Battlefield 1942 was the stuff. Damn, we had so much fun when someone crashed an airborne vehicle on you and everyone would burst laughing! After that, it became this too serious military shooter where skills and points and whatnot started to dominate. Just loved the original for its fun-value. Good times! (BF2 was still good, though, but not as hilarious)

Ain't going to happen when people don't even know the class system or have any idea how to play the game... BF is on it's way to casual town and we can't do nothing about it.

Needs to go back to having more than 4 classes and removing health regen, however with the current player base it's impossible as people don't even give health out or ammo and most players would rather play operation locker or metro which just says everything that is wrong with BF now.

Bad company 2 was really fun to play I miss that game

I want something closer to Quake where it comes down to skill not how long you've been playing. Anyone joining Bf4 now is screwed, playing with a basic weapon when everyone else has the best kit is impossible. Give everyone the same stuff, is a great leveller!

Curb the load outs or have modes with no weapon mods getting tired of a thousand upgrades on guns, consistently my fave multiplayer games are level playing fields with no advantage for time put in bar skill improvement. Spending more and more time in sub menu gaming messing with crap.

Yup bad company 2 was amazing, there needs to be a learning curve,deph and a mastery aspect to online games. Heck that applies to all games, the casualisation of games takes out the fun out of it. Great thing we still have amazing hardcore games like the souls games.

Good thing we still have some great online games such as the last of us etc.

Stupid article.

Spamming mortars? There's a range, you are vulnerable, it's not like this a CoD killstreak. It doesn't rake people, and you have to literally guess where the people are and if they'll still be there five seconds later. It DOES take skill to use the mortar.

The lock on is for vehicles, and the vehicles have anti-measures, and upgradeable armor/upgradeable lock-on distance deterreant. I've seen plenty of helicopter pilots get hit and bug out only to live to fight another day. In fact if you use JUST the lock on one, you need a crap ton of hits and there are a bunch of misses. The IGLA is a bit better in that you need to keep pointed at it, at which point anyone on the field, or helicopters themselves can waste you, and then there is the SRAW which you have to manually guide by wire. Yeah...no skill involved here, on either side right?

BF4 has a LOT more skill involved then BC2. It's much more complex, with many ways to counter others. Thus the amount of skill in the myriad of ways to do something means once again, there is a lot more skill in BF4. Some morons apparently never bothered to think this through, or played with the gadgets enough to figure all this out.

Recoil? Okay I understand this, BUT, the recoil wasn't realistic in BC2. If I fire a machine gun and hold it down for 10 seconds at a guy 20 feet away, I'm sorry, he shouldn't be standing because of 'recoil'. In other words, it was unrealistic because you were missing guys that in real life, you wouldn't be missing. Now if you want to say there should be more health, I can understand that, but even that would be unrealistic.

People have to understand that if you want pure realism, then NONE OF THE BATTLEFIELDS are actually realistic in a pure sense. They were always ARCADEY, and if you want something more sim, go play ARMA, and you'll see why well that has it's advantages, most people prefer arcadey FPS. So the question really becomes, to what degree, and what the guy is actually complaining about, is that it is TOO REALISTIC. Because the guns actually hit what they should, and you actually get killed pretty quick from you know, BULLETS hitting flesh. Whocouldanode???

Did the moron author really say he wants skill to be the focal point and then said this?? "A player who spent time learning how the weapons work or spent time mastering their favorite gun will probably win in a gunfight. " Did he really say that? What a moron.

Downhill? Not a chance. I like BC2 and all that, but BF3 and BF4 and Hardline are EPIC. What it has expanded into is simply amazing. Some people just wanted a better looking BF2 or BF2:BC...so I can understand the change hurts, but it's a wonderful change. Too bad there couldn't be both, but instead of asking for that, they are just making up crap on BF3 and BF4 that is contradictory (to what they say they want) and thus WRONG.

usually when you hear someone talking about this its cause they suck at the game and just want it changed to suit them. nothing to see here people

they need to get rid of the one man army bullshit and go back to having to have a group of people to survive in combat. bf 2 did it the best even after playing hundreds if not thousands of hours in both bf 3/4 i still think bf2 did it the best. there is also too many options and gadgets that just makes everything a cluster fuck, make it simple and easy with emphases on team work not kills or points.

i agree with all those valid points. but yet the biggest thing that needs to be removed altogether which i know will never happen, is the Kill/death ratio. That is all people care about now a days

introduce elements that require a headset and to communicate or it will make your team fail

But the K/D ratio takes the cake in what needs to be removed

Skill is relative to each game. BF2 didn't require more skill than any of the new ones, it just required different skills/play styles, etc.

People just aren't willing to adapt and develop "new skill" for different games. Every new game requires mastery.