The problem with the newer Battlefield games: Profit > quality.

#1 Posted by HumanityExiled (2 posts) -
*Due to the terrain being destructive, the amount of engineers and snipers on the field should have a limitation in Battlefield4; Objective game modes should incorporate that feature because teammates tend to destroy everything ahead of them before the team advances, this makes it more difficult to remain unseen/ take cover. *It would also be ideal to have a commander issue orders to the squad-leaders again. *Completing objectives should require a greater reward to motivate players to complete their objective. The freedom to destroy terrain and structures tends to make players sway from the objective. While EA is supposedly trying to achieve more realism with destructibility, there is nothing combatively realistic about issuing virtually every soldier a rocket launcher, sniper rifle and mortar strikes on command, it's a frag-fest. Originally Battlefield was a combat objective teamwork game, players in the newer games tend to focus on destroying and killing instead of raiding the objective together. Battlefield2 in reality is more combatively realistic than the newer Battlefield games because players focused more on the objective and squad-play. At this point I'm uncertain whether Battlefield is trying to remain true to its roots or trying to achieve greater profit.
#2 Posted by FlankerDFMax (1777 posts) -

Surely you jest? No profit = no further product. Anything else is a secondary objective at best.

#3 Posted by MaddenBowler10 (8833 posts) -
I agree with everything you said. I remember playing Battlefield 2 and actually caring about winning the match because I felt like i actually did something. Not in Battlefield 3, however.