Of the current form of Battlefield (so basically ditching 1942, BF2, and 2142)
BF4 > BF1 > BF3 >>> BFV
Battlefield 3 was a great game with awful net code that resulted in a lot of dying around corners. I think it was peer to peer or something? I don't remember. Just a strong game hampered by technology. I actually didn't put an enormous amount of time into it like I did some of its predecessors and successors. I remember it most for excellent maps like Firestorm and Caspian Border, awful maps like Metro, and the completely unbelievable visual and technical presentation that seemed leaps and leagues ahead of every other game out there. Was definitely a massive turning point for DICE/EA and the series representation in the market.
Battlefield 4 is my gold standard for the series. Not faultless by any means, but the best collection of memorable maps with standout points of interest as capture points, sandbox-like gameplay, weapon/gear balance, vehicle usefulness, a genuine sense of frontlines and accomplishment in capturing objectives, gorgeous presentation, and I actually liked the campaign (sacrilegious, I know). Unforgivably awful launch, but the post launch support in fixing bugs, balancing the game, and adding new content was just marvellous in the long run.
Battlefield 1's arcade focus rubbed me the wrong way at first, but once I found a groove I really feel it stands as arguably the most polished. It's tight, loud, exciting, and generally well balanced across weapons. Vehicles took a hit from people whining they were too tough, but even so they're a lot of fun to use. There's some really strong Conquest maps in the roster that are home to very memorable matches. It's also outrageously gorgeous and absolutely perfect in its visual/audio representation of an exaggerated WW1 battlefront. Might not have been the Battlefield 4 evolution I wanted, but there's a fantastic game in there that presents and plays very well, while also being distinctly Battlefield.
Battlefield V is a handful of great ideas badly executed with little confidence in a coherent, focused direction overseeing map design, weapon balance, vehicle functionality, damage model, class system, gadget use, visibiity, and other nuances to ensure they all come together. They don't. It's like a hundred different people making parts independently without communicating or ensuring everything works together for a coherent whole. Throw in a mess of bugs, technical issues, broken design, clumsy interface, and miserable post launch support and you've got, by far, the most unremarkable and forgettable entry in the series. Which is sad, because I do love a lot of the ideas they had.
BF V is easily the worst game in the mainline series, but I continue to play it because it's BF.
Exactly how I feel. I don't outright despise the game. If I did I wouldn't play it at all. And even though I'm tremendously disappointed, the disappointment isn't strong enough to stop me from playing the game forever. Like, Mass Effect 3's multiplayer is one of my all time favourite multiplayer modes
ever forever. I poured hundreds upon hundreds of hours into it. Andromeda's was shitty by comparison. So shitty that I barely touched it. Battlefield V isn't like that.
But part of it is because Battlefield, as a franchise, has no equal. As in, there is nobody else out there making a game like Battlefield. So even at its worst, which Battlefield V definitely is for me, I can't just put it down and go play Battlefield Competitor that offers more or less the same experience but with a different spin. It just doesn't exist. And so I keep playing.
That being said a good chunk of what would be Battlefield V play time has now been allocated to Hunt: Showdown. That's a good example, actually. PUBG was my go-to battle royale game, but that's been almost entirely replaced with Hunt. They're different enough that the experience isn't identical, and Hunt's strengths and originality can shine through, but the one-life-survival element is at the guts and thus it captures a similar, and more favourable intensity.