the lack thereof.
Customization in Battlefield 6 feels oddly constrained, a noticeable regression from what many consider one of the franchise’s strongest entries, Battlefield 5. One of the most glaring changes is how a soldier’s gender is now tied to specific characters and classes, rather than being freely selectable. The result is a system that feels less flexible, less immersive, and frankly, less Battlefield.
Limited Customization: A Confusing Design Choice
By default, Battlefield 6 players can no longer choose their operator’s gender for a given class. While both male- and female-appearing skins can still be unlocked through gameplay challenges, they aren’t immediately available — and certain classes, like NATO’s Support, even launched without a male counterpart, a decision DICE later confirmed will be “addressed in future updates.”
This design feels more like an oversight than a creative direction. In a franchise known for empowering players to shape their battlefield experience, restricting personalization at launch seems like an unnecessary limitation.
The Battlefield 6 System Explained
In Battlefield 6, multiplayer and campaign modes are divided across two global factions — NATO and Pax Armata — with each containing three specialized squads:
-
NATO: Coyote Squad (US), United Albion (UK), and Desert Locusts (Egypt)
-
Pax Armata: Fireteam Vedmak, Espada, and Kahina Unité
Each faction features six distinct squads, with four unique characters representing the classic Assault, Support, Engineer, and Recon classes. It’s a conceptually interesting system that gives each operator a narrative identity — complete with lore, voices, and backstories. However, this rigid design structure limits player freedom and customization depth in ways that feel counterintuitive for a modern multiplayer shooter.
Battlefield 5 Did It Better
When compared to Battlefield 5’s “Company” system, the difference becomes even more striking. That earlier iteration allowed players to customize soldiers down to individual gear pieces, switch between genders for every class, and collect cosmetics ranging from Common to Legendary rarity. It wasn’t perfect, but it offered a level of expression that Battlefield 6 seems to have abandoned.
Battlefield 6, on the other hand, limits its cosmetics to specific specialists with fixed backstories, voices, and limited visual variants. While DICE’s intention to make each operator feel more “authentic” within the lore is admirable, it comes at the expense of the personal creativity and ownership that defined the franchise’s past.
Ironically, each specialist’s backstory is buried so deeply within the game’s menus that many players will never even discover them. It’s a case where the narrative ambitions don’t translate to meaningful engagement.
One Step Forward, Two Steps Back
To DICE’s credit, Battlefield 6 does improve on one of Battlefield 5’s most criticized features — the monetized rarity system. Battlefield 5’s cosmetics often came through randomized unlocks and microtransactions, a system many players found exploitative. Battlefield 6 currently avoids that pitfall (for now), focusing instead on grind-based progression.
However, the lack of broader customization feels like an overcorrection. DICE could have retained Battlefield 5’s freedom of expression while removing its predatory elements — a balance that would have appealed to both casual players and long-term fans.
Missed Potential for Both Creativity and Monetization
From a business standpoint, the restrictive customization is also puzzling. In an era where games like Call of Duty push the limits of absurdity with crossover skins like Beavis and Butthead, Battlefield could have easily taken a more immersive yet monetizable approach to grounded soldier customization.
Instead, EA and DICE’s approach has created a system that limits both creative expression and potential revenue — an unusual move for a studio known for aggressive monetization strategies.
The Bigger Picture
Right now, Battlefield 6’s restrictive customization may seem like a minor flaw in an otherwise strong entry, but it hints at a deeper identity crisis for the franchise. DICE’s vision of “realism” and “immersion” doesn’t have to mean stripping away personalization — and tying entire roles to specific characters and genders only makes sense if the narrative payoff justifies it. So far, it doesn’t.
With EA’s recent $55 billion acquisition and ongoing discussions about live-service integration, there’s an understandable concern that Battlefield 6 could eventually adopt the worst aspects of both systems — reduced creative control for players and an increased focus on monetized cosmetics.
Final Thoughts
Battlefield 6 remains a technically impressive, visually breathtaking return to the scale and chaos fans love. But for a game so rooted in personalization — from squad coordination to strategic adaptability — the lack of meaningful customization stands out.
If DICE truly wants Battlefield to reclaim its identity as the definitive sandbox war experience, it needs to re-embrace player freedom. Because no matter how cinematic or realistic a battlefield might look, it will always feel incomplete if players can’t see themselves reflected in it.
