People often say they want BC3, but I think they might not want the same thing as me.
When
I say I want BC3, I don't want BC2 multiplayer, I want BC1 single player.
Give me personality, goofiness and freeform design or don't give me single player at all.
BC2 MP definitely excelled at what it was going for, and the destruction it introduced was revolutionary to the series.
But it was half the player count, more confined maps, focused more on infantry and almost exclusively on trying to push through a frontline/Rush.
BC = Bad Conquest. Conquest is inherently a more dynamic mode, and what Battlefield should be prioritizing.
So no thanks you. That was a direction driven by consoles being poopy. Does not need to be and should not be the direction for Battlefield again.
That type of gameplay can be included within the larger scope of Battlefield. Many maps incorporate basically different areas that focus more or less on particular playstyles. I have always thought that the best Battlefield maps are those that manage to incorporate and balance as many different playstyles as possible. I prefer larger maps with more vehicles, because it's generally more options, including for pacing. Some people are like "get me into the action ASAP always!", and that's only sometimes me. Sometimes I just wanna
drive around in my jeep or whatever.
Some maps, like Grand Bazaar in BF3, have just a section in them that's the mindless meatgrinder experience some people inexplicably find enticing in horrible abomination maps like Metro. If you're a good person and don't like that indefensible, stupid, stagnant spammy bullshit for bad crud people, you can opt to just not go there. It makes Grand Bazaar an immeasurably better map.