So here it is, Battlefield 3.5.
Just like Battlefield 3, the campaign is disappointing and makes the multiplayer itself disappointing too, because it shows you what the game would be like if it actually worked; meaning it's actually fun, something you can't normally say for Battlefield these days.
Battlefield is a multiplayer only game. Its campaign is entirely meaningless and the game does not deserve to be rated on the merits of its campaign - for better or worse, because that part of the game doesn't even belong. So, for a game whose sole purpose is fun multiplayer, you'd expect multiplayer to be the shining aspect of it. It simply isn't and does not show any sign that it ever will be.
I'm convinced at this point the Battlefield 4 open beta was a marketing ruse to get people to buy this ridiculous game - because it gave us a beta that was largely functional and very much improved over Battlefield 3. The ballistics worked. They just worked. The vehicles worked. Everything worked and was half entertaining.So you get the real game - guess what, it's not like that. The hit detect and ballistics and lag are still just as god awful as Battlefield 3 but with the added factor that now some weapons actually work so you'll be doing a whole lot more dying on account of lag.
Let's be fair. The game can be very fun, just like Battlefield 3 had that faint glimmer visible every so often its eyes to make you think it might still be a game, and not a giant pile of copy pasted, profiteered refuse that gets pumped out of the Easy Bake oven every 23 months. It really can, but those moments are few and far between if you play it all the time.
Levolution is pretty cool the first few times you experience it in a map, though in all reality it just makes every map annoying. If you thought roof-top snipers were annoying, wait until a level is flooded and the only action is roof top sniping or boats and LAVs spamming the roof-tops with machine gun fire. It's nice to have dynamic maps but it really does not change the gameplay. Also, I hope you like not being able to see anything, ever, on some of the maps - whether it's snow or dust in your face - unless you edit your settings i.e cheat.
The "new squad mechanics" which is a made-up term, because there aren't any new mechanics, don't do anything. You have bigger squads, so what? It doesn't change how the game is played, at all. All it does is add more people you have to worry about killing when you run in to an entire squad.
Commander mode is a great thing to have added back in to the game, but really it's no use for anything but clan matches and even then, it's just a veil to give you added score bonuses. Anyone, even in a PUG, can coordinate without needing to receive "orders".
Just like Battlefield 3, the game is broken after launch. BF3 was basically unplayable for weeks - not because of driver issues or optimization issues. No. At it's core, the game mechanics are simply horrible as they were in the previous game. Jets and helicopters are still extremely overpowered and now even have the added annoyance of restructured vehicle skills. So you start off with flares, and zoom optics, and a lot of the jazz that previously had to be earned in BF3. It still seems like ou still can't see people 95% of the time, in a vehicle or not, whether they're in a vehicle or not. Most importantly, people do not die when you shoot them. That is the first thing that should be functional in any shooter and it's utterly unacceptable for it to ever not work.
Why does shooting still not work half the time? Because Battlefield 4 still uses client-side hit detection.
The game is plagued by servers - those that actually have people in them - who implement no rules whatsoever that affect the gameplay in a way that might make it enjoyable. Just language filters. That was the absolute best part of Battlefield 3. Literally every single voice command in the game dripped with at least 4 different "curse" words, where your soldier would yell **** and say they were getting sodomized. Yet god forbid you said **** in chat, because then you'd get banned for language. You know, no class limits or anything. It's perfectly okay to have literally 40 snipers in a game of 64 people.
Which brings up the other part of the problem there. Battlelog now artificially places server limits, based on their classification, and based on map. If your server is 64 people, it doesn't matter - if the map was "meant" for 40 people, only 40 people can play on an official server. As if it is supposed to enforce some imaginary situation where 40 players will make the game any less retarded than 64.
The only other major problem with this game are the maps. The maps are so incredibly bad. They're all completely soul-less and lack any personality. None of them even have singular areas where you can form some fond memories of an awesome fire-fight that happened, nor do they lend themselves to any sort of fun tactical gameplay. Aside from Siege of Shanghai, the only map that features geography that even makes the fight interesting is Golmud Railway, because at one point you will be forced to fight uphill against way too many enemies.
It is utterly ridiculous that they release a game with no truly good maps in it. Battlefield 3, even without DLC, had maps that were fun. Metro was actually fun, for a while. Noshar Canals was actually fun, especially on Rush. So was Damavand Peak, the most sniper filled map ever. Firestorm too, and most definitely Seine.
This game just has shit maps. Paracel storm is horrible, it's just a rehash of Wake Island and it's not even fun outside of Rush and Obliteration. God forbid you play it on Team Deathmatch. Unless you like to play on a map with 38 snipers, you'll have no fun there. Or for example, Dawnbreaker - so bad. The absolute best part of Battlefield 4 though, is that EA is charging over 100 dollars for the full game. Premium is $40 on its own, which will give you access to all the new maps and junk that comes out. Battlefield 3 premium was $60.
Steer clear of this piece of shit game. Not until next gen, or until it gets fixed, just stay entirely away from it. It's absolutely not worth the money when you could get the exact same game-play, but with good maps, on Battlefield 3. There is no significant difference and for $100, you could easily buy at least 4 good games.
*****Disclaimer*****
I play in a clan. I played BF3 in a clan. I've played battlefield since beta of Battlefield 1942 (for over 10 years) so maybe you can discount my opinion as franchise fatigue, but I've yet to actually meet a real gamer who doesn't admit the original 4 games were exponentially better than the new ones, or that Bad Company puts 3 and 4 to shame.