“Mirak Valley” has people talking, which is the assumed name for one of the bigger maps in Battlefield 6, and honestly this is the kind of conversation I would expect to see in any big franchise’s community. There’s no set narrative here and people have very different points of view on it and I quite like that.
At first glance, the image shows the map with open terrain, a river, mountain ranges, and large areas designed for vehicles. The best part is how the community instantly started recalling some of the older battlefield maps. I quite love that everyone is trying to compare the new maps to the old ones, but I honestly feel that no one came close to comparing like ‘Baseball Enjoyer30’. He was the first one to say it reminded him of St. Quentin Scar from Battlefield 1. In my opinion, his comparison is very apt. Remember St. Quentin? That was a good map because it had the perfect balance of open space for vehicles and capped off narrow corridors for infantry. It simply worked.
On the other hand, there is a bunch of other players who seem to be feeling a bit underwhelmed. There is a small sect who seem to think that it still “looks small for a ‘large’ battlefield map.” This is funny because for the longest time we’ve been complaining about how the smaller maps humble the bigger ones. I feel like I understand ‘Castle’ when he says ‘It still looks small for a ‘large’ battlefield map’ because it sounds like he is fed up with battlefield maps over-promising scale and delivering what feels like a scaled-down ‘cod’ map.
This is a little more interesting because it helps shows how much the expectations of battlefield players have changed. Some of them literally want spider holes (I’m looking at you, t1vengeance) whilst some are just happy to see vehicle friendly terrain. Discover_ty’s comment, “Looks vehicle friendly. Can’t wait” had me agreeing with him instantly. Bring on the tanks and the helicopters, please.
Heck, the comparisons don’t stop at BF1. I mean some of them are saying it looks like Bad Company 2. If that is true then I am super happy because Bad Company 2, in my opinion, used to have some of the best maps in the franchise. Then there is that one person who said it looks like Ukraine, which is … I guess a hot take.
What amplifies the curiosity is the debate surrounding the map’s size and variety. A specific user, known as Insanegamer52, went on a tangent explaining how variety was everything, and how the beta seemed to be throwing shade at COD with how everything was in close quarters. He talked about how conquest points were set 80-120m apart, which according to him didn’t feel like battlefield. And frankly, he kind of has a point. Battlefield is that game where everyone expected large-scale warfare. Shifting away from that will disappoint a lot of the veterans.
At the same time, other users defend the notion that large maps can feel empty, and personally they dislike them. This seems to be the ongoing debate of the “make everything huge” bunch against the “muh gameplay flow” bunch. LynxTv was like “if they’re big, they feel empty, and I personally don’t like them,” which, I guess, is a valid opinion as well.
The most insightful is how everyone seems to have a different standard of a good Battlefield map. Some want BF3’s Caspian Border, others are begging for Gulf of Oman (Drain_ I see you), some want something new, but want a signature Battlefield map instead.
The vehicle community is hyped, which is good news because Battlefield without proper vehicle combat just isn’t Battlefield. It’s like pizza without cheese—technically still pizza, but why would you do that to yourself.
Speaking of which, I can’t believe people are just casually calling a map ‘dogshit’ without any effort to check it out. For example, Baseball Enjoyer30 commented ‘Dogshit map’ and left the thread. The confidence that some players have is honestly staggering at times.
I find it most intriguing that there’s so much discourse and differing opinions about the direction Battlefield should take, and it all stems from one image. People have been making the connection to MW because the same person who worked on the original Modern Warfare is heading the project of this Battlefield. I find this sort of interesting and weird at the same time. Honestly, he is the right person if good shooter maps are a priority.
As always, there is a predictable disorder of promises that will be made, which the Battlefield community is known for being outspoken about. Despite this from the Mirak valley image, the community is very outspoken about what the community thinks a map for Battlefield should have, but no bets if the map itself will be worth the time.
There is a unique quality in some of the comments because, on one hand, there is a comparison of the maps to BF1 and BC2, some others are saying it looks like Ukraine, there are some wanting specific maps to come back, and others wanting a new map to be released. This unique quality is what makes the Bombshell exciting because it shows the kind of different ideas people can have for the game, as well as how much people love to talk about it.
The clarity about Mirak Valley turning into a fan favorite or a map that most people will avoid in server rotations will surely take some time. But for the topic to be already boiled over with contention is something scatterpepper everyone agrees on is a good sign.
