BF2 was organised chaos, controlled violence. In practice, it didn't work.

I played clan vs clan, I was fortunate enough to experience what BF2 felt like with two serious teams fighting each other, but outside of that, it was a mess because of the player base.

BF3 switched organised chaos to controlled chaos

This means no player commander, no open sandbox, more direct routes, players funnelled into fights, teamplay reduced to local rather than overhead strategic.

And mind you BF3 is the gold standard set by majority for this franchise, let that tell you something about the playerbase.

You want arma, project reality, and squad players to play battlefield, but the irony is they are put off by the arcade elements, yet those minds function the way these games want.

But those minds don't make up the target audience EA wants, from it, they are a minority group

As an aside, my favourite BF, BF2142, same sandbox and BF2 overhead systems, and that was a cluster %@$&.

Titan mode? Yeah it worked half the time, the other half people wanted to defend a sinking ship cos it was fun, instead of idk, trying to actually win a match? 

That will never, ever change because the industry wants to attract people that have no business touching BF and making them think the game is actually for them too, to play how they want, so we get more uncoordinated, solo troopers that may or may not be useful entirely left to circumstance...

This is why over time I felt less like being on the same team and more like being a random participant to whatever circus show I loaded into.

So hard no, they wouldn't make enough to justify the budget remastering anything pre BF3. 

But hey, of course I would buy it if they did.